Cause of 'the pause' in global warming

Guest essay by Don J. Easterbrook, Dept of Geology, Western Washington University

clip_image002
Figure 1. Correlation of glacier fluctuations on Mt. Baker with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global climate. (Easterbrook, 2001, 2011)

The absence of global warming for the past 17 years has been well documented. It has become known as “the pause.” and has been characterized as the “biggest mystery in climate science,” but, in fact, it really isn’t a mystery at all, it was predicted in 1999 on the basis of consistent, recurring patterns of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and global climate.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the causal relationship between global warming/cooling and the PDO and AMO is to recount how these correlations were discovered. In 1999, while studying recent glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker in the North Cascade Range, a pattern of recurring advances and retreats became apparent. In the wee hours one night, I came across a 1997 paper by Mantua, et al., “A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production,” an early recognition of the PDO. The PDO is an index, not a measured value, based on about a dozen or so parameters that are related to cyclical variations in sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific. The term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) was coined by Steven Hare (1996). It has two modes, warm and cool, and flips back and forth between them every 25 to 30 years.

The Mantua et al. curve looked so similar to my glacial curve that I superimposed the two and was surprised to see that they corresponded almost exactly. I then compared them to global temperature and all three showed a remarkable correlation (Fig. 1).

The significance of this correlation is that it clearly showed that the PDO was the driver of climate and glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker. Each time the PDO mode flipped from one mode to another, global climate and glacier extent also changed. This discovery was significant in itself but was to lead to a lot more. At this point, it was clear that PDO drove global climate (Figs. 2,3), but what drove the PDO was not apparent.

clip_image004

Figure 2. 1945-1977 PDO cold mode and 1977-1998 warm mode. (Easterbrook 2011 modified from D’Aleo)

clip_image006

Figure 3. PDO fluctuations from 1900 to August 2012. Each time the PDO was warm, global climate warmed; each time the PDO was cool, global climate cooled. (modified from http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/)

In 2000, I presented a paper, “Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean” at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA). The following year at the GSA meeting, I presented another paper “The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations.

Since this recurring pattern of PDO fluctuation and global climate held true for the past century, what might the future hold? If the pattern continued, then might we project the same pattern into the future to see where we are headed, i.e., the past is the key to the future. If we want to know where we are heading, we need to know where we’ve been. Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years. If the flip of the PDO into its cool mode in 1999 persists, the global climate should cool for the next several decades. Using the past durations of PDO phases, I spliced a cool PDO (similar to the 1945-1977 cool period) onto the end of the curve and presented the data in a paper at the 2001 Geological

Society of America meeting in Boston. In this paper, I proposed that, based on the past recurring pattern of PDO and global climate changes, we could expect 25-30 years of global cooling ahead (Fig. 4). With memories of the 1998 second warmest year of the century, the audience was stunned at such a prediction, especially since it directly contradicted the IPCC predictions of global warming catastrophe.

clip_image008

clip_image010

Figure 4. (Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.

(Bottom) Projected global cooling in coming decades based on extrapolation of past PDO recurring patterns.

My first projection of future global cooling was based on continuation of past recurring PDO fluctuations for the past century. But what about earlier climate changes? Because climate changes recorded in the oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core had such an accurate chronology from annual layering in the ice, it seemed a perfect opportunity to see if similar changes had occurred in previous centuries, so I plotted the oxygen isotope accelerator measurements made by Stuiver and Grootes (1997) for the past 450 years. Oxygen isotope ratios are a function of temperature, so plotting them gives a paleo-temperature curve. This was a real eye-opener because the curve (Fig. 4) showed about 40, regularly-spaced, warm/cool periods with average cycles of 27 years, very similar to the PDO cycle. There was no way to determine what the PDO looked like that far back, but the GISP2 warm/cool cycles were so consistent that correlation with PDO 25-30 year cycles seemed like a good possibility. Historically known warm/cool periods showed up in the GISP2 curve, i.e., the 1945-1977 cool period, the 1915-1945 warm period, the 1880-1915 cool period, the Little Ice Age, Dalton Minimum cooling, the Maunder Minimum cooling, and many others, lending credence to the validity of the GISP2 measurements.

clip_image012

Figure 5. Warm and cool periods to 1480 AD from oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. The average length of a warm or cool cycle is 27 years.

