Climate Scares and the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' Syndrome

Guest essay by Rod Martin, Jr.

Climate Scares—The New Fable


Climate scares are like the old Greek fable. Most of us learned about Aesop’s fables long ago, likely in grade school. But just in case you don’t know the story of the boy who cried “wolf,” here’s a very short synopsis.

A boy was given the responsibility to guard the town’s flock of sheep. Boring work. So boring in fact, that the boy was motivated to stir up some excitement by yelling, “Wolf!” You see, he knew the townspeople would come running to help protect their flock from the ravenous predator. No wolf—merely a shepherd boy who could not contain his laughter at the townspeople’s gullibility. After a few times of being tricked, the townspeople started to turn a deaf ear. The boy couldn’t be trusted. His warnings were hollow. When the wolf did show up, sheep died.

Now, I dislike hollow warnings meant to provoke voters and legislators into knee-jerk reactions. But just because some people are liars and tricksters does not mean the dangers don’t exist.

When I first heard the term “precautionary principle” applied to the climate scares, I immediately realized that this principle only works if it’s pointed in the right direction. For example, let’s say you’re climbing down the Grand Canyon in Arizona and someone yells, “Snake!” Jumping toward the Colorado River is not recommended, especially if you’ve just started down. One mile is a long way to fall. If you haven’t already figured it out, jumping toward open air is analogous to pushing global cooling and a fear of global warming.

With the Climate Scares, Everything is ‘Bad’

The globalist’s PR campaign is pretty slick. You have to give them credit for that. They have some of the world entirely bamboozled. Climate change is so bad, they’ll do anything to stop it.

But climate change is inevitable. “Stop climate change” is an oxymoron of the worst kind—a self-contradictory phrase. That’s like saying, “stop the planet in its orbit.” If humanity could help nature change in a more favorable direction, which direction would that be? In the current political “climate,” it seems people favor global cooling. But wait! If they attempt to cool the planet, then they would be causing—oh, no!—more “climate change!”

Do you see? The current climate is bad, global warming is bad, and because cooling would be evil “climate change,” it would also be bad. The illogical nature of this is mind boggling.

I recommend that the next time you chat with a warming alarmist, ask them, “Is climate change bad?” Of course, they’ll say, “Yes.” Then ask, “Is the current climate good or bad?” Likely, they’ll say, “Bad.” Then, ask them, “What kind of climate would be good?” That might stump them entirely, but they may answer, “Cooler.” Finally, ask them, “How would we get to cooler climate without changing the climate?” This might frustrate or infuriate them. But let them have their “Aha!” moment, no matter how long it takes. If their ego isn’t insurmountable, you may have won a convert to climate sanity.

We’ve had a panic about global cooling (1970s) and a panic about global warming (1990s to present). Some people have grown weary of the climate scares. Ironically, this puts us in the position of the townspeople with their irresponsible shepherd boy. If a real wolf of climate shows up, civilization may suffer horribly, because of our lack of preparation.

Beyond the Climate Scares—Where to Now?

Most people, it seems, need a swift kick in their reality. Let’s start with defining our terms. First, we currently live in an Ice Age interglacial called the Holocene. That’s right, we live in an Ice Age. That’s right now! That “thing” that ended 11,500–17,000 years ago was merely the latest glacial period of the current Ice Age. The colloquial use of “Ice Age” is careless and inaccurate.

Ironically, someone got the bright idea to declare that the Ice Age had ended when the Holocene began. That would have been nice, but here’s where we need the reality check. What does Ice Age mean? In science, we need to be precise with our terms and this is one area where most everyone has gotten sloppy, including me, at times. An Ice Age has been defined as a period of cooler global climate where both poles experience permanent glaciation. If the ice persists throughout the year at both poles, then we live in an Ice Age. Simple. For the Ice Age to end, either Greenland or Antarctica would have to lose all of their ice for at least a part of the year. That isn’t going to happen any time soon.

The Holocene is one of many interglacials of the current Ice Age. In fact, the Eemian interglacial (~100,000 years ago), was far warmer than the Holocene ever got. Did that end the Ice Age? No, of course not. Ice persisted throughout the Eemian at both poles. Though the polar bears likely had zero sea ice during the summer, they did just fine.

In one paper by W.S. Broecker (1998), the length of an average interglacial was determined to be about 11,000 years. However, the boundary between glacials and interglacials is not a neat, clearly defined line. It’s decidedly messy, like most of nature.

Ask yourself, when a storm is approaching, when has it arrived—when the first flutters of wind touch you, when you feel the first sprinkles of rain, or when the raging wind and thrashing rain are pounding the world all around you?

One look at the paleoclimate page, here, will reveal that messiness in all its glory. The graph by Ole Humlum is particularly telling when it comes to glacials and interglacials. Interglacials don’t happen like some metal clock, ticking away the seconds in mechanical perfection. The repeating sequence of interglacial-glacial has kept the 100,000-year average for the last million years or so. Before that, it was a 41,000-year cycle. But that was only averages. Of the last ten interglacials, we’ve had them range from 4,000 years to 28,000 years. Glacial cold periods have lasted between 28,000 years and 143,000 years.

I’ve had several people tell me that the Holocene definitely will not end any time soon. That sounds great, but how do they know? How do I know if they’re not liars like the young shepherd boy? One told me it won’t end for another 12,000 years. Another told me it won’t end for another 50,000 years based on Milankovitch cycles. And still another quoted 70,000 years. A look at the Humlum graph with an extra 50,000 years or 70,000 years added to the Holocene is quite instructive, especially when we compare the other interglacial periods. Here’s what it looks like with 50,000 years of interglacial bliss added to the Holocene. I don’t know about you, but this looks a touch unrealistic.


Certainly, we could set a new record. That would be nice. But don’t risk the future of humanity on someone’s educated guess that the Holocene won’t end for an extremely long period of time. For all we know, it could end starting this afternoon. We still don’t know what all causes interglacials to end. Milankovitch is not the only set of factors.

Is this just another climate scare? No, not really. Ignoring global warming or trying to prove that global warming is not happening may be the wrong thing to do, though. Perhaps we should focus on, “What does good climate look like?” I suspect that it has a lot of warmth in it. After all, global warming helped civilization get a start 12,000 years ago. What if those same benefits were expanded all the way to the poles?

Is there such a thing as dangerous heat in global average temperatures. I suspect not, so long as we have an ocean to ameliorate the effects of heating. Our oceans seem to set an upper boundary that is almost never exceeded. Why? Could it be because of the strong negative feedbacks of evaporative cooling and reflective cloud cover? The warmer things get, the more evaporation there is. And with more evaporation, all other things being equal, the more cloud cover we can expect. Water is an automatic protection mechanism.

On the other hand, we know what dangerous cold looks like. The Little Ice Age showed us miserable conditions with horrible weather, crop failures and brutal storms, like those in an around England. The Great Storm of 1703, and the sinking of the Spanish Armada (1588) are two examples of the destructiveness of global cooling. The 1816 “year without summer” also showed us. Incidents like that put into perspective CIA Director John Brennan’s recent warm-and-fuzzy remarks about geoengineering with reflective aerosols (from his talk at the Council on Foreign Relations). Gag! He even compared them to volcanic events as if he was entirely ignorant of their dangerous effects on climate and agriculture. I don’t know what’s worse—the idea that the CIA director is that incompetent, or that he may be instead a died-in-the-wool psychopath.

Climate proxies tell us what the last glacial period of the current Ice Age was like. It was brutal. Populations of all species were adversely impacted.

