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.
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.”
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).
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.
@Evan Jones
“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…
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?
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 🙁
I say bring it on. Better cooling than warming, in my opinion.
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!
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.
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…
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.
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 🙂
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…
Will Al Gore return his Nobel?
Don’t hold your CO2.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipcc-scientist-thirty-years-of-cooling.html
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.
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.’ “
The Cryosphere Today – Compare Daily Sea Ice chart should be January 10, 1980 and January 10, 2010:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=10&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=10&sy=2010
The interesting comparison is the first chart to this one:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2009
The Cryosphere Today also posts a chart on its front page that shows the cycle but its disturbing (or convenient) that we only have 31 years of data, a 30 year prediction, and no indication of the last bottom? If we’re at the top of melt is 15-5.5 million sq. km of seasonal Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice area the bottom?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
The predictions and models don’t appear to properly account for what has occurred? Assuming this is correct, how can they possibly account for the future? Are we also to assume that solar activity will be identical?
Why can’t everyone simply admit that this is about Stewardship and not Global Warming?
I 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!
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.
NicL (13:18:01)
Spot ON! Mice, good. Fruit flies, better. Bacteria, best. Climate cycles, no chance.
@ur momisugly Atomic Hairdryer (13:30:32) :
That’s old news. You can hope people would learn better, but no…
Read first
More info
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.
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.
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…
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,