(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
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/
JAMES ABBOTT
You said ” temperatures have not fallen since 2000″
I think W.BROZEK (12:01)already confirmed the decline in global temperatures in an earlier post but here is another graph showing a decline since 2004. It is not big but a decline nevertheless .
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014
You have to remember that Hansen /NASA were predicting a temperature anomaly rise of about 1.2 C for the Business as usual scenario A by 2013 I believe. So Don’s forecast was a major departure in the direction of these alarmist forecast. This is a key point in my opinion. He may not have gotten the decline year or the exact decline amount exactly right, but no one will get it 100%. Look at the failed forecasts by IPCC report after report.
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.
For temps over the past 17 years and last decade see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/the-agu-policy-statement-as-redrafted-by-monckton/
Too bad. I would have preferred longer, warmer summers by the pool and less snow to shovel during the winter.
It is just as much “Press” as the BBC,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554833/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490047/Facebook-reveals-BBC-liberal-hotbed.html
and The Guardian,
“…it is no secret we [The Guardian] are a centre-left newspaper” – Ian Katz, Guardian Features Editor
“…it [The Guardian] is clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive” – Jackie Ashley, Guardian Columnist
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.
For those who want a sneak peek at my comments on Don Easterbrook’s updated graph:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/on-don-easterbrooks-updated-projection/
I’ll post it here at WUWT tomorrow morning. I’m calling it a night….right now.
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.)
I agree that there is a significant chance of modest cooling going forward and I’m delighted that Don is getting some press. With Judith jumping on this recently I think it is only fair to point out that what I consider a significant paper on such cyclicity was published in 2007.
Klyashtorin2007,Cyclic%20Climate%20Change_Fish[1]
I got the link a few years ago on this site, but it seems largely ignored. It extends the concept way beyond Salmon to fish harvests worldwide and touches on the ACI, an early Russian index of Rossby wave amplitude.
Whatever happens, we’re doomed.
So,…..I am not gonna have beachfront property on the northern extreme of the Mississippi Bay? Too bad, the sandstone would have made for awesome beaches.
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?
Poptech says:
“It is just as much “Press” as the BBC, and The Guardian,…”
Well, I think there are significant differences. At its founding:
“Mr. Bozell said that his Conservative News Service (www.conservativenews.org) would report news that he says is not touched by traditional television news outlets.”
I think they are doing that here.
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?
RichardLH says: @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm
if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you are leaving out the longer term evidence that could help figure out what is happening.
The full paper is for registered users only however a pop-sci article is available via NASA: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
That article states:
“…The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years….”
And
“…So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun’s ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation’s influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River’s sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter….”
So it looks like your graph shows a ~ 60 to 70 year ocean cycle imposed on top of the 200 year solar cycle. With 1910 to 2010 being one half of the cycle.
Instead of 15 and 75 year passes you might try 11 year and either the 60 year or 88 year.
Also of interest:
Another paper that should be of interest to Dr. Don Easterbrook
Gail Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:13 am
“Instead of 15 and 75 year passes you might try 11 year and either the 60 year or 88 year.”
I think that you (and various others) have missed what is being done here and what it is showing.
These are LOW PASS BROADBAND filters.
A ‘Gaussian’ Cascaded Triple Running Mean Low Pass (see V. Pratt and G Goodman). http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
The frequency response looks like this
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/LowPassGaussianCTRMcompare_zps74328f66.png
That is they are a binary chop of the available spectrum into two bins. The ‘stop band’ which are ALL frequencies below 15 years in period and the ‘pass band’ which are ALL frequencies above 15 years in period.
This is exactly like the telephone/broadband splitter dongle you fit between your computer and the wall to connect to the Internet (if you use broadband that is).
The 15 year roll over point is just to ensure that we stay below the 30 years that is deemed to be Climate.
If you ‘see’ ANY cycle of ANY length above that then that is what the data is showing, not the filter.
This is the true beauty of this type of arrangement. It does not make assumptions about what to look for. It lets the data tell you what is there.
You want to go looking for cycles less than 15 years, be my guest. Run the equivalent high pass 15 year filter and go looking. I can tell from a quick eyeball of the differential between the Annual signal (strange how no-one complains about doing the above procedure to get a more accurate Annual signal, only about longer filters!) and the 15 year signal to say that there appears to be little energy in that band but……
So to your 60 year and 88 year signals. If there was something in the data at ~60 years it would show up and it does. The main problem is that it appears to be asymmetric (at present?) with a 60 year ‘positive’ half cycle and a negative 70 year ‘negative’ half cycle. That is not unusual in Nature so that may well be the pattern for now. It could well be possible that we will see 50 pos, 70 neg, 60, pos, 50 neg, 70 pos, 60 neg and so on as a random set of sub-matches within an overall 60 year combo. Way too short to tell that yet.
The 88 year signal, well as it is possible to characterise the greater than 70 year data as either an upward slope (CO2 RULES!) of part of a ~100 year or longer cycle it is a bit difficult to say yet.
If I was looking for obvious potential patterns I would go for 60+4 = 56 and 60-4 = 64 as being something that could come out of orbital parameters but then we need a methodology that would transfer that orbital figure to Climate.
You want to go ‘cycle hunting’? Sweep a low pass filter up and down the available bandwidth and see what drops in and out. You do this sort of thing all the time when you tune a radio. Why not for Climate. 🙂
Joe says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm
“Yes, you can if you have enough data. But if your data sample is too short to capture all of the patterns then you can’t….. 120 years of (somewhat dubious) data out of 100s of thousands of years is nowhere near enough to capture the possible patterns in climate.”
I would be the first to agree that the data we do have is not long enough.
However I do not agree that we can just stop doing any form of analysis until we have enough data to be sure.
Nate Drake PhD tells me that 300 years of data is required to ‘see’ 60 year signals in the data. Well the graphs speak for themselves. I have made and sold kit based on CTRM filters and their ability to distinguish ‘bits’ from ‘noise’ cheaply (actually the bits were IN the noise but…).
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
So signals in the range greater than 15 years and greater than 75 are the ones we can use for now on the high quality (?) we do have. Sure there may have been some attempt to diminish some part of the signal. That will show up as the greater than 70 year being too large in magnitude compared to what was ‘really’ there. I worry little about that scenario.
Don: I accept your basic premise, that the long term patterns may well repeat in the future. Based on HadCrut4 I present this as a possible alternative future evolution of the data.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4MonthlyDonEatserbrookAlternative_zps997c2b44.gif
Oops. Label swapped. Now corrected.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4MonthlyDonEatserbrookAlternative_zps3ddfbe2e.gif
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.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:17 am
“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.”
I rather think that there is a least one cycle in between 60 and 1000 years to take into account as well.
Just not enough real data to sort out how many and at what period, yet.
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.