Currently, we’re approaching a solar minimum. Also, our Earth’s magnetic field is waning. We’ve also gone past the average length of an interglacial by between 500 and 6,000 years. Don’t let the boys crying “wolf” keep us from at least the minimum of preparation, just in case there actually is a “wolf” of climate stalking us. Feeding 7 billion people might not be easy when most of the farmland is either buried in permanent snow or locked in a new desert climate from the lack of rain. After all, cold oceans don’t evaporate much.

What would it hurt to prepare for the coming cold, even if it won’t happen for another 12,000 years? What kinds of preparations would cost almost nothing?

Don’t let the boy who cried “climate change” keep us from being smart about preparation for the real danger of global cooling. Some preparation doesn’t require us to cripple our industries, pay $Trillion$ in extortion, or to give up our sovereignty.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 15, 2016 11:26 am

The boogeyman is still gonna getcha, gonna getcha, Just you wait and see!

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
July 16, 2016 6:23 am

Worse, climate alarms distract attention and resources from real problems:comment image?ssl=1&w=450

July 15, 2016 11:33 am

Why do the believers observe the weather and attempt to define it as climate?

Bob Denby
July 15, 2016 11:35 am

Christiana Figueres executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and now a candidate to become the head of the U.N., has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. (

Reply to  Bob Denby
July 15, 2016 11:21 pm

Good point, Bob. Some “hidden” agendas are not so hidden. The Rockefellers have had a fetish for eugenics for over a century. From what I’ve heard, they donated the land in Manhattan for the UN’s headquarters. How “nice” of them. And through their front man, the late Maurice Strong, they created the “climate change” scam. They are clever. We have to give them that. And yet, like all psychopaths, they know the difference between right and wrong, but don’t care. David Rockefeller, for instance, wrote in his memoirs that he was “proud” of his treason against the United States, conspiring for decades against its “best interests.”
Global warming is good. The last big global warming event helped us create civilization, starting 12,000 years ago. If we could have an effect on climate, I would vote for more global warming to finish the job and melt the polar ice. Then, I’d get busy helping people move, or building dikes around coastal cities, where feasible.

GP Hanner
Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 16, 2016 6:22 am

“Global warming is good”
Spot on. Next January, all those who live in the temperate part of the Northern Hemisphere make a count of all the crops you see growing. Good thing it isn’t that way year round.

July 15, 2016 11:45 am

I think if we are going to discuss cooling sensibly, we might start asking whether places currently too dry and hot for agriculture might become fertile again? After all, you don’t find huge oil reserves under the Sahara desert if at one time the Sahara were not a jungle, do you?
The effect of global cooling is that the optimum latitude for each type of crop moves south. The question is how far, what the state of land is around those latitudes (both north and south of the equator) and what kinds of preparations we might need to make to convert such lands into fertile agricultural regions in a timely manner?
Let’s also start thinking about whether we, as human beings, can accept psychopaths saying that ‘letting people north of 45N and south of 45S die as a consequence of global cooling’ or whether there is going to need to be some kind of grand migration somehow or other?
I think the obvious places to be thinking about are the deserts: large unpopulated areas currently too hot and dry to grow things. Initially, use of hydroponics may be necessary and the seeding of pioneer trees to provide shade and to help retain moisture may be important. Obviously, creation of humus is going to take time, but less time in a warm place than in a northern prairie. If you wanted to use ‘geoengineering’ in a constructive manner, then you might be creating rainclouds to target those desert areas to help to kick start those processes. Not to create 10 billion slaves, but to serve humanity.
I would think North Africa would have a crucial role to play if an Ice Age appeared, as would the Arabian peninsula, maybe the deserts in southern Africa, not to mention areas further south in the USA than currently regarded as ‘the corn belt’.
Further north might need to be considered places for boreal forests to be regenerated, since agriculture might no longer be viable. You’re not telling me that trees which are currently growing in the harsh winters of Canada and Russia won’t do perfectly fine in Scotland, New England, the northern Mid-West, maybe in northern Japan etc etc.
I’m not saying the details of what I”m saying is exactly right, but what I am saying is that the scenario planning should involve hypothesising a variety of situations as to where food may need to be grown in an Ice Age and then consider how the world can evolve to make that possible without genocides, mass starvations and wars.
It’s not a matter of competence, it’s a matter of will, of faith, of human endeavour and of refusing to sacrifice human life for personal convenience.
It needs the harnessing of technical knowledge around a framework drawn up with the consent of humanity. The technical experts don’t draw that up, they guide it based on technical logistics. They serve, they don’t impose.
It may be the time when capitalism has to be put aside to some extent to secure the survival of the species.
Unless of course the Malthusians win and say: ‘let those who can destroy all comers in their viable niche live’…
I personally don’t think 98% of humans have the morality of animals. As a result, they shouldn’t let the 2% who do dictate terms.
Should they??

Reply to  rtj1211
July 15, 2016 6:51 pm

During a glacial, the land suited to plant drastically shrinks, known from prior glacials.
The only fix that works would be greenhouses with desalinizing and nuclear power for heat and light.
Urban farms in buildings and shipping containers is already taking off for quality and freshness reasons.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 16, 2016 1:31 am

Coal, coal, glorious coal. We’ll have to mine trillions of tonnes of it for heat, and to increase crop yields through higher CO2 concentrations. Thankfully we have the technology right now to mine it and burn it with virtually zero emissions other than CO2 and water vapour.
Buy your coal mining stocks now and you won’t be disappointed.

Reply to  rtj1211
July 15, 2016 11:31 pm

Rtj1211, cooling won’t make areas fertile. Cooling will make the oceans a poorer source of evaporation. Fewer clouds, less rain, more deserts. This is what happened during the last glacial of the current Ice Age.
During the far warmer Holocene Optimum, the Sahara was green for something like 3,000 years. Today’s wimpy Lake Chad was a robust inland sea rivaling the Caspian in its heyday. That was from warmer climate with warmer oceans pumping out far more water vapor, clouds and rain.
Again, we currently live in an Ice Age. It’s called the Holocene interglacial of the current Ice Age. What you’re talking about is a return of glacial conditions and the end of the Holocene without melting the current polar ice.
I truly don’t understand your last statement. It appears you think 98% of humans have poor morals, yet you think the 2% with good morals should “not” dictate terms? Am I missing something? It sounds like you’re telling people not to listen to the good guys.

Reply to  rtj1211
July 16, 2016 1:59 pm

rtj: Deserts are not necessarily hot, they are dry. Heart doesn’t cause desserts, lack of water does. It’s the lack of water that makes them relatively hot, hot the other way around. Are you aware that some of the warmest places on earth are the wettest and greenest? (Tropical rain forests). Are you aware that the driest place on earth is the coldest? (Antarctic highlands).

Tom O
July 15, 2016 11:52 am

We actually did NOT have a global panic over cooling in the 1970s. I lived through that period. Yes, we did have concern that we were headed towards an ice age, and I do not recall any group running around saying “Man has caused the climate to crash!” To pretend that what happened in the 1970s is even remotely like what has happened with global warming is equating the reaction to seeing a 1 foot alligator to the reaction to seeing a 30 foot crocodile.
As for the story about the Boy crying wolf, it seems to have changed a little. I don’t recall the boy laughing at their gullibility, and the ending, as I recall, was that when the wolf showed up and he cried wolf, no one came to rescue HIM. It wasn’t just the sheep that crying wolf cost him, but it was assumed it was his own life as well.
In the case of the modern cry of wolf, it isn’t the wolf that will take the lives of the sheeple, it will be the polar bear, aided and abated by the wolf criers.

