(CNSNews.com) – Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.
Easterbrook’s predictions were “right on the money” seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a “planetary emergency.”
“When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it’s luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button,” 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)
In contrast, Gore and the IPCC’s computer models predicted “a big increase” in global warming by as much as one degree per decade. But the climate models used by the IPCC have proved to be wrong, with many places in Europe and North America now experiencing record-breaking cold.
Easterbrook noted that his 20-year prediction was the “mildest” one of four possible scenarios, all of which involve lower temperatures, and added that only time will tell whether the Earth continues to cool slightly or plunges into another Little Ice Age as it did between 1650 and 1790.
…
On the PDO:
“What I did was I projected this same pattern forward to see what it would look like. And so in 1999, which was the year after the second warmest year on record, the PDO said we’re due for a climate change, and so I said okay. It looks as though we’re going to be entering a period of about three decades or so of global cooling.
“And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, on the basis of taking the temperature records that go back a century or more and simply repeating the pattern of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, and so on.
(Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.
– See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global#sthash.jTgQD6lj.dpuf
=============================================================
WUWT offers congratulations to Don for getting press. Be sure to share the link to this article with friends on social media.
For more on his prediction see: Cause of ‘the pause’ in global warming
Unfortunately no democrat or liberal (meaning no one that promotes man made CO2 as the cause) will ever go to CNS or read anything it prints.
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?
Edim, look how your Wood for Trees chart appears if you use Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite data instead of the surface measured HADCRUT3 data. All the lines agree and the warming trend is clearly visible across all the trend lines:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1993/trend/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1991/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:1990/to:2011/trend/plot/uah/from:1989/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2007/trend/plot/uah/from:1985/to:2006/trend/plot/uah/from:1984/to:2005/trend
The PDO model component is quite good, but what about AMO and solar cycle? At a minimum, could the solar cycle difference this time extend the cooling phase in the prediction? Or could a wind down from a greater run up in the AMO also extend the cooling phase cycle length? Some more model checks and factor additions to the model might be in order with a focus on cycle differences.
It would be nice when discussing a paper ( the 2000 version) if that paper were actually made available. or if the data from the projection was made available.
This also bugs me about Hansens projections from 1988.
Since Don is here can he provide the dataset underlying the graphs in the 2000 paper.
or do we have to digitize the graphs
REPLY: Stop being a schmuck, ask nicely. Mind you, this is a news article, reprinted. – Anthony
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.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 5, 2014 at 8:11 am
M Courtney says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:32 am
Well, he’s less wrong that the IPCC.
“But I thought it wasn’t cooling yet. Just in a hiatus.
It may cool overthe next two decades but right now the temperature is staying flat (within measurement error).Isn’t it?
Correct. It may cool, but the chances are it will not, there is no sign at the moment that temperatures are falling. I always point out that if a value has gone up, and it stays up, it has still risen, even if the rate of increase has levelled off.”
When one considers the UHI and siting issues along with all of the other data quality problems (fudging?), it may well be cooling.
You know climate science is at a rudimentary stage of development when the science debate is whether there are cycles at all, much less differences in cycle characteristics. The IPCC approach with cycles is for their use as a better springboard to ridiculous predictions rather than rational analysis of them.
Gareth Phillips: If the temperature trend is flat it has no rate of increase. Math 101: dT/dt=0.
T=temp t=time. JimB
Of course, the data adjusters and homogenizers are all working on the alarmists’ side.
Jim Cripwell says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:44 am
Werner Brozek has some software that starts at the current date, and goes back to see how long the pause has lasted.
I actually do not have any software. I use WFT and trial and error for the pause. And I use Nick Stokes’ site at http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D for the times of significant warming or lack thereof.
For my latest report, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/another-year-another-nail-in-the-cagw-coffin-now-includes-december-data/
Since 2002, the only global data set with a positive slope is UAH of the ones I have plotted below, however none of the slopes are statistically significant.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
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.
Gareth Phillips:
At February 5, 2014 at 8:11 am you write
Ah, the ‘Trougher’ Yeo argument.
Yes, global temperature anomaly rose in the past.
Yes, the rate of rise has levelled off to ZERO.
The trend in global average temperature anomaly (GASTA) is so small that it cannot be discerned as being different from zero at 95% confidence for at least the last 17 years according to all data sets; RSS says 24.5 years.
That means DISCERNIBLE GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED AT LEAST 17 YEARS AGO.
There is no more reason to think the present halt to global temperature change will end with warming than to think it will end with cooling. Indeed, what little evidence there is implies the halt is more likely to end with global temperature anomaly falling (not rising) because it has been trending down for about a decade although this trend is not statistically significant at 95% confidence.
Richard
The propensity to imagine scary linear trends from cyclic patterns, betrays a lack of discipline, poor understanding of mathematics and a willfull ignorance of history.
Before Global cooling, global warming, climate catastrophic changey we had a short record of of temperatures from spots around the globe, some crop records and some historic reports.
Some patterns appeared to recur, suggesting weather cycles.
Now, after mass public hysteria, condemnation of the stuff of life and squandering public treasuries worldwide, we have?
Sorry, but heads have to roll.
I have been lied too, taxed,surcharged, lectured, heckled and sneered at, by my employees.
People who swore an oath, to serve faithfully and to the best of their ability the public good.
Well nothing good has come from the terror of the magic gas, much harm has been caused.
Now these incompetents, the most generous and polite term available, expect to quietly retire and collect a pension.
By what madness does stupidity, theft and disservice warrant reward?
Kleprocracy is wonderful, unless you are the ones paying for the theft.
I’ve provided this long term graph before. It shows the alternating ~30 year trends are always in sync with the PDO.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1912/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1944/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend
Keep n mind all the adjustments make the long term trend look larger than it might really be. For more recent times we can magnify the trend with this chart.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
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.
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.
I wouldn’t trust anyone who produces data showing rates of rise “measured” to the nearest thousandth of a degree Celsius or even temperature anomalies to the nearest hundredth or thousandth!!! When they really mean “about”, period!
I think that Roy Spencer created a simple graph a while back that showed the PDO cycle on top of a gently ascending underlying temperature curve that fitted the past figures well. The upshot (as I remember it – apologies, Dr Spencer if this is wrong) was that, long term, the temperature is rising but at a pretty slow rate cf the IPCC numbers (which are actually pretty low now, anyway).
many of the comments to this posting are noting the immaturity of climate science and seem to imply that this is a reason to discount the issue of AGW. perhaps I am misinterpreting these comments but for me this is not a reason for a lack of concern. Indeed the state of climate science should be of great concern to us since if it is still at a stage concerned with determining the basic cycles and functioning of the climate then it is of no use to us in addressing what could be a very serious problem. 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.
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.
TAG:
I read your post at February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am which worries that the halt of global warming may be a precursor to global warming coming back even worse. So, you suggest, we must do something.
Allow me to help.
Instead of worrying about global warming which has stopped, try worrying about a possible asteroid impact. You can do something about effects of that; e.g. wear a tinfoil hat.
Richard
Here is an abstract of AN Easterbrook paper of 2000 (not sure if it is the one described here, but the last sentence of the abstract does suggest a possible “reversal” of the warming).
Easterbrook Don J.; 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 32(7): 17
Ten major Mount Baker (3285 m) glaciers flow radially from a summit ice cap, terminating at elevations of 1200 m to 1600 m. The termini of six glaciers were photogrammetrically mapped at 2-7-year intervals for the period 1940-1990 (Harper, 1992). All showed a cyclical oscillation in three distinct phases having a period of two to three decades. Although the timing was slightly different among glaciers, all six glaciers retreated rapidly from 1940 to about 1950-55, then advanced until about 1980, followed by a second rapid retreat that is presently continuing. Temperature and precipitation data from nearby weather stations show that the glacier fluctuations may be explained by changes in accumulation-season precipitation and ablation-season mean temperature. Lag times between trend reversals in the climate records and changes between advance and retreat phases ranged from 3 to 17 years. Other glaciers in the Cascade and Olympic Mts. seem to have undergone similar oscillations. Recent oceanographic studies in the northern Pacific region have shown a cyclical oscillation pattern (PDO) that has a similar periodicity, suggesting that the glacier oscillations are caused by cyclical changes in the ocean. The Pacific NW is currently in a warm cycle, thus raising the question of whether the warmer climate in the area over the past two decades is due to constantly escalating global warming or merely to a typical warm cycle. The answer to this question should become apparent within the next 5 years when the warm cycle should reverse if the pattern continues.
I have nothing but admiration and great respect for Dr. Easterbrook, but I must interject a little humility into this and I hope it does not come across as diminishing his work at all. the real work in Dr. Easterbrook’s research was teasing out the periodicity of the cycles and reaching the conclusion which the data indicated, but the premise is essentially standard working knowledge of every geologist worth their salt. The entirety of the geologic community NOT in the payroll of NSF funding or IPCC related propaganda is wholly unsurprised by climate cyclicity. It is THE reason we have the vast coal resources we do.
I have said it before, I am on the executive committee of the National Association of State Boards of Professional Geology and it is the RARE geologist in that group representing 30 states (including academics and professional practitioners) who doesn’t think AGW is a load of pig swill.
But thank you Don for your terrific work and for being outspoken when it was not popular. Also, sincere congratulations on making the correct prediction back in ’99 – 2000.
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.
TAG – it’s nice to see the obligatory medical reference. Cancers can grow or go away. But there is no way to get harmed by a negative cancer. Negative temperatures, though, can cause harm, and in fact, have been shown to cause more harm than large positive temperatures.
So what if the current flatlining of temperatures is only a pause caused by the beginning of a naturally caused decrease? Shouldn’t this be of more concern to you than your completely hypothetical future increase? Shouldn’t the precautionary principle mean preparing for more people in need because of cold?