Since even the IPCC and Prof. Latif announced the end of GW, what's the issue?

It's particularly worrisome if the sun continues on it's path of inactivity. This news combined with a deep solar minimum may mean very hard times for humans due to global cooling, especially if we implement policies to reduce fossil fuel use.

Also noteworthy is that his prediction follows pretty closely to Dr Don Easterbrooks projections in this graphic: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globa... Full article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

From Dr Easterbrook:

"The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far reaching―e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it’s already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change. All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about nine billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling."

This is basically a repeat of the same question asked yesterday, but the owner of that question seems to have deleted it, possibly from embarrassment as the link in that previous question was from a Canadian newspaper which simply left out the comments by Prof. Latif that stated GW was real and would continue

"warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100."

The IPCC are predicting 2-3c by the end of the century bad for sea level rise and very bad for the long term economy but hardly deadly.

"While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers every predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario."

You seem to not be listening the PDO has a similar medium term effect of around a decade but when it passes GW warming is still there this can be seen in the temperature record

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Around 1880, 1900, 1940 and the quite small 1970s dips but the overall trend is quite clear, these pass and the temperature keeps rising.

Prof. Latif says as much in the parts of his statement cut out of the newspaper story, which you have cut and paste most of your text from.

Ottawa Mike: The Sun has been showing signs of slowly wakening for a while and it's current activity is with spot numbers and sizes growing

http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=22&... keeping to levels of higher activity expected by the end of the year.

Dr Easterbrook - there's a name that hasn't been dragged out for some time he has made a number of predictions, amazing how predictions seem o.k. if it is someone who supports the denier cause, but if comes from the IPCC, "you can't predict the future"

Easterbrook predicted cooling from 2007 onward and 2008 was cooler, if you define cooler as still warmer than any year before 1998 and 2009 is (on the data to the present) back in the top 5-6th warmest years with global ocean temperatures currently above even 1998 levels

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=...

It would seem Don needs to have his crystal ball re-calibrated.

The facts don't support AGW theory and that's becoming more apparent every year. The upsurge in temp began while CO2 levels were relatively stable, from 1910 to about 1940. Then after WWII when CO2 emissions skyrocketed, temps fell from 1942-1970. A pattern of about 30 years that can be traced back well before the 20th century. We did warm from 1970 to about 2002-2003, but it's been flat or cooling since then. Have CO2 emissions fallen? No, but temp has according to NASA satellite data.

The only trend involving CO2 and temp is that as the world warms, the oceans release more CO2. It has not worked the other way around at any time in Earth's history and it won't begin just because the AGW doomsayers say it will. CO2 levels were nearly 12 times higher than today during the Late Ordovician Period and the Earth was still in an Ice Age. I doubt we have enough fossil fuels left to reach that level but it still would have no observable impact on global temp.

Professor Mojib Latif actually said:

"Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pick up again and continue to warm".

He is talking about the natural variability of global climate due to ocean circulation, superimposed on the long-term warming trend due to human activities. He is arguing that changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation, combined with anthropogenic global warming, could result in global temperatures remaining static for some years, and then continuing to rise after that. This is what all climate scientists know anyway - the natural variability isn't going to go away just because of the long-term human-induced warming trend. There will always be fluctuations around this warming trend.

So based on the answers and what climate scientist are reporting now cooling trends are natural and warming is man made.

The religion of global warming. We can't prove it and our computer models didn't predict this or that, which is actually happening now. But you better join our religion on blind faith just in case.

Sounds like every other religion don't it? Now they even have their on Judas Iscariot (Prof. Latif ) to demonize.

When he spoke in agreement with them his word was holy. He was one of the chosen an Apostle. But now!

That scientific consensus crap is starting to look even shakier than before. And it looked like a big lie from the get go.

That whole all the scientist agree with us and all you non-believers are just ignorant was just a big lie. And now it appears that one by one the ones you had are starting to change sides.

Guess their consciences were starting to bother them no matter how much money in grants or just plain bribes they were offered.

Massive polar glacial melt is cooling the Atlantic. This will stop when the ice is gone. The warming will increase.

Like many who wish there was no climate change you have grabbed one part of a complex argument and portrayed it as a final conclusion on the phenomenon.

Nice try though

Edit: notice the word phase in the quote. That's a clue

The issue seems to be your reading comprehension and logic (or lack thereof).

Just for starters, just because Latif is an IPCC lead author doesn't mean his opinions are that of the IPCC.

Secondly, his study states that the long-term warming trend will continue after the 10-20 year delay. He's not proposing global warming is over, in fact exactly the opposite!

When you're playing a game and you hit the 'Pause' button, do you think the game is over?

Coincidentally most climate scientists disagree with Latif's predictions, and I don't know why you would assume global warming is over even if he thought that was the case (which he doesn't). Since he doesn't actually think it's over, will you blindly accept that conclusion as well?

Please post your sources so we can read the information.