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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ummm apparently Latif didn’t say any of this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/why-is-the-news-media-comfortable-with-lying-about-science.ars
Anyone wanna comment on that?
Stephen Wilde
Thanks again for your patient explanation.
On the issue of ice ages and the solar – ocean phase relationship: the cycle times for both sun – e.g. sunspots – and the ocean oscillations, are quite short, only a few decades. Plus they are both variable. This makes it hard to envisage how a fixed phase relationship between the 2 could remain stable for 10,000 years – interglacial – or 100,000 years – glacial. Unless the phase relationship is itself a chaotic attractor.
phlogiston (15:26:16)
Sunspot cycles vary during a single cycle but also from cycle to cycle and, crucially over 500/1000 years or so as between Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to Modern Maximum. There may be other oceanic and solar periodicities too long for the historical record to reveal.
Ocean cycles vary interannually via ENSO, multidecadally via PDO and I think on a similar 500/1000 year time scale as evidenced by a report that during the LIA the ITCZ was on the equator rather than some distance north of it as it is now. I see latitudinal positioning of the air circulation systems as a fingerprint of an oceanic cycle.
I don’t yet have an explanation as to why there are such similar time scales in solar and oceanic cycling but there may be some sort of harmonic resonance in the two interacting fluids or fluid like materials of water and energy flow or magnetic disturbance.
Now I don’t think they are stable in two separate modes. I think the timing changes slowly over time. possibly steadily but also possibly in fits and starts.
I have suggested that the land / ocean quantities and distribution are relevant here.
On a ratio of 10 to 1 it seems that the current landmass distribution favours glaciation 90% of the time as the solar and oceanic phases shift in relation to one another over time. So only during a part of the ever changing interaction between the two sets of cycles will an interglacial be possible.
Somewhat speculative but it fits observations too neatly to ignore it.
David Middleton: You wrote, “but the long-term trend of the PDO seems to be a pretty good indicator of whether or not the Earth’s climate is warming or cooling.”
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism through which the PDO can vary global climate, but with ENSO there is. The PDO is not the same as the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific.
Refer to the following posts for further info on common misunderstandings about the PDO:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/misunderstandings-about-pdo-revised.html
and:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/revisiting-misunderstandings-about-pdo.html
You wrote, “It seems to me that the ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. are all just functions of multi-year to multi-decadal patterns in oceanic circulation.”
Are you confusing the words pattern and cycle/oscillation?
NINO3.4 SST anomalies, a common index of ENSO, are the SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific. They are not the pattern of those SST anomalies. There is a known correlation between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and global temperatures. The diabatic and adiabatic processes that vary global temperatures in response to ENSO are well documented. So are the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that take place during ENSO events.
The AMO is detrended SST anomalies of the North Atlantic. It is not a pattern.
Regards
Thanks, Bob. I hadn’t really thought of it that way.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
is great! Thanks.
But now…., which of the 3 roads to take? Is there no way we can figure out where we are in the current major cycles? I’d like to find out which is the most likely scenario.
I gather that the experts don’t know ?
Henry@Patrick Guinness
we have been there, done that.
If you are interested, read all the comments above (don’t be lazy)
and btw find out that global cooling is in fact on its way.
Henry@Stephen Fisher
“I’ve predicted the last two winters correctly on that basis”
So what is your prediction or prognosis for the winters in the next 5 years, especially in the light of :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
?
(I note that the magnetic flux from the sun will be at an all time low at around 2015 – e.g. no visible sunspots – and there was a tipping point going down seriously at around 2003. Also at about the same time, earth’s albedo – earth shine – as measured on the moon, went up)
SEE:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
“Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years).“ !!!
and see:
http://sites.google.com/site/earthquakepredictionbyjac/Home/Istotatrz%C4%99sie%C5%84Ziemi2aa.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
“Currently the most visible are the waves occuring every 9*3=27 years.”!!!
negative correlation (-1)
Henry Pool (03:00:01)
I wouldn’t like to do a seasonal forecast more than 6 months ahead because it depends on the combination of intra cycle solar activity levels and the interannual ENSO signal both being superimposed on a background trend from longer solar and oceanic cycles that are themselves variable.
