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.
“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.
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.
😉
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.
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.
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/
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.
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”
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.”
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.
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
Mike McMillan (14:05:21) :
Oops, 0.8% for pure chaos. Can’t hide any declines on that pittance.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Global Warming Borg?? Oh, please… may I use that one? bwaaahahahah!
Mr. Doctor Fifty Percent comes off as kind of half-assed.
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.