Right-wing media run with Mail article falsely suggesting climate expert predicts "mini ice age"
FoxNews.com, Fox Nation, and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft have cited a Mail on Sunday article suggesting that climate scientist Mojib Latif predicted a "mini ice age" over the next 20 or 30 years, with Hoft asserting that global warming is "junk science." But Latif has since challenged the Mail article's use of his research, and at the U.N. climate conference the Mail article references, Latif stated that while temperatures could "cool" temporarily "relative to the present level" due to natural climate variability, there is a clear "long-term warming trend" that is "manmade."
Right-wing media run with falsehood that Latif predicts "mini ice age"
Mail falsehood: Latif's research "refutes" view that short-term cold weather is distinct from climate change. In a January 10 article headlined, "The mini ice age starts here," Mail on Sunday (U.K.) writer David Rose asserted that Latif's predictions "challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs" and "undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise." Rose further claimed that Latif's work "refutes" the view "that the big chill was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming."
Hoft: "climate scientists warned" of "mini ice age" after Obama pushed "global warming junk science." In a January 10 post to his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft cited the Mail article and added: "And just think... It was less than a month ago that Barack Obama was in Denmark pushing international legislation on global warming junk science. Thank goodness he failed."
Fox Nation: "Now Climate Scientists Predict Mini-Ice Age." One January 11, Fox Nation linked to the Gateway Pundit post with the following image:
FoxNews.com: Latif "says we're in" for "a mini ice age, he calls it." A January 11 FoxNews.com article, headlined, "30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says," claimed that Latif says current cold weather "could mark the beginning of a mini ice age." The article further stated that Latif "says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans." Although the Mail article did not quote Latif using the term "Ice age," FoxNews.com attributed the term to Latif.
Latif has since challenged Mail report and other media distortions of his research
Guardian: Latif "challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research." The Guardian reported on January 11 that Latif "has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming" and stated of Latif's research, "Despite clarifications from the scientists at the time, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, the study was widely misreported as signalling a switch from global warming to global cooling." The Guardian further reported:
Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.
He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."
He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."
[...]
The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif's research showed that the current cold weather heralds such "a global trend towards cooler weather".
It said: "The BBC assured viewers that the big chill was was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming. The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view."
Not according to Latif. "They are not related at all," he said. "What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years. You can't compare the two."
He said the ocean temperature effect was similar to other natural influences on global temperature, such as volcanos, which cool the planet temporarily as ash spewed into the atmosphere reflects sunlight.
"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it." Other scientists have questioned the strength of the ocean effect on overall temperature and disagree that global warming will show the predicted pause.
Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions."
Latif predicts "nothing that would constitute a little ice age or an ice age." Appearing on Russia Today on January 11, Latif stated, "I don't think" we will see decades of global cooling, noting, "There are of course natural climate fluctuations which could warm or cool the Earth. However, they ride on top of the long-term warming trend and at best they can offset the warming trend. And so the net result may be a kind of pause of halt of global warming, maybe a slight cooling, but nothing that would constitute a little ice age or an ice age."
Latif: "They just make these things up." Joe Romm of ClimateProgress.org wrote in a January 11 post that Latif stated of media reports on his research, "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up":
Call Dr. Latif up and ask him if accepts the IPCC's finding that, as he put it, most of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes. He had me reread the quotes attributed to him a number of times, asking twice, "those are direct quotes?" After I did, he said to me: "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up." I suggested asking reporters to read quotes back to him.
According to Latif, over a short time span, say, two decades, it's hard to determine exactly what fraction of the temperature change is due to what cause, but Latif does not believe nor ever said what the Daily Mail suggests, which is that you can add those periods together and somehow negate the IPCC's finding. His work simply "does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming."
Latif has NOT predicted a cooling trend -- or a "decades-long deep freeze" -- but rather a short-time span where human-caused warming might be partly offset by ocean cycles, staying at current record levels, but then followed by "accelerated" warming where you catch up to the long-term human-caused trend. He does NOT forecast 2 or 3 decades of cooling.
