I’ve added the Category of Global Cooling (see the right hand side listing of categories) and will, as time permits, add it to some older postings on cooling events.
It was suggested by Larry Ledwick in a comment that also includes some links / pointers to information about Global Cooling recently.
A few years back I had stopped posting articles on “cold weather events” since Iceage Now does rather a good job of it; so I just posted a pointer at them. Given recent changes in global weather for the colder, it may be time to revisit that.
They have an article up at the moment talking about how the Official Weather Data (i.e. the horridly biased and adjusted “data”) shows a 0.56 C drop in average of temperatures:
https://www.iceagenow.info/greatest-two-year-global-cooling-event-in-100-years-media-ignores-it/
It is surrounded by a LOT of articles that detail particular cold weather events, so well worth a “Hit the link!”.
Here’s most of it quoted, as it has some good links in it:
Greatest two-year global cooling event in 100 years – Media ignores it
November 24, 2018 by Robert“We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling,” says this article in Investor’s Business Daily. “NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years.”
“Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising,” says IBD. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.”
Wouldn’t you consider this to be newsworthy?
Apparently it wasn’t.
“In the three weeks following the Real Clear Markets story, no other news outlet picked up on it,” IBD continues. “They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism’s impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that “our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly.”
Meanwhile, opposing views remain hidden.
“There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.
“Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
“Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
“How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?
See both articles in their entirety:
Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling
Thanks to Vance, Don Wilkening, Benjamin Napier and Jim S for these links
I left out some of the more generic links, like to the phys.org search on climate change, and the data on Polar Bears. If you want those, hit the link. Heck, hit it anyway and read the other articles and comments in them.
IIRC (and I usually do) even the cooked data series only had about 1/2 C of “warming” in it. That means this drop ought to put as back at Dead Flat. NO “Recorded” Global Warming (and the reality is record cold EVER, which gives you an idea how biased the “Official” data have become). While I hate to say it, as it does mean people and animals are dying from the cold: Thank God for the Modern Little Ice Age as that is the only thing that can put a stake in the heart of this Global Warming Monstrosity.
Feel free to post links to other Global Cooling stories or data sources in comments below. This is a general discussion page for Global Cooling related stuff, interpreted loosely. Even if it is just saving a link for later.
Musings from the Chiefio 
http://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/?fbclid=IwAR0UrPm-Jkg0TBzdi3oyTbmRHfpEiyv9_uL8aVzHk-2CpZFVLHD2fXC9mDo
Link posted on previous WOOD. Hard to listen to her, but she is forecasting a cold spell.
The Brown article was published in April, 7 months ago.
I usually look at Roy S & John C’s Global Lower Atmosphere chart and its red line — Running, centered 13-month average. So, I’m waiting for the November departure.
March of 2016 hit a high, mostly down since then. The monthly number bounces, and while there is some serious weather around the world, it doesn’t seem record setting in temperature. Central Washington temp-charts by day ( HERE ) are well within normal range.
So my guess is we are still seeing a cooling atmosphere. Weather? Climate? Why? I have no idea.
From the State between you and me, here is an interesting approach.
Pete Parsons of OR’s Dept of Forestry
This month he used analog years of 1986-87, 2006-2007, & 2012-2013.
He is looking for slightly up December temps, and seriously down January temps, especially on the high parts east of the Cascades. We are <100 miles from OR's northern border.
It’s worth reading the original article:
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html
And here’s an exerpt:
“The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it’s not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.
None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend. Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. Another point is both February 1998 and February 2016 were peak El Niño months so the record declines are starting from high peaks—but it’s also true that there have been many other peak El Niño months in the past century and none were followed by such dramatic cooling.
My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that’s a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that’s a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that’s a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there’s no story.”
Despite what it may wrought,
(cooling I mean, ) the climate
warming industry’s invested in
a fear-and-guilt-campaign of
hot! hot! hot! and it cannot
let itself be open to data
that contradicts its mantra –
namely, ‘Yikes! the models
show yer otherwise, yer need
ter send more money ter fund
the technocrat who’ll save yer,
and us! us! us! ‘
Serioso quoted “The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before.”
There was a cooling trend from around 1940 to around the mid-1970s, so that during the early 1970’s the media was telling us that the Earth was cooling and we’d soon be in a new Ice Age. Of course, when the official period required to pronounce a change in climate is 30 years, and there’s a cycle of around 60 years, then it’s pretty obvious that a straight-line projection of the current trend is going to swing between “Ice Age” and “overheating”. Or maybe a stasis if you choose the start and end dates carefully.
