Nations walk out on Canada

[wyly]

Latif actually said:

Why would he say "we have to ask the nasty questions" if he did not intend to point out that the climate is not behaving as the models predicted? He, unlike the denialists at real climate, acknowledges the facts and is seeking to use ocean currents as a explanation for the mismatch between the models and the real data. On the surface such an explanation sounds compelling but it also implies that a significant portion of the warming from 1980 to 1998 was also caused by ocean currents. If it was then the IPCC claim that the majority of warming was caused by CO2 cannot be supported by the data.

what he said is quite clear to those who understand science...when plotting weather data on a graph there is no such thing as a straight line, the purpose of the graph is to determine a trend an individual data point on a graph is useless more is better in determining a long term trend...statistically anomalies are smoothed out, but the denier cult wants to cherry pick those anomalies and reduce the data to a minimum and if possible to two, a high followed by a low so they can claim we're headed into an ice age...

the irony here is deniers say weather is unpredictable because it varies up and down and the models are wrong...except when it suits their beliefs "hey look the top modeler says the temps may decrease so he's right(and so now too are the models apparently)we're cooling, whereas when he says we're warming his models are crap....and weather is predictable, each day must be colder than the day before or warmer than the preceding day no variation is acceptable, it's all straight line data on the graph now, variation doesn't exist...

[Keepitsimple]

the irony here is deniers say weather is unpredictable because it varies up and down and the models are wrong...except when it suits their beliefs "hey look the top modeler says the temps may decrease so he's right(and so now too are the models apparently)we're cooling, whereas when he says we're warming his models are crap....and weather is predictable, each day must be colder than the day before or warmer than the preceding day no variation is acceptable, it's all straight line data on the graph now, variation doesn't exist...

Wyly, you're so bogged down in the minutiae of AGW/Climate Science that you're missing the big picture. The most compelling "trend" - and one that forms the thrust of Mojib Latif's comments - is the roughly 30 year cycles that he is mainly attributing to Atlantic and Pacific decadal variations. The 40's to the 70's cooled (while GHG rose)....then the 70's to 2000 warmed......and now, as Latif speculates, we'll get another 20 years or so of cooling (in addition the the last 10 years). With all the ups and downs, there's an upward warming trend - as there has been for several centuries.....but it's not a straight line coupled to CO2/GHG as the alarmists would have us believe. If Global temperatures can actually cool while GHG's rise then clearly, there are forces at work that dwarf the impact of humans' contributions to GHG's.....if that were so, would you not agree?

Edited November 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Oleg Bach]

Those that don't like real environmentalism are those that hate the thought of losing a few bucks contained in their stock portfolio. Taking care of human and industrial waste is expensive and cuts into profits. Profit is more important than keeping a clean house. It really makes no sense to be super wealthy and breathe filtered air....or run your AC at full capacity 9 months out of the year because we have generated to much heat.

Human beings from all levels are habitualists. Those that generate great power and wealth for themselves really can't change what they do in order to save the earth from more over bearing waste. To ask the powerful to curb themselves is to ask them to give up their very identity and social status as they percieve it. They are not super human. They can not change. It's hopeless to believe that all the nations of the world will sign on ot some accord that will bring about a clean up of the earth. It's like asking a spoiled child who has everything to clean up his room. Not going to happen.

[waldo]

Wyly, you're so bogged down in the minutiae of AGW/Climate Science that you're missing the big picture. The most compelling "trend" - and one that forms the thrust of Mojib Latif's comments - is the roughly 30 year cycles that he is mainly attributing to Atlantic and Pacific decadal variations. The 40's to the 70's cooled (while GHG rose)....then the 70's to 2000 warmed......and now, as Latif speculates, we'll get another 20 years or so of cooling (in addition the the last 10 years). With all the ups and downs, there's an upward warming trend - as there has been for several centuries.....but it's not a straight line coupled to CO2/GHG as the alarmists would have us believe. If Global temperatures can actually cool while GHG's rise then clearly, there are forces at work that dwarf the impact of humans' contributions to GHG's.....if that were so, would you not agree?