Latif: Clear "long-term warming trend" is "manmade"
U.N. Conference presentation addressed "decadal variability," noting "we all believe that this long-term warming trend ... is manmade." Latif opened his August 31, 2009, presentation at the U.N. World Climate Conference-3 by stating: "What you see here is just the globally averaged temperature during the 20th century. And you can clearly identify the long-term warming trend, and we all believe that this long-term warming trend is anthropogenic in nature, is manmade. However, you see also a lot of fluctuations superimposed on this trend, interannual, as Tim has pointed out, but also decadal scale variations." Latif went on to discuss the "mechanisms" of decadal variability and the potential for predicting climate at the decadal timescale. [U.N. World Climate Conference -- 3, 8/31/09]
Latif chart suggests temperatures are "cooling" in the short term, but that these temperatures are still indicative of a long-term warming trend. Latif's chart shows that "cooling" period follows the hottest decade on record last century.
From Latif's World Climate Conference PowerPoint presentation:
Latif: "It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two ... when the temperature cools ... relative to the present level." Latif stated that due to natural climate variability over the decade-long timescale, "it may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative to the present level." Latif added: "And then, you know, I know what's going to happen. You know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know -- 'What's going on?' 'So is global warming disappearing, you know?' 'Have you lied on us, you know?' So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue." [U.N. World Climate Conference -- 3, 8/31/09]
Latif: Media mistakenly think of global warming as "a monotonic process," in which "each year is warmer than the preceding year." During his presentation, Latif stated: "All right, so, first point: Why decadal prediction? Now, people who know me, at least my German colleagues, know that I do a lot of media work, OK. There is almost no day in the year when I'm not called by some media person, OK. And so, they basically think about global warming as a kind of slowly evolving process and a monotonic process, OK -- so each year is warmer than the preceding year." He added: "However, we all know there is variability." [U.N. World Climate Conference -- 3, 8/31/09]
Latif: "[I]f my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming." Latif stated, "Everybody who knows me is aware of the fact that I am definitely not one of the skeptics, OK. And if my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming, all right." Latif then stated of decadal variability within the long-term warming trend, "[W]e have to ask the nasty questions ourselves, all right, or some other people will do it." [UN World Climate Conference -- 3, 8/31/09]
Greater natural variability in shorter-term modeling of climate than in longer-term trend
Latif: "[I]nternal variability" is "dominating uncertainty" on "interannual and decadal timescales." During his presentation, Latif stated, "If we look at the next 100 years, there are different uncertainties, OK. So AR-4, the last IPCC report, basically was the boundary force problem, so, it -- the uncertainty arose mostly from the scenario uncertainty and from the model bias, OK." Latif continued: "However, if you look at short lead times, right, then you see that the internal variability is really the dominating uncertainty in the climate change forecasts or, slash, projections. And especially on interannual and decadal timescales, this is true." Internal variability is defined as "climate variability not forced by external agents."
IPCC Report: "[N]atural climate variability" is larger factor on time scales of less than 50 years. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that "[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." The report further noted that "[d]ifficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings." [IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]
From the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report:
UNDERSTANDING AND ATTRIBUTING CLIMATE CHANGE
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.
[...]
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas increases to observed small-scale temperature changes.
Vicky Pope, Met Office: "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year." Vicky Pope, the head of Climate Change for Government at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, has reportedly said that when predicting climate conditions over the next few years, "natural variability was as important as the long term warming trend." She further stated, "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year." [The UK Daily Mail, 9/10/09]
Met Office: Climate shows "continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages." The Met Office states: "In 1998 the world experienced the warmest year since records began. In the decade since, however, this high point has not been surpassed. Some have seized on this as evidence that global warming has stopped, or even that we have entered a period of 'global cooling'. This is far from the truth and climate scientists have, in fact, recognised that a temporary slowdown in warming is possible even under increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions." [Met Office, accessed 9/22/09]
The Met Office further notes:
After three decades of warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, why would there suddenly be a period of relative temperature stability -- despite more greenhouse gases being emitted than ever before? This is because of what is known as internal climate variability. In the same way that our weather can be warm and sunny one day, cool and wet the next, so our climate naturally varies from year to year, and decade to decade.
Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.
In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature -- but that doesn't mean climate change has stopped, it's just another part of natural variability.
When there are no facts to back your position...
DEFLECT!
Those Jedi mind tricks won't work on us. :-)
Indefensible lie, no facts to back your position, deflect, etc. That sums up your current screeds. Later tonight I'm supposed to have some time, and since you didn't enjoy my one-liner post, I'll tackle those issues and the details of this story in depth, just how you like it. BTW, did you enjoy Phil's take on the cooling trend? Thought you would. I discussed it in more detail with Delly yesterday morning. Good times.
