An Inconvenient Truth - The Opera

La Scala to stage Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’

MILAN, Italy (AP) — First it was the film and the book. Now the next stop for Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is opera.

La Scala officials say the Italian composer Giorgio Battistelli has been commissioned to produce an opera on the international multiformat hit for the 2011 season at the Milan opera house. The composer is currently artistic director of the Arena in Verona.

Bring your marshmallows.

Cold Irony: Arctic Sea Ice Traps Climate Tour Icebreaker

Stuck in the arctic ice that doesn’t exist. (file photo: EcoPhotoExplorers)

Last year as arctic sea ice melted to record levels, panic set in for many. But then, as the sea ice rebounded and froze again quickly in the 2007/2008 winter, making up for that record loss and reaching heights not seen for several years, many exclaimed that even though the ice areal extent had recovered, this new ice was “thin” and would likely melt again quickly. There were also many news stories about how the Northwest Passage was ice free for the first time “ever”. For example, Backpacker Magazine ran a story saying “The ice is so low that the photos clearly show a viable northwest passage sea route along the coasts of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska.”

Cashing in on the panic that has set in with the help of some climate alarmists, tour operators like Quark Expeditions of Norwalk Connecticut are offering polar expeditions catering to that “see it before it’s gone” travel worry. One of them is in fact a trip though the Northwest Passage on a former Soviet Icebreaker called the Kapitan Khlebnikov which is a massive 24,000 horsepower Polar Class icebreaker capable of carrying 108 passengers in relative luxury through the arctic wilderness. Here is some background on this icebreaker:

Kapitan Khlebnikov - The Kapitan Khlebnikov was built in Finland in 1981 and is one of three vessels of this class. Not simply an ice-reinforced ship, the Kapitan Khlebnikov is a powerful polar class icebreaker, which has sailed to extremely remote corners of the globe with adventurous travelers since 1992. It was the first ship ever to circumnavigate Antarctica with passengers in 1996-97. See more on this vessel at Wikipedia

According to Quark Expeditions, they’ve even fitted this icebreaker with a heated indoor swimming pool, exercise room and sauna, and a theater-style auditorium for “Expedition Team presentations” ( presumably so you can watch Gore’s AIT polar bear tears while in situ ). It is quite a difference from the travel conditions that Robert Peary experienced just 99 years ago when he reached the North Pole.

One of my alert readers, Walt from Canada, pointed out this story in the Globe and Mail on may 24th in the travel section. It seems the irony of a polar expedition to see such things as record sea ice loss being stopped cold by the very ice that doesn’t exist was not lost on the editors.

From the Globe and Mail article:

I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice.

The ice master studies the mountains of white packed around the ship while the 24,000-horsepower diesel engines work at full throttle to open a path. The ship rises slowly onto the barrier of ice, crushes it and tosses aside blocks the size of small cars as if they were ice cubes in a glass. It creeps ahead a few metres, then comes to a halt, its bow firmly wedged in the ice. After doing this for two days, the ship can go no farther.

The ice master confers with the captain, who makes a call to the engine room. The engines are shut down. He turns to those of us watching the drama unfold, and we are shocked by his words: “Now, only nature can help this ship.” We are doomed to drift.

What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage - which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world - and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can free us.

What irony indeed.

They eventually had nature on their side, and on the seventh day of being trapped in the ice, winds and tide moved the ice pack enough that they could continue. But, I have to wonder, will the pampered eco-tourists on this trip see the irony that we do?

Trouble in the UK - A Green Tax Rebellion is Afoot

The new tipping point: UK motorists rebel against additional taxes by shutting down highways.


After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe’s ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned. While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along. Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.
–Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, 28 May 2008

The fuel protests hammer home a clear message. After the 10p tax rebellion, the local elections, and the Crewe by-election, no one can doubt the mood of the country any more. There is insurrection in the air. The British people are ready for change and they don’t believe Labour can deliver it.
–Nick Clegg, The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2008

Gordon Brown has been urged to stand firm against calls to abandon green tax rises on fuel as environmentalists warned that scrapping the proposals would risk undermining Britain’s drive towards a low carbon future and send the wrong message about the Government’s commitment to tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Amid fears that the gloomy financial outlook could sap the political will needed to combat climate change, Charlie Kronick, senior climate adviser at Greenpeace, said: “When they are willing to spend millions of pounds shoring up their vote in a by-election they can do this as well. How serious can they be about using the tax system to try to affect environmental outcomes when, if they are under political pressure, it is the first thing that goes?”
–Ben Russell, The Independent, 28 May 2008

Drivers should not be “hammered” by the Government, Cabinet Minister John Hutton declared yesterday in a clear sign of a road tax climbdown. The Business Secretary spoke out as senior Labour sources admitted planned increases of up to £245 a year that could hit millions of family car drivers were a “mistake”.
–Bob Roberts, The Mirror, 28 May 2008

Huge rises in road and petrol taxes for millions of motorists could be scrapped after two Cabinet ministers hinted at another U-turn in government policy.
After warnings from MPs that the party was alienating ordinary voters, Jack Straw and John Hutton suggested that the Pre-Budget report in the autumn would contain changes to plans set out by the Chancellor in March. But, in a further sign of government confusion, Downing Street and the Treasury insisted that no plans were being considered to revise the vehicle excise duty changes announced in the Budget.
–Philip Webster, The Times, 28 May 2008

Surprise - UN Carbon Credits Being Abused

World’s Largest Carbon Market Facilitates Pollution

An article in the Guardian newspaper reveals that billions worth of ‘clean’ investment on the world’s largest carbon offsets market ends up polluting the environment. The article cites researchers who’ve reviewed the participating companies in the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They issued a report which seriously undermines the credibility of the CDM.

The CDM certificates facilitate the funding of clean technology investments by Third World companies that are expanding their operations. Western companies can buy the certificates to offset their own pollution. But it turns out that in reality most of the funds go to coal and oil companies, builders of destructive dams and other enterprises that are not green in the slightest.

The research that revealed the practices is of major importance not least because policymakers are set to review the CDM in the near future as the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. CDM credits are the world’s largest offset market, with annual trading last year totalling around EUR40 billion. Most credits are currently traded on the European Trading System (ETS) by European countries and companies but when the US starts to participate, something that’s more or less a given, trading will rise to over EUR 100 billion within two years easily.

The Stanford scholars opened a can of worms. They say that “Much of the market does not reflect actual reductions in emissions, and that trend is poised to get worse.” They researched more than 3,000 projects that had been applying/granted for up to $10bn of credits for the next four years and said that most of the applications should be rejected. If the scheme operated in any way realistically, we’d see a much smaller market, they say cautioning that there’s hardly enough clean air available for the demand that will build up in the near future. That’s rather an important point to consider ahead of next week’s Warner-Lieberman cap and trade bill which proposes US companies are allowed to buy up to 15% of their needed carbon credits from the (successor to the) CDM.

A review of the major global temperature metrics for April 2008: Still globally cooler than 1 year ago

Here is a review of the major global temperature metrics in tabular and graph form. There is a bit of disagreement this month. GISS still comes out the warmest, as it did last month, and the month before, and there is a bit of divergence between the RSS and UAH satelitte derived datasets.

I’m a little late to this game as I’ve been busy catching up on personal business since my trip to NCDC Asheville and 20 station survey across North Carolina, but I thought it was worth a review.

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data by For April 2008 has moved a tiny bit higher, with a value of .080°C for a change (∆T) of 0.001°C globally from March.

RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
2008 4 0.080

31,072 American scientists against AGW

The Global Warming Petition (click!) was signed by 9,021 American PhD's and 22,051 additional American scientists.
Technical break: Firefox 3.0 RC 1 recommended
For the sake of balance, here is the list of 100 or so most prominent climatologists who believe man-made catastrophic global warming:


Celebrities

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Politicians:

John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Scientists:

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

Social Scientists:

Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)


Posted by Lumo at 9:40 AM | 0 slow comments | fast comments (22) | Trackback (0) | Links to this post

Stickers: climate, science and society

Saving Gaia with Bovine Tailpipe Intervention

Never mind that in 2006 it was reported that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized.

Scientists are now working to create a new “tootless” grass for bovine enjoyment which will help cut methane emissions from the bovine tailpipes. What next? A moratorium on baked beans at BBQs? Editing out that scene from Blazing Saddles so that school kids don’t get bad ideas that might harm the earth?

According to the Scientific American article: “During the two decades of measurements, methane underwent double-digit growth as a constituent of our atmosphere, rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767 ppbv in 1998. But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore — and it is unclear why.”

From NewScientist: “Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change.”

Indeed, methane has made a small uptick in the last year.

Actually, NewScientist is wrong. CO2 is not the biggest “gorilla” of greenhouse gas on planet earth. It’s water vapor. Our earth would be much colder without water vapor in the atmosphere…it would be much like Mars. I seem to recall seeing a figure for average global temperature of about -14°F with water vapor absent.

So many of the climate models focus solely on CO2, but they leave out water vapor as clouds in the equations, or assume water vapor is static.

CO2 is far from being the most potent greenhouse gas. Chloroflourocarbons (CFC’s) commonly used as refrigerants as far worse at trapping infra-red in our
atmosphere.

Of naturally created GHG’s, Methane is 23 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO2. Nitrous Oxide is even worse at 296. So far no emergency legislation has been authored to eliminate the effect of cows or dental surgeons. The Kyoto treaty does not address these other gases either.

Here is a gauge of various gases and their “GWP”:

Global Warming Potentials Of Gases
(100 Year Time Horizon)
GAS GWP
========================
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 23
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296

Hydrofluorocarbons
HFC-23 12,000
HFC-125 3,400
HFC-134a 1,300
HFC-143a 4,300
HFC-152a 120
HFC-227ea 3,500
HFC-43-10mee 1,500

Fully Fluorinated Gases
SF6 22,200
CF4 5,700
C2F6 11,900
C4F10 8,600
C6F14 9,000

The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.

The interesting thing here is that this stabilization of methane levels in our atmosphere happened all by itself, and the scientists are clearly baffled as to an explanation. But that doesn’t seem to phase anyone promoting research to prevent cow tooting.

El Nuevo Satélite Jason Indica un

Por Dennis T. Avery
Mayo 5, 2008
Fuente: EnterStageRight.com

Ahora no son sólo las manchas solares la que predicen el enfriamiento global. El nuevo satélite oceanográfico Jason muestra que 2007 fue un “frío” año de La Niña –pero Jason dice que algo más importante está sucediendo: La mucho más grande y persistente Oscilación Decadal del Pacífico (PDO) ha ingresado a su fase fría, diciéndonos que debemos esperar temperaturas moderadamente más frías hasta alrededor de 2030.

Por lo menos durante todo el siglo pasado las temperaturas tuvieron la tendencia de reflejar los calen-tamientos y enfriamientos de 20 a 30 años del centro-norte del Océano Pacífico. No sabemos la cau-sa pero el patrón del último siglo es claro: la Tierra se calentó desde más o menos 1915 hasta 1940, mientras que la PDO también estaba también en una fase cálida (1925 a 1946). La tierra se enfrió luego desde 1940 hasta 1975 mientras que la PDO estaba en una fase fría (1946 a 1977). El fuerte calentamiento desde 1976 hasta 1998 estuvo acompañado de un fuerte y casi constante calenta-miento de la región centro norte del Pacífico. Los anillos de los antiguos árboles de la Baja California y México muestran que deben de haber existido cuando menos 11 cambios de la PDO desde 1650, con un largo promedio de 23 años.

Los investigadores han descubierto a la PDO hace muy poco –en 1996- mientras buscaban la causa de la declinación abrupta del número de salmones en el Río Columbia después de 1977. El registro de pesca de salmones de los últimos 100 años proporcionó la respuesta: un cambio en las corrientes del Océano Pacífico. La PDO favorece a los salmones del Río Columbia durante unos 25 años cada vez, y luego a los salmones del Golfo de Alaska, pero las dos pesquerías nunca son abundantes al mismo tiempo. Algo en la PDO favorece el desarrollo temprano de la migración de salmones de una región hacia la otra. Otros peces, como el halibut, sardinas y anchoas siguen variaciones similares en línea con la PDO.

