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.


RE: Still...
By Schrag4 on 5/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Still...
By BernardP on 5/4/2008 11:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
Many reputable scientists are of the opinion that the AGW theory is false (man-made CO2 is not the cause of significant warming).

If the theory is false, it shouldn't be used to justify even "good" actions, such as conserving energy. Sound environmental decisions have to be supported by sound science.

The question is about the exactitude of the CO2-causes-global-warming theory. Everybody agrees that oil is a limited resource with undesirable environmental impacts, and that at some point, humanity will have to find a better source of energy.

The fundamental environmental problem that few want to consider is overpopulation of the Earth by humans.


RE: Still...
By ElFenix on 5/2/2008 7:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
oil is a worldwide traded commodity and as long as we use it we will be dependent on the price set in the world market.


RE: Still...
By JustTom on 5/3/2008 7:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
That is very true, however if supply was to increase in all likelihood prices would fall. And this doesn't even address the national security and balance of trade arguments for increased drilling.


RE: Still...
By Polynikes on 5/5/2008 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think that one deserves a 6.


RE: Still...
By FITCamaro on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
A Blog?
By DKWinsor on 5/3/2008 12:58:44 AM , Rating: 1
Why are Michael Asher's posts always blogs and Jason Mick's posts always stories or headlines? Blogs are given less screenspace on the home page and not listed as news at Anandtech.com (and rightly so). Headlines are, well, headlines. But if anything, Asher's posts are more along the line of Truth than Mick's, and Asher's should be taking the spotlight. Does someone at Dailytech not like Asher's content and relegate it to the backyard as much as possible?

I've been reading here for years, and I come mostly for the global warming and energy type articles. I've read both sides and frankly I couldn't stand some of Mick's older work (back when it was more water-world/stone-age). I was brought here today from Anandtech.com by Algae May Solve Ethanol vs. Gas Dilemma and Soaring Oil Pushes Ethanol Demand as Food Prices Sharply Increase . I guessed both articles' author correctly. They were ok articles. But I almost missed Asher's blog Researchers: Global Warming Halts Until 2020 because it wasn't given a prominent place. This particular article was only ok too, he's usually better at presenting his arguement. But given the facts about corn ethanol (sucks) and global warming (debunked) shouldn't you be hyping the other way around? Surely the global environment and global economy (eg Kyoto effects) is way way more important than whether some hippies get their feel-good juice from corn or algae - not that starving people from corn ethanol is unimportant...




RE: A Blog?
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 12:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
If you were a true fan of Masher like I am , you wouldn't miss any of his posts, whether they are blogs or news. The shame is all on you! :-P


RE: A Blog?
By Ringold on 5/3/2008 4:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Liberals and conservatives stand united in recognizing, at least now, that ethanol from food stocks is probably the worst idea of the century thus far.

Not quite so much agreement on global warming, etc.


RE: A Blog?
By eegake on 5/4/2008 1:53:06 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps because Asher is a sensationalist crank, Daily Tech's answer to Yahoo's Penelope Trunk.


RE: A Blog?
By littlebitstrouds on 5/5/2008 12:17:45 PM , Rating: 4
Well for a good reason... Most of this "evidence" on either side is science, read with an agenda, therefor not DAILY TECHNOLOGY NEWS . Frankly, the day Masher's post are in the headline section, will be the day I stop comming here, as I come here to find new hardware news and reviews, not get the global warming debate spit down my throat.


RE: A Blog?
By littlebitstrouds on 5/5/2008 1:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Also, while it will probably get me voted down, I pose this question: Why do people (Masher) blog, and than spend the days after arguing their case? Isn't this kind of "reporting" basically best suited for a forum? Blogging was created to give a summary of your day, or opinions and call it at that. It's the only reason Masher get's such a bad rap here. Blog: Dailytech's visit to CES.... Forum post: Look at what I read, please debate it with me. No one likes a no-it-all, especially one that uses his status to point such things out on a regular basis. And if you can't tell the diff. between a no-it-all and someone who's smart, than you missed a valuable life lesson.


RE: A Blog?
By ttowntom on 5/5/2008 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Masher's stories are one the main reasons I visit this site. Theres a thousand other sites that regurgitate the same old GW propaganda. If I wanted that I could find it anywhere.


