Some mistake surely?
"the Atlantic temperature trend has been warmer by approximately a quarter of a degree each decade since 1980"
But I thought the world wasn't warming up and anyone who says so is a stooge of the green lobby/Marxist/Al Gore...?
American scientists say that variations in atmospheric dust levels affect the temperature of the Atlantic ocean far more than global warming. Research indicates that 70 per cent of the change in Atlantic temperature over recent decades has resulted from reduced dust, rather than climate change. The new analysis comes from …
Pope of MMAGW - Al Gore.
If that happens - no more juicy grants of public money and you get called names by the likes of the BBC. Then you get Eco Mentalists setting fire to your geraniums ansd daubing red paint on your granny....
Far safer to deny the planetary cooling (reality since 1998) and claim that we'll all be eaten by enormous Dragons unless we switch to 800cc Japanese Micro Cars by 2036 and three Quarters.
Remember we only have 24 seconds to save the planet...oops!
"Evan and his collaborators at Wisconsin and the NOAA produced their figures by combining satellite dust data with Atlantic temperature records over the last 26 years."
I can show that over the same period, violent crime figures in Peterborough also correlate to this dataset.
Does lack of dust or warmer seawater cause violence in Peterborough?
Correlation is not necessarily cause.
From the conclusion (behind the paywall):
Don't want to copy and paste too much to avoid copyright restrictions, but the final sentence reads:
"...a reduction in Atlantic dust cover of 40-60% under a doubled carbon dioxide climate (33), which, based on model runs with an equivalent reduction of the mean dust forcing, could result in an additional 0.3-0.4°C warming of the northern tropical Atlantic."
I.e. The Northen tropical atlantic is warmer than that predicted by the Global Circulation Models.
I'm getting kinda tired of the reg beating this dead horse. The science is done guys, GW is happening - move on. Or stick to what you know, which is IT/Tech and leave the GW conspiracy theories to the other right wing nutjobs out there.
As an aside though, wouldn't this suggest that temperatures should have been much higher pre-industrialisation? Which they patently were not.....
This article says nothing about being anti-global warming.
They said "This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast,"
Implying they never thought it WAS part of global warming, so the fact they HAVE found the cause and confirmed it changes nothing from a climate change perspective.
What's worse than people rallying against something becuase of prejudice? People rallying against something becuase of an expected rallying against something due to prejudice knee-jerk reaction.
The subtitle does perhaps swing that way though..
Those of us who DID read the article noticed that nowhere did it say GW was not happening; it merely said that a specific case of local warming was not directly correlated to the overall global warming effect, but much more closely related to the level of atmospheric dust.
News flash: climate is MUCH more complicated than a simple equation, and it's very common for certain variables to have a greater effect on local areas that the mean overall global temperature.
Perhaps you commentards should strive to understand an issue before claiming authority.
You might think the science is done, some of us are still sceptical about it and are willing to evaluate studies that don't just blindly follow the mainstream. This particular one suggests other reasons why the place is warming up and as such is valid. Just because it doesn't blame human-generated CO2 you dismiss it.
You are in a vanishing minority, if you want to be taken seriously come up with some peer reviewed papers that have been published in a recognised journal. These papers also need to site sources and those sources should be other similarly reviewed/published papers, not books. Once you've done that post the links here. Then any only then people may start to take you seriously.
PS Isn't this article actually about Global Dimming, which has been known about for ages?
All of the forcings, both positive and negative, have been well understood, measured, documented and considered over several years by many, many climate scientists and the conclusions remain firm - AGW is real and is predominantly caused by increased atmospheric CO2.
What I want to know is who is paying El Reg to print this stuff?
"I'm getting kinda tired of the reg beating this dead horse. The science is done guys, GW is happening - move on."
You might want to back off of that "science is done" bit - even Al Gore is starting to back off of a lot of his claims. Several slides have disappeared from his famous global warming PowerPoint show, and we've had enough time since the original predictions to notice that, well, they've been wrong.
One of the hallmarks of AGW "science" is that it is really, REALLY bad at prediction - one of the hallmarks of the accepted scientific process. Every few years, they go back and edit out some of the old predictions, and put in new (and more dramatic) ones - which are a bit further out. When they start talking about "climate change will have X effect 30/50/100 years down the road," remember that the original time frame for disastrous effects was about, well, now. Global temps should be at least a degree warmer, weather should be noticeably more severe, et cetera...
Heck, they had to rename the whole thing, to boot. It used to be "global warming," until they noticed that the globe wasn't warming like they were claiming it would. Then it was "global climate change." Except that it's not changing as fast as they predicted (or in the right direction). Now, you're starting to see "global climate instability," which is useful for grabbing credit every time you get an unseasonably warm/cool day, or too much/little rain...
well, except that I'm not necessarily right-wing. Well, I'm sometimes right-wing.....or left-wing, but I find I'm often on the fence about any issue. Except where I'm right-wing.....or left-wing.....depends really.
