Prof Bob Carter warns of unpreparedness for Global Cooling

HadCRUT_cooling from 2001

Eric Worrall writes:

Professor Bob Carter, writing in today’s edition of The Australian, a major Aussie daily newspaper, warns that the world is unprepared for imminent global cooling, because of the obsession of policy makers with global warming.

According to Bob Carter;

Heading for ice age

“GRAHAM Lloyd has reported on the Bureau of Meteorology’s capitulation to scientific criticism that it should publish an accounting of the corrections it makes to temperature records (“Bureau warms to transparency over adjusted records”, 12/9). Corrections which, furthermore, act to reinforce the bureau’s dedication to a prognosis of future dangerous global warming, by turning cooling temperature trends into warming ones — a practice also known to occur in the US, Britain and New Zealand.

Meanwhile, we have a report by Sue Neales that the size of our grain harvest remains in doubt following severe frosts in southern NSW killing large areas of early wheat crops and also damaging wheat and canola crops in South Australia and Victoria (“Trifecta of calamities to deplete. crop harvest”, 12/9)

Is it unreasonable to be surprised that none of your writers, much less the government, has noticed that leading solar astrophysicists, such as Habibullo Abdussamatov from Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg, have for years been commenting on the declining activity of the sun?

These scientists are projecting a significant cooling over the next three decades, and perhaps even the occurrence of another little ice age.

Obsessed as they are with a gentle global warming trend that stopped late last century, should the expected solar cooling eventuate, policy makers will rue the day they failed to heed the advice of independent scientists on climate change issues.”

Professor Abdussamatov, cited by Professor Carter in his letter, is head of the Space Research section of the Russian Academy of Science.

In 2006, Professor Abdussamatov issued a press release, warning that the world should prepare for imminent global cooling. Abdussamatov predicted that the global cooling would start in 2012 – 2015, and would likely peak around 2055.

This predicted global cooling, if it occurs, will mean that polar vortex winters and cold related crop failures, such as the recent frost catastrophe which destroyed a significant fraction of Australia’s wheat crop, in the state of New South Wales, will become a normal part of life, and will most likely become a lot worse.

WUWT readers might recall a shameful incident last year, in which Professor Carter was unceremoniously dumped from his academic post. In my opinion, the removal of Professor Carter was part of an ongoing purge of Australian academics who hold unfashionable views on climate change.


Source of the graph: Source:

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 13, 2014 10:21 pm

A quick look at a global temp over time chart makes it anxiously alarming that our current Holocene Epoch may well be overdue to cool into the next, cyclically expected 100,000 year global glacial period. Humans have survived the previous two glacial periods, however, they were not spoiled by great power generation systems that may well fail to continue to provide us with the power we now depend upon for nearly everything we need and want. All the best to us in our future adventures.

Reply to  paullm
September 13, 2014 10:45 pm

Nothing is what it seems, Berger and Loutre concluded based on Milankovic cyclle calculations that the next real ice age is still 50,000 years away.

Reply to  Hans Erren
September 14, 2014 5:03 am

The peak yes, but it could have started already.

Ian Schumacher
Reply to  Hans Erren
September 14, 2014 11:27 am

Looking at the periodic nature of ice-ages, it’s hard to believe that ‘suddenly’ we will have an interglacial of unprecedented length (by almost an order of magnitude). Possible, but it just seems really unlikely. This interglacial period is already very long.
I have yet to see a good explanation for the 100,000 year cycle, the ‘stage 5’ problem, the ‘weak forcing’ problem, or the change from 41kyr to 100kyr cycle based purely on Milankovitch cycles. When we can adequately explain that past, then maybe I’ll believe we can predict the future.
It’s my conjecture that Milankovitch cycles perturb a naturally oscillating system and over time they fell into synchronization (like the ‘sympathetic’ pendulums experiment). This then allows a mechanism to explain all of the above.

Gail Combs
Reply to  Hans Erren
September 15, 2014 5:34 pm

Loutre and Berger’s 2003 astronomical model, was soundly trounced by Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 rebuttal, an exhaustive analysis of 57 globally distributed deep ocean cores reaching back about 5 million years. The widely referenced LR05 stack in the literature since suggests that this is a landmark paper in paleoclimate science.
Since then there has been nothing in the literature to suggest the Holocene will go long. Even if the Holocene was a double cycle like MIS 11 it would still be cold and nasty with abrupt changes since current insolation value (June 21 insolation minimum at 65N) = 479W m−2 is at the ‘Tipping point’
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2
The values are from a fall 2012 paper: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
NOAA’s calculations show how close to the Solar Insolation during the depths of the Wisconsin Ice Age the earth now is:
NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
Depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm−2 (Δ 13 Wm-2)
Holocene peak insolation: 522.5 Wm-2 (Δ 46.5 Wm-2)
So no matter who you use as a reference, the earth is in the ball park Solar Insolation for glacial inception and we are about 200 years over due thanks to the Grand Solar Maximum now ending.
(H/T to William McClenney and Ilya G. Usoskin)

Ian Schumacher
Reply to  Hans Erren
September 15, 2014 6:54 pm

Gail Combs,
Thanks for that info. That was my understanding, too. Quite possibly it is our CO2 emissions that is helping prolong this interglacial. That was suggested by Hansen some time ago, but yet he failed to connect the dots fully and go – “Oh, in that case, maybe CO2 is a good thing”.
I’m not a doom sayer and I’m not worried about an ice-age (for me personally anyway), but I don’t understand this trend of pretending it can no longer happen for tens of thousands of years. I’ll trust historical data with a strong periodic signal (and the likely continuation of that pattern) over theories predicting sudden unprecedented behavior any day. The sun ‘might’ not rise tomorrow, but it probably will.

Kenneth Simmons
Reply to  Hans Erren
September 19, 2014 10:59 pm

A glacial ice age may be thousands of years away, but a little ice age is quite plausible .

Reply to  paullm
September 13, 2014 10:55 pm

A reader of mine trained a program to reproduce the past Milankovitch cycles and the forecasts seem to agree that the next full-fledged ice age will be around 60,000 AD.

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 12:39 am

Over the last 2.5 million years of glaciation and about 50 glacial cycles no interglacial has been even nearly that long. It would mean that the present interglacial is unique and unprecedented. This might of course be true but it will take more than a computer model to convince me.

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 3:07 am

We live in an Interglacial Period and they vary between warm and cool periods, not in any way connected with CO2. MWP/LIA come to mind.

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 3:19 am

@johnmarsall, agreed even a new little ice age (which is not related to Milankovic cycles) would be very disruptive.

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 5:20 am

tty says:
September 14, 2014 at 12:39 am
… it will take more than a computer model to convince me.

Computer models are reliable for many things. Planetary motion is one of those things.

Ian W
Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 8:30 am

@commiebob Do those reliable computer models predict the Bond Events, theDansgaard–Oeschger events, or the Litte Ice Age? Use them to tell us when the next cold period will be then add a reply here as its so simple – you could save millions of lives!

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 8:55 am

But ice is the base line; short warm periods (like the Holocene) is the exception, the anomaly. As cyclical as the past 50 have been, I doubt the next won’t occur for 60,000 years.
That would be a far-fetched anomaly in my estimation.

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 8:58 am

commieBob, said “Computer models are reliable for many things. Planetary motion is one of those things.”
Simply not true, computer models have nothing to do with predicting planetary motion; this motion is governed by basic Newtonian physics and is determined by solving the applicable equations.

Ian Schumacher
Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 11:30 am

Exactly. To suddenly believe this interglacial will last an order of magnitude longer than any other interglacial in recored history …. hmmmm.

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 10:08 pm

Long interglacials lasting ~30,000 years (as during MIS 11) are possible, although one lasting three precessional cycles might be “unprecedented”.,d.cGE
From Climate of the Past, 2012
Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
P. C. Tzedakis1, E.W. Wolff2, L. C. Skinner3, V. Brovkin4, D. A. Hodell3, J. F. McManus5, and D. Raynaud6
3.2 Interglacial duration
Estimates of interglacial length (Fig. 8, Table 1) suggest two main groups with mean duration of 13±3 kyr and 28±2 kyr, respectively. More specifically, interglacials of the first group (MIS 5e, 7e, 9e, 15a and 19c) are characterized by early peaks in temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations followed
by monotonic declines (though not in MIS 15a). Interglacials of the second group (MIS 11c, 13a and 17) are characterized by slow deglaciation (Rohling et al., 2010; Ruddiman et al., 2011) and the persistence of interglacial values over two summer insolation peaks. The long duration of MIS 11c has been attributed to weak eccentricity precession forcing, leading to a skipped precessional cycle, with obliquity becoming the dominant astronomical parameter driving ice volume changes (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2006). However, MIS 13a and 17 are not characterized by subdued eccentricity-precession variations, which suggests that their extended duration is a function of some other factor. This is further underlined by the short duration of MIS
19c, despite its subdued amplitude of insolation changes, as a result of weak eccentricity-precession forcing (Tzedakis et al., 2012). One aspect common to MIS 11c, 13a and 17 is that precession and obliquity are nearly opposite in phase, with the obliquity maximum post-dating the first precession minimum by 11–13 kyr and preceding the second precession minimum by 8–10 kyr. This means that the first summer insolation minimum occurred at the time of maximum obliquity. A low value of obliquity is important in determining ice accumulation in high latitudes, by leading to an intensified equator-to-pole insolation gradient and increased poleward transport of moisture, and by delaying the spring melt season (Raymo and Nisancioglu, 2003; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004).
Comparing the Holocene with MIS 11c interglacial:

Reply to  Lubos Motl
September 14, 2014 10:12 pm

Yes .. although that is 50,000+ years away. Which makes the point hat while ice ages can end quite quickly (within 5000 years), it typically take a while for an interglacial to cool into a full ice age. Several 10’s of thousands of years.
Which is why statements like that Russian professors are somewhat foolish. By putting a date on something he looks like a failed doomsayer. And for sure the low sun activity may mean some cooling, but this needs to be distinguished form a genuine ice age. And modern man will weather such cooling much better than Europeans in the mid 18th century. If it wasn’t for al this chitchat about climate, most people wouldn’t even notice.

Jake J
Reply to  paullm
September 14, 2014 5:13 am

I’ve always thought we live in charmed times. Think of it a second. In the U.S., we’ve really only had four major natural disasters in our history — the New Madrid (1811-12), San Francisco (1906) and Alaska (1964) earthquakes, and the 1930s drought.
We’re overdue for much worse, including earthquakes and volcanic eruptions anywhere from Mt. Lassen, CA up to Mt. Baker, WA, and the Yellowstone caldera. Even a moderate earthquake on the East Coast will cause major damage to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Wilmington, Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, and Richmond.
There are the volcanic islands that periodically collapse and unleash “megatsunamis.” The planet is constant bombarded with meteors, and occasionally comets, some producing widespread devastation and civilization collapse. There are plagues and epidemics, ad natural climate changes. None of which have happened for several hundred years.
Charmed times. Enjoy them while they last.

Trygve Eklund
Reply to  Jake J
September 14, 2014 5:45 am

On catastrophes being overdue: Remember the fundamental property of chance – “Chance has no memory”.

Reply to  Jake J
September 14, 2014 7:59 am

Canary islands anyone?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jake J
September 14, 2014 9:06 am

Trygve Eklund
September 14, 2014 at 5:45 am
“Chance has no memory.” Who says it’s chance. I would say were dealing with deterministic events. The next major meteor impact is currently following the laws of gravitation and momentum. We just don’t know where it is.

Reply to  Jake J
September 14, 2014 10:09 am

According to an old wives’ tale, disasters come in pairs or triples. With regard to time (as well as area), this is also shown by the statistical Poisson Distribution – including, of course, single instances of disasters.

Reply to  Jake J
September 15, 2014 12:36 pm

@Trygve Eklund, while chance has no memory, the earth does. Earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis are based on a build up of forces. The longer it has been since the last one means that the forces are continuing to build up. Since rock can only take so much strain before breaking, saying that we are over due has some validity. That doesn’t mean that we can accurately predict these things to the right decade or century based merely on the historical record. It does mean that if historically a big earthquake occurs on a particular fault every 50 years, and it’s been 80 years since the last one, that is good reason to be very nervous and to make sure your house is in good shape for a shaking.

Reply to  Jake J
September 15, 2014 3:10 pm

MIS 11 also enjoyed a balmy interglacial, but longer and warmer than even the Eemian. This from the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres is CACA but still the information about duration and other characteristics of the interglacial during that stage is valid.
Sea surface temperatures in cooler climate stages bear more similarity with atmospheric CO2 forcing
S. Das Sharma*,
D. S. Ramesh,
C. Bapanayya and
P. A. Raju
Article first published online: 7 JUL 2012
DOI: 10.1029/2012JD017725
The stage spanning the beginning of the Holocene to present-day (11–0 kyr) is marked as MIS 1. Of the various stages, special scientific attention is attributed to MIS 11, as the astronomically induced minor changes in the distribution of solar energy reaching the earth and related climate forcing during this stage were mostly similar to those of the ongoing MIS 1 interglacial period [Berger and Loutre, 2002; Loutre and Berger, 2003]. A complete MIS 11 carbon dioxide record from the Antarctic Vostok ice core data indicates that the concentration of carbon dioxide throughout this interglacial period of about 30,000 years were comparable to the Earth’s pre-industrial levels [Raynaud et al., 2005]. The exceptionally long duration of MIS 11 is attributed to (i) astronomically induced changes in the distribution of solar energy and (ii) concentration of carbon dioxide [Raynaud et al., 2005]. Many researchers have also documented synchronicity in marine and ice sheet isotope records together with terrestrial climate-proxy responses to identify warm episodes with intervening cool phase(s) during MIS 11 [e.g.,Ashton et al., 2008; Fawcett et al., 2011; Tzedakis et al., 2001].