You continue to parrot the denier interpretation of what Latif said - an interpretation he most certainly did not say... what Latif did say was that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offset global warming for a decade so that there may not be much additional warming than is currently occurring. Latif also pointed out some of the uncertainty with short-term evolution, although emphasizing that by 2050 and thereafter the earth will significantly warm unless considerable measures are taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

[Riverwind]

there is no evidence an iridium trail from a meteor strike, such as that which confirmed the dino's extinction.

And there are more holes/missing data in the any GHG based hypothesis for the event. The fact that a meteor strike is the most likely cause of later extinction events makes it the most plausible explaination for earlier ones.

what he said is quite clear to those who understand science...when plotting weather data on a graph there is no such thing as a straight line, the purpose of the graph is to determine a trend an individual data point on a graph is useless more is better in determining a long term trend

What he said was the models fail to account for ocean currents which can cause changes to climate that last for a decade or more. The current models assume that "weather" will not affect temperatures more much more than a year or two. He was calling on climate scientists to improve the models so they can account for the decadal scale events since the sceptics would use the failure of the models to cast doubt on the entire AGW hypothesis.

Bottom line is he is not being misrepresented. He admitted the models cannot account for some very important climate phenomena. What he did not admit is that these omissions likely mean the estimates for future warming are wrong.

[Keepitsimple]

You continue to parrot the denier interpretation of what Latif said - an interpretation he most certainly did not say... what Latif did say was that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offset global warming for a decade so that there may not be much additional warming than is currently occurring. Latif also pointed out some of the uncertainty with short-term evolution, although emphasizing that by 2050 and thereafter the earth will significantly warm unless considerable measures are taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

I watched the link that you provided about the "crock" where clearly, damage control was in full force. This is not a question of denial or alarmism - it's the evaluation of ALL relevant information as it becomes available. It's a pragmatic look at a theory that over time, appears to have lost some of its underpinnings. As Latif himself says - someone is going to ask the nasty questions. Do you not agree that since it's inception - until very recently - the IPCC and that Greenhouse Gasbag Al Gore - have claimed that there is a direct link - as GHG rises, so does the temperature? And do you not agree that Latif said that there would be a decade or two of cooling (or perhaps "non-warming") due to the Ocean Decadal factor? He calls it natural variation but that's his field of study - ocean currents. Which brings me back to the same point that many people much smarter than I have made......if a previously unknown (or unaccepted by the IPCC) factor such as ocean currents can actually cool the planet for 10, 20 or 30 years while GHG's continue to rise, doesn't that give you some reason to doubt the predictions of the Climate models, if not the basis of the theory itself? Do you not have any concerns at all about the accuracy of IPCC projections based on Latif's comments? Is the science really settled?

Edited November 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

And do you not agree that Latif said that there would be a decade or two of cooling (or perhaps "non-warming") due to the Ocean Decadal factor?

I've already stated what Latif actually said - step up and link to something that states Latif's exact words indicating he spoke to a global cooling effect... or a perhaps "non-warming" effect. Waiting...

[Riverwind]

I've already stated what Latif actually said - step up and link to something that states Latif's exact words indicating he spoke to a global cooling effect... or a perhaps "non-warming" effect. Waiting...

http deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/key-excerpts-from-mojib-latifs-wcc-presentation/

However we all know there is variability, and this variability may look like this. This has been actually derived from the 20th century by just removing some exponential fit. And the two of course [are] superimposed. And then the real evolution of, say, globally averaged temperature would look like this.

..

And then you see right away [that] it may well happen that you enter a decade or maybe even two, when the temperature cools relative to the present level. And then I know what’s going to happen. I will get millions of phone calls. “What’s going on? So is global warming disappearing? Have you lied [to] us?”

...

And, therefore, this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue.

...

So first of all we need to understand what basically the relative contributions of external and internal forcing is. So here is just Northern Hemisphere temperature for the 20th century. I put in red the linear trend. We all believe that the long-term trend is anthropogenic in nature. In blue, we see the running mean and you see, I think, right away there is a lot of variability around the long-term trend.

And the $64,000 question then is basically how much did internal decadal variability contribute … during the recent decades and I think the jury is still out about the relative contribution of this internal variability. However, if you just look at this diagram I think you may get the impression that some part is maybe driven by internal variability.

Of course, Latif ignores the elephant in the room: the IPCC projections cannot be right if internal variability is larger than expected because the IPCC projections assume internal variability is small.