RE: A Blog?
By littlebitstrouds on 5/5/2008 9:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
Really? Weird that I couldn't find one GW propaganda on any other TECHNOLOGY sites... hmmm guess if I want that kind of stuff I'll have to look elsewhere. Seriously, gimme, "New Satellite detects global warming isn't true with new sensors" but this same old none TECHNOLOGY news crap just doesn't belong here IMO. You never know, I might actually agree with Masher, I just don't think this stuff belongs here. It will ultimately decide when I and most other people will departure from this site.


RE: A Blog?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 11:07:34 PM , Rating: 4
> "Weird that I couldn't find one GW propaganda on any other TECHNOLOGY sites... "

Try ArsTechnica...they run several pro-AGW stories a month.

I'm sorry you find these column so offensive, but the truth is that climate science is not only relevant to a science and technology site, but also of interest to a large number of readers. Certainly, the latest climatology research is at least as fitting here as the latest video game release dates, or details on a RIAA lawsuit...and you seem to have no quibble with those stories.


RE: A Blog?
By littlebitstrouds on 5/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: A Blog?
By Ringold on 5/6/2008 5:42:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
most of my quibble is with you personally


That approximately summarizes everything you've brought up to date.

As for this talk of not getting the point of posting a blog, I think you're throwing around the word blog as if it's a term with a defined meaning and a defined purpose in modern society. It didn't exist but a few short years ago, and the variety of forms they take change constantly. What constitutes a blog versus an article with a comment feature versus anything else? I think many folk are aware these days that even 'articles' in newspapers can amount to little more than opinionated 'blogs' by journalists.. the line between blog and everything else is so blurry, I've lost track of my own argument. Your case, I think, is futile.

Also, the few blogs I frequent often look exactly like Masher posts here at DT. The author posts news + his/her interpretation, and people comment. Often enough, someone attacks the authors view, and the author defends. Some, in fact, even encourage it, as debate is a good intellectual exercise. I quote from The Economist's Free Exchange Blog 'About Us' page:

quote:
Economist.com blogs are lightly moderated debates in which journalists from The Economist Newspaper, Economist.com and the Economist Intelligence Unit post their thoughts and observations, and which are open to comment and argument from anybody who cares to intervene.


spacepolitics.com blog has lengthy, but repetitive, debates. Also, as Masher pointed out, Ars Technica runs similar stories, and the staff there dives in knee deep in the comments section as well.

But it all goes back to the part of your post I quoted, of course.


RE: A Blog?
By littlebitstrouds on 5/6/2008 9:58:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That approximately summarizes everything you've brought up to date.


Actually it doesn't, as my original post states, it's just part of my arguement. If masher's general attitude remained in even his technology reviews I wouldn't like him, that's not the issue I've stated. The issue I stated, which you still have answered is: why is someone's view of global warming on a technology site, mostly as a slight exageration to the OP... remember to read the whole thread, as the OP was screaming bloody mary, that Masher's posts should be front and center, which I hardly believe anyone else believes. And again, saying ars tech does it, still don't justify why a tech site should have this stuff, again, FRONT AND CENTER. I just threw in how demeening Masher is as just one other reason why his stuff shouldn't be front and center.


RE: A Blog?
By porkpie on 5/6/2008 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 1
Begone global warming apologist.


RE: A Blog?
By Procurion on 5/6/2008 12:00:52 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, Littlebits, aside from your incoherence or lack or writing skills, you DID say that you found Mr Asher's article offensive. Just because one cannot underline "I find this offensive" in your post doesn't mean that the context of your post did not state that idea.

I might add that if you take offense to his posts and believe that back-and-forth should be confined to a forum, you should refrain from posting anything. You see, as soon as you use the "reply" button, you justify the format that is in place. Presentation, discussion, dissent, and consensus are an intrinsic part of the technological/scientific community and make for some interesting reading.

Personal attacks just because someone presents a viewpoint that you disagree with are what does not belong here. Mr Asher has an email address. I suggest you use it to inform Mr Asher that you find his articles personally offensive....get it? Your waxing poetic about how much you dislike his personal views and how that shouldn't be on this site? But it is ok for you to post your views and attack the writer.


