IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years?

Don’t you just love these guys. He’s one foot off the AGW bandwagon but just can’t let the other one go. Talk about fence sitting for Europe.

Surely that is just rotten snow isn’t it?

I don’t know what Latif’s politics are, but if he thinks the public will stand for 30 years of cold while backing legislation to make it stay colder then he is walled off from reality indeed.

Actually scrub that – that’s the wrong date you have their!!! It’s 2010 now! Fix before you get loads of comments! The 2010 is even ‘worse’.
REPLY: press refresh for an updated image

since when has an IPCC computer modeller had any cred?

The rats are running down the Hauser-after the Ice Berg hits the MV Copenhagen at
the dock….

It is called normal climate and weather.
If Boeing designed airplanes the way AGW promoters do climate science, would anyone fly a Boeing?

Wonder what sort of tires the bus has?
Michelins
Goodyears
Dunlops
Pirellis
Bridgestones
Toyos
Continentals
I suppose we will find out soon enough.

So cooler is better eh. I don’t see very many AGW’ers out there saying that this is better. All I hear are crickets chirping.
Wake me up in 30 years. I’ll take warmer over this any day.

He presumably read the following, from UN’s FAO, page 50 graph:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf

The joke is going to be on a lot of people. I hope that people learn some lessons about being conned. There were a lot of people who never believed in AGW.

Latif is a climate modeller, an IPCC scientist, and still a declared believer in AGW.
Sorry, but what we’re seeing here, from Mr Fifty Percent, is an example of how the alarmists will tippy-toe away from their slower fellow alarmists and keep their jobs. Their favourite word will be “mask”. (Remember: Thirty years was the perfect amount of time for the Global Coolists of the seventies to get the egg off their faces, and for Time and Newsweek to recast themselves as warming enthusiasts.)
Those who have propagated AGW should not be allowed to wriggle out of their position in this fashion. We should not be grateful to Latif for pointing out that natural forces and cycles are an influence on climate. There are people I know around my area who are so drunk they occasional sleep on the Pacific Highway…and they could have given you that information for free.

Oh no! It’s getting colder. AGC (cooling) is here, give us money!

Figuring out where to put the carbon
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/carbon-sequestration-0111.html
MIT used to be a great place to study one time. Now as with all the main stream Ivy league colleges they have moved away from mainstream science and created Hollywood style fictional catastrophes to get the attention of the students.
Hypothetical science degrees, fiction rather than fact.

I believe Piers Corbyn predicted a cooling phase of 20 years followed by a period of around 100 years in which it would stay cooler than the past few years.

Perhaps Mojab Latif has been taking a few pointers?

Caveat: I’m not a scientist. But here goes anyway. It seems the operative question that arises from Latif’s statements is do the models that the IPCC is basing its conclusions upon properly model the effects of the North American Oscillation? Related, but I believe separate: Do the models allow for this temperature variation or do these temps fall within an acceptable confidence interval? (my assumption is it’s possible that models could be correct even if the NAO isn’t modeled properly or at all).

Mojib Latif describes himself as a believer in Global Warming
“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming” ,
I’m sure it won’t be long before the warmists find his theories too unpalatable for their camp and begin to describe him as a Flat-Earther or a Denialist.

It appears that natural climate fluctuations (and a certain whistle blower) have saved us from the AGW alarmists. The alarmists will likely never say uncle (It’s only a pause!), but if the center/independent voter wasn’t lost to Climategate, surely it will be to this winter.
Our national energy policy should now focus on becoming as independent as possible from foreign oil and gas, and prevention of true/traditional air and water pollution, not CO2. (As of now, the more CO2 the better.) Coal mining and burning do contribute significantly to pollution and environmental degradation so IMHO we need a slow but definite and economically viable transition from coal to thorium nuclear. If you are unfamiliar with the advantages of thorium over uranium/plutonium, here are some sources:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/email/html/8746sci2.html
http://www.itheo.org/
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2006/05/chronology-of-nuclear-history-with.html

Billions upon billions of dollars have been wasted on concocted science where the “ends” justified the manipulation of the “means” – aka the facts.
I believe a number of AGW scientists should be arrested and prosecuted for fraud, beginning with MMann.

Speaking of skeptics and almost-skeptics, there is a list article on WIkipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
that could use your help. We are looking for more scientists to list here. This list was started by the warmists who have really set a high bar for inclusion, presumably to keep the numbers of scientists listed low.
Any names you all can add would be appreciated, either in the article or the Talk page.
Thanks in advance

Jack
“The joke is going to be on a lot of people. I hope that people learn some lessons about being conned. There were a lot of people who never believed in AGW.”
There will be MANY more who will claim they never accepted AGW once that damned overdue kid finally has the ears of the people who matter and exclaims “but he’s not wearing anything.”
As one person in a recent documentary I saw about Woodstock said, “If everyone who has SAID they were there actually was there, there would have been millions of attendees, not just the half million who actually were there.”
It will be the same, but I have to admit I will, for once, be happy to be one of the many who will claim they knew all along something was wrong with the whole damned thing.

Forecast; SEE:
http://sites.google.com/site/earthquakepredictionbyjac/Home/greenhouse-effect/SUN%20-EARTH.%20Energy.%20Greenhouse%20effect%20-%20fiction%203.bmp?attredirects=0
http://sites.google.com/site/earthquakepredictionbyjac/Home/greenhouse-effect/KLIMAT2.eml?attredirects=0&d=1
and
http://sites.google.com/site/earthquakepredictionbyjac/Home/listy

“According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.”
I find this claim to be rather dubious, as there’s is no named individual and they are usually all AGW enthusiasts.

“According to his He believes our current cold weather pattern is a pause, a “30-years-long blip”, in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.”
Oops… you might want to clean up that paragraph.

I wonder if:
a) he’s a true alarmist who wants to put this out there so that even cold temperatures can support his theory?
or
b) his prediction of AGW taking off again in a few decades is just a bone he’s throwing to the true alarmists (so they don’t cut off his head) and he’s not a true believer himself?
Either way it would be interesting to see what his previous predictions/projections were for 2010-2035 before this year.

I wonder how those European homes without furnaces are going to hold up. They sound great, I would consider building one myself, but… Record cold already? And 20 to 30 years of cooling temperatures? Maybe still a good idea here in Pennsylvania, but how happy are the occupants in Germany and Scandinavia right now?

[formatting issue? – RT]
Joe Born (11:52:10) – The link to the “Tips” page is not visible in Google Chrome unless you Control-F Tips to find it. I already gave a tip that the menu should not use the overly wide spacing.

Could it be that this is part of a “hide the [certainty]” strategy? We’ve already seen them vociferously deny that real scientists ever believed in global cooling during the 1970’s. When the alarmists are thoroughly discredited in the public’s eye, they will need to be able to point to exculpatory evidence.
First, they will be able to say that all the alarmism was from politicians such as Al Gore and UN leaders who exaggerated the statements of real scientists and turned them into claims of “the sky is falling”. It was never as serious as the politicians were saying, but the public was silly enough to believe them.
Second, they will be able to point to scientists like Latif who clearly acknowledge that a huge part of the warming was due to normal variations. Who knows, they might even claim that the scientists who wrote dissenting opinions for the IPCC, and even the tens of thousands of scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition and similar dissenting documents, represented the “real opinion” of scientists.
Third, they will heap blame on a handful of scientists (such as those with Climategate) who “misled us”. In fact, I would not be surprised if the people who pilfered the Climategate emails were scientists on the alarmist side who realized that this was a great opportunity to set up a fall-guy just in case they need one.

The end of consumerism! (Idiots)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-end-of-consumerism-our-way-of-life-is-not-viable-1863278.html

Has anyone noticed that the icecap on Greenland has gotten bigger in the last 30 years?

Check this:
“Dr. LATIF: If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily. ”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812&ft=1&f=1007

I would hate to see an official forecast that we could look at in 5 or 10 years and actually verify. That would be way to formal and we might actually learn something.

vukcevic (12:16:21) : Your curves are right. We do not live isolated, in a glass covered like earth. I am beginning to think, from the experience of eating a bread in the breakfast, that such a loaf of bread does not take into consideration all the science of inquisition’s dominican friars now known as astrophysicists, which ignore that it came from the sun when working on the leaves of wheat…
So with everything, a continuous energy flow, call it protons or whatever, which while we write these words become the new bonds of a new sugar or carbohydrate molecule, making possible its existence and my early morning breakfast.
They are the illuminati, owners of their own folly, the toys of a heavenly joker!!