When I presented this data and my climate projections at the 2006 GSA meeting in Philadelphia, Bill Broad of the NY Times was in the audience. He wrote a feature article in the NY Times about my data and predictions and the news media went bonkers. All of the major news networks called for interviews, then curiously all except CNN, MSNBC, and Fox abruptly canceled, apparently because my data posed a threat to IPCC predictions of catastrophic warming.

Nine additional papers expanding the geologic evidence for global cooling were presented from 2007 to 2009 and several longer papers were published from 2011-2014, including

Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations,” Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460. (D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010).

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 the Elsevier volume “Evidence-Based Climate Science; p. 3-51. (2011)

Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations,” in the Elsevier volume “Evidence-Based Climate Science; p. 161-180. (D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011)

Observations: The Cryosphere,” in Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science (Easterbrook, D.J., Ollier, C.D., and Carter, R.M., 2013), p. 645-728.

Reprints of any of these publications may be obtained from http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/ or by emailing dbunny14 “at”yahoo.com.

During these years, important contributions were made by Joe D’Aleo, who showed that during warm periods, warm El Nino phases occurred more frequently and with greater intensity than cooler La Nina phases and vice versa. He also documented the role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is similar to the PDO. The AMO has multi-decadal warm and cool modes with periods of about 30 years, much like the PDO.

So the question now becomes how could my predictions be validated? Certainly not by any computer climate models, which had proven to be essentially worthless. The obvious answer is to check my predictions against what the climate does over several decades. We’ve been within my predicted cooling cycle for more than a decade, so what has happened? We’ve now experienced 17 years with no global warming (in fact, slight cooling) despite the IPCC prediction that we should now be ~1° F warmer (Figs. 6, 7, 8). So far my 1999 prediction seems to be on track and should last for another 20-25 years.

Conclusions

The ‘mysterious pause’ in global warming is really not mysterious at all. It is simply the continuation of climatic cycles that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was predicted in 1999, based on repeated patterns of cyclical warm and cool PDO phases so it is neither mysterious nor surprising. The lack of global warming for the past 17 years is just as predicted. Continued cooling for the next few decades will totally vindicate this prediction. Time and nature will be the final judge of these predictions.

What drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear. More on that later.

clip_image014

Figure 6. Temperature trend (°C/century) since 1996. Red = warming, blue = cooling.

clip_image016

Figure 7. Global cooling since 2000 (Earth Observatory)

clip_image018

Figure 8. Winter temperatures in the U.S. 1998-2013. 46 of the 48 states were significantly colder.

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

UPDATE 1/24/14, Dr. Easterbrook writes in with this update:

Here is an updated version of my 2000 prediction. My qualitative prediction was that extrapolation of past temperature and PDO patterns indicate global cooling for several decades. Quantifying that prediction has a lot of uncertainty. One approach is to look at the most recent periods of cooling and project those as possibilities (1) the 1945-1975cooling, (2) the 1880-1915 cooling, (3) the Dalton cooling (1790-1820), (4) the Maunder cooling (1650-1700). I appended the temperature record for the 1945-1975 cooling to the temperature curve beginning in 2000 to see what this might look like (see below). If the cooling turns out to be deeper, reconstructions of past temperatures suggest 0.3°C cooler for the 1880-1915 cooling, about 0.7°C for the Dalton cooling (square), and about 1.2°C for the Maunder cooling (circle). We won’t know until we get there which is most likely.

clip_image002

This updated plot really doesn’t change anything significantly from the first one that I did in 2000.

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

REFERENCES

D’Aleo, J. and 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. and 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, vol. 32, p.17.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 33, p. 253.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 37, p. 41.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2006a, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 38, p. 77.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2006b, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 38, p.235-236.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2007a, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2007b, 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., 2007c, 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., 2008a, 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 of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2008b, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p.428.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2008c, 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., 2008d, 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., 2009a, 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., 2009b, 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., ed., 2011a, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2011b, 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.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2011c, 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., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay: Chuckanut Editions, 330 p.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2012, Are forecasts of a 20-year cooling period credible? 7th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.

Easterbrook, D.J., Ollier, C.D., and Carter, R.M., 2013, Observations: The Cryosphere: in Idso,C.D., Carter R. M., Singer, F.S. eds, Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science, The Heartland Institute, p. 645-728.

