FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Global Warming Scam Latest
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7849

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


@RyanMaue Sep 13
Now almost 50-years of global hurricane data.
No trends in frequency in number of named
storms or those that reach hurricane-force....

Just to nail the bullshit about two hurricanes in succession, there's the
record showing if anything, reduced storm activity in last 20 years.

The bad news for alarmists just got worse:

Quote:



We were wrong — worst effects of climate change
can be avoided, say experts

Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted


Ben Webster, Environment Editor
September 19 2017, 12:01am, The Times

The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists
have said after revising their previous predictions.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer
models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of
emissions, a new study has found. Its projections suggest that the world
has a better chance than previously claimed of meeting the goal set by
the Paris agreement on climate change to limit warming to 1.5C above
pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that
rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the
world has more time to make the changes.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at
University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that
his past prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the
evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually
delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Professor Grubb told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I
change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said. It’s still likely to be very
difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a
better place than I thought.”

The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid
temperature increase than had taken place. Global average temperature
has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a
slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford
and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in
the observations.”


He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”. Too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

Professor Grubb said that the fresh assessment was good news for island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.

Other factors pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore windfarms falling steeply in Britain.

Professor Grubb called on governments to commit themselves to steeper cuts in emissions than they had pledged under the Paris agreement to keep warming below 1.5C. He added: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

The Met Office acknowledged yesterday a 15-year slowdown in the rise in average temperature but said that this pause had ended in 2014, the first of three record warm years. The slowing had been caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warm and cool phases in Pacific sea-surface temperature, it said.

http://bit.ly/2hgn9Nl

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7849

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bad news for climate alarmists. Wink
The computer models were wrong:


Quote:



We were wrong — worst effects of climate change
can be avoided, say experts

Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted


Ben Webster, Environment Editor
September 19 2017, 12:01am, The Times

The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists
have said after revising their previous predictions.


The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer
models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of
emissions, a new study has found. Its projections suggest that the world
has a better chance than previously claimed of meeting the goal set by
the Paris agreement on climate change to limit warming to 1.5C above
pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that
rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the
world has more time to make the changes.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at
University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that
his past prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the
evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually
delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Professor Grubb told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I
change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said. It’s still likely to be very
difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a
better place than I thought.”

The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid
temperature increase than had taken place. Global average temperature
has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a
slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford
and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in
warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in
the observations.”


He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”. Too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

Professor Grubb said that the fresh assessment was good news for island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.

Other factors pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore windfarms falling steeply in Britain.

Professor Grubb called on governments to commit themselves to steeper cuts in emissions than they had pledged under the Paris agreement to keep warming below 1.5C. He added: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

The Met Office acknowledged yesterday a 15-year slowdown in the rise in average temperature but said that this pause had ended in 2014, the first of three record warm years. The slowing had been caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warm and cool phases in Pacific sea-surface temperature, it said.


http://bit.ly/2hgn9Nl

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2412
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: "Green is good!" The other Gecko Reply with quote

Well, darn those climate scientists that insist on reporting good news (not from an alarmist standpoint at least...). The earth is greening apace and it appears to be mostly thanks to good old CO2. Wasn't it nice of Mother Nature to sequester away all that lovely energy in a form that we could make use of AND replenish the earth? Won't our grandchildren thank us for the abundant energy and increased food supplies that we have provided for them?

LETTERSPUBLISHED ONLINE: 25 APRIL 2016 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3004Greening of the Earth and its driversZaichun Zhu1,2, Shilong Piao1,2*, Ranga B. Myneni3, Mengtian Huang2, Zhenzhong Zeng2,Josep G. Canadell4, Philippe Ciais2,5, Stephen Sitch6, Pierre Friedlingstein7, Almut Arneth8,Chunxiang Cao9, Lei Cheng10, Etsushi Kato11, Charles Koven12, Yue Li2, Xu Lian2, Yongwen Liu2,Ronggao Liu13, Jiafu Mao14, Yaozhong Pan15, Shushi Peng2, Josep Peñuelas16,17, Benjamin Poulter18,Thomas A. M. Pugh8,19, Benjamin D. Stocker20,21, Nicolas Viovy5, Xuhui Wang2, Yingping Wang22,Zhiqiang Xiao23, Hui Yang2, Sönke Zaehle24 and Ning Zeng25

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1,2.Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition(9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%).CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate3004

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7849

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Solar Activity Crashes

Model Alarmists Resurrect ‘Day After Tomorrow’ Scenario,
‘Unsupported By Any Data’


GWPF Newsletter 12/04/18

We are in the process of moving into the biggest scientific experiment of all time. We are approaching a solar minimum which we can observe. We can see how solar activity is declining. And we now have two competing theories that have made predictions as to what impact the solar minimum, never mind a grand solar minimum if it where to happen, will have on the climate.

