Just when we start to believe the government and Al Gore that we'll all end up frying unless we begin paying a hefty new tax - a startling bit of information comes to light.



In a speech last week at the U.N.'s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Professor Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, one of the world's foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades. Al Gore, call your office.

Latif has been looking into the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North American Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, Professor Latif found the results brought the allegedly endless rise in global temperatures to a screeching halt.

Latif conceded the planet has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." Latif still believes in a warming trend and thinks it will resume. But he at least acknowledges the empirical evidence of cooling, that there are factors at work here other than your SUV, and that doom will not occur the day after tomorrow.

None of the alarmists and their supercomputer climate models ever predicted even a 30-year respite in their apocalyptic scenarios. Neither did they predict the sun, that thermonuclear furnace in the sky that has more influence on earth's climate than any number of Ford Explorers, would suddenly go quiet for an indefinite period.

Charles Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence, Kan., says there's a growing sense in the scientific community that the earth may be entering into a "grand minimum" - an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that results in cooler planetary temperatures.

In July through August of this year, 51 consecutive days passed without a sunspot, one day short of the record. As of Sept. 15, the current solar minimum - with 717 spotless days since 2004 - ranks as the third longest on record.

Perry cites data indicating that global temperature fluctuations correspond to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle and variations in solar activity. 1816, the "year without a summer," was during an 1800 to 1830 grand minimum when Europe became significantly cooler.

Latif and others conclude that, at the very least, we have time to think about it and analyze and learn. We don't have to fight global warming by inflicting global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/23/decades_of_global_cooling_ahead__97424.html

Uh-oh...



I am looking forward to the response by those who are hot for man-made warming.

As Professor Latif is the lead author for the IPCC and one of the main proponents of global warming - he's the one who's been coming up with these terrifying scenarios. Now he's changed his mind.

So will Rudd now reconsider the ETS, and perhaps concentrate on renewables, growing more trees to cope with the carbon emissions and generally cleaning up Australia for a sustainable future, now that the imminent danger has passed?

Quote:

One of the National Post's most vigorous climate change deniers, Lorne Gunter, grabbed onto this story in a celebratory column titled: Global Warming Takes a Break. But Gunter has not suddenly decided to take science seriously. He dismissed as somehow unknowable Latif's ultimate conclusion: that climate change is a real and pressing problem and that even if global temperature increases stall, they will inevitably resume. Nope. Gunter doesn't want to listen to a whole scientific sentence: but he's willing to bet our lives on a  fragment that bolsters his own agenda.

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4522

Just as I thought - Cherry picking, half truths and lies again.

People, Latif has not changed his mind - ok?

In cases like this, the most honest thing to do is to go back to the researcher himself and find out what he really meant as opposed to the distorted version.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/an-email-exchange-with-mojib-latif/


Quote:

Subject: Re: Possible misrepresentation in Calgary Herald Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:26:36 From: Mojib Latif To: [Deep Climate]   [DC], what I said is that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offsset global warming for a decade so that there may be not much of an additional warming. I showed a prediction that was published last year in the science magazine “nature”. I also pointed out that the British group issued a competing forecast for the next decade. They predict that global warming will continue at the rate of the last decades. Thus, and I made this very clear, there is quite some uncertainty about the short-term evolution. Yet we all agree that in the long run, say by 2050 and thereafter,  the earth will considerably warm, if we do not considerably reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Mojib.

"Not much of an additional warming" is just a tad different from cooling  ::)

Muso - the most salient point the author of the original article made was - more things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.

Feeding theories into their computers and having them spit out predictions is what the IPCC does - and it states that on their website. How long have they actually been assessing this current global warming - maybe 30 years, yet all of a sudden Latif is making excuses in case his previous predictions don't materialise. It looks as though he's made a mistake.

I'll go along with man made global warming if it means a concerted effort at cleaning up the planet, but the IPCC, Rudd, the World Order etc. have no intention of doing that. The ETS and similar schemes are just another way of making the world citizens pay for something that will have no positive results.

mantra wrote on Oct 13^th, 2009 at 9:33pm:

Muso - the most salient point the author of the original article made was - more things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models. Feeding theories into their computers and having them spit out predictions is what the IPCC does - and it states that on their website. How long have they actually been assessing this current global warming - maybe 30 years, yet all of a sudden Latif is making excuses in case his previous predictions don't materialise. It looks as though he's made a mistake. I'll go along with man made global warming if it means a concerted effort at cleaning up the planet, but the IPCC, Rudd, the World Order etc. have no intention of doing that. The ETS and similar schemes are just another way of making the world citizens pay for something that will have no positive results.

Spot on.

mantra wrote on Oct 13^th, 2009 at 9:33pm:

Muso - the most salient point the author of the original article made was - more things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.

The most salient point he tried to make was that Latif changed his mind. He was blatently lying. I just proved to you that he was lying. What Latif actually said was nothing like what this drongo actually reported. This reporter's credibility is obviously in shreds.  (would you not agree? isn't that an inevitable conclusion?) He makes his money from lying in fact. Doesn't that produce a modicum of shame on either of your parts for reading any further into the article?


If somebody came up to you in the street and said "I am the owner of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and I just happen to be selling it", would you perhaps regard any subsequent information he provided with a considerable degree of suspicion, even if you agreed with it?

This just in:


Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220052/Austria-sees-earliest-snow-history-America-sees-lowest-temperatures-50-years-So-did-global-warming-go.html?ITO=1490##ixzz0Ts3vjMTs





I am sure it means nothing...

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2009 at 11:53am:

This just in: Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220052/Austria-sees-earliest-snow-history-America-sees-lowest-temperatures-50-years-So-did-global-warming-go.html?ITO=1490##ixzz0Ts3vjMTs I am sure it means nothing...

Good. Your final assessment is correct. Do you really want me to elaborate?

[quote author=muso link=1255288507/0#7 date=1255481688
The most salient point he tried to make was that Latif changed his mind. He was blatently lying. I just proved to you that he was lying. What Latif actually said was nothing like what this drongo actually reported. This reporter's credibility is obviously in shreds.  (would you not agree? isn't that an inevitable conclusion?) He makes his money from lying in fact. Doesn't that produce a modicum of shame on either of your parts for reading any further into the article?
[/quote]

"Latif conceded the planet has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." Latif still believes in a warming trend and thinks it will resume. But he at least acknowledges the empirical evidence of cooling, that there are factors at work here other than your SUV, and that doom will not occur the day after tomorrow".

Muso, how do you reconcile your attack with the above quote, particularly the bit in bold?

pjb,  No. You're quoting from the article. I already explained that the article was a complete and obviously deliberate distortion of what Latif actually said, and I provided links to a series of email exchanges with Latif himself that explained that he said no such thing.

The entire article was an example of journalistic invention or possibly paid editorial. Take your pick.

The first sentence is a total fabrication. He never said that to anybody - ever.

Muso, Muso, Muso. Latif is covering all his bases - that is so obvious. His sentences are full of should, may, could, foresee - he states nothing definitive - apart from the fact that global warming will eventually resume. Of course it will - we all know that. It has always done so after a cooling period.

All these climate experts will be dead by the time their theories have been disproved and in the meantime, we are going to be penalised financially for their suppositions. What are these taxes going to be used for? My guess is that they will be used to replenish the serious financial losses many nations have incurred over the past 2-3 years and Australia as the most financially viable country will lead the way.

Yes perhaps the world is warming and the cause is human activity - but there's not much we can do about it apart from preparing ourselves for serious disasters, concentrating more on renewables and alternatives etc. and to make a huge effort to ensure this planet is sustainable for all its inhabitants. The UN IPCC solutions to global warming are useless and the public is finally starting to wake up to their rhetoric.

The Federal and State Governments are lying to us. If Rudd was serious about cutting carbon emissions - would he be permitting this? Surely this sort of project would have to be approved by the Federal Government?



Quote:

Victoria’s brown coal reserves look set to be opened up to export on a mass scale  — prompting claims the state is putting commercial opportunity ahead of its responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Confidential cabinet   documents obtained by The Age show the Brumby Government is considering offering billions of tonnes of Latrobe Valley coal for competitive tender next year. The tender process would be preceded by a  green light for a $1.5billion scheme by the company Exergen to mine, dry and export 12 million tonnes of brown coal a year to be burned in Indian power stations. Exergen wants to build a 150-kilometre underground pipe to carry  the dried coal from the Latrobe Valley to an expanded port at Hastings on Western Port. The cabinet documents acknowledge that community concerns could be raised by the export of brown coal, a  ‘‘dirty’’ fuel that  that emits significantly more greenhouse gases than alternative electricity sources such as gas and black coal. But the documents say  exports can be justified on three grounds: Victoria cannot unilaterally limit global emissions, the coal products could help developing countries overcome  poverty, and emissions may be even higher if  countries are denied Victorian coal  and use dirtier fuels. Environment Victoria, the state’s main green lobby, said it was stunned the Government would want to expand an industry that needed to be phased out to tackle climate change. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/brumbys-dirty-secret-coal-for-export-20091013-gvnp.html

mantra wrote on Oct 14^th, 2009 at 9:07pm:

Muso, Muso, Muso. Latif is covering all his bases - that is so obvious. His sentences are full of should, may, could, foresee - he states nothing definitive - apart from the fact that global warming will eventually resume. Of course it will - we all know that. It has always done so after a cooling period.

Mantra,

You've just been sold the Sydney Harbour Bridge and you're at the point of getting a team of painters in to paint it a nice shade of pink.

Maybe you should look at the Copenhagen synthesis report. Unfortunately, it has not received much media attention. The data referred to there was compiled by world authorities on climate.

The interesting thing to note is the variability. However, not only has there been no cooling, the actual increase in total heat by the planet has been in the upper range of predictions that were made in made in the 4th Annual  Report.  We're really not doing too well.

It's not a question of Latif just covering his bases. If you look at the actual presentation that Latif gave, it was nothing like what appeared in that Calgary newspaper and eventually ended up in other media.

Tell me why you don't trust experts in the field, yet you follow every last word of a hick reporter who has been demonstrated to be lying?  

Many people in society seem to have the same attitude towards vaccinations. The actual risk of complications is extremely low, and is far outweighed by the benefit by a factor of at least 1000 -  

They trust rumour, but don't trust experts in the field. No - they are part of the grand conspiracy - the new world order to control and subjugate us all. They have probably added something to the vaccinations that make us vote for Rudd - or whatever conspiracy is now current in the great unwashed blogosphere.  

I'm trying (very unsuccessfully no doubt) to explain my frustrations with the general public. I live my life by the use of facts. It's second nature to me. I buy the best and freshest vegetables, I research their nutritional value and I design my inputs around what offers the optimum benefit to me (and what tastes good - which comes down to the same thing anyway - taste, like anything else internal is programmable).  All the decisions I make are based on the best data available. Just as I find it unbelievably stupid to buy stale vegetables because they are going out on special, I can't understand why people will settle for stale incorrect and misleading information. It jars on my sensibilities.

The ocean is the biggest sink of heat on the planet. The graph shows how ocean heat has been steadily increasing through the years.

---

I should have said that the graph was taken from the Copenhagen Sythesis report (2009). This one, from the same source shows the increasing global mean temperature change using 1990 as a base temperature. The dotted lines are based on IPCC predictions from previous reports. As you can see, we're already following some of the more extreme predictions.  That is - the same extreme predictions that Bjørn Lomborg said you could safely ignore.



Quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that climate change is, without doubt, occurring and that the Earth is warming. More importantly, the IPCC concluded that there is over 90% probability that this global warming is primarily caused by human activities – the most important of these being the emission of greenhouse gases and the clearing of natural vegetation. Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range indicated by the projections or, as in the case of sea level rise (Figure 1), at even greater rates than indicated by IPCC projections........

If anyone wants the link for the Copenhagen synthesis report again, let me know. Of course you may prefer to go out and buy stale veggies instead  ::)


Quote:

Figure 3 Changes in global average surface air temperature (smoothed over 15 years) (corrected from 11 in the first version og this report) relative to 1990. The blue line represents data from Hadley Center (UK Meteorological Office); the red line is GISS (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA) data. The broken lines are projections from the IPCC Third Assessment Report, with the shading indicating the uncertainties around the projections3 (data from 2007 and 2008 added by Rahmstorf, S.).

---

mantra wrote on Oct 14^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:

The Federal and State Governments are lying to us. If Rudd was serious about cutting carbon emissions - would he be permitting this? Surely this sort of project would have to be approved by the Federal Government?

Now there I agree with you. Rudd is paying lipservice to cutting carbon emissions. Please don't think that I support the ALP. I will support whoever makes the best decisions based on the application of rational thought. Right now, Malcolm Turnbull has the edge. The Greens have the best position on climate change, but Bob Brown will never make a leader.