By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore:
Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?
HenryP says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:35 am
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 10:40 am
Its cooling?. The oceans have to be considered. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
philincalifornia says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:01 am
I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has! to increase the temperature of the Earth. The paper I referenced takes out some major weather influences to show a steady increase in global surface temperatures, you cant say that all of the warming they show is from CO2 but it has been shown that it is most likely all from CO2.
HenryP says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:35 am
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 10:40 am
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm
@PhilJourdan
Yes, they seem to come to the same conclusion as me
they say it will be cooling until 2030, I say it will be cooling until at least 2038, and most probably about 6 or 7 years after that as well.
However, they looked at different / difficult parameters.
They heard the bells ringing but I fear they don’t know why they make a noise.
I say it is because of the planets, and their relative position in space which either have a braking effect (cooling, happening now) or a speeding action (warming, ended 1998) on a certain type of energy emitted by the sun. This affects the manufacturing of ozone and peroxides and nitric oxides lying TOA. If the braking were not there we could have runaway warming.
How cleverly this was put together…..how big is our God?
Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, there was one man who had also figured this out correctly, back in 1985. It appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
I wonder whatever happened to William Arnold?
Obviously this reality does mean that if something happens to the balance of gravity in our planetary system, we are all dead.
Michael Whittemore says
I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has! to increase the temperature of the Earth.
Henry says
First of all, I should tell you that skeptical science is not skeptical, because if they were why would they have banned me and censored all my posts??
CO2 is a trace gas and its concentration has risen from 0.03% 100 years ago to 0.04% now. If you want to claim that this change in the atmosphere causes any warming you have to come up with a balance sheet, showing us exactly how much warming and how much cooling is caused by hat very 0.01 change in the atmosphere. I queried a number of scientists on this, including dr Alley and others. None could supply me with the balance sheet. You can read my musings here:
:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
If you really want to understand what GHG’s do – they are not only causing warming, they also cause cooling – then you should make an effort to try and understand what I am saying. Just follow the above link and try to get into my mind.
The proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
Now, if you were to carefully examine my tables that I have quoted earlier then you might stumble upon a few interesting facts. First of all, overall, globally speaking, minima have not been rising at all..The only places where I could find minima rising faster was in Las Vegas where a desert was turned into a paradise in a small space of time. OTOH, in Tandil in Argentine, where they chopped all the trees down, I found minima were dropping faster then anywhere on earth.
Now, what if anything, could we all learn from that?
Perhaps it is that if you want a greener world, it HAS TO BE a warmer world?
Michael Whittemore says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:15 pm
philincalifornia says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:01 am
I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has! to increase the temperature of the Earth.
————————————————-
Because you say so, off the top of your non-scientist head ?? Errrrrmmmm, no.
Why don’t you f-kin prove it with some data, and not just data that shows that the earth warmed for a few years recently ? We all know that.
You also didn’t address your lack of understanding of the English language when you said that it “has to” to quote you in this most recent post and then you said “maybe it has to” in your last sentence in that earlier post. Don’t run and hide. It doesn’t work in a public thread.
Don’t worry though, even people like Nick Stokes are arguing the semantics of court filings to prove that purported anthropogenic CO2 is causing anything other than immeasurable effects on the planet’s climate.
You don’t fool people on this site. Go educate yourself on the scientific idiocy of leading with a “top of the head” conclusion. It’s actually quite infantile, although you will never know it.
HenryP says:
March 8, 2014 at 9:25 am
The reason I and others most likely disregard what you say is due to you not considering the big picture of anthropogenic climate change. Only 3% of global warming goes into the atmosphere, yet you seem to be fixated on it http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12. I would just like to see you take into consideration the other 97%! When you see a cooling trend in all 100% of the warming (minus natural influences) then people will take you seriously.
philincalifornia says:
March 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm
I already referenced the paper I was discussing, so there is your data regarding what I am talking about. The paper says “[Global Warming’s] unabated increase is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate.” The paper infers that the warming is human induced and is why I have to state it is most “likely” the cause of the warming trend.
You seem to think that me stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which will cause warming on the planet is not based on science. The science for that is well documented http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
@philincalifornia
I suggest we leave old Whittemore to cook in his own fat (in the SS!)
Once he sees that he will have to keep shoving snow later and later in Spring, maybe he will wake up. Clearly, he has no understanding of what sort of testing results we would require, neither does he want to find out for himself.
for example, one of the methods of identifying CO2 on other planets is to pick up the deflection in the relevant absorption region of CO2 in the UV. This proves that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere. It deflects solar radiation out to space. There are also absorptions of CO2 between 1 and 2 and between 4 and 5 um.