La PDO parece estar impulsada por el Gran Bajo de las Aleutianas en el Ártico –pero no sabemos qué controla al Bajo de las Aleutianas. Sin embargo, se han identificado “ciclos dobles de manchas solares” de 22,5 años de duración en las lluvias de Sudáfrica, los Monzones del Índico, las sequías australianas, y lluvias en el lejano sudeste de los Estados Unidos. Estos ciclos afirman que es el sol, no el CO2, quien controla las temperaturas de la Tierra.

Los recientes experimentos del Dr. Henrik Svensmark en el Instituto Danés de Investigación Espacial parecen mostrar que las temperaturas de la Tierra son afectadas de manera importante por las húmedas y bajas nubes que reflejan en mayor o menor cantidad de calor solar de regreso al espacio. La cantidad de dichas nubes están, a su vez, afectadas por mayor o menor cantidad de rayos cósmicos que llegan a la Tierra. A su turno, la cantidad de rayos cósmicos está gobernada por la cantidad y extensión del viento solar emitido por el sol.

Todo esto desafía al “consenso” de que el dióxido de carbono emitido por la actividad humana es la responsable de nuestro calentamiento global. Pero la evidencia de un calentamiento causado por el hombre nunca ha sido tan fuerte como lo afirman sus partidarios. El calentamiento de la tierra entre 1915 y 1940 fue tan fuerte como el “aterrante” calentamiento entre 1975 y 1998 tanto en amplitud como en duración –y ocurrió demasiado temprano como para echarle la culpa al CO2 emitido por los humanos- Más recientemente, el clima se ha rehusado de manera porfiada a calentarse desde 1998, aún cuando las emisiones de CO2 de los humanos han seguido aumentando fuertemente.

El satélite Jason es una versión actualizada y más precisa del satélite Poseidon que estuvo vigilando los océanos desde 1992, recogiendo la velocidad de los vientos, la altura de las olas, y cambios en el nivel del mar. Jason está operado por el Laboratorio de Propulsión a Chorro de la NASA y por un equi-po francés.

¿Cuántos años de temperaturas mundiales en descenso tendrán que pasar –a fines de una década desde 1998 sin aumentos de temperatura- para romper el “consenso del cambio climático” de Al Gore?.

Aprile: -0,2°C dai dati satellitari

Anche lo scorso mese si è concluso con uno scostamento negativo dalla norma, stando alle rilevazioni satellitari. Prosegue una serie di scarti negativi iniziatasi col lo scorso mese di Dicembre.


www.john-daly.com Il grafico delle temperature satellitari del Nord Emisfero dal 1979 ad oggi. Evidente il forte riscaldamento intervenuto a partire dal 1998 e per tutti gli anni Duemila, ed il drastico calo degli ultimi mesi.

Ancora un volta è il satellite a mostrarci l'evidente stato di raffreddamento che sta subendo il nostro Pianeta negli ultimi mesi, per la combinazione di una forte Nina unita ad un minimo solare piuttosto marcato.

Iniziamo però col dire che prendiamo come dati di riferimento quelli dell'UAH (University of Alabama) relativi alla media troposfera. Ci sono infatti altre rilevazioni satellitari, sia relativi ad altre porzioni d'atmosfera, sia di altri enti.

Lo scorso mese di Aprile ha registrato uno scarto negativo dalla norma di -0,20°C, rispetto alla norma oramai trentennale 1979-2008, e che rappresenta lo scarto termico più accentuato degli ultimi 8 anni, in quanto occorre risalire al Gennaio del 2000 per trovarne uno così intenso (-0,31°C).

Non soltanto: anche una serie di 5 mesi consecutivi con temperature globali al di sotto della norma non si ritrova proprio dall'anno 2000, dunque un consistente passo all'indietro del Global Warming dopo l'impennata avutasi negli ultimi anni.

Separando i vari dati del mese di Aprile, notiamo che gli Oceani, con -0,31°C, hanno contribuito al raffreddamento in misura molto maggiore della terraferma (solo -0,01°C), mentre, come di consueto, il Sud Emisfero è risultato più freddo di quello Nord (-0,30°C contro -0,09°C).

I Poli sono andati invece questa volta in controtendenza, manifestando un scarto positivo di +0,06°C quello Nord, e addirittura di +0,68°C quello Sud.

Ricordiamo ancora una volta che la media di riferimento 1979-2008, valida per i rilevamenti satellitari, è molto differente da quella 1951-80 che è il riferimento delle temperature strumentali della NASA, donde le talvolta notevoli differenze tra i due tipi di dati.

Inoltre, il satellite comprende una vasta gamma di territori inagibili per i rilevamenti strumentali terrestri (come i Poli od i deserti), quindi, in teoria, i rilevamenti sono assai più precisi.

Infine, il satellite prende i dati di uno strato d'aria posto ad una certa altezza dal suolo (in questo caso media troposfera), mentre le rilevazioni strumentali terrestri sono fatte al livello del terreno, ed anche da qui possono nascere delle incongruenze tra questi due tipi di dati.

Fatto sta, comunque, che dopo l'impennata anche dei dati satellitari globali avutasi nel corso degli anni Duemila, adesso il Global Warming sembrerebbe in fase di "stanca", forse solo temporanea.

Vedremo nei prossimi mesi come si comporterà il clima globale!

Aprile freddo dai dati satellitari

8 maggio 2008: ore 14:17. I dati satellitari del UAH (Università dell'Alabama) confermano uno scorso mese di Aprile particolarmente freddo a livello globale, -0,20°C rispetto alla norma 1979-2008. Si tratta del quinto mese consecutivo in cui la temperatura della Terra in troposfera e parte della stratosfera, secondo i dati dell'Università dell'Alabama, si presenta sotto la norma oramai trentennale.

