Press for a 'Climate Scientist Who Got It Right'

M. Courtney, you write “Isn’t it?”
Good question. There is some evidence that in the last few years, temperatures have been cooling. Werner Brozek has some software that starts at the current date, and goes back to see how long the pause has lasted. I wonder if he has software that again starts at current date, and looks back and plots the slope of the temperature/time graph for recent years. That might answer your question.

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

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

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

There is no one who has blogged on WUWT who has gotten every detail of their theory correct every time , including this blogger. We all modify our views as better data and understanding is released. I think Don Easterbrook deserves the press recognition that he is finally getting for being one of the pioneer scientists for predicting alternating cycles of global cooling and warming but cooling for the next 2-3 decades when the rest of the scientific community was projecting straight line waming to 2100.They are even doing it now.
Is it cooling yet or just flat when it comes temperatures ?
The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies [ hadcrut 4nh] have declined since 2004 [ 10 years \
The Southern Hemisphere temperature anomalies [ hadcrut 4sh] have been flat since 2004[ 10 years ]
Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies have declined for combined land and oceans since 1998 or for 16 years .
Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies for land is cooling faster than the oceans during the last 10 years .
Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies show a decline since even 1995 but show the greatest decline since 2004 or during the last 10 years.
Northern Hemisphere SST show a decline for the last 10 years[ during every season and annually as well.]
The Southern Hemisphere SST is flat.
The North Atlantic Ocean SST has been declining since about 2005. The AMO index is declining since about 2005 . The Pacific Ocean SST is flat but the North Pacific Ocean SST has been declining slightly since about 2005

“It’s curious the so called experts are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. When the scare mongers were predicting the coming ice age in the early 1970′s, there was actually warming. Then when they predicted warming post 1990′s it appears there’s actually cooling.”
They seem to insist on extrapolating linear trends out of a short section of a fluctuating sine wave…

-28C this morning in Calgary, AB. One of the coldest and snowiest winters on record.

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

The only think I know about climate science is what I read here (gave up looking anywhere else) and what I see out the window… I have done a fair amount of research in a far different field, and I can’t see the significance of 3/10th of a degree globally. Or really, how (or why) one would measure such a thing over the entire world.
Right now we are freezing our butts off here in NE Wyoming, and an increase or decrease of 3/10ths of a degree won’t help or hurt a darn thing.

Of course, the data adjusters and homogenizers are all working on the alarmists’ side.

Of course Don Easterbrook has it right, and so does Judith Curry, and Habibullo Abdussamatov, and Tim Ball, and any number of others.
The difficulty is that the ideologues in the AGW camp couldn’t recognize facts if they hit them upside the head, because their ideology (1) denies the facts out of hand, and (2) forbids them from even recognizing the existence of alternative opinions or evidence, let alone admit of their validity.
Just today Yahoo! News publishes another bit of coprophagia about how 2013 – the year of the latest snowfall (Little Rock, Arkansas, May) and earliest blizzard (Midwest, first week of October) since records were kept – was the 6th warmest year ever. What part of the obvious don’t they understand?
These people cannot be reached by facts or reasoned argument. They will still be claiming global warming when the ice sheet is encroaching on New York.

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

In a series of posts over several years at my blog
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
some of which have been reposted as guest posts at WUWT I have made estimates of the timing and extent of the coming cooling. Here is a summary of the latest estimates from the latest post:
“It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate”
In short it is now abundantly clear that the IPCC models are useless for climate forecasting and the method of recognizing quasi periodic – quasi repetitive cycles in the temperature and driver data should be adopted . In particular it appears that the recent warming trend peak at about 2003 was a nearly synchronous peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year temperature periodicities.

Werner Brozek says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:07 am
“By the way, RSS for January just came out and it shows no warming at all for 17 years and 5 months since September 1996.”
A graph is worth a thousand words, but as I am unable to make an attachment to this comment, I have to go the wordy route.
Speaking generally, it appears that a smoothed temperature graph of the last 20 years shows the top arc of a steeply rising, then gently falling curve. As we continue downward, we are able to project a flat average further and further into the past. This causes the total period of the “hiatus” to lengthen faster than time progresses as we move the starting point back in time. I have 2 objections to projecting a flat trend further back in time:
1. This process allows advocates of CAGW to say we are merely in a pause in the warming, that we are not cooling.
2. As the flat trend line is projected back in time, a period that was previously considered to have a rising temp. trend is now considered to be part of a flat period. This resembles after-the-fact playing with the data.
Making a break point in the temp. trend at the 1998 peak in temps produces a falling trend since then. This invalidates any argument that we are merely in a “pause” in the warming. IMHO, 15 years with a falling trend is a stronger argument than 17 years of a flat trend.
SR

