Thanks to the dogged determination of über climate blogger Joe Romm, here's what Mojib Latif wants us all to understand about his previous references to a short-term cooling trend:
Given all the warnings about and plans to forestall global warming, people may be surprised to find, over the next several years that, over parts of the Northern hemisphere, summers are no warmer than before, maybe even a bit cooler-and that winters are as cold, or a bit colder, than they have been in the past couple of decades.
This is because the climate may go through a temporary halt in warming. It's nothing unusual, just a natural fluctuation. It doesn't mean that global warming is not still at work, or that we no longer need to worry about global temperatures rising by as much as 6°C by the end of the century -- an unprecedented warming in the history of mankind if no measures are taken to cut global carbon dioxide emissions. The only problem is that by considering the mean of many models of global warming, the natural fluctuations are averaged out, if they were not initialized by the current climate state, and this can be confusing.
I reproduce it here because Latif's comments on the subject have been grossly misrepresented, not only by usual suspects on Fox News, but my commenters at this blog and by otherwise respectable journalists the world over. This from a guy who has embrace the honorific middle name of "global warming." So let there by no further propagation of the falsehood that one of the world's leading climatologists is predicting decades of global cooling.
Now, I'm off to the Science Online 2010 conference, live streams of portions of which should be available here if you're interested.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
What? Everyone knows you can only use the "natural variation" ruse when you're explaining why Global Warming isn't real!
It amazes me that so many will accept conspiracy and fraud charges against science, yet turn a blind eye to blatant misrepresentation of their research.
How is it that so many conspiracy-kooks end up on this blog?
I bet if you sat down to have lunch with them the conversation will soon drift to 9/11-socialist-lizardmen-UFO-abduction-homoeopathy nonsense. After all, to them everything that doesn't conform to their line of BS is "misrepresentation"!
Who can blame a rational intelligent individual who has doubts about modern scientific research after seeing the emails and data leaked from CRU, and hearing climate change alarmists squelch any rational debate on the subject by calling skeptics tin-foil-hat conspiracy loons? Certainly the massive attempts to avoid FOI release of raw temperature data warrants a closer examination and a skeptical eye. Isn't skepticism a healthy portion of scientiic research?
Go think about the flat earth society for a bit and, afterwards, tell us if skepticism of *everything* is a healthy portion of scientific research.
Oh, and no FOI requests were "avoided" - they were *rejected*, and properly so, under UK law. Do you have some problem with the rule of law? All law? Or just this particular law?
Well, they are arguing that it's a conspiracy by the far left ... how is pointing out this fact "squelching rational debate"? We're supposed to ignore facts, now?
@Jess B
"Certainly the massive attempts to avoid FOI release of raw temperature data warrants a closer examination and a skeptical eye."
Serious question from me, and I hope at least ONE AGW-skeptic who believes the CRU e-mails show bad science and/or a big conspiracy will answer. Sorry for the length, it needs a proper introduction:
95% of all data used in HADCRU is freely available through GHCN. The procedures to adjust and homogenise data are described in the literature. It is thus possible to check many of HADCRU's grid anomalies. GISTEMP only used data from GHCN, and its code is available online. NCDC also provides a temperature reconstruction, simply using GHCN data directly (GISTEMP does a bit more with the data). These three datasets essentially give the same result.
My question: how does the inability to get even the last 5% of data used in HADCRU make you skeptic about the HADCRU reconstruction, when it shows essentially the SAME result as two independent analysis methods?
I remembered it snowed in NY this summer and in Florida this past week. I remember that the IPCC downplayed natural occurrences...the sun is of no influence. I remember NEVER hearing of a predicted cooling trend from any GW scientist but the opposite prediction was always on their lips and in the headlines. "Increased CO2 emissions will cause record temperatures in the near future...we may have past the point of no return...famine, starvation, Glacier meltdowns, ocean risings, all of this just around the corner..the point of no return...etc."
Now they say that they expected a cooling trend AND this while they report CO2 emissions are reported as increasing even faster than they expected which was suppose to cause immediate devastation which is why we need to act now!
You can't have it both ways. You can't lie to us to get what you want and then expect us to believe you when you change the lie to match what the weather does in opposition to your predictions. Your predictions were wrong and that is all there is to it. Even in this report you are saying that there are record temperatures but cooling is expected. Yet everyone remembers that summer that wasn't and the winter that is. You can't even report the current situation with soundness. It sounds like CYA to me. Climate will always change so don't be afraid of it. I also remember reading that the people of the past were afraid to set sailing in an ocean because they would fall off the FLAT earth. Clean things up but without all the fear of doomsday around the corner.
Where to start, sigh, so many lies, so little time ...
You don't remember this, because climate scientists have never said this, and therefore the IPCC hasn't said it.
What is said is that variation in solar output can not explain observed warming over the last 50 or so years.
We *measure* solar output. We *measure* global temperatures.
Currently we're in an extended solar minimum, and temperatures have still been rising...
You are correct, GW scientists haven't predicted one. However, there is no cooling trend (in science, a trend must be statistically significant). As far as record temperatures in the near future, UAH has just reported the highest single-day January global temp in the satellite record, and are predicting that January 2010 will turn out to be the warmest in the satellite record.
No, they say - and have always said - that global warming will not put a stop to weather, nor will it stop La Niña or El Niño, nor will it stop winter from happening.
They don't expect a cooling trend - and there is no cooling trend. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record, despite the somewhat prolonged solar minimum we experienced (see above regarding the sun's effect not being sufficient to explain observed warming, diminished solar output should lead to cooling, not merely slower warming).
You've not been lied to, your either lying yourself or spending too much time reading web sites that tell you lies you want to believe ...
Weather is not climate & individual average values of global temperature are about as meaningful as darts thrown at a board.
As an example of the meaningless of many averages.
The majority of human beings have greater than average number of feet.
Statistically true but meaningless.
Global warming has been revealed to be a hoax. This is "settled science" as far as most intelligent and rational people are concerned.
There never was any science involved in the global warming con. Read this and learn:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Hmmm, who to believe ...
Thousands of hard-working scientists or ...
One dead science fiction writer.
That's a very hard decision.
I find it interesting that the 'skeptics' reacting here don't say anything about Latif having to set the record straight. Perhaps cognitive dissonance? Something like "scientist is right when he is said to predict cooling, same scientist is wrong when he says he didn't predict that".
"Certainly the massive attempts to avoid FOI release of raw temperature data warrants a closer examination and a skeptical eye."
FOI neophytes. When your FOIA requests start taking 5 years to receive a response, like some of mine have , you can start talking about "massive attempts to avoid FOIA release."
The world is not cooling in the long-term. See:
http://greenlinemag.homeip.net/CoolingMyth.aspx
Follow the links in particular to the papers by Swanson, Tsonis et al. which show that beneath the natural decadal variability due primarily to ocean currents, there is a continuing and accelerating warming from fossil fuel burning and land-use changes.
You might also listen to the session at the WMO WCC3 from last fall in which Latif was one of the presenters; follow along with the concurrent slideshows (PDF/PPT format)
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
PS-3 Advancing climate prediction science
The advances in climate prediction and the associated challenges will be demonstrated. The full range of timescales from seasonal to centennial will be covered including how synergy between the different timescales can achieve seamless prediction.
Latif's presentation slides:
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_latif.pdf
You couldn't ask for a clearer demonstration of those 'skeptics' commitment to their position, utterly impervious to evidence.