RE: A Blog?
By littlebitstrouds on 5/6/2008 1:47:03 PM , Rating: 1
Funny you start out with a pesonal insult, and than go on to say to refrain from Personal attacks. However, noted though that my writing style resembles my thought process, a problem that always crippled me in english class, thanks for the lesson.

Secondly, wow you're really off on the offensive stand point, because no, I never say anywhere that Masher's actual articles are offensive, I agree with most of the general idiology of them, again, and for the last time (aparently writing is my downfall, and reading is yours), I just don't think his articles should be posted as a headline on a technology site. I emplore you to argue the orginal statement if you are so staunchly dissagreing with me. Also, do yourself a favor and go back a little bit and read some of Masher's personal attacks from a few months back he has made on board posters before you draw conclusion that he's a stand up guy.


RE: A Blog?
By Andy35W on 5/6/2008 5:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
This blog entry seems newsworthy on a tech site and the summary seemed fair to me, not sure what you gripe is in this instance?

I'm not the greatest fan of a few things he's written to be honest, but this pretty neutral coverage.


More on decadal prediction
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 12:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the full comment of R. Wood in the same issue of Nature regarding this kind of predictions:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/fu...

And here's the paper of the Hadley center (Wood's institution, although he's not co-author) for their own decadal prediction:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317...
where they predict a pick up of the warming in the next few years, with current temperature record breaking after 2009.

I guess we'll know more pretty soon as far as these 2 methods are concerned.




RE: More on decadal prediction
By dhalilahma on 5/2/2008 6:22:40 PM , Rating: 1
Looking at the rate of growth in China, we will be looking at global oil wars long before we have to worry about global warming. According to international law countries are limited to how many barrels of oil they can sell by a ratio of how much new oil they find. When this framework was put in place countries suddenly started finding many vast oil reserves all over the place. I dont trust many of these 'new discoveries' as far as I can throw them.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/2/2008 6:58:56 PM , Rating: 3
> "According to international law countries are limited to how many barrels of oil they can sell by a ratio of how much new oil they find"

What you're thinking of is the OPEC quota system, not any international law.


RE: More on decadal prediction
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 7:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Looking at the rate of growth in China, we will be looking at global oil wars long before we have to worry about global warming.


I am sure this assertion is backed up by a serious and rigorous scientific projection, however I can't help thinking it looks like an absolutely personal opinion, and can't help to wonder why I should pay any attention to it.

I also sadly fail to see the connection with the subject, but I am glad you had the opportunity to express your opinion.


RE: More on decadal prediction
By Ringold on 5/2/2008 9:16:45 PM , Rating: 4
I for one am more concerned about who the Final Cylon is than I am global oil wars.

But, thats just me.


RE: More on decadal prediction
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 11:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
The study is about decadal prediction of climate, and the blog is about it, and long term projections about climate. My comment regards the relevance of this type of predictions, and their connection to projections (actually I am just forwarding potentially interested people to an interesting comment by R. Wood).

What does that has to do with your worries about the socio-political future of the planet?


RE: More on decadal prediction
By Ringold on 5/3/2008 4:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think you took my post too seriously. I wasn't concerned about the socio-political future of the planet, I was concerned over the socio-political future of Battlestar Galactica. :P


RE: More on decadal prediction
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 5:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
I have obviously missed your point :-o, and I am obviously not familiar with Cylons ;-)


Is 15 years enough time?
By therealnickdanger on 5/2/2008 12:20:15 PM , Rating: 1
Should we start running scare stories about the looming ice age again like we did 40 years ago or should we just ride this out? I just don't know what to do, I mean, I really want to be afraid of something. Let's see... what can we do for the next 15 years...? Hmm...




RE: Is 15 years enough time?
By dever on 5/2/2008 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 5
I'm afraid of my disappearing phobias.


By therealnickdanger on 5/2/2008 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
That could work.


RE: Is 15 years enough time?
By Screwballl on 5/2/2008 4:13:30 PM , Rating: 1
I am afraid of either extreme actually being correct....


RE: Is 15 years enough time?
By Spuke on 5/3/2008 1:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
I am afraid that I will not be allowed to die naturally.


