Climate Reversal: Global Warming is Cooling Off
Calgary Herald - When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy. So why was a speech last week by Professor Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?
Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land. But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.
But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.
37 Comments:
Guess Al Gore called the top.
You should to read up on global warming. Global warming denial makes the rest of the site look bad.
You just KNEW someone would call you a DENIER, didn't you, Mark J Perry?
When warmists do not have an argument, they always resort to name calling.
Gregory (Greg) P Turco should really read up on global climate, and put aside his warmist fantasies. All he has one is make warmists look bad.
Oops "All he has one is make warmists look bad," should have been "All he has done is make warmists look bad."
Just a little more to the story.
"Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.
Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.
"The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm"."
The best climate scientists cannot predict future temperatures. Take the smartest scientist with the best equipment and put him against any commenter on this blog. Your guess is as good as theirs because we do not have the technology to reliably predict ocean temperatures, volcanic activity, and most importantly solar activity.
In other words, when Professor Mojib Latif says:
"temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm..."
It is entirely a guess. Sure, he may be baking in some assumptions based scientific data, but human beings do not have the technology to prove his statement. It's a guess.
Anonymous, at 8:53 PM - you are far too rational; and you what you write is nothing but good sense.
But, no warmist will accept anything that is not based on emotion and game-boy "modeling".
"...temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm..."
That was a typo. Professor Latif meant to say grant money, not temperatures.
"Deniers"
How Orwellian is that?
-- All deniers will have to pin a "D" to their over coats before being herded onto trains and sent to re-education camps.
Here is a good compilation of suggested reading for anyone interested in truly becoming informed.
As suggested in the link, you might want to start by reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton.
Do the "earth is warming" people ever tell you what the ideal temperature of the earth should be? What is was in 1990? 1980? 1066? 1 million years BC? And if there computers are so good, can they tell me if it is going to rain next July 4th?
For all the sceptics, the Northeast Passage was traversed this summer.
Awesome, so warming is helping to boost global trade.
Time to pin the "D" on my lapel and to pull out the trusty blog quotes: "Recent Man-made Crises: Global over-population and mass starvation (1970s), global cooling (1970s), global warming or change (2000+)...." -- small dead animals blog
I find interesting that the forecast for this weekend can be 10 degrees off, and we can't predict if it will rain tomorrow, but we know what the temperature will be in a hundred years to a precision of a tenth of a degree.
I have seen articles from the 1880s and 1890s predicting we would all be crushed by the expanding glaciers. A few years later (1905), the LA Times was hyping reports that the earth was quickly becoming an uninhabitable inferno. By 1925, one of the purposes of the MacMillan Arctic Expedition was to determine just how quickly the coming ice age was going to overcome us. In the 1950s, it was back to warming...
Of course, we all know that by the mid 70s, NOAA and our national journalists were all telling us about our imminent demise in freezing temperatures, even suggesting drastic solutions like melting the polar ice caps.
I am neither skeptical nor do I doubt that global temperatures have changed and will continue to change. However, I'm highly skeptical and absolutely doubt the ability of human beings to predict future global temperature trends with any accuracy. Especially since human beings do not possess the technology to do so at the current time.
"I am neither skeptical nor do I doubt that global temperatures have changed and will continue to change."
Well said, anon.
Personally, sitting in Michigan, I'm thankful for the past global warming that melted the mile-high glaciers that once covered our now fair land.
I'm also in favor of more global warming. February in Michigan is at times unbearable.
Whether the earth warms or cools is almost irrelevant. The acidification and destruction of the ocean seabeds from over fishing and draggers are as much of an issue as warming. These are population pressures and government lack of will and/or power to control the filth we spew into the air and the bad fishing practices. If the climate is cooling then fine, but how do you explain the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic and the droughts worldwide?
I am absolutely convinced that if we do nothing about climate change, then we can expect severe drought, massive hurricanes, huge floods, wild weather and awful heatwaves in the next 100 years.
I am also convinced that if we as a society will make huge sacrifices and cut our CO2 emissions, then we can expect severe drought, massive hurricanes, huge floods, wild weather and awful heatwaves in the next 100 years.
"You should to read up on global warming. Global warming denial makes the rest of the site look bad"...
Geez Turco and you claim to be a chemist!?!?!
Did you decide to ditch the scientific method?
Anonymous at 9/22/2009 10:43 AM said..."but how do you explain the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic and the droughts worldwide?"
Utter NONSENSE, anonymous. The Arctic ice mass is already BIGGER than it was in 2007; so 2009 is the second year in a row where the Arctic ice mass INCREASED.
Needless to say, except for the uninformed, that the depth of Antarctic ice mass has been INCREASING a LOT over the last several years. A peninsula that juts out into a warm water current continues to loss ice mass, from both the warm water and from more ice being pushed onto it from the INCREASING inland ice mass. This peninsula is an insignificant land mass compared to the whole of Antarctica.
I will also point out, that if the temperature increase from -45C to -42C, nothing melts.
The Earth's human population is ~6.8 billion and headed for 9+ billion at reak this century.
If we don't stop Global Warming, there Earth will not be able to support 9+ billion and a few billion humans will die because of the ignorance on show in this commets section.
GregL said at 9/22/2009 12:39 PM "If we don't stop Global Warming..."