Oficial: el Calentamiento Se Toma Vacaciones

Como se había hecho evidente para todos los que analizan el clima, la vieja tendencia al calentamiento se ha detenido y un nuevo estudio alemán del Instituto de Ciencias Marinas Leibniz y del Instituto Max Planck para Meteorología, “sugiere” que la tendencia al calentamiento se revertirá a una de enfriamiento. Hace tres años que lo venimos diciendo –y sin modelos computarizados del clima ni cartas del Tarot.

Durante la década de los 90 los récords de las temperaturas máximas fueron rotos de manera regular. Pero un nuevo estudio publicado el 1º de mayo pasado en la revista Nature sugiere que se debe esperar un intervalo en el calentamiento para la próxima década. Nosotros sostenemos que este intervalo será de por lo menos 30 años y quizás se alargue hasta los 70 años. Todo depende de la manera en que los próximos ciclos solares 24 y 25 se comporten. ¿Y que pasará con el CO2? Las emisiones de los humanos seguirán aumentado, por supuesto, pero el enfriamiento es más que probable que provoque una disminución de la concentración de CO2 en la atmósfera. ¿Por qué?

Las boyas Argos que se han venido instalando en todos los océanos del mundo –unas 3000 hasta la fecha- actúan de manera automática en sus mediciones y en sus envíos de datos a los centros de investigación. Desde que comenzaron a llegar los datos de las boyas se comprobó que la temperatura de los océanos desde la superficie hasta los 700 metros no sólo no había aumentado sino que se observaba un ligero enfriamiento. Como la próxima década será más fría que las 4 anteriores, el mar se enfriará más todavía y su capacidad de absorber CO2 aumentará de manera considerable. De esa manera, gran parte del CO2 actualmente en la atmósfera será absorbido y sus niveles descenderán. Esto será una mala noticia para los agricultores que verán reducidos el rendimiento de sus cosechas y los bosques y selvas no crecerán tan rápido. No será algo terrible, por cierto, pero se podrá medir.

El Curiosos estudio

De acuerdo con el Instituto Lebniz, las proyecciones del cambio climático publicadas por el IPCC en su último informe sólo considera los cambios en la futura composición de la atmósfera pero, como los escépticos lo veníamos haciendo notar, no tomaban en cuenta casi nada relacionado con lo que pasa en el mar. Dado que el mar cubre el 70% de la superficie del planeta, no parece prudente ni correcto ignorar su influencia sobre el clima, sobre todo considerando que las corrientes marinas como la del Golfo, o las frecuentes El Niño y La Niña, tienen una influencia sobre el clima que conocen hasta los niños de sexto grado.

Para hacer que las predicciones a corto plazo tengan mayor precisión (?) durante la próxima década, los modelos necesitan más información de las variaciones naturales del clima, en particular las asociadas con las corrientes marinas. Dado que esto estuvo ausente en los modelos, resulta increíble que alguien haya podido tomar con alguna seriedad los resultados de los modelos climáticos computados. Los mismos científicos del nuevo estudio reconocen que esto ha dañado mucho a las predicciones climáticas en el pasado. Estos científicos del IFM-GEOMAR y del Max Plank Institute (MPI) han desarrollado un método para derivar las corrientes oceánicas de las mediciones de temperatura de la superficie del mar, o SST, por sus siglas en inglés. Estas últimas están disponibles en buena cantidad y calidad, y tienen una cobertura global de por lo menos 50 años. Dicen ellos que mediante su técnica, se puede predecir las tendencias a corto plazo usando la información sobre las tendencias decadales naturales de las variaciones climáticas, que se superponen sobre la tendencia de largo plazo de la tendencia de largo plazo antropogénica. Estos científicos no se resignan a abandonar la idea de que el hombre y sus emisiones de CO2 son las causantes del cambio climático. No señor.

Según ellos, las predicciones mejoradas sugieren que el calentamiento se frenará durante los próximos 10 años. “Para dejar las cosas bien claras; no declaramos que el cambio climático antrópico no será tan malo como se pensaba antes,” explicó el profesor Mijib Latif del IFM-GEOMAR. “Lo que estamos diciendo es que sobre la tendencia al calentamiento existe una oscilación periódica de largo plazo que probablemente llevará a un menor aumento de la temperatura de lo que podríamos esperar de la actual tendencia durante los próximos años.” Añade el Dr. Johann Jungclaus del MPI: “Es como manejar de la costa a una región montañosa y cruzar algunas colinas y algunos valles antes de llegar a la parte alta.”

El profesor Latif finaliza diciendo que las predicciones climáticas decídales no son pronósticos meteo-rológicos, “… pero estaremos en condiciones de proveer una tendencia sobre si algunas décadas serán más cálidas o más frías que el promedio. Por supuesto, siempre suponiendo que no ocurra ningún evento imprevisto como una erupción volcánica, que puede tener un sustancial efecto sobre el clima”. Como podemos ver, los “científicos calentones” siguen resistiéndose a reconocer que uno de “los eventos que tienen un sustancial efecto sobre el clima” es la actividad solar y sus bastante predecibles variaciones. Un gráfico que acompaña al estudio es el siguiente, traducido al español:


Figura 1 : Predicciones/pronósticos inicializados en retrospectiva (verde) para las temperaturas medias globales, comparadas con las observaciones y predicciones no inicializadas usando observaciones oceánicas y realizadas usando únicamente forzamientos radiativos. Se muestran los promedios decadales; las barras de error indican la extensión de los tres conjuntos de predicciones.
Revisando el Pasado



