The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not Be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling

By Allan M. R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., August 2019

CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING IS A FALSE CRISIS – THE NEXT GREAT EXTINCTION WILL BE GLOBAL COOLING

Forget all those falsehoods about scary global warming, deceptions contrived by wolves to stampede the sheep. The next great extinction event will not be global warming, it will be global cooling. Future extinction events are preponderantly cold: a glacial period, medium-size asteroid strike or supervolcano. Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago, the blink-of–an-eye in geologic time.

Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates. Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity, and currently-observed moderate global warming increases life spans.

“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times As Many People As Hot Weather”

By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

However, Excess Winter Deaths are not the worst threats to humanity. The glacial cycle averages about 100,000 years, consisting of about 90,000 years of the glacial period, when mile-thick continental glaciers blanketed much of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres including Canada, Russia, Northern Europe and Northern USA, and about 10,000 years of interglacial, the warm period of the present. Earth is now 11,500 years into the current warm interglacial, and our planet may re-enter the glacial period at any time.

“Glacial-Interglacial Cycles”

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/716px_width/public/glacial-interglacial.jpg?itok=19bwFcU9

clip_image002

The re-entry into the glacial period will be a major extinction event for humanity, possibly the end of modern civilization. Not only will our land surface be devastated by glaciers, but CO2 concentrations will drop so low that C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.

GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS HAVE NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY – NOBODY SHOULD BELIEVE THEIR FALSEHOODS

One’s predictive track record is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence. The IPCC and its acolytes have been consistently wrong in their predictions of catastrophic global warming. Their climate computer models run too hot, and observed global warming has actually been moderate and beneficial. Global warming alarmists have proven negative scientific credibility – nobody should believe their wild exaggerations.

In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significantly improved crop yields due to enhanced photosynthesis, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

In 2002 we confidently published the following statements, which are still demonstrably correct:

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

“Debate on the Kyoto Accord”

Published by APEGA in the PEGG, and in The Globe and Mail, La Presse, and professional journals.

By Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

Increased atmospheric CO2, driven by fossil fuel combustion and/or other causes, will have little impact on the onset of future glaciation. Climate is not highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Paradoxically, CO2 concentrations are not alarmingly high; in fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are alarmingly low – too low for the long-term survival of terrestrial life. Photosynthesis of C3 food crops ceases at 150ppm – CO2 starvation.

“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

“(Plant) Food for Thought”

By Allan MacRae, December 18, 2014 and January 31, 2009

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/plant_food_for_thought2/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-70691

In the near term, there is a significant probability of moderate global cooling. Similar global cooling happened from about 1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel consumption accelerated rapidly at the onset of WW2. Global warming did not occur as CO2 increased. In fact, Earth cooled significantly for over 30 years – strong evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 does not cause catastrophic global warming.

Even moderate global cooling is harmful to humanity and the environment. We predicted the return of moderate global cooling in an article published September 1, 2002 in the Calgary Herald, as follows:

“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

Our 2002 global cooling prediction is still probable. In the past five years, I’ve stated that moderate cooling will probably start closer to 2020, driven by the low activity of Solar Cycle 24. Humanity suffered during past cold periods that coincided with solar lows, such as the Maunder and Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.

Last year there was a very late, cold spring and crops were planted one-month late in the American Midwest, but warm summer weather resulted in a good grain crop. This year, cold wet weather in the Midwest reportedly prevented about 30% of the USA corn crop from being planted – the ground was too wet for farm equipment. Were the last two years of late planting in the North American grain belt early signs of global cooling? Hope not.

I predicted in 2013 that winter deaths would increase in the UK, where energy costs are much higher than in North America. Sadly, this has proved correct. Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 totaled over 50,000 souls, the highest since 1976, as compared to an annual average of about 100,000 in the USA. The population of England and Wales is about one-sixth that of the USA, so the United Kingdom had an Excess Winter Death Rate three times the USA average – a terrible, preventable tragedy.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1130954

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/30/excess-winter-deaths-in-england-and-wales-highest-since-1976

If the Sun does primarily drive temperature, as I believe, then foolish politicians have brewed the perfect storm. They have adopted dysfunctional climate-and-energy policies to “fight global warming” and have crippled energy systems with intermittent, expensive “green energy” schemes that destabilize the electric grid, at a time when catastrophic global warming is not happening and moderate global cooling may be imminent.

GREEN ENERGY IS NOT GREEN; IT IS DESTRUCTIVE AND PRODUCES LITTLE USEFUL (DISPATCHABLE) ENERGY

Despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, “green energy” has increased from 1% in 2008 to only 4% of global primary energy in 2018. Fossil fuels provide fully 85% of global primary energy, essentially unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in decades to come. The remaining 11% is hydro and nuclear.

“Statistical Review of World Energy”
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow as radical green activists insist, and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in a few months from starvation and exposure.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, because they require almost 100% conventional backup from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro when the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine. Intermittent energy from wind and/or solar generation cannot supply the electric grid with reliable, uninterrupted power. There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the fatal flaw of intermittency in grid-scale wind and solar power generation.

“Wind Report 2005” – note Figures 6 & 7 on intermittency.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf

Vital electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to grid-connected green energy schemes.

CONCLUSION

This paper discusses real threats, specifically global cooling, including imminent moderate global cooling and later re-entry into another glacial period, in order to shift the climate discussion from popular scary-fantasies of runaway global warming, to cold events that actually do threaten the future of humanity and the environment.

Advertisements

207 thoughts on “The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not Be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling

    • Zharkova is wrong. We are not entering a grand solar minimum. The next cycle should have more activity than the past one. She will be shown wrong in just a couple of years.

      • You say Zharkovas is wrong then you say she will be proved wrong in a couple of years,I can only assume your assuming she wrong but no proof, as you say she will be proved wrong in a couple of years, I find your post some what lacking in any specifics regarding zharkovas paper,it was a joint effort was it not,as for the GSM the solar science is quite clear we are entering a cooling phase of solar output,be it the 50 year cycle wrapped around the 400 year cycle,is to be seen, the magnitude of the comming event is the only thing debatable, the proxy data on GSMs is quite clear.

        • I will be impressed with whoever gets it right. Javier speaks from a confidence in his methods that I like, but that means he will have to eat more crow if Zharkova is right. I don’t think she really cares if she’s right or not (seems to be a side issue for her), which I also like because that tends to minimize vested emotional capital that tends to skew objectivity.

          • Contrary to popular belief, the great majority of hypotheses are wrong as there are many ways of being wrong and only one of being right. So any honest scientist should be used to being wrong most of the time. When I am wrong I acknowledge it and change my hypothesis accordingly. It doesn’t affect me personally. I don’t have any personal attachment to any of my hypothesis. As Thomas Huxley famously said the great tragedy of Science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Once I grew used to that I stopped getting attached to my hypotheses. The problem is when many scientists build their careers on a false hypothesis (like CO2 is responsible for essentially all observed climate change). Then as Max Planck said those scientists must die for Science to advance.

          • I wasn’t implying that you are emotionally vested in your work, but merely pointing out that when we authoritatively speak from a place of confidence, that incurs the greater risk of publicly being wrong. I admire people who have faith in their methods and who are willing to take that risk in spite of awareness that they could be wrong. I would include you in that group.

          • After reading this interesting exchange between Zharkova and her detractors, I’ve changed my mind a bit about her. The only other exposure I’ve had to her was a video in which she seemed to me to be somewhat detached from the need to prove she’s right. After reading this I see something different and think there might be some crow in her diet if she’s wrong.

            https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

          • I had not come across this exchange before,it did seem the usual warmests against 1, one name did ring a bell DR Ken Rice another fellow astro physics chap who Zharkovas did how can I say put him in his place, DR Ken Rice is based wait for it,,Edinburgh University, quite a hot bed for climate change,paper,research and climate conferences, even preaching to the young at the Edinburgh fringe, it would seem MR Rice was upholding a lot more than his professional opinion, such is the way when one dares to question the consensus,or perceived so by the establishment.

        • Zharkova et al 2019, A Science Disaster

          Then in 2019 Zharkova et al published a new paper in an off shoot of the prestigious Nature Journal that she happens to be on the Editorial Board. The same double dynamo theory was at its base but now for the first time the team introduced a Planetary component to supplement her Model. The new model now goes backward 120,000 years and is facilitated by ancient SIM (Solar Inertial Motion) theory where she has picked up aspects from old papers produced by Charvatova, Fairbridge etc. Its like plugging in new pieces of data into your model as a way of further extrapolating the model back in time using the then known SIM patterns as a reference.
          […]
          So that aspect (as above) was inserted into the Zharkova model of which I think she has no understanding, but was a tool that suited her needs. The next component inserted will be the death nail of their paper which is now exploding over the internet and even main stream media. The older papers wrongly suggested that the Earth had the SSB as its orbit focal point, this has long since been rectified by modern data and measuring systems, but Zharkova makes the greatest error imaginable and states in her paper that the Earth orbits the SSB and the Solar distance varies by a much greater value than reality. This distance change she suggests controls climate change.

          How did this paper get past the reviewers?

          • Except it’s they who don’t understand her paper…

            Since the Sun moves around the solar system barycenter, it implies that it also shifts around the main focus of the Earth orbit being either closer to its perihelion or to its aphelion. If the Earth rotates around the Sun undisturbed by inertial motion, then the distances to its perihelion will be 1.47 × 108 km and to it aphelion 1.52 × 108 km. The solar inertial motion means for the Earth that the distance between the Sun and the Earth has to significantly change (up to 0.02 of a.u) at the extreme positions of SIM, and so does the average solar irradiance, which is inversely proportional to the squared distance between the Sun and Earth.

        • She’s wrong not because I say so. She is wrong because the polar fields method of predicting solar activity for the next cycle says so. Leif Svalgaard one of the main proponents of this method says so. And Ilya Usoskin, one of the main astrophysicists studying past solar activity shows that Zharkova’s method does not properly hindcast past solar activity.

          She is popular but incorrect. Very common in climate-related science these days.

          • Javier you say she is popular, in some circles yes, she took a lot of flack from some folk in the GSM community, she defend herself very well. She was accused by I must say by some fanatical followers of GSM of selling them out. To which point I draw a parallel with AGW extremists,the one thing for sure is a self imposed blanket ban by the MSM on what they term alternative science, justified by the 97% consensus is ridiculous and dangerous, driving extremists in both sides of the debate,I smell a rat a very big rat,

          • Did the polar fields method predict the weak solar cycle 24? Because the double dynamo theory did.

          • I must have missed the part where even though most scientific hypothesis are wrong, leif Svalgaard, must always be right and therefore he must be right Zharkova must be wrong.

          • Did the polar fields method predict the weak solar cycle 24? Because the double dynamo theory did.

            Yes, the polar fields method was one of the few that correctly predicted the weak solar cycle 24 before it took place. The double dynamo theory of Zharkova didn’t because it was published after solar cycle 24 maximum. Correctly predicting events of the past has no merit.

          • leif Svalgaard, must always be right and therefore he must be right Zharkova must be wrong.

            I disagree with Leif Svalgaard on some fundamental points and we have had great discussions here on WUWT. However he is a very good astrophysicist and the evidence leaves very little doubt that he is correct in his application of the polar fields method. I have reviewed the method performance in the publications. It was proposed in a 1978 article of which Leif was an author:
            https://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf

            To check how it hindcasts past activity prior to 1978 you can go to this article and look at figure 2 or the table:
            http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084

            Unlike most I don’t choose to support the hypothesis that I like best. I support the one that better fits the available evidence. Leif is correct because the evidence says so, and Zharkova is incorrect because her hypothesis doesn’t agree so well with the evidence.

