You got to love the careful wording of this article:
Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.
The study was based on sea-surface temperatures of currents that move heat around the world, and vary from decade to decade. This regional cooling effect may temporarily neutralize the long- term warming phenomenon caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases building up around the earth, said Richard Wood, a research scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre, a U.K. provider of environmental and weather-related services…
“If we don’t experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn’t mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us,” [Noel] Keenlyside said in an interview. “There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.”…
“Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,” Wood said. “If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.”…
“We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don’t want it to be turned around in the wrong way,” Keenlyside said. “I hope it doesn’t become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.”
Yup, they sure don’t want their industry to go away….lots of money to be made selling carbon credits and other bulls&^t. I mean its not like the man-made global warming crowd is missing anything like, say, for instance….solar activity, water vapor and the like.
But still, as long as you run the computer model long enough…global warming will win.
Climate Skeptic answers the above argument that all this cooling is just one more step towards warming:
- Catastrophists are spinning that the PDO cool cycles just delay or suppress man-made warming signals. OK. But if you argue this, you have to also argue for the converse — that the PDO exaggerate what might be man-made warming signals during its warm cycles. Catastrophists and in particular the IPCC, however, said that all of the post 1977 warming was due to man – I don’t remember anyone mentioning “PDO” in these discussions (In fact, they argue that some additional warming was being masked). Catastrophists love to point to natural cycles only when they can be claimed to mask man-made warming.
- I am constantly amazed at how much the 1905-1947 trend on this chart looks like the 1977-2005 trend. But here is the amazing thing to me: Catastrophists as well as the IPCC claim that these trends had different causes. In fact, you MUST believe they had different causes to believe the AGW story (since there was little man-made CO2 in the first period). In other words, to belive the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, you have to believe some effect, presumably natural but never identified by the IPCC, drove temperatures through 1947 and then switched off, never to return, at the exact same moment that man began producing CO2 in earnest.