A team of mathematicians have come forth with a startling new theory that solves both these problems. Led by Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, their model says the known cycles of the Earth's oceans -- the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino (Southern Oscillation) and the North Pacific Oscillation -- all tend to try to synchronize with each other.
The theory is based on a branch of mathematics known as Sychronized Chaos. The math predicts the degree of coupling to increase over time, causing the solution to "bifurcate," or split. Then, the synchronization vanishes. The result is a climate shift. Eventually the cycles begin to sync up again, causing a repeating pattern of warming and cooling, along with sudden changes in the frequency and strength of El Nino events.
Better yet, their theory has predictive power. The model predicts past shifts in the year 1913 (explaining the strong warming of the 20s and 30s), 1942 (resolving the post-WW2 cooling trend) and 1978 (covering our current warming). The model predicts another shift to occur around the year 2033. Most shocking of all is their prediction for the year 2100 to be slightly cooler than present day, despite the assumption of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Eye-popping indeed.
Is carbon-dioxide really so ineffective at warming? A new study by Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute seems to think so. Its conclusion is that, while CO2 does have some effect, that "it can never play the decisive role attributed to it" in global warming, and that its effects have been grossly overstated.
quote: I find it worrying because you see a paper about global warming, and it doesn't mention CO2 or human influence anywhere, you then imply that it backs up your argument that any global warming has nothing to do with CO2 or human influence.
quote: To Dr. Tnonis, global warming means "a global warming trend" . It does't mean what it does to the general public, which is something more akin to "a warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which will continue and eventually lead to catastrophe".
quote: it appears that they identify only a means of identifying when a sudden change will occur, and don't really delve into whether some external event such as greenhouse gases was not in fact the cause of the synchronization and coupling that occurs before the climate change
quote: Bad news for skeptics: Figure 4 suggests that after 2035 there will be a sudden spike in temperatures of nearly 0.5 degrees C
quote: However, it does suggest that skeptics should stop suggesting that the 1970's era "cooling" in any way contradicts the hypothesis of man-made warming
quote: The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols... However [the model] suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate
quote: How is this "bad news for skeptics?
quote: Hard to misinterpet that.
quote: The theory would have to be tested against much more data and shown to see if it accurately predicts future events before it would be generally accepted as a good scientific theory.
quote: History is littered with theories which accurately predicted the past but turned out to be useless for future predictions
quote: Dr Tsonis has been a global warming skeptic, so he is certainly not an impartial observer
quote: I was not aware that critical thinking and impartiality were at odds.
quote: Dr Tsonis already has a pre-existing opinion...and so it is necessary to be more careful when judging his work.
quote: Its only the skeptics that you're suspicious of.
quote: Japan is always considered to be part of 'the western world' and was the subject of the article
quote: the phrasing in the BBC article is indeed misleading
quote: I just get annoyed when people skew things horribly out of proportion.
quote: I just assumed plant meant power plant. Clearly not, I'm reading a bit in to it all,
quote: I think anything Michael Asher wrote from then on should have been immediately suspect.
quote: political or religious (same thing?)
quote: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt" --Washington Post headline, November 2, 1922.
quote: I mean for a minute there I thought he might point out some bad science that was funded by the API, not that that ever happens, right?
quote: And you know what? If the global warming crowd is wrong the worst that can happen is a decrease in CO. Now wouldn't that be just awful for life on this planet? Now suppose MAsher is wrong. What's the worst that can happen?
quote: I'm not going to get in to a debate over the scientific merits
quote: it's supported by one of the post-industrial worlds largest international failures, the United Nations
quote: many of its political backers are those who put a fear in to me when I was knee high to a grasshopper that beyond all doubt acid rain would destroy about everything green on Earth (and yet here I am in the green swamp of Florida).
quote: A common, but flawed, way to look at costs.
quote: Technologies thought to be too dirty or inefficient would be forsaken for less economically efficient ones, for example
quote: but it would also mean slower industrialization of the third world -- which means people would continue to live in poverty longer than they'd of needed to, a sacrifice made upon the alter of Global Warming.
quote: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
quote: According to your views the proper saying should be.
quote: Incorrect, my money is also in the equation.
quote: bleeding heart liberal rich
quote: just as you're free to ignore the positives I listed.
quote: If you are wrong there's a lot more at stake than the green in your wallet, if your kind could ever see passed that.
quote: I think we should all pitch in and buy Masher an asbestos lined 3 piece tux :)
quote: Its conclusion is that, while CO2 does have some effect, that "it can never play the decisive role attributed to it" in global warming, and that its effects have been grossly overstated.
quote: its inability to explain sudden climate shifts in the Earth's past, and to explain why the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are so unequally affected by warming.
quote: Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21stcentury simulation, with the exception that the greenhousegases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature(Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts inbehavior . In this simulation we observe two synchronizationevents, one in years 2027–2032 and another in years 2065–2072 (with an interruption in the middle). During bothevents the coupling strength increases until the synchronousstates are destroyed. Here again these events are associatedwith marked temperature trend and ENSO variability shifts.
quote: Most shocking of all is their prediction for the year 2100 to be slightly cooler than present day, despite the assumption of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Eye-popping indeed.
quote: However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.
quote: Two otherwise intelligent people
quote: Figure 3. Same as Figure 1 but for a control run of GFDL CM2.1 model with 1860 pre-industrial conditions. See text for discussion.
quote: Figure 3 shows information analogous to Figure 1but for the 2nd century of the control run
quote: The particular model we examine here is the GFDL CM2.1 coupled ocean/atmosphere model [GFDL CM2.1 development team, 2006]. The first simulation is an 1860 pre-industrial conditions 500-year control run and the second is the SRESA1B, which is a ‘‘business as usual’’ scenario with CO2 levels stabilizing at 720 ppmv at the close of the 21st century [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001]. From these model outputs we construct the same indices and their network.
quote: Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21stcentury simulation, with the exception that the greenhousegases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature(Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts inbehavior.
quote: The particular model we examine here is GFDL CM2.1 coupled ocean/atmosphere model... The First similar is an 1860 pre-industrial conditions 500-year control run and the second is SRESA1B, which is a "business as usual" senario with CO2 levels stabilizing at 720 ppmv at the close of the 21st century
quote: Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse gases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature (Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in behaviour
quote: This is very confusing because I don't know if they started the 500 year run at 1860? 2000? 1900?. In either case I would assume pre-1860 conditions don't include forced CO2 trend of SRESA1B