Climategate, it’s popularity through a number of blogs like this one and some influential people are causing the climate gangsters to circle their wagons, but more importantly motivates many serious scientists to do their work and speak about results without being climate-politically correct anymore.
Those people don’t like what was going on and do not want to be in the same boat with the propagandists. They prefer to be scientists, not become kind of politicians or even criminals.
Where are we now? Sea currents are masking the CO2 effect, the sun is doing it … maybe there is not a lot left for CO2 anymore.
I am loving it, watching a thriller, developing in real life, in handy daily doses provided by WUWT and alikes.
What an experience.

Onion, I read something similar and it seems logical that:
“ii) Pointed out that the best indicator of the current oceanic effect on climate is the latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems
iii) Mentioned that that latitudinal position of the air circulation systems is the best indication as to whether the troposphere is warming or cooling.”
But what drives the Oceanic climate if it is not variability in the Sun?

It would be great if weather and climate could be modeled and predicted for the distant future.
I am sure you have all heard of “wicked” problems, long term predictions fall into this category – way too many poorly understood variables.
The IPCC team has to base its predictions on something they think they understand – we need to ignore them – they do not have an understanding of the complete picture but the money is great.
As responsible and concerned readers, scientists, engineers and architects – we need to come up with the range of possible scenario’s and propose rational solutions.

If Latif obtains results that clearly show the significance of oceanic effects then it is open to everyone else to interpret those results as they see fit.
His intention is irrelevant as is his own personal interpretation which is only one of many that are possible.
The Mail article is fair comment based on Latif’s findings.

I seem to recall a similar story here a couple of months ago.
Here’s an up date for you: let’s see if the main story above incorporates it.
“A leading scientist has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.
Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he “cannot understand” reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.
He told the Guardian: “It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.”
He added: “There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases
…
The recent articles are not the first to misrepresent his research, Latif said. “There are numerous newspapers, radio stations and television channels all trying to get our attention. Some overstate and some want to downplay the problem as a way to get that attention,” he said. “We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein’s theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem.””
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

I’m not great at fractions, but if up to (but not more than) 50 percent of global warming from 1980 to 2000 was positively contributed to by natural oscillations in ocean temperatures, then it would seem that those oscillations would also contribute negatively up to 50 percent toward world temperatures when they are in a cooling phase, thus AT MOST canceling out man-made global warming. We should be having long-term-average temperatures right now, or is my math all messed up? Where does Latif come up with the idea of a mini ice age? It seems he is trying to straddle two climate worlds – the global warming one and the real one we are experiencing right now.

Mark F (12:31:40) :
Well the Daily Mail are on a roll!
And from your link I found this piece. Elderly people who were desperate and asking for help, left to die in the cold.
Will the “unsustainable population” crowd now have their way? Has the culling begun?
As the Brits say, Bloody Hell.

Lee, link not working mate.

Tom P (12:12:03) ” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif “
Misleading, arrogant quote from that article:
“We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein’s theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem.”

So half the temperature rise due to natural cycles. Of the remainder, I bet half has been the result of temperature “adjustments”, so that leaves a quarter due to man made emissions. CO2 not the dominant driver after all.

The computer model created by Mojib Latif must be really good at hindcasting. In April of 1999 after the record El Nino warming of 1998 he said:
“Mojib Latif of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg added global warming to a new model that successfully predicted the 1997-98 El Niño. His simulation indicates that the average climate in the next century will become more like today’s El Niño-related weather (Nature, vol 398, p 694).”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221832.000-theres-a-storm-brewing.html
Now in 2010 after record cooling his model predicts more cooling. I wonder what he predicts for the stock market in 2005?

