Contributor/Blogger Prognostications of Future Temperature Trends

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Near the current end of the thread titled National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof Allan asked, “What is your global average temperature prediction for the next several decades?”  There were a few responses, including Allan’s. I sent an email to Anthony, letting him know I believed it would make a fun thread.  He agreed and asked me to write up a starter post to get the ball rolling.

So, here’s Allan’s original group of questions:

What is your global average temperature prediction for the next several decades?

– warming or cooling?

– for how many years?

– on what technical basis?

– for the dataset provided (UAH Global anomaly) how would you extrapolate, if at all – linear, polynomial, or ???

– does anyone believe that a linear extrapolation is valid? If yes, how do you reconcile with the cyclical nature of the PDO and global avg. temperatures?

Let’s hear what you believe, not just what you don’t believe.

Thanks, Allan

I didn’t want to repost the comments of the others without their okay.  If they wish, they can add them and identify themselves, or you can go back to the thread and see who they were. Here’s my response, edited with the correction already included:

Allan: I’ll join in the predictions, but I’ll use the slow cycle in the Southern Ocean SST anomalies as my base.

Cooling for 50 to 60 years, counteracting most if not all of the warming over the last 60 years. There will be amplification then dampening of the cooling due to Thermohaline Circulation/Meridional Overturning Circulation in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. They’ll run in synch at first, but then the cycles will counteract one another. The intermittent positive step changes resulting from large El Nino events (82/83 and 97/98 magnitude) will disappear, since the additional heat supplied to the equatorial Pacific by the Southern Ocean and the THC/MOC in the North Pacific has been dissipated. They’ll be replaced by larger and more frequent La Ninas.

We’ll check back here on this thread in 20 years, see how we’re doing.

My prognostication is based on too many hours spent looking at graphs of sea surface temperature, many of which I post at my blog: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/

So, as Allan said, “Let’s hear what you believe, not just what you don’t believe.” There are no right or wrong answers.  Twenty to fifty years from now some of you will be able to claim you predicted what happened.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The graph of the Southern Ocean SST anomalies is this data set smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersst/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.60S.asc
The selection page for it and other data sets (land only, ocean only, and land-ocean combined, all at various latitude bands) is here. Don’t let the PDO suffix worry you. There’s lots more there:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersst/pdo
The discussion page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php

I predict that one of the following will occur:
A. Major comet or asteroid strike, devastating the planet and destroying all human and animal life, rendering any climate shift irrelevant.
B. An eruption of a super-volcano, devastating the planet and destroying all human and animal life, rendering any climate shift irrelevant.
C. A global outbreak of nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons, devastating the planet and destroying all human and animal life, rendering any climate shift irrelevant.
Or maybe I should just spend less time watching Discovery Channel….
New word of the week: Disasterphile

keith

If there’s anything I learned from this whole AGW thing, it’s that, it’s absurd to try to predict the weather years from now with ANY certainty.

Don B

I’ll play this game. Start with Don Easterbrook’s projection of cooling for the next 30 years from normal cyclical influences he details:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf
Add in (or rather subtract) cooling from weaker solar cycles, and we have cooling to 2040 of 1.5 degrees C. (This hunch might be as good as my football picks.)

AnonyMoose

Cooling over the next 20 years. Maybe longer, but we’re going to recheck this in only 20 years. 🙂

AnonyMoose

Forgot the primary reasons: Solar activity low 11-22 years, PDO cool 20-30 years.

AnonyMoose

Suggestion for a separate article: Estimates on when the IPCC’s warming estimates will be accepted as failures.

