backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by Andy35W.. on May 8 at 5:00 PM

A map of MOC circulatory patterns. A weakening MOC is expected to cool the planet over the next 15 years.
New research indicates no warming for next 15 years.

Previous articles in DailyTech highlighted the views of scientists who believe another Ice Age approaches, the rapid temperature decline in 2007, and the official prediction of the United Nations that the planet will continue cooling in 2008. Now, a team of researchers has predicted that global warming will halt for up to 15 years, as oscillating ocean currents cause the planet to cool slightly.

In a paper appearing the journal Nature, the scientists study changes in SST (sea surface temperatures) caused by the Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation and the Meridional Overturning Oscillation. A larger, slower-acting version of the better-known El Nino/La Nina oscillation, the MOC is expected to weaken over the next 15-20 years, causing cooling throughout Europe and North America. Pacific temperatures are expected to remain flat.

The actual cause of the MOC is unknown, but its cycles last from 60 to 70 years and, by this new research, it appears to have a much stronger effect on climate than previously thought. It may also explain why global temperatures rose during the first half of the 20th Century, before beginning a 30-year cooling trend in 1940.

The most intriguing part of this research is the scientists themselves. Led by Noel Keenlyside, the team from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology have not in the past been global warming skeptics. In fact, they've been solidly on the side of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.

Physicist and ex-Harvard professor Lubos Motl, who was not involved in the research, says the discovery of such a large, previously unknown factor indicates a "critical flaw" in modeling predictions, "no paper so far has even properly combined the effects of ENSO, PDO, and AMO". Motl believes the research indicates that IPCC climate predictions will be incorrect for as much as 70 years in the future.

However, Richard Wood, from the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Change, says that it's "important to make sure we don't get distracted" from the long-term problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Wood also cautions that such modeling is in its infancy, and the results may change.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Still...
By Spivonious on 5/2/2008 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 4
Conserving energy and gaining oil independence are worthwhile goals, even if they have no effect on the environment.




RE: Still...
By Fusible on 5/2/2008 2:15:28 PM , Rating: 4
Our independence for oil was hampered 22 years ago by Opec, the US government funded a new project SFC (Synthetic Fuels Corp) in 1980 to R&D new ways of making cleaner fuels. At the time price for the barrel was at $32, during that 6 year period Opec brought down the price of the barrel to $8 which came down to SFC been canceled in 1986. Opec underminded our efforts, and financially at the time it didn't make sense to keep going with the research since oil was so low in price. We need oil independence and we need to do it now otherwise we'll be in big trouble. We could have been far ahead in synthetic fuels development if it weren't for Opec.


RE: Still...
By MrTeal on 5/5/2008 8:44:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Opec underminded our efforts, and financially at the time it didn't make sense to keep going with the research since oil was so low in price.


Wouldn't the blame lay more on the shortsightedness of the government in the 80s who cancelled the program? Of course OPEC will do what's in their best interest, the fact that the US gov didn't act in the longterm best interest of their population isn't OPEC's fault.


RE: Still...
By dever on 5/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Still...
By smitty3268 on 5/2/2008 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 5
Every nation on earth throughout time has restricted freedoms in exchange for the greater societal good, they're called "laws". It's why you don't have the freedom to go around paying hookers for sex, or many other freedoms.

Now, you can disagree that conserving energy is a worthwhile goal, just like many people say that speed limits or prostitution laws are stupid. Fortunately, we live in a democracy which gives you a voice in the process.

quote:
Oil independence, on the otherhand, will come quite naturally if government simply removes itself from interfering. The oil is there.

Maybe. All the oil in the massive ANWR oil fields would only last a scant 3 months, and no doubt the cheapness of local oil would cause demand to skyrocket. After 10 years of putting the infrastructure in place, I imagine we'd have another 20 years of cheap oil, and then we'd be back to our current situation where we couldn't cheaply produce enough to meet demand. But then again, I'm not an expert.


RE: Still...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/2/2008 4:08:48 PM , Rating: 4
> "Maybe. All the oil in the massive ANWR oil fields would only last a scant 3 months"

There may be as much as 11.8 billion barrels in ANWR. At US consumption of foreign oil at 12M bbl/day (66% of total consumption), that's three years worth, not 3 months. And ANWR is just one of many fields the US is ignoring.

> I imagine we'd have another 20 years of cheap oil, and then we'd be back to our current situation "

By that logic, we should have never begun to use oil in the first place, as "when its all gone, we'll be back to our current situation". However, such a course of action would have stopped the Industrial Revolution dead in its tracks, and increased human suffering many-fold.

The fact remains that the US has large domestic stocks of oil, in Alaska, off the East Coast, Gulf Coast, in North Dakota, Montana, and elsewhere -- all of which are being ignored. Utilizing these fields would be a substantial benefit, and the smart thing to do.


RE: Still...
By smitty3268 on 5/2/2008 4:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it was total US consumption, rather than just consumption of foreign oil that would drain it in 3 months.