J. Parsons
Reply to  Jake J
September 16, 2014 1:47 pm

Galveston hurricane should be on that list

Reply to  paullm
September 14, 2014 7:06 am
Reply to  mwhite
September 14, 2014 10:42 am

If they stop fudging with data, we may just find out we are in one {Ice Age} or just about……:)

Ian Schumacher
Reply to  paullm
September 15, 2014 11:05 am
September 13, 2014 10:25 pm

When, and if the world cools, historically it tends to do so more slowly than when it warms, so don’t expect a rash of colder weather over coming decades fast.

Reply to  thingadonta
September 13, 2014 10:42 pm

Actually there are many papers on how fast cooling can occur.

Reply to  Walter J Horsting
September 14, 2014 4:00 am

Ask Otzi the Iceman how fast cooling can occur [at least locally].
if the weather/climate hadn’t turned from mid-summer to freezing virtually overnight, and remained that way for several thousand years, we would never have met him.

Reply to  Walter J Horsting
September 14, 2014 5:06 am
Reply to  thingadonta
September 13, 2014 11:22 pm

The latest papers re. Antarctic say it can happen over as short period as 50-100 years. That was what must have happened for the ice free waterfilled sea under Antarctic Ice Sheet to be able to still be without freezing.
Same thing happened in Greenland beginning second half 1300’s slowly but drastic in 1341 after a serie of Vulcan eruptions in Greenland-Iceland area.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  norah4you
September 14, 2014 9:21 am

Geothermal gradient from the hotter interior causes water at the interface.

Steve P
Reply to  norah4you
September 14, 2014 7:27 pm

Yea, it was pretty cool to see Spock clutching that babe on the Star Trek re-run this week-end on MeTV.

Reply to  thingadonta
September 14, 2014 4:23 am

There’s considerable evidence that, at times, parts of the world have cooled abruptly and remained so for millennia. Flash frozen mammoths found in parts of Siberia with their flesh still edible after centuries, and palm trees perfectly preserved and uncovered in the ice in Antarctica are two examples. The mammoths, in particular, died while peacefully grazing on warm season plants, frozen where they stood.

Reply to  thingadonta
September 14, 2014 5:23 am

Aren’t we naturally cool? In other words….the Earth doesn’t produce enough of its own heat, so we depend on our star. If there are any disruptions in that, then we could cool fairly rapidly. I’m not saying that Michigan will be under ice in 5 years, but temps could drop suddenly if the output of the sun decreases.

September 13, 2014 10:47 pm

It’s all a bit of a mess alright.
Will there be an accounting for the huge waste of resources over the last 20 years?
I very much doubt it.

richard verney
September 13, 2014 10:48 pm

There is no reason to ‘believe’ that we are heading into the next glacial phase. However even modest cooling (as might occur over the next decade or two) will be an inconvenience, especially with respect to food production. But hey, Man is an adaptor, he will cope and survive.
IF the planet were to enter a new ice age, Man would obviously survive, but the impact would be stark. Many countries would simply be inhabitable. Rich countries like Norway and Canada would be unrecognisable. Every single building ever erected would be demolished, under a mile or more of ice. Man would have to migrate towards the tropics, Southern Europe and Northern Africa would quickly become over populated. Maximum development is in the North, so it is a bit ironic that Man would have to migrate to areas of least development, and to places where (at least from the infrastructural point of view) he will be least well equipped to deal with change. But as long as there is time, no problem.
Compare that to the miniscule problem that would arise if sea water levels were to rise a metre or two. Global cooling is always far worse than global warming.
But the author is right that we are ill equipped for a change in the cool direction because of politicians having signed up to the AGW mantra. One can see that in the UK. Since 2000, winter temps (Dec to Feb) have fallen by more than 1 degC. The UK has had a string of very cold winters with a lot of snowfall. But the Met Office has been unable to forecast such since their computers run hot. Local government and airports have got rid of their snow ploughs and salt/gritting machinery has been run down, with the consequence that main roads. airports, schools etc have all had to close for lengthy periods when there has been harsh winter conditions.
There have been many premature winter deaths amongst the elderly (25,000 to 40,000 depending upon which harsh winter one is looking at) due to a combination of factors, namely poor, old and damp hosuing stock, low pensions and poverty, and the high cost of energy in relation to that income group. as energy prices continue to escalate, and should cold winters become more prevalent, we will see an ever increasing number of people who cannot afford to properly heat their homes leading to illnesses and premature death.

Reply to  richard verney
September 14, 2014 7:23 am

Nothing changes faster than a politicians certitude in what is certain.

September 13, 2014 10:55 pm

So we’re back to the Ice Age predictions of the 1970s. Makes me feel young again.
And doomed, of course.

Les Johnson
September 13, 2014 10:58 pm

We are headed to an ice age. The time between spring and fall equinox (summer) was about 8.75 days longer than the time bewteen the fall and spring equinox (winter) in the year 1. Its currenntly at 7.5 days longer.
In other words, spring and summer in the NH is longer than winter and fall. But getting shorter. In about 14,000 years, the cool seasons will be longer than the warm seasons. This is when ice ages start.

Spotted Reptile
Reply to  Les Johnson
September 14, 2014 12:48 am

Good thing I live in the Southern Hemisphere then eh . . .

Reply to  Les Johnson
September 14, 2014 1:42 am

Ice ages always begin ay the half way point of the down stroke of the precession cycle. That means either now, or in 22kyrs or 44 kyrs time.

Reply to  phlogiston
September 14, 2014 3:50 pm

That was terse and to the point. I hope for my sake it’s not “now” but one of the others.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Les Johnson
September 14, 2014 3:29 am

Les, the problem with the variable you quote is that it is anti-correlated to solar insolation. The reason is that a long spring to autumn equinox implies that the Earth’s aphelion lies in midsummer, which means less summer insolation in northern latitudes, which has been claimed to be a cooling effect. So we are in the middle of a NH cooling effect which, with usual climatic lags, might last for another quarter precession cycle, or about 6000 years.
So glaciation is more likely in 2000 years’ time than in 14000 years. But the current eccentricity in this Milankovitch cycle may help to stave it off. And/or CO2 if one thinks that helps a little bit.

September 13, 2014 11:24 pm

The cracking heaving glaciers will be breaking windows in Whitehall before the establishment and “climate science” concede it’s a mite cooler. They’ll claim they underestimated the cooling effect of the thousands of windmills they erected on the viagra of subsidies in the name of reducing “carbon”.

Reply to  Manfred
September 13, 2014 11:57 pm

What a wondeful turn of phrase, “erected on the viagra of subsidies.” And, have you priced that stuff lately? That’s a VERY expensive subsidy.

Reply to  Michael Gersh
September 14, 2014 10:02 am

I like it too. May I have your permission to us it on occasion, (the phase, not viagra)

September 13, 2014 11:45 pm

it used to be that it took a “trend” of a decade or more for the alarmism to take root. now, it seems that everybody is ready to pounce on noise and call it a trend. warming…cooling….bah! the sun is a noisy (0.1% level) power source. weather is chaotic. get used to it. have a beer.

September 13, 2014 11:49 pm

The recent slight warming has not harmed us. Nor will a possilbe slight cooling. I am personally a witness to the fact that man could survive in the 1970s, when the world was on the ice-slippery slope towards catastrophic cooling.
When the next ice age arrives, man will have developed giant hair dryers to halt the growth of the glaciers. Polar bears can get their furs dryed too.

September 13, 2014 11:49 pm

Not a problem… we will just dump a little more CO2 into the atmosphere and problem solved. Maybe the government can give us some kind of tax break for producing more carbon?
Yeah… that should work. Just as soon as they remove CO2 as a pollutant/toxin.
Like that’ll happen anytime soon.
Or maybe congress and the supremes can outlaw eccentric orbits. Or precession, or non-zero orbital inclinations? I’m sure the prez would get out his pen for that.

Steve R
September 14, 2014 12:02 am

Imagine I invented a device that could change the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere to any value and fix it forever. But it could not be tweaked once it was set. Once it was set and activated, it could not later be adjusted to a different value.
Not being a climate scientist, I present my machine to the climate science community and ask them to come up with some kind of consensus about what value of CO2 concentration they think would be best for the world.
My question: Faced with the prospect of having to live with their selection, what kind of value do you think they would select? For added drama, I tell them that (me being a dumb engineer), if they don’t provide me with a consensus recommendation, I will select the default value of 0.0 ppm.

Reply to  Steve R
September 14, 2014 5:33 am

Perverse dilemma.

Reply to  Steve R
September 14, 2014 8:54 am

“Imagine I invented a device that could change the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere to any value and fix it forever. ”
It may seem like a joke what you say above, but actually that is how I think the problem we face with the climate can be portrayed to show what actually need it.
You see….. to invent a device like that and expect to efficiently do the job, you the inventer must know how the climate works, you need to have a much much better knowledge about climate.
That is exactly what is in question, the knowledge, that is what is important for us in the real run.
Besides the “invention” already there, we call it civilization.
What need it is only a fine adjastment of it to the condition, the climate condition.
Without a much better knowledge of the climate and the earth system we wont be able to even contemplate how that could be achieved.
The only metric helping us to see how good our knowledge is, will be the amount of reduction of the CO2 footprint of our civilization.

Steve R
Reply to  whiten
September 14, 2014 11:44 am

But the question is…What is the correct Value for CO2. What should I set the device to.

Reply to  whiten
September 14, 2014 12:26 pm

@Steve R
But the question is…What is the correct Value for CO2. What should I set the device to.
Of course you are right.
My reply to you was not conceptually proper and in line with your point, but the point I was making was that considering the subject from your angle, for the sake of the debate, we still end up with the need or the requirment of knowing and learning more about climate.
Maybe we get to a point of understanding and learning that shows a requirment of not simply fixing the value but more like beeen able to flexibly change it in accordance with the climate condition,which will be a much harder task than just fixing it.
Is only an argument to show more knowledge need it, as what known so far seems wrong and flimsy and no any near to be good enough.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Steve R
September 14, 2014 2:29 pm

Bill McKibben THINKS he knows.
The illusion of knowledge is worse than honestly not knowing. President Obama regularly demonstrates that axiom, Much to the US’s detriment.

Reply to  Steve R
September 15, 2014 8:24 am

Set it to 1000 ppm. That is a good number for plant growth, and perfectly safe for animals.

Gail Combs
Reply to  SunSword
September 15, 2014 5:48 pm

1000 ppm or even 1600 ppm (optimum for plants)

September 14, 2014 12:12 am

Professor Bob Carter, writing in today’s edition of The Australian, a major Aussie daily newspaper, warns that the world is unprepared for imminent global cooling, because of the obsession of policy makers with global warming.

Not only policy makers are to blame for the obsesion. Academia should take responsibility for that too.

Reply to  urederra
September 14, 2014 12:29 am

More a self reinforcing runaway hysteria IMO.
Politicians demanded the impossible, and tied lots of money to achieving a result.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… J Jouzel said that the truth will come from the use of models and their validation and that there was a move in WCRP – CLIVAR to take more interest in palaeo-data. Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time …
Some scientists, who already believed, decided to go with their gut, and present a stronger case than the evidence justified – and in doing so pleased their political masters. A few scientists kicked out against this, but not very many – most knuckled under in the end.
Climategate Email 4872.txt
… I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. …
As to *why* nobody called a halt to this nonsense – a few scientists tried. And they were made examples of. Look at what happened to Carter, to Salby, and to who knows how many scientists who had to choose between financial ruin and intellectual dishonesty.

David Jay
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 9:45 pm

“…come up with stronger signals”
UUHHH… How does that work?

William Astley
September 14, 2014 12:18 am

It is most certainly true that the world is not prepared in any manner for sudden and significant global cooling.
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

September 14, 2014 12:26 am

We have been warming for some 300 years according to borehole temperatures and instrumental records
Giss and Hadley can be seen in their proper context as staging posts for temperature rise, not the starting post.
Why did it start rising? I don’t know. Has it been rising prior to that? It was certainly warm at times in the preceding half millennia but with a serious dip in the middle between the MWP and the modern warm era.
Will the warming trend reverse itself? I don’t know. We might have a better idea if we were to identify the reasons for the previous warm and cool periods which places the current era into better perspective as apparently just another one of many warm periods but one that, because we can measure it instead of just accepting it, has caused consternation.
At some point it will cool again and whether the modern era can cope with long periods of cold bearing in mind the way we live and grow food is something the experts need to look at. At the least we need to prepare a plan B for cooling even if most of their attention remains focused on a plan A for warming.

Reply to  climatereason
September 14, 2014 1:49 am

Extrapolate climate temperature back 500 years from just over a century of data? This makes no sense in a chaotic unpredictable climate system. What planet are these guys on? Planet linear?

Stephen Richards
September 14, 2014 1:05 am

September 14, 2014 at 12:26 am
A look at the graph for the Holocene will show that we have been cooling since the end of the YD period. Be careful where you choose your start point for global temps.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 14, 2014 1:24 am

I am merely commenting that w have unexplained warming from 1700 which clearly predates enhanced co2.
We can observe ups and downs prior to the start of the graph. The data anyway is very smoothed as it does not show the considerable fluctuations in climate. The proxies are a very coarse sieve through which the fine grain of real world annual and decadal temperatures readily fall

Reply to  climatereason
September 14, 2014 10:22 am

“I am merely commenting that w have unexplained warming from 1700 which clearly predates enhanced co2.”
They have got a big problem with climate sensitivity metric.
No matter how loose or arbitrary the aproach to that metric, still it stands in a form of a simple equation with two variables, CO2 and temperatures.
No matter how variabless estimated initially in that equacion once they are, the metric is a much better one to estimate climate, climate change and climate trends, in short and long term, than the CO2 or the temperatures alone.
So while you can claim either warming or cooling in short term simply by looking at temperature trend, the CS metric could show you differently and will be more correct.
That said the way climate is going makes it hard to claim that it is warming or with any chance of warming possible in the near or far future once you look at climate sensitivity, to a point that with the way the temp data adjasted lately,sooner rather than later the CS will show that the warming of 20th century did not even hapend
With the hiatus there and persisting they are in a very much need to postpone the date they have to surrender with their ACC-AGW.
First IPCC downgraded the CS lower range to 1.5C, as to give them more time on the expectation of the AGW.
Few months ago even N. Dana tried at the Guardian to stretch the warming trend back to 250 years (ago), even while that did contradict his main point in that article about the AGW.
Unless the warming starts some time soon, they have to keep stretching the warming trend further back in the past, as the CS otherwise will show that the so much claimed warming is of no significance at all to a point that it should not be considered at all in regard to climate, no more than a low noise .
Don’t be surprised if next year or the one after it you see some scientist trying to even stretch the warming trend to a 400 years or more.
What these guys don’t get is that CS as a metric and an equation has been set against them since day one of the AGW and does not seem to give away.
They knew that CS meaning, very good with numbers, to an extent that if we were in a warming or to a point of significance of temperatures supporting AGW, every no AGWer and contrarian would have being floged day and night endlessly to the “death” with the stick of CS.
They gambled, lost………… and now are trying to get around it, rather foolishly.
Simply a very desperate move……
According to CS, CONSIDERING SHORT TERM OR THE LONG TERM CLIMATE STATE OR TREND, it is pointing towards the next climate equilibrium in a form of a very cooling period, an Ice Age.
The anomaly is same as prior to LIA but much much sharper and significant, when seen in a long term format.
In a short term one we are in a very prolonged anomaly which starts with LIA up to now in a way that clearly points towards cooling.
Anomaly means the rather strange anomal form of transient climate, climate not in equilibrium in a strange
and sharp form. CS considered a TCS in such periods.
Either we are in a transient climate of 150 years with a sharp, very sharp lowering of CS (TCS) pointing clearly towards the cooling (Long term aproach), or we are in a 500 years of transient climate (TCS) pointing towards a cooling (short term aproach).
CS is a very simple climatic metric established through a very simple equation, does not require a Phd or rocket science qualification to understand it and look through it.

Reply to  climatereason
September 14, 2014 10:25 pm

The warming from c. AD 1700 is no more unexplained than the cooling which preceded it and the warming before that. Previous interglacials show the same patterns. Interglacial climates fluctuate quasi-cyclically, just as do glacials on similar frequency, only with smaller amplitude.
Stephen, IMO we have not been cooling since the end of the YD (12,800 to 11,500 calendar years BP). Peak warmth during the Holocene Climatic Optimum may have occurred around 9000 (between the YD and the 8200 BP cold event) or 8000 (after that excursion) years ago, but was possibly matched during the Minoan Warm Period.
In any case, the Holocene remains in a longer-term temperature downtrend, dating at least from the Minoan WP, c. 3000 years ago, but possibly since the Climatic Optimum. The Modern Warm Period so far has been cooler than the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods.

September 14, 2014 1:10 am

Just has well that due to the ‘power of CO2’ , AGW can lead to global cooling has well .

September 14, 2014 1:18 am

On the subject of frosts damaging crops in NSW – here is the minimum anomaly map for Australian winter 1 June to 31 August – much of the NSW wheat belt averaged a negative anomaly
These daily data show the damage was done in first 2 weeks of August – frost for 14 days straight in some areas – scroll down past the green rain data –
In the met region NSW Central Western Plains – south there is no sign of rain just before this frost event – so I doubt the explanation by Lisa Castleman, Riverina Local Land Services (NSW Government).

Reply to  tailingsproject
September 14, 2014 1:41 am

Facts mean nothing to the warmista, they just need a narrative to convey their BS. Pity that decisions made as a consequence have far reaching effects. Castleman should be called to account.

September 14, 2014 1:34 am

So you’re saying that warm winters cause more frost? BS!
Maybe the farmers should not have taken the advantage of the mild window of risky opportunity knowing that the crop would be vulnerable to “stem frost”. This all falls into the same BS basket as “the dams will be empty, we’ll never have rain again, if we do it’ll just run off the surface”. Channeling Flannery, Karoly, et al …
I can just see the issue here, warmista Land Services / BoM telling farmers that a brief warming is the new status quo; farmers, against better judgement plant seed early and have a little growth spurt; weather does what it does and temperatures fall; frost kills the crop. If they’d planted as normal there’d be no problem.
Now try telling the ski companies what a warm winter they’ve just had … with a ski season into extended October.

Reply to  Streetcred
September 14, 2014 2:40 am

the other part to that is the fearmongering of another dry winter from the el nino that hasnt happened, so those that had some moisture or the expectation of some..did plant earlier than they might have, otherwise. its been a cold mostly dry winter, and most of us still need rain especially now as crops are wilting.

Farmer Gez
Reply to  Streetcred
September 14, 2014 2:46 am

Nice theory on frost but I can tell you from experience that frost damage can happen anytime from late Winter to late Spring. In 1998 a stem frost event with large losses occurred on the 28th of October. Like all things in farming, timing of sowing does not free you from the lottery of the weather.
In Southeast Australia we have a hot desert to our Northwest and cold Antarctic seas to our South and in Spring, with the right weather pattern, we can have 30C heat during the day or -4C cold overnight. Australia is a tough place to farm!

September 14, 2014 1:38 am

The early planting was no doubt caused by warming hubris.

September 14, 2014 2:23 am

unpreparedness for Global Cooling
Well, the professor is correct in saying that mankind has not been preparing for global cooling. We have been developing food crops during this warm time and that may prove to be a problem when the cycle reverses and we get weather like in the Little Ice Age. (or even colder) But mankind has shown himself to be adaptable to changing conditions. As a total heretic, I think mankind has been on this planet far longer than the “consensus” story of today. I think mankind has survived a lot of changes in climate. We can do so again if the world governments don’t kill us off first. (nuclear war impossible you say?)
Someday this interglacial will turn into a glacial period and the northern US (if the Empire still exists by then) will be under kilometers of ice. I suspect a real climate migration at that point in time. Hello Panama City!
But when will the next glacial period arrive? I assert that we do not know and that climatologists are incapable at the moment of even honest speculation as they are in a deep hole called conformation bias. (or one could use the F-word banded here that rhymes with Maud and loosely means dissembling)
May God have mercy on me, I love the heat so much I would like to see the present Ice Age end entirely and a return to an ice-free period. After all, the Earth has been ice-free, even in the high latitudes, for about 85% of its history. (or so we are told)
If the greens want to “return to the Garden”, then should they not be praying to the pagan gods for an ice-free Earth?
Note: yes, yes, I know I am the ultimate skeptic and heretic. The wife reminds me all the time. 🙂

Reply to  markstoval
September 14, 2014 5:39 am

No, no. You are OK. We live in a time when we get to ask, demand even, the kind of climate we like.

Steve Case
September 14, 2014 2:47 am

Here’s HADCRUT4 since 1850
Sure looks like it’s starting a down turn.

Steve Case
September 14, 2014 2:48 am
September 14, 2014 2:57 am

This happened quickly-
Did the Frozen Mammoths Die in the Flood or in the Ice Age?
… of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths. … Furthermore, the stomach contents and unswallowed food (actually caught …

Reply to  Richard
September 14, 2014 3:21 am

Nice try.

Reply to  Richard
September 14, 2014 8:19 am

Tastes like freezer burned chicken…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard
September 14, 2014 1:20 pm

What flood?

September 14, 2014 3:30 am

Try reading what I actually wrote Gracey.
This predicted global cooling, if it occurs, will mean that polar vortex winters and cold related crop failures, such as the recent frost catastrophe which destroyed a significant fraction of Australia’s wheat crop, in the state of New South Wales, will become a normal part of life, and will most likely become a lot worse.
The only thing we know for sure at this point is that it isn’t warming – the frantic manufacturing of excuses as to why it isn’t warming, in line with alarmist predictions, is a sign that whatever else is happening, the science is not settled.
I also think that there is a strong case that climate models overestimate climate sensitivity – the fact that natural variation can halt global warming in its tracks, suggests that natural variation is at least as powerful a forcing as anthropogenic CO2, which by simple logic caps the possible anthropogenic contribution to global warming during the last 30 years or so at around 50%.
I personally think that there is likely to be a significant cooling in the near future – but there are people I respect, who are not convinced that a cooling period is imminent.

September 14, 2014 3:45 am

The Ukraine has a major warm water port which one would rather own than rent. It is also has a superlative black soil agricultural belt which is to die for. In fact, many have died for it.
I wonder what the Russians might be thinking about future climate. Remember when they were the ones with all the potty intellectuals clapped along by a groupthink media?

Reply to  mosomoso
September 14, 2014 3:49 am

I saw a news item a while ago, which suggested that last winter (or the winter before?), Russia had to evacuate some towns in Siberia, because it got so cold the gas supply liquified in the pipes, cutting heating thousands of residents.
That sort of weather probably tends to focus the attention.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 4:08 am

I guess with an iced-up Vladivostok and no chance to annex Port Arthur Russia could do a cooling very hard.
Since nobody is much good at predicting climate more than a few weeks out, I suppose one might as well be ready for cooling, whether it comes or not. Some of the most productive nations (eg France, which grows far more wheat than Australia) might find their latitude working against them.
Wouldn’t hurt to be ready. Of course, we don’t want a new priesthood of cooling or “adaptation” theorists. It would be good just to start using the old loaf again…as opposed to what we have been doing post-hockeystick.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 4:17 am

Given the recent history of climate science, if a severe cooling trend does set in, all the usual suspects will shamelessly flip flop to global cooling alarmism, still all our fault of course.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 7:13 am

Natural gas has a boiling temperature of -162&def; C. The lowest terrestrial temperature ever recorded is -89.2° C in Antarctica — nowhere near cold enough to liquify natural gas in a pipeline. If gas supplies failed in Siberia it must have been for some other reason.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 7:14 am

Make that “-162° C”.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 11:18 am

Don’t forget natural gas lines are under pressure, significantly increasing the temperature of condensation (enough pressure can turn even hydrogen into liquid such as used in hydrogen storage tech). Not sure what that value would be in their pressurized lines though, so it still may be a myth, but it could be true if the line pressure is high enough.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 2:03 pm

I could easily imagine diesel fuel gelling up in the fuel lines knocking out a critical generator, up that far north if you have to depend on a diesel, you leave it running all winter. Knowing how journalists have reported thing I have been involved in, I would not be surprised one bit if they had turned a frozen diesel line into a frozen gasoline line, into a frozen natural gas pipeline; and a scheduled seasonal relocation of non-essential personnel into an emergency evacuation.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 15, 2014 12:56 pm

Could they have been talking about propane rather than natural gas?

September 14, 2014 4:11 am

Calling that “attribution” is a bit strong. If Carter wanted to say “global cooling is causing severe frosts”, I think he would have just said so. It *might* be the start of Abdussamatov’s cooling trend, or it could just be weather.

AJ Virgo
September 14, 2014 5:00 am

The Green Parties proved to be viable, the rising stars of European Politics winning elections and ruling outright in some countries. They won Senate seats in Australia and became balance of power holders, They won Lower House seats then joined in coalition with the Socialists, won Government and dictated policy on many things other than the environment.
What if some incredibly clever strategist embedded CO2 warming deliberately to bring this new political threat down knowing all along that Solar output waxes and wanes ………it’s not inconceivable.

September 14, 2014 5:04 am

Beats me why so many people think we need an ice age to stuff up the global food supply.

Mike Maguire
September 14, 2014 5:09 am

Look for temperatures this upcoming week to be below normal, flirting with record lows in the Northeast US, with some of that cool air spreading to NYC.
The atmosphere must be configuring for the “Gore Effect” and the climate change/global warming rally in New York City next weekend.
Temps may get a bump up closer to normal next Sunday, ahead of the next cold front but there isn’t great skill for exact timing of individual cold fronts 7 days away.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 14, 2014 6:16 am

You keep Gore in America – last time he visited Australia, my power bill doubled 🙂

P@ Dolan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 9:43 am

Awww, C’mon! Can’t you keep him for just a LITTLE while?? I’m not sayin’ you should let him camp in Kakadu, but if you stuck him out in the Great Sandy Desert or Undarra for a few weeks, you could probably grow orchids after you got tired of him and kicked him out…
Just sayin’…

Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 14, 2014 7:00 am

Polar vortex (17 km) over North America. Forecast on 18/09/2014.,29.09,553

September 14, 2014 5:09 am

Steve Case: Unfortunately Hadcruit 2, 3, 4 GISS ect its all ADJUSTED data. Just like BOM ect. Not reliable there probably has been NO warming or cooling whatsoever (statistically) since 1880 (see CET). Refer to Goddards sire adjusted v unadjusted temp data worlwide its all been FIXED to suit the AGW mantra. BTW a list of organizations that booted Carter out due to AGW presuures (ie Cook University, NSW Uni.Harper) ect should be made for posterity and future legal cases against these organizations (re promotion of very costly fraud)

September 14, 2014 5:25 am

Peter, my friend, you sound like a crazy person when you talk like this.

September 14, 2014 5:44 am

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” No wait…”The sky is rising the sky is rising!”: Chicken Little “o’s” next dire warning that only a wonder tax can fix…

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
September 14, 2014 5:56 am

Is it just me, or did petey grace show up immediately after Jennifer Marohasy ripped the Fauxcade from off of the BOM temperature records?

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
September 14, 2014 6:20 am

There’s been a lot of cutbacks to the Australian climate science budget. Perhaps Peter is someone who suddenly has a lot of free time on his hands?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2014 6:31 am

Well I asked him about the laughing-gas / ghg study but haven’t heard anything back yet 😛

September 14, 2014 6:14 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Considering history, and eyeballing the trends, one should reasonably conclude we recently peaked on the upswing, and now we will trend down in temperature for a few decades. While I think it is Pollyanna to suppose a full glacial advance isn’t coming, there is no telling when. I’ve thought for years that the next full glaciation will start soon, but soon here means decades to centuries. We just don’t know enough to predict. Regardless, the fact is that the world will be a much worse place if it cools as much as some of the experts suggest. Certainly, these folks are in the minority, but simply looking at the data shows that cooling is likely. A little cooling will hurt, a little more will be bad, as in millions, even billions of us suffering from starvation and other privations.
It seems to me that instead of billions spent on global warming abatement, we could sensibly prepare for significant alterations in climate and be much better prepared. We need to prepare for dealing with cooling that causes crop failures, and we need to be ready for more drought (a feature of cooling periods), and we need to be ready for more rain and warming too, since the kinds of things that make sense for disruptions work no matter what causes the disruption. Heck, that rock is out there. If it falls on us, such preparations will help deal with the havoc it causes.
Long term warming periods used to be called optimums. We need to admit and internalize the fact that cold kills; warmer is better.
Preparing for cooling makes sense. If it stays warm, we should stay appreciative of the fact.