Simon Abingdon

Anthony, I suppose this is basically OT, but maybe you could stretch a point (or create a suitable thread)?
I’ve never been really sure whether Monckton’s background (and his APS piece in particular) made him look foolish or not, but when it comes to dealing with AGW from a policy-making perspective, this looks to me compelling reading. (It disappeared off the bottom of icecap after only two days and perhaps may not therefore have caught the attention of the blogosphere at large).
His “essay” (and their introduction to it) is copied from the pro-environmentalist “SOS Forests” (just a random choice). The original source was the American Thinker of 18 October.
I quote:
In one of the greatest essays of our day and age, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has warned Senator John McCain that his (McCain’s) “climate change” policies present a terrible threat to the economies of the U.S. and the entire world.
Lord Monckton is more than a global warming skeptic; he is the most rational and lucid voice in the world today in opposition to the global warming alarmists. His essay, posted today in the American Thinker, is the clearest and most penetrating debunking of global warming theory ever written. More than that, Lord Monkton presents the case that addressing this non-problem by crippling the economy of the U.S. will thrust the entire world into a darkness of deprivation and authoritarianism unmatched in human history.
John McCain has adopted Gore-ism. Barack Obama has, as well. We cannot survive either man as President, and yet we have no other choices. This country is hurtling toward a terrible catastrophe.
Please read Lord Monckton’s letter. You deserve to know what hit you. Some excerpts:
An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy
By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, American Thinker, October 18, 2008
Part 1 [here]
Part 2 [here]
Part 3 [here]
Part 4 [here]
Dear Senator McCain, Sir,
YOU CHOSE a visit to a wind-farm in early summer 2008 to devote an entire campaign speech to the reassertion of your belief in the apocalyptic vision of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – a lurid and fanciful account of imagined future events that was always baseless, was briefly exciting among the less thoughtful species of news commentators and politicians, but is now scientifically discredited.
With every respect, there is no rational basis for your declared intention that your great nation should inflict upon her own working people and upon the starving masses of the Third World the extravagantly-pointless, climatically-irrelevant, strategically-fatal economic wounds that the arrogant advocates of atmospheric alarmism admit they aim to achieve.
Britain and the United States, like England and Scotland on the first page of Macaulay’s splendid History of England, are bound to one another by “indissoluble bonds of interest and affection”. Here in this little archipelago from which your Pilgrim Fathers sailed, we have a love-love relationship with what Walt Whitman called your “athletic democracy”. You came to our aid – to the aid of the world – when Britain had stood alone against the mad menace of Hitler. Your fearless forces and ours fight shoulder to shoulder today on freedom’s far frontiers. The shortest but most heartfelt of our daily prayers has just three words: “God bless America!” For these reasons – of emotion as much as of economics, of affection as much as of interest – it matters to us that the United States should thrive and prosper. We cannot endure to see her fail, not only because if she fails the world fails, but also because, as the philosopher George Santayana once said of the British Empire and might well now have said of our sole superpower, “the world never had sweeter masters.” If the United States, by the ignorance and carelessness of her classe politique, mesmerized by the climate bugaboo, casts away the vigorous and yet benign economic hegemony that she has exercised almost since the Founding Fathers first breathed life into her enduring Constitution, it will not be a gentle, tolerant, all-embracing, radically-democratic nation that takes up the leadership of the world.
It will be a radically-tyrannical dictatorship – perhaps the brutal gerontocracy of Communist China, or the ruthless plutocracy of supposedly ex-Communist Russia, or the crude, mediaeval theocracy of rampant Islam, or even the contemptible, fumbling, sclerotic, atheistic-humanist bureaucracy of the emerging European oligarchy that has stealthily stolen away the once-paradigmatic democracy of our Mother of Parliaments from elected hands here to unelected hands elsewhere. For government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a rarity today, and it may yet perish from the earth if America, its exemplar, destroys herself in the specious name of “Saving The Planet”.
more »

Simon Abingdon

I should have left a link for his whole polemic. Here it is: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

Brr Brr Brr

I predict another 20 years of cooling as per below website:
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/al-gore-cartoon/

kim

We are cooling, folks. For how long even kim doesn’t know.
=====================================