            The fact that my own research on this matter from a completely unrelated method agrees with Leif’s proposition and disagrees with Zharkova’s gives me reassurance, but regarding solar cycle 25 I trust the polar fields method more than my own and I would be worried if they disagreed. However my method can give an estimate of solar activity for the next ten solar cycles, while the polar fields method can only predict the next one when close to the previous solar minimum. That’s why I bother.

    • Thank you BD Clark.

      https://thegrandsolarminimum.com/vzgsm/
      [excerpt]

      “Valentina Zharkova’s article confirming the next Grand Solar Minimum titled, ‘Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale’ has been accepted on Nature International Journal of Science. Her team predicts the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum, similar to Maunder Minimum, which starts in 2020 and will last until 2055 and the GSM cycle will again arrive in 2370–2415.”

      Javier says: “Zharkova is wrong. We are not entering a grand solar minimum.”
      _________________________

      To be clear, I have no opinion on an impending Grand Solar Minimum, because I have not studied it in detail – in 2002 I predicted moderate global cooling to start by 2020 to 2030, similar to the cooling period from ~1940 to 1977, possibly more cooling than in 1940-77, but not as cold as the Dalton Minimum circa 1800.

      To be candid, I hope to be wrong in this prediction – I hope global temperatures stay the same or warm slightly in the next decades – but I doubt it – and if our 2002 prediction is correct, humanity will suffer.

      As I wrote above:
      “If the Sun does primarily drive temperature, as I believe, then foolish politicians have brewed the perfect storm. They have adopted dysfunctional climate-and-energy policies to “fight global warming” and have crippled energy systems with intermittent, expensive “green energy” schemes that destabilize the electric grid, at a time when catastrophic global warming is not happening and moderate global cooling may be imminent.”

      And if Zharkova is correct about a GSM, we are really in trouble.

      Regarding my comment on Earth’s re-entry into a new glacial period, that is based on geologic time – within a few thousand years or so. Others who have studied this subject are welcome to try to estimate a finer timeline.

      • What would be helpful is an understanding of the century scale transitions out of an inter-glacial event. We are going to need a century of planning to figure out how to feed 10B people at sub 300 ppm CO2.

        • Iffen it takes a century of planning to figure out how to do the “feeding”, …… then that “feeding” problem will have decreased by 85% at the end of the 100 years, ….. and the problem is no more.

          • Samuel
            That hits the nail on the head!

            Some transitions into glacial times have apparently been pretty quick, IIRC.
            Some within a decade or two [Again, IIRC].
            [So, by 2040, potentially, a global average temperature [for what that is worth!!!] could be two degrees centigrade lower than at present, with all the harm to crop growth that entails].
            And, as javier = above – notes: –
            “Then as Max Planck said those scientists must die for Science to advance.”
            Will enough ‘scientists’ [loosely!] die to allow our planet to quickly adopt sensible policies for a cooling world?
            Or will the hunger go away through starvation?

            Auto

          • The trick is to identify the indicators a century before the CO2 drop. That should be worth at least part of a Nobel prize.

          • Shur nuff, …. Auto, …. figuring out how to feed 10B people at sub 300 ppm CO2 ….. was the same problem that the dinosaurs had to contend with pre-66 million years ago.

            And they didn’t solve the problem either, ….. and they all starved to death.

        • If the UN’s Agenda 21 calls for an earth with a population of 500 million people, why would any of their pronouncements be designed to maintain current population levels? Would not mass starvation be part of their game plan?

        • Thank you Renee.
          You wrote:

          “The best estimate case for the Holocene warm period uses a duration that fits obliquity when tilt begins decreasing below 23.5 degrees (Figure 3). The Holocene warm duration, in the best estimate case, is interpreted to be 19-20 kyrs long and will begin a cooling descent about 4 kyrs from present day. The cooling descent is expected to last approximately 10 kyrs as observed in past warm endings which would result in reduced global temperatures of 3-4 degrees C.”

          The good news is I don’t expect to be around that long. The bad news is others probably will.

    • Not according to my daughters favourite tune
      “Я буду возя с пушка под солнце Жарко
      Чувствам се ка то некой”
      (Жаркова – Zharkova – daughter of Zharko)
      or in english
      “I’ll be riding shotgun underneath the hot sun
      Feeling like a someone”

      • Your daughter must have a complete understanding of zharkovas paper, to make a bold statement like that!

    • Bwahahaha…the Earth is warming. This entire article is dripping BS.
      We are past the tipping point for atmospheric CO2. We’re emitting about 37 billion megatons of CO2 annually. With idiots like you & ‘What’s up with that’ who’s being paid by the fossil fuel industry to spew the denial cramp & you and many others fall for that crap. The Earth’s temp will continue to rise until the Earth is uninhabitable by 2100. Your grandkids and great-grandkids going to hate you.

      What, ‘What’s up’ doesn’t mention is the acidification of the oceans. The pH of oceans has dropped from 8.2 to pH 8.. Doesn’t seem like much but given that the pH scale is logarithmic, the change is about 25%. The excess CO2 which we keep adding to the atmosphere is dissolving in the oceans lowering the pH. It is having drastic effects on ocean wildlife. Ask oyster farmers about it. The coral reefs will be dead by 2030 and 25% of ocean wildlife that live on them will be gone. Read about ocean acidification. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

      The 6th Mass extinction has started via climate change. Read if you dare or if you can.
      https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute /global_warming_and_life_on_earth/index.html

      I agree we should be entering a mini Ice Age, it wouldn’t cause a mass extinction if any noticeable species’ annihilation. What ‘What’s up’ doesn’t tell you is despite the Earth trying to cool down the greenhouse gas is causing warming. We’d be a lot hotter if we hadn’t been. entering a Mini Ice Age.

      Fossil fuel industry spends millions on science denial. They have bought the entire Republican party to do their bidding. i.e. won’t lower CO2 emissions. We won’t be getting any more denial science from the Cato Institute as it has closed. Don’t know where the pseudoscientists who worked there spewing out their lying denial science will go. Probably to an evangelical university.

      • Glen Steen

        Fossil fuel industry spends millions on science denial. They have bought the entire Republican party to do their bidding. i.e. won’t lower CO2 emissions. We won’t be getting any more denial science from the Cato Institute as it has closed. Don’t know where the pseudoscientists who worked there spewing out their lying denial science will go. Probably to an evangelical university.

        What millions on “science denial”? I do recall federal spending of 92 billion ON self-called climastrologists BY climastrologists. I DO recall many hundred millions spent on “climate propaganda” (er, “climate education” in the past decade. Fossil fuels feed, clothe and shelter 6 billion every day.

      • I’ve been told for 40 years I’m going to die because of global warming, it hasn’t happened,I’ve read and listened to numerous IPCC reports telling me I’m going to die if I dont sacrifice my way of living, not once has a IPCC report come true, because there based on models that make predictions that never come true, so there answer to this is push the time frame further ahead by x amount of years every year, you believe this hysterical scaremongering doomsday agenda, knock yourself out pal I dont.

        • Thank you BD Clark and RA Cook for your comments.

          Screaming hysterics from global warming fanatics like Glen Steen do a great job of proving our points.

          The IPCC and its minions have been “crying wolf” for decades, and have yet to make a correct prediction – every one of their scary global warming predictions has failed to materialize – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record, and thus have perfect negative credibility – no intelligent person should believe them.

          Then there is their “ocean acidification” fantasy – which is just a ridiculous falsehood – the oceans are alkaline and will stay that way.

          Then there is the “climate deniers in the pay of oil companies” fantasy – the energy companies have generally acquiesced to the global warming scam as “the path of least resistance”, and have thus abandoned the welfare of their shareholders and the public. I disrespect their cowardly acquiescence.

          I have not received one dime from anyone for my writing on this subject – except for a small payment from the Globe and Mail for an article in 2002. I do this because it is the right thing to do.

          When confronted by global warming fanatics, I point out that fossil fuels comprise ~85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades and unlikely to change in future decades. As a member of that industry I am responsible for keeping their families from freezing and starving to death. They are welcome to try to live without fossil fuels – but they won’t last long.

          So I modestly suggest that Glen Steen is a hopeless bullsh!tter, climate hypocrite and warmist shill, who pollutes these pages with his hysterical flights of hostility. Other than that, I like him just fine. 🙂

    • It isn’t just Zarkova, there are many others who have been warning us for years that in the later half of solar cycle 24 the planet will start to cool.
      And it is.

  1. Well done, Allan, and I see from the cited supporting reports that you are in good company. As a life-long geologist I see the evidence of past glacial cycles and have no doubt we are near, or even at, the rapid descent into a glacial phase.

    You have also displayed an important difference between posts and comments here at Watts and the CAGW crowd, to wit: “Hope not” as a hope we are not sliding downhill with harvest due to later plantings, whereas the CAGW crowd actually hopes for CAGW, it would give them the power they are searching for. Keep up the good work.

    • Thank you Ron. I would really prefer to be wrong about global cooling – my predictive track record will still be infinitely better than the IPCC’s record of 100% failure-to-date.

      If I am correct, humanity and the environment will suffer, even under moderate global cooling. The future cold glacial period is a virtual certainty, given the geologic history of the past several million years. The only uncertainty is the exact timing of future glaciation, and whether humanity can avert that extinction crisis through global-scale intervention.

  2. A bigger danger from global cooling is starving to death due to crop losses from slower/shortened growing seasons. Meat production provides a protection against this vulnerability because it can exist on fodder and browse.

    • Caution!
      Cooling climate appears to coincide with greater parameter variability. (The std. dev. go up).

      This means normal cropping for a season or two followed by killing frosts or droughts when you least expect them. Not changes, necessarily, in winter start, end.

  3. Allan,

    I agree in general terms with your article but disagree with its cold catastrophism and several details.

    The glacial cycle averages about 100,000 years, consisting of about 90,000 years of the glacial period, … and about 10,000 years of interglacial

    This is not correct. The glacial cycle is tied to the 41 kyr obliquity cycle with its outcome determined at every oscillation by precession and eccentricity. Its average for the past 800 kyr has been of 73 kyr due to the irregular alternation between the more common 82 kyr periods and less frequent 41 kyr periods, with the last glacial period being unusually long at 123 kyr (three obliquity periods). The average interglacial is of 13 kyr. So on average the planet during the past 800 kyr has been getting 60 kyr glacial periods and 13 kyr interglacials, but the most common occurrence is of 70 kyr of glaciation and 13 kyr of interglacial.

    This is explained in detail at:
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle/
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/

    I would urge you to read the last one to see that your fears of an approaching glaciation are unfounded. Although inevitable without human intervention the next glacial inception is at least one millennium away and right now we are moving in the opposite direction (the world is warming). Besides, glaciations are very protracted, very slow coming events full of temporary partial reversals, that usually take about 15 kyr to become fully established. Ice sheets don’t suddenly come knocking at your door as in the movies. I agree that the support capacity of the planet decreases markedly during glaciations, but if it is hard to make predictions for the next decade, making predictions for future millennia is wasted time.

    So no, our planet may not re-enter the glacial period at any time.

    Over the next couple decades the most likely possibility is that we re-enter the pause conditions. A moderate cooling of 0.2-0.3°C is a possibility, but there is no way that we are going to return to the cool temperatures of the very liveable 1900-1910 period for a very long time. What most people discussing climate appear unable to understand is that the planet has a huge thermal inertia and it warms slowly and cools slowly except under very specific conditions that are absent. The abrupt warming proposed by some models and alarmists is as impossible as the abrupt cooling proposed by some contrarian alarmists. Don’t join that last group if you don’t want to be as wrong as the first group.

    • So no, our planet may not re-enter the glacial period at any time.

      In the context of what you’re quoting, well OK, sort of. On the other hand, your statement, as written, means we will never have another glaciation. That’s very probably wrong.

      • Any time includes the near future, and that is clearly not the case. In human terms the next glacial inception lies in a very distant future so there is no point in worrying about it.

