Global Warming is Over: Don Easterbrook
Posted by Charlotte Ramotswe, December 29th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
IN 2001 geologist Don Easterbook predicted the beginning of a period of global cooling. At a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco he again predicted a period of cooling based in part on correlation between past glacial fluctuations, his area of expertise, with periods of low solar irradiance and changes in the Pacific Ocean:
“GLOBAL, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.
The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3–5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3–0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007–2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.
Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25–30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over.
The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.
The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.
Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate. The degree to which we may be prepared to cope with these problems may be significantly affected by how much money we waste chasing the CO2 fantasy.
All of these problems will be exacerbated by the soaring human population. The current world population of about 6 ½ billion people is projected to increase by almost 50% during the next 30 years of global cooling (Figure 2). The problems associated with the global cooling would be bad enough at current population levels. Think what they will be with the added demands from an additional three billion people, especially if we have uselessly spent trillions of dollars needlessly trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, leaving insufficient funds to cope with the real problems.
********************************************************
Don J. Easterbrook is a geologist at the Department of Geology, Western Washington University. He has authored 8 books (including the text book Surface processes and landform Prentice Hall Publishing Co., 546 p.) ) and 150 journal publications.
This article is republished from Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco December, 2008.
Picture of the Nooksack Cirque, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, from Professor Easterbook’s website here: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/photos.htm
That Drake analysis of past CO2 levels is here;
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf
Willimc
“Peer-reviewed studies of ice-cores show temperature changes always proceed CO2 changes. Why does this not falsify AGW theory?”
Because the proponents of AGW KNOW they are right, therefore that ice core data must be wrong or badly analysed. And if they can’t get rid of it, they simply ignore it by not thinking about it.
Cohenite,
Drake’s analysis is pretty conclusive – temperature precedes CO2.
I should add to Wiilimc’s question – AGW is also a non falsifiable hypothesis, otherwise the ice core data would have clinched it. In any case this fact is also proof that it isn’t science.
So the argument has to settle on the real agenda behind the AGW.
Hi Louis; the Drake paper provides a simple adjustment to historical CO2 levels which, as you say, further removes any semblance of correlation between temp and CO2; still, I concede this is a problematic area; perhaps the best analysis of the CO2/temp record is by Steve McIntyre;
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
Plus Craig loehle’s paper;
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
And this site is fun;
http:www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html [ // excluded]
Cohenite – yawn – mate this is way past Ruddiman. Do try to keep up with your reading. zzzzzz
But Cohers – shhhhh – don’t tell WilliMc about the PETM – shhhh
Louis – of course temperature precedes CO2 in the ice cores – what else would you expect – are you actually that stupid? And what does it have to do with AGW – nothing !
Cohenite
Luke points out that Ice Core CO2-Temperature reconstructions has nothing to do with AGW.
This proves my point made earlier that inconvenient facts are ignored.
Roy Spencer’s latest post on his new blog http://www.drroyspencer.com/ puts it all into perspective.
In terms of physical behavour, CO2 is basically irrelevant in the scheme of things, especially when you have the energy inputs and outputs of the Earth badly wrong.
Cohenite, and all others
When posting a url here, just remove the http:// from the url and it will be automatically added to it when you submit it.
Thanks Louis; I’ll definitely be using those graphs; perspective is everything as Figs 5 and 6 from this piece demonstrate;
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Cohenite
You are a veritable source of new information – but it’s the old graphology trick by manipulating the axes of graphs to inflate visual effects. John Brignell dwelt at length on it years ago.
I finished reading David Archibald’s new book Solar Cycle 24 and the appendices are excellent – until I sat down and studied Bishop Hill’s summary of the Caspar and the Jesus Paper, I was not that certain I understood what Steve McIntyre demonstrated – well, I had an idea but was confused with the terminology.
David’s effort is excellent and should be read by anyone who doesn’t need to understand the nitty gritty of the science, for what little there is behind AGW.
In any case AGW is simply a well crafted fraud that is continually unravelling as more and more thoughtful scientists start to look into it.
I always wondered what would happen when the social sciences ended up controlling the quasi-scientific disciplines of geography during the middle 70’s. AGW!
But the fact that a geologist can predict a future climate state from his own area of expertise and be proven, more or less, correct suggests that the biggest mistake made by the IPCC was to ignore the geologists.
Not to worry, science wins out in the end, it is the minimising of the collateral damage during the slow awakening that remains top priority.
Incidentally we are not fighting AGW proponents per se, but the state, or the system – both ALP and the Libs because both support big government. AGW is simply the latest ploy to tax us using guilt as a forcing.
I wonder when Luke will notice the sea change in attitude and change sides.
The global climate system has NOT cooled since 1998. This is easily provable:
1. Most of the heat capacity of the climate system is in ocean (80+%)
2. The oceans are still expanding pretty steadily since 1998, with minor fluctuations from La Nina events (1999 and 2007).
3. This expansion is partly from melting land ice, but more from thermal expansion.
4. This thermal expansion is the direct result of an imbalance in the heat budget of the climate: heat-in > heat-out.
QED, the climate is still warming at a steady rate since 1998.
The most recent data show a rapid increase of sea level in 2008, erasing the decline of the 2007 La Nina year, putting the sea level increase back on the steady uptrend in place since the beginning of satellite data.
Please write again after the total heat content of the climate system has measurably decreased.
Brad, do you have links for your assertions? Otherwise rubbish;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SIYXrFZ6nEI/AAAAAAAAADU/VKrUIi87sTM/s1600-h/Global+Sea+Level.bmp
Oh Brad,
http://www.redbubble.com/people/krisvahl/art/458188-8-oh-brad
Can you save us? Sob, sob, sob………..
Brad is spot on Cohers and you’ve just showed your hand arguing black is white for the clients. You climate crook. This is typical pseudo-scepticism. Pathetic even by your standards.
I prefer http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
But Cohers likes to present a snippet of a time series, not even up-to-date (missed today’s readings!) with a hand drawn line through it. Ask Mrs Cohers about testing the significance of regressions too. NS I think you’ll find.
WJP and Cohers – try this – will explain the details of sea level argument – http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=eDTp1TdWCQM
[...] the folks at Jennifer Marohasy’s environmental blog, Anthropogenic Global Warming has been thoroughly disproved beyond all doubt, and those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this are akin to religious zealots [...]
“climate crook”? Anyway hope this is long enough for you luke; and no, it’s not a Youtube link;
http://www.science-direct.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4RP0MR9-8&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F15%2F2008&_rdoc=14&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235801%232008%23997319998%23683218%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5801&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=28&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2fdd45939db81d7f31df7fd7ac58e71
And my old favourite;
http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
So much for thermal swelling, or whatever you want to call it.
Oh dear, that first link didn’t deliver; well mustn’t disappoint luke; try this one instead;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003175.html#comments
Relevance – nil. Desperate Cohers. Desperate.
I confess that I did not wade through all the post and the links. But what I did read had enough mantra about “cycles” without some statistical metric to make me worry. Reminds me of “chartist” technical analysis of stocks. Which any finance professor will tell you is rubish. Let’s not associate with rubish. Do better denialists! I am one of you, but I hate it when you entertain silliness. Makes me worry that we don’t have so much in our quiver.
hello cohenite,
from your response of January 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm:
“Brad, do you have links for your assertions?”
Thanks for the question, but I’m not sure what you mean. Are you unfamiliar with the numerous published papers that estimate the sizes of the various components of the climate system in terms of heat content? (Assertion #1)
here’s a few:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/Beltrami_et_al_Journal.pdf
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-76939-2006-AB.pdf
Assertion #2: the oceans are expanding. Jennifer posted a chart a few weeks ago:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sea-level-drop.jpg
I love how she labeled it “sea-level-drop”. She’s such a kidder. Do see on the chart how the 1998 values range from about -15 to 0mm? And the 2008 values are from about +10 to +30mm?
Is that too hard to read or understand? I thought it was pretty plainly obvious that sea level has been rising since 1998, by roughly 30mm, or about 3mm/year. Do you disagree?
Then you put up a chart showing a portion of the same data, from 2005 to 2007/early2008. Is that limited window of data relevant to the question of what has happened since 1998? Remember the OP? Waaaaaaay up top is says – and I quote:
“…and global cooling has occurred since 1998. ”
So are we discussing cooling/warming since 1998, or since 2005?
Do you agree that sea level is 30mm higher now than in 1998 (assertion #2), and that most of the heat capacity of the climate system is in the ocean (assertion #1)?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hello Brad,
I think cohenite’s point was that the slidy thingo on SahulTime tells us there has been 0 metres of sea level rise for the last 5476 years … so therefore, ipso facto, QED, primo, secundo, tertio, etc ,etc, anyone in the world who thinks sea level has risen based on what the data says is completely and utterly freakin bonkers.
Hmmm, but maybe I’m reading him wrong …
Well anyhoo, it IS rather cool to muck around with.
Totally agree – its amazing how the warmists get so spiteful, bitter and nasty in blogs like this the world over as soon as an alternate view is provided. The very essence of science and being a scientist is that all theories are considered and that balanced debate continues indefinitely. The day that stops is the day science dies. The ‘warmists’ have become ‘prostitutes of science’, and as an environmental scientist myself this AGW religious fanaticism makes me ill to the very core! So much so that Iam currently considering a career shift, as I no longer an proud of my profession.
Everything I was taught in becoming a scientist, is to debate, consider, re-consider and to check and double check and to consider all hyoptheses.
The very behaviour of warmists practically gives themselves away. They’re quick to jump the skeptics collective throats about being selective in their arguments – yet the very foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in the selective use of data. Everything, and I mean ‘everything’ that the ‘warmologists’ prescribe to is based on the selective use of available information.
Talk about the High Priests preaching “do as we say and not as we do”.
As communism was the great ideological failure of the 20th century in its attempt to repress human development, so too will ‘de-carbonism’ eventually be seen as the great ideological failure of the 21st century in trying to repress human development.
Prof Bob Carter also agrees with Dr Easterbrook, the evidence is more supportive of a cooling trend. Anyhow, the question most often evaded is: ‘where is the causal connection specifically between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming?’ Dr David Evans, late of the Australian Greenhouse Office for six years, failed to make a causal connection between any CO2 and global warming. Also, anthropogenic CO2 represents only 3% of all CO2 emissions, it is difficult to imagine that even if all man-made emissions ceased there would be much difference to climate change even if one could find a causal connection. Isn’t this all about new markets and more money for the seriously wealthy?
[...] has gone into one of its recurring quiet phases. * If this solar trend continues, the earth will continue to cool despite human CO2 emissions and despite the projections of any of the Climate [...]