RE: Is 15 years enough time?
By onwisconsin on 5/3/2008 3:17:44 PM , Rating: 3
I'm afraid of ManBearPig


RE: Is 15 years enough time?
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2008 2:14:20 PM , Rating: 1
I'm afraid of walking, talking, pot-smoking towels. They'll suck the moisture right out of your body.


RE: Is 15 years enough time?
By Integral9 on 5/7/2008 1:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
aka Billary.


So now what?
By just4U on 5/2/2008 12:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing's written in stone it seems when it comes to "Climate Change" as new research tends to throw a monkey wrench into it all. SO Now what?

I am kinda curious as to how new information on all this is being spun by politicians, activists, and the media and what if any long term plans are being developed/adjusted to take all of this into account.

I've seen quite a few out there point the finger and say that we are ignoring it all but I don't know .. seems to me most of us (in general) are paying attention but our accusers ignore all the new research and turn a blind eye to it.




RE: So now what?
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 1:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing's written in stone it seems when it comes to "Climate Change" as new research tends to throw a monkey wrench into it all. SO Now what?


It so much not written in stone that it has actually never been written before at all.
This study and the recent Hadley study are some of the first attempts to use climate models for decadal prediction, and they have little to do with long term projections of the reported in the IPCC reports, which are not initialized with actual system states, and therefore do not attempt to reproduce yearly or decadal variability. Read the piece of R. Wood if you want to see the difference, and pay particular attention to Fig. 1.

quote:
I am kinda curious as to how new information on all this is being spun by politicians, activists, and the media and what if any long term plans are being developed/adjusted to take all of this into account.


You mean the whole information, namely that natural variability mask temporarily and partially the warming trend that definitely goes on, or just the interpretation some seem to want to give it? Wondering what you would consider spinning here ...


RE: So now what?
By just4U on 5/2/2008 2:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
By spinning I mean IF new research like this isn't outright ignored then it's sometimes twisted,taken out of context and later regurgitated into the whole What are we trying to sell to the masses today agenda.

I want to hear from scientists more and more and people who will interpret their findings properly and not because they are trying to push a certain point of view on others.


RE: So now what?
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 2:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
That part I got.

Now what would be constitutive of "twisted,taken out of context and later regurgitated into the whole What are we trying to sell to the masses today agenda" for you?


RE: So now what?
By just4U on 5/2/2008 9:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it really matters what I think is halfbaked or not. Fact of the matter is Scientists are studying global climate change and trying to get a handle on it all. We don't need fanatic's taking part of these studies and using them to scare the hell out of us, or politicians bilking it for some tax grab when we simply don't have a clue yet as to what exactly is going on and how it will effect us all.

I do my part. I put little squigly lights in my house, I conserve water, I walk whenever I can instead of taking my vehicle, I even recycle altho not as much as I can .. working on it. But Im trying, and most people I know are trying to change their lifestyle to some degree. Were all contiencious of the planet we live on after all...

Dont need activists and politicians to tell us THIS is what is happening! Scaring the shit out of us by saying it will be like THIS in 20 years. Trying to wring global deals that make no sense and don't help. No Don't need that. Just need scientists to figure it out and RATIONAL people to explain it all to us. That's what we need.


RE: So now what?
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
when we simply don't have a clue yet as to what exactly is going on and how it will effect us all.


You're clearly the one spinning the study, here.


RE: So now what?
By just4U on 5/3/2008 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you take a small piece of what I say instead of looking at all .. it might appear that way.

Here where I live we have certain politicians that are saying we "must" fullfill Kyoto obligations. We also have highly respected Activists who many of us still believe are scientists selling us on certain aspects of global warming while ignoring every last little bit of contradictory data out there. People listen to them, even tho they've lost their objectivity and are now just part of a cause. So what are we to believe?

Plus the mainstream media rarely reports on stuff like this so either you stumble on it, or your actively searching for it.. It's BS! It ticks me off. Im tired of being spoonfed select information.


RE: So now what?
By phxfreddy on 5/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: So now what?
By chsh1ca on 5/3/2008 2:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing's written in stone it seems when it comes to "Climate Change" as new research tends to throw a monkey wrench into it all. SO Now what?

That tends to happen when we really have no clue wtf we're all talking about. The global climate is a ridiculously complex system, so it shouldn't really be much of a surprise that science is constantly "contradicting" itself. Physics was and is much the same way.


