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

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, please leave it in comments as I’ll make this forum available to him should he wish to elaborate further.

h/t to WUWT reader Werner Weber for notifying me.

UPDATE2: Werner Weber writes to me in email:

> I have send him an e-mail, pointing out what happened during the night

> and invite him to take the oportunity to present his views in one of the

> leading sceptics blogs.

=====================================

We’ve been covering a lot of the recent cold outbreaks under the “weather is not climate department” heading. This story however is about both weather and climate and what one IPCC scientist thinks is headed our way.

From NASA Earth Observatory: December temperatures compared to average December temps recorded between 2000 and 2008. Blue indicates colder than average land surface temperatures, while red indicates warmer temperatures. Click for source.

The cold this December and January has been noteworthy and newsworthy. We just posted that December 2009 was the Second Snowiest on Record in the Northern Hemisphere. Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years, and Korea had the largest snowfall ever recorded since record keeping began in 1937. Plus all of Britain was recently covered by snow.

The cold is setting records too.

Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, there are Record low temperatures in Cuba and thousands of new low temperature records being set in the USA as well as Europe.

There are signs everywhere, according to an article in the Daily Mail, which produced this graphic below:

According to IPCC scientist Mojib Latif in an article for the Daily Mail,  it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze. Latif is known as one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

Latif, is a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Latif is a prominent scientist in the UN’s IPCC climate research group.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans, Brits, and Europeans have been suffering through is the beginning of another cycle, this one a down cycle. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures. While maybe it is a harsh prediction, he calls it a “mini ice age”.  That phrase is sure to stick in the craw of more than a few people. His theory is based on an analysis of natural oscillations in water temperatures in the oceans.

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.

At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation could mask over any “manmade global warming” for the next few decades. He said the fluctuations in the NAO could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.

In a stunning revelation, he told the Daily Mail that:

“a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 percent.”

Quite a revelation, and a smack down of much of the climate science in the last 30 years that attributes the cause mostly to CO2 increases.

In other news, Arctic sea ice is on the rise too.

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.I’m betting that summer 2010 will have even more ice retained.

Right now, there doesn’t appear to be much of that “rotten ice” that one Canadian alarmist researcher squawked about to the media just a few weeks ago. In fact, we aren’t looking bad at all compared to 30 years ago.

Click for larger image - Source: Cryosphere Today

Note that 30 years ago, the technology didn’t exist to display snow cover on the left image, but today we can see just how much our northern hemisphere resembles a snowball.

Now, watch the warmists throw Latif under the bus.


Sponsored IT training links:

Subscribe for 70-667 online preparation and get guaranteed success in real exam using 642-165 dumps and 640-721 practice exam.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
321 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
stephen richards
January 11, 2010 11:38 am

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.

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley
January 11, 2010 11:40 am

That photo of the Earth on the right has been doctored – we all know that Britain is covered in white!

Retired Dave
January 11, 2010 11:40 am

Surely that is just rotten snow isn’t it?

January 11, 2010 11:41 am

Throw him under the bus??? They should put him on a pedestal. He just gave them cover for 30 more years of erroneous predictions.

Tim McHenry
January 11, 2010 11:41 am

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.

Editor
January 11, 2010 11:42 am

It’s a step-by-step process. He says half of the last 30 years’ warming is natural. We have to give them a little time to wean them off the bandwagon.

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley
January 11, 2010 11:43 am

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

Joe
January 11, 2010 11:44 am

Half o the warming is natural, the other half is getting it’s ass kicked.

janama
January 11, 2010 11:45 am

since when has an IPCC computer modeller had any cred?

Jim Clarke
January 11, 2010 11:49 am

Good for Mojab Latif. He has joined the ranks of climate realists. Of course, Prof. Bill Gray has been saying much the same thing for 15 to 20 years. So have many others. I am just a meteorologist, but I have noted for many years that the ocean cycles must be responsible for at least 50 percent of the warming observed during the 20th century, and that the atmosphere must be at least 50% less sensitive to CO2 than the IPCC says it is. No other conclusion can be drawn from the facts, and those facts have been very evident for at least a decade.
They may try to through Mr. Latif under the bus, but it is getting awfully crowded under here. Soon, the bus will just tip over and perhaps we can all just go home.

Douglas DC
January 11, 2010 11:49 am

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

Antonio San
January 11, 2010 11:49 am

It is not surprising that there was an “urgency” to make Carbo friendly business deals based on the IPCC warmist scenario… before the proverbial cold sheet hit the fan!

Stephan
January 11, 2010 11:50 am

Didn’t Tamino just publish a paper that states that there is no cyclical pattern to the weather.

wayne ward
January 11, 2010 11:51 am

Just trying to keep some credibility. Some scientist still want to have a reputation of looking at actual science as opposed to belief.

hunter
January 11, 2010 11:51 am

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

January 11, 2010 11:52 am

OT, but I wasn’t able to determine how to make a “Tips and Notes to WUWT” entry, where the following tip rightly belongs. (So please snip, and you may want to e-mail me back to tell me how properly to alert you to something you may want to include.)
Anyway, RealClimate has a post from Trenberth and others about Lindzen and Choi’s paper and about how they had trouble submitting a comment on it to the journal that Lindzen and Choi was published in.

Steve in SC
January 11, 2010 11:52 am

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

rbateman
January 11, 2010 11:55 am

Use this image to compare last year’s snow & ice to today’s:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/New%20Image.GIF
The sea ice is a lot thicker (more robust 🙂 ) and the snowcover if more extensive.

Pamela Gray
January 11, 2010 11:56 am

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.

January 11, 2010 11:56 am

I think this man’s brilliant.
The definitive let-out clause. “Masking global warming for 30 years”. So (1) politicians don’t need to wreck economies so fast because that can wait for the next election (2) scientists haven’t lost face because all-hidden, the sacred AGW continues (3) and anyway it’s not quite so bad because “half” the recent warming was natural (4) now we can concentrate on this WEATHER (5) by the time long-range pictures appear again, the current crusaders will be dead, senile, re-posted, in jail, retired with a good income, etc, and the next generation of braves will be in the driving seat. And by then, the recent horrors of scientific perversion may well have given rise to a decent return to Science. And who knows, we might even be able to explore the (ssh) ssb properly.

JonesII
January 11, 2010 11:57 am

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

rbateman
January 11, 2010 11:59 am

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley (11:40:20) :
That photo of the Earth on the right has been doctored – we all know that Britain is covered in white!

Mighty close to covered in white today, is Britain.
See my image link above
The image in the article is from 2009, not 2010.

Jack
January 11, 2010 11:59 am

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.

stan
January 11, 2010 11:59 am

we have not had global warming in the last 10 years. some scientist say it is going to get cooler because of decreased sunspot activity.
then some “scientist” cooks up this hypothesis to explain why global warming isn’t happening and still be able to blame it on co2 and us. this sounds like something out of a day after tomorrow.
the only reason this ridiculous theory gets published is because it blames us.
how many times have scientist changed and come up with new agw theories?
they deserve no credibility.

January 11, 2010 12:00 pm

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.

January 11, 2010 12:00 pm

I meant, of course, the reactions to the recent horrors of scientific perversion may well have given rise to a decent return to Science.

bradley13
January 11, 2010 12:01 pm

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

Kath
January 11, 2010 12:01 pm

Is there a composite satellite image of the whole world that shows, photographically, the current snow cover?

Bernice
January 11, 2010 12:02 pm

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.

Jeff L
January 11, 2010 12:03 pm

OT (dont need to post if you dont want)
Anthony / moderators
I think the tips & notes blog is completely full or some problem like that. I have a really good link, but the “leave a comment” box never shows up (after the page took several minutes to load) – Sorry for posting this here (& feel free not to post ) – it was the only way for me to communicate this.
Here’s my tip. See link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
I got this from a friend via email. I pretty informative little quiz for people who aren’t as close to the AGW as most are on this blog. It would be good short post with the recommendation WUWT readers pass the link along to as many of their friends as possible. Seems like a good way to communicate same basic info to a broader spectrum of people.

January 11, 2010 12:03 pm

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?

Neo
January 11, 2010 12:04 pm

James Hansen .. call your office.

January 11, 2010 12:09 pm

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).

mancpd
January 11, 2010 12:11 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
He’s now saying that he’s been misinterpreted, though this isn’t the first time that he’s said there cooling “which we have to explain”

KeithGuy
January 11, 2010 12:11 pm

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.

Tom P
January 11, 2010 12:12 pm

“Now, watch the warmists throw Latif under the bus.”
No, Latif has thrown the Mail journalist under a bus:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
“The recent articles are not the first to misrepresent his research, Latif said.”
Or the last.

January 11, 2010 12:12 pm

I posted this earlier on Christopher Bookers article in the Telegraph:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6958093/Climate-change-the-true-price-of-the-warmists-folly-is-becoming-clear.html)
I see that now there is a thought that “global warming” may have, er, “paused” for the next 20 or 30 years… (Professor Mojib Latif – a “leading” member of IPCC, of course)
Is this a grudging half-acceptance of the truth, I wonder?
They don’t half wriggle, don’t they! Not having the humility to admit that the planet may now be entering a cooling phase, and that they might have been wrong all along, they say that warming may “pause” for a while, whilst cooling replaces it temporarily, then warming will resume resume. Which is what happens all the time, isn’t it? The planet warms, then cools, then warms…
I find it all rather amusing.
So, if the planet has been cooling, a temporary warm up would be “runaway global warming”, but if has been warming (or static), a cooling is only “temporary”? Yeah, right…
Running with the hare, and with the hounds springs to mind…

Bob B
January 11, 2010 12:12 pm

I am wondering why though the UAH site shows a warmer month so far? I would expect to see something cooler show up? I know the trends still show negative for the past 7-8yrs or so.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

David44
January 11, 2010 12:13 pm

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

Aron
January 11, 2010 12:15 pm

Greens don’t care if we’re going to freeze, as long as they can make you live on a few beans and a glass of dirty water…and that’s for westerners. What they have planned for Africans can barely be put into words…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-end-of-consumerism-our-way-of-life-is-not-viable-1863278.html
Funniest paranoid comment on there “I just don’t buy French cheese any longer. The carbon footprint is just too large”
And I almost died laughing.

imapopulist
January 11, 2010 12:16 pm

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.