AJ

I’ll take a fuzzy generational approach:
My mom, as a schoolchild, experienced the HOT dust bowl years on the Great Plains in the 1930’s.
Myself, as a schoolchild, experienced the COOL years of the 1960’s. Talk was of the coming ice age.
My son, who is currently a schoolchild, is experiencing the current WARM period. Talk is of catastrophic global warming.
My grandchild, as a schoolchild, will experience the COOL years of the 2040’s. Talk will be of the coming ice age.
My great grandchild, as a schoolchild, will experience a WARM period in the 2080’s. Talk will be of natural variation with a modest CO2 forcing.
So there you have it. I predict that climate science will have figured out climate forcing feedback loops, or the lack thereof, in about 70 years.
AJ

hyonmin

Cooling for 50 to 60 years using the solar approach, after looking at the Maunder. I will admit that there is no known reason why the temperatures went down during the Maunder but they did.

pkatt

Hmm crystal ball out. I predict that temps will continue to cool for about 3 -5 more years and then continue to warm with cooldown periods at the same rates they have been since the last ice age. The global warming agenda will be crushed and be as funny in 5 years as the disastrous ice age theories of the 70’s are now as more and more people realize that the Earth has a “mind” of her own. Natural disasters will occur every year, just like they do every year and it may take well up to the next 100 years before they can be predicted with any certainty.
Ralph Couey (12:26:49) :
hehe Ralph:) You definitely need to stop watching the discovery channel for a while:) I know! You can come research magnetic pole reversal with me.
As for our politicians.. well I have sort of lost hope there. In addition to the info on McCain above, Obama said in the debate he might tap Al Gore for advice, I might not be quoting exactly.. I was howling in disbelief at the time and couldn’t really hear what he was saying after Al’s name popped out of his mouth. My only glimmer of hope left is that many politicians will tell you what they think you want to hear to get elected and go off and do something completely different once they are. We shall see.

Don

Cooling for the next 33 to 37 years. There is a 90 year cycle that begain to on 2002 and the low piont of that cycle will end on 2043 +/- 3 years.

Here’s mine, global monthly temperature with prediction intervals:
http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2008/08/gmt_pred.png
http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2008/08/gmt_pred.txt
originally published here
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361#comment-292113 , August 27th,
2008
CO2 effect should kill this prediction quite rapidly.

To save some time for those of you who are looking for additional discussions on SST, (I’ve had more hits on my blog in the last hour than I normally do in a day), the introduction to and index of my posts on SST are here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/smith-and-reynolds-sst-posts.html
There’s no pro or con AGW talk in those threads, just discussions of SST data sets, 40+ posts so far.

Slamdunk

This is off topic, but I just have to share it:
CLASSIC COGNIZANT DISSONANCE
A friend of mine believes that global temperatures are still rising. When asked how he knows, he replied, “Thousands of scientists say so.” I then told him about the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, and Secretary of the WMO, Michel Jarraud, both of whom acknowledge that warming has stopped since 1998. That did not change his mind. So I asked him if the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) agreed with Pacharui and Jarraud, would that change his mind. No, it would not. I then asked him if the scientists he says believe the warming continues, should they contact the IPCC, WMO and NAS to inform them they are wrong. He said yes. …Oi vey