Reply to  Tom O
July 15, 2016 1:59 pm

But we didn’t have the internet back then. I think that is the principal reason it did not get blown up way out of proportion.
This time, when the cycle turns, and they start making noises about climate cooling, and what we need to do about it, there will be scads of evidence they won’t be able to sweep under the carpet, maybe so much that they will just try to slink into the shadows and hope no one ever calls them on it.

Reply to  peter
July 15, 2016 2:03 pm

I forget what did the alarmists say was causing the coming ice age? Not CO2?

Reply to  peter
July 15, 2016 3:30 pm

I lived through that period, too, and DO remember the environmentalists claiming that the evil capitalists were responsible for whacking the environment into causing the impending global cooling. I remember the (liberal) news magazines posting about the southern advancing line of permafrost that was threatening our crops.
Too bad you have a faulty memory.

Rhoda R
Reply to  peter
July 15, 2016 8:24 pm

Profitup10 – they blamed soot. Soot caused by manufacturing and other capitalist activities. Answer was the same as now – government control of all production.

Reply to  Tom O
July 15, 2016 4:24 pm

ah–I remember it well also. Burning coal was the culprit (some things never change) and the same mental attitudes that cry alarm about a little warming were crying alarm about the cooling. That scare didn’t have the legs the modern warming does only because the cooling stopped (and warming started) before they could get too carried away. I suppose the advances in scrubbing particulates from the coal fired emissions was a positive, but mostly it was just a practice game for the current climate change show.

Reply to  jvcstone
July 16, 2016 8:13 am

I also lived through the period and I can confirm your memory. They said it was particulates from burning fossil fuels that was causing the cooling. The proposed “fix” was to spray black coal dust over the arctic to melt the ice.

Reply to  Tom O
July 15, 2016 7:59 pm

I lived through the 70s and well recall a widespread belief that we might be heading for an ice age, but no one believed in a human cause. In fact it was known to be a part of a natural cycle that was believed to be beyond the control of humans. Since it was believed that little could be done about it, the story was not hyped by the media, nor was there either monetary or political advantage to be had. Times have changed. Some folks now see a way to control people and advance a political agenda, but mother nature does not seem to be in a hurry to help them.

tony mcleod
Reply to  bones
July 16, 2016 7:52 pm

I lived through it too and it was none of that. It was one or two fringe-dwellers and tabloid noise. No serious researcher had anything to do with it.
So many here must live in cold, temperate climates. I can tell you from the tropics and sub tropic, a bit cooler would be preferable to warmer.

Reply to  bones
July 17, 2016 7:43 am

Bullfeathers Tony. I started my teaching career in climatology and meteorology in 1970. The “leading” climatologists of the day all were talking about ice age, and hit the MSM often. I made my students read both the reports and the media hype, which led to many interesting discussions. In my course in natural resources they had to read Silent Spring, The Population Bomb and related articles. It all went together. The information was presented and discussed – not preached. We weren’t into “political science” in the 70’s.

Jack Dale
Reply to  bones
July 17, 2016 8:55 am

How do you reconcile your claim “The “leading” climatologists of the day all were talking about ice age” with the fact that climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results were published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Some MM did discuss cooling; Peter Gwynne who wrote the infamous Newsweek article has admitted he got it very wrong.
44 warming, 7 cooling Just about 6:1.
Probably the most talked about a paper is / was Rasool and Schneider which was predicated on continued industrial aerosol emissions which ended with the Clean Air Acts.

Clive Bond
Reply to  Tom O
July 15, 2016 11:01 pm

They also wanted to coat the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic with soot to retain the heat. Same nut cases on the warming scam similar solutions.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Tom O
July 16, 2016 12:04 am

I don’t remember thinking it wouldn’t be gradual if it did happen, and nobody was seriously suggesting we had the capability to do much about it anyway. Basically, it was mental exercise stuff while we slowly developed technological advances that might provide a way forward. In my neck of the woods (Western Canada), the 60’s were absolutely both hotter summers and colder winters. The ridiculous hubris of thinking we should jump all over a problem (imagined), that we hardly understand needed a whole new generation.

David A
Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 16, 2016 6:04 am

A good summary of the Ice Age scare here…

July 15, 2016 12:05 pm

Interesting analogy.

Pop Piasa
July 15, 2016 12:18 pm

The Who tried to warn us of the green scare agenda – It’s an eminence front.

July 15, 2016 12:20 pm

I don’t see any valid reason why the Holocene should be a very long interglacial. Last time I checked obliquity was going down, and will continue doing so for the next 10,000 years. The Little Ice Age belongs to a cycle that will hit the planet again around 4000 AD. That will be as good point as any to declare the end of the Holocene interglacial, as conditions are likely to be colder than during LIA due to the lower obliquity.
As for the coming solar minimum, we get one every 11 years on average. Solar cycle 25 is expected to be similar in activity to Solar cycle 24, so it is hard to predict drastic changes to the climate from low solar activity for the next 2-3 decades.

Reply to  Javier
July 15, 2016 7:01 pm

There is a roughly 1500 year period cycle of warm spikes then cold plunge. Bond Events. There also looks to be a minor cooling at 1/2 that period.
The last Bond Event started suddenly in about 536 AD. Add 1500, you get 2036. But 1470 is the usual value ascribed, so 2006… which is about when warming started cooling…
Some folks try to claim the little ice age was a Bond Event, but the timing is closer to a 1/2Bond cool dip. 536 + 750 = 1286 or near the LIA start.
This next dip ought to be worse than the LIA…

Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 16, 2016 1:59 am

Bond events are defined as cold periods with increased detrital ice-rafted deposition in the North Atlantic that have taken place during the Holocene. That’s all. No warming spikes. No common cause for those cold periods. No regular spacing of about ~1500 years of Bond events. No Bond cycle.
Bond events spacing fits different periodicity in the early Holocene than in the late Holocene due to the climate being dominated by the 1000-years solar cycle in the early Holocene and by the 1500-years oceanic cycle in the late Holocene.
Gerard Bond did a little trick to arrive to the 1500 years spacing. He started numbering from zero and only got to number 8, so 12,000/8 = 1500. But there are clearly at least 10 Bond events in his data so the spacing cannot be more than 1200 years.
The relation between Bond events or the 1500-years oceanic cycle and the 1470-years Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is hypothetical. One is a cooling cycle during interglacials and the other is a warming cycle during glacials. Other than the periodicity they have nothing in common.
The Little Ice Age was such a long cold period because there was a coincidence of the lows of three long cycles. The ~2500-years solar cycle low at around 1500 AD (Spører Grand Minimum), the ~1000-years solar cycle low at around 1650 AD (Maunder Grand Minimum), and the ~1500-years oceanic cycle low at around 1750 AD. None of these cycles will have another low before 2600 AD. Barring a very strong volcanic eruption the climate should be subject during the next 3 centuries only to the low amplitude short climate cycles, and therefore we are in the middle of a long warm period similar to the Roman Warm Period.
No climate alarmism is supported by paleoclimatic data for the next centuries, neither to the warming side nor to the cooling side.