Does this mean..
By EV1L1 on 5/2/2008 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 4
Does this mean that <gulp> GW Bush has saved us all from the pending Ice Age by having refused to sign the kyoto protocol? I mean if Al Gore and Co. were basically blaming him for Global Warming, then i guess he can take credit if the Global Warming nets out the ice age.




RE: Does this mean..
By just4U on 5/3/2008 3:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Signing it doesn't really matter.. meeting the targets a country agrees to is the key. Most countries can't meet those targets. Plus you factor in that the general population is starting to see it all as a global scam that really doesn't help the environment at all... it becomes harder to implement.

I don't think the states have a problem with wanting to put a global plan into action.. just it has to make sense is all.


RE: Does this mean..
By phxfreddy on 5/4/2008 9:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
They should have a problem with it. Its a terribly " I want to be senior class president" thing to do. In addition it takes the one country that has a chance of not be totally socialist and makes it alot more so.


RE: Does this mean..
By nstott on 5/6/2008 8:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
"W" not signing it isn't the issue. The US Senate has to ratify it. While not submitted for ratification, the US Senate voted with regards to it [the Byrd (D)-Hagel (RINO) Resolution (S. Res. 98)] during the Clinton Administration. The result was 95-0 that the US would not be a part of the Kyoto Protocol so long as it didn't include binding targets and timetables for developing countries (in addition to industrialized nations) and could possibly result in serious harm to the US economy. Thus, as any rational person can plainly see, it's all Bush's fault. :P


scientists said...
By Screwballl on 5/2/2008 12:21:51 PM , Rating: 1
"...global warming is still a very real and very dangerous problem. Using the data we cherry picked, it shows global warming is only delayed a few years but by 2020 we will be seeing temperatures increase exponentially. Prepare now for the doom that is to come to mankind."

/end sarcasm/

what they are really saying is they have no f****n clue what the earth will do since it is all controlled by nature and man is having little to NO impact on it.




RE: scientists said...
By geddarkstorm on 5/2/2008 12:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have you noticed they seem to have a think for the year 2020 too?


RE: scientists said...
By phattyboombatty on 5/2/2008 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 4
It's a nice round number that's far enough in the future that they can't be proven wrong in the near term, but close enough in the future for them to still scare people.


RE: scientists said...
By Fusible on 5/2/2008 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Extreme climate changes have happened before never in modern mans time but it has happened. Were due for it, but nobody really knows when. All of this global warming bull is only part of nature, we really only have a small cause in it. And the planet has a much bigger part in it than you think.


Pot calling the kettle black
By AlexWade on 5/2/2008 9:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.

This modeling may be in its infancy, but so is every other climate modeling too. So while Mr. Wood wants to discount one model for being too immature, he wants to use another model that is also too immature. In other words, he sounds like he wants to use a model that reflects what he believes. It must be nice to be able to cherry-pick results and still have credibility. Oh, I agree that we need to worry about "greenhouse" gas emissions. (I used quotes because are what we call greenhouse gases really greenhouse gases? Think about it.) But we should worry about for our health, not for something that may or may not be true.

The whole climate modeling is immature. None of the models can predict future weather with respectable accuracy. For one, we are still finding out new variables that may affect the global weather. Do current climate model take into account unknown and newly discovered variables? No.

Until we understand every variable in global weather, we will never understand global weather accurately. Anybody who says otherwise is selling something.




RE: Pot calling the kettle black
By jbartabas on 5/3/2008 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Read his whole comment if you want to have a glimpse of what he meant. You obviously totally miss the point.

As for the other model you are referring to, they do not make decadal prediction ! So there's no other model to "cherry pick" as you said, as both the recent Hadley approach and the present one are new (when he is referring to the infancy of these type of models he is also referring to the model of his own institution).

Oh, and both types of model predict the same thing for the long term warming trend, simply because they have the same physics built-in. So there is no need to cherry pick anything.


By phxfreddy on 5/4/2008 9:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
They are with out a doubt cherry picking. They see its getting colder and low and behold......their models start showing it. These models are all subjective due to not having a lab we can test in.