George E. Smith

Well here’s where I go sit in the bleachers and plead total ignorance.
I’m not equipped with either the raw data, and smooth access to same, nor the knowledge of what data it is that I need, and how to use it to predict climate.
When I look at any of the big 4; GISStemp, HADCrut, RSS, and UAH, in alphabetical order, what I see looks like 1/f “noise”. Now it is noise in the sense that it’s future value at any point on any time scale seems quite unpredictable; but for any past epoch, I consider it to be signal, in the sense that I believe the purveyors of each of those graphs are respectable honest scientists, and are using a consistent algorithm, and raw data (each)acquired as well as can be expected. So I don’t think they are all crooks, and I don’t know ANY of them, to say any of them are.
So I believe their past history is reasonably accurate, except they are all different because they are all measuring different data, and employing different algorithms to arrive at computations of different functions.
But I only believe in those guys up to their last measured data point.
The next time they run their algorithm on their next input of raw data, no-one can predict what value it will spit out; and sometimes it will go up, and sometimes it will go down. Now how is that for a definitive prediction.
I described it as looking like 1/f noise, in the sense that the amplitudes of cyclic changes tend to increase, the longer the time scale of that cycle. Of course, I haven’t done a spectral analysis, to see what the actual frequency spectrum is, and to see if it truly is 1/f.
Now enough people have done some clever filter analyses to show that there are some truly cyclic components, mostly related to the solar sunspot cycles and multiples of those.
Now I have no idea whatsoever; quantitatively, determines the time scale of those solar cycles. What physics is driving that phenomenon, to set the 11 year sunspot/22 year magnetic cycle. If anybody does have a explanation for that (maybe Dr Willie Soon), I’m mighty curious to hear about it.
And as I explained, I don’t know what drives the ENSO or PDO physics either, but do acknowledge there is a cycle.
I think because of the sleepy sun, and the varying solar shockwave blanket, that we appear to be in for a downward movement for maybe 30 years or so, but as to where we will be on this date any year in the future I have no clue; and the only thing that I truly believe is that nobody else does either.
George; being pedantically vague !

Leon Brozyna

Drat.
All the good predictions have been made @ Don B (12:38:21) and AJ (13:08:16). Though I think that, even with greater data, there will still be fashionably chic climate movements — new ice age around mid-century or global warming a century or so from now.

RobJM

My guess is that we will continue to cool unless a volcano stuffs things up!
I believe in a world where temperature is driven by cloud albedo,
Cloud albedo is driven by specific humidity in troposphere,
humidity is driven by rainfall intensity determined by stratospheric temp or humidity.
Volcanoes are one of the main drivers of the stratosphere (and cause the earth to warm due to a boom and bust effect on humidity there long term) so we cant predict the future. also size location and type (steam to SO2 ratio) could have differing effects. If solar, PDO, humans alter stratosphere then that will have effect too. loss of arctic ice will drive up humidity in troposphere and cause cooling.
Cheers

Les Johnson

My forecast?
For the next 20 years, I forecast that the nights will be……(wait for it)….
….dark, followed by scattered light, towards dawn.
With apologies to the late, great, George Carlin.

Dishman

My prediction:
Within 10 years, modest increases in CO2 concentration will be seen as a net positive.

Global average temperature prediction for the next several decades:
– warming or cooling? No warming. Stays level at best, drops 2deg C in next ~5~ years at worst.
– for how many years? No new warming cycles until 35 to 50 years from now.
– on what technical basis? Svensmark’s theory of cloud seeding by cosmic rays applied with long-term forecasts of solar activity.
– for the dataset provided (UAH Global anomaly) how would you extrapolate, if at all – linear, polynomial, or ???
Trend lines usefully document the past, but are of no help in predicting the future.
– does anyone believe that a linear extrapolation is valid? Not me.

Mary Hinge

Ralph Couey (12:26:49) :
“I predict that one of the following will occur:
A. Major comet or asteroid strike, devastating the planet and destroying all human and animal life, rendering any climate shift irrelevant.
B. An eruption of a super-volcano, devastating the planet and destroying all human and animal life, rendering any climate shift irrelevant.
C. A global outbreak of nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons, devastating the planet and destroying all human and animal life, rendering any climate shift irrelevant.”
And all this will happen in 2012! 😉

jae

I predict cooling for 25-30 years, ala the PDO/ENSO cycle. But I also predict that either the CO2-AGW true-believers will not admit that CO2 is not causing warming, even when the glaciers are at the Chicago city limits–or they will blame the cooling on CO2.