However I tend to agree with Easterbrook that a multidecadal slow and irregular cooling of the troposphere commenced a few years ago and has some way to run.
The key question is whether the slow longer term post LIA upward trend continues past the next climate ‘step’ or whether a genuine longer term downtrend will be revealed to have commenced.
Henry@Stephen Fisher
Interesting. If we go by Easterbrook’s top curve (based on 1945-1977 cooling) then things would stay pretty much the same as it was in the previous warm period. But already we (in South Africa) could notice a winter of 2009 that was a bit colder and longer than usual (compared to like say the past 5 years). I remember this, because a solar geyser panel of ours froze up. Now, at this time, a more severe winter is evident in the whole of the northern hemisphere. According to watts widget the global temp in December was almost 0.4 degrees down. It would appear to me that this trend (if it continues) seems to follow the second curve, i.e. cooling based on the period1880-1915. Do you agree?
Also, it appears that solar magnetic activity is headed for a low which has not been seen for a very long time. At the same time, when I look at the world weather reports that show the sat. pictures, I see an awful lot more clouds on earth than in the past. Do you agree? Can we assume that Svensmark theory is correct and that global cooling is now a reality?
Henry Pool (04:55:23)
It is about 500 years from the coldest part of the LIA so I do suspect that we have now passed the peak of the Modern Warming but I do not know that for a fact. You do summarise some of the anecdotal and observational evidence in support of that possibility.
As regards the Svensmark theory I remain supportive of his ideas but I suspect it is a second order effect with the primary cause of cloudiness changes being variations in sea surface temperaures.
Stephen, thanks.
I think I know what you mean. It is like with my swimming pool. if I heat the water to say 28-30 degrees C, then, in the morning when it is cool outside, I can see the water vapor rising in small clouds from the pool. If I had not heated the pool and if the water is as cool as it outside you do not see this water vapor rising. So, the water vapor coming from the pool is temperature dependent.
I suppose any liquid’s vapor pressure is dependent on temperature.
So now, here we have this development:
1) the higher the temp. of the oceans the more water vapor rises to the atmosphere, the higher the humidity in the air
2) the higher the humidity in the air the more clouds are formed ( where the Svensmark theory has its application)
3) the more clouds appear, the more radiation from the sun is deflected from the earth, the cooler it gets.
4)this cooling puts a brake on more water vapor being produced.
Interesting. Am I right so far?
So it seems to me that earth (where 70% of surface is oceans) has its own built-in air conditioning system, that would prevent it from getting too warm or even too cold…..
50% for atlantic oscillations
50% for solar irradiance(sunspots)
and
uh, wait a mo
0% for the global warming loony alarmists
Amazing. Mother earth: An air conditioning system with a built-in thermostat. Whenever I think I have discovered something new, or a new idea, like a new way of looking at global warming and global cooling, then I discover that somebody has already been there, done that.
look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
that was exactly my thought for today: the whole earth and sun works together like a thermostat. If it gets too warm, the cooling gets switched on. There is really very little global cooling or global warming due to this!
Henry Pool (18:44:37)
Nearly there but it’s slightly more complex.
If a warmer ocean surface starts to warm the air above then the warmed air is capable of holding more water in vapour form. Consequently low clouds dissipate. However a little later as the extra energy is convected upwards one gets an increase in medium then higher level clouds with precipitation. Like a summer morning that starts off overcast then clears as the low cloud burns off followed by showers in the afternoon but in that case the warming at the surface is solar induced each day rather than induced by changes in the rate of energy release by the oceans to the air over longer periods of time.
If a cooler ocean surface starts to cool the air above then the cooled air is incapable of holding as much water in vapour form so low clouds condense out and further increase global albedo.
At the moment I’m not sure how to separate out the ocean effect from the cosmic ray Svensmark effect but I’m pretty sure that global air temperatures generally change quickly after such sea surface temperature changes and there is a much better correlation between air and sea than there is between air and solar changes which is why at the moment I think the Svensmark effect is relatively minor.
As for the thermostat effect I agree in that when ocean effects going up through the troposphere are out of balance with solar influences coming down through the troposphere then the speed of the hydrological cycle changes with associated latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems to try to return the system to equilibrium.
The thermostat hypothesis that you link to was limited to the variable behaviour of the tropical convective systems whereas I would extend it to the entire hydrological cycle. I contributed a few posts to that thread.
So if CO2 or any other non solar or non oceanic effect tries to disturb the sun sea equilibrium you just get a slight (or even unmeasurable) latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems and/or a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle to neutralise it.
@Stephen Fisher
“The thermostat hypothesis that you link to was limited to the variable behaviour of the tropical convective systems whereas I would extend it to the entire hydrological cycle. I contributed a few posts to that thread”
Where are these posts? Could I have a look?
I must agree! But in general my own idea (that I thought was original!)
I think also holds some truth. You could perhaps add a few more steps;like
1) the higher the temp. of the oceans the more water vapor rises to the atmosphere, the more wind starts blowing
2) the more wind & higher temp. the more evaporation of water,
3) the more evaporation of water the more humidity in the air (atmosphere)
4) the higher the humidity in the air the more clouds can be formed
5) according to Svensmark, the more GCR, the more clouds are formed (if the humidity is available)
6) the more clouds appear, the more radiation from the sun is deflected from the earth,
7) The more clouds appear in the sky, the cooler it gets.
8 )this cooling puts a brake on more water vapor being produced.
I am not worried about CO2 as I discovered it has nothing to do with global warming. In fact the so-called specialists could not even tell me what the net effect is of the amount of radiation being “trapped” by earth due to CO2 and the amount of radiation being blocked from the sun due to CO2. It seems many of them never realised that CO2 also blocks some radiation from the sun, like ozone does.
What I am more worried about is global cooling. Because if Svensmark is right, then there could be periods with more cloud formation. Apparently we are entering such a period. More snow and ice reflects more light off from earth. So, if things cool down too much you could fall in what I call the ice age trap. It is probably a death trap. I believe there have been such periods in the past.
Henry,
If you scroll through the responses to Willis’s article you will find my comments in amongst the others.
Your steps 1 to 8 are all correct but I’m trying to resolve cause and effect, chicken and egg.
On the basis of observed tropospheric temperature changes
we find that the SSTs change first and the air follows.
In contrast changes in the air never seem to initiate SST changes. It is proposed by Svensmark and others that changes in the atmosphere change solar shortwave quantities reaching the ocean surfaces to affect PDO and ENSO events but an adequate correlation appears to be lacking.
So on that basis I am going for a primary driver of internal oceanic movements altering the rates of energy release to the air with events in the atmosphere being a second order effect.
I’m open to persuasion on the issue but only if some sort of correlation can be shown between those changes in the atmosphere and subsequent SST changes on PDO and ENSO time scales.
Stephen:
I wouldn’t like to do a seasonal forecast more than 6 months ahead because it depends on the combination of intra cycle solar activity levels and the interannual ENSO signal both being superimposed on a background trend from longer solar and oceanic cycles that are themselves variable.
Henry:
We have the World Cup Soccer here in South Africa in 2010
during our normal winter, June/July 2010.
(our winters are usually mild, sunny skies, cold nights (around zero C or a bit below), max. day tempes. 15-22 degree C)
Care to help out? I think everyone here would like to hear a prediction based on science?
Henry:
With the El Nino fading, a generally negative PDO phase and a weak sun I’d expect the average temperature in South Africa to be trending back towards the longer term norm and down from the recent pre 2000 warmer phase.
So a cooler winter season than those during the late 20th century but probably still not yet down to the longer term average.
Much as I would expect for the planet as a whole but subject to disruptive local synoptics.
Can’t pin it down to day to day weather though.
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.
This is the best of the humour.
In the end science will prevail
but fantasy and politics will still
be the most powerful force.
May the force be with you all.
115degF and rising in South Australia.
Send Snow!!!