July 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Very thoughtful analysis here. I would just beg to differ with one point: “We’ve had a panic about global cooling (1970s) and a panic about global warming (1990s to present). Some people have grown weary of the climate scares.”
The 1970’s global cooling ‘panic’ was not nearly as popularized and politicized as the current AGW/Climate Change panic. They are not hardly comparable in sociopolitical and economic impact.
I think you hit a valid relevant point with this statement: “Our oceans seem to set an upper boundary that is almost never exceeded. Why? Could it be because of the strong negative feedbacks of evaporative cooling and reflective cloud cover? The warmer things get, the more evaporation there is. And with more evaporation, all other things being equal, the more cloud cover we can expect.”
In addition to Milankovitch cycles, we have Solar and Volcanism to further complicate the issue. Every peak above zero in the Humlum graph is shortly followed by a rapid descent that then slows but still descends amid the noise until reaching what appears to be a lower limit switch of -8 to -9 and then rockets up in a near instantaneous fashion to the zero line and above – where we’re at today. If the oceans set an upper boundary, then what is the trigger at the lower boundary that starts the rapid end of Glacial epochs?
Messing around with imposing limits on anthropic CO2 and banning ‘fossil’ fuel use is pure unscientific political nonsense of the highest order.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  lectrikdog
July 16, 2016 12:13 am

It’s daft, Socialist, central planning nonsense from closet totalitarians. Fantastically dangerous! Rico 20 are just a taste.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  lectrikdog
July 16, 2016 11:15 am

70s cooling preceded by a 50s warming interest, not much concern. Wrote a report, if I could find it might be interesting. Authors of papers back in the 30s or earlier knew stuff moved with temperature. Probably a exponential interest over the decades in faux crises, maybe a psychological thing called “Displacement Activity.” If you can’t solve it do something else.

July 15, 2016 12:22 pm

I really suggest that the author rewrite the blog post, as his understanding of the climate’s periodicity terminology is very backwards confusing and messy, leading to BS.
For once “Ice Age” has a very specific meaning, it means the last glacial period, the one ending ~ 17k years ago. It is in singular meaning, only one specific period no many, and no any in general term.
There is only one Ice Age, the last glacial period.
There is glacial periods and ice ages, in plural, meaning, different kind of periods in the climate terminology.
The “ice age” in terminology of climate also holds a colloquial meaning, as colloquialy meaning a glacial period or the Ice Age it self, the last glacial period, which actually means that it is a complete BS thing in climatology, simply with the scope to make things even more confusing with no any real meaning what so ever.
That is the terminology, probably wrong, but that is how it is when you refer to it.
Whatever the author seems to have wasted a very valuable blog post space…….At least that what it seems to be from my view point.

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 12:24 pm

How about some scientific proof that in all of time only one ice age occurred? You lose English major.

Reply to  profitup10
July 15, 2016 12:50 pm

July 15, 2016 at 12:24 pm
How about some scientific proof that in all of time only one ice age occurred? You lose English major.
You have not read carefully.
There is only one Ice Age and many ice ages.
Colloquially an ice age means the Ice Age,
The Ice Age means specifically the last glacial period and has no colloquial meaning,,,,,,,, sorry is not me who picked and decided about such as, but that is how it is.
Don’t quarrel with me about it, please,,,,,,, actually I do not favor it and think it as not proper in what it supposes to explain. 🙂
Too simple and not fully encompassing the subject.

Reply to  profitup10
July 15, 2016 1:52 pm

Your sophistry grows tiresome, Whiten.

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 12:42 pm

I don’t agree with your terminology. An Ice Age is a geological period when at least one of the poles is permanently frozen. There has been four Ice Ages in the last 500 million years. Current Ice Age is called the Quaternary Ice Age and has been taking place for at least 2.6 million years.
Within an Ice Age you get colder periods called glacial periods and warmer periods called interglacials. There has been over 26 glacial and interglacial periods during the present Ice Age.

Reply to  Javier
July 15, 2016 1:28 pm

July 15, 2016 at 12:42 pm
Hello Javier.
First is not my terminology, as I clearly tried to explain it above to “profitup10”!
Secondly please read carefully what I “said”, before “profitup10” points out to you that when you say
“An Ice Age” you actually lose English Major..:)
The proper in that case will be “The Ice Age” or “the Ice Age”
As you claim, probably there have been four ice ages in the last 500 million years.
Spot the difference there.
Please don’t stop with the claims there, please go for a billion years or more.
Our science and knowledge about climate is amazing.
WE SEEM TO KNOW A LOT AND WITH NO QUARREL FROM NO ONE ABOUT THE CLIMATE OF THE MILLIONS YEARS OR BILLIONS IF YOU LIKE IT, but some how we keep quarreling and “fighting” about the climate of the last 500 months or the last 500 years or the last 5 thousand years……amazing, is not it?!…

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 1:50 pm

Might that be because the last 500 months is in reality only observing weather and not climate?

Reply to  Javier
July 15, 2016 1:54 pm

Sure whiten…why on Earth should anyone argue with fake “adjustments” to the historical records, and a barrage of lies and fear-mongering?

Reply to  Javier
July 15, 2016 2:10 pm

July 15, 2016 at 1:52 pm
Your sophistry grows tiresome, Whiten.
Very good indeed Menicholas.
Really, appreciated, probably you are right, most probably.
To the English you have to speak English, to Gibber you have to speak Gibberish.
The WUPWT blog post sophistry grows tiresome to whiten.
I think you nailed it there..:)
Guardian has already got there in the slot, before WUWT.
The slot that reads: “We already know what should be done, the science and knowledge”
Thanks Men, really appreciated……I mean it.

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 1:13 pm

Ice age, according to Britannica, is the whole Pleistocene, which contains at least 4 glacial periods. This includes the last, it ended roughly 12,000 years ago. In all likelihood we are still in the ice age, just in an interglacial. I think the essay is excellent, a very good read.

Reply to  Andy May
July 15, 2016 1:37 pm

Andy May
July 15, 2016 at 1:13 pm
Ice age, according to Britannica, is the whole Pleistocene,
No doubt what you say, as there is a lot of BS about that BS terminology with so many self claimed authorities, but keep in mind the author of this blog post specifically ” said” Ice Age not “Ice age”, and I am not checking the Britannica, but the terminology as far as I can tell can not allow, in English at least, the room for many either “Ice age (s)” or “Ice Age(s)” as far as I can tell.
And the proper term is “ice age” or “ice ages” for what the author meant.

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 2:12 pm

July 15, 2016 at 12:22 pm
We are in an “ice age”. An “Ice Age”is defined as a period in which there are permanent snow caps at both poles. We are presently in an “inter-glacial” period of the “ice age” that started 2.5 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene. I will admit that the term ice age is used loosely by a great number of people.

Reply to  greymouser70
July 15, 2016 6:11 pm

Whiten: to further expand on my reply above; this is from The New World Encyclopedia: “The general term “ice age” or, more precisely, “glacial age” denotes a geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed “glaciations.” Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]”

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 3:40 pm

, you are a cretin, and one that does not even read the whole post before condemning the author. May I draw you attention to the passage (from the article):
“What does Ice Age mean? In science, we need to be precise with our terms and this is one area where most everyone has gotten sloppy, including me, at times. An Ice Age has been defined as a period of cooler global climate where both poles experience permanent glaciation. If the ice persists throughout the year at both poles, then we live in an Ice Age. Simple. For the Ice Age to end, either Greenland or Antarctica would have to lose all of their ice for at least a part of the year. That isn’t going to happen any time soon.
The current InterGlacial did not end the current Ice Age.
Are you a moron, or just a dolt who cannot read the whole article?