We have the conventional IPCC consensus which suggests that it will have a negligible influence and that the next 20 years will see a warming of somewhere between 0.4 and 0.6 degree Celsius.

And we have the alternative theory that suggests that solar inactivity will have a dampening effect on global temperatures. This would mean that in the next 20 years the warming trend will either be much smaller or will return almost back to Pause conditions, where we see hardly any warming. So we now have a big test in front of us. --Benny Peiser, 4 April 2018


It surely looks like the solar minimum has arrived, and it has done so far earlier than expected! March 2018 was the least active month for sunspots since the middle of 2009, almost nine years ago.

If the solar minimum has actually arrived now, this would make this cycle only ten years long, one of the shortest solar cycles on record. More important, it is a weak cycle. In the past, all short cycles were active cycles. This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle since scientists began tracking the solar cycle in the 1700s, following the last grand minimum in the 1600s when there were almost no sunspots.

The big question remains: Are we about to head into a grand minimum, as happened during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s?
--Robert Zimmerman, Behind The Black, 9 April 2018



Scientists relied on climate models, not direct measurements, to claim in a new study man-made global warming caused a slowdown in the Gulf Stream ocean current. Climate models generally show a weaker AMOC as a result of warming, but observational evidence has been scant. Several scientists were skeptical of the study. Rahmstorf’s “assertions of weakening are conceivable but unsupported by any data,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Carl Wunsch told The Associated Press.
--Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 11 April 2018




Go HERE FOR THE HYPERLINKED VERSION:
https://mailchi.mp/2260bee6cbcc/solar-activity-crashes?e=13a507708d


New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past. --NASA, 25 March 2010



In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. – T. Rossby et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 14 December 2013


1) Solar Activity Crashes
Robert Zimmerman, Behind The Black, 9 April 2018

2) Model Alarmists Resurrect ‘Day After Tomorrow’ Scenario, ‘Unsupported By Any Data’
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 11 April 2018

3) NASA Observations Refute Claims Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Has Been Slowing
Watts Up With That, 11 April 2018

4) NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing
NASA, 25 March 2010

5) On The Long-Term Stability Of Gulf Stream Transport Based On 20 Years Of Direct Measurements
Geophysical Research Letters, 14 December 2013

6) Ocean Array Alters View Of Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’
By Katherine Kornei, Science Feb. 17, 2018







1) Solar Activity Crashes
Robert Zimmerman, Behind The Black, 9 April 2018

It surely looks like the solar minimum has arrived, and it has done so far earlier than expected!

On Sunday NOAA posted its monthly update of the solar cycle, covering sunspot activity for March 2018. Below is my annotated version of that graph.



March 2018 was the least active month for sunspots since the middle of 2009, almost nine years ago. In fact, activity in the past few months has been so low it matches the low activity seen in late 2007 and early 2008, ten years ago when the last solar minimum began and indicated by the yellow line that I have added to the graph below. If the solar minimum has actually arrived now, this would make this cycle only ten years long, one of the shortest solar cycles on record. More important, it is a weak cycle. In the past, all short cycles were active cycles. This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle since scientists began tracking the solar cycle in the 1700s, following the last grand minimum in the 1600s when there were almost no sunspots.

The graph above has been modified to show the predictions of the solar science community. The green curves show the community’s two original predictions from April 2007, with half the scientists predicting a very strong maximum and half predicting a weak one. The red curve is their revised May 2009 prediction.



The graph [above], courtesy of the Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations webpage (SILSO), will give you an idea how little activity occurred in March. There were only five days during the entire month where sunspots could be seen on the visible hemisphere of the Sun. We have not seen so little activity since 2009, when the Sun was in the middle of its sunspot minimum.

We could still see a recovery in sunspot cycle. Past cycles tended to ramp down slowly to solar minimum, not quickly as we have so far seen with this cycle. For example, look at sunspot activity during 2007 on the NOAA graph above. Though activity was dropping, throughout the year there were new bursts of activity, thus holding off the arrival of the minimum. It would not be surprising or unusual to see this happen now. […]

The big question remains: Are we about to head into a grand minimum, as happened during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s? During that century there were practically no sunspots. Since it occurred immediately after the invention of the telescope, astronomers had no idea that the lack of sunspots were unusual and did not give it much attention. It wasn’t until the solar cycle resumed in the 1700s that they discovered its existence, and thus realized the extraordinary nature of the century-long minimum that had just ended. Unfortunately, it was over, and the chance to study it was gone.

Thus, if a new grand minimum is about to start, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for today’s solar scientists. Not only will they will get to study the Sun as it behaves in a manner they have not seen before, they will be able to do it with today’s phalanx of space-based observatories. The chance to gain a better understanding of the Sun will be unprecedented.

Furthermore, the occurrence of a grand minimum now would help the climate field. We really do not know the full influence of the Sun’s solar cycles on the Earth’s climate. There is ample circumstantial evidence that it has a significant impact, such as the Little Ice Age that occurred during the last grand minimum, as well as the unusually cold climates that also matched past weak cycles, now, and also in the early 19th and 20th centuries.

Studying a grand minimum with today’s sophisticated instruments could help measure precisely how much the Sun’s sunspot activity, or lack thereof, changes the climate here on Earth.

Full post



2) Model Alarmists Resurrect ‘Day After Tomorrow’ Scenario, ‘Unsupported By Any Data’
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 11 April 2018

Scientists relied on climate models, not direct measurements, to claim in a new study man-made global warming caused a slowdown in the Gulf Stream ocean current.

It’s the very same scenario posed in disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” where a slowdown in the Gulf Stream turned North America into a frozen wasteland. A catastrophic scenario could be decades away, some scientists are saying.

“We know somewhere out there is a tipping point where this current system is likely to break down,” Potsdam Institute climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, a co-author of one of the studies, said in a statement.

“We still don’t know how far away or close to this tipping point we might be,” Rahmstorf warned. “This is uncharted territory.”

Rahmstorf’s study was one of two that garnered alarming media headlines, but experts are skeptical because of the scant observational evidence. Indeed, scientists have only been taking direct measurements of the Gulf Stream for a little over a decade.

“Climate model reconstructions are not the same as observed data or evidence,” libertarian Cato Institute’s Dr. and Atmospheric Scientist Ryan Maue told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“We should be very wary of grandiose claims of ‘A Day After Tomorrow’ based upon very limited direct measurements,” Maue said.

The Gulf Stream, or Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), brings warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the North Atlantic, and in turn, cold northern water is brought southward.

Polar ice melt and enhanced rainfall put an increasing amount of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic, reducing salinity, some scientists say. Less saline has a harder time sinking, throwing off the AMOC.

Climate models generally show a weaker AMOC as a result of warming, but observational evidence has been scant. Anomalous cooling south of Greenland is evidence of a weakened AMOC, some scientists say.

The weak AMOC is explicitly tied to “increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations” and “temperature trends observed since the late nineteenth century,” according to the study, Rahmstorf co-authored.

However, the “Labrador Sea deep convection and the AMOC have been anomalously weak over the past 150 years or so … compared with the preceding 1,500 years,” a second study published in the same journal found.

In other words, the AMOC began weakening before human activities could play a role.

“The specific trend pattern we found in measurements looks exactly like what is predicted by computer simulations as a result of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream System, and I see no other plausible explanation for it,” Rahmstorf, whose study relied on proxy-data from ocean sediment and calcareous shells, said.

But again, there’s limited observational evidence. Several scientists besides Maue were skeptical of Rahmstorf’s study.

Rahmstorf’s “assertions of weakening are conceivable but unsupported by any data,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Carl Wunsch told The Associated Press.

Full story




3) NASA Observations Refute Claims Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Has Been Slowing
Watts Up With That, 11 April 2018

Yesterday’s “The Day After Tomorrow” climate explainer’s excuse for cold winters is back – research suggests that the North Atlantic current is weaker than anytime for the last 1000 years

Climate Change Dials Down Atlantic Ocean Heating System
By Victoria Gill
Science correspondent, BBC News
11 April 2018

A significant shift in the system of ocean currents that helps keep parts of Europe warm could send temperatures in the UK lower, scientists have found.

They say the Atlantic Ocean circulation system is weaker now than it has been for more than 1,000 years – and has changed significantly in the past 150.

The study, in the journal Nature, says it may be a response to increased melting ice and is likely to continue.

Researchers say that could have an impact on Atlantic ecosystems.

Scientists involved in the Atlas project – the largest study of deep Atlantic ecosystems ever undertaken – say the impact will not be of the order played out in the 2004 Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow.

But they say changes to the conveyor-belt-like system – also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) – could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.