Esta nueva vuelta de tuerca en el debate del calentamiento y cambio climático supuestamente cau-sado por el hombre es una novedad. La tesis que emerge de todo el estudio, así como de otros que están apareciendo en los últimos meses, es que hay factores y variaciones climáticas que son total-mente naturales y que durante la próxima década anularán los efectos causados por las actividades humanas. Sin embargo, revisando la historia, toda la documentación oficial del IPCC y su miríada de científicos a sueldo de la industria del invernadero (con becas e instrucciones para producir estudios que “demuestren” la responsabilidad humana en el cambio climático), han estado afirmando “con una seguridad del 95%” que las emisiones de CO2 de la humanidad son las responsables de la futura catástrofe y que las variaciones naturales, sean del sol o de donde quiera que vengan, no influyen sobre el clima. ¿La prueba para esta afirmación? Los Modelos Computados del Clima. De allí sale la Palabra Revelada, y no creer en ella es Herejía. Muchos científicos que osaron oponerse y emitir su opinión en contrario al Dogma perdieron sus subsidios, o fueron expulsados de sus puestos, o vieron arruinadas sus carreras.
¿Qué validez tienen los modelos computados? Todo puede resumirse en este ejemplo:
Un pronosticador de resultados de carreras de caballos predijo que un caballo ganaría el Derby, pero el caballo llegó en último lugar -lejos. Entonces el pronosticador dijo que había corregido su método de predicciones y –usando su método corregido- él estaba seguro de que el mismo caballo ganaría el Derby del año siguiente. ¿Alguien que no sea un tonto podría creerle?
Ahora compare eso con lo siguiente:
Muchos equipos de científicos hicieron modelos computarizados del clima y todos ellos predijeron que el aumento del dióxido de carbono causaría un calentamiento sostenido y constante, casi lineal. Ninguno –NI UNO SOLO – de esos modelos predijo que el calen-tamiento global haría pico en 1998, luego se detendría durante 10 años y finalmente la temperatura global comenzaría a disminuir, a pesar de que la concentración del CO2 en el mismo período aumentó 5%. Pero eso es lo que ha sucedido!
Entonces vemos que uno de esos equipos de “científicos” ha corregido su modelo de modo que ahora muestra un cese del calentamiento para 1998, Luego ese mismo modelo predice que el calentamiento global se reanudará en 2015, ¿Alguien que no sea un tonto podría creerles? De la observación de los datos y de la historia se puede afirmar que la recuperación ocurrida desde la Pequeña Edad de Hielo se detuvo en 1998 y la temperatura global estuvo estable desde entonces. El gráfico lo muestra:

Esta reciente estabilidad de la temperatura es causada porque el ligero calentamiento del hemisferio norte ha sido cancelado por el enfriamiento del hemisferio sur en el registro global. Se suponía que el Calentamiento causado por el hombre era GLOBAL no Hemisférico. Luego, nadie sabe si esta detención de una década del calentamiento es temporaria, pero los siguientes puntos deben ser considerados:
Un aparente ciclo es de ~1500 años y desde los tiempos de Cristo ha producido:
El Período Cálido Romano, luego,

El Período de la Edad Oscura, luego,

El Período Cálido Medieval u Óptimo Climático, luego,

La Pequeña Edad de Hielo, y

El Presente Período Cálido.
Otro ciclo aparente tiene 60 años de modo que globalmente hubo:
Enfriamiento 1880 hasta 1910

Calentamiento hasta 1940,

Enfriamiento hasta 1979,

Calentamiento hasta 1998, seguido de

Ningún calentamiento o enfriamiento significativo –aún.
Las 3 preguntas del millón son:

¿El calentamiento antrópico está impidiendo los 30 años de enfriamiento global que podría esperarse que provoque el ciclo de 60 años desde el 2000?
O sino:

¿Ha llegado el ciclo de 1500 años a su pico máximo de modo que un largo ciclo de enfriamiento está a punto de comenzar?
O también:¿Es la aparente existencia de estos ciclos un efecto aleatorio u otra cosa?

Las respuestas a estas preguntas y otras similares merecen serias investigaciones. Lo que uno puede decir es que las bases de la teoría del Calentamiento Antrópico (o CA) está desmentida por las tendencias actuales. Los promotores de la Teoría del CA. Han sugerido de manera constante, que habría una tendencia con una tasa variable: a nadie se le ocurrió sugerir que no habría calentamiento durante una década (1999-2008) mientras que un hemisferio se enfriaría y la concentración de CO2 aumentaría 5% -algo que realmente ha ocurrido.

También: otra tendencia que no se está comportando de la manera profetizada por los promotores del mito del Calentamiento Antrópico es la del aumento de CO2 en la atmósfera. Aunque las emisiones de dióxido de carbono continuaron creciendo (la actividad industrial lo hizo, pero eso no requería de un Nostradamus para predecirlo) hay sin embargo indicaciones de que el aumento de esas concentra-ciones se están frenando, como se puede apreciar en las mediciones del Monte Mauna Loa:


Puesto de manera simple, el estudio de Keenleyside et al., es una excusa para el “nos hemos equi-vocado” que se compara con la vieja excusa de la primaria “no traje los deberes porque se los comió el perro”. Son relevantes los comentarios hechos por el climatólogo español Dr. Antón Uriarte en su blog personal:

Ya saben ustedes que cada cinco años, por cada cien mil moléculas de aire, la viciosa humanidad añade aproximadamente una de CO2.

Y que esta molécula y otras más de lo mismo que poco a poco iremos añadiendo —aunque son invisibles, inodoras y tóxicamente inofensivas— producirán tal efecto de calentamiento que acabarán destruyéndonos, no sólo a nosotros sino al planeta entero. Algunos, psicólogos del clima, ya lo notan. Dicen que se está volviendo loco.
Pues bien ...

Llevamos ya diez años en los que la temperatura media global no aumenta y esta se-mana la revista Nature publica un artículo de investigadores alemanes en el que se dice que en la próxima década es posible que tampoco.

La acción del mar, cuya circulación es aún una gran desconocida, puede ser mucho más relevante en los próximos diez años, o veinte, que las moléculas de CO2 que añadamos.

El artículo de Nature, titulado asépticamente "Advancing decadal-scale climate predic-tion in the North Atlantic sector", se refiere a la posibilidad de que el Atlántico Norte se enfríe debido a una ralentización de la corriente del Golfo o de lo que, en jerga científica, se llama MOC (Meridian Overturning Circulation). Ya veremos.
De todas formas, el disimulado título no ha logrado que pase desapercibido el artículo, en el interior del cual se habla de la implicación de la evolución oceánica en la tendencia de la temperatura global, poniendo en entredicho las prisas en descarbonizar el mundo.