To finalize this matter we can ask Whittemore one simple question:
where is the balance sheet, based on all the absorptions 5-20 um showing the amount of warming caused by deflected earthshine and based on all absorptions of CO2 0-5 um showing the amount of cooling by deflected sunshine. If he does not answer these questions he has no right to speak.
He is simply just ignorant and wants to stay that way.
HenryP says:
March 9, 2014 at 2:43 am
I remember reading in one of your comments about this, table, something about you asking others for it but they did not give you an answer, I would suggest because there is no science to back it up. A peer reviewed paper that has a table which explains CO2 causes a cooling effect on earth, right now, that needs to be considered and would disprove anthropogenic climate change? I hope you can hear how ridicules that sounds.
Michael Whittemore says:March 7, 2014 at 8:28 pm
We all know skepticalscience is not. Posting links to there are a joke.
Michael Whittemore says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1586177
Henry says
the people in your video all claim that the warmth is now somehow “hiding” in the oceans.
So, how do you explain then that the sea surface temperature anomaly clearly shows that SST is cooling by as much as the land surface temperatures from 2001? see here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend
The floats are still new and may well have calibration or other teething problems.
The reason I know that we will continue to cool in the future is because I understand how the distribution of energy from the sun will be in the future:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
This is my best fit based on the fall in maximum temperatures as reported in my tables earlier on.
Indeed, I hope this is the best fit fore my data, because any other best fit would have us end up in much more global cooling.
So, there is not going to be any more global warming. Not for the next 3 or 4 decades. There will only be more global cooling.
Currently, you would not notice much change in temperature at the lower latitudes as more water vapor condenses here which releases enormous amounts of energy. However, we can see that the jets have moved south, hence the flooding of England….
I did pick up a definitive trend at the higher latitudes:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg (-0.55 degrees C per decade, on average, for Alaska)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/southern-sea-ice-area-minimum-2nd-highest-on-record/
Even Nasa admits that antarctic ice is increasing
We are cooling from the top [90] latitudes down. Lost arctic ice will all freeze back from 2025 to 2040 as also happened from 1935 to 1950.
Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.
According to my calculations we are about 7 years off from the start of a similar drought period as happened on the Great Plains of America in 1932-1939.
Steve Keohane says:
March 9, 2014 at 7:05 am
All Skeptical Science does is do a summary of peer reviewed papers on climate change? I could just link you all the papers that are in that one link I provided. Here is a portion of them..
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jli/pdf/puckrin2004.pdf
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
HenryP says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:28 am
Not one person in that video says the heat is “hiding”?? They don’t say that because it’s not true. As what was stated by Lyman & Johnson (2013) “In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0–1800 m.” As can be seen in this graph http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/BTK13Fig1.jpg
For everything else that you said, don’t give up your day job.
M.Whittemore says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1586933
…..don’t give up your day job.
henry says
insulting me now
for the lack of any results of your own
As Jesus said:
there are none so blind as those who donot want to see
I am so glad to be freed from the bondage of slavery from people like you
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxE3uwHECs&feature=youtube_gdata_player ]
@Whittemore
. Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950….
As the people in Alaska have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at an average rate of -0.55 degree C per decade since 1998. see here ( average from 10 weather stations from Alaska)
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
That is almost one whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better.
NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
We are globally cooling from the top [90] latitudes downwards
I pray to God that you all wake up soon, before it is too late. Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Michael Whittemore says:
March 10, 2014 at 7:46 am
Thank you for your comments and links.
. . .
As what was stated by Lyman & Johnson (2013) “In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0–1800 m.”
What is the mechanism that transports current heating directly to the deeper oceans without first heating the shallower levels. The only ones I am familiar will, such as the thermohaline circulation, take decades or centuries to do the transport. This would mean the warming, if actually present, would have been from shallower warming decades to centuries ago.
Robert A. Taylor says:
March 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm
There are many processes that cause ocean heating, but a key focus is on La Nina’s. This process brings deep cold ocean waters to the surface and in doing so causes a vacuum effect for warm surface water (in other areas) to fill the void. Since the Hiatus there has been a strong La Nina presences http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png
The next point that needs to be addressed is the deep ocean heat is not well distributed throughout the ocean. It is focused in key areas where La Nina’s form, trade wings blow and areas with high sea level rise. Willis Eschenbach has a good graph that shows the warming is spread out http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/trend-ocean-0to2000m-temps-argo-2005-2012.jpg. The idea is science found that the warming must have been sequestering to the deep ocean so they started measuring down to 1800m. They found that indeed the deep ocean heat content had been increasing http://skepticalscience.com//pics/LymanJohnson13Table1.png
Robert A Taylor says to M.Whittemore
Thank you for your comments and links
Henry says
Clearly, unless you are a dummie chartered from the SS site, you have nothing to thank M. for.
He and his ilk are only keeping mankind behind as far as possible in (deep sea) ignorance…..
What you need to try and understand is the process whereby radiation from the sun is transferred to warmth in the water of the oceans. Do you know the process whereby light from the sun is transferred to heat in the water?
@moderators
I think the comment of Michael Whittemore here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1587590
is insulting to skeptic scientists?
Clearly we are identified as deniers. Therefore the comment should be deleted?
HenryP says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:42 am
Henry says
I have been a confirmed skeptic on CAGW since the catastrophism changed from the disastrous coming “ice age”, and I was skeptical about that. I will thank any warmist who actually presents evidence and rational arguments instead of name calling, which I deplore. This is supposed to be a science website. Why don’t you present the rebuttals to his comments and links? I do not have the time and Internet access to.
Michael Whittemore says:
March 12, 2014 at 4:32 am
Thank you for your totally unexpected reply. Most warmist ( I hope you do not mind the term ) who comment here are impolite, and refuse to stick to the point.
I understand what you are conveying in your comments and links and have since before warmists would admit how much they mattered. It is a shame that “settled” climate science refused to do so for years, and refused to acknowledge skeptics trying to point out how much natural variation there actually is.
Perhaps you should review the history and context of “d*e*n*i*e*r” ( Vide HenryP says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:42 am ) to discover why it is so offensive. Also be aware that using “climate change” instead of “anthropogenic catastrophic climate change or global warming”, or some such is an ancient dishonorable propaganda technique of using common words and phrasing giving one impression to the ordinary people while actually meaning something else entirely. In the case of CAGW skeptics, such as myself it gives the impression we are so stupid, ignorant, or insane that we believe climate does not change, and that is and always has been the obvious intention. It is also unfortunate that the warmists refuse to use the paleoclimate history of our current ice age with many glacials and interglacials as the basis of natural climate variability, and thus misunderstand the natural variability.
Calculations, logic, computerized models prove nothing; only observation and experiment offer tentative proofs. To say “pause” or a synonym is to assume an unproven outcome. Furthermore, the warming could resume, cooling could resume, there could be no significant change. We won’t know till it happens.
Allow me to ask a few critical questions not about climate, but about policy and ethics:
Is it proper to kill people now, injure people through sickness and horrible living conditions now, hold people living in destitution now, forcing others into destitution now, hold people in poverty now, forcing others into poverty now for the sake of possible unconfirmed damage in the far future?
Is it proper and rational for the U.S.A. to unilaterally or with the E.U. to limit its economy producing the above ( Vide fuel poverty in the U.K. ), when it is utterly unlikely the developing world will follow in this cruel policy?
Will you condemn and correct the demagogues using CAGW for their personal or political advantage.
What is your “carbon footprint” versus the median in the U.S.A. In other words do you practice what you preach. I was taught believe what people do not what they say. An ancient method of testing ethics and morality is: “What would happen if everyone did that?” So, what would happen if everyone went around preaching about CAGW, but no one personally did anything about it?
Are you in anyway paid or compensated by the warmist government, NGO, and industry? ( I am not any anyway paid or compensated by the other side. )
Are you in anyway paid or compensated for commenting here? ( I am not. )
What would happen to you if you became a CAGW skeptic?
And, would we CAGW skeptics be better off financially, professionally, and socially if we switched sides?
Will you comment on how SkS alters posts based upon skeptical commenters’ comments without identifying how and when, then leaves in the comments giving the impression the commenter is a fool?
I have yet to find one warmist who will answer those questions.
I would like to present the rebuttals to all you have commented and the links you have given in over abundance, but I simply do not have they time and Internet access to. I suggest you read the posts and comments on WUWT by Willis Eschenback, rgbatduke ( a physics professor ), justthefacts ( a retired physics professor ), and many others quite knowledgeable in the various fields. I suggest starting with “It Isn’t How Climate Scientists Communicated their Message; It’s the Message” and going to rgbatduke says: March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am , and “The group the ‘Right Climate Stuff’ says there’s no need to worry about catastrophic global warming”
There is always a lunatic fringe at the edges of all sides of every question. Do not take CAGW skeptics for their fringe group. Most are far more knowledgeable and educated, and have spent far more time investigating the issue than most warmists.
I’m out of time. TTFN
Robert A. Taylor says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm
I do not mind the term, warmest.
Your comment about proponents of anthropogenic climate change not considering natural variation, they do the best they can. Climate models can’t predict volcanic eruptions, reduced solar activity, El Nino/La Nina, increased ocean heat uptake and many other climate processes. This is why climate models focus more on the upward trend that should be expected from increased CO2 downward radiation. Climate modelers know that even if the heat goes into the ocean or atmosphere, it is not going to disappear and over time the trend should be correct. But to try and prove their point, they have gathered all the data from ocean heat uptake, volcanic eruptions and solar influences to input them into climate models. Here are their findings http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-ocean-global-warming-puzzle-Kosaka-Xie.html
I understand the implications of using the word denier, I don’t use it but I do understand why it is used. In all my comments I’m usually very punctual to ensure that I use the term anthropogenic climate change. Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a statistically right term to use as the consensus on climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees of warm. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg
Your comment states “It is also unfortunate that the warmists refuse to use the paleoclimate history of our current ice age with many glacials and interglacials as the basis of natural climate variability, and thus misunderstand the natural variability.” This is an interesting comment because science has looked at our last ice age and has determined the mechanisms that made it happen. It also uses that information to determine climate sensitivity http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html. My previous graph has a section for paleoclimate based climate sensitivity studies which focuses on lots of different eras.
You mention that “the warming could resume, cooling could resume, there could be no significant change. We won’t know till it happens.” With increased downward radiation from anthropogenic CO2 it is expected that even if we see cooling in the climate system, the heat will just be transferring from place to place, as in there should not be a cooling over all until the Earth is in balance. With only 2.3% of anthropogenic CO2 warming going into the atmosphere, it is not the best place to consider when determining if the Earth as a whole is in balance.
“Is it proper to kill people now” Here in Australia we have one of the highest carbon taxes in the world, and its very simple. The money raised from the tax is given back to the people as income tax reductions. The remainder is given to funding green technology and also the developing world. The basic idea is, people look for cheaper, green options. My carbon foot print is low, I pay extra for my electricity because all my power is supplied from green technology, zero carbon. I have a small car that I drive to work. Society has to change first and that is best done with the introduction of a carbon tax.
No I am not paid, if anything I pay through the nose to go to university to learn about climate change. In saying that, it would be extremely hard for me to become a skeptic, I have the ability to research all the science and it seems straightforward to suggest CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will increase the temperature of the Earth, it is just a matter of how much. Another key finding was looking at the temperature of the earth over the last 500 million years and confirming that CO2 governed how warm the earth was http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
Regarding skeptical science, from what you have stated does not sound that bad, the science is spot on there and is all backed up with peer reviewed papers. Editing comments sounds trivial and I would be nice to see proof of it happening.
I read rgbatduke comment and it does not disprove anything, only really points out that science is complex. The right stuff science guys, well that is just some peoples opinions. Of cause if the right stuff it is found to be true, that will be great, but you can see that they are talking about it without getting it peer reviewed, a clear indicator it won’t be published.
Robert A Taylor says
Why don’t you present the rebuttals to his comments and links?
Henry says
I am sorry thinking you were a dummy. I can see you are quite clever.
I have tried on many occasions now to show Michael that the weather is governed by solar activity and planetary movement, as has been well known for a long time,
e.g.
I can refer to this study here:
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
which shows that are at least two known cycles that influence the weather.
The Gleissberg solar/weather cycle (87-88 years) was known for a long time.
Here is another study confirming it:
quote
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years.
end quote
By studying the drop in the speed of maximum temperatures I have been able to pinpoint the exact point where we currently are in that particular cycle. Here you can see the summary of my results:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The bottom for the curve appears to be in 2016. This corresponds with a similar point in history at around 1927. (one year error is fine) . The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
So that is how I know. We are 7 years away from disaster. Unless we do something now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1587595
Robert A. Taylor says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm
http://youtu.be/EU_AtHkB4Ms
Henry@ur momisugly Whittemore
You must be high up the in the SS hierarchies to know all these references….. It is apparent that you want to have the last word here, but clearly your last comment does not belong here. It is more appropriate here?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/13/an-article-from-1974-suggests-global-cooling-would-cause-more-extreme-weather/
I never said that an ice age was coming. In fact, I say that in 1972 we were at the height of global warming, where the speed of warming was at its highest. However, in those days we had many of those idiots in France and England and the USA who actually thought that it was OK to explode atomic bombs in the pacific. Hence, the man made global cooling around that time. (look at the destruction of pacific islands). We only see the biosphere going much greener in the past 3 decades (as observed from the satellites).
I also say that in 2016 we will be at the point where the speed of natural global cooling will be at its highest.We can only hope that there will not be another ice age.
Either way, there are ways for man to avoid the ice age trap if it comes.