January 11, 2010 12:16 pm

If the Sun is anything to do with it (which I am not saying that it is, not at list directly trough TSI), then most likely that would be the case.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
(more graphs on http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm )

ELF
January 11, 2010 12:17 pm

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

jtom
January 11, 2010 12:17 pm

Don’t let up on the pressure. All of you, please post this on any other sites you visit to keep reminding folks of what the ‘state of the art’ in climate modeling looks like (published 20/06/2009 on Marketwatch):
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heating-costs-could-fall-8-this-winter-2009-10-06
“Catching a break on heating costs
Winter bills could fall 8% this year, agency predictsExplore related topics
Gas/Utilities Story
Comments Screener (22) Alert Email Print ShareBy Kellen Henry, Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (Medill News Service) — U.S. households could get an 8% break on the cost of heating their homes this winter, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday”
[skip]
Warmer winter on tap
Temperatures in the U.S. will likely be about 1% warmer this winter, compared with both last winter and the 30-year average, said Michael Halpert, deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday.
“We have a weak el niño, developed over the summer,” Halpert said. “Forecasts for the most part, maintain some level of el niño through the winter.”
………………………………………………………
They must be called out and held accountable for their poorly performing models.

Richard
January 11, 2010 12:18 pm

Its cool here too in NZ. 15 at the moment, chilly even. But I’m headed for Aussie, sunny Goldcoast, this weekend. Nice and warm there, but not too warm

rbateman
January 11, 2010 12:19 pm

Moderator:
Note that 30years ago, the technology didn’t exist to display snow cover on the left image, but today we can see just how much our northern hemisphere resembles a snowball.
If it was intended for the right pane to show 2010 instead of 2009, the Cyrosphere Today compare page needs to be selector box utilized to get 2010.
It wants to show 2009 by default.
REPLY: press refresh for an updated image

Tom G(ologist)
January 11, 2010 12:19 pm

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.

Nam
January 11, 2010 12:20 pm

If global temperatures really do begin to cool the IPCC can now claim that they predicted it, similar to how the UK Met Office predicted a leveling off of temperatures in the past decade.

Onion
January 11, 2010 12:23 pm

“At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation could mask over any “manmade global warming” for the next few decades. ”
Here’s the thing
Go back to the original paper, the granddaddy of them all by Hansen
“Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
Science 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511
Hansen explicitly predicts in this paper that CO2-warming will overwhelm all other climate factors by the year 2000, and with increasing magnitude after that date so long as anthropogenic CO2 production grows year-on-year. It is as specific and falsifiable a prediction as we’re going to get out of these warmist scientists
So, if the Earth cools after 2000, that’s it. Not only is Hansen’s theory wrong, but that cooling can’t be blamed on other factors either

jorgekafkazar
January 11, 2010 12:24 pm

Uh, isn’t it Mojib Latif?

ManbearPig
January 11, 2010 12:25 pm

…but the science is still settled though, right?

JamesG
January 11, 2010 12:26 pm

“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.

January 11, 2010 12:27 pm

He seems to have read my material published over the past two years and may be trying to defuse the implications by limiting the oceanic effect to 50% whereas I’m pretty sure it is actually 100% or very near it depending on the size of any solar component.
Although others have referred to the PDO and AO and NAO I think that so far I’m the only person who has:
i) Asserted that one needs to take the netted out situation in relation to all ocean oscillations at any one time.
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.
iv) Proposed that at any one time the net effect on the global tropospheric temperature will be a combination of solar and oceanic effects.
v) Stipulated that the speed of the hydrological cycle is highly variable and serves to maintain equilibrium between sea surface and surface air temperatures whatever GHGs in the air try to do.
vi) Explained that the real controller for tropospheric air temperatures is the rate of energy release from the ocean surfaces and NOT the greenhouse effect.
vii) Proposed that the tropospheric temperature will be affected by both variable rates of energy release from the oceans AND variable rates of energy release from stratosphere upwards.
There’s more but I don’t want to get even more boring.

pwl
January 11, 2010 12:27 pm

“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.

Staffan Lindström
January 11, 2010 12:28 pm

…Actually I called this man some years ago, wondering about some statements
he had made, using my best rusty German…Now checking a German TV program
on YouTube from March 2009 where Prof. Latif warns that heatwaves may reach
50 degrees Celsius in south and east Germany…10 months ago…Ein Profchen
für alle…

Hmmm
January 11, 2010 12:28 pm

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.

Adam from Kansas
January 11, 2010 12:29 pm

Ah yes, the 50 percent thing again, just how many times have they said this and that contributed to 50 percent of the warming?
In light of that, when will they just put that all together and say that CO2 did little to warm the Earth?

kadaka
January 11, 2010 12:29 pm

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?

Mark F
January 11, 2010 12:31 pm

Well the Daily Mail are on a roll!
” Sea water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures, first tests showed today.
Despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming that could bring higher world ocean levels, tests conducted on the Fimbul Ice Shelf showed the sea water is still around freezing. ”
link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242398/Now-tests-ice-ISNT-melting-Sea-water-shelf-East-Antarctic-freezing.html

AnonyMoose
January 11, 2010 12:32 pm

[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.

JDN
January 11, 2010 12:33 pm

Why can’t I delete my stupid, redundant remarks? 🙂
[No worries, I helped you out. -RT – mod]

Chad Woodburn
January 11, 2010 12:33 pm

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.

Global Warming Borg
January 11, 2010 12:34 pm

Have you ever noticed that when these researchers come out with something that doesn’t jive with the “Global Warming Standards”, they add an apology to keep the “Global Warming Borg” from attacking?
“We’re headed into a 30 year mini ice age… But!
It doesn’t mean there isn’t “Global Warming”
“We realize that our research seems to indicate there are a lot of polar bears… BUT!
It doesn’t mean there isn’t “Global Warming”
“Yes we have record cold now… BUT!
It doesn’t mean there isn’t “Global Warming”

Al Gore's Brother
January 11, 2010 12:39 pm

OMG! My brother will be blowing the whistle on this! In 20 years the oceans will freeze and all the lands will be covered by glaciers! Icebergs will be floating off the coast of L.A. The sky is falling!

Ryan Welch
January 11, 2010 12:39 pm

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

Mike Bryant
January 11, 2010 12:39 pm

Funny how Cryosphere Today put an earth shadow on the 1/10/2010 image to minimize all the snow? What gives? It’s not even photoshopped correctly since the curve of the shadow doesn’t cut the earth in half… No shadow on 1/10/2009… Do they think they can do whatever they want and no one will notice?
Oh Yeah… they do think that…

Sordnay
January 11, 2010 12:40 pm

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

kwik
January 11, 2010 12:41 pm

Interesting news.
I remember when the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Gar Stoere, together with Al Gore gave us the warning in Copenhagen.
The north pole ice would be gone in so and so many years.
AND, he also said that those not taking this seriously, was “strange people” (actually the expression he used is impossible to translate. “Morons”, I think he wanted to say, in a diplomatic way)
Who looks “strange” now? ( Again, diplomatic for “moron”).
Not very smart, was it, to share the podium with Al Gore.
I think those he meant, deserves an official apology, thats what I think.

Rhys Jaggar
January 11, 2010 12:41 pm

If he’s an IPCC scientist and he’s changed his tune that much it says that the IPCC’s been handed the biggest bazooka to point up their own ass in its history. He sounds just like an ex Commie in Moscow mouthing the new capitalist mantras in about 1990.
I think that wholescale sackings are required before any new body is formed to INFORM politicians about MEASURED PHENOMENA, potentially measureable phenomena and quantifiable and unquantifiable risk factors.
It would be a good idea if the new organisation was like a global CERN, with countries contributing budgets to pay for it from their own R+D budgets. It would be good if it limited itself to pan-regional issues, such as Sea Ice, global oceanic parameters and global atmospheric parameters, although I suspect that equatorial nations might demur from contributions to arctic measurements….
There are many models for these things, but their research should be linked to global economic/political needs, not dominated by self-regulated basic research, although some will undoubtedly be needed. IMHO.
The one thing to say is this: if there is a 30 year window where warming won’t be catastrophic, it does mean that there is time enough for research to address issues of particulates, aerosols and, hopefully, cosmic rays/cloud formation issues during a time when rapid temperature rise is unlikely.
It may of course be that it won’t be likely AFTER 30 years, but prudence would imply open-mindedness there, I would think.

jtom
January 11, 2010 12:43 pm

To ELF (12:17:45) :
I haven’t a clue as to how to add things to wikipedia, even on the talk page, but here is a very reliable source and appears to have many names not currently listed:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Very long list of names.

Scott B
January 11, 2010 12:44 pm

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.

KeithGuy
January 11, 2010 12:45 pm

I notice in the Guardian that Mojib Latif has criticized the Mail’s article for suggesting that his theories dispute AGW.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
Come on Latif. Your have to admit that your theories don’t exactly support the IPCC’s Climate Models.

JonesII
January 11, 2010 12:45 pm

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!!

Stephen Singer
January 11, 2010 12:47 pm

If the Cryosphere image had used this year for the right hand panel the difference would have been even more stark. This years images have much more very deep dark purple in them. Check it out.

jaypan
January 11, 2010 12:49 pm

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.

jorgekafkazar
January 11, 2010 12:49 pm

Lucy Skywalker (11:56:17) : “…(5) by the time long-range pictures appear again, the current crusaders will be dead, senile, re-posted, in jail, retired with a good income, etc…”
You forgot locked up in the looney bin.

Ryan Welch
January 11, 2010 12:49 pm

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?

Staffan Lindström
January 11, 2010 12:51 pm

Tom P (12:12:03) …The best sentence : “If my name was not Mojib Latif, it would be global warming”…[From the Guardian article]…”If my name was not
Staffan Lindström it would be Hell Freezesinornot”… Mojib is listed in IMDB
btw. , quite a list…

Steve J
January 11, 2010 12:52 pm

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.

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley
January 11, 2010 12:54 pm

rbateman, yes I said that near the top but for some reason the 2009 image has stayed. Odd, because the 10/01/10 image is much more startling, showing snow right down to Spain. Hello, there in WUWTland, change the pic!

January 11, 2010 12:54 pm

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.

Sound and Fury
January 11, 2010 12:57 pm

Hmm… 30 years of cold… that would fit very well with a 60-year cycle, wouldn’t it…
http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/htm/soundandfury/220709-analysing_temps.htm
The above link demonstrates how a 60 year cycle dominates the temperature record ‘behind the noise’.
Goes to show, you don’t need incomprehensible methods to extract signal, a simple autocorrelation tells me (a maths undergrad) what it takes heavily-funded AGW scientists and models that no-one really understands to spot.

jorgekafkazar
January 11, 2010 1:00 pm

Mojib didn’t like it under the bus, so he’s trying to re-spin his work to avoid “The Big Cut-off.” He says, however: “No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions.”
Uh, yeah. Right. What about politicians and the media, Mojib?

JonesII
January 11, 2010 1:01 pm

Verily indeed, the verbum dismissum is ἤλεκτρον (Electron)

Turboblocke
January 11, 2010 1:04 pm

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

Richard
January 11, 2010 1:06 pm

From the posts I’ve read here – this guy is a traditional warmist, now trying to cover his ass, maybe by plagiarising from others? (Stephen Wilde (12:27:32) 🙂
Onion (12:23:16) : makes a good point. Hansen is caught out if it cools. He has also predicted 2010 to be the warmest ever as has Hadley (or is that the Met Office UK?)

Stan H
January 11, 2010 1:09 pm

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.

Charles. U. Farley
January 11, 2010 1:09 pm

Steve in SC (11:52:12) :
Wonder what sort of tires the bus has?
Michelins
Goodyears
Dunlops
Pirellis
Bridgestones
Toyos
Continentals
I suppose we will find out soon enough.
Nankang “ditchfinders” is the answer here. ; )

Richard
January 11, 2010 1:09 pm

How would Mann hide a 30 year decline? He should be sentenced to 30 years hard labour – shovelling snow in Greenland

Turboblocke
January 11, 2010 1:11 pm

“Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions.”

Editor
January 11, 2010 1:12 pm

Sorry about the OT …. I am not getting a “comment” box on the Tips page.
anyway…. does anyone know anything about this?
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans…/40749822.html
January 11, 2010
The excitement is building at KUSI as work continues on the one hour prime time special report on Global Warming: The Other Side. The telecast will make its TV debut on KUSI on Thursday evening at 9 PM. Set your DVR for this one. I have been writing feverishly and doing a series of interviews with experts, but that all fades when compared to the big news break we are preparing to reveal for the first time. We will be bringing the Climategate scandal from England to the United States.
It appears that Climategate is not going away.

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley
January 11, 2010 1:12 pm

Richard, the big year for the Met Office is 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyDmdcPw7Uw

jorgekafkazar
January 11, 2010 1:13 pm

Stephen Singer (12:47:30) : “If the Cryosphere image had used this year for the right hand panel the difference would have been even more stark. This years images have much more very deep dark purple in them. Check it out.”
Yes, but it’s a ‘rotten’ purple.
Remember, the Arctic has lately been swapping air with the NH. That’s put a damper on ice growth and placed warmer air where it loses extra heat by radiation. Ultimately, that heat loss and the increased NH snow-cover albedo are likely to further depress NH temperatures in coming months. Ice growth will resume at substantial rates. Winter has barely begun.

latitude
January 11, 2010 1:16 pm

They are going to have a real hard time trying to convince people that it’s going to get warmer in 30 years,
when they didn’t predict the 30 years of cold in the first place.

kadaka
January 11, 2010 1:17 pm

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.

January 11, 2010 1:17 pm

Sound and Fury (12:57:34) :
“The above link demonstrates how a 60 year cycle dominates the temperature record ‘behind the noise.”
Actually there appears to be a 50+ year half cycle in both solar activity and climatic oscillations.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm and
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNAnomaly1.gif
the 108 FFT power spectrum can be seen in the graph produced Dr. Svalgaard, who occasionally has referred to 108 year cycle, and he considers that the Sun is now where it was some 100 years ago.

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley
January 11, 2010 1:17 pm

Lee, link not working mate.

NicL
January 11, 2010 1:18 pm

The problem with “live science” (i.e. in real time) is that the cycle must allow a dozen repetitions within a scientists career.
That is why mice are so good. With a life expectancy of 18 months a “funded project” can work over 4 generations “between papers”. Bacteria are even better.
Since one cycle of climate covers the (working) life expectancy of three climate scientists we do not have the overview. Just the hysteria of change.

Paul Vaughan
January 11, 2010 1:21 pm

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.”

Greg Cavanagh
January 11, 2010 1:21 pm

Looking at those 30 year cycles, I’d say that for any short term predictions your going to be pretty close. Far closer than if you drew a straight line between two dates and declared the temperature will continue at this increase for the next 100 years (which was always a rediculous statement).

Vincent
January 11, 2010 1:26 pm

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.

Dodgy Geezer
January 11, 2010 1:28 pm


“It’s a step-by-step process. He says half of the last 30 years’ warming is natural. We have to give them a little time to wean them off the bandwagon.”
Which half of the warming is natural?
Both halves, actually…

January 11, 2010 1:29 pm

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?

Atomic Hairdryer
January 11, 2010 1:30 pm

Re; kadaka (13:17:34) :
Will the “unsustainable population” crowd now have their way? Has the culling begun?

Possibly, in a Darwinian way, again from the Mail-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242198/Youre-going-dressed-like-Snow-joke-did-.html
Top picture actually worried me a bit given skin colour. Hope the photographer got her some medical help as she looks rather hypothermic. As for the rest, maybe clubs should hand out flyers about how body fat is deposited and why.
Personal global cooling observation. I’ve got chilblains for the first time in years 🙁

Christy Sanders
January 11, 2010 1:31 pm

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

kadaka
January 11, 2010 1:32 pm

Paul Vaughan (13:21:41) :
“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.”
(…)
Strange comment. Here we are on the New Media, and I see that discussed a lot!

bob parker
January 11, 2010 1:34 pm

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.

K. Bray
January 11, 2010 1:42 pm

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…

Invariant
January 11, 2010 1:42 pm

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.

Sound and Fury
January 11, 2010 1:43 pm

vukcevic: “Actually there appears to be a 50+ year half cycle in both solar activity and climatic oscillations.”
Ah, that’s interesting; I didn’t use the same data series as you – mine only goes back to 1850, which is probably too short for a 100-plus year cycle to show up (there is a tiny negative peak at about 50 years delta-t on my plot though, so perhaps that’s a tiny bit of the half-cycle showing up). But the 60 year cycle is definitely there, too.
Where can I get your datasets? I’m interested in running several delta-T-based analyses on them (and possibly in conjunction with the solar record).
I ran a similar analysis on the (shorter) datasets I have, which showed a modest positive correlation between SSN and temperatures, with the peak (R=0.34) coming 2-6 years positive dT (that is, temps lag behind SSN). Interestingly, we don’t see much of the 11-year cycle coming through to the dT-plot.
Program output at http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/txt/ssn_vs_cru.csv and source code at http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/txt/analyse%20(0-1-4).c – please, give me your opinions and your datasets 🙂

K. Bray
January 11, 2010 1:45 pm

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…

January 11, 2010 1:45 pm
Martin B
January 11, 2010 1:45 pm

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.

HotRod
January 11, 2010 1:45 pm

It’s a great quote:
“But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.
In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.
Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.
‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’ “

John
January 11, 2010 1:46 pm

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?

Oslo
January 11, 2010 1:49 pm

I don’t think Latif will be thrown under the bus. I think it is just another case of betting on all horses, so that – no matter what happens – they will be able to say: look! This is exactly what was predicted!

rbateman
January 11, 2010 1:51 pm

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.

James Chamberlain
January 11, 2010 1:53 pm

NicL (13:18:01)
Spot ON! Mice, good. Fruit flies, better. Bacteria, best. Climate cycles, no chance.

kadaka
January 11, 2010 1:54 pm

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

edward
January 11, 2010 1:55 pm

I’m with Invariant on this.
If the forecasted range of Climate and the errors bars for those predictions are wide then you are really not predicting anything.

Sydney Sceptic
January 11, 2010 1:56 pm

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.

Graeme From Melbourne
January 11, 2010 1:58 pm

Ahhh. A man torn between two forces. On one hand the data that says that the world is cooling, and on the other hand the paycheck for the politically correct AGW position.
Wavering…. wavering… tipping over, but not quite there…

Mike McMillan
January 11, 2010 1:59 pm

Thirty years of warming, thirty of cooling, thirty warming, thirty cooling. Duh.
Like we need a PhD to discover what the Farmers’ Almanac has been saying forever. Problem is that a human productive lifespan covers just about one complete cycle, so we don’t naturally get the big picture.
And 100,000 year ice ages just mask the underlying warming,

lowercasefred
January 11, 2010 2:05 pm

“Now, watch the warmists throw Latif under the bus.”
More likely they, like Latif, are scrambling to get out of its path.
There will be lots of noises made for a few years yet, but it will soon be time to put a fork in Gorebull Warming.

Mike McMillan
January 11, 2010 2:05 pm

rbateman (13:51:31) :
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.

You have the subject 101% covered.
😉

Julian Flood
January 11, 2010 2:05 pm

Prof. Robert Essenhigh must be feeling rather pleased with himself — he predicted that Arctic warming would lead to increased snowfall. I like science that produces predictions.
JF
Especially when the predictions are correct.

King of Cool
January 11, 2010 2:17 pm

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.

January 11, 2010 2:18 pm

It is time the Climate “Scientists” read up on the Philosophy of Science.
One Karl Popper said the that the demarcation between science & non-science was falsifiability. If you can allow for 30 year pauses (like from 1940 to late 70s), then the theory becomes non-falsifiable. If we cannot measure the proportion of warming due to anthropogenic factors, it again becomes non-falsifiable.
Another short source was Frederich Hayek in his Nobel Lecture. Called the “Pretence of Knowledge” he looked at the problem of prediction where the underlying model is not fully known or measurable. That is the variables & the parameters are never fully known, and might be changing over the course of time. We may be always be trying to measure the wrong thing, and incorrectly interpret these results. We are thus restricted to making pattern predictions.
In the case of AGW, even this pattern prediction seems to have failed.
See
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html
http://shandonclimate.blog.com/2010/01/10/climate-science-lessons-from-economic-theory-and-forecasting/

bob parker
January 11, 2010 2:18 pm

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.

January 11, 2010 2:24 pm

Joe (11:44:36) :
Half o the warming is natural, the other half is getting it’s ass kicked
Thanks for the laugh. Reminds me of a quote I heard that roughly says
“Half of the universe is invisible, the rest is just guesswork”

Ken S
January 11, 2010 2:26 pm

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.”

January 11, 2010 2:39 pm

Sydney Sceptic (13:56:23),
I would recommend that you leave realclimate’s arguments there, because they routinely censor the comments of skeptics. They censor because they are still trying to control the flow of information. 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.
From scanning your list, I can see the same claims that have been repeatedly debunked here. 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 since they and their pals over at the CRU heavy-handedly scheme to control the climate peer review process by being its self-designated gatekeepers, the papers they selectively cite are questionable.
Most folks here have known the truth all along: global temperatures rise and fall, independent of rising CO2. That tells us all we need to know about the insignificant effect of that very minor trace gas on global temperatures.
The day someone shows us that X rise in atmospheric CO2 causes a measurable Y rise in temperature, I will start to take their always-inaccurate models, and their alarming studies that cite each other in a circular appeal to authority, as possibly legitimate. Until then, I’m not going to forget this.

January 11, 2010 2:40 pm

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

rbateman
January 11, 2010 2:45 pm

Mike McMillan (14:05:21) :
Oops, 0.8% for pure chaos. Can’t hide any declines on that pittance.

Ian Proctor
January 11, 2010 2:46 pm

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

rbateman
January 11, 2010 2:47 pm

Carsten Arnholm, Norway (14:40:47) :
A lot more snow. And if you look at the mid-tones, possibly a lot more frozen ground in places like the UK and Spain/France, etc.

Indiana Bones
January 11, 2010 2:52 pm

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

wayne
January 11, 2010 2:55 pm

MODERATORS:
The displayed comparison at uiis.edu is incorrect. It’s 2009.
Should be http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=10&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=10&sy=2010
Now Scotland & England are white! 2010 at right now looks mostly 100% concentration too. Closer match.
REPLY: press refresh for an updated image

January 11, 2010 2:56 pm

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.

January 11, 2010 2:58 pm

Ken S (14:26:49) :
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/
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.”

So someone did wake Serreze up then.

John
January 11, 2010 3:11 pm

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.

johnh
January 11, 2010 3:17 pm

I think we are going to see a lot of infighting among the Warmists now. They need to readjust to the new reality of public opinion, but will spend too much fighting about what that adjustment needs to be. Only issue is the Euro polititians, they are hooked big time and will have to be dragged kicking and screaming through a volcano before they admitt they got it wrong.

Indiana Bones
January 11, 2010 3:23 pm

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.

pft
January 11, 2010 3:24 pm

I wonder if climategate was all about a human sacrifice to allow the warmers to regroup and change tactics with relatively fresh faces. They give up their hockey stick and move on to ice fishing with the warning that once the cold spell is over, due to natural causes as part of the 30 year cycle, it’s going to get hot, very hot, since CO2 levels are still rising.
And it’s just a matter of time that someone comes up with a way to blame 50% of the cooling on man. CO2 does cool at the top of the atmosphere after all, so CO2 may be said to be the big amplifier for cool and warm, depending on what part of the the natural cycle we are in (cool or warm).

e
January 11, 2010 3:25 pm

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.

Jason S
January 11, 2010 3:29 pm

Global Warming Borg?? Oh, please… may I use that one? bwaaahahahah!

January 11, 2010 3:34 pm

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

DavidE
January 11, 2010 3:39 pm

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

Couldn’t agree more. Used it for years & it only let me down once with a brand new virus. Weell actually, it didn’t, I knew I was downloading a new virus & it didn’t detect it. I posted it to the avg site & it was fixed very quickly. I did however have to remotely fix someone elses PC using HiJackThis & some other software I had lying around.
BTW, No other AV program detected this virus either.
DaveE.

January 11, 2010 3:41 pm

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

January 11, 2010 3:51 pm

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

Another of William Connolley’s 5428 pages. He is all over the talk and history sections of it.

January 11, 2010 3:52 pm

All 2 years, Latif changes his mind, in 2ooo he said, winters and snow will be unknown in future, than he had the idea of a pausing warming, now tells the contrasting story with snow, ice, even colder sommer for three decades.
And when a camera isn’t far away, he starts telling Anderses myths…

Sound and Fury
January 11, 2010 4:04 pm

More from those delta-T plots: http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/htm/soundandfury/110110-more_climate.htm
First I ran my test on 11-year moving average values, to get the low-frequency behaviour.
The blue line (d-T plot of temp on ssn) suggests that SSN correlates (fairly weakly, r=0.34) with detrended CRUTEM at a delta-T of about 2-6 years.
The red line (d-T plot of delta-temp on ssn), however, does not give so clear a reading, since the uptick begins at a delta-T of /minus/ 8 or 9 years – which doesn’t make a lot of sense within the hypothesis…
Then I ran the test on unsmoothed values, so as to see the response to the 11-year solar cycle (and any other high-frequency behaviour).
The blue line again suggests a correlation with a +2 year delta-T (r=0.166 which is really rather weak).
The red line is again a little dubious, although various sources of error (some algorithmic, others due to the datasets having different base months) may have caused up to 1.5 years of error in the delta-T value, which could put the red line peak into the positive delta-T region, which would make more sense with the hypothesis.

January 11, 2010 4:07 pm

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!

Mattias, Sweden
January 11, 2010 4:16 pm

It’s relativly cold in many places right now, but I don’t think it will last more than possibly 2 or 3 months. But I can´t tell the future so it is going to be interesting to follow the development. 🙂

Michael Maxwell
January 11, 2010 4:18 pm

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.

Galen Haugh
January 11, 2010 4:22 pm

Sound and Fury (16:04:04) :
More from those delta-T plots: http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/htm/soundandfury/110110-more_climate.htm
—–
Reply: Excellent analysis, especially his disclaimer:
“As usual with my scientific articles, I should add that this work has not been peer-reviewed, although frankly with the current state of climatological peer-review, that’s probably a good thing. “

Henry chance
January 11, 2010 4:39 pm

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.

Sam
January 11, 2010 4:57 pm

These IPCC guys have been at it for a long time – impossible to know where anyh of them are coming form or what to believe. I was reading up last night on some background to the AGW controversy and came across the resignation of Dr Chris Landsea form the IPCC due to machinations of Trenberth (I knwo this is old news to most of you, but for those who are newer to the whole subject, it’s of interest):
“Dr Chris Landsea, former IPCC author who is the world expert on hurricane & cyclone activity, resigned from the IPCC with the following statement:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Damning of IPCC politicisation and Trenberth in particular.
Meanwhile there was the curious snippet in Dominic Lawson’s recent piece in The Times where he reports some Met Office functionary as saying that the current winter will go down as one of the warmest, regardless, because they “take readings from November to March, and since November was one of the warmest on record AND THEY ONLY AN AVERAGE OF THE 15 HIGHEST READINGS”
As reported here by an incredulous Gerald Warner in the DT:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021984/this-will-be-the-warmest-winter-in-living-memory-defiant-met-office-staffer/
And this is the same Met Office which is about to be led by Dr. Robert Napier, subject of the following post on Chris Booker’s column:
Dr. Robert Napier, is a green activist and alarmist not only is he the chairman of the Met office, but…he is also
1. Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation
2. Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’
3. Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda
4. Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for eco-towns and determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards.
5. Other recent positions he has held include Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast malthusian political pressure group seeking to grab land and stop development around the world
6. One time Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda
7. One time Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions, and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group.
This web of organizations over which Dr. Napier exercises influence means that Napier is responsible for the generation of climate alarmism, input into the IPCC reports, powerful secular and religious eco advocacy, monitoring of eco-compliance, manipulating government fiscal policy towards green taxes, and control of the building environment towards the green agenda “” [end quote]

Leo G
January 11, 2010 4:59 pm

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.

rbateman
January 11, 2010 5:05 pm

People like Romm and Gore are going to snap. Thier world is crumbling, and all Soros money and Hansen can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
I wouldn’t waste any time worrying about the likes of Soros and Hansen, though as they are the pot stirrers.
It’s those who are in the pot who are the troubled ones.

Mike Hutchinson
January 11, 2010 5:07 pm

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

Sam
January 11, 2010 5:11 pm

PS It seems the ‘quote’ from the Mat Man may well be a hoax!
But the appointment of Dr Napier certainly is not, unfortunatley

luca turin
January 11, 2010 5:20 pm

“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.

Sharon
January 11, 2010 5:31 pm

I’m sooooooooooooo confused!
Am I now supposed to blame Mother Gaia for “masking” the AGW? Is “masking the warming” the same thing as “hiding the decline”? Is this some kind of evil plot to befuddle skeptics?

tim c
January 11, 2010 5:37 pm

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.

Richard M
January 11, 2010 5:44 pm

rbateman (11:55:45) ,
I agree. In several images I’ve seen lately it appears the ice is getting thicker. Also, I haven’t heard claims about the ice thickness from warmers for a couple of months. This may something that needs more coverage by WUWT. Wouldn’t be ironic if the switchover from extent to thickness turns out to be a bad choice by the warmers.

January 11, 2010 6:03 pm

Lee Kington (13:12:17) :
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans…/40749822.html
Link doesn’t seem to work, but try:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81175327.html
“Is civilization doomed because of man-made global warming? You’ve been told your carbon footprint could lead to skyrocketing temperatures, melting ice caps, dying polar bears and “superstorms.”
“But there is another side to the story, and you can see it on KUSI this Thursday night.
“KUSI meteorologist, John Coleman, has an amazing story to tell of science gone bad, and new revelations as the “climategate” scandal comes to the United States.
“Join us on Thursday, January 14th, at 9pm, Pacific Time, for the special report that will explode the global warming myth!”

amicus curiae
January 11, 2010 6:08 pm

for the aussie Joe cool?
well the weather guys said we wouldnt get the cool change in Vic till tues evening, high fire etc etc, I hope someones noticed it is not raining. went from 44.9sun/ 42 mon to around 20c today,and the change hit as previously stated late/early, ie 2am tues morning.
Catastrophic warnings can be treated the same as extreme, only the name is changed..
to scare some ino supposedly? being mindful.
fat chance, idiots with grinders and farm vehicles in paddocks, and the perennial firebugs..and Lightning etc, falling trees on powerlines.

Sound and Fury
January 11, 2010 6:20 pm

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!

January 11, 2010 6:37 pm

luca turin (17:20:39) :
“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.
MIT’s sortof my conceptual “hero.” While it seems reasonable that soft sciences, such as sociology, AGW, etc., might be politicized there please tell me that their hard sciences are still up to snuff.

Leo G
January 11, 2010 6:54 pm

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

Dave F
January 11, 2010 7:26 pm

Just wondering:
If half of the warming is natural, then half of it comes from CO2, but then the IPCC is still dead wrong about feedbacks and the amount of sensitivity to CO2, right? If half of the observed warming is from natural causes, then they aren’t even in the ballpark, are they?

Baa Humbug
January 11, 2010 7:28 pm

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.

Larry
January 11, 2010 7:29 pm

I just sent the NSIDC graph to one of my environmentalist friends. I will be amused to see what kind of spin she puts on this, given that NSIDC is putting on quite a spin themselves. I find the notion of “normal” when it comes to Arctic ice quite elusive, given how the conditions change day-to-day and year-to-year.

Richard M
January 11, 2010 7:45 pm

First of all, if Latif believes he can really model climate that pretty much puts him at the bottom of his class. Next, he compares AGW theory to relativity … give me a break.
I’d say he’s a typical AGW believing climate scientist. Not very bright.

Dr. Gruhl
January 11, 2010 8:05 pm

Studies conducted in 1995 on the 15 temperature mechanisms on Earth predicted an approximately 70 year mini Ice Age. And, ominously, the necessarily shrinking growing season results in one billion extra starvations over that period. Long term anthropological studies all show that higher temperatures result in more food and higher populations, and lower temperatures always result in less food and shrinking human populations.
Carbon Cycle is about 12% of the climate change (Solar System Geometry [axis and orbit], Solar Cycles and Water Cycles are more important) and the small fraction of CO2 that is man made means that the man made CO2 effect is well down in the noise among the temperature mechanisms.
In 1995 it was predicted that the end of the Global Warming fiasco was going to be the same as the end of all previous eco-scams – i.e. “Scientists were surprised by new data which show the opposite …” In other words – blame someone else.

Tim Groves
January 11, 2010 9:05 pm

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.

stumpy
January 11, 2010 9:12 pm

Interestingly the daily mail article quotes him directly, these quotes seem to be the comments he is upset about! Were the quotes taken out of context, if they are what he said?
My prediction, cooling to continue around 5 years following the current minimum

Tim Groves
January 11, 2010 9:13 pm

“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.

January 11, 2010 9:32 pm

Sydney Sceptic (13:56:23) :

I concur with Smokey on this one. Barton Paul Levenson in particular is an acolyte of the Real Climate “high priests.” He was demolished over at JoNova’s blog and eventually went away. He even threatened some of the skeptics with physical violence, that’s how hysterical he gets. I invited him to come meet me face to face in Afghanistan (where I’ve been for almost two years) . He declined of course. Afterall, it’s easy to level threats long distance on a blog.

DirkH
January 11, 2010 10:21 pm

Latif sounds like a politician not a scientist.

Jordan Yankov
January 11, 2010 10:28 pm

Usually you will expect a scientist to say “I think …” NOT “I believe …”
I think that the science suffered a sever blow thanks to “scientists” like Latif who prefer to believe rather to make unbiased researches.

Dave Harrison
January 11, 2010 10:51 pm

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?

Terry Jackson
January 11, 2010 11:07 pm

Hasn’t Don Easterbrook been saying this for years? He isn’t, I presume, an IPCC author. Here http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glocool.htm is a place to start. Sort of fellow who does actual research in ‘the field’ so probably a bit too soiled to be invited to the party. Also not a ‘name’ school
Some AGW people have said that the models totally account for all solar influence because TSI is constant. Wonder how that is working out.

b.poli
January 11, 2010 11:32 pm

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

January 11, 2010 11:56 pm

Uhm. Another “leading climate scientist” has discovered PDO. He actually says, that PDO is responsible for 5 to 50% of the temperature rise since 1980. We might add, that another 50% are just UHIed thermometers. Latif keeps on claiming, that the “greenhouse” effect will prevail in the future and present fluctuations are superimposed on exponentially rising trend.
However, if we are on the halfway to CO2 doubling, present temperatures barely overreached 40ties and we have several decades of cooling ahead, how can we reach 3-7C positive anomaly in 2100 is beyond common sense.

January 12, 2010 12:06 am
January 12, 2010 1:57 am

I didn’t intend anyone to get the impression that I thought Latif had plagiarised anything. I was merely suggesting that he may have felt it wise to ‘clarify’ his AGW credentials in light of my work and real world developments.
My main problem with his work and his ‘clarification’ is the extent of the dissonance shown.
His work on multidecadal oceanic oscillations clearly makes him admit that the oceans provide at least a 50 % contribution to whatever happened to global temperatures in the past and he does not explain why it need be limited to such a modest proportion given the rapid responses seen on an interannual timescale to changes in the ENSO cycle.
Nor does he seem to note the several different timescales of ocean cycles (at least 3 in my opinion), nor does he acknowledge any possible effect of solar variations on the strength of the Arctic Oscillation which I have just gone into in some detail here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Winter20092010.pdf

January 12, 2010 1:58 am

Sound and Fury (13:43:27) :
……………………
Thanks for the note. What I am doing is not entirely consistent with the current thinking, and has been described as ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘cyclomanaia’. As an undergraduate of a premier university you should only, for time being, at least publicly, follow well trodden path of approved research at least until you obtain your degree.
However, you are always welcome to take a look at graphs and formulae available at:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
Data sets are available from: http://www.ncof.gov.uk/hadcet/data/download.html and
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/

JusstPassing
January 12, 2010 1:58 am

— The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle —
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279/
“The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.”
* An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland — showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
* The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
* Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

January 12, 2010 2:08 am

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.

Rhodrich
January 12, 2010 2:39 am

[this serves no point ~ ctm]

Rhodrich
January 12, 2010 2:49 am

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

TFN Johnson
January 12, 2010 3:34 am

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.

Oscar
January 12, 2010 4:25 am

Mr. Latif is quoted in the Guardian as saying:
“I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.”
Well, so much for unbiased science then.
Note that this statement comes from a leading IPCC author!

Vincent
January 12, 2010 5:12 am

Stephen Wilde,
Your link does not work.

kwik
January 12, 2010 5:25 am

If I felt like the AGW’ers were living in a Salvador Dali painting, what shall we call this?
Has the world gone completely crazy…..
Just look here;
http://translate.google.no/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Furiks%2Farticle3460872.ece&sl=no&tl=en

Erik
January 12, 2010 6:07 am

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.

An Inquirer
January 12, 2010 6:07 am

Tim Groves (21:05:37) : “Any chance of an ice bridge forming this winter between Greenland and Iceland? . . .”
I am not an expert on this issue, and others would be better to answer this; but my long-standing understanding without recent research is that the warm Gulf Stream from the south passes between Greenland and Iceland which would make such an ice bridge highly unlikely.

P Wilson
January 12, 2010 6:38 am

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.

jmbnf
January 12, 2010 6:39 am

I might just be writing this for the benefit of newbie’s to this site but this needs to be summarized.
For starters some argue that the ocean have no net effect on climate over the long term as they have little to do with the heat balance. It goes something like this: Air and water can move around but in the end that’s all it’s doing the heat content doesn’t change. The problem with that is readings for the long term are mainly from surfaces; the land surface and the sea surface. We know the deep ocean can contain a lot of heat (even though it’s cold there) and just like we recently observed, the layers of the atmosphere can also fluctuate relative to one another.
So now we have to look closely at what Kevin Trenberth said here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
The key phrases being “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”, “Our observing system is inadequate.” And “That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.”
Working backwards through the quotes Trenberth tends to say that decadal fluctuations in the PDO are nonsense, and as some might agree, we are just watching a side effect of ENSO. He then however, lends credence to the PDO by saying that it has shifted. One could extract that there are shifts but there is no decadal pattern. Fine, but some think there is a decadal pattern. One of those people is Mojib Latif. Both Trenberth and Latif believe AGW is a big problem but they may disagree on exactly how the ocean works into it.
Then of course, as a response to Trenberth, Steve Schneider states “there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years??” lending to the idea that he tends to disagree with the idea that the current stasis, that even Schneider admits to will stop soon.
Start by comparing this graph with this graph http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ps3_latif_slide10.jpg with this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Temperatures_1880-2000.png
You can see from the two graphs that both seem to acknowledge a linear trend with a natural fluctuation imposed over it. Now compare this graph: http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ps3_latif_slide3.jpg with this http://media.photobucket.com/image/Syun%20Ichi%20akasofu/MSimon6808/pdo.jpg
Did you look at them closely? Can you see that how you account for shifts as small as tenths of a degree and how you interpret these fluctuations in the record can make a huge impact on projections. Of course the graphs referenced are from Latif and Syun Ichi Akasofu. Unlike Motif, Syun states: “Thus, there is a possibility that only a small fraction of the warming between 1900 and 2000 may be attributed to the greenhouse effect. In this view, the predicted temperature change in 2100 is about 0.5°C ± 0.2°C.” link: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Natural_Components_of_Climate_Change.pdf

January 12, 2010 6:45 am

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)

January 12, 2010 6:48 am

The cooling being experienced now is pretty much global. December 2009 was one of the coldest Decembers on record as also reported here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/coal-creek-redux/#more-14815
Note that in the graphs shown above the tipping point for warming/cooling is apparently between 2002 and 2003.
Interestingly enough:
1) It is exactly from about this time that the scientists from the university of East Anglia tried to “bend’ the graphs upwards whereas it is clearly going downwards.
2) It is exactly from about this time that ozone started going up and the ozone hole in Antarctica is closing
3) it is exactly from about this time that earth’s albedo (albedo=earth shine) as measured on the moon, increased significantly/
4) I have seen several reports on You tube that revealed that the measurements of temperatures in rural areas in the USA have pretty much stayed constant in the last decade, which can also be associated with ‘tipping” (balance)
5 In: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprecedent-low-only-zero-could-be-lower-in-a-month-when-sunspots-became-more-active
If you look at the first graph the light blue line (smoothed monthly values, you will also note a tipping point in 2003.
conicidences?
I would think not.
As shown previously in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data
ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of earth’s climate than interglacials. According to the records, we are in fact pretty lucky to be here in this rare, warmer period. The broader lesson is: Climate does not stand still. And global cooling could be on its way.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that this is not a hoax (like the carbon dioxide scam – and the carbon footprint nonsense)
For those interested, a more detailed argument against (human made) global warming can be found in
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
(note that SST stands for sea surface temperature)
Remember that most skeptics believe that climate is strongly related to cloud formation.
If, as predicted by Fred 9quiet some time ago, I presume), global cooling is coming, I am not sure what we can do if it gets ugly.
As most skeptics know, pumping CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to help…….Stocking up some food might be a good idea.

Mike Ramsey
January 12, 2010 7:16 am

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. 

Mike Ramsey
January 12, 2010 7:26 am

kwik (05:25:15) :
If I felt like the AGW’ers were living in a Salvador Dali painting, what shall we call this? Has the world gone completely crazy….. Just look here;
http://translate.google.no/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Furiks%2Farticle3460872.ece&sl=no&tl=en
I somehow cannot picture the leaders of Norway concluding that more ice and snow is in their best interest.  I also cannot picture the Obama administration approving of the operation.
Add to that the silliness of the idea that the USA has that much power and that Russia couldn’t match it.
Mike Ramsey

Alan Chappell
January 12, 2010 7:30 am

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

Spen
January 12, 2010 7:54 am

‘In particular, the study concluded that cooling in the oceans could offset global warming, with the average temperature over the decades 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 predicted to be no higher than the average for 1994-2004.’
This exhibits a confusion between cause and effect. The ocean heat sink is many times beginner than that of the atmosphere. Ocean temperatures drive air temperatures. If ocean temperatures fall then that is global cooling – the earth is shedding energy.

January 12, 2010 8:03 am

Dr Latif said in relation to the current excitement:
“we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015″
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-predictions-no-good.html
So I guess that predictions for 2100 are useless. According to the good doctor.

January 12, 2010 8:04 am

Thanks Vincent, I’ll try again:
I didn’t intend anyone to get the impression that I thought Latif had plagiarised anything. I was merely suggesting that he may have felt it wise to ‘clarify’ his AGW credentials in light of my work and real world developments.
My main problem with his work and his ‘clarification’ is the extent of the dissonance shown.
His work on multidecadal oceanic oscillations clearly makes him admit that the oceans provide at least a 50 % contribution to whatever happened to global temperatures in the past and he does not explain why it need be limited to such a modest proportion given the rapid responses seen on an interannual timescale to changes in the ENSO cycle.
Nor does he seem to note the several different timescales of ocean cycles (at least 3 in my opinion), nor does he acknowledge any possible effect of solar variations on the strength of the Arctic Oscillation which I have just gone into in some detail here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Winter20092010.pdf

Pascvaks
January 12, 2010 8:06 am

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.