    • Javier you wrote:
      “I agree in general terms with your article but disagree with its cold catastrophism and several details.”

      Hi Javier.

      I appreciate you putting a finer timeline on this issue.

      You appear to assume that my dates are highly precise, which they clearly are not. Whether re-entry not a new glacial period occurs in 1000 years or 3000 years is immaterial – it will happen unless humanity takes steps to prevent it, and curbing CO2 emissions “to fight global warming” is exactly the opposite of sensible policy.

      In the meantime, Excess Winter Deaths are being exacerbated today by imbecilic climate-and energy policies that should never have been enacted, and should cease immediately.

      Those are the main points of my paper – precise timing is certainly of interest, thank you, but that will not change my conclusions.

      Best personal regards, Allan

      • An intelligent critique of your article will address the details in context with its conclusion.

        This paper discusses real threats, specifically global cooling, including imminent moderate global cooling and later re-entry into another glacial period, in order to shift the climate discussion from popular scary-fantasies of runaway global warming, to cold events that actually do threaten the future of humanity and the environment.

        We have historical evidence, from the Little Ice Age, of what happens when we get a moderate cooling. All the claptrap about what will happen if we go over 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures is pure speculation of the worst sort. So, evidence or speculation, which would a wise person choose?

    • There are wild cards, including volcanoes and asteroids, meteors, etc. We can’t do anything to prevent volcanoes but we do have some of the technology needed to address threats from asteroids and meteor strikes. To the extent that efforts on “renewables” detract from this, we are being foolish.

    • Its TUFF to explain to the general populace, using minimal verbiage, …… the differences between: 1) a non-glacial period, .… 2) a glacial period, .… and 3) an inter-glacial period.

      From no frozen poles ……. to frozen poles ……. to in-between frozen poles.

    • Javier posted: “What most people discussing climate appear unable to understand is that the planet has a huge thermal inertia and it warms slowly and cools slowly except under very specific conditions that are absent. The abrupt warming proposed by some models and alarmists is as impossible as the abrupt cooling proposed by some contrarian alarmists.”

      Be careful defining what nature is capable or incapable of doing.

      Nobody understands the root cause of the climate whipsaw event known as the Younger Dryas. For what it’s worth, here’s what even the IPCC has to say about the Younger Dryas event (ref: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm ): “The central Greenland ice core record (GRIP and GISP2) has a near annual resolution across the entire glacial to Holocene transition, and reveals episodes of very rapid change. The return to the cold conditions of the Younger Dryas from the incipient inter-glacial warming 13,000 years ago took place within a few decades or less (Alley et al., 1993). The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998). Most of the changes in wind-blown materials and some other climate indicators were accomplished in a few years (Alley et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1993; Hammer et al., 1997). Broad regions of the Earth experienced almost synchronous changes over periods of 0 to 30 years (Severinghaus et al., 1998), and changes were very abrupt in at least some regions (Bard et al., 1987), e.g. requiring as little as 10 years off Venezuela (Hughen et al., 1996). Fluctuations in ice conductivity indicate that atmospheric circulation was reorganised extremely rapidly (Taylor et al., 1993).”

      • Be careful defining what nature is capable or incapable of doing.

        There is a fundamental difference between what is capable of doing and what it normally does. The conditions during the Younger Dryas don’t apply now. The conditions during a deglaciation don’t apply now. The conditions during a Dansgaard-Oeschger event don’t apply now. The conditions during the 8.2 kyr event don’t apply now.

        We are now under interglacial conditions without any large store of very cold (proglacial lake) or comparatively very warm (subsurface accumulated over millennia) water to be abruptly released. What the records indicate is that under these conditions the planet warms or cools at ~ 0.4-0.8°C/century. More than double that is simply not going to happen. The thermal inertia of the oceans will prevent it. Fast warming and fast cooling are unfounded alarmism.

        • Javier, I take it then that you do have a very good scientific explanation for the Younger Dryas event since you now “know” the conditions under which it occurred cannot now reoccur.

          I, together with many other scientists and researchers, anxiously await your scientific paper documenting such.

          And as far as I know, we are still in a period of “deglaciation”, although obviously not at the higher rate experienced some 14,000 to 7,000 year ago, as evidenced by global SLR today being at +2.9 mm/yr versus +11 mm/year over that interval.

          And it is unclear if the “thermal inertia of the oceans” means anything considering the active short term (1000 m.

          • Javier, I take it then that you do have a very good scientific explanation for the Younger Dryas event since you now “know” the conditions under which it occurred cannot now reoccur.

            I, together with many other scientists and researchers, anxiously await your scientific paper documenting such.

            And as far as I know, we are still in a period of “deglaciation”,

            Scientific explanations for the Younger Dryas abound in the literature, and all of them refer to conditions very different from what we have at present: A Heinrich event, a great decrease in solar activity, a planetary impact, just to name a few that have been published. And it is clear that the Younger Dryas took place during the last deglaciation, that ended around 7000 years ago when the extra-polar Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets finally melted. So now you know better.

            Alarmists of all kinds like to scare people with sudden drastic changes of climate when the reality is that for the last few millennia such changes have taken hundreds of years. For example 500 years between the Medieval Warm Period (~1100) and the bottom of the Little Ice Age (~1600-1700). For a change of maybe 1°C that results in ~ 0.2°C/century. Terrible, no doubt, but not sudden.

          • “. . . the last deglaciation, that ended around 7000 years ago when the extra-polar Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets finally melted. So now you know better.”

            According to Wikipedia (for what it’s worth):
            “Canada’s oldest ice is a 20,000-year-old remnant of the Laurentide Ice Sheet called the Barnes Ice Cap, on central Baffin Island.”
            and let’s not forget the southern hemisphere,
            “. . . there is a wide range of altitudes on which glaciers develop from 5000 m in the Altiplano mountains and volcanoes to reaching sea level as tidewater glaciers from San Rafael Lagoon (45° S) and southwards. South America hosts two large ice fields, the Northern and Southern Patagonian Ice Fields, of which the second is the largest contiguous body of glaciers in extrapolar regions. By surface about 80% of South America’s glaciers lie in Chile.”

            So, it certainly appears—assuming Earth’s atmosphere continues warming during the current “interglacial period”—that extra-polar deglaciation has, in fact, not ended but will continue.

            Finally, I remain curious as to why the thermal inertia of the Earth’s liquid oceans and the extensive glacial ice sheets (lots of heat of fusion there to stabilize Earth’s temperature against rising temperatures) were obviously ineffective in stabilizing Earth’s climate against the wild temperature swings around Younger Dryas, as I documented in my OP on this subject . . . independent of three POSSIBLE-but-unpredictable explanations for Younger Dryas that you stated.

            P.S. I have no idea why my previous comment was truncated, but my last paragraph here covers the intent of what was accidentally omitted.

          • Gordon, an ice-cap is not an ice-sheet. What characterizes glacial periods are extra-polar ice-sheets, not ice-caps, not glaciers.

            And the Younger Dryas was mainly a Northern Hemisphere affair. It was a lot less conspicuous in Southern Hemisphere records and does not show in global benthic reconstructions like the LR04 benthic stack. So when discussing global changes one has to be careful about the records taken into consideration.

        • “What the records indicate is that under these conditions the planet warms or cools at ~ 0.4-0.8°C/century. More than double that is simply not going to happen.”

          And yet…

          https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/rate4.jpg?w=500&h=333

          So much for cooling.

          “Over the next couple decades the most likely possibility is that we re-enter the pause conditions. A moderate cooling of 0.2-0.3°C is a possibility”

          There are two chances of that: Buckley’s and none.

          https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

          Faaar more likely is the opposite.

        • Javier – September 1, 2019 at 12:16 pm

          Fast warming and fast cooling are unfounded alarmism.

          Well now, Javier, …… is this fact or fiction, to wit:

          Fresh Buttercups in the mouth of a frozen mammoth.

          Flash frozen mammoth.

          And ………………

          Mammoth remains have puzzled scientists and laymen for hundreds of years. Many explanations have been offered. One of the most popular hypotheses is that one eventful day, the hairy elephants were peacefully grazing on grass and buttercups when suddenly, tragedy struck, and millions of them froze instantly.
          https://creation.com/the-extinction-of-the-woolly-mammoth-was-it-a-quick-freeze

          • Samuel, I’m sorry to inform you that flash-frozen mammoths are just a myth that has become popular among creationists, pretty much like Noah’s flood.

  4. The only caveat to the claimed ‘certainty’ of another ice age, is the current lack of orbital eccentricity. It is eccentricity that modulates precession, and therefore modulates the majority of midsummer insolation in the northern hemisphere (a NH Great Summer).

    So if you extend that insolation graph out, there are no great insolation minima (NH Great Winters) to force us into another ice age. The future climate really depends upon how sensitive the climate is to reduced NH insolation. We reach a minimum in NH summer insolation in about 1,000 years, but this Great Winter is not a very deep minima and then insolation begins to rise again. ** So if the climate is highly sensitive to falling NH insolation, we may just about fall into an ice age. But then we are into a new (and weak) Great Spring and Great Summer, so the response of the climate depends upon the climate sensitivity to albedo.

    Converse to current perceived wisdom, the primary ice age feedback is polar ice-albedo, not CO2. If ice sheets begin to grow, and the climate is very sensitive to ice-albedo, the world will continue to cool and ice over. Previous ice ages have demonstrated that polar ice is able to reflect and reject very strong NH Great Summers (NH insolation maxima), suggesting that when the world cools, albedo is more influential than solar orbital forcing.

    So it is possible that a weak NH Great Winter will be sufficient to precipitate an ice age. But if it does, all we need to do is convert some of those B-747 spray aircraft into soot-bombers. Ice-albedo does indeed appear to be the strongest of all the climate feedbacks, so coating the NH ice sheets with soot will effectively limit and reduce ice sheet extent, and warm the planet again.

    This is, after all, exactly what happened during the ice ages. EVERY interglacial was preceded by huge amounts of dust on the ice sheets, what originated from the Gobi region, and it was this dust combined with increased NH insolation that precipitated interglacial warming. And as this article says – that increase in dust was caused by low CO2 generating CO2 deserts. So it was LOW CO2 that caused interglacial warming.

    Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo…
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

    nb: The current low eccentricity and weak precessional effects last for another 60 kyr, so we may have a benign climate for the foreseeable future. Having said that, the weak Great Winter in 20 kyr time is as deep as the Great Winter 400 kyr ago that precipitated an ice age. So perhaps the current orbital conditions have only delayed the next ice age by 20 kyr.

    .

    ** The Great Spring is already upon us, so annual spring insolation is already increasing. Conversely the Great Autumn is getting cooler at present. Whether this has an influence depends upon whether you think warm annual springs or autumns have more influence than warm summers.
    See Clive Best’s graph…
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/lat-study2.png

    Ralph

    • In Greenland ice cores, the whole of the most recent glaciation was much dustier than it is now. link In the link, watch out, one of the graphs is upside down and logarithmic.

      • The logarithmic graph is so that you can see the very close correlation between dust and CO2. Apart from dust being logarithmic, the two plots are almost identical – and that is important, because it suggests that there is a link. And there is a logical link — as CO2 decreases, more and more uplands enter the CO2 dead-zone, where there is insufficient CO2 for plant life.

        It is not the whole of the last ice age that was dustier, there are distinct peaks. The graph is reproduced in Fig 11b, and bearing in mind this is again logarithmic, the peaks are more than 10x the average dust flux.

        Ralph

    • Thank you Ralph. I would love to see an illustrated post on your topic. Ive never heard of Great NH Winters, Summers and Springs, or for that matter seen a good illustrated one on what’s going on with orbital eccentricity and precession (geologist and mining engineer here).