Cathy

@ Simon Abingdon
Oh yes, I read that open letter from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley at American Thinker.
I sent it along to others.
It was so brilliant and so touching in its unabashed love and concern for America.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

John Philip

Well, on the decadal scale climate is largely determined by the various external forcings, and assuming the net forcings continue to be dominated by GHGs, an extremely safe assumption indeed, and given the committed climate change already in the pipeline it is hard to see anything other than an increasing warming trend. In terms of hard numbers, I expect the next El Nino to occur sometime before 2011 and that it will drive the global average temperature for the year in which it occurs to the highest level in recent centuries, probably for millenia. Looking forward, I have confidence in the IPCC mean projection of +0.2C / decade for the next few decades, driven by GHG forcing with shorter lulls and periods of faster warming caused by unforced variability, ENSO, volcanoes etc – this being the pattern we have seen for the last few decades. The trend beyond that largely depends on global economic growth, which is a lot harder to predict,and the extent to which we manage to decouple this from our carbon emissions. JP. .

Paul Shanahan

I predict that in 20 years time, the climate will be be different in some way from today…
REPLY: I think we have a winner! That is about as much as anyone can accurately say. – Anthony

John Philip

Ooops! Now with hyperlinks …
Well, on the decadal scale climate is largely determined by the various external forcings, and assuming the net forcings continue to be dominated by GHGs, an extremely safe assumption indeed, and given the committed climate change already in the pipeline it is hard to see anything other than an increasing warming trend. In terms of hard numbers, I expect the next El Nino to occur sometime before 2011 and that it will drive the global average temperature for the year in which it occurs to the highest level in recent centuries, probably for millenia. Looking forward, I have confidence in the IPCC mean projection of +0.2C / decade for the next few decades, driven by GHG forcing with shorter lulls and periods of faster warming caused by unforced variability, ENSO, volcanoes etc – this being the pattern we have seen for the last few decades. The trend beyond that largely depends on global economic growth, which is a lot harder to predict,and the extent to which we manage to decouple this from our carbon emissions.
JP.

Bob and Anthony,
I don’t think you should be encouraging this.
Keith (3rd comment) is right. And it’s good to see so many joke and spoof responses.
The viewpoint of the intelligent skeptic is that the future climate cannot be predicted.
Most proper scientists are well aware of this, but unfortunately the IPCC and most ‘climate scientists’ still haven’t got it. The irony is that it was a climate scientist (well, meteorologist) Ed Lorenz who first showed this.

Fernando

I can choose the stick?
Certainly, I want the J.
But: If someone read http://www.surfacestations.org
And ask. How is it possible? with these stations to obtain measures of 0,001 K?
The answer: it is simply statistical magic.
If you remove the magic of the statistical result will be a long-term plan.
The satellite measures are more real. (Apparently). Only as of 1979.
If I understood something. The temperature of the Earth is (290 +/- 10) K. and humanity survived (+ / – 5,000,000 years)
In the context: I agree with Allan said, “Let’s hear what you believe, not just what you do not believe.”

John-X

“Weather-climate signals have become significant, and the global circulation has evolved to exhibiting a strong La-Nina behavior.” Ed Berry, NWS SOO (commenting on his – unofficial – website).
http://weatherclimatelink.blogspot.com/
Cold-phase PDO + re-strengthening La Nina support a cold northern hemisphere winter 2008 – 2009.
Effects of very low solar activity are unproven and remain to be seen.
Unusually cold weather WILL, certainly, be widely blamed on the sun, but a causal link will remain nearly impossible to prove.
Neither is there is any generally-accepted method of forecasting longer-term weather. Official predictions beyond about 7 days are given in terms of “above average,” “below average,” or “equal chances.”
I expect a colder than normal winter this year, and being based on specific atmospheric and ocean patterns, one which will have certain specific features, especially those associated with negative, cold-phase AO & NAO (Arctic Oscillation & North Atlantic Oscillation). Some graphics here
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127
(note especially – FRIGID over the eastern US, the UK and northern Europe).
Solar variations may drive climate variations. There is still no dependable method of predicting solar variations, so it follows that there would be no dependable method of predicting solar-driven climate variations.
After spending many years in their warm phases, decadal to multi-decadal patterns have switched to their cold phases, and may remain there for many years. This is by no means assured.
I think its good for all of us if – modest – cooling continues for several years. That would encourage development of energy generation that actually achieves a goal, for example, actually keeping us warm at a reasonable price, instead of just giving us a warm ‘green’ feeling at an outrageous price…
…and, if we’re very lucky, will encourage the development of food production and distribution which is resilient in conditions of adverse climate.
Otherwise, I fear we may end up going “Green” in a very big way, a very soylent way.