Reply to  whiten
July 15, 2016 11:47 pm

Whiten, you’re right about the colloquial expression, “Ice Age,” but colloquial expressions are almost never precise or scientifically accurate. Take the colloquial expression pushed on us by the American news media: “peacekeeping action” used to describe American wars of aggression. Reminds me of Orwell’s Newspeak in “1984,” where “war” equals “peace.”
Colloquially, there was one recent Ice Age which started 2.6 million years ago and ended 11,500-17,000 years ago when the Holocene started. The only problem is, the Holocene is one of many interglacials of the current Ice Age. The Eemian was far warmer than the Holocene, though somewhat shorter in duration.
But we’ve had Ice Ages at ~290 Mya and ~439 Mya, with a major cooling, but not entirely cold period ~146 Mya. I suspect that each period has its various scales of cycles where temperature goes up and down, possibly having created glacials and interglacials. But just because we have an interglacial doesn’t ever mean the ongoing Ice Age has ended; it’s merely had a “breather” or “respite.”
What you seem to be talking about is poor critical thinking and sloppy terminology. My article was an attempt to nudge it back in the right direction.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 16, 2016 12:27 am

By George, I think you:ve got it! Colloquial terminology may be fine for discussion of common social phenomena but when we discuss scientific issues we must strive for terminological precision, otherwise we can find ourselves saying stupid things, like “ocean acidification”, or ” 10 times less”. Next thing you know, we’re adjusting data and jerking upward at the end of every graph we make.

Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 16, 2016 4:57 am

Rod Martin Jr
July 15, 2016 at 11:47 pm
Thanks for your reply.
“What you seem to be talking about is poor critical thinking and sloppy terminology. My article was an attempt to nudge it back in the right direction.”
Yes, I think you got that right, as it was meant.
I have no doubt about the intended attempt.
To be further clear, most of your article was very good indeed, but I could not say this because of the implication of the part there about the climate periodicity you used to support the article.
The very fact that there exist the colloquial meaning in that terminology explains the very sloppiness of the terminology, pointing out the confusion and the mess in the actual officially beholden understanding and knowledge of the climate periodicity .
From where I stand your analyses of that long term period, what ever way called, in the end does not actually seem to support the rest of your article, as it offers no any actual direct evidence for it, and most of all it confuses the point made further.
Using some king of “science”, climatology, to support your article in the way that no one can criticize, because the thing about it is very basic, very sketchy and with no any much meaning one way or another about and in regard of the subject in question, in such an interesting article, is counterproductive, I think.
Trying to please every one, having every one happy, probably is a noble attempt, but in some cases may diminish the value of the act itself and “backfire”.
In my opinion, if you had focused only on the Holocene or the cooling trend of the current interglacial, while that may have meant more open and wider grounds for criticism and more arguing, it would have offered a better and proper support to your article and the main point made there, I think.
Now, all this said, to be fair, when it comes to “poor critical thinking” and me talking about it is more like in the lines of ” soft critical thinking” than ” poor”, in this case.
Thanks again for your reply, and hopefully, you understand that my so called “criticism” it was not pointed and about the main point of your article and its main body, but only about that particular part where you had to use graphs..:)
Probably I was a bit harsh there. If that’s the case, I do apologize.
Hopefully no hard feelings there.

Reply to  whiten
July 17, 2016 8:55 pm

Whiten–your English is really not good enough to argue with these people–what you are writing I am sure makes sense to you, but not to people who speak English. the distinctions are not at all clear. We don’t need to “read more .carefully” but you need to write clearer. Nice try, though.

Joel Snider
July 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Well, as pointed out in the story, the lesson of the ‘boy who cried wolf’ was that it turned the townsfolk deaf to a real threat, which I don’t think necessarily applies. Of course the climate is going to change, and whatever happens there will be accompanying weather patterns – but that’s just the world, not a ‘threat’ waiting in the woods. Suggesting we must prepare for the possibility of cooling, years or decades before it happens, in my humble opinion, just sets the stage for alarmism in the other direction. And while there may well be global cooling on the way, I don’t know that this is any more of a given than future warming.
At this point I would quote Sean Connery from ‘The Untouchables’:
‘Don’t wait for it to happen. Don’t even want it to happen. Just watch what DOES happen.’
Translation: Wait to find out what’s real and react to THAT.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 15, 2016 1:57 pm

In other words Joel, adapt to the world as we have it?
As people have always done?
Good idea.
Now if we could only get those with a political agenda to stop with the lies and fear-mongering, we might get somewhere.

Reply to  Menicholas
July 15, 2016 7:23 pm

@ Menicholas, I agree,
From the article: “the idea that the CIA director is that incompetent, or that he may be instead a died-in-the-wool psychopath”.
(as you implied, “Now if we could only get those with a political agenda to stop with the lies and fear-mongering we might get somewhere).
Not just stop them, As long as we have people that run our countries with these kind of questions hanging over their heads ? We have to get RID of them!
You are right, we just might then get somewhere. The older I get the more I see these people as psychopaths, nobody in their right minds would deny the ” third world nations ” of their rights to cheap safe energy compared to what they are forced into.
The statistics have been proven over and over. Cheaper energy, better healthcare, foods, and smaller better educated families. Why is it that the “greens” are so dead set against logic?

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 15, 2016 3:43 pm

Fortunately we were told in the ’70s that the answer to global cooling is to eliminate fossil fuel use, and the answer to global warming has been to eliminate fossil fuel use. So no matter what is happening, just stop using fossil fuels and we will all be fine. That’s the miracle of Co2!! No need to look before we leap.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
July 15, 2016 4:39 pm

I was around in the 1970s but I was fairly busy with life, career, family etc., and didn’t pay much attention to the global cooling scare, but my recollection is that (a) it was most prominent during the early 1980s, (b) it was not said to be caused by fossil fuels per se but by industrial pollution – what are now referred to as aerosols – (c) the cooling was supposed to be (at least in part) due to natural cycles, and (d) it might well have been the start of the next glacial period. The first mention of CO2 and its greenhouse effects that I can recall was in 1983 or thereabouts and it was offered as a SOLUTION to the global cooling crisis.
Our different memories of the 1970s are (possibly, in part) due to the way memories have of changing as time passes, but also IMHO because in those days it wasn’t the topic of every newspaper and it wasn’t being parroted by politicians offering “solutions”. There probably were local variants of the topic, its origins and its overall meaning. One big difference from the AGW scare is that there wasn’t the pervasive sense of guilt that is exploited by the warmists – something they obviously learned from watching how religions dominate the lives of their adherents.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 16, 2016 12:35 am