That could also affect temperature-sensitive species like coral, and even Atlantic cod.…

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-43713719

The abstract of the paper;

Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation
L. Caesar, S. Rahmstorf, A. Robinson, G. Feulner & V. Saba

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC)—a system of ocean currents in the North Atlantic—has a major impact on climate, yet its evolution during the industrial era is poorly known owing to a lack of direct current measurements. Here we provide evidence for a weakening of the AMOC by about 3 ± 1 sverdrups (around 15 per cent) since the mid-twentieth century. This weakening is revealed by a characteristic spatial and seasonal sea-surface temperature ‘fingerprint’ — consisting of a pattern of cooling in the subpolar Atlantic Ocean and warming in the Gulf Stream region—and is calibrated through an ensemble of model simulations from the CMIP5 project. We find this fingerprint both in a high-resolution climate model in response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and in the temperature trends observed since the late nineteenth century. The pattern can be explained by a slowdown in the AMOC and reduced northward heat transport, as well as an associated northward shift of the Gulf Stream. Comparisons with recent direct measurements from the RAPID project and several other studies provide a consistent depiction of record-low AMOC values in recent years.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5

Full post





4) NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing
NASA, 25 March 2010

PASADENA, Calif. – New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past.…

Until recently, the only direct measurements of the circulation’s strength have been from ship-based surveys and a set of moorings anchored to the ocean floor in the mid-latitudes. Willis’ new technique is based on data from NASA satellite altimeters, which measure changes in the height of the sea surface, as well as data from Argo profiling floats. The international Argo array, supported in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, includes approximately 3,000 robotic floats that measure temperature, salinity and velocity across the world’s ocean.

With this new technique, Willis was able to calculate changes in the northward-flowing part of the circulation at about 41 degrees latitude, roughly between New York and northern Portugal. Combining satellite and float measurements, he found no change in the strength of the circulation overturning from 2002 to 2009. Looking further back with satellite altimeter data alone before the float data were available, Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009. This is the longest direct record of variability in the Atlantic overturning to date and the only one at high latitudes.

The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean. “Warm, freshwater is lighter and sinks less readily than cold, salty water,” Willis explained.

For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. “The changes we’re seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle,” said Willis. “The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling.”…

Read more: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html



5) On The Long-Term Stability Of Gulf Stream Transport Based On 20 Years Of Direct Measurements
Geophysical Research Letters, 14 December 2013
T. Rossby, C. N. Flagg, K. Donohue, A. Sanchez-Franks, J. Lillibridge

Abstract

In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2 s−1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17 m, with sea level decreasing 0.03 m over the 20 year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058636/abstract


6) Ocean Array Alters View Of Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’
By Katherine Kornei, Science Feb. 17, 2018

PORTLAND, OREGON—Oceanographers have put a stethoscope on the coursing circulatory system of the Atlantic Ocean, and they have found a skittish pulse that’s surprisingly strong in the waters east of Greenland—discoveries that should improve climate models.

The powerful currents known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) are an engine in Earth’s climate. The AMOC’s shallower limbs—which include the Gulf Stream—move warm water from the tropics northward, warming Western Europe. In the north, the waters cool and sink, forming deeper limbs that transport the cold water back south—and sequester anthropogenic carbon in the process. This overturning is why the AMOC is sometimes called the Atlantic conveyor belt.

Last week, at the American Geophysical Union’s Ocean Sciences meeting here, scientists presented the first data from an array of instruments moored in the subpolar North Atlantic. The observations reveal unexpected eddies and strong variability in the AMOC currents. They also show that the currents east of Greenland contribute the most to the total AMOC flow. Climate models, on the other hand, have emphasized the currents west of Greenland in the Labrador Sea. “We’re showing the shortcomings of climate models,” says Susan Lozier, a physical oceanographer at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who leads the $35 million, seven-nation project known as the Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program (OSNAP). […]

At the meeting, researchers working with the 21 moorings of the 26°N array also released their latest findings, which include measurements through February 2017. They show that the AMOC has weakened by about 15% compared with its 2004–08 level. Some climate models have raised the specter of a sudden shutdown of the AMOC—the apocalyptic scenario, leading to a frozen Europe, depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow—and the possibility is also supported by evidence from the geological past. But the decline in the AMOC hasn’t persisted long enough yet to be a cause for concern, says David Smeed, a physical oceanographer at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K.

The overall trend of the AMOC will become clearer with time. This summer, researchers on the R/V Neil Armstrong will pull up OSNAP moorings and retrieve readings recorded from 2016–18.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2412
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:12 am    Post subject: Seeing spots b4 your eyes Reply with quote

The first sunspot of cycle 25 has appeared (reversed magnetic polarity from that of cycle 24). This makes 24 short AND weak, an unusual combination. 24 will continue for some time as 25 gets going and first indications imply 25 will be slightly more active (not hard since 24 was so weak) than 24.

A lot of theoretical speculation on climate effects but ocean circulation (AMOC and the gulf stream) has such a time lag that it may still be responding to insolation from the previous century....

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58
Page 58 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.