Friday Funny Double Feature

Today we have excellent joviality from Josh, plus some commercial video commentary on those poor souls in San Francisco that are about to deal with their first significant snow in quite a long time, which some will undoubtedly view as a “snowpocalypse”. Enjoy!

Sir Paul Nurse is the subject, more on the reason behind this cartoon here.

The SUV haters will love this one:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pete Olson

Please dump this in moderation:
‘quite’ not ‘quit’

REPLY:
Dump ???

Bob Diaz

I saw a cute cartoon that offers a good summary on how AGW Scientists must do their work. 😉
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20110225/largeimage.14caf2cbfcca5af005f60d114c353959.gif

RHS

Facts don’t make cartoons funny. People who ignore the facts make the cartoons funny.

Ferdinand Englebeen should comment on this one.

Fred from Canuckistan

ABC reported this morning that the massive arctic outflow that has chilled the west coast will reach as far south as LA by Sunday . . . just in time to chill down all the Hollywood prima donnas as they go from the Prius to walk Oscar’s red carpet.
I am praying for snow.

Cassandra King

This should be presented to all politicians in the UK and US, an easy to follow and perfect representation of the reality that even thick politicians can follow.
Take away the vast amount of confusing fog of overly complex deliberately confusing contradictory and computer models of the CAGW alarmists and the barest most simple dynamics of the supposed problem with CO2 become crystal clear to all. I look forward to Pauls ideas on earthquakes and how CAGW is to blame, if it makes as much sense as his CO2 fantasies it should make for hilarious reading.
Paul Nurse the alarmist true believer in charge of the Royal Society unable to even work out the correct ratios of atmospheric gases, their relative warming effects? Perhaps he was elected to because of his mindless obedience to the CAGW theology and because he is politically reliable but clearly he is no asset to the alarmist cult if he makes an idiot of himself when he opens his mouth, on second thoughts…hooooray for Paul…you go girl..shoot from the hip…dont think just shout it all out!

reason

I have to say, the “Never Neutral” commercial series has been very funny so far.
The Charger one that makes a vague Matrix reference (the movie, not the Toyota) still gets a chuckle out of me.

So, when Paul obtained his PhD, did that make him Doctor Nurse?
(sorry, it’s been a long week)

For those concerned about his day job, Sir Paul is the president of the Royal Society of Phrenologists.

DAV

Totally irrelevant but the voiceover in the ad sounds like Michael Hall from Dexter.

DAV

Not so irrelevant: I’ve over 1 million driving miles on snow and ice. I also grew up in hilly country. I’ve only encountered a handful of situation where 4WD would have come in handy. Driving on snow and ice just needs a little common sense. The main thing is to avoid spinning the wheels. This is easier with a manual transmission. Start in fourth gear if that’s what it takes. That’s not the only technique of course but its the main one. Saw a woman get stuck on a 1% grade road once in Chicago of all places. She kept on spinning the wheels instead of easing out.
That ad is close to reality where I live though.

ShrNfr

Royal Society of Phrenologists. Say didn’t they have their own journal back in the 1800s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology (subject to sales tax in State of Michigan).

Craig Whyte

The Dodge commercial shows the thinking of people in the south, where 2 inches shut down central NC for a week in mid January.
Or as my wife says, “Someone threw an ice cube onto the street! WE’RE DOOMED!”

Rob Potter

Good point Dav (DAV says: February 25, 2011 at 11:59 am).
I’m a firm believer in winter tires myself – never had a 4WD in Norway or here in Canada, but the extra set of wheels with winter tires on is a must. Of course, you have to have them on the car before the snow falls……

“REPLY: Dump ???”
Pete Olson was meaning that his comment informing you about a spelling correction can be deleted and need not be published at all.

mikemUK

I feel a little sorry for Nurse.
Rarely can a scientist have achieved such a peak of emminence – knighthood, Presidency of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize etc. – only to be almost immediately made to look a complete idiot.
I can only imagine that the euphoria of success and celebrity made him lose his better judgement in this case, to throw himself into such a contentious debate so far removed from his own area of expertise.
And do so without carrying out some elementary research; and then not to preview the result prior to broadcast, to ensure he had his facts right.
I’ll bet he’s never published a learned paper in this slipshod manner.