RE: Pot calling the kettle black
By AlexWade on 5/4/2008 10:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't read the context of Mr. Woods quote. However, nothing can change the fact that all models are too immature because we have to understand all of the variable. So why bother making such bold predictions when there is too much uncertainty?


A few mistakes in the blog
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 1:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global Warming Halts Until 2020[...]

Error, global T pickup as soon as 2015 (fig. 4). What happens is that they catch up with the long term trend not before 2020 (actually more like 2030).

quote:
New research indicates no warming for next 15 years, maybe more

Again, that's wrong. A pickup in 2015 means about next 7 years (although data are 10-years convolved, so exact year of warming pickup is not known). It is not about "no warming for the next 15 years" here, it is about slower apparent warming. The "no warming" period extend to about ~2010, as far as the convolution let us know.

quote:
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 at least 15 years, as oscillating ocean currents cause the planet to cool slightly.


Again, besides the error of the "warming halt for 15 years", you're comparing oranges and apples here. People who think impact of CO2 is negligible and we're heading toward an ice age (driven by Solar activity) and people who think that natural variability is larger than decadal GHG-lead trend (basically any scientist, and in particular the authors of the present paper and the WMO) are in two different worlds, and their respective predictions certainly do not constitute a consistent pattern as you obviously want to suggest.




RE: A few mistakes in the blog
By masher2 (blog) on 5/2/2008 2:54:21 PM , Rating: 1
> "their respective predictions certainly do not constitute a consistent pattern as you obviously want to suggest. "

The only thing suggested is the leve of uncertainty and the large differences in scientific opinion within the climate debate.

You are correct however, that the article should have stated "up to" 15 years, not "at least"; it has been corrected to reflect this.


RE: A few mistakes in the blog
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 3:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are correct however, that the article should have stated "up to" 15 years, not "at least"; it has been corrected to reflect this.


Still, I don't see how you reach such a conclusion.

In 2015, temperature start to warm up again. The point is a ten-year average centered on 2015, hence average over 2010-2020. If warming halts for up to the next 15 years, hence until ~2023, how's the average T larger than all the previous ones (excluding low biased 2010 average, that could be created by a large T increase over the period 2005-2010).

The authors themselves claim that "temperature may not increase over the next decade", not 15 years, which is not supported by their figures.


RE: A few mistakes in the blog
By jbartabas on 5/2/2008 4:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing suggested is the leve of uncertainty and the large differences in scientific opinion within the climate debate.


Just to clarify: the present study says nothing about the level of uncertainty of GW projections. It definitely says something about short term prediction accuracy, and it basically says: we can now significantly improve it (which I am personally a bit skeptical about, as it may induce people to think that deterministic prediction is possible, see R. Wood comments about that).

Now regarding the large differences in scientific opinion, I am not sure what you mean here. It appears to me that you clearly suggest that there is a new pattern of scientific studies that converge to predict a cooling trend . You're too good of a writer not to see that, or at least the ambiguity of it. If that was the intent it is clearly misleading.


The Gospel According To Gore
By porkpie on 5/2/2008 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 3
But two years ago, Gore told us we had "ten years" to save the earth, before it got so hot it'd kill us all.

I guess I understand now why Gore wasn't scared to buy that ocean-front condo in San Francisco, just a few feet from the ocean.




RE: The Gospel According To Gore
By dever on 5/2/2008 2:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
The guy really is amazing in his marketing ability. His income from marketing AGW is staggering. Fortunately, he's not disciplined enough to carry his marketing far enough to affect his own consumption habits.


By phxfreddy on 5/4/2008 9:14:06 AM , Rating: 1
I have been trying to get liberals ( since they are the only ones to "believe" global warming ) to take my global warming challenge for a couple of years now. It goes like this:

Referencing Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age I put forward part II of the global warming challenge

Global Warming Challenge Part I consisted of my challenge to coastal property owning liberals and global warming adherents. I proposed me buying their land at 10% market value since global warming guarantees their land to be swamped by rising sea levels very shortly.

Global Warming Challenge Part II : The liberal adherents of the new religion MMGW say that we should all be compelled to pay taxes to help prevent man made global warming. Now it appears solar activity is tailing off for a while. This prompts me to ask if they will to the logical opposite and subsidize use of carbon based energy sources. If climate is what these political operatives are concerned about then subsidizing coal usage is the logical strategy. Following their argument if you dump CO2 into the air we can help prevent a devastating drop in world temperatures.

Note By Author: Clearly you already know the answer to if this will happen. It will not. This is clear proof by the mathematical method of contradiction. I think you already know the reason too. It is they are not concerned about world climate. MMGW is a polical and pathological scam to grab extremely large chunks of power to regulate every last corner of the economy.

Take away lesson: Until you see one liberal accepting each of these challenges I would not take global warming serious. The total lack of takers indicates extreme insincerity on their part.


By charlotteredneck on 5/6/2008 10:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hey it real simple.

Has any one ever inoculated a petri dish?
The bacteria create waste until they kill themselves off. That is why you have to keep inoculating new cultures.

Steven Hawking has it right we need to fund NASA and leave this planet. It really is our only hope. We will kill oursleves just not in your lifetime or our your kids it will take longer than that.

Global warming is a political issue not a scientific one we do not know what the weather will be like in 3 weeks much less 10 years from now.

Sure we should reduce our polution but CO2 is not going to be a problem. We do not understand the climate enough to make any predictions so please quit scaring people for politcal reasons. Most people are not scientific and just don't understand that these predictions are nothing more than opinons.
Al Gore fits in into that catagory thank God he is not our Presedent!




By fibreoptik on 5/7/2008 12:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
And thank God you are not the "Presedent" either :p

Although one could very easily confuse you with George "Dubya" Bush...


Unbiased huh?...
By fibreoptik on 5/7/2008 12:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly seems like "fair and balanced" posting to me.

================================================= =====
Latest By Michael Asher

Researchers: Global Warming Halts Until 2020
May 2, 2008, 11:20 AM

Global Warming Researchers Reverse Stance on Storm Intensity
April 13, 2008, 3:56 AM

UN: Global Temperatures Will Decline in 2008
April 5, 2008, 4:31 PM

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
March 6, 2008, 11:02 AM

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
February 26, 2008, 12:55 PM

Reseacher: Arctic Temperatures "Not Especially Warm"
February 15, 2008, 10:54 AM

Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age
February 9, 2008, 11:53 AM

SUV Not Big Enough for You? Try an XUV
February 8, 2008, 4:48 PM
================================================= ========

That's ok Mr. Asher. You and your friends can carry on f*cking up the world with toxic emissions from over-sized (and improperly used) vehicles because the world is actually cooling, not warming.




RE: Unbiased huh?...
By blue7053 on 5/8/2008 4:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well done.

Reasoned, systematic research producing data points organized into evidence by use of the rules of logic. Whether or not you are a scientist, you certainly know the rules.


By phxfreddy on 5/4/2008 9:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
Wood also cautions that such modeling is in its infancy, and the results may change.......................and I might add over and over again to fit whatever climate pattern comes down the pike. What a bunch of HOOOOEY !




No Dual Format Player post?
By theflux on 5/5/2008 1:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to keep harping you on this masher, but you did say you would post 1 year later. Here we are, and no post.




By MrBungle123 on 5/6/2008 1:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


Translation:

"looks like all those conservatives telling the libs that they didn't know what they were talking about with regard to man-made global warming were right after all. We'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a new way to add more hidden taxes and government mandated controls on peoples lives in about 70 years after everyone has forgotten about this whole global warming thing."




Gore is back
By gglenn on 5/7/2008 6:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
When I loaded the Yahoo! home page, I find the headline "Gore ties cyclone to warming" featured prominently. What a jackass. It was only a few years ago that he tied hurricanes Katrina and Rita to global warming, as well. And since then, NOAA has stated the warming may actually reduce hurricanes after the promised pattern of increased activity and storm intensity failed to materialize. What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that these people don't really know what they are talking about? Their tactics are predictable, though. Every time there is a weather-related catastrophe, whether it is a hurricane, tornado, flood, drought, ice storm, etc., there is sure to activists insisting that it was caused by global warming and it never would have happened had we only listened. I have even heard a few rather lame attempts to tie earthquakes to global warming. Death and destruction seems to be their primary marketing tool.




By Andy35W on 5/8/2008 5:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7390109.stm

Sorry, couldn't resist the title :D

Shows you cannot be an ostrich with your head in the sand though.... ;)




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein