The Mini Ice Age Starts Here

Cooling WorldBy David Rose

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also 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.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2. Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled.’

Read the rest of this article at Daily Mail.

9 Responses to The Mini Ice Age Starts Here

  1. Cubanshamoo January 13, 2010 at 5:12 am #

    There will no chance for credibility for these computer modeling until those machines take into consideration every butterfly breathing at the canopy of all trees. The actual models are toys for a bunch of children with sceintist salaries playing simulation during their working hours.

  2. Neil F. AGWD/BSD January 13, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    This is really an attempt by some climate scientists to climb out from under the climategate scandal. I seriously do not believe this study would have had the same conclusions if climategate never happened.

  3. Rob N. Hood January 16, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    Well, dang, if they would just include those pesky butterflies in their claculations, then we would figure it all out. Dumb scientists, jeeez!

    So “AGW” scinetists placed their reputations, and everything else too basically, on the line to arbitrarily (somewhat) choose, out of hat supposedly, which theory to go with? “Warming or cooling…? Gee let’s see…. umm, I’ll flip a coin and risk everything I’ve worked for including my advanced education, etc. ” Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Plus I’ll helping out my good pal and close bosom buddy Al Gore. Yeah, he needs the help, he just isn’t famous or rich enough the way it is. The poor guy needs a helping hand.”

    Yep, I can see it all now. Clear as day.

    • Rich B. January 18, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

      Rob N. Hood, your reply is idiotic. You really need to learn more about complexity theory (as should the scientists using these models) before you make such uninformed comments. Complexity theory (formerly called chaos theory) was developed in large part due to discoveries made during early climate modeling efforts. One of the key aspects of complexity is called a “sensitivity to initial conditions”, which is what is popularly known as the “butterfly effect”. To illustrate that aspect of complexity, Mandelbrot (I believe) said that it is as if a butterfly flapping its wings in China would change the storm systems in New York a month later. To put that in perspective, you must remember that the same is true for EVERY butterfly and EVERY disturbance of air anywhere prior to it reaching New York. Those minute changes iterate through the system and eventually affect very large changes. With complex systems, like the climate or the weather, our absolute inability to measure all of these minute factors means that our ability to forecast the future state of a complex system is highly limited and highly error-prone. That is why our weather forecasts are limited to about two weeks, even with the massive amounts of information we are collecting. After about two weeks, any forecasts have no predictive value at all.

      The same is true for the models of ANY complex system, whether we are talking about the stock market, economics, population, the weather, or the climate. After a very short initial period, any model of a complex system will have zero remaining predictive value. The problem today is that scientists are using the massive computing power we now have available without realizing the extreme constraints on the results of that computing. Those models are really only good for showing sensitivities of changes in one or more variables on the outcome of the model, not for predicting future states. In other words, they are good for learning about the model you’ve created, not for predicting the complex real world the model is trying to simulate.

  4. Rob N. Hood January 16, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    Latif’s work on climatology is complex and often difficult to understand, which is why the Fox and Daily Mail reporters may have his story mixed up — it wouldn’t be the first time journalists have been confused by his findings. But as cogently interpreted by the physicist and climate expert Dr. Joseph Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, “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.”

    In fact, as Latif told the British newspaper the Guardian, “I believe in man-made global warming… 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.”

    And if you don’t believe him, ask the jellyfish.

    According to The Associated Press, the jellyfish population is rising. The news service reports, “Scientists believe climate change — the warming of oceans — has allowed some of the almost 2,000 jellyfish species to expand their ranges, appear earlier in the year and increase overall numbers, much as warming has helped ticks, bark beetles, and other pests to spread to new latitudes.”

    This has led to all manner of consequences, some you would expect, others not. A 2008 National Science Foundation study found populations growing along the East Coast — in the Chesapeake Bay area, people are stung about half a million times a year. In the Middle East and Africa, swarms have jammed hydroelectric and desalination plants, forcing them to shut down. In Japan, the fishing industry is losing up to $332 million a year because jellyfish swarms fill the nets, crowding out mackerel, sea bass, and other fish.

    The AP reports that in October, off the eastern coast of Japan, “Jelly-filled nets capsized a 10-ton trawler as its crew tried to pull them up. The three fishermen were rescued.” I know this all sounds like something out of a Godzilla movie, but it’s serious stuff.

    • Rich B. January 19, 2010 at 2:08 am #

      Except that Latif’s own statement to the UK Daily Mail said:

      “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.”

      Sounds to me like he IS predicting 2 to 3 decades of cooling…

      Not only that, but jellyfish populations have no impact on the validity of AGW theory. If it can be shown that jellyfish populations ONLY increase due to warmer water conditions (which isn’t the case), then they only corroborate what we are measuring with our thermometers. You are defending the wrong argument. The issue isn’t whether the climate changes or has been warming for the last 250 years, it is whether it is caused by anthropogenic CO2. While there are arguments about the accuracy of various temperatures measurements, whether they have been skewed by the homogenization process, etc., the only argument that matters to the current debate is whether anthropogenic CO2 is driving the climate. Jellyfish populations have absolutely no relevance to that debate.

  5. paul wenum January 17, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    As to the jellyfish, it has been happening for hundreds of years. What is your point?

  6. Rob N. Hood January 21, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Well gee Paul if a few butterflies can change the weather, why can’t jellyfish indicate SOMETHING?? Your usual response above is really getting……..ZZZZZZZZZ, oh sorry dozed off there for a second. I wonder why?

    I guess your point is- you’ve been alive for hundreds of years. Well, ok then. You should know, I stand corrected.

  7. paul wenum January 22, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    Stand corrected you should and finally, for once, look it up!!!! I just had those little guys around me yesterday. Can’t stand them!

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.