For now, I'll at least begin to address your "nothing-to-see-here/deflect" attempts at comedy. Given the amount of energy MMfA and its AGW minions like you have expended since the CRU scandal broke in November toward damage control trying to claim that there is "nothing to see here," it is pretty funny to see you both try to put that label on me.
The reference to the Phil Jones' email was just a little nugget to help counter the claim made in this MMfA story (and many other MMfA stories) that we have not "entered a period of global cooling" and skeptic claims of such are "far from the truth." Those quotes coincidentally are from MMfA's UK Met Office excerpts.
Since you say "there are no facts to back your position," I'll elaborate on the Latif story tonight complete with some nice facts for you, so for now I'll leave you with a few more nuggets to chew on. You don't even have to leave the page to dig for the source. Here are a few quotes for you (especially you Sigh since you attempted to mislead in the MMfA thread I mentioned above--nice try).
Latif:
A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to [MDO's] – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
Tsonis:
I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.
Maybe you guys can start with those. I'll still elaborate tonight (I know you so look forward to that), but perhaps instead of offering your own one-liners you can explain how those quotes mesh with your previous statements about Latif and Tsonis (Sigh caught cherry-picking?).
It's not looking so good for you AGW folk. Big Al said, "The planet has a fever." I'll go with, "AGW is terminally ill." If you think that it can survive "a decade or two" of cooling global temperatures as some predict, best of luck to you. Advice: buy some insulation for your AGW church and some cotton for your ears. Cheers!
I have decided that I will no longer respond to idiot trolls. Especially trolls who like to write manifestos that are completely meaningless.
So troll, this is the last response you'll be getting from me.
You denialists are just drooling, blabbering idiots who have no idea what you are talking about. But, you'll never face reality, so you are a complete waste of time, and skin.
http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html
In closing, here's a nice video clip for you to watch. Your hero Ian Plimer looks like a complete retard. Like all you deniers, Plimer makes baseless claims but never really defends them - because he knows he can't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
And a nice video about all that so-called nasty stuff you denialists think you have on those conspiratorial scientists with "climategate". Once again, failed attempts at a failed, foolish position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=player_embedded
Denialists are living proof that mankind has mucked up the gene pool. If we had left it to survival of the fittest, the denialists types would have died off due to their own stupidity.
Not having to read your parrot replies with your tired, overused links is a welcome development (still haven't figured out how to use the link function, eh Doc?), not that that will keep me from replying to your frequent inanity. Somebody has to try to keep the AGW zealots honest here.
Before I move on to my feedback on the Latif story as promised, I would like to take this last opportunity to replay one of your greatest hits, SLUR at his best. Still brings a tear to my eye. Pure gold.
Actually, one more thing before I move on. You claim to have a scientific background and to not be "dogmatic," but you repeatedly pass along links like Skeptical Science and any AGW video laden with authoritative British accents with no apparent notice of the issues with the validity of the claims and inherent biases of your sources.
In the true parrot form I have grown accustomed to seeing from AGW cultists, you rarely offer an independent thought and almost exclusively toe the MMfA AGW company line. That doesn't say much for your own interpretation of the scientific method Doc.
Here's your homework assignment. Go watch the potholer videos again, but try to do so minus dogma (you may actually want to finally go ahead and read the CRU emails and dissect the files first). You saw my review of the first video last month (notice the cricket response from you again). Give it a shot from an opposing view rather than from the pews. You may be surprised at just how easy it is to spot the propaganda.
Now the Latif article and I'll make it nice and long and manifesto-like. MMfA's seemingly appropriate headline highlighting the arguably inappropriate use of "mini ice age" (what exactly would a mini ice age entail?) quickly devolves into the typical all-over-the-map article evidencing the robustness of AGW, a continued warming trend, and a lack of cooling. On the issue of the use of the "mini ice age" though, until I hear a tape of Latif saying it, I will take his word that he didn't say it and conclude that Fox/Pundit in their headlines and leads wrongly attributed it to him rather than to the Mail headline.
Let's instead parse the things that we are more confident were said by Latif. Here are some statements/quotes from the articles attributed to him (sourced from MMfA or uncontested from the other MMfA-linked articles):
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 per cent.
They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.
[M]ost of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes.
He does NOT forecast 2 or 3 decades of cooling.
I don't think so. [Answering in the interview, "Could we be in for global cooling over the coming decades rather than warming?"]