Grootes, P.M., and Stuiver, M., 1997, Oxygen 18/16 variability in Greenland snow and ice with 10-3– to 105-year time resolution. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 102, p. 26455-26470.

Hare, S.R. and R.C. Francis. 1995. Climate Change and Salmon Production in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: in: R.J. Beamish, ed., Ocean climate and northern fish populations. Can. special Publicaton Fish. Aquatic Science, vol. 121, p. 357-372.

Harper, J. T., 1993, Glacier fluctuations on Mount Baker, Washington, U.S.A., 1940-1990, and climatic variations: Arctic and Alpine Research, vol. 4, p. 332‑339.

Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis 1997: A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 78, p. 1069-1079.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
213 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kitefreak
January 18, 2014 5:08 am

Thanks Mr. Easterbrook, that is a great article describing some great evidence based research. I learn a heck of a lot here.

Gail Combs
January 18, 2014 5:18 am

Roy says: January 18, 2014 at 3:47 am
Easterbrook’s arguments seem convincing to me but as I am neither a climatologist nor a statistician my opinions don’t count for anything. However, if there is evidence that more heat is disappearing into the oceans, as supporters of the “consensus” maintain, wouldn’t that invalidate Easterbrook’s theory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO,
They have to PROVE that conjecture and the ARGO buoys that dive to a depth of 2000 meters have found no proof of heat moving into the depths of the oceans.
In other words it is a silly wild arse guess used to cover their behinds.

Gail Combs
January 18, 2014 5:26 am

Bill Illis says: January 18, 2014 at 4:18 am
People should remember that temperatures are continually getting adjusted…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The temperatures in my locale get adjusted UP by 2-3 F (1-1.6 C) by the next day when the numbers become “Official” (my nearest weather station is a rural airport) I have been watching it happen on a regular basis for years.

Steve from Rockwood
January 18, 2014 5:40 am

The correlation between the PDO and global temperatures cannot be ignored. But the temperature graph is not periodic. It has a net trend upward. The net upward trend is more important than the periodicity that corresponds with the PDO.
If I understand Bob Tisdale, Easterbrook has the tail wagging the dog. ENSO causes the PDO. Variations in the Trade Winds (stronger winds, less clouds, more heat into the ocean) causes ENSO. So what causes the variations in the Trade Winds and is there a graph of this?
Could ENSO be a giant heat pump? When the Trade Winds blow more strongly heat is transferred into the oceans (and some makes its way into the atmosphere). When the winds return to normal, heat transfer returns to normal and there is a pause in temperatures. So ENSO would only lead to higher temperatures until interrupted by some greater process (e.g. M. cycles). Because when I look at the temperature record I don’t see increases and decreases. I see increases and pauses.

Paul Vaughan
January 18, 2014 5:43 am

“What drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal.”
Incorrect. Constraints from laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum leave no such interpretive flexibility.
“Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear. “
mechanism = dead simple = trivial extension of Milankovitch
“Mechanisms involving highly complex interactions of solar physics, magnetic fields and cosmic rays are on the cusp of delivering insights into possible mechanisms.”
This is wrong. The mechanisms are simple. Suggesting an important role for “complex interactions of solar physics, magnetic fields and cosmic rays” is counterproductive & unhelpful.

Kitefreak
January 18, 2014 5:46 am

David L. Hagen says:
“Don Easterbrook
Congratulations on making your scientific predictions in the face of intimidation by the politically correct insisting it would warm.”

——————
I’d like to second that – steadfastly sticking to your facts-based position in the face of an overwhelming tide of lies and propaganda for so many years takes a certain character, certain traits I like:
Endurance.
Not willing to shut up.
Not bowing down to authority.
Willingness to hold and stick to a minority position.
Sticking to principles as a guide to actions.
Absolute faith that the truth will out.
Honest, trustworthy, etc.

Paul Vaughan
January 18, 2014 5:52 am

Trivial Extension of Milankovitch
On the last page of a new article I put forth a (very specific) challenge to climate modelers.