    • Ralph, one other thing! Yes the Gobi desert did generate a lot of dust. There are several hundred meters of loess (silt) that is a prominent formation over much of China and visible in road cuts all over the country. But it was dusty, too, for the same reasons in North America, although the pressence of huge meltwater glacial Lake Agassiz in the past, the present 1,000,000+ lakes and the connecting rivers past and present in Canada washed most of this dust and silt away – early on via the Mississippi, later via connection to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence and finally, when the damming icesheet receded to Hudson’s Bay, it was nearly all washed away. In the late 1950s, I mapped barchan sand dunes in a jackpine forest in north central Manitoba aligned along what may have been the final western strandline of a diminishing Lake Agassiz.

      • The dust strata on the Loess Plateau also show all the ice ages, so I must do a correlation-graph between the dust and the ice cores sometime. Classical paleoclimatology says this increase in Gobi dust was due aridity, but the Chinese say much of the region was wetter. In reality, the reason for increased dust was a lack of CO2, which killed off all the plants, and nothing to do with moisture.

        The reason for the classical aridity claim is treeline studies in the tropics, which assumed that LGM treelines were moderated by temperature. But they ended up in a huge muddle, with treelines much too low, and lapse-rates needing to be much too high, which suggested great aridity. And these erroneous results ended up in modern climate models, which is why all ice age models are wrong. … What they did not realise is that LGM treelines in the tropics were determined by CO2, not temperature – so all their calculations were wrong, and the LGM climate could indeed have been wetter.

        .

        I use the term Great Summer and Great Winter for Milankovitch maxima and minima, because they are helpfully descriptive (and historical). The Great Year lasts some 22 kyr, and it operates in much the same fashion as a normal year. When the NH has a Great Summer for some 6 kyr, the SH is having its Great Winter, and vice versa. It makes it easy to imagine and comprehend. So during a NH Great Summer the NH will have warmer temperatures (the Earth is closer to the Sun), and if the Great Summer is strong (in tune with obliquity) the Sun will also be higher in the sky (greater angle of inclination). Orbital eccentricity also modulates the strength of the Great Seasons.

        Note that the astrological zodiac Great Year is 26 kyr, instead of 22 kyr, because the latter is effected by apsidal precession which shortens the cycle. So I have coined the terms Seasonal Great Year for the 22 kyr cycle, and Astrological Great Year for the 26 kyr cycle, but this is a bit of a mouthful.

        Ralph

    • This is the piece of information that most folks miss. But we should all be grateful for.
      v/r,
      Dave Riser

  5. We shouldn’t believe a long term cooling trend has actually begun until the thirty-year running average of the surface temperature trend turns decidedly down and then stays down for another thirty to fifty years.

    When in doubt, predict that current trends will continue — good enough for government work.

    In any case, Javier’s cyclic trend analysis as he described it in an article on Judith Curry’s blog in January, 2018, indicates that the true inflection point for long term global cooling happens roughly in the year 2200, some 180 years from now.

    Until the true inflection point occurs, as demonstrated by long-term observational data which extends well into the cooling phase, the climate activists will not give up on claiming AGW will eventually end life as we know it on earth.

    • “Until the true inflection point occurs, as demonstrated by long-term observational data which extends well into the cooling phase, the climate activists will not give up on claiming AGW will eventually end life as we know it on earth.”

      Dead right — unfortunately!

    • As far as I am concerned, the climate activists and their handlers have already ended human life as we used to know it. 🙂

  6. Now why was I aware of what was outlined in this article? I recall reading an article about cooling a number of years ago where the author speculated that the temp by 2032 would be on average 1.3 degrees cooler than the year it was written. As I cleaned our pool this am the air temp was 12 c and the pool was 18 c. Not exactly holding up for the last bit of summer.

  7. Enjoy the interglacial while it lasts. Perhaps the greenest, loudest will perish first so the rest can plan survival. At least there will be quiet.

  8. When I have photos of early snow and late snow for several years in a row, then I know that something is off. I hike the trails around here enough to know when something is “not right”. Spring seems to be coming later and later by increments every year now, and snow falling at the end of April is a clear sign that something is off.

    In my area, August temps are normally in the 80s until AFTER Labor Day. I’ve been keeping track for a long while and now, the summer heat does not last past the 2nd week in August. By ‘summer heat’, I mean 85F or higher day time, and mid-70s at night. No more. The summer heat ended July 28, with daytime temps mid-70s and overnight temps have dropped into the low-60s to mid-50s. Some of it is cold water in Lake Michigan – never really warmed up.

    It is creeping in on little cat feet. The Greenbeans and ecohippies can deny it all they want to, but what will they do when they still have to wear winter clothing in June? Oh, deary, deary me!!!!

    • Aged Sara, 1st September in my kneck of the woods,leaves already falling the trees are overburdened with fruit,its cool here much more so than in recent years,in the last 5 years I have seen a shift in wind patterns from west to east, increased blocking pressures changing the weather patterns, rain patterns shifting planet wide,more precipitation, due to I think a shrinking magnetosphere, we see NASA and the world space agency’s taking advantage of this by a relentless increase in satellite launching, NASA themselves admit to the GSM and a cooling atmosphere, if nothing else we see a increasing desperate media playing on any anomily warming as Castrasphoic global warming, we see world governments taking very similar time lines to destroy are freedom of movement the ridiculous drive of green energy that will not supply the people with power, when they will need it the most, times indeed are a changing and not for the good.

      • “…if nothing else we see a increasing desperate media playing on any anomaly warming as Catasyrophoic global warming…”

        The one thing I’ve seen that is extremely consistent is that the media in general use alarmist or exaggerated language, just as some of those TV ads do, to sell the product. In this case, the product is climate change. In itself, climate change is nothing new. I made up an Excel spreadsheet a long time ago to see what the difference was between warm periods and the glacial periods, and the warm periods were – without exception – shorter than the cold periods.

        We’re in the warm period after the Wisconsin glacial maximum (North American) now, and it can come to an end gradually or quickly, but it will end. But again, if they can’t sell the product by exaggerating the “threat of warming”, they don’t have much to talk about, so ignoring the very real probability of a warm period ending, which would be climate change indeed, is the only way they can function.

    • Now that the predictions for imminent evaporation of the Great Lakes have been falsified, I’ll be following the Ice Coverage to see if the wolves return to Isle Royale.
      A return to the 1970s with 350 inches of snow in the UP and fixing my carburetor in -50 degrees windchill probably has a greater chance of happening in the next few years than spending many winter days in shorts, as I did 20 years ago.

  9. after spending a fair bit of money for seeds and a lot of effort for a large garden area of 40ftx 20ft
    my harvest was?
    3 pumpkins 4 tiny rockmelons 8 small eggplants 4 tiny ears of half filled corn and around 10kg tomatos
    why?
    the soil didnt warm up, seeds rotted, sprouted late and battled to maintain growth until late december early january when normally that would be when theyd be setting fruit/seeds to ripen by march/april
    this was an open area that got sun from earliest morning to late afternoon
    even the hardy things like beets swedes radishes and carrots failed.
    3 really hot wind days managed to burn the entire 4 bean plants that did have flowers to a crisp
    cold days and frost ongoing, means i havent even removed weeds or tilled the soil yet, and the rainfalls way down for deep moisture come summer..IF summer comes this yr.
    sth west Victoria

  10. I don’t know when the next glaciation will begin but ANY cooling that limits food production by reducing suitable land for farming or that shortens the growing season will have a major impact on the human population. In real estate its location, location, location. For us, it food production, food production, food production.

  11. I’m with you Sara, things up here In the UP haven’t too warm either. We just had almost a week of Small Craft Advisories, and I had to fire up the wood stove a couple of nights ago. This winter and spring we had 4+ feet of snow on the ground for months. Multiple roofs collapsed and I wasn’t able the get to my “cabin” for 4 moths because the seasonal road was closed by snow till May!

    • Yooper, make sure you get pictures and have your camera date stamp them. I do that a lot now. If it snows in October, I get photos, even if the snow melts quickly. If it snows in September, I will have photos, too. When these things consistently repeat themselves, we should be paying attention.

      I may have to turn the furnace on in September if the nights drop below 50F.

  12. I saw this guy present these data on TV recently. I wasn’t paying close attention at first, so I don’t know if these deaths are for Missouri or the nation and I don’t know the source. I got more interested in the reporting once I saw the graphic (which he presented in a dramatic fashion) showing more deaths were from extreme heat than extreme cold.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Largest+Weather+Threats+to+Human+Life+Kenton+Gewecke&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjapNLu16_kAhVFLKwKHftQBAQQsAR6BAgGEAE&biw=1067&bih=505&dpr=1.5#imgrc=XQuqoe9ZMqUrVM:

    • Scott alleged
      “I got more interested in the reporting once I saw the graphic (which he presented in a dramatic fashion) showing more deaths were from extreme heat than extreme cold.”

      Your reference does not show that conclusion. That alleged statement is highly misleading and probably false. In any case, extreme hot or cold weather is rare and is not material. The real issue is normally-observed cold and hot weather.

      From the Lancet article, cited in our above paper (D’Aleo and MacRae 2015):
      “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries, published in The Lancet.”
      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

      From my above paper:
      “Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates. Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity, and currently-observed moderate global warming increases life spans.”

      These points are not in question – cold, not hot weather is by far the greatest killer of humanity.

  13. good lord there has NEVER been a global warming extinction event in the entire geographic history of the planet … and there never will be … this whole AGW is a fraud …

    • “Subsequently, the build-up of volcanic CO2 induced a transient cool climate whose early phase saw the deposition of the microbial limestone.” – Abstract of that article.

      Ummm….. doesn’t volcanic CO2…. ummm…. “warm’ things up, or something?

      Well, that sentence just tickled my funny bone.

      • Sara wrote:
        “Ummm….. doesn’t volcanic CO2…. ummm…. “warm’ things up, or something?”

        Answer:
        No – “Century-scale” volcanoes like El Chichon (1982, VEI 5) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991+, VEI 6) reduced the amount of solar radiation that reached the Earth’s surface and caused about 0.5C global cooling that dissipated over ~5 years.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
        [excerpt]

        5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
        UAHLT Anomaly (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth
        (Figs. 5a and 5b)

      • Sara
        Volcanoes are the “control knob on the control knob” of climate.
        The main knob is of course CO2.
        But when CO2 can’t explain climate trajectories, then volcanoes are invoked for the necessary adjustment.
        And yes – volcanoes can either warm, or cool, as necessary.

        • Phil – I hope you are being sarcastic in your comment to Sara, because you are wrong.

          CO2 does not significantly drive global warming, but it may have a minor impact.

          The reason I say this with total confidence is that a cause must lead its effect in time, and atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes at all measured time scales.

          I ascribe total confidence to the above statement because the future cannot cause the past in our space-time continuum. Anyone who disputes that reality faces an uphill battle with logic.

          Atmospheric CO2 changes lags temperature changes by ~~800 years in the ice core record on a long time scale – that fact has been known for decades.

          Atmospheric CO2 changes also lag temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record. I wrote the definitive paper describing that mechanism in January 2008, and it has since been supported and expanded by myself and others.

          While it is possible that [temperature drives CO2] .AND. [CO2 drives temperature], it is obvious that the former dominates the latter, because [temperature drives CO2] is the clear signal we see in the data, which is the net result:

          Net Atmospheric CO2 changes = [Changes from temperature drives CO2] .MINUS. [Changes from CO2 drives temperature]

          CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
          by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
          [excerpt]

          6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).

          Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
          _______________________

          The lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is shown here:
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1982.0/to:2003.5/mean:12/derivative/integral/detrend:30/scale:0.3/plot/uah6/from:1982.0/to:2003.5/mean:12/offset:0.14

          Part of the mechanism that drives the above observation is shown here:
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

          Those who say that “in the big picture, CO2 drives temperature” are ignoring a huge problem – fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the onset of WW2, and yet global temperatures COOLED until 1977. Then global temperatures warmed into the mid-1990’s and then there was “the ~20-year “Pause”, so the correlation of temperature with CO2 is negative, positive and neutral – not at all supportive of the disproved catastrophic global warming hypothesis.
          _______________________

          Finally, in the modern data record volcanoes cause COOLER temperatures, not warmer. This equation works quite well, including for “century-scale” volcanoes El Chichon (1982, VEI 5) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991+, VEI 6).

          5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:

          UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

          ************************

          • “The reason I say this with total confidence is that a cause must lead its effect in time, and atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes at all measured time scales.

            I ascribe total confidence to the above statement because the future cannot cause the past in our space-time continuum. Anyone who disputes that reality faces an uphill battle with logic.”

            What a shouty, blowhard know it all. And wrong.
            Warming causes CO2 to rise but that does not mean CO2 can’t cause warming. Bloviating with “total confidence” doesn’t make it true, it just shows how deluded you are.

          • But you dont show co2 causes warming,and I dont see anyone being deluded, I do see a near hysterical response from you,that’s how you come across,I havent seen any notable warming since the last el Nino event near 4 years ago, I’ve seen the cyclic nature of LA within that 4 years on a downward trend ,UAHv6 ref,

          • Loydo – there IS undisputable warming, when warmist hotheads like you get all hysterical and blow off steam.

            Climate extinction, anyone? Need your safe space? Such imbecilic drivel!

            Go have your childish hissy-fit somewhere else, preferably in “WarmistLand, where the future can cause the past”.

            🙂

  14. Here in the Edmonton area the weather that we used to have starting in mid October now comes in late August and early September. We’ve already started into a glacial period, and global warming is one big lie.

  15. “Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago.”

    Do you mean the period when humanity spread across every continent on Earth? It seems we did a lot more than barely survived in that period.

    The next glacial period could well kill billions but, that’s only because we’ve prospered and multiplied so prolifically during this brief climatic optimum. For every boom there is a bust.

    • Not really. Humans in Europe were forced to the extreme margins in southern Spain and a few refuges. The same across Eurasia.

      • I have seen plenty of evidence to support my claim and no evidence that supports your claim. Perhaps you’d care to provide some.

  16. The current warming trend ensures we won’t be entering a cooling period for hundreds of years (even if we had a new solar minimum as well).

    The human Co2 derived warming is a new, additional climate driver on top of existing natural cycles. This has overridden the natural trend towards the next glacial period.

    The state of arctic sea ice, Greenland ice cap, temps in the arctic (Alaska, Svalbard, Siberia) all show a clearly warming arctic with no sign of any cooling trend

    • griff
      You earn a well deserved -1 with all your dogmatic claims and no facts or citations to back them up.

    • This has overridden the natural trend towards the next glacial period.

      Absolutely no evidence for that. Warming and cooling periods are common in the record. This warming period will be followed eventually by a cooling period. In the end the next glaciation will come because that is the natural state of the planet during the Pleistocene. There is no forcing causing a glaciation. The planet simply slids into one when the conditions that made the interglacial possible disappear. In fact the planet starts sliding into a glaciation during the last half of the interglacial, a period called Neoglaciation.

    • What nonsense! There’s no natural glacial trend at the moment. There’s been a slight warming trend after the last cooling trend, that’s all.

      • Phoenix wrote:
        “What nonsense! There’s no natural glacial trend at the moment.”

        Anther strawman fallacy – one of several in the comments on this paper. I do not see that anyone here is saying we are entering a glacial period now – but it will happen in the future, probably within a few thousand years, the blink-of-an-eye in geologic time.

    • griff …looks to me like we are about to see a rather early end to the sea ice melt this year in the Arctic. So we shall soon find out the truth, imo.

  17. Look to 1815-1816 and decide which is worse, warm or cold. That was from just a single major volcano eruption.

    Our summer here in western PA has been crappy and we have had overnight lows in the 40s during August, not just once, several nights. And yet the TV lie spewers continue to screech it has been the HOTTEST SUMMER EVAH, or some such drivel. Even with our furnace set at 54 it has kicked on in mornings, even in July. That just ain’t anywhere near a normal summer, much less the hottest one evah.

    • The real danger, as I see it, is not a solar minimum, or a massive volcanic eruption, but the two occurring together as they did in the period you mentioned (“eighteen hundred and froze to death”) with the eruption of Mount Tambora during the already cooler Dalton Minimum. Things could go downhill very fast.

      • I think that this is the dynamic which leads to the steep temp drops which science has labeled as grand minima events. For whatever combination of reasons natural influences are in place which raise the odds fo large eruptions during the cyclical solar downturns. Maybe a grand minimum is nothing more than a combination of a Gleissberg cycle inducing a large eruption in the right place which adds to the duration and depth of the cool trend.

        We may be about to see just that as some major volcanoes have been barking recently. Along with that is the history of the New Madrid Seismic Zone which also appears to be correlated with Gleissbergs and cool trends. Hence my prediction that this winter could bring the next large quake on the NMSZ. Many of those also take place during the normal solar minimum along with during a cool trend.

  18. Discussion of when the next glaciation might occur, while interesting in its own right isn’t relevant to the argument with the CAGW Industry, which is laser-focused on the next 30 to 80 years with regard to climate, and considerably less than that with regard to policy. Aside from the fact that increased CO2 has shown no real world sign of having any effect on temperatures (whatever effect, if any, appears immeasurably small, and thus inconsequential), there is a distinct possibility that we could see a decades-long cooling, possibly rivaling the LIA, and that is a concern. We can cross our fingers and hope it doesn’t happen. Maybe we’ll be lucky and get off with a mini-cooling like we had between 1940 and 1975. What anyone with half a brain knows though is that healthy, vibrant economies based on inexpensive, readily-available energy are far better equipped to deal with an inhospitable, cold climate. We are heading in the exact opposite direction, thanks to the CAGW idiocy.

  19. “but CO2 concentrations will drop so low”

    This is fixable, I see a future with many thousands of kilns across the world cooking limestone to release that very important nutrient, without which life would be impossible.

    • Fixable as long as we are around. The future of the planet is CO2 starvation as volcanic activity decreases due to tectonic activity decrease with the cooling of the planet’s interior. At some point the continents will stop moving and it will be the end of volcanoes and earthquakes. CO2 levels have been decreasing over the past 540 million years at least, more probably since the planet’s beginning. In 50-250 million years they might be too low to sustain complex food chains and life will return to microbial until the Sun turns into a red giant cooking what is left.

      The end of complex life on Earth is likely to be due to low CO2 levels. What an irony in the current climate that we label CO2 as a pollutant.

      • Yes, the irony is clear.

        On the one hand, the emissions of CO2 are what will ultimately prevent a long term existential crisis to all life on Earth by preventing an agricultural failure, while the insane agenda of alarmists to reduce atmospheric CO2 will actually cause a short term existential crisis based on economic self destruction.

      • Javier
        All mankind will have to do is vent the numerous underground sequestration reservoirs established by the far-thinking greens. 🙂

    • For which a lot of energy will be needed. Only coal, gas or nuclear can provide that much energy. Unless by then we have discovered another huuuge energy source. Solar and windmills are sure not going to cut it.

  20. So let me get this right, we are going to freeze to death? Not just humans but most life on the planet… Even though for millions of years their has always been some form of life on this planet, and humanity has only grown during the last 10k years? How did anything survive during the last ice age?

      • Allan, apologies Sir, I am totally new to the global warming, cooling world. I found this site after weeks of depression from all the “we are going to die” news… I have read some posts on solar cycles and how the weather has always been like this, but due to the constant news people have become afraid of the rain and even sunny days…

        • No worries Sunny – there is so much information.

          I have studied the subjects of Climate and Energy since 1985, have two engineering degrees related to the Earth Sciences, and am still learning.

          William Astley’s long post below is fascinating, as is Javier’s on timing. You might try this paper as a primer:
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

          It covers a lot of subjects without going into detail, to keep the length manageable. It could easily be book-length, but then nobody would read it. 🙂

          Regards, Allan

        • Hyping disaster is a money maker for the 24-7 “news” crowd. Too bad they can’t all find real jobs and stop spewing lies and depressing people.

          • Thank you 2hotel9,

            I think it is particularly reprehensible for warmist thugs to traumatize children with false fears of runaway global warming, which is NOT happening and which will NEVER HAPPEN due to increasing atmospheric CO2.

            Climate is simply NOT highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 – all the evidence disproves the over-hyped CAGW hypothesis.

            The radical greens are a particularly dishonest and thuggish group, and their covert leftist political objectives are becoming increasingly obvious. I suggest the warmist thugs are, in fact, abusers of innocent children and traitors to their countries.

            Ever notice how Jeffrey Epstein, the Clintons and all their friends at Pedo Island were part of the socialist-warmist cabal? Not a climate denier in the bunch!

            But I’m feeling rather benevolent. One day I’ll tell you how I really feel!

            Yours in climate denial, Allan

  21. Javier says:
    The world is warming.

    Sara says:
    Spring seems to be coming later and later by increments every year now, and snow falling at the end of April is a clear sign that something is off.

    Henry says:

    you cannot be both right? Or what?

    I am saying it is globally cooling [and I have the results of a statistical analysis to prove it].

    It is part of the Gleisberg cycle. Looking at the ups and downs of the Nile every day, in the past, it was possible to accurately predict dryer periods [like Joseph did when he informed Farao by explaining his dream from the results that he had verified himself.]\
    ::there is a report of William Arnold about this which was written before they started with the CO2 nonsense.
    [because of the many dams it is not easy now to see what is happening just by looking at the Nile]
    The current radiation from the sun favors more rainfall around the equator. A logical result is that there will be less moisture available for the higher latitudes. I happens every 87 years:
    1932-1939: Dust Bowl drought – it was a big disaster?
    1845-1956: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286971648_Drought_in_the_western_Great_Plains_1845-56_Impacts_and_implications

    [apparently the drought time was so severe that it affected the Bison population]

    1755: A change in the tax laws in Virginia due to the drought.

  22. The answer formal this is so simple. You can not put physical heat through the surface of water, due surface tension.

  23. Hi 2hotel9,

    I feel your pain.

    It is 10am in Calgary and it is a cold 12C, equal to 54F.

    It has been a cold summer, almost “a summer that never happened”.

    We used to say our climate was “July, August and Winter”. This year it was “”A few weeks in July, and Winter.”

    I know, “It’s weather, not climate” and all that. It is just too damned cold.

    If I really believed the IPCC’s CO2-drives-global warming nonsense, I’d buy a Peterbilt and leaving it running 24/7.
    https://www.peterbilt.com/

    🙂

    • When I first moved to Calgary I bitched about the summers to my boss who replied “that summer came on a Wednesday last year”.

    • Labor Day weekend is usually hot, not this year, or last year. Was not home for LDW the 2 years before, not sure where they fell temp wise. Trying to explain Co2 is plant food and that more means more plants and more food and more oxygen is like trying to explain to a toddler that jumping in the air doe not mean they are flying. Imagination trumps reality for far too many people, sadly.

  24. Allan
    Thank you for an excellent article. I sometimes think we are living in some sort of parallel dimension where people are ignoring the obvious dangers and barking at the moon hoping that if they believe hard enough unicorns will arrive and spread batteries at our feet when they close down all fossil fuel production.
    I agree with those that describe the green ideology as a particularly insane religious cult that may yet do for us all.

    • We are living in a parallel dimension…. a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind…. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone! – Rod Serling, host of ‘The Twilight Zone’

  25. So, when this next cold phase comes, will our consensus scientists be telling us to burn more fossil fuels to help warm the planet? I have my doubts, the last time they were saying that pollution was causing the ice age.

