NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing

Mar 28, 2010 | Posted by: The Truth Matters | Full story: www.physorg.com

New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years.

"The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling." "Some have suggested cyclic changes in the overturning may be warming and cooling the whole North Atlantic over the course of several decades and affecting rainfall patterns across the United States and Africa, and even the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic."

Comments
1 - 20 of 33 Comments Last updated Apr 15, 2010
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 28, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Good news. Well, most 'preliminary studies' tend to get overturned on later more extensive studies.

However, still only a small part of the overall picture. This dog didn't bark but lots of others did... ;-)
Fun Facts

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 30, 2010
 
One more IPCC prediction that cannot be observed in reality.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Fun Facts wrote:
One more IPCC prediction that cannot be observed in reality.
It was never an IPCC prediction. You're thinking of 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/858...
Fun Facts

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It was never an IPCC prediction. You're thinking of 'The Day After Tomorrow'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/858...
It's in the IPCC 2007 report. The computer generated climate models projected that an increase in greenhouse gases would decrease the AMO or MOC. Of course once again, the prediction was based on a computer model.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's in the IPCC 2007 report. The computer generated climate models projected that an increase in greenhouse gases would decrease the AMO or MOC. Of course once again, the prediction was based on a computer model.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...
Some of the models predicted a slow down- some didn't.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
One more IPCC prediction that cannot be observed in reality.
At no point did the IPCC forecast a reduction in the thermohaline circulation. It studied the report but made no forecast. And forecast is the term, not prediction. Predictions are for astrologers.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Correction.

"Taken together, it is very likely that the MOC will reduce, but very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century"

So they did forecast a possible reduction in the MOC but didn't give it a significant value. I don't think that the report here actually says that there is NO reduction in the THC. Just not a large one. As would be confirmed by the reports "no *significant* slowing"
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 30, 2010
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Predictions are for astrologers.
You heard it straight from another horse's mouth folks.
Yet another MattJ moment, when he wrote:
MattJ wrote:
It is unscientific in the extreme to make predictions

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 30, 2010
 
You're gonna take a walk in the rain, and you're gonna get wet....I predict.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>it was one of your favourites! whenever we said it wasn't actually getting hot here, you lot said it was the Gulf Stream slowing. So, as it isn't, why isn't it any hotter in the UK?
Why should it be? AGW is the global average. Local warming and cooling will be more controlled by local conditions. And most (~60%) of the 'additional' warming that Western Europe gets from the west is delivered by wind. Wind is affected by many other changes such as the AO and NAO..
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 31, 2010
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
AGW is the global average.
ROFLMAO!
AGW is the global average of what?
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Local warming and cooling will be more controlled by local conditions.
Your knowledge of the obvious is quite astounding.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 31, 2010
 
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>ROFLMAO!
AGW is the global average of what?
Your knowledge of the obvious is quite astounding.
Surface temperature, of course. The thermal mass at the boundary to the atmosphere. Don't you understand ANYTHING?

The average global surface temperature is a major 'input' into how climate behaves. Ergo, change the land and ocean surface temperature and you can expect climate to change with it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Correction.
"Taken together, it is very likely that the MOC will reduce, but very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century"
So they did forecast a possible reduction in the MOC but didn't give it a significant value. I don't think that the report here actually says that there is NO reduction in the THC. Just not a large one. As would be confirmed by the reports "no *significant* slowing"
More here:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/w...
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 1, 2010
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Surface temperature, of course. The thermal mass at the boundary to the atmosphere.
So AGW is the global average surface temperature???
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Don't you understand ANYTHING?
Apparently not, because I didn't understand that AGW is the global average surface temperature.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The average global surface temperature is a major 'input' into how climate behaves. Ergo, change the land and ocean surface temperature and you can expect climate to change with it.
Yes, I know that, it's just that I didn't realise it was called AGW.
Here's a reminder of what you wrote, can you confirm its accuracy?
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
AGW is the global average.
I was under the impression that AGW stood for Anthropogenic Global Warming, am I wrong?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 1, 2010
 
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>So AGW is the global average surface temperature???
Not exactly. AGW is the RISE in the global average surface temperature and the theory that explains how it is happening.
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently not, because I didn't understand that AGW is the global average surface temperature.
Well, I am glad if you have that logic now. You should have been able to get it from the physical models of the thermodynamic balance. After all, it is the SURFACE that is warmed by solar insolation ( mostly ). And it is this surface warming that must be radiated away to keep the balance.
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know that, it's just that I didn't realise it was called AGW.
Anthropogenic ( cause is mostly but not exclusively GHGs from industry )

Global ( based on the global average )

Warming ( rise in temperature relative to pre-industrial baseline )
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a reminder of what you wrote, can you confirm its accuracy?<quoted text>I was under the impression that AGW stood for Anthropogenic Global Warming, am I wrong?
Exactly. AGW is the rise in the global average surface temperature primarily but not exclusively due to anthropogenci input from industry. Do you understand it yet?
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 1, 2010
 
Nice save there, LessFact, you almost managed to squirm out of that one quite well.

Thanks for not resorting to your usual insults, a most welcome and refreshing change.
Fun Facts

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

here's NASA on the 'global temperature'.

"E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)-- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nas...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Fun Facts wrote:
here's NASA on the 'global temperature'.
"E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)-- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nas...
'Inferior' is a subjective term depending on what you want the data for,

http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/03/3...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 2, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fun Facts wrote:
NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)-- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nas...
And you had to go to Faux News for that tidbit??

Obviously a climate research organisation is going to do better climate research than a space and satellite building organisation. Just look how Spencer and Christie mangled the MSU satellite measurements.

But that doesn't mean that good research isn't coming from NASA. They often provide the latest word in climate research INSTRUMENTS on satellites. Just be careful to make sure that the ANALYSIS is done by real climatologists.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Apr 4, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>so why did the warmies all predict HOTTER weather , droughts and heat waves for the UK, if you all knew this?
It is a lot easier to draw connections in climate patterns than to predict them. In fact, no current model can 'forecast' year to year or regional conditions. They can only forecast global trends over decadal scales.
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>
you lot are like the psychics who all knew Kennedy was going to be shot , but never mentioned it until afterwards. Why didn't you predict this weather? The forecast was for a mild winter.
Climate forecasts are usually regional and fairly broad, based on the current state of the climate oscillations ( NAO, AO, ENSO, etc ). As such they cannot be much more than general guides.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 2 min SpaceBlues 26,999
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min factcheck 46,245
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 min SpaceBlues 32,408
Global warming risks being irreversible, draft ... 13 min SpaceBlues 2
New book: About Face! Why the World Needs More ... 28 min SpaceBlues 2
Debunking Lord Monckton (Apr '10) 8 hr Fair Game 12
The country's sinking climate debate 14 hr SpaceBlues 2

Search the Global Warming Forum:
•••