wayne says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:23 am
If the literal statement — “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.” — was what Dr. Easterbrook said in his 2000 paper, that is much closer than what this post seems to imply. The temperatures appear to have topped in 2005 ± 1 year and the drop in temperatures should (again, it appears) last for about three more decades if there is in fact a ≈62 year cycle present.
It needs to be remembered, the PDO did not switch in 1997, or even 2002… Nope, the PDO switched to a negative phase in 2008 during the middle of the 2007/2008 La Nina
At the time Easterbrook said it, we knew a PDO switch was on the horizon. We just didn’t know exactly when. His “next few years” ended up being about 7-8 years later
His predictions should probably realistically be counted from 2008, not from when he said it. And yes, that means much of the “stall” in Global Warming was during a warm phase. (I’m even assuming this is why Wiki has not updated their page to reflect the switch; instead leaving the 1997/1998 anomaly, and assumption it creates, up as the final update)
It should also be remembered that the PDO switch doesn’t mean Temperatures instantly start to fall. All one needs to do is check the first 10 years of the last Negative-to-Positive the 1945 switch to see that
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1954/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1954/trend
The Negative PDO should be expected to last until roughly 2040, and we are only starting our 6th full year of that Negative PDO. The 1945 switch indicates we could see stalled temperatures up to 10 years into the phase.
But also remember what happened by the time that Negative PDO phase was winding down – “Global Cooling is going to kill us all”

Am I the ONLY SANE person alive? Who the HE-double toothpics gives a RODENT’s rear end about TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere. I care about the ENTHALPY, the total energy.
Without working that out per cubic WHATEVER YOUR FAVORITE UNITS HERE is, all the other assesments are NOISE, visa vie weather there is significant change in net atmospheric energy levels. (PS..my speling errers are intentional..)

…yes but as Sheldon Cooper tells us this can all be dismissed because Geology is not a real science….

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

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

– – – – – – – – – –
Cooling potentialities, as important balancing discussion points, are needed.
Thank you Don Easterbrook for a significant contribution toward upgrading climate science from a biased (IPCC constrained) monologue into a vigorous dialog.
Cooling potential merits more focus ($ for research).
John
PS – we can glimpse there is developing reasoning for a descending escalator shape versus the Mannian hockey trickystick. I look forward to all increasingly open and objective discourses . . .

Paul Matthews says:
“Aphan, Lance, thanks, though again that 2000 ref is really an abstract of a conference talk, not a
paper.”
The purpose behind the publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is to allow all the other members of the society to preview ongoing research and findings so they can conduct a pre-peer review by attending the talk, asking questions, meeting the researcher and having discussions and providing their feedback. The Abstracts are solicited by the moderator of the session and reviewed prior to selection.
I have had abstracts accepted and rejected for specific theme sessions at GSA. And I can tell you that the exposure and feedback you get at the GSA conferences is far better than the formal peer review process of a final paper.
The other reason you publish an abstract is to establish primacy for your research and findings.
The one thing which you have to know, however, is that you do not show up a GSA and read your abstract to the audience – on in the case of a poster session, stand at your poster for four hours – without having real data and science to present.

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

Congratulations.
Nice to see someone who is not an Al Gore or Mikey Mann got a snippet in the news.

DS, the difference between what you see and what I see is bound to be that I am relying on non-homogenization and TOBS adjusted data and you are just using the manipulated HadCRUT as your base, maybe even that to get the PDO first derivative crossover. Wouldn’t that account for the three years difference? Also, my view is just a box smoothed set so it’s just a rough estimate of what seems to be what is actually happening in the temps. Both you and I seem to see the same inflection.
I still think it is closer to reality to just remove the adjustments than to rely on the heavily adjusted (past cooled) climate science adjusted products. Here is my view minus such adjustments which are very close to linear since 1940, so that is what I used to remove them (roughly):
http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png

TAG says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am
[…]What if the current flatlining of temperatures is only a pause caused by the overlaying of a natural cycle on a anthopenially caused increase? If one has a serious cancer then a lack of medical knowledge in its treatment is of no comfort even if it has gone into remission for no apparent reason.
—————————————————————————————————————–
It seems that you’re advocating the much-abused precautionary principle”, as mis-applied to climate science for some time.
As you say, the current lack of warming may be a natural cycle cancelling out an anthropogenic rise. But, logically, that’s unlikely for a few reasons.
First, the mainstream-predicted effect of CO2 should have been rising in line with the increase in CO2 itself, so the effect of any natural cycle would have to be coincidentally changing by exactly the same amount over the past nearly 2 decades to give a “flatline”. Physically, that would be a remarkable coincidence.
On the other hand, if medium term (say, 50 – 500 year) natural cycles have been the major cause of the warming in the last century, then it would be perfectly normal to expect them to appear “flat” for a period either side of the peak because that’s how cycles tend to work.
Also, if a “cooling” phase of a natural cycle is currently suppressing warming then, during the peak warming that everyone got so worried about, the “warming” phase of that same cycle must have been augmenting the observed warming rate. Seeing as this putative cycle is (at least) strong enough to cancel all current warming trend – with greatly increased CO2 levels, so a stronger anthropogenic effect – in its warming phase it must have accounted for over 50% of the observed rate of warming.
Finally, if may extend your medical analogy slightly with a real-life example:
Last year my wife had a lump come up under the arch of her left foot. One of the possibilities is that it’s quite a nasty cancer which will metastise and possibly kill her. The treatment for such a thing is a mixture of radio- and chemo- therapy with probably amputation at the knee or hip.
However, medical science is fortunately advanced enough that it recognises the possibility that the lump might be a benign tumor or even a simple cyst. It also recognises that the risk to my wife of waiting for a clear diagnosis is far lower than the risk of “precautionary” aggressive treatment.
It wasn’t always thus. In the distant past it seems that doctors were quite willing to perform drastic procedures, often causing permanent injury or even death, for ailments that we now know a simple aspirin would cure.
Given the extreme immaturity, by any measure, of climate science there’s a very real danger that they’re reaching for the bone saw prematurely.

An aside on my above post.
There is about a 50-50 chance, that if you are using an optical mouse (non-laser; LED type) , that it has an optical system comprising a digital imaging camera, and an oblique LED illumination system, that has optics I designed.
Probably half of all those digital cameras have an imaging lens that has engraved (molded) onto one of its surfaces, an optical low pass, anti-aliasing filter, that deliberately makes an otherwise very sharp image, into a not so sharp, low resolution imaging lens. that is fuzzier, than the low pixel resolution sensor, can resolve. (Nyquist filter).
The filter surface consists of a series of concentric rings, like those radiating from a pebble dropped in a pond, with a sinusoid lookalike radial crossection.. As a result the filter surface perturbations, introduce deliberate spherical aberrations, having zones of negative and positive spherical residuals, and zones of zero aberration. The peaks and troughs, are essentially parallel to the base surface, so they focus at the correct focus point, and one side of the slopes gives under-corrected spherical, so it focusses that light shorter than the nominal focus. The opposite edges produce over-correction, so those regions focus beyond the nominal focus. And in between focusses in between..
Now the crossection of the ring perturbations is not actually sinusoidal. The profile is actually generated, by taking an ODD order (actually 11th) Tchebychev Polynomial, and integrating it term by term, to get an even order 12th order polynomial, that is scaled to the lens aperture stop size, and then scaled to the required maximum slope deviation.
It was hoped that this would result in smudging the focus along the axis, on both sides of the nominal focus to emulate an ersatz Laser beam Gaussian waist over some ersatz “Raleigh range”.
Well that is NOT what happened, when these lenses were first manufactured (accurately).
Instead what results,is three overlapping very sharp images; one at the nominal focus, and one at the minimum focus, and the other at the maximum focus. The nominal focus image is twice as bright as the other two, because it gets energy from both the peaks, and the troughs of the “wave”.
Well the Tchebychev derived profile, was not chosen for optimum imagery. It was just a very simple way to derive a profile that would work at all, and was easily changed to get any level of fuzziness wanted. The cognoscenti can figure out why the Tchebychev odd order integrated.
I subsequently derived a much better wave profile, that more uniformly spreads the energy along the axis, instead of making three sharp images. The overlap of the three images, does fuzzy to combined image enough to stop the lens from out resolving the sensor.
But that exercise was a dramatic demonstration of how much of nothing much, happens near the peaks and troughs and slope edges, of sinusoid like wave forms.
I don’t see the present warming “hiatus” as any kind of plateau. It looks just like any ordinary “peak” with an abundance of high values, which eventually will be followed by a decline.
Well we’ll wait to see.
But I’ll trust Easterbrook’s prognostications before the IPCC; who could use a good dose of IPeCaC !

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

RichardLH says:
February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm
george e. smith says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm
So, as an engineer, if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?
—————————————————————————————————–
I can’t speak for George but, as another engineer, I’d say it depends entirely on what’s being graphed and how well understood it is.
Ignoring all the manipulations and uncertainties, those graphs show about 130 years of temperature history. Even if we only consider the 195000 years of changing climate that modern man has been around (and survived) during, that’s less than 0.1% of the historic data.
Trying to determine what’s going to happen next from that is like looking at this:
http://s113.photobucket.com/user/Charlie_D_Brown/media/see1st117.jpg.html
and telling me which track from a Rogers and Hammerstein musical soundtrack those 5733 samples come from. In fact, I’ve made it comparatively easy for you by at least telling you that it is from an R&H soundtrack because you have a known set of possibilities to chose from!

The last figure has been superseded by:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image00212.jpg
I didn’t write this, so didn’t know she was going to use the older one.
Don

A little history–
I discovered the strong correlation between the PDO, climate, and glacier fluctuations in 1999 and gave a few talks about it, but this was without any written publication. In 2000, I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, which included a peer-reviewed, published abstract. As Tom G(ologist) points out–
“The purpose behind the publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is to allow all the other members of the society to preview ongoing research and findings so they can conduct a pre-peer review by attending the talk, asking questions, meeting the researcher and having discussions and providing their feedback. The Abstracts are solicited by the moderator of the session and reviewed prior to selection.
I have had abstracts accepted and rejected for specific theme sessions at GSA. And I can tell you that the exposure and feedback you get at the GSA conferences is far better than the formal peer review process of a final paper.
The other reason you publish an abstract is to establish primacy for your research and findings.
The one thing which you have to know, however, is that you do not show up a GSA and read your abstract to the audience – on in the case of a poster session, stand at your poster for four hours – without having real data and science to present.” Hence, all GSA abstracts are considered to be publications that can be cited–all are available on the GSA website.
Here is a list of papers:
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Relationship of multidecadal global temperatures to multidecadal oceanic oscillations: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 161-184.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Climatic implications of the impending grand solar minimum and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation: the past is the key to the future–what we can learn from recurring past climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, .
Easterbrook, D.J., Gosse, J., Sherard, C., Finkel, R., and Evenson, E., 2011, Evidence for synchronous global climatic events: Cosmogenic exposure ages of glaciations: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 53-88.
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay, WA: Chuckanut Editions, Bellingham, WA, 329 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 41, p. 33.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The looming threat of global cooling – Geological evidence for prolonged cooling ahead and its impacts: 4th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium. Abstracts, American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glacial fluctuations to global climatic changes during the Younger Dryas; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Global warming’ is over: Geologic, oceanographic, and solar evidence for global cooling in the coming decades: 3rd International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, New York.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations: Implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p. 594.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming predictions for the coming century: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glaciers to abrupt, global, climatic changes during the Younger Dryas: Abstracts with programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 35, p. 350.
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2003, Quaternary Geology of the United States: International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, 438 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and alpine glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Quaternary Geology of the United States, International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, p. 265-286
Easterbrook, D.J., Pierce, K., Gosse, J., Gillespie, A., Evenson, E., and Hamblin, K., 2003, Quaternary geology of the western United States, International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, p. 19-79.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and alpine glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington: Geological Society of America Field Guide 4, p. 137–157.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Determination of 36Cl production rates from the well-dated deglaciation surfaces of Whidbey and Fidalgo Islands, Washington: discussion: Quaternary Research, vol. 59, p.132-134.
Easterbrook, D.J. and Kovanen, D.J., 2001. The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 33, 253.
Easterbrook, D.J., and Kovanen, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillation of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific Ocean: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 32, p. 17.