  26. Great article, with very good comments …….
    As Joe says ” Enjoy the Weather, it’s the Only Weather we’ve Got ”

    As a young Englishman of 3 years old I walked on the FROZEN River Thames in the winter of 1963 with my parents and siblings ……. If this happens again this will be my forecast of Cold To Come.

    Winter Draws On ….. I have mine in the top draw all ready, with my cashmere sweater .

  27. “In the near term, there is a significant probability of moderate global cooling. Similar global cooling happened from about 1940 to 1977..”

    That will happen from the mid 2030’s and through the 2040’s when the solar wind is strong enough to drive a cold AMO phase again. Low solar maintains a warm AMO phase, and increased El Nino conditions.

  28. My argument is not with people using their money on nonsense, my argument is people using my money on nonsense. The Globe has not warmed and Co2 is not a pollutant, get a proper job, grow a cabbage and feed someone.

  29. I predicted in 2013 that winter deaths would increase in the UK, where energy costs are much higher than in North America. Sadly, this has proved correct. Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 totaled over 50,000 souls, the highest since 1976, as compared to an annual average of about 100,000 in the USA.

    Except the winter of 2017/18 wasn’t especially cold. Certainly not as cold as say 2009/10 or 2010/11, which only say about half as many excess deaths. You really cannot make much sense of trends by looking at individual years, and there are many factors apart from the cold that determine EWD.

    And I doubt you can make useful comparisons between the UK and USA, and especially not by looking at one individual year.

    • Bellman: You did not include a data source.

      https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2017to2018provisionaland2016to2017final
      Reference:
      Figure 1: Excess winter deaths and five-year central moving average
      England and Wales, between 1950 to 1951 and 2017 to 2018

      Individual-year statistics for Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) are highly variable and have many causes, including winter temperature and humidity, influenza, home insulation and heating systems and heating costs.

      Five-year-moving-average EWD trends for England and Wales were much higher in the 1950’s, declined and bottomed out circa 2003-2004 and have trended higher since then. While influenza is probably the greatest single factor driving EWD’s, I suggest that rapidly increasing energy costs and the poor state of UK housing insulation and heating systems are the primary factors that make EWD rates so much higher in the UK than in the USA.

      Note that colder Canada and the Nordic countries of Europe have lower EWD rates per capita than the USA, and much lower than the UK. Warmer countries like Portugal have EWD rates even higher than the UK. Adaptation to winter is the key – cheap energy, good home heating and good insulation.

      For a fraction of the money squandered in the UK on nonsensical wind energy and solar power, the government could have retro-fitted every house in the country with modern heating systems and proper insulation. Had they allowed fracking of their abundant gassy shales near Blackpool , energy costs would be a fraction of their current high prices.

      If I wanted to kill off the elderly and the poor in the UK, I would follow their current government policies – opposition to shale fracking, and excessive reliance on wind power that drives up energy costs. It’s working.

      • I suggest that rapidly increasing energy costs and the poor state of UK housing insulation and heating systems are the primary factors that make EWD rates so much higher in the UK than in the USA.

        But you haven’t provided any evidence to that effect. As you say EWD are highly variable so pointing to one single year when there were other factors such as flu affecting that year. If energy costs, poor insulation etc where the main reason for the spike in 2017/18, why was EWD lower just a few years ago when the same conditions applied, and winters were much colder.

        As I said before, I don’t think you can compare UK and US figures. The climates, populations, and economics are very different.

        “For a fraction of the money squandered in the UK on nonsensical wind energy and solar power, the government could have retro-fitted every house in the country with modern heating systems and proper insulation…

        Governments can do all those things regardless of how much they spend on renewable energy. The government do do things to encourage people to insulate their homes and so forth, but we’ve also had almost a decade of austerity, and 3 years focused on Brexit. But I wouldn’t like to suggest there is any simple reason for rising winter deaths, or if this is anything other than a statistical blip.

        If I wanted to kill off the elderly and the poor in the UK, I would follow their current government policies – opposition to shale fracking, and excessive reliance on wind power that drives up energy costs. It’s working.

        Much as i might hate previous and current Tory governments, I wouldn’t suggest they have a policy to kill off the elderly. Apart from everything else wrong with this, that’s there core demographic.

        • Bellman wrote:
          “Much as i might hate previous and current Tory governments, I wouldn’t suggest they have a policy to kill off the elderly.”

          Your statement is the standard strawman fallacy. I am not saying the UK government is deliberately killing off its elderly and poor because of a policy of malice. I am saying they are doing so because of extreme incompetence. Labour would probably have been worse, trying to appear greener than the Tories. Extreme stupidity and incompetence cross party lines.

          Extreme stupidity and incompetence also cross the Atlantic. In Canada, our Prime Minister seems to be brain-damaged, probably from smoking too much dope – on his bad days he cannot form a coherent sentence, and on his better days he is merely imbecilic. Trudeau-fils is controlled by an radical-green, extreme-left cabal within his cabinet and advisors. He is so dull-witted he may not even realize what is happening around him – Canada’s uber-green, socialist, sock-puppet PM.

  30. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. If CO2 were really the climate thermostat then considering the CO2 level in the atmosphere, it should by much warmer than it already is. Considering the paleoclimate record, it is most likely that the current interglacial period is slowly ending but it will take many thousands of years for the next ice age to take hold. We should all enjoy the relatively warm climate while if it is still here. Our ancestors and the ancestors of all animals living today made it through the last ice age and ice ages before that and most likely can make it through the next ice age. The real problem is not climate change but rather Mankind’s not leaving enough habitat for many animals to survive. Most animals on this planet do not change the habitat as much as Mankind does.

  31. I find something very interesting in the graph provided in this paper. Note that for all 3 cycles the lower temperature ending the iceage was about -8C compared to the present. Note also the temperature is not asymptoting, it is a close to linear decrease which ends abruptly at -8C. Similarly the trigger starting the next iceage is about +2C above present in all 3 cases. Is it simply time related, unrelated to temperature? Possibly but the 3 time intervals between warm periods is not the same for all 3. The first is about 90,000Y the second more like 120,000Y and the third around 140,000Y. That’s quite a variation yet the temperature point for all 3 is almost exactly the same (less than 1C difference as far as I can tell). OK, 3 events is a very small data set, it could very well be a co-incidence of no significance but it is suggestive.

    It makes wonder, is there some mechanism which triggers warming at 280K (-8C from present)? Similarly, is there something about a temperature of 290K (+2C from present) which triggers cooling but why is the cooling gradual after a small initial drop of about 2C whereas the warming is abrupt?

    If only people would stop with the hysteria long enough to look at the data and so some real science we might actually get somewhere.

  32. My analysis shows that average global temperature trend will remain approximately flat for as long as water vapor continues to increase at the rate which resulted in approximate 7 % increase in WV since 1960. If WV stops increasing, down goes the average global temperature.

  33. There are comments above that interglacial periods end gradually. That is an urban legend.

    The observations do not support that assertion.

    We have no idea what is the large powerful physical cause of the cyclic glacial/interglacial cycle which is likely the same cause as the large cyclic abrupt climate changes, such as the Younger Dryas.

    The discovery of cyclic abrupt climate change in the Greenland ice sheet, twenty years ago, was not expected. The specialists drilled another Greenland ice sheet core, at the top of a ridge where there was no ice flow, to confirm the cyclic abrupt climate change found in the proxy record ice data was real and not caused somehow by ice sheet flow.

    The invention of the climate super amplification theory was an attempt to explain cyclic abrupt climate change. The recent finding that there is no CO2 warming of the tropical troposphere at 8 km and almost no warming of the tropical region, shows there is negative feedback and no amplification.

    I agree that sudden abrupt cooling, is a greater threat than warming. There are a dozen observations and analysis results that support that the assertion that is almost no measurable AGW and hence no CAGW. The problem is that line of analysis did change minds.

    What we need to do is re-look at the key observations which have been ignored up to this point, in an organized thoughtful manner, looking for logical connection between observations.

    The geological observations are the place to start as it (geology) is a logical, simple constrained field (odd that is no summary of the physical constraints and problem overview in geological textbooks or geological papers) and there are dozens of geological observational paradoxes that should not exist and that can be explained to a general audience.

    No math. Almost no graphs. And a logical subject with mature observations.

    I am working away to make a formal presentation with pictures that would be interesting for a general audience.

    Here are a couple of the key observational paradoxes to give you an idea of the path. Obviously the observations appear to be linked. There is an observation that requires a powerful force that can change almost in real time. There must be mechanism to create the force. There needs to be evidence of that mechanism. There is.

    These are observational paradoxes, that correlate with the recent temperature change, that we do not discuss because there is no physical explanation and/or it the observation itself obviously disproves/threatens to disprove CAGW.

    It is fact that there has been a 300% increase in the frequency of earthquakes (no increase in the magnitude, just an increase in the number of earthquakes per year which correlates linearly with the amount of energy that is required to cause the earthquakes and move the ocean plates) that occur at the edges of mid-ocean ridges, near where the ridge where ocean plates are pushed apart, all over the planet.

    Oddly, the frequency of mid-ocean ridge earthquakes increases two years before the El Nino events.

    What is interesting is geology does not have an explanation as to what generates the force to move the tectonic plates, before the observation that the frequency of mid-ocean earth quakes increased by 300% average for 20 years.

    The lack of a forcing mechanism explains why the theory of plate tectonics took so long to be accepted. Sure the plates move, the problem is there is no force to move the plates.

    Why would there be any tectonic plate movement? The mantel is just rock that gradually becomes less viscous with depth, that ends with a molten core.

    http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm

    Nitecki et al. (1978) reported that in 1961 only 27% of western geologists accepted plate tectonics, but that during the mid-1960s a “chain reaction” took place, and by 1977 it was embraced by as many as 87%.

    Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that a bandwagon atmosphere developed and that data that did not fit into the model were not given sufficient consideration (e.g., Wyllie, 1976), resulting in “a somewhat disturbing dogmatism” (Dott and Batten, 198 1, p. 15 1). McGeary and Plummer (1 998, p. 97) acknowledge that “geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads.”

    The driving force of plate movements was initially claimed to be mantle deep convection currents welling up beneath midocean ridges, with downwelling occurring beneath ocean trenches. Since the existence of layering in the mantle was considered to render whole-mantle convection unlikely, two layer convection models were also proposed.

    Jeffreys (1974) argued that convection cannot take place because it is a self-damping process, as described by the Lomnitz law.

    Plate tectonicists expected seismic tomography to provide clear evidence of a well-organized convection-cell pattern, but it has actually provided strong evidence against the existence of large, plate-propelling convection cells in the upper mantle (Anderson, Tanimoto, and Zhang, 1992).

    Many geologists now think that mantle convection is a result of plate motion rather than its cause and that it is shallow rather than mantle deep (McGeary and Plummer, 1998).

    There is no mechanism in the current geological paradigm to explain the sudden simultaneous increase in force at each ridge to cause the increase in mid-ocean ridge spreading.

    In separate review papers, it has noted that there is evidence of massive concentrated compressive forces at the mid-ocean ridges that is roughly two orders of magnitude greater than the standard geological tectonic plate force paradigm can generate and more importantly requires something physical to be pumped into the location, to cause the compression fracturing.

    Compression fracturing is the same mechanism as fracturing rock for petroleum and gas extraction. Compression fracturing requires a pump, a liquid that is pressurized by the pump, and something that functions as a pipe to transmit the force and the liquid to the end of the pipe which is where the fracturing would occur.

    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf

    Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic [2,3]. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe (Table 1) [4,5]

    Roughly two years ago geologist discovered tubes in the mantel that connect to the crust and appear to connect to the core of the planet. It has known for sometime that there were unexplained reflection of seismic waves travelling through the earth. New computer analysis techniques of multiple seismic waves determined that reflections where from tube/pipe like structures in the mantel.

    What is need is an explanation as to what created the tubes in the mantel.

    So we have the tubes, what is need is a pump and a liquid that is pumped by the pump.

    The pump, is the core of the planet as it crystallizes. The liquid is liquid methane that is extruded from the core of the earth when it crystallizes.

    The heavy elements in the core bond with methane which explains why the core is saturated with methane and explains why the same group of heavy elements is found concentrated in liquid petroleum with the amount of heavy metals increasing with crude viscosity.

    The three super heavy Alberta ‘heavy’ oil deposits, 1.5 trillion barrels (roughly the amount of all ‘conventional, oil on the planet, 60 to 80 meters thick covers an area roughly the size of the UK, have super concentrations of the same suite of metals.

    This also explains why there is helium in oil and gas reservoirs. The heavy metals are dropped out below the oil and gas reservoirs. The uranium and thorium decay creating helium, the continued flow of methane provides a path for the helium to travel into the oil reserve.

    What is interesting is what is causing the core of the planet to crystallize.

    Challenging core belief: Have we misunderstood how Earth’s solid center formed?
    Scientists question long-held understanding in new paper

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180207151842.htm

    Summary:
    Researchers are posing an important question about the formation of planet Earth’s inner core, arguing that it’s time to consider the nucleation paradox at the heart of the issue.

    It is widely accepted that the Earth’s inner core formed about a billion years ago when a solid, super-hot iron nugget spontaneously began to crystallize inside a 4,200-mile-wide ball of liquid metal at the planet’s center.
    One problem: That’s not possible-or, at least, has never been easily explained-according to a new paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters from a team of scientists at Case Western Reserve University.

    The research team-composed of post-doctoral student Ludovic Huguet; Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences professors James Van Orman and Steven Hauck II; and Materials Science and Engineering Professor Matthew Willard-refer to this enigma as the “inner-core nucleation paradox.”

    That paradox goes like this: Scientists have known for more than 80 years that a crystallized inner core exists. But the Case Western Reserve team asserts that this widely accepted idea neglects one critical point-one that, once added, would suggest the inner core shouldn’t exist.

  34. “Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates. ”

    This ignores the fact that in most areas mortality increases faster due to extremes of heat than to extremes of cold, and it is the extremes that are the main worry. Even moderately cold weather kills, and that won’t end just because the Earth warms. Nor do the statistics account for indirect effects of warming, such as the possibility of an increase in the number and geographical extent of vector-borne diseases. For instance, mosquito larvae mature more quickly as temperature rises.

    • Kristi,

      When excess deaths from heat occur, the death rate then drops below normal after the heat wave is over.
      For cold no such drop in death rate effect is observed after the cold has gone.
      Heat kills those about to die, cold kills indiscriminately.

      • Correct. Mortality increases during heat events, but decreases right after the event. Mortality over the entire period is near normal.
        For cold events, mortality increases during AND after, with an increased rate over the entire period.

      • Also, the effects of illnesses brought on by increased cold linger after warming has occurred, especially in vulnerable categories of people such as elderly, the very young and those with chronic respiratory illnesses.

    • “This ignores the fact that in most areas mortality increases faster due to extremes of heat than to extremes of cold”, no it doesn’t. In the UK I only know of two years when there were sufficient summer deaths for this to even be recorded (usually the death rate is always lower in the summer). If there were a level of heat that were unacceptable then what we’d see is the planet would have a clear temperature line above which no one lives. That does not exist. In contrast we do see a sharp drop off in numbers as the temperature drops.

      The reason for this, is that humanity evolved in central Africa and evolved through climate that at times was undoubtedly was warmer than today.

    • Kristi wrote:
      “This ignores the fact that in most areas mortality increases faster due to extremes of heat than to extremes of cold, and it is the extremes that are the main worry.”

      Why no citations Kristi, and no quantification of your alleged observation?

      The reason my statement “ignores” your allegation is because even if it were true, your allegation would be irrelevant. Cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather worldwide. Excess winter deaths total over 2 million souls per year. That is relevant.

      Extreme-heat deaths are few, and are easily avoided by air conditioning, fan cooling, or drenching with water. Heat deaths often involve elderly people who are neglected, dehydrated and alone – they could easily have been saved with minimal care – but nobody cared.

      In Muslim countries, hot deaths are associated with religions celebrations. In 2015, the media made a great fuss about 700 heat-related deaths in Pakistan. They failed to report that it happened during Ramadan, when no water is consumed from sunup to sundown. These people died of dehydration and heat stroke and their deaths were entirely avoidable. Temperatures in Pakistan reportedly reached 45C, certainly not a local record. I have experienced 50C in Luxor Egypt and we were fine.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/04/2c-or-not-2cthat-is-the-question/#comment-1558674

      • Allan,

        I know there are more deaths attributable to cold. But global warming is not going to eliminate cold where it happens. It may make winters a little less cold, or there may be fewer cold days, but winter will still occur, and there will still be excess mortality from it.

        I said mortality rises faster due to extreme heat than extreme cold. I had this article in mind: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext . Look at figure 1. Imagine that the mortality curves remained where they were, while the exposure (the bars) shifted to the right 2 C. The tail end of the exposure to heat would lead to a greater effect on mortality than the tail end on the cold end. You would still get mortality from cold, but the hot end rises more steeply.

        In Europe it is not common to have air conditioning, which is one reason the heat wave of 2003 was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Those who live in tropical areas are more accustomed to high temperatures, and can tolerate them better, but many people there have no A/C; potential mortality due to extreme heat is a particular concern in humid tropical regions.

        I don’t know the statistics, but mortality due to cold is often indirect through its exacerbation of disease and increase in illness potential, or simply through staying indoors with other sick people, with little fresh air – thus the lag. It might be argued that if people took better precautions (vaccination, dressing more carefully when going outside, more hand-washing, etc.), mortality might decrease. While there are things one can do to deal with heat, not everyone has access to them, and once the body is subject to a certain combination of ambient temperature and humidity it can no longer cool itself, regardless of how much water is consumed. Heat makes it harder to breathe and can lower air quality; the elderly and those in poor health are more likely to die.

        I’m not arguing that global warming will increase mortality overall. I have no idea; there are too many factors involved. By the same token, I think it’s hard to argue that it will lower overall mortality or that a colder world would raise it. People are adaptable, and they can migrate. (Whether other people will allow the “climate impaired” to migrate to their own countries is another question.)

        • Thank you Kristi,

          The Lancet paper you cite is excellent – “Gasparrini et al 2015”.
          https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

          Just after Joe D’Aleo and I published our first 2015 paper on Excess Winter Mortality, Gasparrini et al 2015 appeared, and it was so good that we re-published our paper to include its results.

          I see your point about the steeper tails on the warm side of the mortality curves in Figure 1.

          My point is the tails are very small numbers – the most important data is depicted in Figure 2, wherein moderate cold is by far the greatest killer and extreme heat, moderate heat and extreme cold are small in comparison.

          For public health policy, by far the greatest harm-reduction can be addressed by attacking the causes of death due to moderate cold. This is even true in warm countries like Thailand and Brazil.

          Note in Figure 2 the very high Excess Winter Mortality rates in China, Italy, Japan and the UK.

          Repeating from my paper:
          “Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 totaled over 50,000 souls, the highest since 1976, as compared to an annual average of about 100,000 in the USA. The population of England and Wales is about one-sixth that of the USA, so the United Kingdom had an Excess Winter Death Rate three times the USA average – a terrible, preventable tragedy.”

          Regarding UK government policy:
          For a fraction of the money squandered in the UK on nonsensical wind energy and solar power, the government could have retro-fitted every house in the country with modern heating systems and proper insulation. Had they allowed fracking of their abundant gassy shales near Blackpool , energy costs would be a fraction of their current high prices.

          If I wanted to kill off the elderly and the poor in the UK, I would follow their current government policies – opposition to shale fracking, and excessive reliance on wind power that drives up energy costs. It’s working.

  35. “C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.”

    If there’s a good and bad in climate, warm with lots of CO2 is good, and cool without CO2 is unequivocally bad.

    I am just really glad the global cooling scare turned into a global warming scare … because there is absolutely nothing at all to worry about in terms of warming, so it’s a total no brainer that the alarmists are stark raving bonkers.

    It’s my belief that what we’re actually seeing has almost nothing to do with the climate. Instead it is the dying days of the old fake media as the internet wins over. This old fake media is desperately increasing and increasing the fake news alarmist shrill content to try to manufacture a story to try to stave off economic collapse of their old fake news platforms. Global warming was just a convenient fake news scare story for them to be pushing in their dying days.

  36. Global cooling? LMAO. Please send me a credible scientific paper that suggests we are headed for global cooling. And can it be a paper not published by Zharkova? If you don’t have science on your side, the majority will not listen to you.

    • NOAA is forecasting into 2020 (at least) La Nina conditions, which are associated with global cooling. NASA is forecasting a Dalton-level SC25 beginning in 2020; solar minimums of that magnitude are associated with global cooling. Are you able to step outside of the box that only global warming can happen?

      • “Global warming” is so out-of-favor . . . it’s now “climate change”, so all incoming data can support the call for panic no matter what. Heck, the meme is even evolving into a “climate change emergency” so anything happening after 2020 might just be too far into the future to worry about.

  37. the increase in volcanic activity is a factor that could plunge the Earth into rapid global cooling…i noticed last week that a volcano in Russia called Shiveluch sent a plume of ash cloud 70,000ft into the atmosphere but they said it was an error and should have been 23,000ft..i doubt it was an error…also a later eruption went to 34,000ft,this will have a big impact on temperatures this coming winter in the northern countries from 50-60 degrees latitude

  38. Thank you all for the many good, well-informed comments.

    This is real peer review – not the fraudulent PAL-review that has characterized the scientific journals for decades, notably on the subjects of climate and energy..

    I say publish online, include your data and calculations in a spreadsheet, and let everyone take potshots at your conclusions.

    Regards to all, Allan

    • Hi Allan — the Guardian article you linked to for the high number of excess winter deaths in 2017-2018 attributes this primarily to an ineffective flu vaccine, not the temperature per se. IIRC, the main reason flu hits in winter is that it’s airborne and survives better in dry air than humid air.

      Have to check for possible confounding factors before making a sweeping assertion.
      b

      • Diogenes:
        I covered your point previously when I wrote above:

        “Individual-year statistics for Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) are highly variable and have many causes, including winter temperature and humidity, influenza, home insulation and heating systems and heating costs.

        Five-year-moving-average EWD trends for England and Wales were much higher in the 1950’s, declined and bottomed out circa 2003-2004 and have trended higher since then. While influenza is probably the greatest single factor driving EWD’s, I suggest that rapidly increasing energy costs and the poor state of UK housing insulation and heating systems are the primary factors that make EWD rates so much higher in the UK than in the USA.”

        Have to check what I already wrote before making a sweeping assertion.

  39. Note the very strong wind fields at 10 hPa, and the area they are impacting. The SSW event is slowing down a bit. As the top wind speeds have dropped from a peak around 330 mph down to 275 mph today. Wind speeds in the smaller rotation have picked up quite a bit though as can be seen on the right side of earthnull. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-313.87,-89.47,481/loc=-167.627,-74.150

    Is it the speed of that wind interacting with the nearby counter rotation which caused that region of the atmosphere to warm?

  40. To link excess winter deaths in the UK to abnormally low winter temperatures would be absolute nonsense, as is shown by a temperature departure graph wrt mean of 1981-2010 for UK from 1979 till now:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YIuBzoCv7oYm8k9Uq2bZu3KB9e7tBrnN/view

    We all see when looking at the 36 month running mean that no cooling even a bit greater than during the last 40 years has been at work. Compare the recent period with 1984-1987 or 2008-2011…

    The problem is like everywhere: older people become more and more poor, because the ratio between their average monthly pension and their cost of living has been falling for decades.

    And the increasing cost for energy supply is like everywhere by far not the highest factor. Linking that to increased costs for electricity, be it ‘renewable’ or not, is simply dishonest, as electricity itself is by far not the main energy supply source.

    The main factors leading to poverty are
    – the extremely rising apartment rents;
    – the no less soaring health insurance costs.

    Though Germany is on average ‘richer’ than UK, we see the same problem here.

    This is due to the perverse perception that only the (heavily increasing) average wealth matters, instead of taking into consideration the median wealth which becomes since decades lower and lower.

    Regards
    J.-P. D.

    • Did you mis thishttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46397891 you dont need abnormally cold temperatures you just need cold temperatures, for the vulnerable to suffer,in the recent past consumers had a choice of heating in cold weather,apart from rural areas,the choice now is very limited to electricity and or gas,were as in the recent past, coal,wood,oils of various types were used,and critically prices were not fixed as they are today, there is little choice and prices are a much for much,electricity is expensive if you are poor,infirm vulnerable, renewables will not supply the nation be it winter or summer,they are not a on demand generation, the last 7 days the UK has been burning coal contrary to popular belief,and importing nuclear generated power from France,apart from the weekend when demand dies down, when you are infirm,I’ll, poor, how much power should they use,what do you think? Sit in the cold till the kids come home,what a life A , I dont buy sit in your coat,put a jumper on,its demoralizing and has a negative effect on ones physical and mental health, in the past there was always one room warm were every one in the family could keep warm ,cast iron stoves kept the heat with very little fuel, the trend now is open plan living with high ceilings, yet another disaster for heating,at least folk in rural areas have a choice for now, but this might change with the green agendas,cold is going to become a increasing concern for UK residents ,if you dont have the means thermostats are going to be turned lower

        • So you did not understand the link, thatfigures, as for coal power generation the demand drops in the evening ,try through the day,you did not understand what I wrote, how convenient for you, let’s hope you never become poor in your old age pal, did you understand that,

          • 1. I’m all but rich.
            2. All really poor people I know don’t have enough money for a computer, let alone for Internet communication.

          • Exactly so how are they supposed to pay there electricity Bill’s, on the other paw ,poor people in a social sense do have mobile internet,the social cost of not being connected is degrading, I notice you also hang out on Spencer’s blog,telling people the near 4 year trend of lower atmosheric cooling is wrong,the data shows you are wrong,the cyclic nature of temperature over the period is a downward trend, with last months data showing no increase or decrease,if co2 was major contributer the el Nino 2016 event would of seen no temp drop after 2016,we dont see this,,there is no linear trend to cooling the near 4 years worth of data shows the cyclic nature of temp variation ,with a downward trend.

    • Bindi wrote:
      “To link excess winter deaths in the UK to abnormally low winter temperatures would be absolute nonsense…”

      Another strawman fallacy – that is not what I said. That seems to be a standard tactic among those who try to dispute the observations in this paper. Not at all honest, btw.

      I suggest that Excess Winter Deaths correlate with normally cold weather, severity of the flu, poor home insulation, high heating costs, and low incomes.

      Have you ever heard of “Heat or Eat” in the UK? It is a dilemma that elderly UK pensioners face – they have to choose between heating their homes and having food. They choose food.

      Read D’Aleo and MacRae 2015, cited above. See Figure 2 and think about what is shows. Compare different countries – figure it out.

    • Less sun, lower vitamin D3, less immunity, more death.
      Not complicated enough to get a big grant to investigate speculation, is it?

  41. February 2019 was the coldest February on the Canadian Prairies since 1979 and the second-coldest since 1950. I blame global warming!
    Source: Ray Garnett, via Madhav Khandekar.

    Year Feb
    1950 -14.05
    1951 -14.93
    1952 -10.39
    1953 -9.9
    1954 -4.5
    1955 -15.1
    1956 -15.64
    1957 -13.71
    1958 -14.33
    1959 -14.78
    1960 -13.11
    1961 -9.85
    1962 -17.39
    1963 -12.05
    1964 -7.58
    1965 -16.14
    1966 -15.39
    1967 -15.36
    1968 -11.91
    1969 -14.23
    1970 -12.22
    1971 -11.53
    1972 -18.21
    1973 -12.05
    1974 -12.98
    1975 -15.77
    1976 -9.59
    1977 -5.73
    1978 -15.62
    1979 -21.91
    1980 -12.92
    1981 -8.78
    1982 -15.12
    1983 -9.04
    1984 -4.1
    1985 -15.3
    1986 -13.82
    1987 -5.93
    1988 -12.17
    1989 -17.35
    1990 -12.77
    1991 -5.61
    1992 -8.05
    1993 -12.38
    1994 -18.92
    1995 -11.57
    1996 -11.87
    1997 -9.52
    1998 -4.56
    1999 -7.67
    2000 -8.97
    2001 -15.89
    2002 -7.44
    2003 -14.39
    2004 -9.33
    2005 -9.39
    2006 -11.06
    2007 -15.17
    2008 -12.86
    2009 -11.65
    2010 -10.20
    2011 -14.3
    2012 -7.7
    2013 -12.1
    2014 -18.2
    2015 -14.9
    2016 -6.0
    2017 -8.9
    2018 -16.7
    2019 -20.0

  42. Allan McRae

    I’m terrified!

    Do you know
    – that the GHCN daily station in Cotton, Minnesota, reported -48.9 °C at the beginning of February 2019
    and
    -that for the entire February, the Cotton station reported an average absolute temperature of -20.09 °C
    BUT
    – that the top ten of the ascending temperature sort for the station looks like this below?

    1. 1982 1 -21.95
    2. 1996 1 -20.87
    3. 1994 1 -20.66
    4. 2019 1 -20.23
    5. 2019 2 -20.09
    6. 1963 1 -19.60

    2018 2 -19.42
    1979 1 -19.32
    1966 1 -19.30
    1971 1 -19.30

    AND
    – that the top ten of the ascending temperature sort for the whole Minnesota station average looks like this?

    1887 1 -29.16
    1888 1 -27.90
    1912 1 -27.69
    1936 2 -25.83
    1982 1 -25.77
    1886 1 -25.67
    1937 1 -24.76
    1979 1 -24.75
    1929 1 -24.36
    1994 1 -24.08

    No, no! Don’t look for 2018/19 here, they are far far below, at positions
    90. 2019 2 -19.77
    and
    107. 2018 2 -19.17

    Do you understand what I mean?

    You are cherry-picking the Canadian Plains and produce here in fact the same scary material as all what you are complaining about, but with the opposite sign.

    I’ll never get tired to write that Warmistas aren’t good people, but that in turn Coolistas aren’t even a bit better.

    It’s late now at UTC+2, good night.

    Let me conclude that
    – Minnesota’s Cotton Feb 2019 anomaly wrt the mean of 1981-2010 was, with -9.91 °C, even somewhat higher than Germany’s entire station anomaly average for Feb… 1956, namely -10.18 °C
    and that
    – Minnesota’s station anomaly average for Feb 2019 was… -5.22 °C.

    Oh yes! The world is coooooooooooooling! But it is imho only for the Americanocentrists.

    *
    Data source:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

    • Bindi:

      No I do not understand what your wrote, because you tend to write incoherent nonsense and I cannot be bothered trying to decipher it.

      Also, when people get hysterical as you have above, I tend to dismiss them as loud-mouthed imbeciles.

      Individual weather stations, as ably demonstrated by Anthony Watts and colleagues, can be severely flawed.

      The data on the Canadian prairies was collected by an eminent climate scientist, Ray Garnett, who was introduced to me by another eminent climate scientist, my long-time friend Madhav Khandekar.

      Ray just sent me a climate paper he co-authored with Madhav, and I read it tonight – it is a remarkable piece of scholarship. On the climate issue, I’ll side with Ray and Madhav, not with you.

  43. One more of our successful predictions to brag about, this one in Autumn 2014.

    You may recall that winter, when Boston and much of the USA Northeast was snowed-in.

    Score to date
    IPCC and acolytes: 0 Us (“climate deniers”): Beaucoup.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/17/will-the-snowiest-decade-continue/#comment-2521694

    Prior to the record snowfall in the winter of 2014–15, Joe d’Aleo and I sent a written warning to my friend at the EIA, stating that the NWS weather forecast that EIA used was extremely in error, and warning of a very cold and snowy winter to come, especially for the Northeast Coast.

    The EIA reran their lower 48 USA energy demand for that winter using Joe’s forecast and calculated an additional 11% total energy required for the winter months. The actual energy consumption were one percent lower than Joe’s forecast and 10% higher in the NWS forecast. That is a huge amount of energy.

    I do not know what contingency the EIA uses, so I don’t know if we saved any lives. Nevertheless, I believe we did a good deed and we may have indeed significantly reduced human suffering.

    In summary, if you want an accurate weather forecast, go to WeatherBell, not NWS.

  44. If anyone doubts it’s cooling or having some effect, please check out these links

    https://www.iceagenow.info/us-growing-degree-days-plummet/

    http://iceagefarmer.com/gdd/?zip=49814

    “Growing degree days (GDD) are a measure of heat accumulation used by horticulturists, gardeners, and farmers to predict plant and animal development rates such as the date that a flower will bloom, an insect will emerge from dormancy, or a crop will reach maturity. “

    h/t Robert Felix and iceagefarmer

  45. Allan McRae

    Thanks for insulting me, I don’t bother about that. Over 45 years of experience in communicating with people have teached me that the less somebody will understand simple matters, the more s/he will be inclined to insult.

    It was so simple to understand that it makes no sense to reduce the world to a few million km² and to say ‘I blame global warming!’ That is useless polemics. The examples I have shown in my reply speak for themselves.

    *
    Thank you also for the excellent paper. Compared with your superficial polemics about global cooling, this paper by Garnett and Khandekar is a monument of precision, conciseness, and sobriety. I loved it.

    Now back to your time series! I had a big laugh as I read in your reply:

    Individual weather stations, as ably demonstrated by Anthony Watts and colleagues, can be severely flawed.

    Good grief! From what, do you think, did their data come from? From some magic box?
    On page 257 of their paper, you see in Table 1 the source of their temperature data.

    The time series provided by Garnett of course is, like that generated out of the GHCN daily dataset (over 40,000 temperature stations worldwide), an average of the data measured by hundreds of stations located in the Canadian Prairies (from 1 in 1872 up to 734 in 2002, and down to 330 in 2019).

    Thus you might suspect Garnett’s data to be flawed as well. Why not?

    But I have shown here at WUWT that the difference between a handful of pristine CONUS stations and the entire GHCN daily station set for CONUS is simply negligible.

    Here is a comparison of Garnett’s data with what I generated:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_pc7rduyatlawOxDzb0XnZv9BAnK3-Op/view

    As you can see, both time series are nearly identical.

    But they are useless, as they are the result of a manifold cherry-picking:
    – restricting the data to one month
    – restricting the period to 40 years instead of 140 available
    and above all
    – confounding, intentionally or not, a few millions of km² with Earth’s surface.

    One could add, for the last 40 years, the lack of an analysis comparing surface and the lower troposphere above it, like e.g. this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/18qfZRGkstnH7mwIAs6jmkFVX7T1MNeFl/view

    *
    In my humble opinion, Mr McRae, there might very well be a Global Cooling in the future. But its reason will considerably differ from what you try to propagate: it will rather be a consequence of excessive warming, regardless wether man-made or not.

    • Bindi wrote:
      “In my humble opinion, Mr McRae, there might very well be a Global Cooling in the future. But its reason will considerably differ from what you try to propagate: it will rather be a consequence of excessive warming, regardless wether man-made or not.”

      So you say Bindi that excessive warming will cause cooling. Right-O!

      Let’s leave it there and agree to disagree.

Comments are closed.