I say bring it on. Better cooling than warming, in my opinion.

mosomoso (12:00:21) :
Latif is a climate modeller, an IPCC scientist, and still a declared believer in AGW.
Sorry, but what we’re seeing here, from Mr Fifty Percent, is an example of how the alarmists will tippy-toe away from their slower fellow alarmists and keep their jobs.
.
1000% correct go to the top of the class.
These sods have got to pay and not be able to wriggle their way out so easy. It’s still going to cost us big bucks to put up with this crap like £100 billion pound wind farms. Keep your fingers crossed we get an election quick enough to bomb that piece of wisdom.

Glenn (12:09:45): even if the NAO isn’t modeled properly or at all.
We know that temperature varies with:
1. day and night,
2. summer and winter,
3. ice ages and warmer periods
The resulting oscillations of the ocean system – intrinsic and non-linear-chaotic in nature – may cover a wide range of timescales. In a perfect model based on the first principles of physics, all known and unknown ocean cycles would be accurately predicted directly by the model – no need to add such epicycles manually. The fact that Latif is adding an epicycle is a sign of bad science.
In part due to sometimes fantastic attempts to make the failed earth-centered model work, “adding epicycles” has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. If one continues to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts, when it has become clear that the basic premise itself should be questioned, one is said to be “adding epicycles.”
http://stubbornfacts.us/domestic_policy/environment/adding_epicycles
I am sure that this is an excellent paper by world class scientists. But when I look at the broader significance of the paper what I see is that there is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun.
This is not science.

AGW is now safer to be called AGC Anthropogenic Global Changing
No worry for “the warmers”, they can still strangle the world…
If we’re too hot, using air conditioning adds to the “worsening” of A-G-Changing.
If we’re too cold, using a heater also adds to the “worsening” of A-G-Changing.
Tax us either way. A tax payer’s catch 22. A perfect permanent boondoggle based on Scientific CowChips.
The “Warmers” really need to just let it go and say….. “sorry, Nevermind…”
For me in the future, the only “warmers” I’m going to trust are my cotton thermal underwear… a good investment for watts ahead…

The key question that needs to be asked of the AGW establishment is this: Did any of your models predict the stall in warming over the last 7-8 years or predict that this cooling trend might last 20 or 30 years? If not, then how good can these models be? One year of abnormal weather may be just that – weather. But 20 years? That IS climate.
I don’t remember any of the AGW set telling us back in 2001-2003 that we should expect a cooling trend. What they promised us is that would all be onward and upward. Given that the news media slavishly reports anything that the IPCC or its adherents says, I think we would have heard something, if they had said any such thing. They didn’t. They never predicted such a trend. Because they don’t know how to accurately predict the climate.

The Cryosphere Today – Compare Daily Sea Ice chart should be January 10, 1980 and January 10, 2010:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=10&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=10&sy=2010
The interesting comparison is the first chart to this one:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2009
The Cryosphere Today also posts a chart on its front page that shows the cycle but its disturbing (or convenient) that we only have 31 years of data, a 30 year prediction, and no indication of the last bottom? If we’re at the top of melt is 15-5.5 million sq. km of seasonal Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice area the bottom?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
The predictions and models don’t appear to properly account for what has occurred? Assuming this is correct, how can they possibly account for the future? Are we also to assume that solar activity will be identical?
Why can’t everyone simply admit that this is about Stewardship and not Global Warming?

I’ll go with the 80-20 natural rule:
80% of the climate warming is due to natural Earth cycles.
80% of the remaining 20% (16%) is due to Solar Cycles.
80% of the remaining 4% (3.2%) is due to Anthropogenic activity
1.8% is pure chaos.
What they wanted us to believe is that the top 80% is Anthropogenic (give us all your money now) and the 3rd cut was natural Earth cycles.

@ Atomic Hairdryer (13:30:32) :
That’s old news. You can hope people would learn better, but no…
Read first
More info