Pongo arriba la evolución de la temperatura desde Enero de 1990 hasta el pasado Marzo en la troposfera, la capa baja de la atmósfera (de unos 10 km de espesor) en la cual se desarrolla el clima.

Abajo pongo un índice de la supuesta fuerza de la circulación termohalina (THC) (que es otra manera de referirse a lo mismo, MOC) (ver aquí: corrientes oceánicas). Se observa que la tendencia ascendente que se manifiesta desde 1970, y que ha coincidido con el calentamiento que siguió al enfriamiento anterior, puede cambiar a la baja en las pró-ximas décadas y, por lo tanto, provocar de nuevo un enfriamiento.

Conclusiones

Desde hace un año y medio ha venido apareciendo una enorme catarata de estudios con predicciones catastróficas demostrando que la preocupación del lobby del invernadero (y los socios de Al Gore) está creciendo a un ritmo “más veloz que lo anteriormente previsto” –parafraseando a los calentado-res- porque el tiempo se les ha terminado, y el frío se les ha venido encima antes de conseguir su objetivo final. En la pantalla de sus monitores está titilando la temida señal “Game Over”.

Pero en medio de la catarata han comenzado a aparecer este tipo de estudios que pretenden endere-zar las cosas y volverlas a encaminar en la dirección de asegurar y perpetuar la creencia del público en el Mito del CO2 y el cambio climático. Es imperioso que la gente siga creyendo que, a pesar de todas las evidencias que hay sobre la mesa del debate, es el CO2 quien controla y agrava el efecto invernadero, que es el único factor que hay que considerar, y que las variaciones naturales sólo “enmascaran” la influencia del CO2 que finalmente terminará enviando al planeta y toda la humanidad al infierno. Y todo ello, como dice Antón Uriarte, “por esa molécula en 100.000 que la humanidad inyecta en el aire –cada 5 años.” Poderosa la molécula! ¿O gigantesca la mentira?

Le variazioni dell'AMO ed il calo termico alle porte

Uno studio di ricercatori tedeschi attribuisce all'Oscillazione multidecadale delle temperature oceaniche atlantiche un prossimo calo termico di alcuni decimi di grado.


Non abbiamo avuto il piacere di leggere direttamente su Nature, che è una importante rivista scientifica, la ricerca effettuata in Germania, dove è stato sviluppato un modello matematico in grado di simulare il comportamento climatico terrestre dei prossimi decenni.

Possiamo affidarci comunque alle informazioni riportateci dai principali organi di informazione: sulla base di tale modello, che tiene maggiormente conto delle variazioni delle temperature oceaniche dell'Atlantico Settentrionale, è prevedibile un loro prossimo calo, nel prossimo decennio, in grado di arrestare momentaneamente la progressione dell'Effetto Serra.

Si tratterebbe di un risultato di grande rilievo: sulla base delle variazioni periodiche di quella che viene definita AMO (Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation, oscillazione atlantica multidecennale), l'effetto serra verrebbe bloccato per un decennio, tra il 2010 ed il 2020, per poi riprendere il suo percorso verso l'innalzamento inarrestabile.

Queste le notizie riportate, e noi, nel nostro piccolo, siamo in grado di effettuare qualche piccola critica, pur consapevoli di non avere tra le mani l'articolo nella sua versione originale, né i risultati matematici di questo nuovo modello di interazione tra Atmosfera ed Oceano.

Abbiamo infatti ben presente quella che è la curva storica dell'AMO, questo fenomeno scoperto di recente e non ancora ben compreso, nelle sue cause principali.

Si tratta, come detto, delle variazioni di temperatura presenti sull'Oceano Atlantico Settentrionale, che sono di grande importanza in ambito europeo in quanto da questa zona hanno origine quelle correnti occidentali che sono prevalenti sul nostro Continente.

Da tali variazioni termiche, misurate a partire dal 1860, è possibile ricavare un grafico degli scarti dalla temperatura normale.

E qui notiamo, come dice il nome stesso, il carattere "multidecadale" di questo ciclo, ovverosia una durata media dei periodi di riscaldamento o di raffreddamento variabile tra i 20 ed i 40 anni, come ben visibile nel grafico riportato.

In particolare il ciclo è stato in fase "fredda" all'incirca dal 1900 al 1930, poi in fase "calda" dal 1930 al 1965, per poi ripresentare una fase fredda di durata trentennale, tra il 1965 ed il 1995.

Il periodo medio di durata è di circa 30-35 anni, per ciascun ciclo, per cui, anche se la fase calda attuale, iniziata nel 1996, sembra aver già raggiunto il suo "picco" massimo, ed essere in fase calante, è probabile che le temperature non tornino sotto le medie prima almeno del 2025, a meno che non intervengano altri fattori forzanti al momento non conosciuti.

I risultati di questo modello, sempre che le notizie riportate dagli organi di stampa siano corrette (e sappiamo che non sempre lo sono) lasciano quindi un po' perplessi, per una durata troppo breve dell'attuale "fase calda".

Ovviamente, si parla sempre di temperature medie, in quanto, come visibile dal grafico, le variazioni interannuali ed interstagionali delle temperature in Atlantico Settentrionale sono molto vistose.

Un secondo appunto, lo si può fare osservando le variazioni storiche del grafico.

Cali vistosi della temperatura a livello mondiale ed europeo si sono vissuti nel periodo 1880-1895, quando la AMO era in fase positiva, così come tra il 1950 ed il 1965.

Invece, un forte riscaldamento lo si è visto tra il 1987 ed il 1995, quando la fase di AMO era nettamente negativa.

Da questo si potrebbe dedurre che non è detto che le temperature globali possano salire o scendere legandosi direttamente alle oscillazioni dell'AMO.

Anzi, sembrerebbe proprio il contrario, il raffreddamento dell'aria nel periodo 1880-95, e di quello 1950-65, sembrano "precedere" il calo dell'AMO, mentre il riscaldamento tra il 1988 ed il 1995 precede la salita dell'AMO.

Tale AMO quindi potrebbe variare a seconda delle variazioni della temperatura globale.