September 14, 2014 6:15 am

You’re right, I forgot – a good ski season and heavy frosts ruining crops are evidence for global warming climate change global climate disruption climate weirding.

September 14, 2014 6:35 am

Mike and Eliza– it just COULD NOT BE a coincidence that the most accurate and(? untampered-with) measuring stations are all, ALL down with the approach of a cold spell so severe that it dropped that day’s record low in Sheridan, WY by 12F…… nah

September 14, 2014 6:36 am


Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 6:46 am

No farmer I know buys into AGW scares. They use their own wits combined with some pretty good state agriculture meteorologist and field rep advice, to follow natural trends. It’s the knee of the trends and unforeseen bed weather that are hard to predict and hard on crops, ergo crop insurance.
Fields across this area have been used for a number of different crops depending on the trend we are in. Only bankrupt farmers would plant based on AGW theory. We had crown freeze (which happens below ground) around here on dry land winter wheat this past winter due to an extensive dry cold snap. It had nothing to do with a warmer winter. It froze the balls off brass monkeys. We could have used some snow. In fact, if you get a good snow cover, crown damage is reduced. But we had just the plain old dry cold air kind of freeze. A warmer winter would have been nice but as for early or late fall planting there are pros and cons, none having to do with weather.
If you’ve never planted, best not open thy mouth and prove you have never planted. Here is a pretty good video on growing winter wheat.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 6:49 am

Unforeseen “bed” weather can really put a damper on things. So can bad weather. LOL!

Steve Fox
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 10:54 am

Pamela, I was more concerned about the ‘knee of the trends’ and missed the bed incident. We don’t have that this side of the pond…. Though I can sort of guess what it means.
Two nations divided by a common language again 🙂

Steve Fox
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 10:58 am

Of course, ‘bed’ weather is easy to get, being the kind of day you look out, and just snuggle back under the covers…

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 7:43 pm

I seem to have inadvertently penned a new phrase for weather. So what would weather be like to be called “bed” weather? Sleet would be one choice. I call that one God Spit. Having been raised around a tobacco chewing grandpa, he would approve.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 2:21 pm

The operation that farms North and East of my house said they had lost 75% of their winter wheat last winter, they plowed under 285 acres out of 380 and replanted with soy. The soy looks good to my lay eyes as does the corn. Weather around here is very fall like and a wet fall at that, so actually harvesting the soy could be challenging on wet fields, they usually bring in the corn after the ground is frozen.

September 14, 2014 7:03 am

Here is the reality of the situation. Professor Carter’s is a loose cannon that must be denigrated and demonized. The conventional wisdom is that the Earth can handle either warming or cooling simply by skillfully managing key variables identified by the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. Behind the scenes, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) developed this carved-in-stone theory. Hypothetically, mankind can literally select Earth’s temperature by simply increasing or decreasing the “control knob” of CO2.
Carter apparently does not understand that sensitive matters like this cannot be left in the hands of the uninformed masses. It takes a sophisticated public and scientific front to manage planetary climate. What is required is skillful manipulation of the price of CO2 by a technological elite pulling the right strings at the right time. The right public investments and disinvestments must trigger the right private investments and disinvestments at the right time. At the end of the day nobody that counts gets seriously hurt. Those who count a lot enjoy generous benefits.
Put in simple terms, if Earth begins to cool — and it probably has — all we have to do is increase atmospheric man-made CO2. In other words, we reverse our current strategy. We make burning fossil fuels cheaper and easier. A few political careers will be beaten and bruised. A few fortunes and a few academic egos will need a hidden safety net to catch them as they appear to have to walk the plank. Relatively speaking, it is a piece of cake.
No problem, as long as Carter and his ilk don’t get carried away and turn the boat over. The key is controlling the public information campaign. If word gets out that CO2 is actually not a significant climate factor, the Self-Destruct Device is triggered. All bets are off.

Reply to  plakat1
September 15, 2014 7:13 pm

I like.
The problem of warming or cooling can be resolved by adjusting the data according to the needed trend.
All hail Maurice.

September 14, 2014 7:07 am

It is not just when you plant, it is also what you plant. Seeds have been developed to be frost, heat, drought, pest etc resistant, but if all the attention is paid to heat resisitance, development and planting of the appropriate seeds can be misdirected. Manipulation of the gentic makeup of our foodstuffs has been the essence and backbone of both farming and ranching for 20,000 years. Recently it has become more specific and faster but gentic manipulation is as old as civilization.

September 14, 2014 7:08 am

The Antarctic sea ice area today is 16.05 Mkm^2 – continuing a 35 year-long trend since 1978 of steadily increasing ice between latitudes 68 south and latitude 59 south.
The Antarctic sea ice anomaly now is +1.0 million square kilometers above “average for this date, well over +2 standard deviations from the established normals – which continues a 3-years of very high, positive Antarctic sea ice anomalies. (At this rate, the Straits of Magellan and the seas around Cape Horn will be blocked with sea ice within 8-12 years for 1-2 months of every year …)
Now, all of this “extra” sea ice down south is at latitudes where substantial solar energy is going to increasingly be reflected back into space. In the Arctic, the sea ice extents were decreasing, but remained within two std deviations the whole time – basically meaning that, until 2006-2007, the Arctic sea ice was still within natural deviations ferom the normal. Post 2007-2007 of course, they declined (2007 and 2012 were very low), but have returned now (2014) to within their natural range. But this little bit of missing Arctic sea cie occurs up between latitudes 75, 78, and 79 north. Even at noon, the highest the sun gets at minimum extents in September is 8 – 11 degrees above the horizon. Then again, the highest the sun gets over almost all of the sea ice during its time of maximum arctic sea ice extents in late March is only 12 – 14 degrees above the horizon.
But Arctic sea ice doesn’t reflect very sunlight 7 months of the year: Only in the short 3 months of Mid-May through mid-August does the Arctic sea ice receive significantly more sunlight than the Antarctic sea ice, but – during those months, the top-of-atmosphere energy received on earth is at its yearly minimums, getting 80 watts/meter^2 LESS than when the Antarctic sea ice is approaching its minimum in January and February each year. The rest of the time, the Antarctic sea ice controls energy reflected – and the Antarctic is growing. Quickly.

Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 7:15 am

Peter, stem damage due to frost on winter wheat is no big deal. Happens all the time. Crown damage below the soil, is a big deal, and happens only with unusually long deep cold freezing temps. Snow protects crowns by insulating heat loss from soils. The soils can be wet or dry. Crown damage can still happen. It all depends on how cold and for how long, and whether or not there is snow on the ground. It matters little when winter wheat was planted.

September 14, 2014 7:38 am

” The key is controlling the public information campaign. If word gets out that CO2 is actually not a significant climate factor, the Self-Destruct Device is triggered. All bets are off.
Every one of us, if healthy, non-smoking, has blood levels of O2 and CO2, but the numbers, known to all docs/nurses/resp.techs. as well as they know their kids’ birthdays, are in pressures. So, our arterial blood gas (ABG) #s are pO2=95, pCO2= 40. Noone translates these, but it’s easy.
Round #s–O2 is 21% of atm, pressure is ~ 750mm [yes, std. is 760, but that’s @ sealevel, max.]
Soo, O2 pressure is 150 mm. Hg. Ergo the highest blood O2 level, in the lungs, a pO2 of 100 is 2/3 atm.
ie 14%. And the arterial pCO2 of 40 mm. Hg becomes 40^14/100 or 5.6%–56 THOUSAND ppm.
Venous pCO2 is 45 mm. Hg or 63 THOUSAND ppm. That’s at rest. It rises with exercise. Emphysemics at rest are much higher. Is anyone out in the sun undergoing ‘runaway heating?’
It’s not just ‘not significant’–try irrelevant.

September 14, 2014 7:39 am

Lets take one year at a time . We are not even preparing for this upcoming winter with this constant talk of global warming only
It would appear that whenever there is an extra warm SST or a major hot spot in the North Pacific Ocean SST (20-65 N), south of Alaska, during the summer and fall, and early winter, North America including United States experiences below normal or cold winters. The extra warm SST in the North Pacific happened in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2012 and 2013. There were below normal colder winters in 2001,2004,2007,2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014. It looks like we may again have a cold upcoming winter during the 2014/2015 winter as this part of the North Pacific Ocean SST is at a warm temperature anomaly of 0.84 C similar to the 2010 anomaly of 0.84C and 2006 anomaly of 0.83 C. It may be that the extra warm air over this region gets into the high Arctic causing jet stream blocking events, SSW events, more frequent negative AO and Arctic vortex distortions, thus bringing wave after wave of cold air further south than normal. This is what happened last winter.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  herkimer
September 14, 2014 9:40 pm

We are not even preparing for this upcoming winter with this constant talk of global warming only….
Some of us are preparing for this upcoming winter!
I have 4 full cords of dry fir firewood, a half cord of dry white oak, a high efficiency wood stove with a blower on the ‘daylight basement’ level of the house, a very well insulated house, and a ‘back up’ gasoline powered electrical generator.
That’s how I prepare for most winters though…. Instead of paying gymnasium fees, I buy very large loads of logs and pieces and cut/split them up myself. It provides many vigorous work outs, keeps me from getting fat, and provides that incomparable wood stove heat throughout a long winter.
Four winters ago, the local electrical grid went down in an ice and windstorm, right at Christmas. It was down for 4 days. I cooked Christmas dinner (a 14lb turkey, mash potatoes, fresh cooked cranberries, acorn squash, etc) on top of the wood stove and finished the turkey on a Weber grill fed with hardwood pieces. I didn’t start the ‘generator’ at all, just lit a bunch of candles and a kerosene mantle lamp. According to the guests that braved the weather and treacherous roads to attend, it was one of their best Christmas dinners ever!
Be prepared…. and may all your Christmases be white!

Alberta Slim
September 14, 2014 7:48 am

Whwn is a more severe frost LESS than -2C?
Less frost means -1C [IMO]. A more severe frost would be -3C or -4C . No???

September 14, 2014 7:57 am

Annual Contiguous US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998. This is happening in 7 of the 9 climate regions in United States. Only the Northeast and the West both of which receive the moderating effect of the oceans, had slight warming trend of 0.2 and 0.3 F/decade respectively. Theses 16 year annual temperature declines illustrate that despite any summer warming , the cooling during winter , spring and fall offsets any summer warming resulting in the annual temperature declines
These temperature anomaly trend declines are similar to past temperature declines in United States during 1895-1920 and again 1953 -1979. A similar cool period seems to have started during the current decade .
It is clear that there is no global warming in United States or the globe . Why are we even talking about CO2 levels and global warming? If anything we should be concerned about the impact of falling temperatures in United State.
This cooler weather means a potential for more winter crop damage, winter snow and ice storms, more snow, major floods from spring snow melts and significant thunderstorms, wind storms, bigger tornadoes and power outages as the cold and warm fronts meet more often and at bigger amplitudes. The net result is many areas are unprepared for the current and more importantly the upcoming colder weather in terms of emergency planning, snow clearing infrastructure , heating fuel stocks( propane and natural gas) , local winter budgets , transportation needs , need to switch to more winter hardy crops , power outage repair capability and impact on local economy . It is time to get off this global warming only focus and concentrate on the real problems that confront us today. US spent $55 billion dollars to cope with global cooling this past winter alone. The media recently reported that the US overall economy shrank 1% in the 2014 January to March quarter. The contraction in growth was blamed on a number of factors including an unusually harsh winter
Just look how winter temperatures are declining in United States since 1998
DEC -1.22 F/decade (declining)
JAN -1.52 F/ decade (declining)
FEB -2.77 F/decade(declining)

September 14, 2014 8:04 am

Has anybody been watching the nightly minimum temperature in the deserts? If CO2 was going to have ANY affect like what the warmists claim it would be raising the nightly lows in the desert!

Reply to  prjindigo
September 15, 2014 1:02 pm

Make sure to keep an eye on the humidity as well. Near by towns and agriculture can increase total humidity enough to make a difference in night time temps.

September 14, 2014 8:10 am

Here is what one farmer said in response to a previous post on different track about the return to cooler weather.
1. @ Herkimer 8.52
Re: your observations that the last 10 years have seen a return to what was happening during the 70′s
As a farmer since the early 70′s. I could not agree more , as the temperatures climbed upwards in the 80′ and 90′s our crops changed to more and more warm climate tolerate ones., today those same growers are seeing winter damage increasing, certain crops needing to be harvested earlier (too early) due to threatening early colder Fall temperatures and now the mad scramble back to winter hardy crops ( most of which are occurring in the soft fruit sector such as grapes, cherries etc..Thanks for your insight.

September 14, 2014 8:33 am

IDLE SPECULATIONS. Let’s make a 100-year forecast so we don;t have to worry about the outcome.

September 14, 2014 8:36 am

Looks like Michael Crichton will
be proven correct. Solar, oceanic
and Paleo data ALL point to both
near and long term Global Cooling.

Gary Pearse
September 14, 2014 9:11 am

I agree its related to global warming -global warming hysteria and propaganda- has made it appear to be safe to plant crops early. I would say these farmers should sue the Gov, BOM, CSIRO, and all the universities. They are the ones that said it is 99% certain that we are causing global warming. Based on that ‘intelligence’ they felt safe in planting early.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 14, 2014 2:55 pm

You’re definitely a 120% tryer, Grace … but no marks for stupidity.