January 12, 2010 8:15 am

It seems I have to link to the article not the pdf.
Third time lucky:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4859&linkbox=true&position=13

pete
January 12, 2010 8:18 am

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.

matt v.
January 12, 2010 8:21 am

Professor Latif seems to claim that the current cold spell is a weather phenomena and he is talking about global mean temperatures over next 10 years. Yet they are both affected by the same natural cycles like AO, NAO,AMO ,PDO,ENSO, etc .You can’t have it both ways .The fact that natural cycles as illustrated by current extreme cold weather dwarf greenhouse warming , of course it questions the validity of global warming science . An additional ten years of cooling were not supposed to be. We have already had 10 years of flat global temperatures anomalies and any warming that there was, was due to El Nino effects. We were supposed to have unprecedented warming and winters were supposed to be over in UK by 2000 according to some CRU scientists .They are still claiming this even today at CRU.
I wonder if Professor Latif may have short memory lapse. In MAY 2008, he co-authored a PAPER for NATURE called, Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector and I quote part only from the ABSTRACT,
“Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged.
Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
He said much the same at the last WORLD CLIMATE CONFERENCE in September 2009
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3

January 12, 2010 8:33 am

MIT’s sortof my conceptual “hero.” While it seems reasonable that soft sciences, such as sociology, AGW, etc., might be politicized there please tell me that their hard sciences are still up to snuff.
Their hard science depts. are politicized too. The physics guys are deep into ITER dismissing all other approaches to fusion. OTOH their astrophysics (plasma) guys have done some interesting work on a Farnsworth type device.
It is all about money. ITER has big money. Other approaches pittances.
(Note to mod – sorry about putting the same link twice in the comments. I went to sleep and forgot I had posted the link previously)

January 12, 2010 8:46 am

I had the Following Link thrown in my Face after Posting this article on a Political Forum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
Seems like they have rebutted the article….

Vincent
January 12, 2010 8:46 am

jmbnf (06:39:30) :
“Working backwards through the quotes Trenberth tends to say that decadal fluctuations in the PDO are nonsense, and as some might agree, we are just watching a side effect of ENSO.”
No Trenberth isn’t saying that decadal fluctuations are nonsense. He is saying that people are confusing PDO with ENSO: “tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO.”
PDO is well documented: “The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.” (wiki).

Tenuc
January 12, 2010 8:48 am

Martin B (13:45:31) :
“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…”
Think you hit the nail on the head there Martin. To my knowledge none of the IPCC models showed this, proving they have no predictive power – all politicians please note! However, this is just the first major problem they’ve got.
The second problem the CAGW brigade have is that CO2 continued to rise during the last 10years. So instead of their claimed water vapour amplification happening, which is necessary for catastrophic warming, the reverse has happened and it seems to have a damping effect.
The third problem with the hypothesis is that CO2 was supposed to be the major climate driver, but it seems to have been easily overcome by natural climate effects. So the star of turn of CAGW has ended up in reality to be just a bit-part player.
The fourth and biggest problem these issues cause are that they falsify the hypothesis of CAGW completely.
Perhaps no surprise that Mojib Latif, one of the IPCC cabal, is desperately trying to back-pedal on the significance of his work, as it confirms the above points.
Time to wrap up warm now and enjoy watching the cooling, although I’m expecting UK summers to be nice and warm and dry for a change.

Erik
January 12, 2010 8:56 am

I realized “kadaka” was referring to so-called “passive houses” in Germany and the Nordic Countries. I too wonder how that works out?

Tenuc
January 12, 2010 9:03 am

Sound and Fury (16:04:04) :
“More from those delta-T plots:
http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/htm/soundandfury/110110-more_climate.htm
Thanks for posting this interesting stuff.
In your comments about the first graph you say, “Also of note is that the 11-year sunspot cycle does not appear, since it was filtered out of the input dataset. Here the main cycle appears to be between 80 and 100 years…”
I think the 80 – 110 year quasi-cycle has a big influence on climate:-
1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
Would it be possible for you to do an analysis on a longer time series to see what we get?

geo
January 12, 2010 9:30 am

If the warmists scientists can be brought to admit that warming will *not* be monontonous, and that indeed there are 30 year cycles and 1/2 the warming in the positive cycle is indeed natural variation, that would be a huge win for rationality.
And it wouldn’t make AGW something to not be concerned about and addressed. It just would make it something that there would be time to make measured decisions and transitions to address. But of course, there are a lot of people who the whole point of their AGW-love is as a society-changer. If it wasn’t this, there’d be something else they’d be pushing that would have the same solution –transfer lots of money elsewhere.

Vincent
January 12, 2010 9:37 am

Stephen Wilde,
The link is working now. You have written a very interesting and thought provoking article. One thing that came to mind, is that you associate a quiter sun with warming and an active sun with cooling (all else being equal). You must have been aware that periods of cold have been associated with quieter activity – Maunder, Dalton minimums. You seem to be implying that this is the result of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and that if the ITCZ and ocean oscillators were both negative, and the sun active, this would lead to extreme cooling, possibly a glaciation.
If this is true, then what could have kept these different phases from reinforcing each other at any time in the past millenia to prevent an ice age? Is there a mechanism that ties all these terrestrial cycles with the solar cycle?

REHafer
January 12, 2010 10:42 am

From memory; 1901 – global cooling scare, 1933 – dust bowl and global warming scare, 1970 – global cooling scare, 2000 – global warming scare. 2030 – global cooling scare?

January 12, 2010 11:03 am

Vincent (09:37:21)
Yes I dealt with that in the previous article here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4433
In essence it may well be that the solar and oceanic phases are actually independent of one another and when they are in phase as now during an interglacial they offset one another to limit climate variability but when they go out of phase they then supplement one another and reintroduce a much less stable climate with huge swings leading to glaciations.

Steve Fox
January 12, 2010 11:21 am

Here is a snapshot of the weather in Normandy. Usually we get cold weather around freezing, and after a few days, along comes an Atlantic low and after half an hour of snow, it starts drizzling. Now we’ve been well below freezing for 10 days, it’s currently 27F, an Atlantic low is pushing in, and we’re having a true blizzard. Huge amounts of snow have been falling for 3 hours, and the wind is picking up the 5-6 inches that was already on the ground and hurling it around, so the air is full of it. Some places are scoured almost bare. God knows how deep the drifts are already (it’s dark now). The snow is so powdery and fine, it’s blowing in under the door of my workshop, and settling inside. These are conditions I have only seen at altitude in Scotland, or skiing in the Alps. I’ve heard people saying there’s nothing exceptional about what’s occurring, but that’s rubbish. This is an order of magnitude beyond any winter weather I’ve seen for at least 20 years, and we’re not even halfway through January.
I know, I know, it’s weather not climate. But at some point, weather does become climate, doesn’t it?

Mattias, Sweden
January 12, 2010 11:30 am

“Tim Groves (21:05:37) said:
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.”
It is not likely because the weather in Iceland hasn’t been unusually cold and the forecast looks quite mild.

JonesII
January 12, 2010 11:37 am

Stephen Wilde (11:03:17) :Really a very interesting paper though that expression of “solar wind turbulence” corresponds to the “flintstones´ universe” vision. With a drecrease of solar activity it is expected a decrease in ions reaching the earth and changing fields, changing currents, etc. , all what you describe in your article. Everything fits.

January 12, 2010 12:00 pm

JonesII (11:37:38)
Thanks for your interest.
I’m happy to amend terminology if it is helpful. Can you suggest an alternative ? I felt that the turbulence concept was needed to account for the increased surface area of layer boundaries in the atmosphere but one could get much the same effect from simple expansion and contraction.
Anyway it’s just a work in progress.
I know that I’ve created a scenario that fits rather a lot of observed phenomena but someone could still come up with something that invalidates the whole construction.
However I’ve been building it bit by bit for a while now and still nothing fatal 🙂

TJA
January 12, 2010 12:11 pm

Stephen Wilde,
Sort of like higher frequency components of Milankovich forcings? I can buy that, since we know that the Milankovich picture is not complete.

TJA
January 12, 2010 12:13 pm

FYI, Vermont has been average to mild so far. Just a couple sub zero days, and more days above freezing than below zero. But as they say around here, as the days lengthen, the cold strengthens.

January 12, 2010 12:20 pm

TJA (12:11:22)
Yes it’s a nice supplement to Milankovitch given the doubts over the orbital changes being enough on their own.
It helps with sub 100,000 year glaciations quite a lot.
One test of a sound hypothesis is that as a side effect it fits observations that were not in one’s mind when it was formulated. I have been getting some of that ever since I first realised around 2000 that the significance of latitudinal air circulation shifts beyond seasonal variation as a climate modulating effect had never been adequately noticed or tracked.
Now if someone could come up with an observed phenomenon that doesn’t fit then that would be interesting. Either I will need to amend things or acknowledge defeat.

JonesII
January 12, 2010 12:27 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:00:51) :Vukcevik approach of changing magnetic fields, of course due to changing charges could be part of the view, and the risk of anathematization from settled science too.☺

Vincent
January 12, 2010 1:50 pm

Stephen Wilde,
I have been trying to think of ways in which the ocean cycles stay negative/positive when the sun is quiet/active. Is it possible that during the active sun, reduced GCR leads to less clouds, that lead to positive ocean cycles, and vice versa? Or is there no place for the GCR hypothesis in your model?

P Wilson
January 12, 2010 2:31 pm

I would have thought as speculation (ie, without any data) that a dormant sun would lead to temporary – fairly signiicant warming with a decrease in precipitation, less cloud cover, and more sunlight. Whereas an active sun – more cloud cover, precipitation, both processes with lags, – around 6 years? as obviously a protracted dormant sun would eventually lead to less heat in the system over a long term.

January 12, 2010 2:42 pm

Vincent (13:50:03) & JonesII (12:27:52)
I’m on record as being supportive of the GCR hypothesis but have questioned whether it is a primary driver or a second order influence.
Also I have left open the cause of the oceanic oscillations although I have suggested some sort of harmonic resonance linked to solar variability.
I have plumped for independence for the solar and oceanic cycles because a shift between their being in phase and out of phase at different times explains a lot of observations and especially the different scale of climate variability between glacial and interglacial periods.
In the end solar cycles have to predominate over long enough periods of time but there is no reason why the oceans should not vary independently most of the time due to a wide range of other influences which could acommodate the ideas of Svensmark or indeed Vukcevik or the ozonecentric ideas of Erl Happ amongst others.
For my part I am driven primarily by observations and the basic fact of a one way energy flow from sun to sea to air to space.
The essence of my construction is that the rate of energy flow appears to vary from one component of the Earth system to another with the troposphere merely along for the ride. The troposphere is the filling in a sandwich between various layers that are constantly changing the speed at which they transfer solar energy and we need to get a grip on the relative scales and speeds of the changes in each of those layers.
Even the ocean is multilayered as is the atmosphere but in the end the primary influences are solar variations in energy output (and the ‘turbulence’ of that output) as against the rate at which the oceans deign to release their energy to the air above.
The idea that sun and oceans are fixed (or relatively so) with the temperature of the troposphere determined by the composition of the air as per Arrhenius, Tyndall et al has been demonstrably falsified by the total predictive failure of the models based on their observations.
Conventional climatology has barely scratched the surface of reality.
I am building this one step at a time and if those other ideas can be induced to fit then I will be content.

Editor
January 12, 2010 2:44 pm

It appears that this post has caused a sever case of Watts/Fox Derangement Syndrome to break out over at Climate Progress!
FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC

January 12, 2010 2:52 pm

P Wilson (14:31:02)
Quite right that a dormant sun leads to less heat in the system over a long term.
However the length of that term is a real problem by virtue of the tiny changes in solar output over even millennia as Leif Svalgaard points out regularly.
What we need is some internal feature (or features) of the Earth system that produces the size of changes we actually observe over time scales of 10, 000 years or less (the current interglacial) and I think that is where I am making some progress.
As a side effect I have produced a hypothesis as to why climate variability could be so much greater during glaciations as compared to interglacials. I am not currently aware of any other suggestions as regards that observation.
It is because of the relatively small nature of the solar changes that I have chosen ocean variability in the rate of energy release to the air as the primary driver of the various phenomena that you mention.
If I have made a simple fatal error then I would appreciate being told as soon as possible.

Editor
January 12, 2010 3:00 pm

I posted this comment over at Climate Progress… It never made it through moderation…

From Nature, May 1, 2008…

Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected 8 May 2008
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2
Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrae 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence to: N. S. Keenlyside1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.S.K. (Email: nkeenlyside@ifm-geomar.de.).
The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences.
[…]
Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
LINK

From The Guardian, January 11, 2010…

Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect…
LINK

From The Telegraph, January 11, 2010…

The world could be in for a spell of cooler temperatures, rather than hotter conditions, as a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents for the next 20 or 30 years, it is predicted.
Research by Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world’s leading climate modellers, questions the widely held view that global temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.
[…]
He told a UN conference in September that changes in ocean currents known as North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over man-made global warming for the next few decades.
Controversially, he also said that the fluctuations could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.
[…]
LINK

New Scientist, September 9, 2009…

FORECASTS of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world’s top climate modellers.
“People will say this is global warming disappearing,” Mojib Latif told more than 1500 climate scientists gathered at the UN’s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, last week. “I am not one of the sceptics. However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”
[…]
Latif predicts that in the next few years a natural cooling trend will dominate the warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO).
Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, Latif said the NAO was probably responsible for some of the strong warming seen around the globe in the past three decades. “But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a phase that will cool the planet.
[…]
LINK

Dr. Latif has repeatedly said that the shift of the AMO from positive to negative will lead to anywhere from 10 to 30 years of slight global cooling and that as much as half of the late 20th century warming was due to natural climate oscillations.
I fail to see how Dr. Latif’s actual statements have caused such an outbreak of Watts/Fox Derangement Syndrome to break out here.

January 12, 2010 3:04 pm

Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “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.”
First off, I asked for the data so that I could do some basic comparisons.
But now you’ve confirmed that there is no dataset to document your claims. Then all of your discussions on this subject are based on your memories of climate patterns, without data to support it. In other words, the majority of us can take what you write as speculation, at best.
Without data, you’ve got speculation, Stephen, nothing more.

January 12, 2010 3:21 pm

Bob Tisdale (15:04:23)
I know you are not impressed so I’ll just have to live with it.
I assume you deny that there are any latitudinal variations in the air circulation systems beyond seasonal variability.
Funny that the Discovery Channel did a whole documentary about how the jets streams had moved anomalously poleward and it was all our fault (until they moved back again).
Funny how everyone is commenting that they are now anomalously far south in the northern hemisphere hence the recent global mid hemisphere coldness.
No, not speculation. A hypothesis informed by observations.
Best Wishes.

Tarby
January 12, 2010 3:45 pm

Latif’s work said nothing of the sort, and he has rebutted any such claim as made in this post of yours. I trust you will be making a public apology to Latif and retract this post. Your claims here are scandalously misrepresentative.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

matt v.
January 12, 2010 5:27 pm

David Middleton
Good summary of the climate predictions associated with Professor Latif as presented to the public to date . I think the best thing that Professor Latif can do to clear up the confusion is to write his own article in his own words in a clear and simple way so that the public can understand his climate predictions . I must admit his climate statements and future predictions are not very clear and are open to many interpretations. That is why there is so much confusion about what he said or what he really meant. I have personally written to him but he does not seem reply or communicate with the general public .

kadaka
January 12, 2010 5:49 pm

Tarby (15:45:21) :
Latif’s work said nothing of the sort, and he has rebutted any such claim as made in this post of yours. I trust you will be making a public apology to Latif and retract this post. Your claims here are scandalously misrepresentative.

The Daily Mail article specifically mentioned in “UPDATE” above has no corrections, retractions, or apologies posted with the article. There are none with the similar Telegraph piece. The David Rose article at The Mail Online that formed the basis of the WUWT piece, has none of those either.
Therefore at this point, the underlying material has not changed, therefore no retraction or apology is necessary nor is any of such warranted.
Dr. Latif is being given the opportunity to respond, which is more than can be expected at any of the Old Media and is quite a generous offer. After he does so, then we can see exactly what claims he has rebutted and how, instead of merely taking your (outraged?) word that he has rebutted “any such claim.”

January 12, 2010 6:32 pm

Tarby (15:45:21) :
Best bit of sarcasm I have read in a while. Pure comedy genius.

Charlie H
January 12, 2010 7:29 pm

The intellectual dishonesty of WattsUpWithThat is breathtaking.
REPLY: Well don’t just shout words and run, explain why posting an article from the Daily Mail, then when it is challenged, linking to the challenge and then offering a guest post to Latif is “dishonest” – Anthony

ginckgo
January 12, 2010 9:00 pm

kadaka
So Latif’s response in the Guardian that Tarby posted doesn’t count? He has to personally come here and do a “Guest Post”? Delusional dreams of grandeur prevail here.
REPLY: There’s no delusional dreams of grandeur, but the Guardian doesn’t have much of a US audience. If The Daily Mail made a mistake in interpretation, Dr. Latif can certainly benefit from a guest post due to the wide audience that WUWT has. The offer is genuine. – Anthony

January 12, 2010 9:37 pm

As I said (earlier), I have noted at least 5 tipping points around 2003, clearly showing or telling us that it will get cooler. So I do not need this prof or whoever to tell me it will get cooler. Obviously, as always, there are none so blind as those that do not want to see.
The scientific record shows that between the 1600s and 1700s, sun spot activity was very low, as it is now, and the Earth was so cold that the period became known as the “little ice age.”
We know from the records that there were very few of these sunspots for very long periods, from about 1650 until about 1715. This particular period of low solar activity also correlates with a period where the climate at least in most of Europe and other places of the world was very cold.
It was also very cold in North America during the colonial period compared to today. Colonial art often shows deep snows and ice filled rivers during the winters. The winter of 1780 was so cold in Virginia that the Norfolk Historical Society says the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay froze solid and men walked across it. On the Virginia Beach oceanfront, ocean ice piled up 20 feet high and didn’t melt completely until May. That’s almost unimaginable in Virginia Beach today, where the ice on a typical winter’s day is lucky to make it past noon.
Another little ice age appeared again in North America in the mid-1800s along with a corresponding scarcity of sunspots.
It is clear from the above that as evidence of global cooling will become more clear, Svensmark’s theory will become the prevalent theory. Briefly, the Svensmark Cosmic Ray Theory goes like this.
The earth is constantly being bombarded with cosmic rays, high-energy particles from exploding stars. The Svensmark Cosmic Ray Theory says that when these cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they help create clouds.
An active sun strengthens a magnetic shield around the earth that lets fewer cosmic rays get through. If the sun is less active, more cosmic rays get through. And the more cosmic rays, the more clouds, and the cooler global temperatures will be.
What I am worried about now: suppose it will get so cold that we fall into a little ice age. How will this affect the various continents?

January 13, 2010 2:17 am

Stephen Wilde: You wrote in reply, “I assume you deny that there are any latitudinal variations in the air circulation systems beyond seasonal variability.”
I acknowldege that the tropics have expanded based on numerous metrics, but those who study and attempt to explain the expansion in scientific papers use one or more datasets to back their discussions. You, on the other hand, do not, and without data, it’s speculation on your part.

Royinsouthwest
January 13, 2010 2:19 am

In a Welsh newspaper, the Western Mail, there was an article yesterday about a claim by Dr Alun Hubbard, a scientist at Aberystwyth University’s Centre for Glaciology, that there could be glaciers on Snowdon within 40 years.
‘Glaciers on Snowdon’ warning by climate expert
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/01/12/glaciers-on-snowdon-warning-by-climate-expert-91466-25576951/
The reason given for expecting the return of glaciers was that global warming would cause the Greenland ice sheet to melt with the result that the Gulf Stream would be forced further south and north west Europe would freeze.
Just three years ago another Welsh scientist predicted that Snowdon would be free of snow in winter in another 13 years.
Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/snowdon-will-be-snowfree-in-13-years-scientists-warn-432596.html
The reason given was global warming. Therefore whether Snowdon never has snow again or gets covered by a glacier the cause will be the same! Whatever happens the cause will be global warming.
Presumably that is what people mean when they say “the science is settled!”

Tarby
January 13, 2010 3:10 am

“REPLY: There’s no delusional dreams of grandeur, but the Guardian doesn’t have much of a US audience. If The Daily Mail made a mistake in interpretation, Dr. Latif can certainly benefit from a guest post due to the wide audience that WUWT has. The offer is genuine. – Anthony”
Anthony, you could just simply post Latif’s rebuttal from The Guardian, just as you did with the Mail on Sunday article. There’s no need for a guest post as his thoughts on the Mail’s article are quite clear already. Or do you consider Rose’s reporting to be more scientifically substantial than Latif’s?

January 13, 2010 3:13 am

Henry Pool (21:37:30)
Can you provide any evidence that the Svensmark theory is implicated in the PDO phase changes every 25 to 30 years ?
And, ideally can you link ocean surface temperature changes to the peaks and troughs of the individual solar cycles ?
Thanks.

kadaka
January 13, 2010 3:58 am

Henry Pool (21:37:30) :
What I am worried about now: suppose it will get so cold that we fall into a little ice age. How will this affect the various continents?

If it is a strong “little” ice age, well… The Canadians will move down to and be welcomed in the continental United States, with grudging acceptance of the French-speaking former Quebec residents. Americans will move to Mexico, which will eventually be taken over by the US (the Texas maneuver). And then, we’ll likely stop caring about the rest of the world as we’ll be using our fuel for power and to stay warm, rather than to jet across the world to see how everyone else is doing while not promising aid we don’t have anyway.
For a “mild” stretch of cold, there will be some southward migration. And we’ll likely stop caring about the rest of the world as we’ll be spending too much money on food and fuel to send much in taxes to Washington DC, and don’t want to appear rude by asking if other people in the world need help when we know we can’t afford to send any. If Canadians want help, they can move here. Oh, and taking over Mexico will be an attractive proposition, will likely improve both areas and give the US a much smaller southern land border to control.
Of course the “developing” nations, as seen in Copenhagen, would insist there is really global warming going on and that we should send money as reparations and to pay for future damages, the cries for which would continue until they are crushed beneath any advancing glaciers. Thus we Americans, accepting the reality around us, will conclude those nations are obviously completely insane, that we do not want to deal with their madness, and stop caring about them.
There are a lot of nations right now that are really hoping the planet is not cooling and is actually still warming, whether they admit it or not.

January 13, 2010 4:41 am

ginckgo (21:00:50) :
kadaka
So Latif’s response in the Guardian that Tarby posted doesn’t count? He has to personally come here and do a “Guest Post”? Delusional dreams of grandeur prevail here.
[…]

From The Guardian, January 11, 2010… “Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect…”
From Nature, May 1, 2008… Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
From The Telegraph, January 11, 2010… “The world could be in for a spell of cooler temperatures, rather than hotter conditions, as a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents for the next 20 or 30 years, it is predicted…
Controversially, he also said that the fluctuations could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.”
From New Scientist, September 9, 2009… “We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world’s top climate modellers… Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, Latif said the NAO was probably responsible for some of the strong warming seen around the globe in the past three decades. ‘But how much? The jury is still out,’ he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a phase that will cool the planet.”
The Telegraph, New Scientist and Nature all feature Latif saying that we’re in for 1-3 decades of cooling due to the cool phase of the NAO. The Guardian, the Telegraph, New Scientist and Nature all feature Latif saying that as much as half of the late 20th century warming was due to the warm phase of the NAO.

Tarby
January 13, 2010 4:55 am

To Dave Middleton: From Latif, as directly quoted by The Guardian:
*The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif’s research showed that the current cold weather heralds such “a global trend towards cooler weather”.
It said: “The BBC assured viewers that the big chill was was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming. The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.”
Not according to Latif. “They are not related at all,” he said. “What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years. You can’t compare the two.”*
The Mail’s article is not the first time Latif has been mispreported and misrepresented, and the New Scientist article also made mistakes:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/
*The first step in this sorry story, of course, was the misunderstanding of Latif’s remarks by Fred Pearce, in the New Scientist article entitled “World’s climate could cool first, warm later”. As explained in the careful dissection of Latif’s original remarks at the ThingsBreak blog, Latif’s hypothetical cautionary situation was misinterpreted as an actual prediction, concerning the coming decade.*

matt v.
January 13, 2010 5:58 am

In all fairness to Professor Latif and since there is some confusion about what Professor Latif has actually said to various news people, I thought that it would be useful to actually hear his own words when he last spoke at the 2009 World Climate Conference in September 2009. I enclose my notes from listening to audio of the presentation and watching the slides. I would be interested in the opinion of others who may listen to this presentation and whether they though that his message was clear.
My brief notes from September 2009 WORLD CLIMATE CONFERENCE and presentation by Professor Latif
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
[ NEWSCIENTIST wrote an article from this presentation I assume
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
I listened to the audio and watched the slides of M. Latif’s presentation. Here are my observations.
Slide# 1
In reference to the 20th century average global temperature curve
Shows long term warming trend but with decadal variability
Curve is anthropogenic in nature or manmade in his opinion
Slide#3
20 th Century temperature curve simplified with a projection to 2100
It is not clear whether this projection is a real model forecast or just made for illustration purposes only to show that 1-2 decade cooling periods can happen. I can see how this graph can confuse the media. It is not clear.
Shows a cooling period about 2010-2030
He Indicated that you can enter a cooling period of a decade or two in these long term periods
Slide #17
Forecast for next decade [shows a large spread in forecast]
UK curve shows steep rise with perhaps 1C degree rise max or flat at low end
German curve shows very little temperature rise and possibly a negative rise [cooling?] at the low end
Various other slides
Indicated that MOC and NAO do play significant role in decadal variability of global temperatures especially in the north Atlantic
He is not a skeptic but totally global warming
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS[mine only]
He does project at least the next decade as being flat or even cooling at the low end of his projection
He does not specifically project the next two decades as cool [even though his slide #3 shows some of this] but he does indicate that there can be 2 decades of cooling.
He believes that the 20 the century warming curve is anthropogenic with strong variability due to natural causes like MOC and NAO
I think the New Scientist article perhaps could be clearer in some areas but it is not seriously misleading. I can see how the vague words can be taken differently by different people . They could be clearer in my opinion.

January 13, 2010 6:01 am

Bob Tisdale (02:17:06)
Then there are data sets and papers you could refer me to ?

January 13, 2010 6:14 am

Henry @ stephen Wilde
Questions:
Can you provide any evidence that the Svensmark theory is implicated in the PDO phase changes every 25 to 30 years ?
And, ideally can you link ocean surface temperature changes to the peaks and troughs of the individual solar cycles ?
Answer:
First of all, let me say I am just a normal chemist, not a climate scientist.
I studied the global warming as a hobby. I am not sure what PDO stands for, but I assume it has something to do with the streams in the oceans.
I came to the conclusion that Carbon dioxide is harmless. It comes out in the atmosphere after global warming, and is therefore not a reason for global warming. This is because of what we all learned at school: CO2 dissolves in (cold) water and if you make the water warm or boil it, it comes out again.
I concluded that the sun must be major driver of the weather. Svensmark theory makes perfect sense to me. If you stand in the sun and a cloud goes past by, a) you feel less heat from the sun and b) it gets darker. Where did the (missing) radiation go? It was deflected out to space. Easy. So more clouds bring less heat from the sun. Less clouds bring more heat which gets absorbed by the oceans who act as buffers.
I also looked at the studies from Fred in: http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
He determined a number of returning cycles of sea surface temperatures (SST) of which a few are also common with the CO2 cycles. (which makes sense: as the SST rises so does the CO2 in the atmosphere.) >
I hope his graphs can also help you with the answer that you are looking for .
I think he mentioned other cycles as well. One was a 300 or 350 year cycle.
So it is possible that we are returning to the little ice age similar to what the weather was in 350 years ago. However, I am not sure at what point we are in in the particular cycles that he mentioned. (I could not figure that out yet)

JonesII
January 13, 2010 6:49 am

Stephen Wilde (06:01:52) : Download all these PDF, it´s a must read
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
in special the 8th. one where in page 50 you can see the 55 years oscillation of the atmospheric circulation index.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf

Vincent
January 13, 2010 7:14 am

Tarby,
These “misinterpretations” are all about what Latif has said or hasn’t said vis a vis the future of climate change and the CO2 influence thereon. The one fact that is beyond interpretation of any kind, is Latif’s conclusion that half the current warming was due to natural cycles.
What’s to misinterpret in that?

January 13, 2010 7:27 am

JonesII (06:49:08)
Thanks, I’ll have a browse. In the meantime is there anything in there that suggests that my hypotheses are ‘rubbish’ ?
Bob Tisdale appears to accept that there are latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems beyond seasonal variability but makes no effort to show that my hypothesis as to an oceanic cause of such shifts is false. He just tries to downgrade what I say to ‘speculation’ even though it based on clear observations such as those set out in your material.
Henry Pool (06:14:03)
Didn’t intend to put you on the spot Henry.
I was just trying to find out whether you had anything to refute my proposition that ocean surface changes drive events in the air and not vice versa. The significance is that if oceans are in control then Svensmarks ideas become relegated to a second order influence on climate.

Sordnay
January 13, 2010 7:45 am

“”Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.””
Does this means that IPCC AR4 GCM predictions are 50% off ??
And there is no need to correct their models or something?
Can someone be so kind to explaim this to me?
Is there any “howto” get the IPCC models proyections for temperature anomalies, as in this figure, http://www.realclimate.org/images/model09.jpg
Thanks

matt v.
January 13, 2010 7:54 am

After listening to Professor Latif’s 2009 WCC presentation again I concluded the following:
He is only making a prediction for one decade only namely the next decade [2009-2019] and he basically shows the global average surface temperatures to decline to a range of about 14.18 C to 14.28 C from 14.39 C in 2008 [ I don’t have final figures for 2009 but it could be 14.3 -14.4 C]. I eyeballed his the numbers from his graphs. The UK forecast shows waming to a range of 14.5-14.7C
He also said that you may well enter a decade or two of cooling relative to the present temperature level, however he did not indicate when any two decades of cooling would happen or whether the second decade after the next decade was even cooling.
In another words he is predicting cooling for the next decade[ONE] only.
He never talked about 3 decades of cooling.

January 13, 2010 8:54 am

Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Bob Tisdale appears to accept that there are latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems beyond seasonal variability but makes no effort to show that my hypothesis as to an oceanic cause of such shifts is false.”
I have no need to show that it’s false. YOU have a need to show that it’s correct. You have not done this. You have presented nothing to substantiate your claims.

Tarby
January 13, 2010 9:13 am

Harping on about Latif’s comments on past climate is a straw man.
Matt v. sticks to the subject and explains how the article here, the Mail on Sunday, and on FOX are misrepresentations. The original article, according to Latif, misquotes him. He should know, he said the words, unless the commenters here were listening in at the time.
Suggesting that he should go to the trouble of making a guest post here is a hollow gesture and an insult. He has nothing to defend. Rose has plenty to defend and it is he, if anyone, who should be making a guest post to explain the discrepancies.

January 13, 2010 9:14 am

Stephen Wilde: To add to my previous comment, you have provided nothing to counter the results of Lu et al (2009) “Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958”. Their Summary and Discussion includes, “…SST forcing alone causes no significant change in the width of the tropics, and even a contraction in some seasons.”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/LuDeserReichler.pdf
Also, you asked above, “Then there are data sets and papers you could refer me to ?”
I’m not studying this. You are. It’s your responsibility to provide something, anything, to back your claims, not mine. Don’t put the responsibility on me, Stephen.

Editor
January 13, 2010 9:16 am

Stephen Wilde (07:27:20) :
[…]
I was just trying to find out whether you had anything to refute my proposition that ocean surface changes drive events in the air and not vice versa. The significance is that if oceans are in