Quindi, facciamo molta attenzione nel valutare queste notizie, pur tenendo conto che la fase di riscaldamento globale sembra attraversare una fase di crisi e di attenuazione.

Nuovo record dei ghiacci marini antartici

2 maggio 2008: ore 21:18. Aprile ha fatto segnare un nuovo record nell'estensione dei ghiacci marini antartici. Come si può vedere dal grafico qui riportato, e gentilmente acquisito da http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/data/seaice_index/, l'estensione media di aprile dei ghiacci marini intorno all'Antartide ha raggiunto la cifra record di 8,6 mil di kmq, circa +1,3 mil di kmq sopra la media di Aprile. I dati riguardano laserie satellitare inziata nel 1979. image courtesy: http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/data/seaice_index/s_extn.html

"…several decades of global cooling"

Strangely absent from the BBC news bulletins (so far) - but headlined by The Daily Telegraph and carried by the major news agencies – is a "shock" finding that global warming is taking a break.

This comes from a report in the journal Nature which concludes, on the basis of computer modelling of changes to the "meridional overturning circulation" (MOC), that global warming "could take a break in the next decade".

Climate scientists at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany, it seems, believe a change in the Gulf Stream is impending. They predict this will temporarily weaken over the next decade, in line with what has happened regularly in the past. This, they say, will lead to slightly cooler temperatures in the North Atlantic and in North America and Europe.

Separately, and apparently unrelated to this study, Watts up with that publishes an analysis offered by Don J. Easterbrook, a retired professor from the Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, in Bellingham.


This is in response to the news on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift, reported yesterday, with Easterbrook concluding that we could be facing "…several decades of global cooling" (the graph shows the historic effects of PDO shifts on temperatures).


Nor do these findings stand on their own. Today we also see a report that March 2008 was clearly an extreme month for sea ice in the Bering Sea. St. Paul Island (see satellite location pic) remained in the sea ice through the month of March. St. George – to the south of St. Paul - was icebound for a total of 18 days during March.


Several captains of fishing/crabbing vessels decided by the third week of March to stop fishing and go home, hoping to return in early April to resume operations in less icy waters (pic below – the Bering Star while crabbing in the Bering Sea during early March 2008. This was one of the ships that suspended operations due to the ice).



Then, from the other end of the world, Science Daily reports that the Antarctic deep sea is getting colder. This is the first result of the Polarstern expedition of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association that has just ended in Punta Arenas/Chile. At the same time, the journal confirms that satellite images from the Antarctic summer have shown the largest sea-ice extent on record.

Putting all that together – bearing in mind that there has been no global warming since 1998, and taking into account the concerns over the lack of sunspot activity and the lateness of solar cycle 24 – one comes to the inescapable conclusion that, whatever the medium to long-term future might hold, we are in for some colder weather in the short-term.

Looking back to the last winter, and the heavy snows, it is also necessary to remind ourselves that, in the short-term, it is weather, not climate, which destroys crops and ruins harvests. With "global warming" seemingly turning to cooling, we also have to remind ourselves that moderate global warming increases food production and that we have been enjoying a "global warming dividend" for some decades.


Cooling, of course, brings with it the possibility of catastrophic winter weather events but, even without any such phenomena, lower crop yields are to be expected. And, with the global food production system under stress, we are relying on record harvests over the next few years to rebuild reserves and take the pressure off commodity prices.

We are thus in a situation where the world is relying not just on maintaining production levels but on record production, at levels never before achieved. These are achievable, but only if weather conditions allow – of which we cannot be certain, and less so now. In short, we really do have a global system "on the edge".

For wealthy countries like the UK, any immediate adverse effects of cooler weather will manifest themselves in food price inflation and occasional local shortages (as they are doing now). These will be more inconvenient than life-threatening. Not so, of course, for impoverished nations, which – as we pointed out earlier – could suffer severely. The knock-on effects for the UK and other developed nations are incalculable – but potentially serious.

For Britain, though, the deterioration in the global food supply is especially serious as, according to latest figures, we are only 60 percent self-sufficient in food – equivalent to four in ten of our population relying on imported food.

A lack of self-sufficiency is not a problem – the UK has always been a trading nation and has, since the Middle Ages, relied on imported food. What matters is whether, in a situation of global food shortage, we can manage our food supplies. The problem is that we cannot – and it gets worse. Our predicament is spelt out here:


Our food policy (including strategic stock management) – is the sole provenance of Brussels (the EU) through the CAP and other policy instruments.

The policy itself is fundamentally flawed in that it is designed to deal with the consequences of agricultural over-production and is neither appropriate for, nor capable of, dealing with structural supply deficits.

Even if the policy was appropriate, it is being managed by the EU commission, which has a record of incompetence and which, in any event, lacks the flexibility to respond effectively to rapidly changing situations.

We no longer have the capability to broker deals with third (non EU) countries, with a view to securing our own supplies, or make bilateral agreements with those countries in order to promote increased production from which we can benefit.


In short, whatever might happen in the short to medium future, we are entirely reliant on the good offices and capabilities of the European Union, to ensure that we as a nation remain well fed.


Furthermore, while the consequences (to us) of mismanagement of our food supplies in an era of food surpluses are primarily financial, in a time of shortages, the consequences are potentially far greater. That is really worrying.

In a sense, we see chickens coming home to roost. With successive governments having handed over their powers to control our food supply to the EU, we are now left at the mercy of Brussels, the commission and the council of ministers, comprising 26 other member states – all of which have their own agendas and their own priorities.

Arguably, would that they knew it, the developing situation is a gift for Eurosceptics. The fact that we are so reliant on the EU for our basic needs is an issue which provides the strongest possible argument for getting clear of that malign organisation and recovering control of our own affairs. This is no longer an academic issue (if it ever was), but one of increasing urgency.

UPDATE: New posting and comments on Watts up with that and an excellent post here.

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.
Have your say: Do you believe in global warming?
Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted'
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."
advertisement


He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.

Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again.
Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.