I saw this posted on RC – on this address – http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2671
”
1. Demonstrate causation, not just correlation of CO2 levels relative to global temperature.
2. Use real-world emperical evidence, not flawed computer models.
3. Show emperical evidence for temperature rises following CO2 level increases, not before.
4. Demonstrate that CO2 is the sole major forcing in global temperature changes, not a minor player in a much larger game, involving clouds, solar flux and CRF.
5. Show that CO2 levels and greenhouse effect is not already saturated.
”
Here are the responses, if anyone would like to review and comment. Some of this would appear to challenge JoNova’s sceptics’ handbook, so I would appreciate some of the more educated people here to take a close look at this stuff and tell me how it stacks up:
1. Demonstrate causation, not just correlation of CO2 levels relative to global temperature.
BPL:
Fourier, J.-B. J. 1824. “Memoire sur les Temperatures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planetaires.” Annales de Chemie et de Physique 2d Ser. 27, 136-167.
Tyndall, J. 1859. “Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies.” Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39.
Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Phil. Mag. 41, 237-275.
Royer, D.L. 2006. “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
Came R.E., J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer, K. Azmy, U. Brand, and C.R. Weidman 2007. “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era.” Nature 449, 198-201.
Doney, S.C. et al. 2007. “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.
Horton, D.E. et al. 2007. “Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets” Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708.
Fletcher, B.J. et al. 2008. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change” Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.
W. M. Kurschner et al. 2008. “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453.
Lean, J.L. and D.H. Rind 2008. “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701.
Royer, D.L. 2008. “Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 407-408.
Zachos, J.C. 2008. “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283.
2. Use real-world emperical evidence, not flawed computer models.
See above. For carbon dioxide rising, see
Keeling, C.D. 1958. “The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Rural Areas.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 13, 322-334.
Keeling, C.D. 1960. “The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.” Tellus 12, 200-203.
For the new carbon dioxide being anthropogenic in origin, see
Suess, H.E. 1955. “Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood.” Sci. 122, 415-417.
Revelle, R. and H.E. Suess 1957. “Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades.” Tellus 9, 18-27.
3. Show emperical evidence for temperature rises following CO2 level increases, not before.
Google “PETM,” or check here, where a tight correlation is shown between temperature anomalies and CO2 level in the same year:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html
In a natural deglaciation, temperature rise does indeed precede carbon dioxide increase, because warmer water holds less CO2 and it bubbles out of the ocean. The additional CO2 then raises the temperature further in a feedback. But that is NOT what is happening now. We know the new CO2 is coming from fossil fuels and deforestation, not the ocean, through its radioisotope signature.
4. Demonstrate that CO2 is the sole major forcing in global temperature changes, not a minor player in a much larger game, involving clouds, solar flux and CRF.
This is a straw-man argument. Nobody competent ever said CO2 was “the sole major forcing in global temperature changes.” It happens to be the major (not the only) cause of the present global warming, but at other epochs other causes have been more important. See the Lean paper referenced above for an example of how they sort out change attribution.
5. Show that CO2 levels and greenhouse effect is not already saturated.
At the lowest levels of the atmosphere, it is mostly saturated–and it doesn’t matter. The atmosphere as a whole is *never* entirely saturated, and can’t be, and every level contributes to the surface temperature. Please read:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Saturation.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
There were other responses, but I can’t be bothered retyping the links. Feel free to drop over to the original link and comment there as you see fit.

How about this for a headline on Aussie Sky News I have just heard that sums up the approach of the MSM reporting on weather and climate:
“A Cool Change will NOT bring relief to fire fighters in Victoria which is facing catastrophic conditions and temperatures of to 43 deg C until early this afternoon.”
Could that have been put a little more positively do you think?
BTW, we now have “Code Red Catastrophic” bush fire conditions as a new category which exceeds the previous highest “extreme”. Surely we can come up with something scarier than that which will instil higher panic and hysteria in the populace? How about “Code Scarlet and Cataclysmic”?
“Catastrophic” is also the ABC News radio word of the year 2009. Mmmnn, I can think of a few things in the NH right now that fit the bill.

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley (13:12:30) :
Richard, the big year for the Met Office is 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyDmdcPw7Uw
Did I hear correctly ?? This woman said that the greenland ice sheet melting would raise sea levels by 7 metres over the 3000 years it would take. The ice must be stacked up pretty high as Greenland isn’t that big. She must be Big al’s sister I reckon.

