I can barely keep up with the current raft of peer reviewed papers that drive yet more nails into the coffin of climate alarmism. Following on from the fading huricane scare that I recently blogged about here, a new paper published in Nature on 17th January, further destroys the myth that ocean currents will slow due to global warming:
The scientific community has long believed that as global warming continues and large amounts of freshwater ice melt into the ocean, the ocean’s circulation will slow. This would have a catastrophic impact on the environment as vividly, if somewhat overdramatically, portrayed in the film “The Day After Tomorrow.” But a paper published last week in Nature magazine, the result of several studies of past and possible future weather, says that in fact the very opposite is true and ocean circulation will become stronger as the icecaps melt.
Eric Schwartz, Arizona Daily Star, 30 January 2008
The evidence is piling up, that those models predicting a weakened ocean circulation in the coming decades are wrong.
Joellen Russell, University of Arizona, Russell, 30 January 2008
Current climate-system models say that the ocean’s overturning circulation will weaken over the next century, but these predictions might not rest on a solid foundation… From the observations, it is clear that large circulation changes took place, and it seems unlikely that circulation changes of this magnitude could have happened without substantial changes in the wind forcing. It seems that the information from the past is telling us to expect a stronger oceanic circulation in the warmer climate to come.
J. R. Toggweiler & Joellen Russell, Nature 17 January 2008
The full paper is here:
Nature 451, 286-288 (17 January 2008)
Ocean circulation in a warming climate
J. R. Toggweiler 1) & Joellen Russell 2)
1) J. R. Toggweiler is at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton, New Jersey 08542, USA.
2) Joellen Russell is in the Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA.
Correspondence should be addressed to J.R.T. (Email: robbie.toggweiler@noaa.gov).
Climate models predict that the ocean’s circulation will weaken in response to global warming, but the warming at the end of the last ice age suggests a different outcome.
Enjoy!
Hat tip to Benny Peiser’s CCNet.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This item was reported on ABC radio today
“Increased Hurricane Activity Linked To Sea Surface Warming”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130130647.htm
Fine by me, another day, another paper – just more evidence of the true state of climate science – uncertainty.
“drive yet more nails into the coffin of climate alarmism”
Paul – If there is so much uncertainty, how do you know there is no need to be alarmed?
Beautiful work Paul. Nice catchy blog title. Hey whats you view on the current global oil situation. We’ve got Jen’s for the record (apparently not at all worried), so how about yours? Do you think we will face forced rationing of oil consumption moving forward, which will lead to lower emissions over time anyway?
The Crucial phrase is “the .. always believed so and so to be etc”.
This is pseudoscience – science is compelled by empirical evidence to make conclusions but to discover that global warming will increase the currents? This is basically a 50:50 scenario and in line with what meteorologists conclude from experience, that they can only get weather predictions right 50% of the time.
As Nigel Calder said, we have been comprehensively lied to.
I point out to other posts in which I reproduced a summary of geological conference attended by some 1200 geoscientists in Athens last year.
Biogenic oil theory seems to be a peculiarly Western dogma, or more precisely, an Anglo-Saxon one but oil, crude, Texas Tea, is mantle derived and seemingly inexhaustable in supply. The trick is getting at it, but not in this thread of course.
Louis – “I point out to other posts in which I reproduced a summary of geological conference attended by some 1200 geoscientists in Athens last year.”
However you should also mention that it was presented as a paper of interest and did not reflect the actual content of the conference.
For everybody else Louis and others are challenging the plate tectonics theory of geology with another rival one. It only has a small following at the moment and the vast majority of geologist are happy with plate tectonics.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2150915.htm?section=world
who should we believe Paul?
From the above link:
“Professor Saunders says his study does not investigate the causes behind these temperature changes but he says it may be linked to climate change.”
“Dr John McBride is from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research.”
“The catch is, however, that the Atlantic seems to be different to the rest of the globe,” he said.
“In the North Atlantic, there’s quite a strong statistical relationship on a year-to-year basis between sea surface and the number and intensity of cyclones.
“However that relationship doesn’t show up in other major tropical cyclone regions like northern Australia and like India and like the north Pacific near China and the Philippines and so on.”
Indeed.
“Tropical cyclones and climate change” BoM 2006 paper
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20060220.shtml
I always thought that the hypothesized slowing of the Atlantic Conveyor and Gulf Stream was actually going to slow Global Warming. The slow down in ocean circulation making the north Atlantic colder. If the ocean circulation was going to accelerate wouldn’t this speed the loss of ice near the north pole (on land and sea) and decrease albedo, and hence increase warming?