Anyway, I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't use any of that oil, just that it isn't the perfect solution which will magically fix everything. There are benefits to using it now, of course, but in my mind it makes more sense to save it for when things are much worse. I think it's just my nature, I like saving for the future and hate having any kind of debt.


RE: Still...
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 5:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There may be as much as 11.8 billion barrels in ANWR. At US consumption of foreign oil at 12M bbl/day (66% of total consumption), that's three years worth, not 3 months. And ANWR is just one of many fields the US is ignoring.


I believe it is also important to know at what rate the oil can "flow". If I am correct, the rate is projected to peak at ~1 M bbl/day in 2025. That does not seem to represent an extremely large fraction of the US consumption (that will have to be projected up to 2025 also for the comparison to be meaningful), even less the worldwide consumption. Of course that does not account for the other potential fields. So it is unlikely that all these fields will remain unexploited, but I am not sure we should hold our breath on the potential relief provided by them.

As far as the reserves are concerned, it seems to me that you are using the high end estimate (5% probability), when it is much more likely that actual reserves are significantly less (about half).


RE: Still...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/2/2008 10:09:42 PM , Rating: 4
> "As far as the reserves are concerned, it seems to me that you are using the high end estimate"

Actually, if one uses the high end estimate, and includes coastal waters immediately around ANWR, the estimate rises from 11B to 16B barrels.

> "If I am correct, the rate is projected to peak at ~1 M bbl/day in 2025. That does not seem to represent an extremely large fraction"

That's 8% of our total foreign exports, all from one single field. That's sizeable...especially when ANWR is hardly the only domestic field we've chosen to not exploit.

Actually, at current oil prices, direct conversion of coal to oil is now feasible and economic...and the US has some of the largest coal reserves in the world.


RE: Still...
By Ringold on 5/3/2008 12:15:00 AM , Rating: 3
http://www.sasol.com/

I've known they could do it, but looking at a few google hits, it seems to produces more CO2 that producing equivalent amounts of fuels from traditional sources.

I also thought it was expensive, and it seems that it is, but now that oil has been high and happy there, that may not be an issue. The fuel the Germans made was also shoddy quality -- I presume, perhaps, in more than half a century thats improved. It looks like they'll soon be approved to fuel American planes with Jet-A, thats no small feat.

Have I missed any other reason why it's not caught on? I'd be a little surprised if it were just the CO2 aspect.


RE: Still...
By Spuke on 5/3/2008 1:00:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Sasol, the world's leading producer of synthetic fuels from coal and natural gas, today announced that it has become the first company worldwide to receive international approval for its 100% synthetic jet fuel produced by its proprietary Coal to Liquids (CTL) process.
Wow! Very interesting. Wouldn't something like this be newsworthy?


RE: Still...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/3/2008 11:56:17 AM , Rating: 5
Mass Media doesn't want to tell everyone that Oil can be sidestepped and that there could be some easing up in the future. Mass Media likes fear, its better for business.


RE: Still...
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 11:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, if one uses the high end estimate, and includes coastal waters immediately around ANWR, the estimate rises from 11B to 16B barrels.


Then you're reasoning with numbers at 5% probability.

quote:
That's 8% of our total foreign exports, all from one single field.


You missed one point, that's up to 8% of today's import . You'll have to account for the increase in demand for 2025 if you want to use the production number of 2025. According to the estimate by the EIA, that would shift the import ratio from 70% to 66% by 2025 (and that includes the reserves of the Native lands and offshore areas). For the high-end estimates, it's 64% (67% for the low-end).

quote:
That's sizeable...especially when ANWR is hardly the only domestic field we've chosen to not exploit.


How comparable are the reserves of the other potential candidate fields, their accessibility, etc ...?

quote:
Actually, at current oil prices, direct conversion of coal to oil is now feasible and economic...and the US has some of the largest coal reserves in the world.


That's another topic.


RE: Still...
By Ringold on 5/3/2008 4:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How comparable are the reserves of the other potential candidate fields, their accessibility, etc ...?


I'll let Masher answer in full if he likes, but there's plenty off the coast of Florida. It must be accessible, as oil companies wanted to put rigs off the shore. NIMBY millionaires in Naples didn't want the view from their condominium balcony's ruined, so apparently the Chinese and Mexican's are taping the reserves for us. How kind of them!


RE: Still...
By Ringold on 5/3/2008 4:34:50 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, and there's apparently natural gas reserves off the coast of California. Dow Chemical wanted access, California said no (big surprise), so Dow Chemical took its multi-billion dollar chemical plant construction plans to Saudi Arabia, who is quite happy to pipe them all the natural gas they want. Subsequently, Dow's CEO said there wasnt a "single dollar" budgeted for US investment this fiscal year.


RE: Still...
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 5:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
How much is "plenty"?


RE: Still...
By phxfreddy on 5/4/2008 9:03:53 AM , Rating: 1
Enough to make the head of DOW want it. That means buttloads dunderhead. You're really obviously slow or in favor of living in the stone age.


RE: Still...
By xti on 5/2/2008 5:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's why you don't have the freedom to go around paying hookers for sex, or many other freedoms.

oil....who needs it.