Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 | Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050

I recently finished John Casey’s Cold Sun and Dark Winter and was impressed by the number of references in his books. One voice can be easily discounted, but multiple voices should get more attention. Well,  that is if someone is listening. The lame stream media is focused in global warming resulting from human CO2 emissions. David DuByne has created a short video listing these references, a who’s of solar research that does not often see digital or video light because of the AGW political agenda.

David DuByne writes:

The Earth is about to begin a steep drop in global temperatures off its present global temperature plateau. This plateau has been caused by the absence of growth in global temperatures for 18 years, the start of global cooling in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the end of a short period of moderate solar heating from an unusually active secondary peak in solar cycle #24.

Average global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures will drop significantly beginning between 2015 and 2016 and will continue with only temporary reversals until they stabilize during a long cold temperature base lasting most of the 2030’s and 2040’s.
The bottom of the next global cold climate caused by a “solar hibernation” (a pronounced reduction in warming energy coming from the Sun) is expected to be reached by the year 2031.

The predicted temperature decline will continue for the next fifteen years and will likely be the steepest ever recorded in human history, discounting past short-duration volcanic events.

Global average temperatures during the 2030’s will reach a level of at least 1.5° C lower than today.

H/T to Ice Age Now for the video link

Below are links to an HTML listings of the references in the video:



25 thoughts on “Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 | Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050

  1. Carl Looney December 15, 2014 / 2:05 pm

    The next minimum due to the Streissberg cool half cycle is coming. But unfortunately, that will coincide with the beginning of the next ice age that is due and imminent, which may make the cooling more rapid and colder. Move South now and avoid the rush.

    • Russ Steele December 16, 2014 / 3:13 pm

      As we travel south in our RV, we keep looking for some likely landing places in AZ and NM.

      • Diane Archibald October 9, 2015 / 3:39 pm

        If you are back in AZ and want to look for some homes, I can help. I am a Realtor! 🙂 We have had a big increase in people moving south since the last couple of brutal winters.

      • Russ Steele October 9, 2015 / 6:14 pm

        Thanks for the offer. We just moved from the Sierra Foothills to the Sacramento Valley, but making sure we live on a hill above the 500-year flood plain.

    • rishrac December 18, 2014 / 5:48 pm

      Before AGW really got cranking in the early 2000’s, I had already bought property in the south. I bought where the alligators survived the last ice age. I was a little stunned when CAGW started talking that co2 was causing global warming. That didn’t fit in to any of the research I had done at all. A few years ago I was in a discussion with a friend of mine who is a chemist, I asked him what he thought the concentration of co2 was in the atmosphere. He thought it was 6 or 7%. Since he was certain that we were changing the climate. You can imagine the look on his face when I said it was less than one half of one %, total.

    • Russ Steele December 15, 2014 / 5:33 pm


      Thanks for the plot. A cool PDO and cold AMO could result in some serious snow. In the late 1800s- early 1900s my relatives talk about 14 feet of snow at 3,000 feet in the Sierra. Had to shovel tunnels to the barn to feed and milk the cows. We had 6-7 feet in the 1952-1953 at my grandmothers house, and we had to shovel the roof. All cold AMO years.

  2. gjrebane December 15, 2014 / 5:48 pm

    The climateers will have none of this, and will continue to promote a ‘Procrustean solution’ to every new dataset they encounter.

    I am recommending that we begin using the very appropriate reference to Procrustes when referencing quasi-religious AGW arguments, because “A Procrustean solution is the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure. … In a Procrustean solution in statistics, instead of finding the best fit line to a scatter plot of data, one first chooses the line one wants, then selects only the data that fits it, disregarding data that does not, so to “prove” some idea. It is a form of rhetorical deception made to forward one set of interests at the expense of others. The unique goal of the Procrustean solution is not win-win, but rather that Procrustes wins and the other loses. In this case, the defeat of the opponent justifies the deceptive means.”

  3. John December 16, 2014 / 1:07 pm

    Thanks for the update. I looked up the books on Amazon, the correct titles are “Cold Sun” and “Dark Winter”.

    • Russ Steele December 16, 2014 / 3:10 pm

      John, Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the post. The books were on my desk pile, I could have looked but used my memory, which was a very bad choice. Thanks again for the correction.

  4. Snowleopard December 19, 2014 / 9:40 pm

    It looks like we will soon have a cold PDO plus a cold AMO. These together likely produce a 30-40+ year cooling. The current reduction in the amplitude of the solar cycle (reduced sunspot number, strength and number of flares etc) suggests additional cooling, and the solar cycle’s increasing length deepens that cooling further and extends it’s length. Also, if the now rapidly decreasing solar wind trend does not reverse within the next decade or so we could even see a true “Cold Sun” (or Dark Age Sun). This would mean (at the least) a severe and probably long little ice age.

    The idea that increased CO2 will lead the Earth into a runaway warming is ludicrous, as CO2 levels ten times the present did not do that in the past. However the threat of a return to full glaciation is real; because for the last few million years an Ice Age has been the Earth’s “normal” climate, and interglacials (global warmings?) are typically shorter than the present one.

    Here’s hoping the scientists and researchers suggesting a 15-30yr cooling period followed by weak warming are correct, I’m thinking they may be optimists,. Fimbulvinter does not appeal to me, but for those who can. perhaps some measured preparation for it is in order.

    • rishrac December 21, 2014 / 12:57 pm

      Preparations have been under way, hasn’t CAGW convinced you how warm it is? In other words, if somebody actually has an idea that it will get colder (much) , then saving people isn’t an option, getting rid of a lot of us beforehand is. Let’s pass laws limiting burning of fuels, increase the costs, and finally banning it all together, just about when it starts to get a lot colder. Show me a scenario that will work if we descend into a little ice age? War, disease, and famine are all common during colder climate. If people start freezing to death before the really hard years set in, there will be less people to worry about. That’s what I think CAGW is really about. CAGW eats up resources and focuses attention away from the real problem. It currently looks like we could have enough fuel to keep warm, however the problem will be food.

  5. Climate Researcher December 22, 2014 / 1:38 am

    A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors – available here.

    The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.

    The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.

    Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquired out of the atmosphere.

    All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.

    Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.

    Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.

    That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.

  6. Stuart January 31, 2015 / 7:24 pm

    Errrr…. You are off with the fairies… I sugest you look at real scientific papers on the subject.

    • Russ Steele January 31, 2015 / 7:51 pm

      Do you have some suggestions for those “real scientific papers” Let’s take a look at those papers.

  7. Richard Vezina April 6, 2015 / 6:14 pm

    I read both books and found them completely possible… makes more sense to me then CO2 junk science…

  8. Avery Z Chipka July 22, 2015 / 6:27 am

    So if I’m reading your post right between now and 2030 the temps will start to drop and continue to drop for the next 15 years resulting in an average of global temp that is 1.5 c below the current average?

    I’m not really sure I would call a 1.5 degree drop over 15 years an ice age.

    • Russ Steele July 22, 2015 / 7:17 am

      The real impact is shortening of the growing seasons, later crop planting and early fall storms will have an impact on the food supply. There will be good years and bad years, but with lower temperatures there will be more bad years than good years. This is what has happened in the past and has a high probability of happening again in the future with the overlapping of climate cycles.

  9. Gail Combs August 1, 2015 / 12:44 pm


    Part of the impact is when the sun goes sleepy the Jet streams going from zonal to meridional. Meridional means ‘loopy jets’ so you get blocking highs and major swings in temperature therefore a ‘global temperature’ can be very misleading. You are also going to get major weather at the ‘edges of the loops’ where polar air and tropical air mix.

    Look at the areas where the glaciers were during the Wisconsin Ice Age and that is where you are going to see tons of snow dumped during the winter. We are already seeing this happen with record snow in Buffalo New York, Scotland, Scandinavia and even Italy. This is also the area you are going to see down pours. Scotland for example has been soggy and cold this summer.

    A cooling planet is also a drying planet and you will see the Sahara and the other deserts bands expand.

    If you want to know what to look for and what to expect look at the vegetation maps for the Wisconsin Ice Age through the Holocene. Plants don’t lie.

    Atlas of the ice age Earth
    Ecosystems maps, compiled by Jonathan Adams, last edited in 2002.

  10. Robert August 31, 2016 / 7:36 pm

    You might look into “The Three Days of Darkness”. A contracting heliosphere due to lowered solar output will pull asteroids/comets into the inner solar system increasing the possibility of devastating close encounters with earth. Increased volcanic activity, especially eruptions of one or more super volcanoes like Yellowstone and Toba would dramatically decrease solar energy reaching earth’s surface and possibly plunge temperatures in a manner reminiscent of conditions in Siberia when Woolly Mammoths were flash frozen where they stood replete with freshly grazed daisies in their maws. According to theoretical physicist Giovanni Gregory the earth is a giant capacitor which charges and discharges in direct correspondence with the solar cycle. Discharge of the earth-capacitor manifests in the form of seismic and volcanic activity presently at all time highs.

    • Russ Steele September 2, 2016 / 9:46 am

      Interesting, I will check it out

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s