PS I'm not really with Chris. I'm at home and I don't know where Chris is.....or who Chris is.
Good thing I'm not a "nut job" though.
Open access version of paper is available at http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~amatoe/
El Reg's spin makes two major errors:
1. Confusing local trend studies with global trends.
This paper specifically deals with the North Atlantic. The authors clearly state that temperatures are higher than those predicted by CO2 forcing models by a further 0.3C.
2. Confusing short-term with long-term
The paper specifically talks about decadal variations, not the long-term CO2 forcing.
Here's the last few paragraphs in full -
"Over the last 30-years temperatures in other tropical ocean basins have been rising steadily, but at a slower rate than the Atlantic (31). At the same time projections of surface temperature increases under a doubled carbon dioxide climate suggest that the Atlantic should be warming at a rate slower than the other observations (32). We suggest this apparent disconnect between observations and models may be due to the influence of Atlantic dust cover. Our results imply that since dust plays a role in modulating tropical North Atlantic Ocean temperature, projections of these temperatures under various global warming scenarios by general circulation models should account for long-term changes in dust loadings. This is especially critical as studies have estimated a reduction in Atlantic dust cover of 40-60% under a doubled carbon dioxide climate (33), which, based on model runs with an equivalent reduction of the mean dust forcing, could result in an additional 0.3-0.4°C warming of the northern tropical Atlantic."
"every time you try and prove climate change doesn't exist by citing just one paper "
"every time," sort of implies multiple papers?
Climate change is up to the whim of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the current ratio of pirates.
Besides, doesn't sunlight reflecting clouds form around dust whipped up by hurricanes caused by a lack of dust, making dust and clounds that rain water that keeps down the dust, preventing sun reflecting clouds from forming and raiseing the temperature of the ocean, causing hurricanes that whip up dust?
Each time I come back to this it seems there is *another* bit of the real world that *somehow* was left out of the general circulation models people use. Failing that they are incorporated by some kind of fudge factor. My list to date is
1) Heat reflectivity due to poor (non existent apparently) cloud modelling. 1st I saw of this was Byte special edition on Forth (researcher using it to model clouds, but said its difficult) in c1984. 20 years later, still a bit tricky.
2) Cloud formation control by increased/decreased sunspot activity seeding upper atmsophere with solar particles acting as nucleation sites for water droplet formation.
3) Global dimming due to aerosols produced by aircraft engines at c40Ktf. Definitive comparision was only possible on 12th September 2001, when all US commercial jets were grounded. An impossible experiment to carry out under normal circumstances. So probably not included in any model before the next decade.
4) Disagreement on how to handle heat island FX caused by urbanisation of area surrounding weather stations. Are any stations immune? If so what happens when you run models with just those? Is it possible to do so and get any kind of sensible result?
5) and now dust levels also affecting heat retention and reflection.
And lets not forget most models seem to use a 3d rectangular grid. Only some use shapes which actually map onto a sphere in the first place and few if any (AFAIK) note the 21mile high equatorial bulge
*refining* general circulation models *implies* finding the sources of *systematic* error and modelling their underlying physics (and chemistry in some cases), not leaving them as *fudge * factors to be twiddled by *experts*. This refinement process does not appear to be happening. The Grids have got finer, the speed has increased (but is that due to the improved hardware?) but I get no sense of any eagerness to nail down the uncertainties. Why does Knuth's comment about premature optimisation being the root of most programming ills come to mind?
I keep hearing its a chaotic system, the butterfly effect, strange attractors blah blah. I can't shake the feeling they have created a "Doctrine of impotence" as Dr RV Jones put it. The modellers do not believe they can improve certain aspects of their models, so won't try.
I do believe we have an effect on the environment. Its not our scale, its the systems sensitivity. Like the PPM impurities in silicon that trigger orders of magnitude changes in resistance that make semiconductors possible.
But remember El Reg, London is a port city. If you end up going to work by canoe the actual causes might be a bit academic. I hope your not located in the basement.
cirby said: "You might want to back off of that "science is done" bit - even Al Gore is starting to back off of a lot of his claims. Several slides have disappeared from his famous global warming PowerPoint show, "
Al Gore used Keynote, not PowerPoint. That's why he was able to be so persuasive. But I suppose in that case he should have used Persuasion, by Aldus.
by this Global Warming, now called (for some obscure reason) , Climate Change, then we will be subjected to----
Earth destroying Asteroids
MRSA (super bug)
Ben Laden and other terrorists
Nuclear Power Stations blowing up
There is no end to what the Mass Media can dream up.
Will dream of Paris , and not worry any more.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019