Press for a ‘Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’

(CNSNews.com) – Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.

Easterbrook’s predictions were “right on the money” seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a “planetary emergency.”

“When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it’s luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button,” Easterbrook told CNSNews.com.

“For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC,” said Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and  author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” which was published in 2011. (See EasterbrookL coming-century-predictions.pdf)

In contrast, Gore and the IPCC’s computer models predicted “a big increase” in global warming by as much as one degree per decade. But the climate models used by the IPCC have proved to be wrong, with many places in Europe and North America now experiencing record-breaking cold.

Easterbrook noted that his 20-year prediction was the “mildest” one of four possible scenarios, all of which involve lower temperatures, and added that only time will tell whether the Earth continues to cool slightly or plunges into another Little Ice Age as it did between 1650 and 1790.

On the PDO:

“What I did was I projected this same pattern forward to see what it would look like. And so in 1999, which was the year after the second warmest year on record, the PDO said we’re due for a climate change, and so I said okay. It looks as though we’re going to be entering a period of about three decades or so of global cooling.

“And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, on the basis of taking the temperature records that go back a century or more and simply repeating the pattern of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, and so on.

clip_image010

(Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global#sthash.jTgQD6lj.dpuf

=============================================================

WUWT offers congratulations to Don for getting press. Be sure to share the link to this article with friends on social media.

For more on his prediction see: Cause of ‘the pause’ in global warming

About these ads

129 thoughts on “Press for a ‘Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’

  1. Well, he’s less wrong that the IPCC.

    But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.
    It may cool overthe next two decades but right now the temperature is staying flat (within measurement error).
    Isn’t it?

  2. Judy Curry is making the same prediction based on the Wyatt/Curry stadium wave, which larger and more complex sER of natural periodic variations than the PDO, but with the same general periodicy.

  3. @M. Courtney – a .3 degree change over 30 years is not going to show a huge change in the graphs. That is essentially flat, so since he got the last 10 years accurately, I will give him another 20 to see how accurate he is.

  4. Judy Curry is making the same prediction based on the Wyatt/Curry stadium wave, which larger and more complex set of natural periodic variations than the PDO, but with the same general periodicy.

  5. M. Courtney, you write “Isn’t it?”

    Good question. There is some evidence that in the last few years, temperatures have been cooling. Werner Brozek has some software that starts at the current date, and goes back to see how long the pause has lasted. I wonder if he has software that again starts at current date, and looks back and plots the slope of the temperature/time graph for recent years. That might answer your question.

  6. Didn’t Bob Tisdale do a hatchet job on Easterbrook’s paper a couple of weeks ago on WUWT? I thought he was going away to review his temperature data.

  7. M Courtney says:

    February 5, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Well, he’s less wrong that the IPCC.

    But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.
    It may cool overthe next two decades but right now the temperature is staying flat (within measurement error).
    Isn’t it?

    The short answer is “yes”, it appears so. If you really want to attempt reading the tea leaves, most of the global indices seem to indicate negative trends from 2001 to present, as presented at Wood for Trees. I’m not sure, however, that I’d want to promote government stockpiling of Polar Fleece based on the current trend data.

  8. PDO. I learned about that in 2007 and immediately came to the same conclusion (along with millions of others, I guess).

    When looking at it top-down, the way one must with any impossibly complex system, it was quite clear (and non-complex). Just pick out the dominant factor(s).

    Sometimes it is so much easier (and cheaper) to get it right than to get it wrong.

  9. Just because it correctly predicts outcomes confirmed by empirical data doesn’t mean it’s science. Science is what The Consensus says it is.

  10. M Courtney says:
    February 5, 2014 at 7:32 am
    Well, he’s less wrong that the IPCC.
    But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.
    It may cool overthe next two decades but right now the temperature is staying flat (within measurement error).Isn’t it?

    Correct. It may cool, but the chances are it will not, there is no sign at the moment that temperatures are falling. I always point out that if a value has gone up, and it stays up, it has still risen, even if the rate of increase has levelled off.

  11. philjourdan says:
    February 5, 2014 at 7:41 am
    @M. Courtney – a .3 degree change over 30 years is not going to show a huge change in the graphs. That is essentially flat, so since he got the last 10 years accurately, I will give him another 20 to see how accurate he is.

    In 2ooo we (or they) were using Hadcrut3 temperatures, Today hadcrut4 temperatures are being used. At this pace in 20 years the standard may be hadcrut6, LOL. 0.3 degrees in 30 years with 3 or 4 dataset changes does not mean anything.

  12. M Courtney says: February 5, 2014 at 7:32 am
    But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.

    Only if you look at the mangled, sorry Quality Controlled Temperature data, those who have analysed the Raw data show Cooling has already started, especially in the northern hemisphere.

  13. It’s curious the so called experts are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. When the scare mongers were predicting the coming ice age in the early 1970’s, there was actually warming. Then when they predicted warming post 1990’s it appears there’s actually cooling.

  14. There is no one who has blogged on WUWT who has gotten every detail of their theory correct every time , including this blogger. We all modify our views as better data and understanding is released. I think Don Easterbrook deserves the press recognition that he is finally getting for being one of the pioneer scientists for predicting alternating cycles of global cooling and warming but cooling for the next 2-3 decades when the rest of the scientific community was projecting straight line waming to 2100.They are even doing it now.
    Is it cooling yet or just flat when it comes temperatures ?

    The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies [ hadcrut 4nh] have declined since 2004 [ 10 years \
    The Southern Hemisphere temperature anomalies [ hadcrut 4sh] have been flat since 2004[ 10 years ]

    Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies have declined for combined land and oceans since 1998 or for 16 years .
    Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies for land is cooling faster than the oceans during the last 10 years .
    Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies show a decline since even 1995 but show the greatest decline since 2004 or during the last 10 years.

    Northern Hemisphere SST show a decline for the last 10 years[ during every season and annually as well.]
    The Southern Hemisphere SST is flat.
    The North Atlantic Ocean SST has been declining since about 2005. The AMO index is declining since about 2005 . The Pacific Ocean SST is flat but the North Pacific Ocean SST has been declining slightly since about 2005

  15. What happens if you combine the trends of the PDO and the AMO and see what history tells us then??

    Has Dr Easterbrook also done that projection??

    If so, what did he find????

  16. “It’s curious the so called experts are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. When the scare mongers were predicting the coming ice age in the early 1970′s, there was actually warming. Then when they predicted warming post 1990′s it appears there’s actually cooling.”

    They seem to insist on extrapolating linear trends out of a short section of a fluctuating sine wave…

  17. Paul, if you click on the word “paper” it links you to Don’s page and shows the 2000 paper at the bottom. As for it already cooling….depends on whether you trust the “adjusted” data or not. If you consider the data of the past, before it was changed in the future, it is most likely that temps have been cooling as a long term trend since the MWP. We’ve broken far more “low temp” records in the past few years than we have broken “high temp” ones.

  18. Unfortunately no democrat or liberal (meaning no one that promotes man made CO2 as the cause) will ever go to CNS or read anything it prints.

  19. I’m just wondering, then, if the rightful owners of those billions and trillions of dollars of wealth that have been destroyed chasing the global-warming bogey-man can have their money back?

  20. The PDO model component is quite good, but what about AMO and solar cycle? At a minimum, could the solar cycle difference this time extend the cooling phase in the prediction? Or could a wind down from a greater run up in the AMO also extend the cooling phase cycle length? Some more model checks and factor additions to the model might be in order with a focus on cycle differences.

  21. It would be nice when discussing a paper ( the 2000 version) if that paper were actually made available. or if the data from the projection was made available.
    This also bugs me about Hansens projections from 1988.

    Since Don is here can he provide the dataset underlying the graphs in the 2000 paper.

    or do we have to digitize the graphs

    REPLY: Stop being a schmuck, ask nicely. Mind you, this is a news article, reprinted. – Anthony

  22. The only think I know about climate science is what I read here (gave up looking anywhere else) and what I see out the window… I have done a fair amount of research in a far different field, and I can’t see the significance of 3/10th of a degree globally. Or really, how (or why) one would measure such a thing over the entire world.

    Right now we are freezing our butts off here in NE Wyoming, and an increase or decrease of 3/10ths of a degree won’t help or hurt a darn thing.

  23. Gareth Phillips says:
    February 5, 2014 at 8:11 am
    M Courtney says:
    February 5, 2014 at 7:32 am
    Well, he’s less wrong that the IPCC.
    “But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.
    It may cool overthe next two decades but right now the temperature is staying flat (within measurement error).Isn’t it?

    Correct. It may cool, but the chances are it will not, there is no sign at the moment that temperatures are falling. I always point out that if a value has gone up, and it stays up, it has still risen, even if the rate of increase has levelled off.”

    When one considers the UHI and siting issues along with all of the other data quality problems (fudging?), it may well be cooling.

  24. You know climate science is at a rudimentary stage of development when the science debate is whether there are cycles at all, much less differences in cycle characteristics. The IPCC approach with cycles is for their use as a better springboard to ridiculous predictions rather than rational analysis of them.

  25. Gareth Phillips: If the temperature trend is flat it has no rate of increase. Math 101: dT/dt=0.
    T=temp t=time. JimB

  26. Jim Cripwell says:
    February 5, 2014 at 7:44 am
    Werner Brozek has some software that starts at the current date, and goes back to see how long the pause has lasted.
    I actually do not have any software. I use WFT and trial and error for the pause. And I use Nick Stokes’ site at http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D for the times of significant warming or lack thereof.
    For my latest report, see:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/another-year-another-nail-in-the-cagw-coffin-now-includes-december-data/

    Since 2002, the only global data set with a positive slope is UAH of the ones I have plotted below, however none of the slopes are statistically significant.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/trend

    By the way, RSS for January just came out and it shows no warming at all for 17 years and 5 months since September 1996.

  27. Gareth Phillips:

    At February 5, 2014 at 8:11 am you write

    It may cool, but the chances are it will not, there is no sign at the moment that temperatures are falling. I always point out that if a value has gone up, and it stays up, it has still risen, even if the rate of increase has levelled off.

    Ah, the ‘Trougher’ Yeo argument.
    Yes, global temperature anomaly rose in the past.
    Yes, the rate of rise has levelled off to ZERO.
    The trend in global average temperature anomaly (GASTA) is so small that it cannot be discerned as being different from zero at 95% confidence for at least the last 17 years according to all data sets; RSS says 24.5 years.
    That means DISCERNIBLE GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED AT LEAST 17 YEARS AGO.

    There is no more reason to think the present halt to global temperature change will end with warming than to think it will end with cooling. Indeed, what little evidence there is implies the halt is more likely to end with global temperature anomaly falling (not rising) because it has been trending down for about a decade although this trend is not statistically significant at 95% confidence.

    Richard

  28. The propensity to imagine scary linear trends from cyclic patterns, betrays a lack of discipline, poor understanding of mathematics and a willfull ignorance of history.
    Before Global cooling, global warming, climate catastrophic changey we had a short record of of temperatures from spots around the globe, some crop records and some historic reports.
    Some patterns appeared to recur, suggesting weather cycles.
    Now, after mass public hysteria, condemnation of the stuff of life and squandering public treasuries worldwide, we have?
    Sorry, but heads have to roll.
    I have been lied too, taxed,surcharged, lectured, heckled and sneered at, by my employees.
    People who swore an oath, to serve faithfully and to the best of their ability the public good.
    Well nothing good has come from the terror of the magic gas, much harm has been caused.
    Now these incompetents, the most generous and polite term available, expect to quietly retire and collect a pension.
    By what madness does stupidity, theft and disservice warrant reward?
    Kleprocracy is wonderful, unless you are the ones paying for the theft.

  29. If the literal statement — “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.” — was what Dr. Easterbrook said in his 2000 paper, that is much closer than what this post seems to imply. The temperatures appear to have topped in 2005 ± 1 year and the drop in temperatures should (again, it appears) last for about three more decades if there is in fact a ≈62 year cycle present.

  30. Of course Don Easterbrook has it right, and so does Judith Curry, and Habibullo Abdussamatov, and Tim Ball, and any number of others.

    The difficulty is that the ideologues in the AGW camp couldn’t recognize facts if they hit them upside the head, because their ideology (1) denies the facts out of hand, and (2) forbids them from even recognizing the existence of alternative opinions or evidence, let alone admit of their validity.

    Just today Yahoo! News publishes another bit of coprophagia about how 2013 – the year of the latest snowfall (Little Rock, Arkansas, May) and earliest blizzard (Midwest, first week of October) since records were kept – was the 6th warmest year ever. What part of the obvious don’t they understand?

    These people cannot be reached by facts or reasoned argument. They will still be claiming global warming when the ice sheet is encroaching on New York.

  31. I wouldn’t trust anyone who produces data showing rates of rise “measured” to the nearest thousandth of a degree Celsius or even temperature anomalies to the nearest hundredth or thousandth!!! When they really mean “about”, period!

  32. I think that Roy Spencer created a simple graph a while back that showed the PDO cycle on top of a gently ascending underlying temperature curve that fitted the past figures well. The upshot (as I remember it – apologies, Dr Spencer if this is wrong) was that, long term, the temperature is rising but at a pretty slow rate cf the IPCC numbers (which are actually pretty low now, anyway).

  33. many of the comments to this posting are noting the immaturity of climate science and seem to imply that this is a reason to discount the issue of AGW. perhaps I am misinterpreting these comments but for me this is not a reason for a lack of concern. Indeed the state of climate science should be of great concern to us since if it is still at a stage concerned with determining the basic cycles and functioning of the climate then it is of no use to us in addressing what could be a very serious problem. What if the current flatlining of temperatures is only a pause caused by the overlaying of a natural cycle on a anthopenially caused increase? If one has a serious cancer then a lack of medical knowledge in its treatment is of no comfort even if it has gone into remission for no apparent reason.

  34. Dr. Easterbrook’s predictions may be accurate but they’re also boring. I want to see someone running around yelling, “we’re doomed! we’re doomed!”, now that’s entertainment.

  35. TAG:

    I read your post at February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am which worries that the halt of global warming may be a precursor to global warming coming back even worse. So, you suggest, we must do something.

    Allow me to help.
    Instead of worrying about global warming which has stopped, try worrying about a possible asteroid impact. You can do something about effects of that; e.g. wear a tinfoil hat.

    Richard

  36. Here is an abstract of AN Easterbrook paper of 2000 (not sure if it is the one described here, but the last sentence of the abstract does suggest a possible “reversal” of the warming).

    Easterbrook Don J.; Kovanen D. J., 2000: Cyclical oscillations of Mt Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Abstracts with Programs – Geological Society of America 32(7): 17

    Ten major Mount Baker (3285 m) glaciers flow radially from a summit ice cap, terminating at elevations of 1200 m to 1600 m. The termini of six glaciers were photogrammetrically mapped at 2-7-year intervals for the period 1940-1990 (Harper, 1992). All showed a cyclical oscillation in three distinct phases having a period of two to three decades. Although the timing was slightly different among glaciers, all six glaciers retreated rapidly from 1940 to about 1950-55, then advanced until about 1980, followed by a second rapid retreat that is presently continuing. Temperature and precipitation data from nearby weather stations show that the glacier fluctuations may be explained by changes in accumulation-season precipitation and ablation-season mean temperature. Lag times between trend reversals in the climate records and changes between advance and retreat phases ranged from 3 to 17 years. Other glaciers in the Cascade and Olympic Mts. seem to have undergone similar oscillations. Recent oceanographic studies in the northern Pacific region have shown a cyclical oscillation pattern (PDO) that has a similar periodicity, suggesting that the glacier oscillations are caused by cyclical changes in the ocean. The Pacific NW is currently in a warm cycle, thus raising the question of whether the warmer climate in the area over the past two decades is due to constantly escalating global warming or merely to a typical warm cycle. The answer to this question should become apparent within the next 5 years when the warm cycle should reverse if the pattern continues.