Joel Snider, points well taken. And this is one of the points I tried to make in the article. No hysteria; merely pointing to what has already happened and to prepare for it. We have entered an Ice Age (2.6 million years ago). We’re in the middle of it. It has happened. Global warming made civilization possible. Personally, I would like to see us continue in that vein, or lose the progress we’ve made when the Holocene inevitably ends. Businesses buy fire-retardent furniture, carpet and drapery. They buy fire extinguishers. They pay their employees to drill for fire response safety. These are easy, low-cost preparations. Rather than wait for the Ice Age to come… it’s already here.
We have already had nearly 4 dozen glacial periods of the current Ice Age and just as many interglacials. The Holocene is only one of those interglacials. The graphs on WUWT paleoclimate page help to see what’s going on. The one which makes this most clear might be,comment image?w=578&h=396
What kind of preparation can we implement that is low-cost and causes the smallest disruption? What would it cost to change our infrastructure if the next glacial period begins on a 50-year timetable (perhaps the shortest known such timetable from past records). Would it even be possible to set up agriculture to feed 7+ billion people if our infrastructure is beset with permanent snow cover throughout Canada and the northern third of the United States? These are the things we need to consider.
FACT: We live in an Ice Age.
FACT: Interglacials eventually end.
FACT: Our current interglacial (Holocene) is already 500-6,000 years past the average length of an interglacial.
QUESTION: If the Holocene were to begin its end later this afternoon on a 50-year timetable, instead of a 1000-year slide, would we be able to prepare and rework our infrastructure to save 7 billion lives? I don’t know, but not knowing that has me concerned. That’s something I think is worth looking into. I think it would be the compassionate thing to do. If we merely wait and don’t think about these things, we could end up losing most of the population and all of civilization. And I don’t like that. There’s a difference between hysteria and do something without thinking (like jumping off the cliff when someone yells “snake”), and taking the time to consider the possibilities.
I believe the “precautionary principle” has some value, but only if it’s pointed in the correct direction and to the proper extent. Waiting to see what problems warming will create is likely the smartest approach, because warming is relatively safe planet-wide. Warmth promotes life. There is zero danger of “burning up.” We have lots of evidence to back up that assertion. But we also have lots of evidence to back up the assertion that Earth, with a full glacial tilt, will greatly restrict population levels for all regions except the tropics. And because violent storms get their energy from temperature differentials (not heat), global cooling will bring polar cold far closer to the equator, making even the tropics more frequently dangerous.
Like I said in the article — no hysteria. There’s no rush! But not looking is far worse than giving the facts a good, thorough run through and seeing what we can do. I like Bjørn Lomborg for his level-headed approach, taking our current resources and putting them toward the biggest impact on existing problems. That’s the kind of sanity that I like.
But sometimes, we need to think outside the box. Living on planet Earth and never looking up, we miss a lot. We miss the fact that sometimes things fall from the skies — meteors and sometimes asteroids or comets. An early warning system there would be good, but we would also need a method for deflecting incoming debris. That takes planning and preparation. Can’t do that if we merely wait and see.
An asteroid striking Earth and killing 99% of life has a very slim chance of happening. If we still lived in the Middle Ages, we wouldn’t have the technology to do anything about it. Tough! But now we have the technology. We could do something about such a problem if it were to come our way. Waiting until the asteroid coming from outside the Solar system were to be detected by telescopes to scramble to build a space ship for deflection would likely be too late. No hysteria. Merely calm, methodical preparation for putting out that fire, if it happens. For an asteroid, we would need time to verify trajectory after discovery. We would need time for launch and acquisition at great enough distance from Earth to make a small deflection able to deflect it far enough. Waiting until we see it crashing through the atmosphere would be too late. This isn’t alarmist; it’s realist. If we fear such things, then it becomes alarm. But if we simply love protecting our fellow citizens and have fun thinking outside the box, it can be simply another project with juicy challenges that stretch our imaginations. See the difference?

tony mcleod
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 16, 2016 8:05 pm

Furthermore, to imply the risk in the short term of severe cooling being greater than warming is a straw man. This interglacial may last hundreds or thousands more years and probably not end in the space of one single lifetime. All a bit different if the scientific consensus on warming is right and warming Arctic shallows gives us a methane fart.

July 15, 2016 12:33 pm

Chicken Little demands equal time and media exposure!

Reply to  PiperPaul
July 16, 2016 12:38 am

But what did Chicken Little ever do for us? Instead of hysteria, put on your fun, creativity hat. Like the Dutch building a wall to keep out the sea and to reclaim land that once used to be above sea level, before the sea level rise of the Global Warming which made civilization possible.

Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 16, 2016 3:53 pm

@ Rod, 12.38 am:
I am not sure about your assessment of the Dutch reclaiming land to keep out the sea due to SLR. There was no hint of the Global warming scam a few centuries ago!, Your statement that they are reclaiming land that used to be above sea level is not correct.
The Netherlands ( and Belgium) are on the river deltas of a couple of major rivers ( Rhine and the Maas, both starting in the Alps) and have been for for centuries.
As far as I remember most towns were at one time build on higher land ( some natural, like very old left over dunes, some even then man made, centuries ago) and as the population grew they were forced to start first diking the rivers (flood control) and eventually extending those measures to gain more land for population and agriculture.
The reason is they have borders on the East and South ( Germany/ Belgium) that did not leave them with any other options but to turn large areas into usable land. Those were the Ysselmeer project and the Delta works started in the 50’s.
I also know that SLR has not been a major concern although the last few year there has been a call for raising dikes but that has more to do with land settlement than actual SLR, large areas of the coast line are protected by dunes and man build “piers” to stop erosion. The raising of dikes has more to do with inland storm protection than SLR ( I could go on longer but enough of this rant).

July 15, 2016 12:54 pm

The strategy is to scare people about a coming catastrophe.
Then you tell them they must do as you say, or else they are doomed.
The “catastrophe” is always coming, but never arrives.
This strategy is used to control people.
Religious leaders invented it many centuries ago — the ‘secular religion’ of climate change adopted it.
Part of the strategy is putting people on “defense” (by character attacking people who disagree, or question the “coming catastrophe” claim.)
The following strategy is used by leftists to “defend” their beliefs:
– Minimum debate (few know enough to debate or care to learn more).
– Maximum ridicule and character attacks.
If there are scientist and computers involved, they are just “props” to support an appeal to authority.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 15, 2016 1:58 pm

+ Oodles and oodles.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 16, 2016 12:42 am

Richard, well said. That’s exactly what’s going on. But we can turn the tables on them by out-creating them. We can terraform Earth to become even more habitable, friendly and garden-like. It would be a shame to have our civilization and all this technology and not put it to good use.
The unreasonable person doesn’t listen to the reasonable person who says it can’t be done; instead, he merely gets it done, leaving the reasonable naysayer in the dust.

Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 17, 2016 12:49 pm

I wonder how many decades of our very nice, and getting nicer, climate are required before people stop believing in the coming climate catastrophe?
I’d say its been four decades of scaremongering so far.
But if people stop believing, a new ‘coming catastrophe’ will take the place of global warming,
My prediction is exploding silicone breast implants will be the next catastrophe that will end life on earth as we know it. Or global cooling. I can’t decide which. I may have to do a study.

Bruce Cobb
July 15, 2016 2:00 pm

Except that they are warning against something which doesn’t exist; manmade climate change. They merely use “climate change” as a useful, deceptive shorthand. They have constructed the climate wolf out of whole cloth, and can only point to “signs” that it’s already here and will only get worse, unless we do what they say.

July 15, 2016 2:36 pm

“After all, cold oceans don’t evaporate much.”
Relative water content drives the evaporation more than temperature. Water evaporates into the air because the air is dry. Granted warm air can hold more water vapor, but it’s the relative concentration. Trane has a useful interactive moist air psych chart at its commercial site, graphs, etc. Actually sourced by Handsdown software.
As I have suggested in other threads the equation that drives the atmospheric heat is Q = U * A * dT. As the albedo increases due to more clouds, ice, vegetation, etc. the Q passing on to the atmosphere and land decreases. Unless U changes (Why would it?) dT decreases and the surface gets colder. Colder means more clouds, air, etc. leading to a positive feedback. Positive doesn’t mean heat, it’s how the control loop works.
So based on the graph in the posting it seems to me that the natural climate thermostat is set on colder, not warmer.