Has anyone seen what foxnews.com is reporting?
Look at the Editor’s note below.
Link of news article:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/
“{The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD) agrees that the cold temperatures are unusual, and that the world’s oceans may play a part in temperatures on land.
“Has ocean variability contributed to variations in surface temperature? Absolutely, no one’s denying that,” said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist with NSIDC. But the Center disagrees with Latif’s conclusions, instead arguing that the cold snap is still another sign of global warming.
“We are indeed starting to see the effects of the rise in greenhouse gases,” he said.
Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.
And as for the cold weather?
“This is just the roll of the dice, the natural variability inherent to the system,” explained Serreze.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles.”

I have not read all the comments, but we are now in 2010 and that cryosphere image compares 1980 to 2009. There is much more snow this year
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=10&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=10&sy=2010

Anthony,
Similar to Joe Born at 01-52-10, I wanted to leave a note on ‘Tips and Notes to WUWT’, but could not find any means to do that.
It concerned a virus warning from my ‘Avira’ Antivirus programme, which I then confirmed three times at my own risk. I cut and pasted the details to send you urgently, but there seems to be no way to do it. I didn’t want to alarm any users.
I don’t suppose you have been annoying anyone recently, have you?
Kindest regards, Ian
REPLY:I annoy some people every day, but that’s not the problem. My advice: dump that paranoiaware and go with AVG see http://free.avg.com for the free version. Best there is, with no stupid false warnings like this one. – A

Bernice (12:02:07) :
MIT used to be a great place to study one time. Now as with all the main stream Ivy league colleges they have moved away from mainstream science and created Hollywood style fictional catastrophes to get the attention of the students.
Hypothetical science degrees, fiction rather than fact.
Sadly true. But remember that virtual simulations are nothing more than hacker programming. Having little or nothing to do with reality. Fortunately, reality is the rather large entity surrounding simulations.
Another IPCC big wig Mr. Pachauri is feeling heat in the middle of the blizzard: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4854

Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Although others have referred to the PDO and AO and NAO I think that so far I’m the only person who has:
“ii) Pointed out that the best indicator of the current oceanic effect on climate is the latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems
“iii) Mentioned that that latitudinal position of the air circulation systems is the best indication as to whether the troposphere is warming or cooling”
A reminder: You still have not furnished a dataset upon which you base your discussions of variations in the “latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems” 4 days ago on this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/this-wuwt-article-from-last-year-was-on-fox-news-tonight/
BTW: You’re the first to mention the PDO and AO.

Motley Fool has also been posting some comments related to Burt Rutan’s presentation for about a week or so; http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=322574&t=01000860093551905860
Here’s a sample:
This from a 2001 article I ran across that supports what Burt Rutan is saying. 
What the evidence shows
Robert H. Essenhigh
source: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html
So what we have on the best current evidence is that:
• global temperatures are currently rising; the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
• the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
• there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
• the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
• if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
• the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
• water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
• determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range;
• and the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.
The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

Smokey (14:39:11) :
Sydney Sceptic (13:56:23),
And as we’ve seen in the eastanglia emails, Schmidt and Mann, who run realclimate, are right in the middle of the corruption of climate science.
…And I notice that they are moving the goal posts again. Until recently, according to RC, CO2 was the cause of global warming.
But now they’re backing and filling, at least partially admitting that maybe, possibly, CO2 isn’t the major climate controller they always insisted it was.
And here is one of their latest inventions to try to “explain” why Antarctic sea ice has been growing 4-5 percent since start of satellite records:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838
They rely on guess what?? an NEW man made hobgoblin – CFCs. But they were banned 25 years ago, right? Right. And recent research demonstrates that cosmic rays are more likely the reason for ozone depletion.
http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2009/december/28/study-shows-cfcs,-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming.aspx?sub=10
Deary me. We’re back to natural variation again. Why is it I can’t frame mankind for all the bad [snip] in the universe??
Corruption only shields the guilty for so long. Sooner than later truth bludgeons corruption into the light.

2009 is more likely 1998 in reverse. I suppose doomsday predictions are fun, but I see no reason to believe that the Sun is going to be dormant for 30 more years.

Mr. Doctor Fifty Percent comes off as kind of half-assed.