Nature: AMO will stop warming until 2020

In this dose of peer-reviewed literature about the climate, we look into Nature.
Noel Keenlyside et al. (from Kiel, Germany)
wrote an article called "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector." Yes, I mean Kiel where Max Planck was born.

They look at the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) influencing the meridional overturning circulation (MOC). The Gulf Stream is the part of the MOC along the East Coast of the U.S., mostly driven by Western winds (i.e. directly by the rotation of Earth). Its extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, is also supported by thermohaline circulation.
MOC: Warm water flows from the equator to the North and returns at depth in the ocean. The intensity of this circulation depends on the AMO phase. See a detailed picture of Atlantic currents.

The oscillation is a slow quasiperiodic pattern that usually switches into the opposite regime after 60-70 years. It is a slower process than PDO we discussed a few days ago. Because only sea surface temperatures are available for previous decades, they use them to reconstruct the temperatures inside the ocean. The results are incorporated as a new term in their otherwise "conventional" computer model. With this new term, (validation) skill is improved markedly.
Commercial: Prof Roy Spencer: More carbon dioxide, please
Their conclusion? The predictions for a foreseeable future change dramatically. The MOC will weaken to its long-term mean. The Atlantic Ocean, Europe, and America will cool down slightly in the next decade while the Pacific Ocean won't change. In plain English, the AGW hoax may take timeout till 2018.

Their choice of words is a testimony of the political correctness. For example, in Richard Black's article in the BBC, Keenlyside says:
One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
If you wonder what this sentence means, it means "Our models, if correct, imply that the IPCC projections for the next 15-20 years are incorrect." Recall the words that are being used when a controversial published article disagrees with a detail of a skeptic's theory: we typically read about one last nail in the coffin of an oil industry stooge. ;-) But when 2,500 hacks are proved wrong in a completely essential aspect of their paper - the projection of temperatures for the whole next decade -, a very different language must be chosen, right?

Even though 1/3 of the people who live today are said to see no more global warming in their lifetime - a problem that is often claimed to be one of the most urgent problems of the current world - and despite the disagreement of their paper with the frantically promoted hysteria about the "settled" catastrophic science, Richard Black writes:
The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.
Wow. So the refutation of a prediction of a dangerous warming by the world's top 2,500 scientists ;-) "does not come as a surprise". Note that with no global warming since 1998, the paper predicts 20 years of no warming.

Recall that Al Gore has predicted global destruction in less than 8 years from now. To make you even more certain that scientific papers can have no impact whatsoever on the religious dogmas of the climate debate, Richard Black quotes a Richard Wood from the Hadley Centre:
[Wood] emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.
So a paper showing that a decade of predictions is completely wrong because it has neglected some very important dynamics doesn't even "indicate" that there "might" be something wrong with the projection of the IPCC "and many other institutions" in the long run. Wow. What an amazing [expletive] this Wood is. This is the kind of people who are reviewing articles about climate change to guarantee that "heresies" can't occur. This particular Wood was the reviewer of Keenlyside et al.

The whole validation of all existing climate models is (or should be) mostly based on the data from the previous decades or centuries. If an effect that is argued to be as strong as the greenhouse effect has been neglected while it has the power to change 60-70 years of the temperature dynamics, it implies the existence of a critical flaw in the whole picture. At this moment, no one can really know for sure what will happen with the AMO in 50 years or so. If we add a term whose absolute values is equal to the strength of the greenhouse effect, a term that can exist for 60-70 years, we can get different results for 60-70 years, can't we?

And there might be many other such terms; note that no paper so far has even properly combined the effects of ENSO, PDO, and AMO. Scientists might be ultimately allowed to study these sinful, mostly irrelevant (!!!) terms but they are not allowed to touch the greatness of the holy anthropomorphic God of global warming who is and who must be forever above all of them. ;-)

Amen.

Se pospone la catástrofe

Ya saben ustedes que cada cinco años, por cada cien mil moléculas de aire, la viciosa humanidad añade aproximadamente una de CO2.

Y que esta molécula y otras más de lo mismo que poco a poco iremos añadiendo —aunque son invisibles, inodoras y tóxicamente inofensivas— producirán tal efecto de calentamiento que acabarán destruyéndonos, no sólo a nosotros sino al planeta entero. Algunos, psicólogos del clima, ya lo notan. Dicen que se está volviendo loco.

Pues bien ...

Llevamos ya diez años en los que la temperatura media global no aumenta y esta semana la revista Nature publica un artículo de investigadores alemanes en el que se dice que en la próxima década es posible que tampoco.

La acción del mar, cuya circulación es aún una gran desconocida, puede ser mucho más relevante en los próximos diez años, o veinte, que las moléculas de CO2 que añadamos.

El artículo de Nature, titulado asépticamente "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector", se refiere a la posibilidad de que el Atlántico Norte se enfríe debido a una ralentización de la corriente del Golfo o de lo que, en jerga científica, se llama MOC (Meridian Overturning Circulation). Ya veremos.

De todas formas, el disimulado título no ha logrado que a la comunidad "negacionista" pase desapercibido el artículo, en el interior del cual se habla de la implicación de la evolución oceánica en la tendencia de la temperatura global, poniendo en entredicho las prisas que nos meten en descarbonizar el mundo.

Pongo arriba la evolución de la temperatura desde Enero de 1990 hasta el pasado Marzo en la troposfera, la capa baja de la atmósfera (de unos 10 km de espesor) en la cual se desarrolla el clima.

Abajo pongo un índice de la supuesta fuerza de la circulación termohalina (THC) (que es otra manera de referirse a lo mismo, MOC) (ver aquí: corrientes oceánicas). Se observa que la tendencia ascendente que se manifiesta desde 1970, y que ha coincidido con el calentamiento que siguió al enfriamiento anterior, puede cambiar a la baja en las próximas décadas y, por lo tanto, provocar de nuevo un enfriamiento.

ref.: N. S. Keenlyside et al., 2008, Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 1 de Mayo, 2008.

figura de arriba en Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat , interesante artículo que comentaré otro día.

figura de abajo en Jeff Knight et al., A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate, 2005, Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233, 2005