Glenn

Paul Shanahan (14:27:05) :
I predict that in 20 years time, the climate will be be different in some way from today…
REPLY: I think we have a winner! That is about as much as anyone can accurately say. – Anthony
Unless it’s the same as today’s. How can you decide a winner? I cry foul, I say.

Diatribical Idiot

A thread after my own heart. Folly or not, prediction is what actuaries do. Why should letting a little thing like unpredictability in temperatures stand in the way of making a projection?
My methodology is based on actuarial papers, in looking at temperature as a series of values driven by constantly shifting parameters. Correlation is assumed to be driven by 132 months of historical measures.
There are 6 weighting schemes derived as follows:
(1) rolling 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, and 360 month slopes are calculated
(2) The incremental first differences of these rolling slopes are determined
(3) the incremental second differences of these rolling slopes are determined
(4) using solver, optimal weights are determined to apply against the preceding 132 second differences in order to predict the next subsequent second difference, which can then be used to determine the predicted anomaly. The optimum weights are determined by the sum of least squares of the projected anomalies versus actual.
(5) In addition, a straight weighting of actual anomalies is calculated to project the next anomaly, using optimal weights.
(6) Finally, the seven projected anomalies are optimally weighted to determine how much weight to give to each individual method, again determined via least squares.
(7) After all the sets of weights are determined, projected values can be determined. Under the theory that the estimate for the next period is the best estimate, that estimate can then be used to project subsequent anomalies. This can continue for as long as desired. Obviously, the further out one projects, the less accurate it is likely to be. But short-term results have actually been fairly good, in my opinion.
The results of that method are shown here:
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/october-2008-update-on-global-temperature-ncdc/
I list the projected anomalies through 2009 by month, and provide a chart through January 2018.
If I extend this to 2030, I get anomalies around -2 degrees Celsius. But the projections do seem to start breaking down at some point, so I don’t trust the long-term. But I’ll keep tweaking to see if I can figure out improvements that help make out long-term improvements.
Joe Tritz
The Idiot
It uses NCDC anomalies, for no particular reason.

Diatribical Idiot

PaulM: My answer is “pfft.” (respectfully, of course…)
There’s no harm in a fun little game of prediction. As long as you’re not claiming that you know with such confidence what is going to happen that you start proposing governmental policy changes or whatever, I personally get a kick out of seeing how close I can get with such things.
Who cares if I’m wrong? Certainly not me.
Sometimes it’s good to not take yourself too seriously and wring your hands about the negative potential of a seemingly futile exercise. Just put a model together and have some fun, dagnabbit! Life’s too short.

Diatribical Idiot

I really apologize for the three posts in a row, but I also just wanted to apologize for the bandwidth hog of my charts on the link I provided. I am hopefully going to get time to work on that and speed things up tonight.

Les Johnson

JP; I will take that bet. How much you want to wager?

Id say current cooling PDO with predominance of cooling La Ninas over next 20 -30 years – probably drop of 0.5-1 d celcius. Loss of heat/increase of cloud cover due to sun inactivity with solar minimum 2009 and 2 low cycles after – probable drop of temps 0.5 -1 d c. If we get significant volcanism which is more likely during cooling cycles add another 0.5 -1 d c drop. All up drop of 1.5 – 3d c possible on average, however some areas will cool more than others as typical with ENSO trends.

