Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page
Most climate warming alarmists have recently realized that it is now counterproductive to attribute every and all extreme weather events (even cold snowy winters) to global warming and try to project a judicious objectivity by applying the cliché “weather isn’t climate” to both sides of the climate wars. In fact weather is an almost instantaneous slice through the climate space-time phase space and certain patterns will occur more frequently on a cooling rather than a warming world.
The basic principles are very simple. On a cooler Earth the temperature gradient from the tropics to the Arctic Circle is steeper.
![FS_km5000.sm[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fs_km5000-sm1.jpg?resize=600%2C315&quality=83)
This increased gradient creates instability and the jet stream swings further North and South as opposed to its more West – East path during warmer periods. According to the season, blocking highs may develop with colder, drier, air penetrating further South and warm moist air reaching further North. There can be enormous temperature and humidity contrasts in the narrow boundary between these masses as warm air is sucked in from the Gulf. Conditions along such a boundary are ideal for developing the wind shear necessary for the tornado swarm development seen recently in Oklahoma.
The blocking highs also push hurricanes to the east so that hurricanes like Sandy are more likely to occur.
Note that Sandy was not a powerful Hurricane in fact it came ashore as a tropical storm. The big storm surge was the result of its long path over open water while a real cooling signal was seen in the development of blizzard conditions in the NW quadrant. This classic weather pattern is shown for today 6/02/13 in Figs 1 and 2 and occurs more often during a cooling phase of the PDO and is often triggered by an E Pacific La Nina cooling, as seen in the 6/01/13 SST anomaly map Fig 3 (h/t to The Weather Channel).
It is worth noting that the pattern seen in Fig 1 is also ideal for steering any Atlantic Hurricane which develops this season in a Sandy type direction.
Fig1
Fig2
Fig3
By contrast on a warmer world tropical SSTs are higher EL Ninos more common and more powerful category 4 and 5 hurricanes e.g. Katrina and Gilbert can develop. Their path is more E-W so that they more frequently hit the Gulf Coast or even Central America.
More generally, a cooling earth is a drier earth because the winds pick up less water vapor from the cooler oceans. In the USA the cool waters off the West Coast (Fig3) will lead to more generalized droughts in the Center, West and SW and when combined with more frequent late and early frosts and snows food crop production will be threatened. What rains do come will paradoxically come from storms leading to flash flooding further restricting food production. In California itself the south will be dryer with more forest fires while in the North more of the rains will come as snow so that increasing snow pack will ameliorate the overall dryer conditions.
Most of the ideas expressed above were included in the post “”30 Years Climate Forecast” in June 2010 on my blog at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com and revisited in June 2012 in the post “30 Year Climate Forecast -2 year update.”
There has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up over 8%. The SSTs show a cooling trend since 2003.
The problem with the IPCC and MetOffice Climate models is that, apart from the egregious structural errors in the specific models, (assuming that CO2 is the main driver when it clearly follows temperature and adding water vapor as a feedback onto CO2 to increase the sensitivity) climate science is so complex that the modelling approach is inherently incapable of providing useful forecasts for several reasons; for starters the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions with sufficient precision. All the IPCC model projections and the impact studies and government policies which depend on them are a total waste of time and money.
The only useful approach is to perform power spectrum and wavelet analysis on the temperature and possible climate driver time series to find patterns of repeating periodicities and project them forward. When this is done it is apparent that the earth entered a cooling phase in 2003-4 which will likely last for 20 more years and perhaps for several hundred years beyond that. For the data and references supporting this conclusion check the post “Climate Forecasting Basics for Britains Seven Alarmist Scientists” and several earlier posts on Climate Forecasting and Global Cooling especially “Global Cooling – Climate and Weather Forecasting” from 11/18/13.
Here is a summary of the latest forecast based not on the particular events referred to above but on the data and references linked in the series of posts on the climatesense-norpag site.
It is not a great stretch of the imagination to propose that the 20th century warming peaked in about 2003 and that peak was a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles. On that basis the conclusions of the posts referred to above were as follows.
- Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
- Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22.
- Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
- Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
- Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
- General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
- By 2650 earth could be back to the depths of the little ice age.
- The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields.
- 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 predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigour 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 judgement comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition than others.
A past record of successful forecasting is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that, inevitably, certainty must drop.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Steven Devijver says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:22 am
” ” More generally, a cooling earth is a drier earth because the winds pick up less water vapor from the cooler oceans.”
Evaporation is function of vapor pressure, not of temperature”
Steve, I can’t leave you with this misunderstanding (I thought someone here would have pointed it out before now – function of vapour pressure, correct but vp itself is a function of temp.
.http://courses.chem.psu.edu/chem12h/vapor.pdf
Indeed, at 10C the saturation vp is double that at 0C and at 20C is double that at 10C, not quite redoubles at 30 C.
“John Tillman says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:56 am”
Thanks for that.
“More generally, a cooling earth is a drier earth because the winds pick up less water vapor from the cooler oceans.”
I would think that the polar/NH to equatorial temperature gradients driving average higher wind speeds would result in MORE water evaporation (think unheated hand dryers in rest rooms everywhere). And based on my experience with swimming pools, temperature would be a minor factor relative to wind speed. The higher evaporation would cause water/air cooling and possibly drive higher cloud cover with increasing amounts relative to NH distance to the equator, reducing effective solar input even more (on average). Then once the snow cover kicks in…… A possible downward spiral making warm periods the exception?
Without getting into a lot of detail about the mechanisms, which are conjecture at this point, (we don’t really know), when we are in a cool phase the Arctic is cooler, sea ice increases, and systems moving to the south from the high latitudes are colder. However, over a whole cycle, the tropics both warm and cool much less than high latitudes, with very little change at the equator. Thus air masses moving up from the south do not cool as much as those moving down from the Arctic. Hence, when such masses meet, in a cooler world there is a larger temperature gradient at the interface, which will fuel more powerful storms, at least for tornadoes over North America. Murray.
To author Norman:
All your conclusions are good and correct, the driving forces behind
the cooling process are 5 macro-forcings, calculated in
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html
Take a look, cheers JS
murrayv says:
June 5, 2013 at 8:08 am
“…in a cooler world there is a larger temperature gradient at the interface, which will fuel more powerful storms, at least for tornadoes over North America.”
Hmm… based on what? Looking at tornado statistics over the last 100 years, I can’t discern any correspondence of incidence to global average temperature, either warming *or* cooling.
I think Dr. Page is probably wrong about the 1000 year cycle. It bottomed near the middle of the 6th century, peaked in the 11th century, bottomed again in the late 17th century (about 1100 years ?), so the next peak should be expected about the middle of the 23rd century. Whenever I see comments about the various solar cycles, the Jose cycle (180 years) seems to be ignored. Looking back at the last few centuries a case can be made for a Jose peak about 1940-45., which would suggest the next bottom about 2030-35. The 60 year cycle probably did peak about 2003/5, so will also bottom near 2035. We also have a solar deep grand minimum under way, for which the coldest period might be near 2035. I think Vukcevic’s projection is right for the coming bottom, but fails to take into account the ca 1100 year cycle and the Jose cycle for his projection from there on. The LIA had all of these cycles bottoming. Tis time we lack the 1000 year cycle bottom. The descent into the next really cool period should bottom in the 28th century – like the LIA or the end of the current interglacial? Murray
This scenario is actually more troubling than 3 deg C warming.
Murayv I said
” I would suggest that the currently most useful compilation for thinking about the record of the last 2000 years is.Fig 5 in Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf .
This is Fig 3 in my post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/05/climate-forecasting-basics-for-britains.html”
The closest millenial cycle is probably the most relevant – the 1000 peak seems pretty good here.
See also Fig 2 in the last link for the miennial cycle.periodicity.
James@48 Very true. I’m hoping people will realise that themselves. I don’t want to sound like a reverse alarmist by stressing the point.
Philip Bradley
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/dust_files/BIGdust_-_epica.gif.gif
The changes am seeing to the jet stream over here in the UK all point to a cooling climate.
l have noticed the pattern changing since 2007, where they has been a increasing trend in the jet stream moving south. lt started off been mostly during the summer months, but now its extending to the rest of the year. The current jet stream pattern over europe does not bode well for the coming winter. Because if the current pattern stays in place then its risk on for a other winter like 1962/63 to take place here in europe.
“Winter is coming.”
OT: http://ezralevant.com/2013/06/taking-on-turbine-towers.html
lgl @ur momisugly 9.38. Your link illustrates my colder – dryer point beautifully. Thanks.
Speaking of Sandy by an odd coincidence I captured the birth of Sandy…..http://markesanchez-marke.newsvine.com/_news/2012/10/28/14762575-the-spirit-of-the-atlantic-surveys-his-realm
John Tillman says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:08 am
izen says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:57 am
———————————
OK Izen, John beat me to it, but thanks for your answer.
You provided data relating to sea level rise (albeit questioned by other commenters), BUT provided zero data supporting the rest of the assertions in your post. So we can let WUWT readers assume that there isn’t any. That would fit with my observations too, as I can’t find any either.
From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2012/h2012_Sandy.html
“Sandy Was Still a Hurricane After Landfall
On Oct. 29, 2012 at 11 p.m. EDT, the center of Hurricane Sandy was just 10 miles (15 km) southwest of Philadelphia, Penn., near 39.8 North and 75.4 West. Sandy was still a hurricane with maximum sustained winds near 75 mph (120 kph) and moving northwest at 18 mph (30 kph). Sandy’s minimum central pressure had risen to 952 millibars. The hurricane-force-winds extended 90 miles (150 km) east of the center of circulation. Tropical-storm-force winds, however, went much further, as far as 485 miles (780 km). ”
This is interesting as well http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
By the way, Billy, are you any relation of Keith Waterhouse?
Admission of error: Sandy reached Jamaica as a cat 1 hurricane.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:25 am
“All I do is to make the perfectly reasonable assumption that the recent temperature peak was a peak in both the 60 year and a millenial solar cycle.and that the trends for 2000+/- to 3000+/- will repeat the 1000- 2000 trends with a little extra cooling because of the longer term decline to the next Big Ice Age. “
Well, see. There are some traps. An analysed 60 year cycle is concluded from a temperature spectrum with a calibrated time scale from what? Timescales from isotopic samples do not have the astronomical accuracy. It can be shown that some relevant FFT power peaks are fitting with the solar tides only, if the time scale is shifted by a factor. This suggests that the isotopic calibration is not correct, and if this is true, then it is possible that the value of the 60 years is also not correct.
An other trap is the power strength of a temperature peak. In general the frequency dependence is a well known 1/f² function, and the frequency is the synodic tide frequency. But if the function of a cycle is not a simple sinusoid function, there do appear higher harmonics at higher frequencies. This is the case for a near ‘200’ year cycle in the spectrum, but it is still the 5th harmonic of the main solar tide period of ~900 years. To calculate the temperature approach it is therefore unalterable to calculate the strength of each single tide frequency out from the 1/f² law and take the real astronomical tide function, which has never a sinusoid shape. Only by this doing one gets a good temperature approach and a good temperature forecast.
Regarding the mechanism of solar physics, it is remarkable that the Neutrino capture rate correlates positive with the hadcrut4 temperature.
There is – known since G. Bond – a ~900 year climate period, from which the Little Ice Age is a triple minimum, and it will repeat again in some centuries; This is not to be mixed up with the saw tooth like Big Ice Age periods of 41 ky or 90 ky. At present the sea level rise has finished in praxis and has started some 15.000 – 20.000 years ago. With the long cooling phase of maybe 40 ky to 90 ky the next Big Ice Age will not repeat prior to that time span.
izen says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:57 am
“The global land ice mass balance continues to be very negative with accelerating loss of ice from glaciers and icecaps. If cooling was really starting since 2003 then someone needs to tell all the melting glaciers, ice caps and the summer Arctic sea ice….”
Melting depends not on the differential of temperatures but on temperatures. Why do you warmists never argue rationally?
Dr Norman Page says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:25 am
Extrapolation from existing trends is really my approach. I agree with the early decadal extrapolations on the graph you linked to. Eyeballing it, it looks like the peaks are suspiciously close to the 60 year PDO cycle
That may be the case, but I am not entirely convinced since periods vary between ~45 and ~65 years (top graph)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVb.htm
indeed average since 1650s is 60 years, but the PDO’s records are not long enough to make a conclusive judgment.
On the other hand the CET periodicity follows closely the tectonic events in the N. Atlantic which are unlikely to be caused by PDO, but they are loosely correlated to solar activity (last graph), something in future science may wish to consider.
The actual temperature curve is the end result of interactions between the phases of multiple drivers .First the Milankovic orbital cycles and then solar cycle activity cycles of various lengths.I believe that the neutron count is a good proxy for solar activity mainly the solar magnetic field strength.and captures most of the first principal component.Using wavelet analysis you can see the amplitude of any resonances come and go through time. At certain periods some frequencies are more prominent than others.Forecasts can be based on repeat periodicities operative closest in time to the start point where other things are most likely to be eaqual In this case I really believe the
Christiansen et al time proxy series linked at my 9.02 post is most useful. It checks well against the written climate and weather record reported eg in Fagans book “The Little Ice Age”
The uncertainty lies in whether we are at the peak of a millenial cycle or not – right now it sure seems reasonably plausible looking at the Christiansen reconstruction.
izen says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:57 am
@- philincalifornia and RobRoy
Who question the scientific reality of recent accelerating sea level rise….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
…have paid attention to their geology courses sea level rise graph.
(The hysteria about ‘Sea Level Rise’ would be hysterically funny if it wasn’t used as a political club.)
izen says: @ur momisugly June 5, 2013 at 5:57 am
The global land ice mass balance continues to be very negative with accelerating loss of ice from glaciers and icecaps. If cooling was really starting since 2003 then someone needs to tell all the melting glaciers, ice caps and the summer Arctic sea ice….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some One DID.
Again you are not paying attention to the longer view.
H/T to John Kehr, the Inconvenient Skeptic. (Leave it to an engineer to have both feet planted firmly in reality.)
Dr Norman Page says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“The uncertainty lies in whether we are at the peak of a millenial cycle or not – right now it sure seems reasonably plausible looking at the Christiansen reconstruction.”
The caveat would be resolution of the proxies, for the same reason that it is incorrect to append a high resolution recent instrumental series to a low resolution one. The older data may have variability greatly reduced compared to recent data. One must be sure he isn’t looking at a hockey stick.