  37. I have nothing but admiration and great respect for Dr. Easterbrook, but I must interject a little humility into this and I hope it does not come across as diminishing his work at all. the real work in Dr. Easterbrook’s research was teasing out the periodicity of the cycles and reaching the conclusion which the data indicated, but the premise is essentially standard working knowledge of every geologist worth their salt. The entirety of the geologic community NOT in the payroll of NSF funding or IPCC related propaganda is wholly unsurprised by climate cyclicity. It is THE reason we have the vast coal resources we do.
    I have said it before, I am on the executive committee of the National Association of State Boards of Professional Geology and it is the RARE geologist in that group representing 30 states (including academics and professional practitioners) who doesn’t think AGW is a load of pig swill.

    But thank you Don for your terrific work and for being outspoken when it was not popular. Also, sincere congratulations on making the correct prediction back in ’99 – 2000.

  38. In a series of posts over several years at my blog

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    some of which have been reposted as guest posts at WUWT I have made estimates of the timing and extent of the coming cooling. Here is a summary of the latest estimates from the latest post:

    “It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.

    With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
    In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
    I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 (NH)
    1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13 ( Global)
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
    How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate”
    In short it is now abundantly clear that the IPCC models are useless for climate forecasting and the method of recognizing quasi periodic – quasi repetitive cycles in the temperature and driver data should be adopted . In particular it appears that the recent warming trend peak at about 2003 was a nearly synchronous peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year temperature periodicities.

  39. TAG – it’s nice to see the obligatory medical reference. Cancers can grow or go away. But there is no way to get harmed by a negative cancer. Negative temperatures, though, can cause harm, and in fact, have been shown to cause more harm than large positive temperatures.

    So what if the current flatlining of temperatures is only a pause caused by the beginning of a naturally caused decrease? Shouldn’t this be of more concern to you than your completely hypothetical future increase? Shouldn’t the precautionary principle mean preparing for more people in need because of cold?

  40. “Since Don is here can he provide the dataset underlying the graphs in the 2000 paper.

    or do we have to digitize the graphs”

    How is this not asking nicely?

    The demand that one ask nicely reminds me of this:

    The same demand has been made of Mcintyre. In other words warmista complain that steve doesnt ask nicely. So, now when he asks he says “pretty please with sugar on it”

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/

    so,

    We ( Willis and I) asked The crew at tallblokes ( which includes easterbrook) for their data.
    Simple request. Few objected. Nobody asked Willis or me to be nice when asking. Thats a tactic used by warmista against Mcintyre.

    I’ll do what Steve does.

    Pretty please.

  41. Werner Brozek says:
    February 5, 2014 at 9:07 am
    “By the way, RSS for January just came out and it shows no warming at all for 17 years and 5 months since September 1996.”

    A graph is worth a thousand words, but as I am unable to make an attachment to this comment, I have to go the wordy route.

    Speaking generally, it appears that a smoothed temperature graph of the last 20 years shows the top arc of a steeply rising, then gently falling curve. As we continue downward, we are able to project a flat average further and further into the past. This causes the total period of the “hiatus” to lengthen faster than time progresses as we move the starting point back in time. I have 2 objections to projecting a flat trend further back in time:

    1. This process allows advocates of CAGW to say we are merely in a pause in the warming, that we are not cooling.

    2. As the flat trend line is projected back in time, a period that was previously considered to have a rising temp. trend is now considered to be part of a flat period. This resembles after-the-fact playing with the data.

    Making a break point in the temp. trend at the 1998 peak in temps produces a falling trend since then. This invalidates any argument that we are merely in a “pause” in the warming. IMHO, 15 years with a falling trend is a stronger argument than 17 years of a flat trend.

    SR

  42. “I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years…”

    Is the unadjusted (raw) global temperature data available since 2000? If so, how does it compare to adjusted temperatures? (Or did the CRU run out of disk space again and lose the more recent data, too?)

  43. wayne says:
    February 5, 2014 at 9:23 am

    If the literal statement — “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.” — was what Dr. Easterbrook said in his 2000 paper, that is much closer than what this post seems to imply. The temperatures appear to have topped in 2005 ± 1 year and the drop in temperatures should (again, it appears) last for about three more decades if there is in fact a ≈62 year cycle present.

    It needs to be remembered, the PDO did not switch in 1997, or even 2002… Nope, the PDO switched to a negative phase in 2008 during the middle of the 2007/2008 La Nina

    At the time Easterbrook said it, we knew a PDO switch was on the horizon. We just didn’t know exactly when. His “next few years” ended up being about 7-8 years later

    His predictions should probably realistically be counted from 2008, not from when he said it. And yes, that means much of the “stall” in Global Warming was during a warm phase. (I’m even assuming this is why Wiki has not updated their page to reflect the switch; instead leaving the 1997/1998 anomaly, and assumption it creates, up as the final update)

    It should also be remembered that the PDO switch doesn’t mean Temperatures instantly start to fall. All one needs to do is check the first 10 years of the last Negative-to-Positive the 1945 switch to see that

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1954/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1954/trend

    The Negative PDO should be expected to last until roughly 2040, and we are only starting our 6th full year of that Negative PDO. The 1945 switch indicates we could see stalled temperatures up to 10 years into the phase.

    But also remember what happened by the time that Negative PDO phase was winding down – “Global Cooling is going to kill us all”

  44. So essentially we’re seeing what we saw around 1945 then? Ok, so cooling until the mid-1970s then potentially warming again from around 2030-2060 before cooling again. It’s almost like there’s a cycle, if you don’t go looking just for low points to skew your data. And no one would ever do that, would they?

  45. Am I the ONLY SANE person alive? Who the HE-double toothpics gives a RODENT’s rear end about TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere. I care about the ENTHALPY, the total energy.

    Without working that out per cubic WHATEVER YOUR FAVORITE UNITS HERE is, all the other assesments are NOISE, visa vie weather there is significant change in net atmospheric energy levels. (PS..my speling errers are intentional..)

  46. Why does everybody use discrete functions like linear trends when continuous functions provide a much better overview?

    HadCrut

    GISS

    Both show we are entering a cooling phase.

  47. …unlike putting a load of fiddled data into a pre determined programme to get a desired result…now THATS science…

  48. As Sir Francis Bacon once wrote, “Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority.”

    Regarding the CAGW debate, no truer words can say it better.

    It’s been almost 17.5 years without a global warming trend and falling trends since 2001, so we’re getting very close to finding the truth very shortly.

    If global temperatures continue to show falling temperature trends after the next El Nino cycle occurs, then by 2016~17 or so, the truth will be known and CAGW can be thrown on the trash heap of history…

    Time, folks, just a little more time…

  49. Easterbrook told CNSNews.com,

    “For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC,” said Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” which was published in 2011. (See EasterbrookL coming-century-predictions.pdf)

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Cooling potentialities, as important balancing discussion points, are needed.

    Thank you Don Easterbrook for a significant contribution toward upgrading climate science from a biased (IPCC constrained) monologue into a vigorous dialog.

    Cooling potential merits more focus ($ for research).

    John

    PS – we can glimpse there is developing reasoning for a descending escalator shape versus the Mannian hockey trickystick. I look forward to all increasingly open and objective discourses . . .

  50. Paul Matthews says:
    “Aphan, Lance, thanks, though again that 2000 ref is really an abstract of a conference talk, not a
    paper.”

    I’m not sure what you are trying to imply. While GSA Abstracts are not journal articles, but they are published on paper. Would you have been happier if Easterbrook specified “I published an abstract” (which the reporter probably would not have understood)? As published, does it correctly predict what Easterbrook says it does?

  51. Max Hugoson says at February 5, 2014 at 10:43 am

    Am I the ONLY SANE person alive?

    Whenever anyone asks that the answer is near certainly – No.

    But why the answer is No is usually obscure to the questioner.

  52. mikef2 says:
    “…yes but as Sheldon Cooper tells us this can all be dismissed because Geology is not a real science….”

    Sheer jealousy on the part of a physicist.

    I had a friend who started out studying straight physics in college. Every Friday evening he would trudge into school to spend a weekend cooped (or Coopered?) up in the physics lab and he would see the happy male and female geology students load up vans with camping gear and beer to go off on a field trip to study the real world. My friend switched to geophysics and learned to enjoy life.

  53. So what’s here? A report by an organization called CNSNews. Is it “press”? It says of itself:
    “Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes “news.””

    It speaks of a paper in 2000 which made predictions. But no-one can locate it.

    I suspect it’s talking about this 2001 talk to the GSA (in session 106). But the abstract doesn’t make a prediction, just a question. And there is no record of what he said.

  54. “And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, on the basis of taking the temperature records that go back a century or….

    Why has the IPCC been afraid to make predictions. It used to.

  55. Paul Matthews says:
    “Aphan, Lance, thanks, though again that 2000 ref is really an abstract of a conference talk, not a
    paper.”

    The purpose behind the publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is to allow all the other members of the society to preview ongoing research and findings so they can conduct a pre-peer review by attending the talk, asking questions, meeting the researcher and having discussions and providing their feedback. The Abstracts are solicited by the moderator of the session and reviewed prior to selection.

    I have had abstracts accepted and rejected for specific theme sessions at GSA. And I can tell you that the exposure and feedback you get at the GSA conferences is far better than the formal peer review process of a final paper.

    The other reason you publish an abstract is to establish primacy for your research and findings.

    The one thing which you have to know, however, is that you do not show up a GSA and read your abstract to the audience – on in the case of a poster session, stand at your poster for four hours – without having real data and science to present.

  56. “””””…..M Courtney says:

    February 5, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Well, he’s less wrong that the IPCC.

    But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.
    It may cool over the next two decades but right now the temperature is staying flat (within measurement error).
    Isn’t it?…..”””””

    Well I’ve looked at a lot of “climate cycle” Temperature; excuse me, anomaly graphs, that wander up and down generally in a kind of saw-toothy wave-form. which of course can be roughly synthesized from sinusoidal components, starting with a fundamental at the same frequency as the saw tooth., and when smoothed as is fashionable, the sharp corners of a real sawtooth get quite rounded, as indeed a sine wave itself is.

    One of the things I have notices about sine waves, is that they can be approximated by four major zones, connected by “transition” regions. Those four zones, are the maximum slope rising edge passing through zero, the maximum slope falling edge, through zero, and the peak, and valley turning points.

    The maximum slope edges look quite long, without any significant change (in slope), and the near flat peaks, look quite a lot shorter, than the edges.

    This of course is an illusion, since we know that the derivative of a sine wave, is a cosine wave, and verse vicea.

    So the peak slope regions, and the peak amplitude regions are all exactly the same length.

    Now you add the “noisiness” or more correctly “natural variability” to those sine waves, and you now find that within the uncertainties due to the natural variability, those peak and valley regions are as flat (straight) at are the sloping sides.

    So the pundits (not pundints) say that the present “pause” is a peak preparing to start a long down trend.

    The warmists say it is not a maximum (or minimum) but is a point of inflection, between a past rising edge, and a future rising edge to be.

    Now if that were true, and we have had seventeen years out of maybe a 60 ish year cycle, in this present pause, it is reasonable to presume, that there would already be signs of a curvature change in sign , from downward curving, to upward curving.

    Well I’m not privy to the sorts of data that Don Easterbrook is; nor his knowledge of the subject, but I view him as one of the voices of sanity, in a wilderness of hysteria.

    Also based on the current (known) antics of the sun, and my assumption that reductions in energy storage on earth take some time to manifest themselves as Temperature reduction (or vice versa); my money would go with an expectation of near future colder, rather than near future warmer.

    I’ll go with “We’re at a peak” rather than “we are at a point of inflection”.

    Funny thing about peaks; you tend to get a cluster of high values around a peak, and a cluster of low values at a trough.

    Some of the lowest altitudes on earth can be found in the ocean trenches; and some of the highest elevations, can be found up in the mountains.

    Funny how that is !

  57. Decades long cooling is perhaps the only thing that will be the final nail in the coffin of CAGW. It may become a zombie but people are already moving on. The climateers will go to their graves clinging onto dangerous warming in the face of dangerous cooling, it’s really that sad.

  58. Steve Reddish says:
    February 5, 2014 at 10:36 am
    A graph is worth a thousand words, but as I am unable to make an attachment to this comment, I have to go the wordy route.
    Here is the graph worth a thousand words. Mind you, some people would consider the purple line to be cherry picking.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.65/plot/rss/from:1996.65/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend

    This resembles after-the-fact playing with the data.

    Perhaps, but what is the problem with that? Suppose that temperatures went up smoothly from 1970 to 2000 and then went down just as smoothly. In 2010, I could say it has not been this cold in 20 years. Then only 1 year later, I could say it has not been this cold in 22 years, etc. In exactly the same way, I may now say the graph is flat for 17 years. And if we then have a La Nina, in only one year, I may be able to say the graph is flat for NOT 18, but 19 years.

  59. DS, the difference between what you see and what I see is bound to be that I am relying on non-homogenization and TOBS adjusted data and you are just using the manipulated HadCRUT as your base, maybe even that to get the PDO first derivative crossover. Wouldn’t that account for the three years difference? Also, my view is just a box smoothed set so it’s just a rough estimate of what seems to be what is actually happening in the temps. Both you and I seem to see the same inflection.

    I still think it is closer to reality to just remove the adjustments than to rely on the heavily adjusted (past cooled) climate science adjusted products. Here is my view minus such adjustments which are very close to linear since 1940, so that is what I used to remove them (roughly):

  60. Personally I think he got the trend to 2010 too low but the rest of the premise holds true AFAIK.

    The proposition that we are at a peak in the longer term as well as any shorter term ‘cycles’ is looking more and more likely.

  61. TAG says:
    February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am

    [...]What if the current flatlining of temperatures is only a pause caused by the overlaying of a natural cycle on a anthopenially caused increase? If one has a serious cancer then a lack of medical knowledge in its treatment is of no comfort even if it has gone into remission for no apparent reason.
    —————————————————————————————————————–

    It seems that you’re advocating the much-abused precautionary principle”, as mis-applied to climate science for some time.

    As you say, the current lack of warming may be a natural cycle cancelling out an anthropogenic rise. But, logically, that’s unlikely for a few reasons.

    First, the mainstream-predicted effect of CO2 should have been rising in line with the increase in CO2 itself, so the effect of any natural cycle would have to be coincidentally changing by exactly the same amount over the past nearly 2 decades to give a “flatline”. Physically, that would be a remarkable coincidence.

    On the other hand, if medium term (say, 50 – 500 year) natural cycles have been the major cause of the warming in the last century, then it would be perfectly normal to expect them to appear “flat” for a period either side of the peak because that’s how cycles tend to work.

    Also, if a “cooling” phase of a natural cycle is currently suppressing warming then, during the peak warming that everyone got so worried about, the “warming” phase of that same cycle must have been augmenting the observed warming rate. Seeing as this putative cycle is (at least) strong enough to cancel all current warming trend – with greatly increased CO2 levels, so a stronger anthropogenic effect – in its warming phase it must have accounted for over 50% of the observed rate of warming.

    Finally, if may extend your medical analogy slightly with a real-life example:

    Last year my wife had a lump come up under the arch of her left foot. One of the possibilities is that it’s quite a nasty cancer which will metastise and possibly kill her. The treatment for such a thing is a mixture of radio- and chemo- therapy with probably amputation at the knee or hip.

    However, medical science is fortunately advanced enough that it recognises the possibility that the lump might be a benign tumor or even a simple cyst. It also recognises that the risk to my wife of waiting for a clear diagnosis is far lower than the risk of “precautionary” aggressive treatment.

    It wasn’t always thus. In the distant past it seems that doctors were quite willing to perform drastic procedures, often causing permanent injury or even death, for ailments that we now know a simple aspirin would cure.

    Given the extreme immaturity, by any measure, of climate science there’s a very real danger that they’re reaching for the bone saw prematurely.

  62. An aside on my above post.

    There is about a 50-50 chance, that if you are using an optical mouse (non-laser; LED type) , that it has an optical system comprising a digital imaging camera, and an oblique LED illumination system, that has optics I designed.
    Probably half of all those digital cameras have an imaging lens that has engraved (molded) onto one of its surfaces, an optical low pass, anti-aliasing filter, that deliberately makes an otherwise very sharp image, into a not so sharp, low resolution imaging lens. that is fuzzier, than the low pixel resolution sensor, can resolve. (Nyquist filter).

    The filter surface consists of a series of concentric rings, like those radiating from a pebble dropped in a pond, with a sinusoid lookalike radial crossection.. As a result the filter surface perturbations, introduce deliberate spherical aberrations, having zones of negative and positive spherical residuals, and zones of zero aberration. The peaks and troughs, are essentially parallel to the base surface, so they focus at the correct focus point, and one side of the slopes gives under-corrected spherical, so it focusses that light shorter than the nominal focus. The opposite edges produce over-correction, so those regions focus beyond the nominal focus. And in between focusses in between..

    Now the crossection of the ring perturbations is not actually sinusoidal. The profile is actually generated, by taking an ODD order (actually 11th) Tchebychev Polynomial, and integrating it term by term, to get an even order 12th order polynomial, that is scaled to the lens aperture stop size, and then scaled to the required maximum slope deviation.

    It was hoped that this would result in smudging the focus along the axis, on both sides of the nominal focus to emulate an ersatz Laser beam Gaussian waist over some ersatz “Raleigh range”.

    Well that is NOT what happened, when these lenses were first manufactured (accurately).

    Instead what results,is three overlapping very sharp images; one at the nominal focus, and one at the minimum focus, and the other at the maximum focus. The nominal focus image is twice as bright as the other two, because it gets energy from both the peaks, and the troughs of the “wave”.

    Well the Tchebychev derived profile, was not chosen for optimum imagery. It was just a very simple way to derive a profile that would work at all, and was easily changed to get any level of fuzziness wanted. The cognoscenti can figure out why the Tchebychev odd order integrated.

    I subsequently derived a much better wave profile, that more uniformly spreads the energy along the axis, instead of making three sharp images. The overlap of the three images, does fuzzy to combined image enough to stop the lens from out resolving the sensor.

    But that exercise was a dramatic demonstration of how much of nothing much, happens near the peaks and troughs and slope edges, of sinusoid like wave forms.

    I don’t see the present warming “hiatus” as any kind of plateau. It looks just like any ordinary “peak” with an abundance of high values, which eventually will be followed by a decline.

    Well we’ll wait to see.

    But I’ll trust Easterbrook’s prognostications before the IPCC; who could use a good dose of IPeCaC !

  63. ““And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, ”

    I agree it would be helpful to see the 2000 paper. Do you have another link to it, Don, aside from the abstract?

  64. Gareth Phillips Feb 5 8:11am : “I always point out that if a value has gone up, and it stays up, it has still risen, even if the rate of increase has levelled off. “. If you follow a sine wave, after it has gone up it levels out then it goes down. (Ashby Feb 5 8:38am effectively makes the same point).

    As john robertson Feb 5 9:15am says “The propensity to imagine scary linear trends from cyclic patterns, betrays a lack of discipline, poor understanding of mathematics and a willfull ignorance of history.“.

  65. Too bad it’s not in the NY Times, or the Washington Post…
    I wish Don Easterbrook would chime in on this thread regarding when he first made his prediction. I have much more respect for him as opposed to some so called climate scientists such as Michael Mann, etc.

  66. george e. smith says:
    February 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    So, as an engineer, if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?

    HadCrut

    GISS

  67. TAG says:
    February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am
    ————————————-
    As others who comment at wuwt have noted, we should pray for warming to continue.

    Another angle, is where in the historical records or in science studies does a warming lead to catastrophe for life on Earth? It is proven that the climate was much warmer at the beginning of the Holocene, yet mankind thrived. Where is there any evidence for any of the sci-fi catastrophic assertions that the IPCC, UKMO, etc..propose will come to pass?

  68. My doctor is a skeptic. I’ve told him that 25 years ago I grew quickly during my teenage years, a growth that directly correlated with a large increase in food intake. It is true there has been a hiatus in my growth for nearly two decades, however it turns out that growth is merely hiding around my waist. Food intake is still high and indeed increasing and once vertical growth resumes I am in danger of banging my head on door frames. My doctor does not seem concerned.

  69. RichardLH says:
    February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    george e. smith says:
    February 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    So, as an engineer, if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?
    HadCrut

    GISS

    So, I’m not an engineer, but looking at these 2 graphs, it looks like the temperature actually decreased for about 35 years from about 1875 to 1910. I think that is about what Don is predicting, starting around the year 2000…

  70. spen says: “Didn’t Bob Tisdale do a hatchet job on Easterbrook’s paper a couple of weeks ago on WUWT? I thought he was going away to review his temperature data.”

    I wouldn’t call it a hatchet job. I’d call it a very loud critique of a graph that spliced TLT data onto a graph of global surface temperature data.

    Don Easterbrook did revise a projection. See the graph here:

    It’s in the update to his post here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/cause-of-the-pause-in-global-warming/

    Unfortunately, that graph is an update of the original Easterbrook projection from the early 2000s, which was not the graph in question. The graph that’s included in the CNS article is the Easterbrook graph that includes the projections starting in 2010, which WAS the graph in question.

    I’m just about finished writing a blog post about that “mix up”. I’ll post it tomorrow or Friday morning.

    Regards

  71. george e. smith says:
    February 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Your comment on the development of anti-aliasing filters for digital cameras is interesting.
    They seem to be an adaptation to the coarseness of colour receptors of early cameras and really fly in the face of the excellent lenses now fitted to digital cameras.
    These filters seem redundant now with increasing megapixels. At what MP size would you say that the filters are irrelevant ?
    Apologies for being OT, but I may have found the person, at last, to answer my question.

  72. RichardLH says:
    February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    george e. smith says:
    February 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    So, as an engineer, if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?

    —————————————————————————————————–
    I can’t speak for George but, as another engineer, I’d say it depends entirely on what’s being graphed and how well understood it is.

    Ignoring all the manipulations and uncertainties, those graphs show about 130 years of temperature history. Even if we only consider the 195000 years of changing climate that modern man has been around (and survived) during, that’s less than 0.1% of the historic data.

    Trying to determine what’s going to happen next from that is like looking at this:

    http://s113.photobucket.com/user/Charlie_D_Brown/media/see1st117.jpg.html

    and telling me which track from a Rogers and Hammerstein musical soundtrack those 5733 samples come from. In fact, I’ve made it comparatively easy for you by at least telling you that it is from an R&H soundtrack because you have a known set of possibilities to chose from!

  73. Several people asked about the AMO. Here are 3 papers that discuss the PDO and AMO together.

    Easterbrook, 2011, Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-based Climate Science, Elsevier, p. 4-46.

    D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations: in Evidence-based Climate Science, Elsevier, p. 161-180.

    D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures
    related to multidecadal oscillations. Energy & Environment 21 (5), 436e460.

    Reprints are available.

    Don

  74. The last figure has been superseded by:

    I didn’t write this, so didn’t know she was going to use the older one.

    Don

  75. J. Philip Peterson says:
    February 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    “So, I’m not an engineer, but looking at these 2 graphs, it looks like the temperature actually decreased for about 35 years from about 1875 to 1910. I think that is about what Don is predicting, starting around the year 2000…”

    That is indeed starting to be supported by the data with now as a local maxima.

    The problem is that S-G (as they are predictive not measurements) do tend to ‘whip’ around a little on new data.

    It will take a few more years probably to be certain.

  76. Joe says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    “I can’t speak for George but, as another engineer, I’d say it depends entirely on what’s being graphed and how well understood it is.”

    You can predict based on history and low pass filters. These are broadband. If you see patterns, it is because the data says they are there, not the filters.

    The S-G parts are more uncertain. They do move. It is all down to new data.

  77. A little history–

    I discovered the strong correlation between the PDO, climate, and glacier fluctuations in 1999 and gave a few talks about it, but this was without any written publication. In 2000, I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, which included a peer-reviewed, published abstract. As Tom G(ologist) points out–
    “The purpose behind the publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is to allow all the other members of the society to preview ongoing research and findings so they can conduct a pre-peer review by attending the talk, asking questions, meeting the researcher and having discussions and providing their feedback. The Abstracts are solicited by the moderator of the session and reviewed prior to selection.
    I have had abstracts accepted and rejected for specific theme sessions at GSA. And I can tell you that the exposure and feedback you get at the GSA conferences is far better than the formal peer review process of a final paper.
    The other reason you publish an abstract is to establish primacy for your research and findings.
    The one thing which you have to know, however, is that you do not show up a GSA and read your abstract to the audience – on in the case of a poster session, stand at your poster for four hours – without having real data and science to present.” Hence, all GSA abstracts are considered to be publications that can be cited–all are available on the GSA website.

    Here is a list of papers:

    Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
    D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Relationship of multidecadal global temperatures to multidecadal oceanic oscillations: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 161-184.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Climatic implications of the impending grand solar minimum and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation: the past is the key to the future–what we can learn from recurring past climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, .
    Easterbrook, D.J., Gosse, J., Sherard, C., Finkel, R., and Evenson, E., 2011, Evidence for synchronous global climatic events: Cosmogenic exposure ages of glaciations: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 53-88.
    D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay, WA: Chuckanut Editions, Bellingham, WA, 329 p.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 41, p. 33.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The looming threat of global cooling – Geological evidence for prolonged cooling ahead and its impacts: 4th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium. Abstracts, American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 40, p. 428.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glacial fluctuations to global climatic changes during the Younger Dryas; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Global warming’ is over: Geologic, oceanographic, and solar evidence for global cooling in the coming decades: 3rd International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, New York.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.507.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations: Implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p. 594.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.13.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.11.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 38, p.235-236.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming predictions for the coming century: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 38, p. 77.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 37, p.41.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glaciers to abrupt, global, climatic changes during the Younger Dryas: Abstracts with programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 35, p. 350.
    Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2003, Quaternary Geology of the United States: International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, 438 p.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and alpine glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Quaternary Geology of the United States, International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, p. 265-286
    Easterbrook, D.J., Pierce, K., Gosse, J., Gillespie, A., Evenson, E., and Hamblin, K., 2003, Quaternary geology of the western United States, International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, p. 19-79.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and alpine glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington: Geological Society of America Field Guide 4, p. 137–157.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Determination of 36Cl production rates from the well-dated deglaciation surfaces of Whidbey and Fidalgo Islands, Washington: discussion: Quaternary Research, vol. 59, p.132-134.
    Easterbrook, D.J. and Kovanen, D.J., 2001. The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 33, 253.
    Easterbrook, D.J., and Kovanen, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillation of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific Ocean: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 32, p. 17.

  78. So whats this all about ?

    He was completely wrong.

    Temperatures have not fallen since 2000.

    9 of the 10 warmest years have been since (and including) 2002 (NASA GISS and NOAA).

    Ok there is very little difference between years in the last decade, hence the flat trend, but temperatures have not fallen – 13 years into his prediction.

  79. Werner Brozek says:
    February 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    Steve Reddish says:
    February 5, 2014 at 10:36 am

    This resembles after-the-fact playing with the data.

    (Then Werner says:)
    Perhaps, but what is the problem with that? Suppose that temperatures went up smoothly from 1970 to 2000 and then went down just as smoothly. In 2010, I could say it has not been this cold in 20 years. Then only 1 year later, I could say it has not been this cold in 22 years, etc. In exactly the same way, I may now say the graph is flat for 17 years. And if we then have a La Nina, in only one year, I may be able to say the graph is flat for NOT 18, but 19 years.

    Werner, good to hear from you – Nice to get feedback on one’s comment.

    I agree with your first point, of the claim being made in 2010 and 2011 that the cold had been unmatched for 20 and 22 years, respectively, because that would be just quoting the recorded facts per your example.
    I also agree that the period for the length of time that the computed average has been flat could be extended 2 years for each year of continued cooling, as that would be mathematically correct. But is computing an average over time the best use of the data? If you computed the average temps since some point before the beginning of the MWP you could get a flat graph as well, but to what end? Averaging masks changes, hiding highs and lows.

    I suggest that the trend, whether rising or falling, is the vital question at each each point in time. People care during each year, how that year compares to its predecessors. The temp trend for the period between Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption and the warm peak in 1998 was considered (correctly) at the time to be rising. Should we now say that the trend during that time is being changed to flat?

    By admitting that the temp trend was rising until 1998, we are able to note that the temp trend has been falling since then. By doing this, we do not have to go against people’s memories of that time, and we remove the argument used by CAGW proponents that we are currently merely in a “pause”.

    Again, to be able to point out that the trend is now downward, and has been for several years, is a far stronger argument than that a computed average has been flat for a slightly longer period.
    SR

  80. RichardLH says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Joe says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    “I can’t speak for George but, as another engineer, I’d say it depends entirely on what’s being graphed and how well understood it is.”

    You can predict based on history and low pass filters. These are broadband. If you see patterns, it is because the data says they are there, not the filters.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    Yes, you can if you have enough data. But if your data sample is too short to capture all of the patterns then you can’t.

    0.117 seconds (of more or less perfect data) out of 3 minutes 20 secs isn’t enough data to identify Some Enchanted Evening, and 120 years of (somewhat dubious) data out of 100s of thousands of years is nowhere near enough to capture the possible patterns in climate.

  81. Don Easterbrook says:
    “In 2000, I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, which included a peer-reviewed, published abstract.”

    Why just give a long list of papers? Why not just say which publication you are talking about?

    If it’s just an abstract to an unpublished talk, why not tell us what it said? What the prediction was? Is it testable?

  82. ““Since Don is here can he provide the dataset underlying the graphs in the 2000 paper.
    or do we have to digitize the graphs”

    How is this not asking nicely?”

    1) “Or do we have to digitize the graphs” is basically an accusation that someone is holding back from you and making things inconvenient. You could very easily have left that part out, then it would be a nice request to Don.

    2) you cut out the intro to this: “It would be nice when discussing a paper ( the 2000 version) if that paper were actually made available. or if the data from the projection was made available.” In this you’re slinging blame at Anthony for not providing this for you, even though he’s just reprinting another article. This wasn’t a “guest post.”

    3) No one has “denied” you anything, unlike McIntyre and the team. If Don said “I don’t like your tone, so no.” then you might have some basis of comparison. This was simply Anthony asking you to be polite. I understand that’s difficult for you.

  83. Florida community newspaper gives Easterbook a mention:

    3 Feb: Longboard Key News: Tom Burgum: Maybe, just maybe, we’re getting cooler
    I beg to disagree: the debate isn’t settled.
    Today, of course, we talk about climate change rather than global warming, a change necessitated by the failure of the global temperature to increase over the past decade. The climate is, of course, changing as it has done throughout the history of the planet but the change might not lead to global warming…
    Most recently, Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory announced: “We could be in for a cooling period that last 200-250 years.”
    Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declared “global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning . . . Enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
    Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warned “global cooling is almost a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more.”
    Most recently, Professor Judith Curry, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta stated: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year pause to the cooling since 2002 . . . this shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so . . . “…
    Anastasios Tsonis, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee believes we are entering a period of global cooling. He published a peer-reviewed paper in January 2010 that held the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years and he believes we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science believes “We can expect the onset of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055.
    Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies at the University of Western Australia, not only believes that a cooling period is coming, he took on Al Gore and his acolytes head on. In a paper presented in Poznan Poland, he credited the sun as the major control of climate, not greenhouse gasses. Ollier criticized recent projects of global warming because the projections are too centered on computer models.
    Global warming of the past 30 year is over, at least according to Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications in an address to the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, Washington, said: “The shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) . . . has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1 degree per decade for the rest of the century.”…

    http://www.lbknews.com/2014/02/03/maybe-just-maybe-were-getting-cooler/

  84. JAMES ABBOTT
    You said ” temperatures have not fallen since 2000″

    I think W.BROZEK (12:01)already confirmed the decline in global temperatures in an earlier post but here is another graph showing a decline since 2004. It is not big but a decline nevertheless .

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014

    You have to remember that Hansen /NASA were predicting a temperature anomaly rise of about 1.2 C for the Business as usual scenario A by 2013 I believe. So Don’s forecast was a major departure in the direction of these alarmist forecast. This is a key point in my opinion. He may not have gotten the decline year or the exact decline amount exactly right, but no one will get it 100%. Look at the failed forecasts by IPCC report after report.

  85. REPLY: Stop being a schmuck, ask nicely. Mind you, this is a news article, reprinted. – Anthony

    Mosher gets perpetually confused about what he is reading and believes himself to be some sort of data analyst, when he has no such qualifications.

  86. Too bad. I would have preferred longer, warmer summers by the pool and less snow to shovel during the winter.

  87. Nick Stokes says:
    February 5, 2014 at 11:32 am
    So what’s here? A report by an organization called CNSNews. Is it “press”?

    It is just as much “Press” as the BBC,

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554833/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490047/Facebook-reveals-BBC-liberal-hotbed.html

    and The Guardian,

    “…it is no secret we [The Guardian] are a centre-left newspaper” – Ian Katz, Guardian Features Editor

    “…it [The Guardian] is clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive” – Jackie Ashley, Guardian Columnist

  88. Steve Reddish says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm
    But is computing an average over time the best use of the data?

    There are all kinds of things that can be said, but I consider three of the most useful to be the longest time the trend is 0, and the longest time the warming is not significant, and the present ranking of the year to date, which is why I include those things in my monthly reports.

    If you do not wish to overload any one with miscellaneous details, what would you include and what would you leave out? To see how “messy” things can be, go to the following site. Click GISS, then put the blue circle at the end for December 2013, then put the red circle close to it, then click the red “<” and watch the rate numbers go from positive to negative like a yo-yo.

    http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D

    As for the MWP, my focus and goal is to show that our CO2 does not cause catastrophic warming. So if the line would be flat or up or down since 900 would not prove anything in this regard.

  89. I like the title “Evidence Based Climate Science.” Mine is also evidence based but his is five times longer and costs a hundred dollars more than mine does. That is how I did not buy it but looked at the electronic copy on Amazon. He is right on many important things. His starting point is that “Because of the absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely on computer modeling.” I could not agree more. These models are worthless because greenhouse warming, which does not exist, is built into them. It is laughable that out of 73 models that CMIP5 tried not one was able to reproduce the actual temperatures measured during the twenty-first century. Apparently having a warming built in prevents them from predicting a horizontal straight line the current temperature follows. The fact that it does that despite the highest ever atmospheric carbon dioxide content tells us that the greenhouse effect simply does not exist. This has been going on for 17 years now, long enough to tell me as a scientist that the theory of greenhouse warming is wrong and must be discarded. But what is there to take its place? It so happens that the Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi came out with the correct theory in 2007 that has been blocked from use by global warmist opposition. The greenhouse theory that IPCC uses goes back to the work of Svante Arrhenius and others in the nineteenth century. It applies when the only greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. But the atmosphere has a mixture of greenhouse gases. Miskolczi theory applies in the general case when more than one greenhouse gas are simultaneously absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. In such a case an optimum absorption window exists that the gases present jointly maintain. In the earth atmosphere the two gases that count are water vapor and carbon dioxide. The optical thickness of their joint optimum absorption window in the IR is 1.87. It corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or absorbance of 85 percent. If you now add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb just as the Arrhenius theory says. But as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness of the absorption window is restored. This explains perfectly why we have the hiatus-pause of warming today despite the highest amount of atmospheric CO2 ever. If you now think it over you should wonder why this started only 17 years ago. Did carbon dioxide suddenly wake up one day and decide that it was time to stop warming the world? No such luck for warmists, laws of nature don’t work like that. If CO2 is not warming the world now it never did, and all this greenhouse warming we have been told about is nothing more than natural warming, misidentified by eager pseudo-scientists. And that also follows from the absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming as Easterbrook tells us in the opening sentence of his book. We totally agree on this but he had a bit of bad luck with the cutoff date of his temperature curve. His data include the La Nina of 2008 that indicates cooling but leave out the El Nino of 2010 that balances it. As a result, he is misled into thinking that this indicates future cooling. If you check it out you will see that the halfway point between the 2008 La Nina and 2010 El Nino, which defines their mean, lines up horizontally with the previous years and thus extends the horizontal platform that began with the century. (That 2008 La Nina was also what was bugging Trenberth in his famous Climategate email.)

  90. I agree that there is a significant chance of modest cooling going forward and I’m delighted that Don is getting some press. With Judith jumping on this recently I think it is only fair to point out that what I consider a significant paper on such cyclicity was published in 2007.

    Klyashtorin2007,Cyclic%20Climate%20Change_Fish[1]

    I got the link a few years ago on this site, but it seems largely ignored. It extends the concept way beyond Salmon to fish harvests worldwide and touches on the ACI, an early Russian index of Rossby wave amplitude.

  91. So,…..I am not gonna have beachfront property on the northern extreme of the Mississippi Bay? Too bad, the sandstone would have made for awesome beaches.

  92. It is time that Al Gore and the like were made to hand back their Nobel prizes and the money that falsely extorted based on the threat of global warming. Note I said global warming not climate change as the threat they used for the extortion was not climate change at the time.
    The same engineers who worked with those environmentalist on data handling for the acid rain campaigns predicted the same thing back in the late sixties and early seventies when the climate “scientists” very first claimed that global warming existed. As in his case they were basing their conclusions on pattern recognition not on a pretense of understanding climate.
    A colleague of mine from the QA department looked at the computer models and had four pages of basic level fails on just two of the models he looked at in the public domain. By the company rules a single fail at this level makes it a reject for use on expensive or life critical operations.

    Why does no climate article ever remind people that ten years of temperature rises was proof of global warming but nearly twenty without is a pause?

  93. Poptech says:
    “It is just as much “Press” as the BBC, and The Guardian,…”

    Well, I think there are significant differences. At its founding:
    “Mr. Bozell said that his Conservative News Service (www.conservativenews.org) would report news that he says is not touched by traditional television news outlets.”

    I think they are doing that here.

  94. richardscourtney said of me in the last thread on this:

    “Your post is bollocks.
    Each and every of your assertions is false as anybody can check for themselves within seconds.”

    Still stand by that Richard?

    Has Don updated the graph in question, or as Bob Tisdale claims, has he updated a different graph?

    Has he provided the data necessary for others to be able to replicate his calculations or not?

  95. RichardLH says: @ February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That you are leaving out the longer term evidence that could help figure out what is happening.

    Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
    ABSTRACT
    We investigate the possibility that solar variability influences North African climate by using annual records of the water level of the Nile collected in 622–1470 A.D…..We identify two characteristic timescales in the records that may be linked to solar variability: a period of about 88 years and one exceeding 200 years. We show that these timescales are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time. The 11-year cycle is seen in the Nile’s high-water level variations, but it is damped in the low-water anomalies. We suggest a possible physical link between solar variability and the low-frequency variations of the Nile water level. This link involves the influence of solar variability on the atmospheric Northern Annual Mode and on its North Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean patterns that affect the rainfall over the sources of the Nile in eastern equatorial Africa.

    The full paper is for registered users only however a pop-sci article is available via NASA: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

    That article states:
    “…The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years….”

    And

    “…So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun’s ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation’s influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River’s sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter….”

    So it looks like your graph shows a ~ 60 to 70 year ocean cycle imposed on top of the 200 year solar cycle. With 1910 to 2010 being one half of the cycle.

    Instead of 15 and 75 year passes you might try 11 year and either the 60 year or 88 year.

  96. Also of interest:

    Sun/dust correlations and volcanic interference
    Abstract

    We examine the relationship between the GISP2 dust profile, a proxy for the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric dust load, and the Wolf sunspot number, a proxy for solar activity. The two records are positively correlated, but the phase of the relationship is disturbed by the effects of explosive volcanism. Similar correlation failures have already been noted for many other climatic indicators. Our work suggests that a large fraction of the correlation failures may be attributed to explosive volcanic activity.

    The dust load would probably correlate with wet vs dry conditions.

  97. Another paper that should be of interest to Dr. Don Easterbrook

    Effect of ENSO and volcanic events on the Sun–cloud link

    ABSTRACT
    Results of correlation studies between solar proxies and clouds suggest that there is a solar effect on the occurrence of clouds. However, there is a possibility that terrestrial quasi-periodic and sporadic phenomena, such as ENSO and/or major volcanic eruptions, which have an effect on the cloud formation, may influence the results of statistical studies of the Sun-cloud relation. We show that removing ENSO and volcanic years from the full-set analysis does not alter the results. Moreover, the correlation between clouds of different type and two solar proxies, UV irradiance and cosmic ray induced ionisation, is partly improved. This supports the idea that the solar signal affects clouds directly. An interesting result relates to an area in the eastern Pacific where the full-set analysis showed that the relationship between clouds and cosmic ray induced ionization is opposite to the global one. When ENSO and volcanic years are removed this odd correlation disappears, suggesting that in this particular area, the ENSO effect prevails over solar effects.

  98. Gail Combs says:
    February 6, 2014 at 1:13 am

    “Instead of 15 and 75 year passes you might try 11 year and either the 60 year or 88 year.”

    I think that you (and various others) have missed what is being done here and what it is showing.

    These are LOW PASS BROADBAND filters.

    A ‘Gaussian’ Cascaded Triple Running Mean Low Pass (see V. Pratt and G Goodman). http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/

    The frequency response looks like this

    That is they are a binary chop of the available spectrum into two bins. The ‘stop band’ which are ALL frequencies below 15 years in period and the ‘pass band’ which are ALL frequencies above 15 years in period.

    This is exactly like the telephone/broadband splitter dongle you fit between your computer and the wall to connect to the Internet (if you use broadband that is).

    The 15 year roll over point is just to ensure that we stay below the 30 years that is deemed to be Climate.

    If you ‘see’ ANY cycle of ANY length above that then that is what the data is showing, not the filter.

    This is the true beauty of this type of arrangement. It does not make assumptions about what to look for. It lets the data tell you what is there.

    You want to go looking for cycles less than 15 years, be my guest. Run the equivalent high pass 15 year filter and go looking. I can tell from a quick eyeball of the differential between the Annual signal (strange how no-one complains about doing the above procedure to get a more accurate Annual signal, only about longer filters!) and the 15 year signal to say that there appears to be little energy in that band but……

    So to your 60 year and 88 year signals. If there was something in the data at ~60 years it would show up and it does. The main problem is that it appears to be asymmetric (at present?) with a 60 year ‘positive’ half cycle and a negative 70 year ‘negative’ half cycle. That is not unusual in Nature so that may well be the pattern for now. It could well be possible that we will see 50 pos, 70 neg, 60, pos, 50 neg, 70 pos, 60 neg and so on as a random set of sub-matches within an overall 60 year combo. Way too short to tell that yet.

    The 88 year signal, well as it is possible to characterise the greater than 70 year data as either an upward slope (CO2 RULES!) of part of a ~100 year or longer cycle it is a bit difficult to say yet.

    If I was looking for obvious potential patterns I would go for 60+4 = 56 and 60-4 = 64 as being something that could come out of orbital parameters but then we need a methodology that would transfer that orbital figure to Climate.

    You want to go ‘cycle hunting’? Sweep a low pass filter up and down the available bandwidth and see what drops in and out. You do this sort of thing all the time when you tune a radio. Why not for Climate. :-)

  99. Joe says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    “Yes, you can if you have enough data. But if your data sample is too short to capture all of the patterns then you can’t….. 120 years of (somewhat dubious) data out of 100s of thousands of years is nowhere near enough to capture the possible patterns in climate.”

    I would be the first to agree that the data we do have is not long enough.

    However I do not agree that we can just stop doing any form of analysis until we have enough data to be sure.

    Nate Drake PhD tells me that 300 years of data is required to ‘see’ 60 year signals in the data. Well the graphs speak for themselves. I have made and sold kit based on CTRM filters and their ability to distinguish ‘bits’ from ‘noise’ cheaply (actually the bits were IN the noise but…).

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    So signals in the range greater than 15 years and greater than 75 are the ones we can use for now on the high quality (?) we do have. Sure there may have been some attempt to diminish some part of the signal. That will show up as the greater than 70 year being too large in magnitude compared to what was ‘really’ there. I worry little about that scenario.

  100. Don: I accept your basic premise, that the long term patterns may well repeat in the future. Based on HadCrut4 I present this as a possible alternative future evolution of the data.

  101. Dr Norman Page says:
    February 6, 2014 at 9:17 am

    “Most commentators here persist in dealing only with decadal cycles over the last 150 years or so. This is really very short sighted. For forecasting we need to also consider where we are on the 1000 year cycle.”

    I rather think that there is a least one cycle in between 60 and 1000 years to take into account as well.

    Just not enough real data to sort out how many and at what period, yet.

  102. It looks like the 60 and 1000 year cycles would account for most of the variability particularly if you avoid curve fitting and numerical calculation and simply assume that the trends seen in the last 1000 year cycle will more or less repeat. In the real world other things are never equal so that everything actually only happens once. For example the next 1000 year cycle is in a different place relative to the Milankovitch cycles so that the trends in next 1000 years will be ” sort of like ” the last 1000 years. This is the way nature works – the system as a whole is simply not susceptible to precise mathematical calculation .Look for quasi repetitive- quasi periodic patterns and be aware of whatever factors may cause the next pattern to different from the last.

  103. Richard LH One other thought – the trends in the 1000 year actual temperature record also include the temperature effects of any intermediate periodicities anyway. So you don’t need to break them out separately for forecasting purposes.

  104. Dr Norman Page says:
    February 6, 2014 at 10:23 am

    “Look for quasi repetitive- quasi periodic patterns and be aware of whatever factors may cause the next pattern to different from the last.”

    Oh, I know all about how 60 can be constructed out of a 1:1:1 mix of 56:60:64 and many other combinations, usually in half cycle rather than full cycle mixes, and lots of ‘noise’. Just to confuse those who try to use FTs and Wavelets when looking for them :-)

    It looks like there is something in the 100-200 years bracket with some significant power in it but the data is just too short to be certain.

    Why 56:60:64? Well that is 60 years and 4 years for the ‘true’ solar year of Leap Years. After all the planet is not back into the same position Land/Ocean wise relative to the Sun until 4 years have elapsed. So anything to do with temperature is likely to have at least some 4 year component to it (and it does appear to:-) )

  105. Nick Stokes says:
    February 6, 2014 at 12:29 am
    Poptech says:
    “It is just as much “Press” as the BBC, and The Guardian,…”

    Well, I think there are significant differences. At its founding:
    “Mr. Bozell said that his Conservative News Service (www.conservativenews.org) would report news that he says is not touched by traditional television news outlets.”

    I think they are doing that here.

    You are correct, there is a very significant difference – CNS News is honest and open about their bias, while the BBC and The Guardian mislead their readers that they are objective.

  106. As a seasoned viewer of the world through as many ‘coloured glasses’ as I can (I do find that looking at it through just one produces a very monochromatic picture) I would never take one single point of view as being ‘right’.

    If you cannot, on demand, argue your opponents case almost as well as your own, then you are usually showing prejudice as opposed to reason.

Comments are closed.