You ‘nail’ in the climate alarmism coffin seems ill-positioned as the implications of the paper would suggest that Global Warming would accelerate because of this.
Mr T, slowing of the Gulf Stream due to global warming? (and surely you mean North Atlantic Drift!) That’s a wind driven current caused by the rotation of the earth and jet stream winds bouncing off the Rocky Mountains. Slowing is not an option.
Ender
Your are a misrepresenting idiot – the quote was a summary of the conference itself, not a paper. As you do not have access to any of the conference abstracts you are quite, quite wrong.
Go read what you can on the NCGT web site.
It is no Louis who is promoting alternatives to plate tectonics but a large number of geoscientists.
You are simply an idiot.
Louis, actually it’s a small number. Plate tectonics works on Earth because of water. It metamorphoses the olivine in the oceanic basalt to serpentine, which is OH SO SLIPPERY!
John, I thought people were saying the influx of fresh water in the North Atlantic would shut down the Gulf Stream… I could have got that wrong.
Oil ‘ran out’ 35 years ago – I manage on my ration quite well.
Mr T,
Actually we are finding continental rocks (granites etc) on so-called ocean floors. Totally impossible under PT scenarios.
There are scientific papers describing these discoveries in the latest NCGT Newsletter.
Hence the thundering silence in geophysical groups. Just remember that Plate Tectonics was a geophysical invention, not a geological one, but as geology is somewhat dominated by the Socratic method of reasoning, simple persuasion tends to gather support for the theory, not empirical evidence.
Just remember also that all the principal science journals are run by lefty academics – as are the universities. So the misuse of peer review is normal to stifle contrarian views.
Louis I await these papers with great interest… Should be a very interesting read.
How do you feel about Obduction then?
I think Plate Tectonics was first theorised by Alfred Wegner.
Are these granites ON the Ocean floor, or IN it.
“Just remember also that all the principal science journals are run by lefty academics – as are the universities. So the misuse of peer review is normal to stifle contrarian views.”
HA ha ha haaaaa… Oh that’s hilarious. I remember the Geology Dept at UWA being full of right wings… David Groves for example.
But seriously, you can’t really believe that.
Maybe you do…
So which Lefty academics run E&E? I mean that’s a solid bastion of great science. Surely E&E hasn’t been infiltrated by lefty’s. Ohhh heaven forbid.
Ok lets see you name and shame the journals and their ‘lefty academics’. And describe how they misuse peer review. This’ll be VERY entertaining.
Mr T
Wegener proposed continental drift to explain the apparent “fit” between the continents.
I never mentioned geology departments, you have. As geology departments are basically non-existent in univeristies, despite maintaining a rump, my general observations remain valid.
E&E is edited by Sonya Bohm_Christiasson (excuse spelling) who is quite left but unlike others, not an academic bigot.
Makes me wonder your real game is,
Louis, so the E&E editor is a lefty, but an “ok” one… What about the others? Any other Journals run by Lefty’s?
My game? You want to know about my Game? You couldn’t handle MY GAME. It’s such a clever devious game you will never find out…
You didn’t tell me what your thought of obduction Louis.
Wegner started the ball rolling though. And it works pretty well. Actually the whole plate tectonics thing works pretty well. Explains the location of volcanoes, the chemical composition of lavas, the location and depth of earthquakes, a whole range of geographic features (almost every mountain range, the Basin and Range area of the US, Island arcs, the Great Rift Valley, The Red Sea, The Persian Gulf, triple point junctions), the matching of magnetic anomalies on either side of Oceanic Spreading ridges, The oceanic spreading ridges, pretty much everything. I guess the bit of granite they found on or in the oceanic crust obviously makes all this evidence redundant.
Louis – “Your are a misrepresenting idiot – the quote was a summary of the conference itself, not a paper. As you do not have access to any of the conference abstracts you are quite, quite wrong.”
For someone that complains so bitterly about ad-homs you can certainly dish them out. Does that mean I can now say that Henry Thornton has stopped publishing your articles because you are such a science free fool zone that even such a person with loose scientific standards like Thornton cannot stomach your rantings anymore. But that would be wrong wouldn’t it?
BTW don’t tell me you have a 400 list of geologist that are against the dogma of plate tectonics. Perhaps you can publish it along with references to peer reviewed papers that they have published.
BTW your newsletter publishing standards are:
http://www.ncgt.org/category.php?id=10
“We are open to new ideas and free discussion. Manuscripts are judged by reviewers on the basis of their scientific merit, quality, supporting data and evidence, and compatibility with the aims of the Newsletter.”
Maybe I can write a bullshit blog entry and see if I can get it published.