[waldo]

I do believe I prefer this direct email exchange:

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.

(emphasis added (mine))

[noahbody]

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.

So one week it's one or two decades; the next it's 40 years?

[Keepitsimple]

I've already stated what Latif actually said - step up and link to something that states Latif's exact words indicating he spoke to a global cooling effect... or a perhaps "non-warming" effect. Waiting...

I don't care what you THINK he stated - I watched the link that you provided, biased as it was, and listened to his own words on the youtube video. It's obvious from the flurry of follow-up writings that poor old Mojib was put under a lot of pressure to put his words into a context that was closer to the IPCC "truth". But Pandora's box was opened before Mr. Latif - he just happened to have enough courage to at least broach the subject - that ocean currents play a significant role in 30 year cycles of climate variation.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

I do believe I prefer this direct email exchange

Does not change that Latif was not misrepresented when he was quoted about cooling. He said what he said.

Remember the issue here are the alarmists that insist on denying facts and pretending that the cooling is not happening or even claiming that the warming is accelerating. Latif clearly does not support that view because he acknowledges the large role that ocean currents play in the climate system.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Does not change that Latif was not misrepresented when he was quoted about cooling. He said what he said.

Remember the issue here are the alarmists that insist on denying facts and pretending that the cooling is not happening or even claiming that the warming is accelerating. Latif clearly does not support that view because he acknowledges the large role that ocean currents play in the climate system.

You can read that complete email thread I provided a link to... where does Latif state that global cooling is occurring or will occur? Emanating from that conference, Latif's hypothetical cautionary scenario has been desperately spun out of control/context by deniers... purposely misinterpreted as an actual prediction, concerning the coming decade. Latif suggests a need to address the decadal prediction issue given a hypothetical... not predicted... scenario. The conference was titled, "Advancing climate prediction science"... amazing that the subject of hypothetical prediction scenarios might be discussed

Again... "Latif, despite projecting less near-term warming than most climate modellers, is still looking for warming close to 0.2 deg. C in the coming decade"... again... where's that supposed cooling he speaks to? Clearly, the misinterpretation is now well understood and documented... and originates from the desperate deniers and their parrots.

[Riverwind]

Latif suggests a need to address the decadal prediction issue given a hypothetical... not predicted... scenario

Here is a slide from his presentation:

http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ps3_latif_slide3.jpg

Note the big arrow labelled "cooling" pointing to the period between 2000-2010.

Hypothetical scenarios don't usually refer to things that happened in the recent past.

[jbg]

such as that which confirmed the dino's extinction...

I thought that was caused by Stock Day.

[wyly]

Wyly, you're so bogged down in the minutiae of AGW/Climate Science that you're missing the big picture. The most compelling "trend" - and one that forms the thrust of Mojib Latif's comments - is the roughly 30 year cycles that he is mainly attributing to Atlantic and Pacific decadal variations. The 40's to the 70's cooled (while GHG rose)....then the 70's to 2000 warmed......and now, as Latif speculates, we'll get another 20 years or so of cooling (in addition the the last 10 years).

it's you who fail to understand...you want to seperate anthropogenic warming from natural cycles to suit you're denial but they work together PDO's contine regardless of GHG's, the PDO will always effect climate but inconjunction with GHG's which is why 1998 was a record setting el Nino year...

With all the ups and downs, there's an upward warming trend - as there has been for several centuries.....but it's not a straight line coupled to CO2/GHG as the alarmists would have us believe. With all the ups and downs, there's an upward warming trend - as there has been for several centuries.....but it's not a straight line coupled to CO2/GHG as the alarmists would have us believe. If Global temperatures can actually cool while GHG's rise then clearly, there are forces at work that dwarf the impact of humans' contributions to GHG's.....if that were so, would you not agree?

it's the deniers like yourself who claim the straight line argument...

If Global temperatures can actually cool while GHG's rise then clearly, there are forces at work that dwarf the impact of humans' contributions to GHG's.....if that were so, would you not agree?

and temps next month are going to be cooler here than last month which means **** all...you keep inventing a false argument that says CC must mean each day is warmer than the last and insist that the belief of AGW...

and I'll keep asking this question untill I get an answer

if 20 million tons of SO2 can lower the planets average temp for two years and is "dwarfed" by 1.8 Gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 has no effect?...