Of course, we won’t be able to assess the quality of any predictions until we’ve experienced the conditions and are looking back at history. However, it does seem that all predictions of the End Of The World have actually been wrong. At the moment we’re being told that each year has been hotter than the previous one, but my vines beg to differ since they certainly didn’t see enough sun this year. Instead, I get the impression that we’ve been seeing cooler and wetter years here than the 2000-2010 decade. Yep, that’s only local, but I also see that in other places too.
As far as I can tell, judging by farm produce and social history, the 1930s were hotter than any recent decades. I’ve seen evidence that the historical temperature records have been corrected downwards, and I know that modern temperature records are largely done using thermocouples with a much faster response, and are thus not directly comparable anyway. When you’re looking at temperatures with a 1-second resolution you get far more variation than a Mercury-in-glass thermometer with a response of several minutes. You’ll see more volatility in the measurements even if the actual conditions are the same.
A temperature measurement is itself an average of the kinetic energy contained in one thermodynamic Degree of Freedom. The average temperature of the Earth depends on where you take your reference points, and if you walk around with a fast-acting thermometer you’ll find that even the local temperature isn’t a constant value at any particular time. It varies by quite a few degrees depending on the local surroundings, such as concrete, blacktop tarmac, grassland or woods. Basically, the thermometer gives you an idea of whether you need to wear a T-shirt, a pullover or a thicker coat. What really matters is what foods will grow, and they generate their own microclimates anyway that will be different as regards humidity and temperature from what you’ll measure in a Stevenson enclosure.
In the UK, the winter of 1947 was pretty bad. I can only remember the winter of 1963, where the snow that fell was still in piles on the side of the street until late May. As far as I can tell, the CO2 level has had a pretty monotonous rise, and was rising while the temperatures were dropping from 1940-1970. Of course, during that period there may well have been a slight rise of sea temperatures, since sea temperatures were measured by dropping a bucket into the sea and then putting a thermometer in the bucket. Lucky to get an accuracy of +-2°C that way. Warm the oceans and they won’t hold as much CO2, so it will come out of solution.
Overall, it seems that the historical temperature data is not particularly accurate, and cannot reasonably be compared with today’s measurements. As such, we should really be looking at what grew naturally, and what food crops were grown. Though it won’t be precise as regards a scientific measurement, it does have the advantage of being relevant. If there’s not enough food, people starve. As far as I can tell, when things were a few degrees warmer than today then it was easier to grow food. Higher CO2 levels also make food grow better. The current 3% or so of human contributions to the CO2 emitted don’t seem enough to counter the increased uptake of growing things, given how close we are to the minimum percentage required for green plants to grow – the total CO2 in the atmosphere above a square metre (air pressure around 10 tonnes/square metre, 400ppm CO2 gives 4kg of CO2/square metre total) can be totally used up by a few kg of crops. It simply doesn’t make sense that we should want to reduce that further and reduce crop yields.
As predictions go, I’m more inclined to think we’re going to get cooler again over the next decade or so. That’s based on the 60-year cycles we know of anyway, and there looks to be a good chance that the “quiet sun” predictions have a better historical correlation with known cold periods. We’ll also be around 1% further way from the Sun than normal this winter, as the celestial mechanics take their predictable course. Since the drop in temperatures will likely be too large for the MSM to wave it away as Global Warming, and it’ll take a decade to reach the low point, hopefully we’ll adjust in time for the coldest period we’ll have known for a while.
John F. Hultquist says: 26 November 2018 at 5:39 am
“The monthly number bounces, and while there is some serious weather around the world, it doesn’t seem record setting in temperature. Central Washington temp-charts by day ( HERE ) are well within normal range.”
John, you can’t be looking very hard, IceAgeNow lists lots of major cooling events over October & November, especially in the US. Very early substantial snow falls worldwide is one of them.
Even President Trump noted that Thanksgiving day was the coldest on record.
Well, remember, climate is local like weather is local. Conditions matter. Thermometers don’t measure temperature, either. They measure proxy properties thought to be related to the internal kinetic energy of a defined sample of matter, if we are talking about the thermodynamic temperature. The catch is that these proxies are abstracted relationships that are fit by complex mathematical functions, and again, conditions matter.