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING, GregL. NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA. 2008 was a globally warm year because of an El Nino; the next two years were statistically the same; the next nine years have been trending DOWNWARD - COOLING. There is NO GLOBAL WARMING! This recent global cooling is big enough to more than completely off-set any warming in the last 110 years, Thus, the last 110 years have been a net cooling.
It is also an historical fact that VASTLY MORE people die from cold weather than do from warm weather.
Furthermore, "warming" that the trivial the Gameboy "models" "predict" is just that, trivial. These "models" are also WRONG, as the article points out, as do increasing many other, independent scientists and authors.
Did you actually read the article that Mark quoted and linked to? Your nonsense about "global warming" makes it look like you did not. But, warmists do not let facts and reality get in the way of their emotions, and their god-like intention to SAVE the PLANET.
"If we don't stop Global Warming, there Earth will not be able to support 9+ billion and a few billion humans will die because of the ignorance on show in this commets section"...
Sorry but what are the downsides of that?
I mean if the EPA in all their asinine glory is going to declare that carbon dioxide (plant food) is more than a mere greenhouse gas but also a pollutant then just think of the 'few billion' carbon dioxide generators that won't be around to make more pollution...
Come on now GregL, silver linings inside clouds and all that...
Well...at least we are all still talking about it...
anon @ 9/22/2009 10:43 AM asks: "If the climate is cooling then fine, but how do you explain the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic and the droughts worldwide?"...
Do some HOMEWORK anon @ 9/22/2009 10:43 AM
The article is partly based upon the sunspot minimum that has been noted earlier in this blog. Note that when the normal sun returns (20-50) years then warming is likley to return. However many of us will likely not care as that qualifies as the long run and many will be dead. It raises an interesting question. Assume that it is discovered that a dinosaur killing size asteroid is due to hit the earth in 2110 (meaning no adult today is likely to be around then) what do we do?
This of course is the same as the argument over deficits, since it likely does not affect the current generation. One approach would be to be biblical to eat drink and be merry, and let tomorrow take care of itself, but if one takes that approach one place one should be consistent in taking it in all things.
"For all the sceptics, the Northeast Passage was traversed this summer."
Just like it was in 1969, by the SS Manhattan! (that is, by ships specially reinforced to handle the ice)
Per President Obama this morning in NY:
That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it — boldly, swiftly, and together — we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.
No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples — our prosperity, our health, and our safety — are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.
Science, logic, balance, common sense are all 'out the window' on this topic. Global Warming is all about political control and 'social justice'. Americans must be made to come to heel, and suffer.
Anonymous said... "For all the sceptics, the Northeast Passage was traversed this summer."
Which was completely rebutted and refuted at 9/22/2009 3:20 PM by, " Just like it was in 1969, by the SS Manhattan! (that is, by ships specially reinforced to handle the ice)". I will add that the Northeast Passage also traversed in 1878-79; this was done by a wooden hulled ship.
Furthermore, the Northwest Passage, which is 2,000 km long, was traversed in 1905 and 1944. These were also done by wooden hulled ships.
Terrance has the wrong passage for the Manhattan, it was the Northwest passage not the northeast passage. The Northeast goes thru what was Soviet waters and would have been a big no no in 1969.
Anonymous at 9/22/2009 4:56 PM - your reading skills are as weak as you spelling ability. Please don't display such sloppy thinking in public.
I'm still waiting for the promoters of the anthropogenic, carbon dioxide-caused global warming theory to answer one simple question: what will keep the following simple feedback system from working?
Increased CO2 --> warmer waters, lands, and air
Warmer waters, lands, and air --> increased evaporation
Increased evaporation --> more clouds
More clouds --> increased planetary albedo and less solar heat reaching waters and lands
Less solar heat --> cooler planetary temperatures
If they cannot debunk this, then they are spouting nonsense about global warming.
Terrance check northwest passage in Wikipedia and you will find that it was the northwest passage that the Manhattan transited in 1969 accompanied by a Canadian Icebreaker.
The northeast passage is called the northern sea route and is along the Russian shore again according to Wikipedia.
Again Wikipedia says that the passage this year was the first without icebreakers.
Anonymous at 9/22/2009 8:55 PM - would you PLEASE bother to READ what I wrote! Is that too hard for you to do? Can you manage something as complicated as READING what I wrote, before you try to "correct" it?
I guess I will have to point out that I was QUOTING another anonymous commenter, at the date and time I specified.
I can see that dealing with quotations is way too complicated for you to deal with. Just as spelling my name is way beyond your obviously very limited capabilities.
And with all due respect, Anonymous at 9/22/2009 8:55 PM, (but not much is warranted.) Wikipedia is a notoriously BAD source of information, especially regarding global climate; it is completely in the tank for EVIL Manmade Global Warming.
Somehow I am not at all surprise that someone who reads, spells and thinks as poorly as you do quotes Wikipedia.
Dr. T and terrence maybe those folks who stumble over the unreality of man made global climate change are reading (or having it read to them) this newspaper...
Just a thought...
P.S. hat tip to Anthony Watts for the link...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=abvAze6O9_d0
We all can make one paragraph summaries leading to a huge conclusion based on one article!
Post a Comment
<< Home