Werner Brozek says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Steve Reddish says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:36 am
This resembles after-the-fact playing with the data.
(Then Werner says:)
Perhaps, but what is the problem with that? Suppose that temperatures went up smoothly from 1970 to 2000 and then went down just as smoothly. In 2010, I could say it has not been this cold in 20 years. Then only 1 year later, I could say it has not been this cold in 22 years, etc. In exactly the same way, I may now say the graph is flat for 17 years. And if we then have a La Nina, in only one year, I may be able to say the graph is flat for NOT 18, but 19 years.
Werner, good to hear from you – Nice to get feedback on one’s comment.
I agree with your first point, of the claim being made in 2010 and 2011 that the cold had been unmatched for 20 and 22 years, respectively, because that would be just quoting the recorded facts per your example.
I also agree that the period for the length of time that the computed average has been flat could be extended 2 years for each year of continued cooling, as that would be mathematically correct. But is computing an average over time the best use of the data? If you computed the average temps since some point before the beginning of the MWP you could get a flat graph as well, but to what end? Averaging masks changes, hiding highs and lows.
I suggest that the trend, whether rising or falling, is the vital question at each each point in time. People care during each year, how that year compares to its predecessors. The temp trend for the period between Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption and the warm peak in 1998 was considered (correctly) at the time to be rising. Should we now say that the trend during that time is being changed to flat?
By admitting that the temp trend was rising until 1998, we are able to note that the temp trend has been falling since then. By doing this, we do not have to go against people’s memories of that time, and we remove the argument used by CAGW proponents that we are currently merely in a “pause”.
Again, to be able to point out that the trend is now downward, and has been for several years, is a far stronger argument than that a computed average has been flat for a slightly longer period.
SR

Florida community newspaper gives Easterbook a mention:
3 Feb: Longboard Key News: Tom Burgum: Maybe, just maybe, we’re getting cooler
I beg to disagree: the debate isn’t settled.
Today, of course, we talk about climate change rather than global warming, a change necessitated by the failure of the global temperature to increase over the past decade. The climate is, of course, changing as it has done throughout the history of the planet but the change might not lead to global warming…
Most recently, Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory announced: “We could be in for a cooling period that last 200-250 years.”
Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declared “global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning . . . Enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warned “global cooling is almost a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more.”
Most recently, Professor Judith Curry, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta stated: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year pause to the cooling since 2002 . . . this shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so . . . “…
Anastasios Tsonis, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee believes we are entering a period of global cooling. He published a peer-reviewed paper in January 2010 that held the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years and he believes we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science believes “We can expect the onset of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055.
Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies at the University of Western Australia, not only believes that a cooling period is coming, he took on Al Gore and his acolytes head on. In a paper presented in Poznan Poland, he credited the sun as the major control of climate, not greenhouse gasses. Ollier criticized recent projects of global warming because the projections are too centered on computer models.
Global warming of the past 30 year is over, at least according to Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications in an address to the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, Washington, said: “The shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) . . . has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1 degree per decade for the rest of the century.”…
http://www.lbknews.com/2014/02/03/maybe-just-maybe-were-getting-cooler/

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

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

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

Steve Reddish says:
February 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm
But is computing an average over time the best use of the data?
There are all kinds of things that can be said, but I consider three of the most useful to be the longest time the trend is 0, and the longest time the warming is not significant, and the present ranking of the year to date, which is why I include those things in my monthly reports.
If you do not wish to overload any one with miscellaneous details, what would you include and what would you leave out? To see how “messy” things can be, go to the following site. Click GISS, then put the blue circle at the end for December 2013, then put the red circle close to it, then click the red “<” and watch the rate numbers go from positive to negative like a yo-yo.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D
As for the MWP, my focus and goal is to show that our CO2 does not cause catastrophic warming. So if the line would be flat or up or down since 900 would not prove anything in this regard.

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

Whatever happens, we’re doomed.

It is time that Al Gore and the like were made to hand back their Nobel prizes and the money that falsely extorted based on the threat of global warming. Note I said global warming not climate change as the threat they used for the extortion was not climate change at the time.
The same engineers who worked with those environmentalist on data handling for the acid rain campaigns predicted the same thing back in the late sixties and early seventies when the climate “scientists” very first claimed that global warming existed. As in his case they were basing their conclusions on pattern recognition not on a pretense of understanding climate.
A colleague of mine from the QA department looked at the computer models and had four pages of basic level fails on just two of the models he looked at in the public domain. By the company rules a single fail at this level makes it a reject for use on expensive or life critical operations.
Why does no climate article ever remind people that ten years of temperature rises was proof of global warming but nearly twenty without is a pause?

richardscourtney said of me in the last thread on this:
“Your post is bollocks.
Each and every of your assertions is false as anybody can check for themselves within seconds.”
Still stand by that Richard?
Has Don updated the graph in question, or as Bob Tisdale claims, has he updated a different graph?
Has he provided the data necessary for others to be able to replicate his calculations or not?

Also of interest:

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

Most commentators here persist in dealing only with decadal cycles over the last 150 years or so. This is really very short sighted. For forecasting we need to also consider where we are on the 1000 year cycle. For a forecast of the coming cooling based on both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.

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