Simon nailed it.
We are seeing weather. Your weather determines your climate, later.
This year, where I live, we went from a warmer than average October (but not a local record) to a cooler than average November (also not a record). Rainfall’s been near average. Most years don’t hit the average. They are more or less above it or below it.
Even the most ardent acolyte of AGW will eventually have to feel the cold. I do not expect them to become atheists, but rather, like Serioso, to once again dismiss and ignore. Once the Thames freezes over again, the first few years will be screams of AGW causing it. When people stop buying that (and using windmills to keep them warm in the dead of winter), they will change their tune to AGC (as it was 40 years ago). It will be the same religion, and they will deny they ever claimed AGW, but the AG will remain, and it will always be BIG government that is our only saving grace.
I have seen their scam for too long to believe any of them really believe it. They are the “Good Life” of Saberhagen’s Berserker series. They only seek to be included in the new rulers palaces.
Serioso says “The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before.”
True, if you look at a current global or N.H. temperature chart.
However if you look at a N.H. chart from the 1980s you will see somewhat dramatic cooling and the ice age scare and all. The warmists are on record talking about getting rid of that period as well as the M.W.P; and they did!
@philjourdan: there’s some question as to whether the thames River can freeze over since the Victoria embankment narrowed the stream. I agree that it would be very provocative for the warmists if this were to occur.
@David A:
I remember that whole period through the Mid-70s. It ended in The Great Pacific Climate Shift. It was well known exactly when it happened. There used to be a Wiki page but it looks like it has been found guilty of heresy and taken out and shot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=great+pacific+climate+shift&sourceid=Mozilla-search
But lots of other folks remember it:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=great+pacific+climate+shift&t=ffsb&ia=web
In 1976 – 1977 there was a sudden jump up in West Coast ocean temps. Essentially ALL of the “modern era” warming happens in that step function NOT from CO2 over time. When the ocean rearranges back to the prior way, we will drop a few degrees just as fast.
THAT is the actual cause of any present “Climate Change” and they are working as hard as possible to ignore and erase it from the data and public view.
Now a really interesting question is what caused it and how. Followed closely by “was something the inverse of it done to cause the 1930 warm spike?” Is it 1/2 of the 60 ish year cycle, or something longer? It points strongly to lunar driven tidal changes with orbital shifts over time…
FWIW, to Serioso’s claim: It was colder in the ’60s than in the ’50s (first time I ever saw snow in my old home town was 1963. Asking the local old folks they said it was very rare and there had been NONE during the hot ’30s, warm ’40s, and pleasant ’50s. It also snowed in the early ’70s when I was in college (about ’74 IIRC and just before the Great Pacific Climate Shift). The late ’60s and early ’70s were notably cooler and the local farmers lost more crops to frost (and us local kids got more work tending ‘smudge pots’ in orchards to prevent freezes). After the Shift, smudging kind of dried up and there was no more snow on the Valley Floor – though it has returned as a few dustings after the (roughly) 2008 or so cooling started.
The claim that we’ve warmed continuously since the ’50s is just spurious junk claims. Bogus. I remember the folks in my little town all out in the street marveling at snow where it had not been for decades. Some of the locals were in their ’80s and ’90s and lived there the whole time. I tended to talk with them as they sat in the park across from our restaurant and we all knew each other. They told me about how hot it had been in the ’30s, but that it had been much colder in the late 1800s when they were kids… That was my first exposure to their common wisdom that weather came in lifetime long cycles. “Was cold when I was a kid, then got hot, then got cold again like it was for my folks”… They “disabused me” of the notion of a “new little ice age” in the ’70s as they reported on what was known then of the cyclical changes and prior ranges of hot and cold.
I lived from the ’50s to now in essentially the same place (inside 200 miles) and lived vicariously through their stories in that place back into the founding in the 1800s. These were Mormon Farmers so payed a lot of attention to weather trends and made sure their kids knew about it too. Talk of weather and climate dominated the conversation at meal times in the restaurant as farmers needed to place their bets on how to prepare for what. There was a lot of talk of prior times and what happened then. As I washed dishes at the “coffee cups & glasses” sink at the counter, I got to listen to YEARS of such talk… A decent education, that.