Bulldust

Is the “Never Neutral” a bit of a dog whistle* (as we call it in Australia) referrence to carbon neutrality?
* A term used predominantly in politics… saying one thing, but intending a second message to the true believers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

dwright

Amusing but:
AWD can do more harm than good if the driver doesn’t know how to use it properly- don’t lift in a skid, you will spin etc.
I used to live in Banff, AB and after a snowstorm the Trans-Canada highway ditches would be littered with SUVs while I would blast through in my Shelby Daytona (fwd and turbo’ed to near critical mass) front splitter 4″ of the ground made a great snowplow…

James Sexton

mikemUK says:
February 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I’ll bet he’s never published a learned paper in this slipshod manner.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One would hope not, but after the scores of published papers I’ve read, I can tell you there is no guarantee.

Mister Ed

4WD is a bit like a spare tire or some money in the bank. I’ve never regretted having it when I didn’t need it – the regret kicks in when it’s the other way ’round. Bravo if you’ve never found yourself in that situation and can reasonably expect that you never will.

Sam Hall

The one thing that fools with 4wd never seem to figure out is that it doesn’t do a thing to help you stop.
(yes, I have paid my dues on ice and snow. )

One of the objections that I often get when I present the argument that Josh used in his cartoon is that CO2 contributes much more to warming than some of the other gases… what I’m wondering is what is the alleged warming contribution by each GHG based upon it’s volume (rather than it’s percentage of the total GHG in the atmosphere)? Also which papers attempt or assert that they substantiate such claims?

Stephen Brown

Driving in the snow ….

Mister Ed

People who need 4WD only in the winter are missing the funnest part!

Frank K.

We just got another BIG shot of snow here in western New Hampshire (about 8″ – 10″). I have snow canyons around my house up to my shoulder now. I don’t EVEN want to think about mud season…

It's always Marcia, Marcia

I’m in the San Fran area. It’s warmer today than was forecast. No snow fell at all. But they are still saying Arctic cold will hit, tomorrow.

It's always Marcia, Marcia

mikemUK says:
February 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I feel a little sorry for Nurse.
Rarely can a scientist have achieved such a peak of emminence – knighthood, Presidency of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize etc. – only to be almost immediately made to look a complete idiot

Steven Chu is not doing much better here in the USA. These men have strayed from they area of learning.

Hoser

Bulldust says:
February 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm
The concept of dog-whistle politics is interesting. However, the link seems to be (in typical Wiki fashion) left-slanted propaganda. In particular, I greatly object to the use of a Lee Atwater quote to attack Reagan. The implication being that Reagan used coded racism in his politics. Ridiculous.
Racism was open and clear on the other side. Republicans were founded as the party to abolish slavery, and later worked hard to get voting rights for women. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed without the overwhelming support of Republicans to break the filibuster by former KKK member, Senator Robert Byrd, a Southern Democrat. Atwater, a southerner himself, was likely speaking about southern politics and the tactics of the other side, which he knew quite well. Reagan would have supported the idea that states should have a large degree of sovereignty, and not be crushed by the Federal government. That is what the South was really fighting about during the Civil War. Reagan, a closet racist? Preposterous.
Wiki is OK sometimes, but it is not an objective source of information. There is already enough politics surrounding climate that we don’t need to inject more. I just wanted to set the record straight, whether or not I was successful.

John from CA

That one is great Josh!!!
Have a great weekend.

At least you have all four seasons, snow season, mud season, bug season and prepare for the snow season 🙂

Sam Hall says:
February 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm
The one thing that fools with 4wd never seem to figure out is that it doesn’t do a thing to help you stop. (yes, I have paid my dues on ice and snow. )
=============
Heh. Got that right. We take our 4wd SUV (mud and snow tires) through plenty of snow, sometimes towing people out from where they got stuck. Put a bit of ice on the road and that 4wd is no help at all. Fortunately for us, all of our ice slides have been at very low speeds.

John Whitman

You must appreciate CAGW in one aspect.
It is an endless subject of humor.
John

walt man

Run water from a tap into a basin with a small hole.
Adjust the rate until inflow=outflow
(==Natural CO2 cycle is in balance)
Throw in a cupful of water (==CO2 from volcano) and the water level will increase as will the outflow rate. Eventually it will reach equilibrium again (the level will be similar to the initial condition).
Turn the tap on 3% faster the water level will rise until the increased pressure causes the inflow rate to equal the outflow rate. This is a fixed rise, and will not lower unless the hole is made bigger (==more plant growth/sea water absorption perhaps).
If the outflow is fixed then it does not matter how little the inlet is turned up the basin will eventually overflow.
The very small increase in % of atmosphere is just about irrelevant (remember that O3 is even lower concentration but stops just about ALL sw UV reaching the ground.

wakeupmaggy

I liked the graphic depiction in Josh’s cartoon of the percentage of man made CO2. My favorite is this you tube video that used rice grains to help us get perspective.

Patrick Davis

Great cartoon. Every discussion I have with an AGW supporter where I state the % of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities is trivial compared to natural sources, I always receive the same responce “Its not the % man adds to the total which is significant. Its the % increase from the re-industrial age to today which is important.” The ~40% increase over the last ~150 years which is dangerous, apparently, but it is a bigger, scarier, number I guess. Also, which worries me, ALL AGW supporters I have spoken to still claim that CO2 is pollution AND “traps and stores” heat.
Caught the tail end of a program on ABC here in Australia today. According to the interviewed expert, the recent floods in Queensland never happend before to the same extent and recent bush fires in Western Australia (WA) were a result of climate change. La Nina was mentioned too, and, yes, you guessed it. More severe La Nina events will be come more frequent due to climate change. Clearly he’s not kept up with actual observations, in particular WA. Those fires were started deliberately. Maybe arsonists are caused by climate change?
As to AWD/4WD vehicles in the ad, I’ve driven 4×4’s, (Parttime 4×4, fulltime 4×4, systems with locking and/or limited slip centre differentials, tourqe biasing couplings, manual and automatic transmissions) practically all my driving life and too in motorsport, in all weather and surface conditions. Even with the weight penatly and drag on power, I know what works and I know what I’d stick with.

Patrick Davis

“walt man says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:26 pm”
Are you suggesting the atmosphere has a limited, fixed, capacity like a basin? That’s quite a bit misleading.

Ed Mertin says:
February 25, 2011 at 10:26 am
Ferdinand Englebeen should comment on this one.
Thanks, that is what I will do here…
Ladies and gentlemen, the cartoon of Josh is funny, but completely besides the question. As walt man already replied: it is completely irrelevant how much in % the human additions are. What is relevant is the total balance of CO2 in the atmosphere: a net gain of some 4 GtC (2 ppmv) per year (measured). Humans add 8 GtC (4 ppmv) per year (based on fuel sales). Whatever reasoning you try, natural inflows and outflows represent a net loss of 2 ppmv (4 GtC) per year. Thus while nature adds some estimated 150 GtC within one year, in the same year it removes 154 GtC out of the atmosphere. It is completely irrelevant if the estimate of natural emissions in this case is 1,5 GtC, 150 GtC or 15000 GtC per year. In all cases the natural removal is 4 GtC more than the natural emissions (because that is calculated from fuel use and CO2 measurements in the atmosphere).
The net result is that humans are responsible for (near) the total increase of CO2 in the past at least 50 years and most of the increase in the past 160 years. No matter if the human addition is only 0.03%, 3% or 300% of the natural addition. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg

Harold Pierce Jr

pwl says on February 25, 2011 at 2:28 pm:
One of the objections that I often get when I present the argument that Josh used in his cartoon is that CO2 contributes much more to warming than some of the other gases… what I’m wondering is what is the alleged warming contribution by each GHG based upon it’s volume (rather than it’s percentage of the total GHG in the atmosphere)? Also which papers attempt or assert that they substantiate such claims?
===========================
Check out: “Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers” by Monte Hieb, an engineer employed by the WV Office of Miner’s Health, Safety and Training.
The article is vailable at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
This is a very well-known article and has been cited many times on many blogs.
However, I have found some suspicious numbers for the emission of CO2 in Table 1.
Although he cites the sources in ref 1, the report “Greenhouse Gases and Climate” Change” costs $400 for those who are not a member of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme. Wow! What a paywall!
Although the amount of CO2 produced by combustion of fossils fuels can calculated with reasonable accuracy, the amount produced by other activitives of such as deforestion, combustion of fire wood and agriculture operations cannot.
For example, plowing and tilling of soil exposes organic material to the air and this undergoes slow oxidations. Fertilization will enhance the growth of soil organisms such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes, worms, insects, etc, all of which respire and release CO2. Killing weeds and insects with pesticides results in the release of CO2 from their decomposition.
Large amounts of CO2 are released by farm animals. Calculation of the amount released by the animals would be difficult for countries like China, India, and Indonesia, Brazil, etc which have large and diverse rural populations and whose populations of animals are not exactly known.
Another sources of CO2 is fermentation. In advanced countries this is recovered and used for carbonation of many beverages suchas a soda pop. In many countrys, the CO2 is released into the air. Presently there is a shortage of beverage grade CO2.
Heib is an engineer and he develops a proceedure and template that is easy to follow and understand. His calculations are for October 2000 but could be easily updated by using new data.

Patrick Davis

“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:25 am”
Great post. Questions. Is this rise in A-CO2 emissions damaging and disruptive to and/or changing climate on the planet?

Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:26 am
Check out: “Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers” by Monte Hieb, an engineer employed by the WV Office of Miner’s Health, Safety and Training.
Monte Hieb is using the percentages of “human” CO2 in the total carbon cycle. Which is quite different than what is its impact on the total increase (which is currently around 30%). Further, while most of the radiation impact is from water vapour, CO2 acts in a part of the spectrum where water vapour is not active. Thus his percentages of impact don’t add up (if you use Modtran which takes that into account).
You have a fountain where a pump drives the circulation over the fountain from the reservoir at the foot with 1,000 liter per minute and you add a small flow of 1 liter per minute via a hose. No matter how much is circulating over the fountain, no matter how low the percentage of the extra flow (in this case 0.1%), the increase in level of the fountain base is 100% the result of the extra inflow.

Patrick Davis says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:35 am
Great post. Questions. Is this rise in A-CO2 emissions damaging and disruptive to and/or changing climate on the planet?
As far as there is an influence on climate, it would be mostly beneficial: least impact near the equator, most impact towards the poles: longer growing seasons from the mid-latitudes to Siberia and Alaska… Much depends on the feedbacks, but history shows little influence of (relative) huge CO2 changes.

Richard S Courtney

walt man:
At February 25, 2011 at 9:26 pm you assert:
“Natural CO2 cycle is in balance”
No. It never has been and it never will be “in balance”.
I wonder where you obtained such as silly notion as the “Natural CO2 cycle is in balance”.
Richard

Patrick Davis

“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:16 am”
Thanks for the reply. Why aren’t you applying for the position of IPCC chair?

Patrick Davis says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Thanks for the reply. Why aren’t you applying for the position of IPCC chair?
Big Oil pays better…

Disputin

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:10 am
Hmm. The unspoken assumption there is that all other things are equal. What if the CO2 release increases as a result of the rising temperatures? (Drying peat bogs, melting permafrost, etc.)

Disputin says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:02 am
Hmm. The unspoken assumption there is that all other things are equal. What if the CO2 release increases as a result of the rising temperatures? (Drying peat bogs, melting permafrost, etc.)
There is no assumption about other things necessary: we know the emissions with reasonable accuracy (maybe somewhat underestimated) from fossil fuel sales inventories (taxes!). We measure with good accuracy the increase in the atmosphere. The difference is the net balance of all natural flows together at the end of the year.
Take that in a certain year there was a huge CO2 emission from a volcano (Pinatubo,…) this could deliver an extra 2 ppmv in 1992 (extreme example, reality is a factor 100 lower). In 1992 we have 3 ppmv of calculated emissions and the measured increase is about 0.5 ppmv. That makes that:
increase in the atmosphere = natural inputs + 2 – natural outputs + human input
or
0.5 = natural inputs – natural outputs + 2 + 3
or
natural inputs – natural outputs = -4.5 ppmv
Thus some 4.5 ppmv (9 GtC) was absorbed more than emitted by natural sinks/sources. No matter the real hight of the natural in/outputs were in that year or how much these changed from the previous year(s), as long as the emissions are larger than what is measured as increase in the atmosphere, the variability of the natural inflows is completely absorbed by the natural sinks and the human emissions are the sole contributor to the increase.
In case you wonder why the sinks increased during the Pinatubo eruption: the ash cloud did cool the earth with about 0.6°C, which led to more CO2 absorption by the oceans, overwhelming the increase of CO2 caused by the same volcano… An additional effect seems that scathering of incoming sunlight by the volcanic aerosols leads to more effective photosynthesis of leaves which are (part of the day) in the shadow of other leaves for direct sunlight.

Forgot to add:
The previous interglacial was average 2°C warmer that the current one, including 5-10°C warmer temperatures in Alaska and Siberia. Permafrost probably all gone, ice free Arctic, halve Greenland melted. CO2 levels: 290 ppmv, methane: 700 ppbv. Current CO2 levels: 390 ppmv, methane: 1800 ppbv…

Harold Pierce Jr

ATTN: Ferdinand Engelbeen
The GHG concentration data is valid _only_ for purified dry air (PDA) which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised only of nitrogen, oxygen, and the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and carbon dioxide. At STP, one cubic meter of PDA has 390 ml, 17.4 mmoles or 0.000766 kg of pure CO2, and has a mass of 1.2929 kg.
Monte Hieb has done a “snapshot” calculation for a one dimensional earth under constant illumination and with a optically-clear (i.e., no clouds or aerosols) atmosphere of uniform composition. He did not specify temperature, pressure and specific humidity.
Please go to Universl Industrial Gases Inc.’s website, print out and study
the tables, snd learn how temperaure, pressure and humidity affect the physical properties and composition of air.
http://www.uigi.com/air_html
If one cubic meter PDA at 30 deg F (ca 0 deg C) and 1 atm pressure is heated to 90 deg F, the amount of CO2 declines from 17.4 mmoles to 15.5 mmoles, but the conc is still 390 ppmv. If the air becomes saturated with water vapor (50,800 ppmv) the amount of CO2 declines to 12.6 mmoles (282 ml) and conc of CO2 drops slightly to 282 ppmv for this hot wet air.
If one cubic meter of PDA is cooled -53 deg C, the amount of CO2 is 22.0 mmoles but the conc is still 390 ppmv.
Why do I mention all of this? In real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the gases in space and time and in particular that of water vapor and CO2. Monte Hieb’s calculation is merely a “cocktail napkin” calculation unless temperature, pressure and humidity are specified. What would be CO2’s contibution to the so-called greenhouse effect for the hot wet tropical air?
EB says, “…CO2 acts in a part of the spectrum where water vapour is not active. Check out: “Water in the Atmosphere” by Joel Kauffman at:
http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~3b1740/greenhouse/H2O_FEL_LAEROBOK.PDF
Presumably, you are referring to the feeble CO2 peaks centered at ca 670 wave numbers. The center peak has an net absorbance of 0.025. If this summer air were in cell with a pathlength of 280 cm, 99% of the IR light would be absorbed and rapidly thermalized by collisions with nitrogen, oxygen and water molecules and with argon atoms. The shoulder peaks have a net absorbance of 0.01 and 99% of the IR light would be absorbed and thermalized in a cell with a pathlenght of 1,400 cm. If the conc of CO2 is doubled, the pathlength for 99% absorbption of the IR light would be halved. These data lend support to
proposal the CO2 IR bands are saturated.
EB says, “Monte Hieb is using the percentages of “human” CO2 in the total carbon cycle. Which is quite different than what is its impact on the total increase (which is currently around 30%).”
If PDA is used as a reference for the increase of CO2 since pre-industrial times (ca, 1800) just how much of that 100 pppmv of CO2 is due activities of man? How much is due to final end of the LIA (ca 1900) and the slow warm up of the earth? I don’t know.
CO2 Wildcard: How much CO2 is in the water droplets of clouds? It is not zero and most likely lots.

Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:56 pm
To begin with the last remark:
If PDA is used as a reference for the increase of CO2 since pre-industrial times (ca, 1800) just how much of that 100 pppmv of CO2 is due activities of man? How much is due to final end of the LIA (ca 1900) and the slow warm up of the earth? I don’t know.
The impact of temperature on CO2 levels is pretty well known from ice cores: about 8 ppmv/°C. That holds for glacial/interglacial intervals over the past 800,000 years as good as for the MWP-LIA cooling (the latter in the high resolution Law Dome ice core). Currently the short-term response to temperature changes is about 4 ppmv/°C around the trend.
That means that for the warming since the LIA the maximum increase of CO2 was 0.8×8 = 6.4 ppmv. The total increase in the same time span is 100 ppmv. Humans emitted some 200 ppmv CO2 in the same time span. Thus at least 93.6 ppmv increase is caused by the human emissions, or about 30%.
CO2 in water drops seems very minor (I have seen the calculations somewhere, but forgot them as unimportant). Anyway, if it rains, that gives no measurable changes in CO2 levels, while increasing temperatures at ground level and evaporation should increase the CO2 levels if it was important.
————
As (retired) chemical engineer, I have some (rusty) knowledge of gases behaviour and even rustier knowledge about radiation budgets… Monte Hieb did lump all air layers together to calculate his CO2 contribution to the GHG effect. But we have quite good laboratory test based calculations of line by line absorption/emissions bands for different gas pressures and constituents content, integrated over any height/pressure and over all wavelengths, including water vapour changes, cloud cover, CH4,… for parts of the earth (tropics, mid latitudes, polar) or earth total. See:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html
Modtran is a simpler program, with a rougher integration of wavelengths than Hitran, which was developed by the US Army (if I remember well). But it shows the result of different changes quite well. Just try the difference in total outgoing radiance for the standard atmosphere for 290 and 390 ppmv CO2.

Harold Pierce Jr

Hello Ferdinand
I am an retired organic chemist [B.Sc. (Hon). ’67 U of Ill; Ph.D., ’73 UC Irvine]. I was in researcher in Prof J. H. Borden’s insect pheromone group at SFU in Burnaby for 30 years. Our group isolated and indentified pheromones of pests of forests, stored products commodities (grain and food) and agriculture. I did pheromone isolation, identification and synthesis. Google H. D. Pierce, Jr. for a quick look at the bugs we worked on.
Did you check the Kauffman article? The spectrum is only one I seen of a sample of real air and shows that CO2 is indeed an minor GHG. A spectrum is empirical data and it trumps the fancy computer programs. BTW Kauffman is an organic chemist and earned his Ph.D. at MIT.
The major and fatal flaw in climate calculations is the wrong metric for CO2 is used. As I mentioned, CO2 concentration data is valid only for PDA.
Weather maps show there is no uniform distribution of mass in the atmosphere. High pressure cells have more regional mass and drier air than do low pressure cells which bring weather like rain, snow, tropical cyclones, and tornados.
Clouds are real trouble makers and the climate scientist’s worst nightmare. The water droplets are contain CO2, and as they move about they constantly altering the amount of CO2 and water vapor in the local gas phase. How do the models take this into account?
You should check out Alan Cheetam’s website:
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming
This is _the_ one stop, shop-until-you-drop store on global warming and climate change info. In particular, scroll down and check the entry re FAO report on climate cycles and fish production.
This article shows that there is a 60 year climate cycle which has a cool and warm phase of about 30 years each. The cool phase started in ca 2000 and will last another
20 years. Its going to cold like real cold.