Science or Fiction
July 15, 2016 3:25 pm

The precautionary principle as defined by Wikipedia is two sided:
“The precautionary principle … states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.”
The unelected, megalomaniacal bureaucrats in United Nations seem to have only perceived the environmental side of it. They are blind to the risks by bringing about huge changes to our society as a result of their policy. They are blind to the effects of energy poverty and gross misallocation of resources.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
– Christiana Figueres
I can think of a few others who intentionally brought about radical political changes to our society. It didn´t always turn out well.
Christiana Figueres heads up the United Nations’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. She is now a candidate to become the next Secretary General of United Nations.
We should all vote against here – that is – if our human right to elect had been respected by United Nations.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 16, 2016 12:49 am

Science or Fiction, you say they are “blind.” But are they really? Would it surprise you to find out that public confusion from too many “wolf” cries is part of a plan? A psychopath with a hidden agenda to take over the planet (and I’m not saying anyone fits that description; chuckle) would likely want to become very well adept at understanding human nature and manipulating public opinion. They would know how to play egos of both sides in order to control the eventual outcome.
The Rockefellers have long been fans of eugenics — weeding out the undesirables of human kind. Promoting global cooling in an ongoing Ice Age could be a pretty effective way to achieve that goal. Conditions during an Ice Age glacial can be pretty brutal. And the Rockefellers, if I understand it right, were the ones who donated the land in Manhattan for the United Nations headquarters. How sweet. But I seriously doubt if they have an altruistic bone in their collective bodies.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 16, 2016 2:38 am

Thank you for the question – I always learn something from questions.
A conspiracy would surprise me. Karl Popper has a take on conspiracy in his work Conjectures and Refutations; The growth of scientific knowledge
«Why do the results achieved by a conspiracy as a rule differ widely from the results aimed at? Because this is what usually happens in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. And this remark gives us an opportunity to formulate the main task of the theoretical social sciences. It is to trace the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions.»
«We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all events, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results.»
«But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.»
That is why I think that the conspiracy theory is evident on the side propounding United Nations climate theory – and this is why I think the skeptic side would do wise to search for other explanations than conspiracy.
My personal thoughts about this is that what we see are the unintended consequences of a combination of inductivism, environmentalism and totalitarian ideas. And I think unelected, megalomaniacal bureaucrats at United Nations has been at the epicenter. I´m not too optimistic about the future:
«For the simple truth is that truth is often hard to come by, and that once found it may easily be lost again. Erroneous beliefs may have an astonishing power to survive, for thousands of years, in defiance of experience, with or without the aid of any conspiracy.»

July 15, 2016 3:49 pm

I have been reading for over a dozen years. This article stands out to me as one of the best ever for several reasons: the brevity of wit that presents point-blank what is truth versus fiction, the breadth of topics covered, and the overall quality of the presentation of the skeptical viewpoint.
I think that Rod Martin, Jr. deserves a category award at the end of the year.

Curious George
July 15, 2016 3:51 pm

The scary graph of a temperature anomaly looks strange. By a definition of an anomaly, the average anomaly over a base period must be zero. Maybe authors chose a very short base, maybe a little box just left of “Future”, but even in that box the average does not look like a zero.

Reply to  Curious George
July 15, 2016 7:11 pm

The anomaly is relative to “now”. It demonstrates the ice age glacials are colder, and by how much.

Reply to  Curious George
July 16, 2016 1:03 am

George, you’re right. The base period “origin” seems to be the Holocene average (the tiny box atop the interglacial mountain). Of course, the average temperature of any interglacial is going to be far above the averages of all glacial periods.
You can find the original (unmodified) graph on the Paleoclimate page (scroll down to 450,000 years),
On the scale of the graph, it’s hard to draw all of the detail of the last 12,000 years, so any impression that the zero line is not the average may well be a product of dropped out data because of scale. Most of the missing data is likely smaller than a pixel.
If you scroll on that Paleoclimate page to 10,700 years, you’ll see the following graph which gives a far more detailed look at the Holocene. I suspect this uses the same zero line. I could be wrong, but with missing data on the Humlum graph (450,000 years), it’s hard to be sure.comment image?w=578&h=396
The key idea with my addition is to show what an additional 50,000 years would look like for a freakishly long Holocene. It looks abnormal when compared to the previous interglacials. While such an abnormality could happen, the processes in nature which control the cycle of interglacial and glacial fluctuations seems to constrain interglacial duration somewhat. Thus, a 62,000-year interglacial seems out of the ordinary.

Gary Hladik
July 15, 2016 4:34 pm

Q: “What would it hurt to prepare for the coming cold, even if it won’t happen for another 12,000 years? What kinds of preparations would cost almost nothing?”
A: The kind of “preparations” that will improve our resilience against dangerous global cooling, dangerous global warming, dangerous asteroids, etc. etc. Namely, continuing and accelerating humanity’s accumulation of wealth and knowledge, and multiplying many times the amount of energy at our command. In other words, we should be doing the exact opposite of what many of the green naysayers and their puppet politicians say we should be doing.

Reply to  Gary Hladik
July 16, 2016 1:04 am


July 15, 2016 4:52 pm

How about the theory that our emissions of CO2 are postponing a return to glaciation? In order to preserve the environment from being covered by a mile of ice, it is our duty to continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate. We have to protect the planet for our grandchildren.

Reply to  commieBob
July 16, 2016 1:08 am

Outrageously good. Ah, but only if it were true that CO2 controlled our climate. Sadly, it doesn’t. But keep burning those fossil fuels (cleanly wherever possible). The extra CO2 is helping to green the Earth.
Thirty million years ago, plants suffered CO2 starvation when levels plummeted down to 800 ppm (2x current levels). They were so stressed, they evolved C4 species to cope with the starvation. I talk more about this in my blog article,

Paul of Alexandria
July 15, 2016 5:11 pm

What’s interesting is looking at the left side of the interglacial periods in the graph. Looks like a sawtooth. It gets really, really cold and then warms up, fast.

Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
July 16, 2016 1:12 am

Good observation, Paul. Our own interglacial had some messiness around the Younger Dryas. There it had cooling after a huge spurt of warming. Nature has a lot of inputs. We may yet not know half of them.

July 15, 2016 10:33 pm

I would like to know what sort of useful preperations can be done to prepare for an ice age that doesn’t
cost trillions or entail a loss of soverenty? Given that an ice age would result in Canada being under a mile of ice, most of Europe and North America being uninhabitable plus a general decrease in food production and sensible response would require the migration of nearly a billion people and result in massive costs and loss of soverenty. What is the author suggesting that we do about it? The essay stops just as it was about to get interesting.