NOBODY can sell me the crap story that it wasn’t hotter in the ’30s, colder in the late ’60s to early ’70s; that there was a step function in the 76-77 time to warmer. Then a bit of rise to 2000 and slowly dropping since.
When we first moved into this house in about the 1980s we ran the mid sized wall AC every summer for lots of days. I had sprinklers on the roof and would wash down the stucco walls with a hose on the really hot days. I remember one day of 105 F in particular (out of several). Tomatoes were easy to grow. The last few summers a much smaller window AC has been used even less, almost not at all. Tomatoes were a challenge to grow and didn’t produce well before frost took them. The roof sprinklers are gone, and at no time did I feel like hosing off the stucco so it would be cool enough to sleep at night… I know, not too many folks live in the same place for 30-ish years, but I have.
I’ve lived the history of The Great Pacific Climate Shift and nobody can erase that.
So I look at that claim about steady warming from the ’50s and just wonder how to get some of what they are smoking…
Speaking of which:
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/30/el-nino-southwestern-drought/
Click to access co_update_snow.pdf
So El Niño results in higher precipitation, given the temperature / moisture relationship required for glacier build up in the Rockies, do glacial advances in this area correspond to El Niño like or La Niña like conditions in the pacific ocean?
The way El Niño and La Niña behave in Colorado is during La Niña conditions snow fall increases in the northern part of the state and the south west dries out, while under El Niño condition the relationship reverses with heavier snows in the south west mountains and drier in the northern part of the state.
https://www.9news.com/article/weather/weather-colorado/does-el-nino-mean-big-snow-for-colorado/73-600497491
http://climate.colostate.edu/co_enso.html
Using this tool it looks like temperature wise El Niño and La Niña have relatively little effect on central Colorado temperatures, but to modify precipitation.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/climaterisks/
Our big snow maker for the northern front range and urban corridor areas come from a strong low pressure setting up over the extreme south east corner of the state. When that coincides with supporting conditions (high pressures to the north that create a cold front plunging along the front range and the low pressure being strong enough and slow enough (blocked by a high to the north east, the general circulation will pump warm moist air from the gulf states up into the rising ground of Colorado’s high plains which if a cold outbreak is timed right to form a cold layer of air up against the front range then you can get prolonged heavy snow along the front range.
Regarding your statements about cold conditions in the late 20th century the coldest winters I have ever experienced in Colorado metro area were in the early 1960’s and early 1970’s with a close second to early 1980’s
Winter of 1962- 1963 -30 deg F in west suburbs of Denver metro area
Winter of 1972-73 deep snow and cold in Denver
Winter of 1982 Christmas blizzard (heavy snow but not as sharp cold as above)
Some Data, Some Thoughts, Some Intelligence on the Subject of Global Warming
According to a variety of sources [you can look them up], our planet has been warming at a rate of 0.0157°C per year over the past fifty or sixty or seventy years. The equation is T = 0.0157 y +K, where K is an arbitrary constant depending on when the data series starts and which database is used. What you probably don’t know is the sigma, ϭ, or standard deviation from this straight line. It is ± 0.0955, or six times the slope. To put it in plain language, the annual slope is only one-sixth of the standard deviation. Because changes around two standard deviations are not at all rare, from one year to the next one can expect, from time to time, random changes of at least 0.2°C from one year to the next. Such changes are possible, even likely.
So: What does this mathematical information say about the possibility of global cooling? First of all, it says a yearly cooling of 0.2°C is likely to happen once in a while. But what about a much bigger cooling, 0.4°C or 0.5°C? That sounds like a 4ϭ or 5ϭ event, much more unlikely, right? No, not if one breaks down the time series by shorter intervals, months [or even weeks]. Then the “noise,” i.e., the standard deviation, increases, and the slope becomes even smaller compared to the noise. Guess what? By cherry picking end points, it’s an easy chore to find periods of time where the average global temperature decreases sharply. And what does this mean? Absolutely nothing, except that there are human beings who prefer cherry picking to serious analysis. Which is, in part, why I chose my moniker: I prefer serious dialog to politicised noise.
As for comments on local climate in California/Colorado/Nowheresville, what can I say except to point to their complete lack of serious relevance. We are talking about the whole earth! Comments about local climate lack serious intellectual engagement with the subject at hand. Not that I’m surprised. It is obvious that almost no one read the source article, which said pretty much the same thing I have said here. It would appear that y’all will believe anything that supports your prejudgments. Shame!