[PDF]
Sun-Climate 101:
Solar-Terrestrial Primer


Sun-Climate 101 outlines law-constrained geometric foundations of solar-governed “internal” (a counterproductive misnomer) spatiotemporal redistribution (stirring) of terrestrial heat & water at a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity.
Those with sufficiently deep understanding will recognize this as a 4-dimensional geometric proof.
See particularly item #5 on page 3, which underscores stirring & accumulation even with a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity due to shifts & persistence of (large scale) terrestrial circulation that are an inevitable consequence of solar frequency shift.
It’s trivial and it’s geometrically proven.
The attractors (central limits) would be the same whether scrambled by white noise, spatiotemporal chaos, &/or lunisolar oscillations (the latter of which stand out clearly in observations).
The utility of these fundamentals extends beyond generalizing the role of stellar frequency in planetary aggregate-circulation to assessing the vision, competence, functional numeracy, honesty, & relevance of climate discussion agents, including those abusing authority.

January 18, 2014 6:04 am

Jimbo says:
January 18, 2014 at 4:58 am
• The IPCC was established in 1988.
• The PDO was discovered in 1996.
• The Vostok ice cores (1998?) showed co2 rise followed temperature rise.
“Would we have had this huge global warming scare if the IPCC had been established several years after the discovery of the PDO and the Vostok results?”
That’s a really good question Jimbo. The whole thing has the smell of “cold fusion” on it, doesn’t it? Whereas cold fusion has been examined closely since its introduction, AGW/CAGW confirmation is deferred to future generations. Only then, long after all current researchers and grants will have expired can the data pertinent to the hypothesis seemingly be obtained.
That is what makes this ultimate hoax pertinent. It need not be impeachable to be feared. It matters not that the scare-level is outrageously lower than anything actually recently achieved in the geologic record.
It’s all about belief structures, not knowledge structures. The Trenberth’s and Mann’s of our “modern day” delusions cobble all manner of fear fodder together. Belief structures. Why? Because it sells! And because the 90% can easily be sold by the 10% http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3931.pdf
In opposition other scientists might offer offer criticism/(denial). Perhaps for the briefest of moments in hominid evolution (Climategate) we get to see the dirty laundry. Which is actually as far as we seem to have come as a sentient species. Or at the very least those species (ours) that wrote their records down. And then altered them……
So that’s it! That is exactly how far we have come. Feel the late Holocene anthropogenic pride yet? I thought not……………..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A famous astronomer was once asked “Is there intelligent life in the universe?”
The famous astronomer gazed off into space and stroked his beard before replying. He then opined:
“There is some evidence on earth, but it is not conclusive………”
The defense rests.

Bill Illis
January 18, 2014 6:07 am

I’ve been running monthly temperature reconstructions using these various natural cycles for awhile. (I haven’t had any luck using the PDO index, but for multi-decadal cycles, the AMO works much better and the southern ocean cannot be ignored – the Peru-Humbolt current and the southern Atlantic also have multi-decadal oscillations. In fact, the Peru-Humbolt current has a much more direct link to the ENSO regions than the PDO pattern has given this current feeds directly into the equatorial Pacific).
So here’s my reconstruction of Hadcrut4 on a monthly basis going back to 1856.
http://s27.postimg.org/g7jr0u15f/Hadcrut4_Model_1856_Nov2013.png
When you pull out these natural variables/cycles, one gets a pretty consistent steady warming trend. More steady than I seen in any other depiction. But it is a very low 0.037C per decade. One can also see in this chart, just how whacked out the climate models are now in reality. (The lines are on the same baseline and are completely comparable and NO Dana Nuccitelli-like playing around has been done here).
http://s16.postimg.org/5ofjo7bfp/Hadcrut4_Warming_1856_Nov2013.png
Going out to the year 2100 when we are supposed to have seen +3.25C of warming, the current trends are that we will get between +1.0C to +1.6C of warming.
http://s13.postimg.org/ays1nrxtz/Hadcrut4_Warming_1856_2100.png

Editor
January 18, 2014 6:16 am

Steve from Rockwood says: “So what causes the variations in the Trade Winds and is there a graph of this?”
The variations in trade wind strength are primarily a response to the changes in the temperature gradient (east to west)across the tropical Pacific. And the changes in the temperature gradient (east to west, cooler in the east than in the west on an absolute basis) across the tropical Pacific are primarily a response to the trade winds. They’re interdependent. Climate scientists use the word “coupled”. The temperature gradient and the trade winds reinforce one another, provide positive feedback, which is known as Bjerknes feedback.
There are, of course, additional weather-related factors that impact that feedback, and there are natural limits to how far the positive feedback can influence the strengths of the trade winds and temperature gradient of the tropical Pacific.
NOAA presents a number of trade wind indices here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/
Regards

milodonharlani
January 18, 2014 6:21 am

“Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years.”
Actually to 20 to 35 years.

Editor
January 18, 2014 6:24 am

Steve from Rockwood says: “Could ENSO be a giant heat pump?”
There are webpages that describe it as one. And a paper:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/dezheng.sun/dspapers/ENSO-AGU/ENSO-AGU-final.pdf
Better (easier?) described as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring, recharge-discharge oscillator, where El Ninos represent the discharge phase and La Nina represents the recharge phase (there is also redistribution of the leftover warm water that takes place during the La Nina).

Gail Combs
January 18, 2014 6:25 am

Kev-in-Uk says:
January 18, 2014 at 4:19 am
I cannot believe ANY true scientist…
So, no, I don’t think this was a possibility of being significant in their minds – I believe it was an absolute certainty that was completely ignored for potential financial/academic gain, etc. Whether this was ‘promoted’ by the politicos, we may never know for sure –
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you read Dr. Ball’s essay Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming
That CAGW is entirely political shows in these two quotes direct from the IPCC:
The IPCC mandate states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

The IPCC also said:

“in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible” – Ipcc 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

In other words the IPCC has known for 14 years that the Climate Models are crap that have no hope of predicting the next decade much less the next hundred years.
The banker’s stake in CAGW
Note: former IPCC chair Bob Watson worked for NASA then the World Bank while the IPCC chair and now is in the UK at Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs…

World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak: Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement…
…The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”….

Pascal Lamy former Director-General of the World Trade Organization and possible new head of the EU executive, tells us the actual plans.

Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?
Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers.
How to provide global leadership? Mobilizing collective purpose is more difficult when we no longer face one common enemy, but thousands of complex problems….
….The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system [World Bank and IMF], the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.
All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty…

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
“We wanted to make clear that a two degrees Celsius warmer world would be a disaster that we have to avoid…” ~ World Bank President Jim Yong Kim

January 18, 2014 6:26 am

Bob Tisdale The principal components of the temperature record temperature can be represented by the combination of a 60 year and 1000 year cycle in the temperature data. The 60 year cycle happens to coincide with the PDO .Which is a useful proxy for the temperature trends even if the PDO itself is driven by Enso events. The Enso itself is driven by a combination of changes in solar activity and the resonances in the Milankovitch cycles- especially whether the Precession insolation peaks falls in Northern or Southern hemisphere summer or winter. For a forecast of the coming cooling based on this simple observation of the periodicities in the temperature data and the current change in the neutron count as a proxy for changes in solar activity see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
You do not have to calculate or even understand the physical processes involved in order to make quite useful predictions.

January 18, 2014 6:30 am

“…so I plotted the oxygen isotope accelerator measurements made by Stuiver and Grootes (1997) for the past 450 years. Oxygen isotope ratios are a function of temperature, so plotting them gives a paleo-temperature curve. This was a real eye-opener..”
The real eye-opener for me was that much of the ups and downs go in completely the opposite direction to what they do in the Central England Temperature series. 1665/6 was a high point on CET, 1675 was on CET, 1685-7 was higher on CET, 1694-5 was very low on CET, where from it rose to the 1720’s on CET. Through Dalton it was warmer in the first decade of the 1800’s than the second, it got warmer from 1820 to 1830 on CET, and fell into a very cool period up to 1845, all the opposite of the GISP series.

Editor
January 18, 2014 6:31 am

AndyG55, something else to consider. I’m sure most skeptics would appreciate a global surface temperature dataset that appeared as Don Easterbrook has presented in his Figure 4. Maybe if everyone asked Don to post its source, then we could all examine it and use it again in the future. But I suspect it does not exist. I suspect it’s a fantasy dataset.

Editor
January 18, 2014 6:38 am

Dr Norman Page says: “Bob Tisdale The principal components of the temperature record temperature can be represented by the combination of a 60 year and 1000 year cycle in the temperature data.”
Unfortunately, the PDO is inversely related to the surface temperature of the North Pacific.
Dr Norman Page says: “The 60 year cycle happens to coincide with the PDO.”
The 60-year cycle exists in some paleo reconstructions but not in others, so I suspect you’re using a paleo reconstruction that agrees with your 60-year assumption. Also, are the paleo reconstructions you’re using aliasing one another or aliasing some other factor and that’s the basis for their agreement?