Reply to  Neil
July 16, 2016 1:40 am

Neil, I love your questions. I needed to keep the article relatively short, because I needed to get back to finishing my current book. I cover some suggestions in that book, “Thermophobia,” currently available for pre-order at Apple, B&N and Kobo.
I also discuss some ideas on my website,
Perhaps the cheapest preparation, though, would be brainstorming ideas. I’d like to think I have a genius intellect which has answers for all of life’s problems, but I don’t. My meager 139 IQ struggles sometimes, but persistence and humility have helped me learn more about problems and how to come up with some ideas for solutions. Any solution would have to be interdisciplinary, requiring experts from numerous fields. So, as part of brainstorming, what ideas come to your mind?
Part of the “paper” preparation for a sudden return to glacial conditions would include plans for migration and resettlement, possibility of getting agreements from other nations, ideas for growing crops. Ideas for better desalination, because rain will become scarce. As we saw with the recent Muslim migrations in Europe, some people do not welcome refugees. The news media is a globalist instrument for stirring up discontent, so they’re no help.
One gentleman on YouTube claimed to have a method for creating food for one person on 4,000 sq.ft. of land. Simple calculations show that feeding 7.5 billion people could take less than 2% of Earth’s land. Any food growing plan would require some water, so desalination would be essential. But water conservation, perhaps to the extent of the stillsuit used in Frank Herbert’s Dune would be helpful.
My favorite solution, though, is ending the current Ice Age. What would that take? How expensive would it be to melt the polar glaciers? How much would it cost to build dikes around major coastal cities? How much would it cost to build a dike around southern Scandinavia, British Isles, France and Spain? With locks to let shipping traffic to and from the lower Mediterranean? How much would it cost to move cities inland? Could we have a New New York?
All changes come with problems. We need to figure out which problems are the best ones to tackle.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Neil
July 16, 2016 6:30 am

First and foremost, we need to stop the idiotic and extremely wasteful and harmful climate campaign against “carbon”. If we get another cold period akin to the LIA, which is a far more likely thing say this century, then we will need healthy, vibrant economies with robust, reliable, and economical energy systems. I don’t know that much could be done other than that to prepare for the next glacial period. Needless to say, it would be disasterous for mankind, possibly cutting overall population in half.

Johann Wundersamer
July 15, 2016 10:52 pm

What would it hurt to prepare for the coming cold, even if it won’t happen for another 12,000 years? What kinds of preparations would cost almost nothing?
Good question; but urgent ‘why should I buy a T-shirt for 10.99 when it’s in the Internet for 8.50’.
Our politicans aren’t elected for interclacials. Every year another state has polls.

Johann Wundersamer
July 15, 2016 11:10 pm

The boy cried wolfe – is a fable, Aesop was a green intellectual!
When a boy more than 3-, 4 times cried wolfe he got an outcast, a castaway, an outlaw, never to return to his tribe and live to the next morning.
Because he endangered his community!

Johann Wundersamer
July 15, 2016 11:16 pm

The green vision is homeopathy, vegan peace, gold at the end of the rainbow.
That fear mongering is meant to deniers:
Comply or we have good reason to outcast YOU!

July 16, 2016 12:36 am

“I don’t know what’s worse—the idea that the CIA director is that incompetent, or that he may be instead a died-in-the-wool psychopath.”
Since he is almost certainly a psychopath, I hope he is also incompetent. The CIA is bad enough as it is. It would be even more terrifying if it were competent.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  RoHa
July 16, 2016 1:43 am

After all who is pushing for no adaption, all the Rockefeller and Turner funded eco groups. They go apeshit if you talk about adaption

Johann Wundersamer
July 16, 2016 12:36 am

Rod Martin, Jr.,
Thx for the challenge!

Mark - Helsinki
July 16, 2016 1:38 am

Geoengineering has been going on for a time. There are companies now that provide seeding services.
SRM is openly discussed, having being quietly discussed for some years now.
You have private interests dumping iron into the oceans.
The US and global military weather programs that have been running for years.
Ironically what they now offer as a possible solution is exactly what the “tin foilers” have been saying for years right down to what equipment and materials they wish to use.
Reminds me of the 1980s tin foilers who all said government was watching everything, they were right and never got their credit 😀
I have NO doubt that the Rockefeller Turner Gates of this world know damn well that cooling is the danger. So I do wonder if leaving us open for disaster from cooling is part of their 500m population plan. Having cold kill off most of the unwashed masses is right up their alley 😀
They have been consistently committing genocide in the third world. As in advocating things that will kill millions, like the banning of DDT, the likes of Rockefeller funded those who would get it banned, therefor killing millions of “lesser genetic stock”.
Guess who owns the patent to the Zika virus since the 1940s.. yup Rockefeller Foundation

Jack Dale
July 16, 2016 6:49 am

Really? The 1970’s cooling myth? Surely you jest. Science was 6:1 warming:cooling.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 16, 2016 7:11 am

Maybe since no one had come up with the political notion of voting on scientific truths, no actual survey was taken. It came to light recently that NASA said global cooling was real and happening. How long did it take for someone to dig this up? Search engines on the internet are no help—they go to whatever Google and Bing want people reading. So it’s digging through actual paper to find how many journal articles, etc are out there.
Did you make up that 6:1 statistic?

Jack Dale
Reply to  Reality check
July 16, 2016 9:18 am

A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results were published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Peter Gwynne who wrote the infamous Newsweek article has admitted he got it very wrong.
44 warming, 7 cooling Just about 6:1.

Reply to  Reality check
July 16, 2016 1:25 pm

William Connolly? The Wikipedia rewrite troll? Seriously?

Jack Dale
Reply to  Reality check
July 16, 2016 1:50 pm

So you still question the 6:1 ratio? Are will you just shoot the messenger?

July 16, 2016 7:08 am

“I don’t know about you, but this looks a touch unrealistic.” So does the hockey stick, but look at the fear and angst stirred up by it. Unrealistic is often very scary and thus very persuasive.
One point—the question is not if there is climate change, but rather are people changing the climate in a dramatic way. That is the claim of the global warming activists. It makes one sound uneducated to say “the climate always changes so the warmists are wrong”. They are not saying the climate doesn’t change—they are saying people are making it change more and that’s bad. There are many ways to attack that belief. No need to try a claim that is totally bogus in order to discredit global warming propaganda.

Reply to  Reality check
July 16, 2016 7:22 am

“One point—the question is not if there is climate change, but rather are people changing the climate in a dramatic way.”
Or in any way at all?
The Alarmists switched over from calling it Global Warming to calling it Climate Change as a means to confuse the issue and take the focus away from “Warming” when the temperatures did not cooperate and did not warm as predicted.
There is no evidence that humans are causing changes to the way the climate behaves. In theory, CO2 should raise the temperture a little, but that little, has little or no influence on the climate. If there is an effect, it is so small that it cannot be teased out of the data. And there may be feedbacks that neutralize any CO2 warming.
Assuming humans are changing the climate, is assuming too much.

Jack Dale
Reply to  TA
July 16, 2016 9:12 am

In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.
The GOP politicized the term “climate change”
Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002
“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.”
” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Reply to  TA
July 16, 2016 1:31 pm

I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that some effect is exerted by humans. We level forests, build tall white sculptures to gather wind and warm the ground below, change the course of rivers, etc, etc. I doubt it’s a significant amount, but humans do appear to affect at least local climate. Since global climate is the average of the locals, there could be some impact. (If humans clear cut the US, I am pretty sure it will have an effect on the climate in the US, for example.)

Reply to  TA
July 16, 2016 1:32 pm

Jack—Interesting that the current trend is to use the term climate change while arguing and impending apocalypse. Maybe it’s not really the naming that mattered.

Svend Ferdinandsen
July 16, 2016 11:54 am

To make cooling and ice age a scare, you have to turn the whole climate science upside down.
Then they would find out that CO2 is cooling the world, so that they can still say it is your fault.

Ian H
July 17, 2016 12:00 am

If the climate stays warm then that is fantastic because as the article points out there really is no tipping point to worry about on the hot side. If we get another LIA type cooling or worse (if it hits the tipping point into glaciation) then at least nobody is going to listen this time when the usual suspects start trying to blame capitalism and fossil fuels; and try to persuade us that the cure is totalitarian world government.

July 17, 2016 6:48 am

[snip – wildly off-topic, rant. -mod]

Verified by MonsterInsights