John-X

PaulM (14:33:02) :
Bob and Anthony,
” I don’t think you should be encouraging this.
Keith (3rd comment) is right. And it’s good to see so many joke and spoof responses.
The viewpoint of the intelligent skeptic is that the future climate cannot be predicted.”
Is that another “consensus?”
Rhetorical question. Obviously, it is not another “consensus.” You speak for yourself alone.
You have not been appointed the spokesperson for “the intelligent skeptic,” nor is your opinion anything but your opinion, whether you invoke “the intelligent skeptic,” “the scientific community,” or even, “all us smart people.”
“Most proper scientists are well aware of this,”
omg.
AND you determine which scientists are “proper?” Are you by any chance that guy who’s been appointed (anointed?) the next president?
” but unfortunately the IPCC and most ‘climate scientists’ still haven’t got it. The irony is that it was a climate scientist (well, meteorologist) Ed Lorenz who first showed this.”
The late Edward Norton Lorenz neither “showed” or claimed to “show” any such thing.
Work on becoming a better spokesperson for your own opinion before you presume to speak for others.

Demesure

My predictions:
Cooling until 2030, based on the PDO switching to its la Nina mode and the Sun dimming after high activities in the past 5 decades. Extrapolation based on a sinus curve with about 60 year periods time-synced with the PDO and amplitude-synced with UAH with volcanoes cooling removed. Temperatures and precipitations in the 2030’s will be similar to temperature in the 1970s.
Climate is all cycles so linear extrapolations are useless at best, misleading at worse.

Mike Bryant

I created 36 spaghetti graph models. When I threw them against the wall, every single one of them fell to the floor. I take this as robust proof that temperatures are falling.

Harry G

I predict that in 20 years
I will be enjoying my retirement
The sun will rise in the east and set in the west later that day
There will be a flood somewhere in the world (maybe more than one)
There will be a drought or two somewhere else in the world
There will be a tropical storm brewing up somewhere in the world
A glacier somewhere will shed some ice and another glacier somewher else will gain some ice
There will ice at both the Arctic and Antarctic
We will still be complaining about MSM bias on some issue or other
The internet will need a new means of management due to the amount of traffic on it
Al Gores seaside mansion in California will still be above water
I will be enjoying a glass of red wine produced from my small vineyard as I watch the sun set.

RH

Cooling should continue for a minimum of 5 years. If the sun becomes more active tomorrow, it will take at least 5 years for the oceans to warm. Hopefully, the cooling continues long enough to extinguish this CO2 nonsense. A green earth requires CO2. 1200 parts per million would be a great start.

Don B

Speaking of 20 years… In 1988 Bill Moyers aired a series of interviews on PBS with the late philosopher Joseph Campbell, whose famous saying was “Follow Your Bliss.”
There is a brewing company in Ft. Collins, Colorado, The New Belgian Brewing Co., maker of Fat Tire beer and other brands, whose corporate saying is “Follow Your Folly.”
Reading these blogs, following along, is blissful and definitely not folly.

pyromancer76

This blog and all the comments are great reading. They stimulate my thinking and fantasizing — a non-scientist who has had more than enough of Discovery Channel and its ilk. I can’t do the math that everyone else on this blog adores, but I can read fun articles. I wonder where the next few decades fit into long-term climate change, e.g., the earth transversing an “arm” of the milky way (lots of cosmic rays, therefore, more cloud cover and more cooling); or modern milankovich cycles of 26,000, 21,000, 41,000 years meeting at certain critical points — perhaps one might occur in the next few decades. If I am reading correctly, I think we are moving away from the sun on the eliptical orbit. Would this have anything to do with cooling in the near future, even though the oceans seem to tell the tale. I read one prediction by “Hank” that I thoroughly enjoyed.
“The polar temperatures have been falling already for a few thousands of years, depending how we decide to measure it….Probably the trend will continue. Anytime between this year (2008) and several thousand years from now, we should expect temperatures to plummet….”
I think I read on this blog: “A warm planet is a happy planet”. I’m ready to welcome all the help that CO2 of the modern industrial world can give us for a comfy environment. I thank Anthony and everyone else for one of the most enjoyable places on the internet.

Tom in Florida

It will be partly to mostly cloudy with a 50% chance of decreasing temperature. Overnight lows will be lower and afternoon highs will be higher than the overnight lows. Chance of precipitation is about 40%. Now let’s look at our extended forcast, we’ve got some real nice climate in store for the upcoming half of the century followed by climate change as we head into the later decades. Details at 11:00

Patrick Henry

Don B,
Fat Tire beer is great, but I hate how their brewery (soccer) team always beats my team.
Looks like UAH October LT temperatures are going to be well below last year.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

Patrick Henry

The UAH link didn’t work. This one should do better.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

John Philip

Yep -the Viscount certainly continues to deliver value for money, and is adroit at keeping his media profile at a high level. but does nobody find it a little odd that that the most rational and lucid voice in the world today in opposition to the global warming alarmists has no scientific training and has never published a single academic journal article?
Let us look at the clearest and most penetrating debunking of global warming theory ever written with a properly sceptical eye, and examine only those claims for which Monckton cites support from the literature. Incidentally, he gives no reference list, as would be helpful, so errors may creep in.
Monckton:During each of the last four interglacial periods over the past half-million years, temperature was 5 to 8 °F warmer than the present (Petit et al., 1999).
(Petit et al., 1999). is this paper . It does indeed find warmer temperatures, in the Antarctic anyway ,in previous interglacials, but links these to higher CO2 levels, as they conclude … Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
Take aim at foot…FIRE!
Monckton At both Poles, it was warmer only half a century ago than it is today. For temperatures in the Arctic, see Soon et al. (2004). For the Antarctic, see Doran et al. (2002).
Soon is of course, Willie Soon but I am unable to find anything he published in 2004 on Arctic temperatures. Maybe the reference is to this press release. but it hardly qualifies as published science. For the NOAA view of the Arctic see here
Doran et al did indeed find net Antarctic cooling, but was swiftly rebutted by Turner et al. who found ‘an inappropriate extrapolation of station data across large, data-sparse areas of the Antarctic.’
Monkton: During the Grand Maximum, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any previous similar period in the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005; and see Usoskin et al., 2003; and Hathaway, 2004)
No doubt. But here are Sami Solanki’s thoughts…I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases Ooops!
Monckton: A symposium of the International Astronomical Union [2004] concluded that it is the Sun that was chiefly responsible for the warming of the late 20th century.
I think this is a reference to the conclusions of a single author Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, who believes we should Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
Monckton: From 1700-1998, temperature rose at a near-uniform rate of about 1 °F per century [Akasofu, 2008].
This is Syun-Ichi Akasofu. The reference cannot be to a peer reviewed paper on climate science because Akasofu has not written any. The actual rate is anything but uniform.
Monckton: A recent survey (Schulte, 2008) of 539 peer-reviewed scientific papers published since January 2004 and selected at random using the search term “global climate change” reveals that not a single paper provides any evidence whatsoever that “time is short” or that “the dangers are great”.
Schulte is a consultant endrochrinologist. Schulte 2008 appeared in Energy and Environment. available in a total of 26 libraries worldwide.
Monckton:
Professor Bhat reports that most of the glaciers have been receding at a uniform rate since 1880 at the latest. Some of them had begun receding even before this date. His analysis is confirmed on a global scale by Robinson, Robinson & Soon (2007), who report that since 1880 mountain glaciers have receded worldwide at a near-uniform rate, with no appreciable acceleration in the second half of the 20th century,
Robinson & Robinson are (presumably) Arthur and Zachary Robinson, father and son team who run the OISM. I did not bother searching for the ‘paper’ as neither has any qualifications in climate science. Indeed Monckton appears to be relying for climate science on a guy who issued a bogus scientific paper and his son, whose degree is in vetinary science.
And that, apart from a large amount of unsupported hand-waving, is that. Were I an AGW sceptic I would feel profoundly depressed that the Viscount is apparently as good as it gets.