Some of these statements are in direct contradiction to each other (It will possibly cool for two decades or longer, um, I don't think it will cool for decades, no wait, I do not forecast 2 or 3 decades of cooling, yeah yeah that one), but first go ahead and read that fully-bolded quote again and let it sink in.
Whatever stammering quotes Latif offers to the media in defense of AGW and in denial of prolonged cooling, that bolded statement of his most closely reflects the actual findings of his peer-reviewed paper and was used to extrapolate further into the future in his 2009 UN World Climate Conference presentation cited by MMfA in this article.
That chart from his "Climate Surprises" presentation slide shows his prediction for the coming decades. Notice the peak in temperature? It is at about 2005. Notice when it bottoms out (look for a large arrow pointing to the dip labeled "cooling")? Looks to be about 2030. Notice where it bottoms out? At about 1990 levels. He of course then toes the AGW company line by predicting "accelerated warming" thereafter, but why does he bother even trying to spin the short-term findings of his Nature paper to the media when his own work contradicts the spin?
Let's return to his bolded money quote. His study found that perhaps as much as 50 percent of 20th century warming was due just to MDO's! What percentage can be attributed to solar activity (SLUR, your buddy at Skeptical Science quotes papers saying 0%, 14%, and less than 30%)? Cosmic rays (your site says less than 15%, this guy Lu of Waterloo last month claimed "most" in collaboration with CFC's)? What about other natural and anthropogenic forcings other than CO2? The models' water vapor positive feedback dilemma? UHI? The broken hockey stick? The divergence problem?
When the day comes that we can fully account for the Earth's energy budget, I am nearly positive that natural forcings and natural variation will have accounted for almost all of the warming (and cooling) of this and previous centuries. By the way, that day is still far off despite the "robust" claims your ilk make for AGW, lest you forget the Trenberth statement. How did he put it? Oh yeah. "[W]e are no where close to knowing where energy is going...We are not close to balancing the energy budget."
I don't think I am out on a limb either. Couple nature with the AGW/temp data issues (past, present, and projected), and it is not difficult to predict that when we eventually have a better grip understanding most of the climate variables and we eliminate our observation biases (intentional and inadvertent), most of the climate change will be attributed not to humanity, but to nature. Go figure.
Let's now reunite Latif with the IPCC using his attribution quote again:
[M]ost of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes.
That is, expectedly, perfectly in line with the IPCC quote MMfA provided (would you expect anything different from an IPCC member?):
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Here it is direct from IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch. 9 (attribution):
Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models.
So the IPCC/Latif stance is that even if the uncertainties in observational data and natural forcings are taken "into account" and some are acknowledged as potentially underestimated, AGW still would "very likely" (> 90% probability) account for "most" of the warming since 1950. How can that even be possible given what is out in the peer-reviewed literature?
"Most" would be over 50%, no? Yet just using the Latif example above, 50% of the 20th century warming may be accounted for just taking MDO's into consideration (using the high-end estimate to account for "forcing uncertainty"). Lu put a human fingerprint on "most" of the 20th century warming, but CO2, and most everything else in his study, was off the major culprit list.
Taking the high-end numbers from your fan-site for these same forcings we are at 45% of the warming. What percentages did the IPCC attribute to the other aforementioned forcings? I'm pretty sure we would be well over the 50% mark if the IPCC did as it stated in AR4. As mentioned before, I'm thinking it is very likely closer to 100%.
What amount of emerging evidence for the increased role of forcings other than CO2 and for "problems" with the observational data will it take for you to acknowledge any issues with the AGW theory? Calling it a house of cards is too kind. The blind faith of AGW-fraud deniers such as yourself will ultimately be your undoing. More and more people will leave the flock (notice the AGW bandwagon is no longer quite as full as it used to be on MMfA), leaving just the "all in" true believers like you and Dully to squawk loudly away amidst your padded walls. Just remember: nothing to see here, none of this stuff matters, your religion will save the world. Oh, and good luck with that. Cheers!
No government with the capability of making a difference is going to do so, including the U.S.
The U.S. Senate has 25 (out of 100) votes. England and Japan are equivalent. Saudi Arabia calls it junk science. China is laughing.
Time to shift our discussions to something else. This one is a dead end, no matter what you believe.
2. Proof that we're helpless, unable to do anything effective against GW.
3. Proof of the senate numbers and the rest. The House of Representatives has no part in this?
4. I appreciate that by the time the changes are overt enough to cause some wingnuts to change their mind, it will be to late for us and quite alot of the rest of our worlds living ecology. Unacceptable.