September 14, 2014 9:22 am

RoHa on September 13, 2014 at 10:55 pm
So we’re back to the Ice Age predictions of the 1970s. Makes me feel young again. And doomed, of course.
– – – – – – – – –
So, I suggest that the following screening is reasonable and necessary for gaining perspective:
First, group all CAGW alarm advocating scientists in one set then make another set by grouping all CIGC (Catastrophic Imminent Glacial Cooling) alarm advocating scientists. Add the two sets together to get the total set of all climate alarm advocates; call this set ‘Warming or Cooling Alarm Climatists List’. NOTE: Ironically, some scientists might irrationally be in both sets.
Next, I suggest we make a set of all climate scientists called ‘Total LIst of Climatists’.
Then, we subtract: (‘Total List of Climatists’) – ( ‘Warming or Cooling Alarm Climatists List’ )
Finally, the result of the subtraction is a list of climate scientists who aren’t alarmist either about warming or cooling. I suggest it is a group of scientist who generally have much less emotive disruption of their scientific premises / processes / communications than the alarmists.

September 14, 2014 9:23 am

We are at or very near the peak of a natural warming trend. These warming and cooling cycles have been relatively regular for the past 2,000 years or so. Within a couple of centuries, we will have descended by then into another Little Ice Age, which may or may not in itself, descend into a another major glaciation period – but I doubt it.

September 14, 2014 9:25 am

Thanks, Eric. I think Professor Carter has been in the right track for years, and paid dearly for it.
Look at this paper:
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age. (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2012, Applied Physics Research)
Dr. Abdussamatov writes:
From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

lawrence Cornell
September 14, 2014 9:29 am

“However just to put things in perspective, the frosty month in question July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center.”
But aren’t you glad you got it in there ?
{Mods, u can delete the misplaced copy of this comment. It ended in the wrong order, my mistake so I’m copying it here, where it belongs, thanks.}

September 14, 2014 9:38 am

And where, one wonders, has actual science gone? I’ve posted a whole set of links to William Briggs’ blog where in a series of posts he points out that it is really pretty silly to try to fit linear trends to timeseries data and then use those trends to prognosticate the future. It’s silly to the point of inanity when climate scientists do it to “prove” that global warming is occurring, where a glance at the data suffices to show that (at least between 17th and 18th temperatures and today) without bothering to fit any curve to the data at all or pretending that any such fit curve has the slightest predictive value.
Have we all descended to the level of HenryP, who fits a quadratic to the timeseries he generates from a handful of carefully selected sites, notes that it is negative in curvature, and concludes that he can predict temperatures decades into the future? Because if fitting a linear trend to timeseries is dumb, fitting a higher order polynomial with even more fit parameters is surely dumber…
Look. The world’s best climate model builders, who surely are not all working in any sort of bad faith and who at the very least have some physical basis underlying the models they build, are empirically unable to predict the climate’s time evolution with any particular skill (at least not yet). That’s because it is an insanely difficult problem, one so difficult and being done at such a poor spatiotemporal resolution and relying on so many unvalidated approximations for averaging over finer grained data that it would literally have been and would yet be a MIRACLE if any of models WORKED.
But along comes person after person on both sides of the argument who point to this or that feature, this or that model, this or that isolated fact, related to this horribly complex, nonlinear, multivariate, chaotic open system and state that we are certain to warm, or cool, or dance a jig temperature wise for the next ten, thirty, fifty, or hundred years.
The linear trend up above is utterly meaningless. The linear trend back to (pick your favorite starting date) is equally meaningless. They are meaningless in the precise sense that we have no good reason in either physics or statistics to imagine that the linear trends back to any particular start date will have the slightest predictive skill for the next 1, 3, 5, 10 decades. Indeed, examining the past the one thing we can be pretty sure of is that almost all possible linear trends we might cook up will not persist to 5 or more decades, because in the past they almost never have.
In the end, if we can’t solve quantitative predictive climate models with any skill trying our very best and with the best of equipment, why is it that people persist in thinking they can do better solving them in their heads?
So I have two major objections to the top article. First of all, we haven’t the slightest reason to “expect” cooling, or neutral, or warming to continue. If anything, we have a small, weak, reason to expect neutral to warming to be favored over cooling, but we’re not talking 10% to 90%, it’s more like 40% to 60% (that’s the “edge” I’d give to direct CO_2 forcing compared to natural variation for the next decade or three, but I’ll freely admit that this estimate is based on a pretty weak argument and could easily prove to be horribly wrong. The error bars on my prognostication, in other words, are so wide as to permit almost anything from runaway warming to rapid cooling to occur without it surprising me much. I haven’t any more of an idea of why the LIA happened or how the world managed to change temperatures by order of 10C (down and up) in at least some locations over one or two decades at various points in the geological record than you do, certainly not enough of an idea to be able to predict a future instance. Claiming otherwise involves putting faith in models with little demonstrable skill (which is silly) or putting faith in human punditry (which is even sillier).
Second, we haven’t any good reason to assert that the world is “unprepared” for global cooling as if that is somehow unique to the times. The world isn’t “prepared” for any climate variation, and hasn’t been back to the time of Joseph. We deal with climate as it happens, and if we are wise we plan for as many bad years as we can manage without claiming to be able to predict how the years will be bad. Too much rain is bad. Too little rain is bad. Too hot is bad. Too cold is bad. Cold at the wrong time is bad. Heat at the wrong time is bad. Only one climate or kind of weather is ever considered, by farmers and people who are vacationing at the beach to be just right and they aren’t even the same kind of weather.
So sure, we are unprepared for a sudden plunge in temperatures, local or global. We are unprepared for drought. We aren’t particularly well prepared for floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, erupting volcanoes, major earthquakes, stock market crashes, accidents that claim the lives of loved ones, losing our jobs, having babies, terrible presidents, greedy countries starting wars, insane muslims committing mass murder/suicide by flying airliners into tall buildings inhabited only by civilians.
But all of these things happen! They always have happened, and never have happened. That’s why they are always a surprise (when they happen to us) but are never surprising (when we read about them happening on the news).
I mean seriously, supposed it “cooled” back to the conditions of the early 80s. We aren’t “prepared” for that? Somehow we managed with the 80’s weather (which to my own recollection was hot, drought laden, and actually far worse for farmers in the US than current weather) back in the 80’s. What if it cooled to weather like the 60’s? Well, I managed to trick or treat in the snow in the 60’s, and I’ll wager that the inhabitants of upstate New York can still manage that should it come to pass.
That isn’t to say that we are “prepared” for crop failures in the event that we have premature warming followed by late frost, or an increase in the number of cold-related droughts. We never are, and get less so over time as world population (and stress on global food supplies) increases. People will probably die. It happens. And yes, people will probably die if the climate warms rapidly. It doesn’t even have to be global warming or cooling. A prolonged drought in North India, or coastal China, or central Africa, could kill millions of people without the GASTA changing a tenth of a degree. Rainfall is a lot more critical to humans than temperature, and the models suck even more at predicting rainfall or “extreme” weather variations than they do at predicting variations in temperature.
We haven’t had a major hurricane in the Atlantic make to the US shores for a really long time now — we’re actually looking at a full decade if we miss the next couple of years, IIRC. We aren’t “prepared” for it if it happens this month, though, any more than we were “prepared” for wussie little category one Sandy, which just happened to be a perfect storm (perfectly bad storm) in lots of ways other than wind speed, where category one-almost-two Arthur was a complete snooze earlier this year because it was a perfectly good storm that failed to do any of the bad things it could have done. Hurricane Floyd was hardly a hurricane at all as it came ashore, but it dumped so much rain into East-Central NC that the resulting floods did far, far more damage than wind might have done. We weren’t “prepared” for that — people had houses built into the floodplain just because floods into the floodplain are rare.
I for one would welcome a cooling trend, in part because it would shut down the debate over climate variation, force a serious reconsideration of our state of knowledge of our climate in the best of ways, and perhaps pave the way for actual unbiased progress to be made. We might even go back — as the figure above does — to earlier HADCRUT products, or to even more improved products that remove a lot of the model-adding warming bias in GASTA, because I’m guessing that a fair bit of the “warming” in GISS and HADCRUT4 is pure artifact as it is. I could be wrong, but until politics is purged from climate science, no one will ever know. Put Lindzen in charge of NASA GISS, give him three or four years to re-assess their GASTA products, and then we’ll see where we stand. I have no confidence at all in Hadley or anyone at NASA who has ever been associated with James Hansen. I’d have more confidence in BEST if it weren’t for the fact that they apparently ignored a lot of Briggs’ criticisms of their methods (which I’m pretty sure I’d agree with, categorically — I certain agree with the ones I’ve read so far). I haven’t got much of an opinion beyond that, except that if we honestly included error estimate in the assessment of any kind of trend, we’d conclude — as Briggs has carefully pointed out — that we really cannot conclude much of anything, even if the underlying model really is linear, or quadratic, or whatever,

M Courtney
Reply to  rgbatduke
September 14, 2014 9:49 am

Marvellous comment.
Worthy of being a post in itself.
It needs to be said again and again, “We don’t know“.
It’s not good to be ignorant but it’s better than being ignorant and not admitting it. And we are all ignorant.
No-one knows what will happen with the climate… that’s why the models failed.
So why guess that the opposite of the models’ predictions will come true?

Reply to  rgbatduke
September 14, 2014 6:04 pm

Hi, RGB…. your position has limited merit and reflects an infant who looks at the pendulum swing of
Grandmothers wallclock. The climate is the pendulum swing and the infant starts guessing.
On the other hand, the one, who knows the clock´s intrinsic mechanism, knows what the
climate swing is all about….
I hate all the talk: We are stupid, we know nothing we cannot find out, all is mucho complicated
Therefore….better get the mechanism and you will understand the functioning of the climate
wallclock…All this speculation about the micro- and nanoforcings
is tiresome, better read about the macrodrivers which swing the climate in global climate
change up to 8 degrees in the past, see:
Booklet: “Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung” on German Amazon.DE.

Reply to  weltklima
September 15, 2014 4:21 am

Dearest Joachim,
Sadly, your clock has a pendulum that is made up of many pieces of unequal length — a much, much more complex version of this:
and is swinging through a jar of liquid at a speed that — in parts of its swing and for part of its cycle — passes the threshold for turbulence. Also, the spring that drives it isn’t a linear spring — it gets stronger and weaker as the clock ticks following a most irregular pattern. Finally, the swing is large enough that the ends of the pendulum can easily swing through one or more full rotations around the joints connecting the pieces.
Consequently, the clock is a chaotic, nonlinear clock and you could be god and still unable to compute the solution to its intrinsic mechanism out into the indefinite future. How far out you can compute it and remain reasonably close is entirely dependent on chance, because you cannot even accurate measure the state of the clock and all of the components of the pendulum and have to approximate it as a rigid rod, which indeed sometimes it resembles for many cycles in a row.
Until it doesn’t.
During times of apparent order, it is easy to be lulled into thinking that you understand its mechanism and that it can be safely predicted into the future. And then — because it isn’t just a highly multivariate nonlinear oscillator, but is a strongly driven open system — it turns out that many of its “pendulum” pieces are self-organized phenomena and are not themselves permanent. There you are, understanding it (you think) and they suddenly rearrange themselves in length and mass and the entire clock starts to follow a completely different (but still chaotic) trajectory.

Mike Singleton
Reply to  rgbatduke
September 15, 2014 11:43 am

Well written rgb,
I’ve commented before on the compulsion to fit meaningless lines to plots of data of dubious provenance. One has a sense that those so occupied have a misplaced religious like zeal and seem to be incapable of accepting ambiguity and uncertainty in their lives.

September 14, 2014 10:04 am
September 14, 2014 10:49 am

Don’t worry folks, even now top people are conceptualizing methods to enable global rent seekers to extract money and power from global cooling. And if they come up with something, the elites will abandon global warming as quickly as they embraced it.
It’s not the problem that counts, it’s the solution, a vast global pseudogovernment bythe elite with unlimited power over all aspects of life and business and with the power to redistribute wealth with much of the moved money sticking to their fingers.

September 14, 2014 11:27 am

rgbatduke my reply.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 4 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling. ocean warming.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
September 14, 2014 2:48 pm

Gas cloud from the eruption drifts to the east. High level of SO2, sulphur dioxide, was measured at Reyðarfjörður. The highest value measured were just under 4000 micrograms per cubic meter. These are the highest values measured in Iceland. High level, 685 micrograms per cubic meter, was also measured in Egilsstaðir.

Reply to  ren
September 14, 2014 5:39 pm

Things could change immensely. The earthquake activity in the Bárðarbunga caldera and the ongoing subsidence as some magma is draining to the Holuhraun fissure eruption may be leading to a caldera collapse. The 850 meters of ice in the caldera will not play well with the magma.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
September 15, 2014 4:31 am

Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.

I agree. That many of you are of that opinion. And even more are of the opinion that the chances of warming going forward are near 100%. And an increasing number are betting on being neutral (for at least a while) going forward. Hey — it is a horse race. You pays your money and you takes your bet. You could be right, and the bookie is offering a 10:1 payback for cooling. Like all races, the long shots are a big payoff when they win AND you bet on them. Just don’t bet more than you can afford to lose, because the ground is littered with the losing stubs of people who bet on long shots.
That is, there is the chance that you could be wrong. Especially when your horse — for better or worse — is handicapped with that pesky increasing CO_2.
Dang horse racing. I’m gonna go bet on a sure thing, like gravity or electromagnetism.

September 14, 2014 11:49 am

“Professor Bob Carter, writing in today’s edition of The Australian, a major Aussie daily newspaper, warns that the world is unprepared for imminent global cooling, because of the obsession of policy makers with global warming.”
I don’t think the good professor is saying that we cannot cope , but merely that we may be ill prepared. You don’t go to the Arctic circle in your summer clothe .You plan ahead and do what is only prudent considering the weather ahead.. The problem is that we are being told wrongly to prepare for warmer winters only when the winters are actually getting colder the last 17 winters, both globally and nationally.. You say
“First of all, we haven’t the slightest reason to “expect” cooling, or neutral, or warming to continue.” Many will disagree with you, me included ,but I accept your personal opinion.
We can do better winter emergency planning, get adequate snow clearing infrastructure , ensure that your heating fuel supplies(oil, propane and natural gas) are stocked up for the winters , prepare adequate local winter budgets , recognize unique transportation needs , switch to more winter hardy crops , maintain adequate local power outage repair capability and recognize possible impact on local economy of sever winters .
One can skip all this and do nothing and cope with all the problems that arise . I would rather do the former.
It is odd that we are told to prepare for global warming but do nothing to cope with possible future cooler weather that has already been happening since 1998.

Reply to  herkimer
September 15, 2014 4:42 am

One can skip all this and do nothing and cope with all the problems that arise . I would rather do the former.

This is remarkably similar to the excuse being used in NC and many other states to pick our pockets spending hundreds of millions of dollars now to prepare for sea level rise. Never mind that the sea has been rising at a nearly constant rate for a very long time, and that there is little sign that that is going to change and only a weak physical argument for any change.
How long, exactly, do you think that it will take to implement measures to deal with “winter emergency planning”? Are you suggesting that it is time for Florida to invest in snowplows? That’s as silly as the assertion that I should plant banana trees in my back in NC or that people living near the coast should start investing in real estate several miles inland because it is certain to be beachfront any year now.
We are never prepared and always prepared for the next unexpected emergency. The never prepared is the “unexpected” part. Yet, because we are wise, we are always prepared in that we hedge our bets in reasonable ways. Colder winters are weather, not climate until there are decades of them lined up. We have plenty of time to adjust barring a plunge into glaciation. Is Bob Carter seriously proposing that we might plunge into glaciation?
“perhaps even cooling into another ice age…”
I guess he is. And, while that is always possible, it is absurd to suggest that we bet any significant fraction of our resources on that. You’d be better off plonking down hundred billion dollar bets on double 0 in roulette. Seriously.

Ian W
Reply to  rgbatduke
September 15, 2014 5:09 am

rgbatduke September 15, 2014 at 4:42 am

We are never prepared and always prepared for the next unexpected emergency. The never prepared is the “unexpected” part. Yet, because we are wise, we are always prepared in that we hedge our bets in reasonable ways. Colder winters are weather, not climate until there are decades of them lined up.

This sounds perfectly reasonable in an academic argument. The problem is that the preparations for ‘global warming’ and the insistence on inefficient expensive energy generation to reduce ‘carbon’ emissions, have led to energy poverty on a huge scale, even in New England where gas prices were raised more than tenfold last winter. In UK the deaths from cold in energy poverty have been running at several thousand a month in Germany hundreds of thousands of families are living ‘off grid’ as they cannot afford electricity prices. This is purely due to preparations for a warm no-real-winter scenario that is not happening but (to use your analogy) all the money has been dumped on red – warming. So this is not a game with no downsides. IFF this winter is as cold as has been forecast by those with good track records, then there will be many people, probably thousands, who will die from cold – yet remember we are apparently on a plateau at the peak level of warming being told repeatedly that this is the hottest year ever. But we are being warned by worried energy companies to expect blackouts in the first world as the grids cannot cope, due to long term betting the farm on red. We are not in the position of betting one way or another – the bet has already been placed by the first world governments egged on by the UN. Bob Carter was merely pointing out that this may not be a totally good idea as they are unprepared for cold. There is a real shortage of grunt base-load energy generation and many ‘green’ regulations in place to ensure that it cannot be simply replaced. Faites vos jeux has already been called and nobody has bet on black.

James Abbott
September 14, 2014 12:40 pm

Is the opposite of a warmist a coolist ?
Anyway realists will spot that this article raises the possibility of something that is of very low probability.

September 14, 2014 1:26 pm

It’s called WEATHER!!!!
We cannot manipulate, con or cajole it. Let alone attempt to control it.
Because it doesn’t listen to us!
“Global Warming/Temperature Change/Global Cooling is just another lame liberal, left wing income redistribution scam. Given a new name after their latest attempt(s) at marketing failed.
Very much like LBJ’s “Great Society”. And look at what got us!

September 14, 2014 1:37 pm

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
According to GJR in a comment , a sure sign of the next ice age is wheate killing spring frost. Please not the kill frost that destroyed the wheat havest in Australia.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Russ Steele
September 15, 2014 4:22 am

Don’t know who GJR is but I haven’t seen any such comment.

September 14, 2014 3:26 pm

I am in Houston where the weather has been cooler than usual since last November. I guess the wind turbines blew the heat away.

September 14, 2014 3:33 pm

i suppose it’s inevitable that some who ferociously fought GW alarmism will become GC alarmists – and no doubt many GW alarmists themselves will convert to GC alarmism – (see Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer)
i think this battle demonstrates that there’ll be a rational core too – who will put demands on the science behind such claims

September 14, 2014 4:04 pm

Hi Peter,
I just read Bob Carter’s letter and you seem to be putting words in his mouth. His point appears to be a lack of breadth in climate reporting in the Australian, in particular under-reporting of the warnings of a possible cooling trend. So he is actually criticizing the Murdock paper. Nowhere does he say that the NSW frosts were the result of such a cooling.
Here in the Sunshine Coast Hinterlands we had a warm May, but once winter started the nights quickly got cold and we had several hard frosts (-3 according to my thermometer) in July. The winter did seem cooler (and drier) than normal, certainly cooler than a decade or two ago, but nothing unprecedented. Even though all we seem to ever hear about is warming, it isn’t just a few Russian scientists who are predicting a cooling trend, so Carter’s point is valid.

September 14, 2014 5:18 pm

“It would mean that the present interglacial is unique and unprecedented.”
Well, there’s another extreme climate event. Al Gore must be right.

September 14, 2014 5:46 pm

Many people predict ….as in the Old Testament, the old prophets…. but necessary are
first class numbers of hard facts and reciprocable calculations for everyone. The
unrefuted climate analysis on the End of Global Warming” in the 21 Cty and thereafter
in the booklet: “Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwarmung” on the German
AMAZON.DE. Easy to follow, clear calculations made, no questions left. The author JS.

September 14, 2014 6:39 pm

Wow. What a bunch of maroons. They’ll get blindsided by a Glacier.

September 14, 2014 8:26 pm

Had to share this.
I looked up a survey of Khabibullo Abdusamatov’s “nonconforming opinions” and found that the dissenting opinions are all by individuals, except in two cases, the IPCC and Wikipedia. The IPCC were in the undecided (the “In-Between” camp – 2 opinions, from actual humans), while Wikipedia is in the “Mostly Disagree” ccamp.
Mostly Disagree
World’s Largest Encyclopedia
25% agreement / 1 opinions
So there it is, Wikipedia apparently rates as a reputable ‘expert’ professional opinion in this survey. But what is it mostly disagreeing with? This:
“By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041.”
Wikipedia’s ‘opinion’ is this:
“There has been no increase of solar brightness over the last 1,000 years. Solar cycles led to a negligible increase in brightness over the last 30 years, but this effect is too small to contribute significantly to global warming. The combined effect of natural climate forcing, solar variation and changes in volcanic activity, probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 but a cooling effect since. 27 Apr 2009 Source”
Wikipedia references its own “Global Warming” webpage as excuse for why it has a considered opinion that ‘mostly disagrees’, referring to the same wiki page that says this:
“… but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures.[66]”
Reference number [66] includes this citation:
Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Hughes, M. K.; Bradley, R. S.; Miller, S. K.; Rutherford, S.; Ni, F. (2008). “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (36): 13252–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105. PMC 2527990. PMID 18765811. edit
Thus Wikipedia’s expert ‘opinion’ is once again rendered indubitably and irretrievably credentialed, honourable and backed by the most awe-inspiring integrity and rigour.
Yes, Abdusamatov’s can be completely wrong, as can any glorified fortune-teller, but I would appreciate it if the combined IPCC, Wikipedia, Mann, clown-employment-agency, would admit to the observable fact that they are no different in that regard, but do have a considerably more shambolic track-record within their chosen fortune-telling ‘profession’.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Unmentionable
September 15, 2014 4:27 am

It would be wise to use the /sarc tag when referencing Wikipedia.

Reply to  Unmentionable
September 16, 2014 2:34 pm

I don’t think that Lief would disagree with much of that (as stated in Wikipedia). Solar variation is, no doubt, a factor, but it is difficult to run the numbers with any reasonable model so far and show how the variation in solar energy associated with the solar cycle could be the dominant factor in climate variability over the last 1000 years. Variation due to orbital factors, perhaps. But the increased forcing from CO_2 is much larger than the total variability of either one on the timescale involved. So sure, it might be an explanation, or part of an explanation, but to show either one one has to solve a problem that is very likely unsolvable with our current resources. Otherwise you are just stating your literally indefensible opinion against somebody else’s equally indefensible opinion, a good way to start wars and riots and lead to a lot of misery all around.
I think the safest route is the humblest route. We don’t know what the climate is going to do over the next 100 years. In this, we are no different from all the people who have ever lived, so it is really not that big a deal. We might think “Gee, here we are with all of this physics and mathematics and these humongo-grosso computers, surely we can do better than that at this point in the 21st century…” but if we did we would probably be mistaken, because this is a hard problem. IMO unsolvably difficult even with orders of magnitude more computational resources applied to it that the many orders of magnitude already being used.
I have the advantage, here, of living through a lot of this in the world of heavy-duty computational physics. I remember well the days when a computer that was capable of 100 MFLOPS was considered an export-restricted weapon. Simulating a nuclear blast (an essential component of bomb design when you have banned nuclear testing) required complex exothermic, fission-fusion-coupled hydrodynamic solutions at microsecond if not nanosecond resolution, and it required “a supercomputer” to do this, so supercomputers became munitions. Ordinary computers would take forever to do the computations.
Then two things happened. One of them was Moore’s Law — computers kept doubling in performance every 18 months or so. 15 years worth of doublings is a factor of over 1000 in single processor speed. The other was my own speciality — building parallel supercomputers out of off the shelf computers. One could take (say) 100 cheap workstations and turn them into a computer 100x (well, almost, for certain problems but that is Amdahl’s law:-) faster than each individual CPU. Suddenly anybody could build first 100 MFLOP “munitions” (but it cost a fair bit of money still) out of export-unrestricted ordinary computers. Then every three years those ordinary computers were 4x faster at constant cost, and clusters very quickly got to where they could do GFLOPs and they literally made traditional supercomputers obsolete and put most of the manufacturers out of business. Since then my phone is now a “munition” by the standards of 20 years ago, and cheap desktop computer is 16 cores at 4 GHz each, — ballpark of 32 to 64 GFLOPS (depending on the code and efficiency of the floating point units as they stream the code through the caches). For $1000 whole dollars. One can now afford teraflops for remarkably modest sums, and the big boys are eying petaflops.
The sad thing is that even with tera- to peta-flops to play with, solving the climate problem is probably impossible. There are simply too many (say) 1km x 1 km x 1 km cells in the atmosphere and top layer of the ocean, and even cells this small are literally a billion times larger than the Kolmogorov scale of the dynamics.
If we do get to where we can do 1 km^3 resolution (with timesteps of roughly 3 seconds) — that is roughly 6 billion cells — and can evaluate a single three second (simulated) timestep in as little as three seconds of computation, we will actually be able to simulate climate as fast as climate actually happens. In the meantime, to get ahead of the present, we use 10^4 km^3 or larger cells, 300 or more (simulated) seconds per timestep of computation, and cross our fingers that the 14 orders of magnitude in between don’t really matter because we’ve captured all of that dynamics perfectly (enough) in the unverified approximations that are its foundation.
At least 1 km^3 might be able to resolve things like thunderstorms, approximately, as “whole” entities. It is still too coarse to actually simulate the nucleation and development of individual thunderstorms.
In other words, it isn’t just a hard problem like simulating a nuclear bomb’s detonation from the instant of triggering — that is comparatively easy. It isn’t like solving complex lattice problems in quantum field theory — that isn’t easy, but it is still a whole lot easier than this. It isn’t like simulating the time evolution of whole galaxies (although there are some resemblances) where it doesn’t really matter because you aren’t simulating any particular galaxy, just seeing what you get. It is a very, very difficult problem and one that not even Moore’s Law is going to resolve anytime soon, with 14 orders of magnitude to go just to get to a km^3 scale, which is still another 20 orders short of sufficiently microscopic to have a good chance of tracking the problem.
That isn’t to say it won’t prove to be solvable in the meantime. Perhaps we will find some approximations for the neglected/smoothed dynamics that empirically work well enough. Perhaps we will invent scale adaptive climate models and explore the intermediate dynamics well enough to be able to manage a sort of computed interpolation of the dynamics instead of ad hoc forms. Perhaps Moore’s law will be suddenly accelerated by new physics, or by the advent of quantum computing, and we’ll gain ten or twenty orders of magnitude of speed and storage and power there over a decade or two instead of over centuries (or not getting there at all, because of hard limits in the physics of computation).
Until that happens, however, it is very much a “show me” game. It would be wonderously surprising if the climate problem is solvable with any accessible human cleverness or tricks at the current scale of available computational power. Sure, it could be done, but for anyone to convince me that they have done so, they have to show me, by predicting the climate accurately (by my standards, not theirs) out decades into the future as well as hindcasting the past, explaining the ice ages and so on, in detail, and without fudging the results. It isn’t enough to build a model that creates “a planet” that looks a bit like Earth, and that has “weather” happening on its surface that looks a bit like real weather. It has to quantitatively predict the future, and quantitatively explain the past. It has to show skill. Not sometimes, all of the time. Reliably.
Then we’ll talk.

Dr. Strangelove
September 14, 2014 8:27 pm

Less than 0.1 C cooling in 2001-2014 is a Little Ice Age? Cool phase of PDO is more like it. Carter claims no warming trend since 1958 based on radiosonde and satellite data. Is this validated by other scientists?

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
September 15, 2014 1:11 pm

Not even close to an accurate depiction of Dr. Carter’s statement. But then you weren’t interested in telling the truth, were you?

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  MarkW
September 15, 2014 10:24 pm

“These scientists are projecting a significant cooling over the next three decades, and perhaps even the occurrence of another little ice age.”
Was that my statement or Dr. Carter’s?
About the lack of warming since 1958. Ask Bob directly. I’m sure he will enlighten you.

Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 9:27 pm

SXUS75 KBOI 130948
348 AM MDT SAT SEP 13 2014
Now that is cold!!!!! No tomatoes for you Baker City! The garden growing season has officially ended! Grew some corn did ya? Hoping to get it into the freezer? No worries. It’s already frozen.
If you ever get out this way (“this way” in Oregon is very isolated, ask Willis and his lovely wife, they know) you must visit Baker City. When I was a little girl, we used to travel the Talent circuit through that town. Did a tap dance or two (I was the caboose in the Little Red Engine routine) on the down town theater stage. Could be why I was a bit Eskimo chubby back then, it was the only way to keep warm! But with red unruly cowlick wavy hair, a freckled nose, and a 6 year old front-toothless grin I readily flashed, I was about as close to a leprechaun as you can get without actually being one. Are leprechauns chubby?

Joe G
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 15, 2014 5:21 am

My garden was ruined by the lack of a summer. Barely any tomatoes, no peppers- well nothing else but a few tomatoes. What a waste. (North-central Massachusetts).
Yesterday I wanted to fire up the pellet stoves to warm up the house a bit but my wife denied me and handed me a blanket!

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 15, 2014 6:15 am
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 15, 2014 1:29 pm

The Oregon Trail Interpretative Center whatchamacallit at Baker is really cool.

September 15, 2014 6:32 am

The Canadian magazine, Macleans , did an article on the “new norm” cold that has been hitting Canada. . Even with all the past experience in dealing with the cold , they found themselves ill prepared in many parts of Canada. I just quote a small part of their article
The winter that ruined everything
It broke records, kneecapped the economy, and showed us how ill-prepared Canada is for a future of extreme weather
In Winnipeg, frigid temperatures and heaping snowbanks are all part of the local charm. When your city’s nickname is “Winterpeg”—a label so famous it appears in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary—complaining about the cold is a waste of warm air. It’s bloody freezing. Everyone knows it. Bundle up and carry on.
But this record-breaking Canadian winter has been so nasty, so unrelenting, that even the Peg is losing its patience. Manitoba’s capital marked its coldest December-to-February stretch in 35 years, with a nagging mean temperature of -20.3° C. It’s been so ridiculously bitter that the ground is freezing at depths nobody can remember: more than two metres down. At last count, the unprecedented frost line has left nearly 1,000 addresses with frozen pipes—and city officials scrambling to restore running water with the four machines they have that can thaw the lines.
Some families haven’t been able to use their taps or toilets for two weeks. If they want to freshen up, Mayor Sam Katz has kindly offered the shower facilities at city-run pools. “This is like the exclamation point on a really rough season,” says Ian McCausland, a commercial photographer whose north-end studio lost its water supply more than a week ago. “People are really on edge.”
For McCausland, his pipes turned icy at the worst possible moment. His biggest shoot of the year was scheduled for March 10, and when he phoned his client to break the news—and explain his plan to order a Johnny-on-the-spot to replace his indoor plumbing—the client was not exactly flush with joy. Eventually, McCausland did find an acceptable solution: a company that rents high-end, trailer-style bathrooms complete with flowing water and a mirror. Parked a few steps from his studio door, the temporary john cost him $600 for the week. “This is my biggest client,” he says, “so I am willing to do everything.”
He is definitely not alone. From coast to coast, Canadians have done everything they can to survive this winter of discontent. The Old Man arrived early and never let go, unleashing a harsh brew of bone-chilling mornings, wicked gusts of wind and collective pleas for mercy. We learned a new scientific term—“polar vortex”—and felt it, firsthand, on our fingertips. It’s been so bleak that, as of early March, 92.2 per cent of the Great Lakes were covered in ice, the most since 1979. On March 1, Regina broke a 130-year-old record for that day’s temperarture: -36° C, with a wind chill of -53° C. In Kenora, Ont., where all-time winter lows have wreaked havoc on its maze of underground pipes, the city is in the midst of a two-week boil-water advisory.
There is as strong possibility that this kind of weather is coming again this next winter to Canada and parts of United States

September 15, 2014 7:27 am

You said
“How long, exactly, do you think that it will take to implement measures to deal with “winter emergency planning”? Are you suggesting that it is time for Florida to invest in snowplows? That’s as silly as the assertion that I should plant banana trees in my back in NC ..”
You might not need snow plows but you can get more freezing even in Florida . Remember 2010 winter?
You can rarely win an argument by going to the ridiculous. But things can get even more ridiculous when environmental consultant recommended a year ago or so that Toronto should sell off its winter snow clearing equipment because of upcoming global warming due to coming warmer winters with no snow.
You said “Colder winters are weather, not climate until there are decades of them lined up. We have plenty of time to adjust barring a plunge into glaciation.”
Where have you been the last two decades ? Winters have been getting colder for 17 years now , globally, Northern Hemisphere, United States and Canada
I would shutter to have you in charge of our city’s infrastructure . You might wait for 30 years and do nothing to prepare or cope before you are convinced that cold weather is here or that more is coming and by then the cycle will have already shifted to the warm again
I think you should move further north for a little while and experience first hand different weather and how to plan and budget for winter in our regions.

Reply to  herkimer
September 15, 2014 1:15 pm

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s a series of cold winters killed 10’s of thousands of acres of citrus trees in the Orlando area. It took more than a decade for them to recover.

Reply to  herkimer
September 16, 2014 2:54 pm

I lived in Skaneateles, NY for around 8 years total, although I was a very small child for some of them. My mother, however, reported that she saw snow fall every month of the year in the 50’s. That includes June, July and August. I personally saw it falling in May (sitting in school, waiting for the “summer”) and September, and used to trick or treat in a foot of snow. I also — and I’m not kidding here — walked to school in Skaneateles — they didn’t run a school bus route in the town per se, a distance of around a mile, in mid-winter. I got frostbite walking to school. We had 20 to 30 below zero temperatures fairly routinely, and had several “blizzards” while I lived there (we were at the end of one of the finger lakes and got lake effect snow from Erie).
So thank, you, but no. I think I’ll stick to North Carolina where a snowfall is an adventure, an automatic holiday. And although the days are still depressingly short in winter, “short” means dark around 5 pm, not around 3 pm. “Cold” means that it went down below freezing the night before. “Snowy” means there is an inch of snow on the ground and everything is closed. And sometimes we have 70F weather in January (not very often, though, global warming or not).
As I pointed out above, I actually object to using weather — errr, I mean “climate” — models as the basis of public policy and decisioning of all sorts. That’s because they don’t work very well. I oppose doing so when NC tries to use them as the basis for planning for a sea level rise that just isn’t happening from an empirical point of view, even if the models call for it. I oppose doing so for snowplow purchase decisions. Surely those are best made not on the basis of model projections, but on the simple record of logged hours plowing snow, plus whatever one wishes to gamble. It costs everybody a lot of money when everything shuts down upon a snow, but in NC snows are rare enough that we don’t buy a lot of equipment, and just have to suffer in the odd years that we have 20″ snowfalls. Nothing moves for a week. C’est la vie.
Skaneateles, OTOH, would have to be populated by idiots to do any such thing. And generally, city managers aren’t idiots of that magnitude. I’m sure there are exceptions but I’m Darwinian — if you elect or appoint an idiot to manage your affairs, you are responsible when their decisions turn out to be idiotic.
As for Florida, if you look at their weather over the decades, they get killing frosts down there with annoying “regularity”. It’s not like it happens all the time, but they know better than to assume that it cannot or won’t happen because it does. They are never “prepared” for it when it does because how do you prepare your orange crop or banana tree in the back yard for a killing frost? In the one case, they spray water on the trees or turn on grove heaters and maybe or maybe not preserve some of the crop; in the other, it’s tough noogies for the banana — you can try wrapping it and maybe it will survive, but if the climate changes, you’ll just stop trying to grow bananas. Or oranges. You’ll know it when that happens because you’ll be out of business, or tired of replanting banana trees.

September 15, 2014 7:42 am

As the climate warmed, hundreds of thousands of hectares of Canadian farmland became viable for growing grain crops. Should the climate start to cool, these hectares will no longer be in production. So how many bushels of wheat is represented for each 0.1 deg. C either way? This topic may be a good masters-level project.

September 15, 2014 8:08 am

It almost beggars belief that a newspaper would print anything from the utterly discredited and mendacious Bob Carter. The accelerating global warming we’re seeing today is caused by an anthropogenic climate forcing far larger than could be offset by any plausible change in solar irradiance.

“… there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG”

IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, p. 690
… which of course is why the World Meteorological Organisation say:

“There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable”

Reply to  icarus62
September 15, 2014 9:23 am

Global warming has stopped.
Those who predicted global warming will continue do not know why global warming has stopped. That is why there are 52 different published excuses for global warming having stopped. The excuses can be read here.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 9:26 am

That is not correct, as you can see above. Global warming has accelerated, not slowed down.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 9:29 am

Global warming has stopped in the real world.
What is happening in your dreams does not change that.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 9:42 am

The evidence is unequivocal, as the WMO say: “There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths”. Nor is there any sign of a decline in surface and lower troposphere warming – both GISTEMP and UAH show a warming trend of 0.17C per decade.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 9:49 am

Please don’t be silly. Global warming has stopped.
Global warming is, only is , always has been, and only has been increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) . Deep ocean temperatures have nothing to do with it.
Global warming has stopped. Live with that.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 9:53 am

Sorry Richard but you are clearly wrong. I refer you to what the WMO say above. They are the experts, after all.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 9:59 am

Sorry, but I referred you to 52 different “experts” in the literature which each provides a different excuse for global warming having stopped.
My 52 different authorities trumps your solitary one.
And reality trumps all “experts”. Reality says global warming has stopped.
Why do you doubt reality.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 10:13 am

You’re referring to short-term fluctuations in the surface and lower troposphere datasets, which are dominated by unforced natural variability, volcanic eruptions, small variations in the solar cycle etc. These are interesting features of the climate system but I’m talking about the long-term warming of the global climate, driven primarily by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which the real world data shows is continuing unabated, as the WMO point out.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 10:19 am

Sorry, but I thought you were talking about global warming because that is what you said you were talking about. I have been discussing global warming.
Heat going into the deep oceans cannot provide discernible global warming now or in the future (2nd Law of TD).
Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago despite continuing increase to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 11:32 pm

As the IPCC say:

Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on
average from 1971 to 2010 (high confidence). The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.

IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 3 Box 3.1 p. 264.
Why would you want to neglect the 93% (oceans) and focus just on the 4% (surface and atmosphere)? If we’re discussing global warming then we have to take account of the whole climate system, which has been warming at an accelerating rate (275 TW for 1993 to 2010, compared to 213 TW for 1971 to 2010).

Reply to  icarus62
September 15, 2014 10:21 am

icarus 62
You must wait for my reply to come out of moderation.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 11:07 am

OK, cheers!

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 15, 2014 11:39 am

icarus62 says:
Global warming has accelerated, not slowed down.
Accelerated? Maybe on your planet, in whatever alternate universe that is. But here on Planet Earth, even the IPCC is now admitting that global warming has stopped. They call it a “pause” or a “hiatus”. But it means the same thing: global warming has stopped. It has yet to ‘un-pause’.
Whoever told you that global warming is continuing, and even accelerating, is simply lying to you. It is up to you whether you want to believe them, or not.
You say:
I refer you to what the WMO say above. They are the experts, after all.
Personally, I don’t believe liars — even ‘expert’ liars. Why would you?

Reply to  icarus62
September 15, 2014 1:17 pm

The claim that the missing heat can be found in the oceans is often claimed, but never demonstrated. Especially considering the fact that we aren’t measuring the temperature of the deep ocean at all. And even the near surface waters aren’t being measured with sufficient frequency and accuracy to say anything reliable about their temperatures.
As to quoting the IPCC, you might as well quote Wikipedia. Neither has any credibililty.

Reply to  icarus62
September 15, 2014 1:30 pm

response to icarus62
an ironic note – the tragedy of Icarus-1 was that he flew too close to the sun – that’s known as a “solar effect”

Reply to  icarus62
September 16, 2014 12:11 am

Your quotation from the IPCC makes clear why you have so great a misunderstanding.
We are talking about global warming which is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) . Global warming is not anything else.
You ask me and say

Why would you want to neglect the 93% (oceans) and focus just on the 4% (surface and atmosphere)? If we’re discussing global warming then we have to take account of the whole climate system, which has been warming at an accelerating rate (275 TW for 1993 to 2010, compared to 213 TW for 1971 to 2010).

We are discussing global warming so what is happening in the deep oceans is not relevant.
Warming is NOT about energy accumulation (e.g. TW): it is about increase to temperature.
You seem to think global warming is about the global energy budget: IT IS NOT.
Assessment of global warming requires consideration of surface temperatures and nothing else.
GASTA can change without any change to the global energy budget. And the global energy budget can change without any change to GASTA. So there is no reason to “take account of the whole climate system”.
In summation, it is clear that your great ignorance and confusion are why you are having difficulty grasping the fact of global warming having stopped.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 3:58 am

Improved measurements mean that we can now track global warming by the increase in ocean heat content and melting of ice, as well as surface and lower troposphere temperature – hence the WMO statement above that “There is no standstill in global warming”. This is surely something to be welcomed, not an opportunity to quibble about semantics.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 4:44 am

Global warming has stopped. If you think global warming is a problem then global warming having stopped is surely something to be welcomed.
I refer you to the post of dbstealey which is here. Please say what part of his clear post you are failing to understand.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 5:05 am

The IPCC say that the reduced rate of surface warming in recent years is not reflected in the ocean heat content data and is too short a period to be a robust indicator of long-term climate trends. They highlight this with the following data:
“Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade, and, 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.”
When a 15-year trend changes by a factor of 2 just by moving it ahead one year, any scientifically literate person would conclude that short-term trends are not robust.
The IPCC certainly are not saying there is any “pause” in global warming, only a decline in the rate of surface warming, while the climate system as a whole continues to heat up unabated. This is echoed by the WMO’s statement above. The improved data we have on global warming now should be welcomed, not ignored. The fact that it shows global warming has accelerated should be cause for concern, not complacency.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 5:11 am

You took time to write that irrelevant twaddle but forgot to say what you have not understood in the post from dbstealey. Please correct the oversight.
Also, people who want to continue laughing – and you – may want to interrupt their amusement at your idiocy and read this

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 5:17 am

By now Richard you must know that you cannot debate faith with the faithful. Although it is a bit entertaining from where I’m sitting, you must be exhausted (or enjoying the fun as well?).
BTW way I like your input here at WUWT. Keep up the good work for us semi-lay people out here trying to get a grasp on things.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 5:26 am

lawrence Cornell
Thanks for that.
Assuming you don’t share the prudishness which is common among Americans, I commend you to read the item by Pointman which I linked: it really is very funny.
I don’t think icarus62 is a ‘true believer’ because his peadantry does not fit that. His behaviour is more typical of employed trolls. Whatever the reason for his obdurate idiocy, it is important for onlookers to be shown the behaviour and idiocy of global warming advocates such as icarus 62.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 16, 2014 8:49 am

Understanding global warming demands that we consider all the available data, rather than focusing on short-term trends in a metric that only represents around 4% of the energy accumulation in the climate system. Short term trends are not robust, and therefore can be misleading, as explained above. Surface and lower troposphere datasets show warming trends of around 0.17°C per decade. The data we have on OHC and ice melt (the remaining 96% of energy accumulating in the climate system) shows that global warming continues unabated, and indeed has been accelerating in recent years, as the WMO point out.

September 15, 2014 8:35 am

rgtbatduke.- How do you think the climate issue should be approached? Perhaps the way this web-site is doing it by exploring every topic with a diversity of opinions being generated?

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
September 16, 2014 3:18 pm

A) Cut funding of climate research — as opposed to weather prediction, which has actual demonstrable value — by roughly 90%.
B) Fire most of the existing NASA GISS staff and start over, taking care to hire people with no evident bias, tasked with revising the GISS temperature series to correctly account for things like the UHI effect and to include explicit error estimates in all products. Probably ditto at Hadley, but that’s up to somebody else.
C) As part of A), defund all of the unsuccessful models and remove them so that they cannot be used to generate an artificially inflated estimate of the future climate trend. Insist (at the grant level!) that all (funded) future climate models must be well-written, well-documented, easily buildable open source and accessible and runnable by anybody.
D) Focus research on observations, not prediction. In particular, satellite observations but also ARGO, improved siting and distribution of real-time weather stations worldwide. Work to systematically fill the observational holes, so that we don’t have to infill them. Routinely audit contributing observational sites.
E) Initialize these observations no earlier than roughly 1970, well into the satellite era. Basically, before satellites there are another 20-30 years (back to roughly WWII) of halfway decent global instrumental data and soundings. Before that, we have no real idea what the global “climate” was at any resolution suitable for splicing into a multi-century record. Avoid (by actively discouraging it!) mixed time-resolution models. Insist that proxy derived data both come with defensible error bars and clear statements of the limitations as far as being “global” or “high resolution in time” are concerned.
F) Absolutely insist that anything asserted to be a “climate model” show predictive skill for an interval no less than thirty years into the future of its initialization before it is taken seriously. This interval should include one or more episodes of non-monotonic behavior — that is, some sort of nontrivial variation that the model correctly predicted — before being taken seriously as well, extending even the 30 year limit as necessary. By “taken seriously” I mean used as weather models are sometimes now used, to guide public policy decisions on the basis of estimated risks and projected savings. Weather models are useful because they work, out to maybe six weeks or so (better for lesser times ahead). Climate models (so far) are useless because they don’t work. Nor is there any particular reason to think that they are going to suddenly start to work, because they are just weather models run far, far past the point where the “weather” they predict bears any resemblance to the real weather we observe. That gap has to close before we should make decisions that ultimately kill people to ameliorate a problem predicted by models that don’t work.
G) Do a serious overhaul of the EPA and the “official” public message, one that openly acknowledges uncertainty, one that balances the good and bad aspects of climate change, one that acknowledges that the climate is always changing, with or without human intervention, and that we probably have a lot less influence on the climate than we think.
Basically, we need to stop pretending that we understand the climate and can predict it, until there is some actual evidence that either one is true, and we need to seriously take the wind out of the self-serving vested interests — especially the big energy companies — that are raking in profits from the panic. Most of what we SHOULD be doing we should be doing with or without climate catastrophe looming. Cheaper energy is always good. Sustainable is cheaper in the long run, as long as one isn’t panicked into investing in cost-ineffective sustainable energy sources prematurely because of a perceived amplified risk of catastrophe.

Reply to  rgbatduke
September 16, 2014 7:31 pm

Amen, but also shut down GISS and NCAR as hopelessly polluted by corrupt anti-scientists. There must be consequences for corruption.

September 15, 2014 9:20 am

As you will note, the smart states and governors are getting the message . This is almost next door to you.
Here is a partial quote only from Februray 2014
State considers paying more for winter storm preparation
By Ariel Hart
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Gov. Nathan Deal is prepared to spend in order to prepare for the next winter weather crisis.
For decades Georgia has enjoyed the economies of sunny weather, forgoing expensive winter weather supplies such as intensive road condition forecasting and big snow plow fleets. But after three winter events within four years shut down all of metro Atlanta for days, the tide is shifting.

Reply to  herkimer
September 16, 2014 3:22 pm

Which is just as it should be. They’ve had warm weather for a while, and have gambled on it continuing. That’s a risk. There is a cost to losing the bet. They’ve now lost a few times in a row, and suddenly the expense of being reasonably prepared for weather experienced on a century timescale instead of decadal timescale is looking a lot more reasonable.
That’s what EVERYBODY will do if it cools. It is only plunging into sudden severe record cold for decades that one has to worry about. Sudden being the key word. Sudden is bad for everybody. Black Swan events are the plague and reward of those that expect reality to be linear and extrapolable. It isn’t.
Every day a new day, that’s what I always say. “Like” the day before, yet unlike. Sometimes very unlike.

Theodore White
September 15, 2014 11:46 am

Many like to talk, but talk is cheap – and very few are doing actual climate forecasting of what is happening and about to happen here in the real world.
Yes, global cooling is coming, that’s a fact, and in my climate forecast global cooling will begin officially in mid-December 2017, and will last 36 years.
It will be an abrupt and deep climate change event that will put an end to the ideological, ignorant and rampant uninformed opinions and dysfunctional views of those who believe that pink elephants can fly (man-made global warming.)
Global cooling will affect everyone – like it or not – and the declining solar activity due to solar cycle #25 will spark off the Sun’s Grand Minimum – which ushers in the end of our most recent interglacial era with the beginning of a new global ice age.
As for those who continue to claim ‘man-made global warming,’ just know that all of your comments and acts have been recorded and will continue to be put into a long list of those who will have to pay for the valuable loss of time and resources to prepare for the era of global cooling.

Reply to  Theodore White
September 16, 2014 3:24 pm

I have to ask — do you have any quantitative basis for “mid-December, 2017”? Or did you consult a palm-reader?
I personally expect space aliens to land September 24, 2016 and wipe out the human race be early December, so I guess it won’t matter.

September 15, 2014 1:22 pm

About 10-15 years ago, based on the “solar conveyer”, experts were predicting that solar cycle 25 was going to be exceptionally weak. Of course they were also predicting that cycle 24 was going to be in line with the last few cycles.
I haven’t heard anything about the “solar conveyer” in several years. Are they still predicting a weak cycle 25?
Has the weakness of cycle 24 caused them to adjust their predictions for 25? Up or down?

Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2014 3:25 pm

Seek the Lief (on any thread on Solar Activity). He is the official Oracle of all things Sun.

September 15, 2014 3:13 pm

People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.
In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.
In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.
When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.
After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:
The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.
“The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”
The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!
The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.
A temperature graph normally goes here that shows the Earth’s Temperature from -2400 to guesses in +2400.
If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:

September 15, 2014 7:24 pm

The things that matter when preparing for weather emergencies, especially cold, are the strategic grain reserve(abandoned).
Fuel stockpiles( also abandoned).
Reserve electrical generation capacity (Also decimated).
Sure looks like Bob Carter is right.
Using the cover of CAGW, these reserves have all been degraded or dismissed as no longer necessary.

September 15, 2014 7:50 pm

But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
Still, thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!
– Burns
P.S. Good comments by john robertson on September 15, 2014 at 7:24 pm

September 16, 2014 7:10 am

I don’t know where or how the idea of an extension of 60k years for an interglacial period is being conjured up, but facts are facts, check the record, EVERY ice age begins when the obliquity cycle of earth decreases BELOW 23.5 degrees as it has now in this current period, there are no exceptions over the past one million years. The only case of exceptions in the timing of an ice age cycle is where the obliquity cycle swings to the maximum in which case an interglacial MAY NOT EVEN OCCUR AT ALL, hence the 100,000 year average length of the ice age cycle which gives the impression there is no orbital influence on the ice age cycle when in fact there is one.
Given the obliquity cycle is 41k years, there is no way based on the record than an interglacial can last 50k, 60k or for that matter skip a cooling cycle where the obliquity is proceeding towards it minimum of 22.1 degrees based on the historical record. IF all things are equal, history will repeat itself, it will do so soon and it may being doing so now. Prepare or go extinct like the Dodo bird.

September 16, 2014 9:24 am

{underline emphasis mine – JW}
rgbatduke says on September 14, 2014 at 9:38 am
“. . .
Look. The world’s best climate model builders, who surely are not all working in any sort of bad faith and who at the very least have some physical basis underlying the models they build, are empirically unable to predict the climate’s time evolution with any particular skill (at least not yet). That’s because it is an insanely difficult problem, one so difficult and being done at such a poor spatiotemporal resolution and relying on so many unvalidated approximations for averaging over finer grained data that it would literally have been and would yet be a MIRACLE if any of models WORKED.
. . .”

– – – – – – – – –
So, I have a question about the limits of models in application to reality.
What can be said categorically, if anything, about whether the nature of the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) precludes ever being skillfully modeled? I ask this because it seems to me some critics of the IPCC priority focus on models seem to have a premise that the EAS cannot categorically be modeled skillfully. I do not understand how that kind of premise by critics of the IPCC would be valid. Therefore, I think some much reduced funding of EAS modeling efforts could still be reasonable.

Reply to  John Whitman
September 16, 2014 9:29 am

apologize that my underline html tags did not work in the above rgbatduke quote.. The rgbatduke line I meant to emphasize was “who surely are not all working in any sort of bad faith and who at the very least have some physical basis underlying the models they build, are empirically unable to predict the climate’s time evolution with any particular skill (at least not yet)”

Reply to  John Whitman
September 16, 2014 3:34 pm

It’s a highly multivariate, nonlinear, open, erratically driven, chaotic set of coupled Navier-Stokes equations describing at least three if not four named separations of the two major fluids covering the surface of the Earth, being integrated at a spatiotemporal resolution many tens of orders of magnitude larger than the known relevant dynamical scale of the fluids in question, from almost completely unknown initial conditions, to describe an outcome (the “state of the future climate”) that we cannot even objectively define, let alone measure now.
Oh, and did I mention that the dynamics is set up on a spinning, tipped object in a rather eccentric elliptical orbit around a variable star that is the primary source for the energy that — as it nonlinearly, chaotically distributes — generates both weather and climate? How about the fact that 70% of the surface being covered with a saltwater ocean? How about the fact that the climate is (apparently) highly tied to pure circulation patterns in that ocean to the point where small alterations of them can plunge the Earth into the deep freeze or rapidly thaw it? Or that we cannot predict or fully explain the named chaotic quasiparticle oscillations of the two-fluid system, let alone the near infinity of smaller ones, any one of which could nucleate, grow, and completely alter the pattern of heat distribution for the next thousand years or longer?

Reply to  John Whitman
September 16, 2014 6:24 pm

rgbatduke on September 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm
– – – – – – – – –
I take your answer as ongoing attempts at modeling the EAS skillfully have incredibly difficult and immense challenges. Where past attempts failed at the very first tiny baby steps of trying to model the EAS.

September 16, 2014 2:11 pm

There seems to be some agreement that the 2014/2015 winter will again be cold and possibly even colder in some regions of North America
Joe D’Aleo on his ICECAP blog says “With all the climate factors aligning, next winter in the east and southeast should be even colder than last year. Plan accordingly. Come join us at to see the details.” Joe Bastardi on his Saturday summary (9/13) on Weatherbell calls for a cold winter again for US and a significantly cold winter for the US southeastern and mid Atlantic states
The Farmers Almanac is calling for below normal temperatures for about three quarters of Canada . The most frigid temperatures will be found again from the Prairies into the Great Lakes.
I said similar on this track on an earlier post about the possible return of the polar vortex like last year..

September 16, 2014 9:01 pm

Well to be sure of one thing, we adapt or we starve. It’s the Northern Hemisphere with it largest populated regions, that will suffer most. But – the Southern Hemisphere might be able to adapt more likely, so long as we get precipitation that’s what we have always lacked. The problem is that in the last ice age, surface water did not evaporate as much, but the precipitation levels in some parts of Australia were higher or much lower.But with human intervention, we should be able to cope.

September 16, 2014 9:05 pm

However, saying the above, does not expect a full glacial period. This would lower sea levels and obviously precipitation. Well we’ll see, but Bob is right.

September 22, 2014 6:28 pm

Your points about the unpredicatability of the climate system are well said and well made. Your solutions articulated at September 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm are reasonable, practical and as about as probable as the current GCMs making an accurate prediction of future climate trends.
As northern hemisphere inhabitants, especially those at the more northern lattitudes, have known for thousands of years, you do not have to prepare for summer but you do have to prepare for winter. Warm is better for everything. You have to get to prolong and extreme hot weather as experienced by the USA in the 1930’s for this to become a problem. Cold is always a problem that takes extra effort to mitigate and prior preparation to alleviate. Prolong cold will have serious food production implications for the current marginal grain producing areas of Canada and Siberia.
A properly functioning political system would prepare for cold because that is the outcome that requires preparation and would serve to protect the community. Only a political system that is determined to increase its own power at the expense of the community would strive to “protect” it from a “warming” world.

%d bloggers like this: