Link to full paper: http://oceanrep.geomar.de/4932/1/nature0...
"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming"
It deals with the meridional overturning circulation. It states that this will provide better forecasting for decadal predictions.
I take it that you are wanting to know if Latif said that the global climate could cool for 20 years. I can find no direct reference to any such statement.
What Baccheus has linked to deals with sea surface temperature oscillations in the North Hemisphere and its possible societal impacts in the North Hemisphere. This has nothing to do with the global climate nor with global climate change itself. Since it only deals with sea surface temperatures it is not taking into account the deep layers of the oceans, the land masses or higher altitude temperature data. That would be the global scale of the climate. The Atlantic and Pacific SST oscillations are known as well as the ENSO. These are not actually drivers within the global climate but, rather, short term events that have an impact on regional weather and not the global climate itself. This is nothing more than a "noise" that must be filtered out to determine the true, long term trends in the global climate.
This link is for related news articles http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ip...
The 15 year thing was started by david rose who rearranged MET data to suit his agenda it was first published in Oct of 12 and the same day the MET added a disclaimer in their own blog saying they lied. David Rose lied Dailymail reprinted the same article as if it was new in spring of 13
The DA deniers here are mostly wasting peoples time by posting all these distracting questions and answers which have all bee debunked time and time again. What about the newbies who continually ask GW is real If they actually searched YA they would find over 1,000 questions addressing this
He published in Nature five years ago, a prediction that churning of cold water to the surface of the oceans would temporarily offset anthropogenic warming of the troposphere. That is now looking like a more important paper than it did at the time.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...
This is the problem with many denier quotes (and the reason they are reluctant to post original sources)
From the bending of meaning to actual editing seen in what they claimed about the UEA emails to claims about the hockey-stick or what ice is doing (or going to do) the fabled 15 (or 16) (or 17) years of cooling.
quotes they claimed the U.N. made about deaths and number of refugees by particular dates, which when tracked down where not made by the U.N at all but a minor functionary who worked in one U.N. department, they where never actual claims made by the U.N.
Then you have the claims of an ice free Arctic by 2013 or 2012 (or similar dates) deniers have tried playing that one many times in spite of the fact it was the opinion of just on scientist (from Naval research) not a group that actually studies ice like NSIDC. To try and play that one up deniers even edited a news story with a comment from an NSIDC scientists in which he referenced an office joke/bet that it might happen by such an early date, of course in the denier version the reference to the office joke was removed and it just became "NSIDC scientist says ice will melt by X"
Of course it's not really that hard to find that same scientists real views on the NSIDC site and his are the same as the general view of the NSIDC and that is an ice free Arctic (in Summer) by ~2030, still 17 years away.
As for the so called 15 years (or whatever number it is today) cooling, where exactly is that, certainly not in the temperature record we have.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/gl...
While deniers pretend we are cooling, 2008 the coolest recent year is (as can be seen above) warmer than any year before 1997 (including the warmest years (like 1995)
But then deniers have also tried to lie about solar activity and volcanic emissions as they have about many things in their sad efforts to dispute AGW, all such efforts do is to reinforce the reason scientists will give them little time, science by it's very nature abhors a liar.
How obtuse can deniers be, well look at the question about air force one and the childish retorts from the asker there of the recent claims the Arctic sea ice was growing, based on this
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
How blind would you have to be to think this shows growing or recovering sea ice,.given the dotted line is last years record low and the solid grey line is a 29 year average.
Thanks sage for demonstrating my point
Who really cares what Latif said? It is the Earth, stupid!
I tried googling it, but all I could find is denialist blogs.
