Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Press for a ‘Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’ (

Press for a ‘Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts

( – Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.

Easterbrook’s predictions were “right on the money” seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a “planetary emergency.”

“When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it’s luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button,” Easterbrook told

“For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC,” said Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and  author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” which was published in 2011. (See EasterbrookL coming-century-predictions.pdf)

In contrast, Gore and the IPCC’s computer models predicted “a big increase” in global warming by as much as one degree per decade. But the climate models used by the IPCC have proved to be wrong, with many places in Europe and North America now experiencing record-breaking cold.

Easterbrook noted that his 20-year prediction was the “mildest” one of four possible scenarios, all of which involve lower temperatures, and added that only time will tell whether the Earth continues to cool slightly or plunges into another Little Ice Age as it did between 1650 and 1790.

On the PDO:

“What I did was I projected this same pattern forward to see what it would look like. And so in 1999, which was the year after the second warmest year on record, the PDO said we’re due for a climate change, and so I said okay. It looks as though we’re going to be entering a period of about three decades or so of global cooling.

“And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, on the basis of taking the temperature records that go back a century or more and simply repeating the pattern of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, and so on.


(Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.

- See more at:


Jen S said...

So a 15 year old paper about a prediction he made, and the author's own assertion that he was "right on the money" is the best the denialist industry can do these days eh?

Anonymous said...

I read an article in CO2 science .org a few years back. the writer was of the opinion that global temps would be 1.5 degrees cooler than they were by 2030. looks like he was right.

BillM said...

Gosh Jen he said he was right on the money and he WAS!
CO2 can not cause global warming. Look at some of my past posts. I prove it conclusively using simple agreed upon science (the real science.

Jen S said...

You prove it conclusively...

Why then has there been, since Nov 2012, over 2200 peer reviewed articles on climate, and only ONE of those rejected man-made global warming.

around 14,000 peer reviewed articles since 1991, of which 24 reject it.

Were you that one article BillM? If not, why not go publish your conclusive proof. If it's rigorous, there will doubtless be a market for it.

BillM said...

I have lectured all over the world in Chemistry and measurement technologies. I have never sought a consensus in any of my work. The numbers obey known physical principles, not statistical theories.

Check this post if you want to understand the heating of the atmosphere.

Jen S said...

This does not in any way refute anything...

But, knowing what you point out in that post, you should be doubly concerned for loss of glacier mass, arctic sea ice, and antarctic ice mass, since the rapid loss of these signifies a vast increase in thermal energy without a vast temperature increase--- as total ice mass diminishes, relatively more thermal energy gets translated directly into temperature, resulting in a further contribution to acceleration of temperature increases in addition to the acceleration we see now.

Plus you don't address rising sea temperature, which accounts for a relatively enormous amount of excess thermal energy.

BillM said...

Wow Jen I guess you weren't an honors science grad.
It TAKES (lots) of energy to melt ice. Assuming that that energy would have to come from the atmosphere there would be enormous cooling of the atmosphere. You're going the wrong way on a thermodynamic one way street.

Anonymous said...

jen. there is more ice now than there has ever been. what planet are you living on?