Richard: You wrote, “From the posts I’ve read here – this guy is a traditional warmist, now trying to cover his ass, maybe by plagiarising from others? ”
Puhleeeese. Latif isn’t plagiarizing a blogger. He’s been studying multidecadal coupled ocean-atmosphere variability since at least the year 2000.
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_305.pdf

Aron (12:15:31) :

Funniest paranoid comment on there “I just don’t buy French cheese any longer. The carbon footprint is just too large”

LMAO!
It’s all that ‘nuclear’ carbon!

Re the Arctic ice: The thing that should be especially surprising is that the ice cover this summer was larger than previous years *despite* the fact that it was (allegedly) much newer/ thinner ice than it used to be. Assuming it was indeed thin ice, there seems to be clear implication: that it was quite cold up there, because the thin ice survived nearly as well as thick ice used to.

The fire shooting dragon is stirred up. Joe romm is having a neurotic outburst on Climateprogress telling us how wrong Fox News is and this site.
Soros is paying big bucks to have sceptics refuted and Joe can’t get any traction. I wonder what Soros will do when he finally fails and gives up. Jim Hansen and Joe Romm are elderly and can’t fight that many more years.

Anthony, maybe you could get either of these scientists to do a guest blog
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/climategate-glantz-versus-chase.html#comments
H/T Pielke Jr.

I am afraid to inform you all that Mojab Latif has changed his tune.
He claims if he was not called “Mojab Latif” his name would be “Climate Change”!
Check out;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

“Bernice (12:02:07) :
MIT used to be a great place to study one time. Now as with all the main stream Ivy league colleges they have moved away from mainstream science and created Hollywood style fictional catastrophes to get the attention of the students.”
MIT’s still a great place. Richard Lindzen works there.

According to newspaper reports warm/cool is on about a thirty year cycle, combine with UHI and we’re here. We need Anthonys’ surface stations project combined with good global stations to run for years to get a real grip on the climate. Right now we have poor data to go on and way to many cosmic and intergalactic variables. We now know computer models have been tweaked to make hockey sticks not climate models.
Now is the time to demand real SCIENCE.

An explanation of what those delta-T plots are, and a few validation runs to show that the method does perform ‘as advertised’.
http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/htm/soundandfury/120110-on_method.htm
What I really want to know is what Watts thinks of this method and the results I’ve been getting, so I hope he reads this!

regarding ice thickness and polar bears. Did anyone think this through? If the ice gets too thick, the bears cannot crash through it fast enough to catch their meals the seals. In fact thinner ice means easier hunting for these beasts.
Story about the bear population from the Inuit side:
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m1d8-Canadas-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say?cid=exrss-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner

Doesn’t this tie in beautifully with the other post “Modeling to the 2nd degree: back to the future”.
In the above it effectively says if we don’t do much now (about reducing emissions) we wil have all the more to do in 40yrs time.
In this post, Latif says sure sure it’s cooling now, but it will warm up again with a vengeance in 30yrs time. (lets not stop the work on reducing emissions)
I think these wags have gotten their knickers in such a knot since climategate and the failure in Copenhagen that they’l do anything to extracate themselves out of this mess.

Any chance of an ice bridge forming this winter between Greenland and Iceland? That would certainly be a headline grabber. And it would be fun to hear the purveyors of the Hockey Stick trying to explain it away.

“he compares AGW theory to relativity”
That figures. The positions of scientists on AGW seem to vary relative to the amount of funding they receive to promote it. Geologists and physicists are relatively cool, climatologists are relatively warm, and ecologists and astronomers are relatively tepid.

Latif sounds like a politician not a scientist.

So it seems that the official line is to be that we may be in for thirty years of freezing but then all our naughty CO2 will catch up with us and the GREAT WARMING will return. Meanwhile, presumably everyone should happily pay much more for energy and the coal industry be closed down. I wonder if the IPCC actually believe that politicians will risk trying to sell that to their electorates?

Contact data:
http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=1182&L=1
Tel.: 0431-600 4050
(Mobil: 0172-4140582)
Fax: 0431-600 4052
mlatif (a) ifm-geomar.de
Leibniz-Institut für Meereswissenschaften an der Universität Kiel (IFM-GEOMAR)
Ozeanzirkulation und Klimadynamik
-Maritime Meteorologie-
Gebäude Westufer, Düsternbrooker Weg 20
D-24105 Kiel

Bob Tisdale (14:56:01)
I gave this answer:
“I have observed the shifts in 1975 and 2000 with my own eyes in the real world and in weather charts. Many locations refer to the PDO regime shift but do not always acknowledge any link with the net latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems beyond seasonal variability.
Royal Navy ship records from the 17th Century are useful in establishing past storm tracks and somewhere I saw it asserted that during the LIA the ITCZ was situated much nearer to the equator.
It is also clear from historical records that civilisations prospered or fell as the air circulation systems moved latitudinally above them and moved them periodically from cold to warm or wet to dry and vice versa.”
I am not aware of any other sources of data tracking the latitudinal position of the air circulation systems beyond seasonal variability. That is why I asked you if you were aware of a source.
Not my fault that a crucial piece of the jigsaw is underresearched.
Thanks for confirming that I may be the first to link PDO with AO. It is always hard to know whether one is being original or not.

Oops. Look like I was beaten to it. Ignore post above.

Please don’t use phrases like “squawked to the media”. His comments were risible, with no supporting evidence. Just stick to the facts and we’ll win. Your cheap gibes are putting people of WUWT.

Stephen Wilde,
Your link does not work.

answer to concerned transatlantical fellow about our “happiness” in Scandinavia due to low indoor-temperatures: I think we are fine. Both appartements and houses are thouroghly insolated even in the south. I’ve never seen a one glass window in this country (i should now as I clean windows to get some extra money). 2-glass windows are probably the most common although 3’s cannot be very far after. Scandinavians normaly leave their shoes at the door so indoor conditions must be thereafter. An article in a paper suggested we had the higest indoor temperature worldwide in Sweden, which I doubt.
I know from personal experience that it can be frigging cold indoors in both Belgium and France where I have lived, even though not very cold outside. Britain is not well-known for insolating buildings either, but I can’t say really because I haven’t been there much.

All he is saying is: We are set for 30 years of cooling -“a global trend towards cooler weather”. However, he believes in manmade global warming, and he does not want this latter notion to be misrepresented.

Really is genius to let this out in the open for sure.
1. It gets colder for next 30 years and AGW’ers say it’s just a short term event so we better beware.
2. It doesn’t happen and AGW’ers can claim that the effects are stronger because of man and we must double our efforts now.
Seems like they’ve got a win/win scenario going.
What’s really going to happen?
Like Pam, I also hear crickets, but they are ones I made.
Jeff
http://www.theCRICKETtoy.com
for those awkward pauses (crickets chirping)

UPDATE: The subject of this article, Mojib Latif, has challenged the Daily Mail article and it’s interpretation. In another story at the Guardian, Latif says the interpretation by the Daily Mail and a similar story in the Telegraph is wrongly interpreting his work.
Read the Guardian story here and decide for yourself.  If anyone knows of a contact for Dr. Latif, pleae leave it in comments as I’ll make this forum available to him should he wish to elaborate further.
The guy is probably scared stiff that “If my name wasn’t Latif it would be global warming” will be perceived as out of lockstep with his IPCC colleagues. 

HELP !!!!
( 1 ) Mojib Latif , How do you pronounce that ?
( 2 ) When pronouncing do you do it with tongue in cheek ?????

I used to deal in models too. My hayday was in the 1950’s. Navy brat all the way; Dad in The Big One on an aircraft carrier, the Hancock. Models are fascinating pieces of history. Glad to see some kids never grow up and this guy “Mojib” likes history models too. I don’t remember when we started calling historian modelers “scientists”. Guess I’m getting old, starting to forget things. Wouldn’t believe anything he says about the future if I were you, modelers deal in the past not the future. Everybody knows that. That is unless they work for an archetech(sp?); but have you ever seen one of them get it right? The actual building looks different from the picture or model by a mile. Now gypsies, they can tell you what things are going to be like in the future. Don’t know that by personal experience you inderstand, but various female members of my family say they can sometimes be very accurate. “Mojib” is a famous modeler? Never heard of him.

latif: “Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein’s theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem.”
i’ve not buffed up on the weather-climate difference, but isn’t this one of those increasingly absurd statements we’re getting too familiar with? we need experts to tell us how hot and cold it is now. personally my own experience is all i trust in completely these days.