Dave
January 18, 2014 6:40 am

You said, “There was no way to determine what the PDO looked like that far back”. Have you ever looked at the reconstructed PDO based off of tree-ring chronologies back to 993 AD by Macdonald and Case 2005? Would be interesting to see that compared with some of your charts.

Editor
January 18, 2014 6:50 am

RichardLH says: “The data says there is a 60 year cycle to the data. HadCrut4, AMO and PDO”
That’s well known.
And the relationship between the AMO and global surface temperature exists and it’s also well know, because the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic are part of global surface temperatures and the variations in the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures correlate with land surface temperatures for many parts of the globe.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-82.png
But the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific and it is anti-correlated with land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-92.png
Those maps are from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/part-2-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/
The fact that surface temperatures cool when the PDO rises and warm when the PDO drops certainly puts a crimp on Easterbrook’s assumptions.

Gail Combs
January 18, 2014 7:00 am

Bob Tisdale says: January 18, 2014 at 4:33 am
….Easterbrook’s post is misleading, it misinforms, it is contrived, it is far from “good science”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERRrrr, Bob didn’t Frank Lansner in his essay on The Original Temperatures Project show that oceans do influence the temperatures of the coastal areas?
Lansner says:

The classification of OAA versus OAS simply depends on geographical surroundings…. I found that Non-coastal temperatures (blue graph) were much more cold trended from around 1930 than the Coastal trends (red).
But Non-coastal stations can be divided further into Ocean Air Affected stations (“OAA”, marked yellow) and then Ocean Air Shelter stations (“OAS”, marked blue).
OAS areas thus have some similarities with valleys in general, but as illustrated above, the OAS areas cover a slightly different area than the valleys.
In general I have aimed to find average OAA temperature trends and average OAS temperature trends for the areas analysed….

Since Don Easterbrook was looking at Mt. Baker, in the North Cascades of Washington State MAP, it is not surprising he found a correlation with the PDO. The WUWT thread GISS Swiss Cheese shows the surface temperature data collection is not exactly even and coastal areas are favored. Therefore a comparison to the ‘official’ global surface temperature is also going to find correlation with the PDO/AMO both of which have been in the warm phase.
I think what we have is a bit of the blind men and the elephant problem here and tantalizing glimpses of what effects the climate. I also think all three of you have done very good work which is more than I can say for the Climastrologists.

RichardLH
January 18, 2014 7:00 am

Bob Tisdale says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:50 am
“That’s well known.”
But often forgotten or not acknowledged. That we are currently at a peak in the 60 year cycle is rarely mentioned anywhere.
“The fact that surface temperatures cool when the PDO rises and warm when the PDO drops certainly puts a crimp on Easterbrook’s assumptions.”
So you are just observing that the phase of the two signals is out of step? I am not sure that it refutes his conclusions.

Gail Combs
January 18, 2014 7:09 am

Bob Tisdale says: January 18, 2014 at 6:50 am
….But the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific and it is anti-correlated with land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That needs to be repeated since it seems to be part of the confusion. Thanks for the clarification Bob.

PJF
January 18, 2014 7:09 am

It would be helpful if all writers of articles were to make themselves available to discuss their work in the accompanying comments thread.

richardscourtney
January 18, 2014 7:14 am

Gail Combs:
At January 18, 2014 at 7:00 am
you say of Tisdale, Lansner and Easterbrook

I think what we have is a bit of the blind men and the elephant problem here and tantalizing glimpses of what effects the climate. I also think all three of you have done very good work which is more than I can say for the Climastrologists.

SECONDED!
Richard

January 18, 2014 7:18 am

Bob You are still not getting my point – I’m not referring to temperatures in the Northern Pacific merely saying that when the PDO index is in its negative phase global temperatures generally cool and that there is an approximate 60 year cycle in the PDO index. Also I’m not using temperature reconstructions just looking at the actual temperature record over the last 100 years or so and power spectrum analysis of the temperatures over much longer interval by a number of people eg Scafetta.Most people don’t think that forecasting can be that simple – I believe it likely is. As for the 1000 year cycle see Figs 3 and 4 at the last post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

1 3 4 5 6 7 9