URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream

places_gulfstream_sat3[1]

Gulf Stream from satellite Image: NOAA

20 years of data demonstrates it remains stable

NARRAGANSETT, R.I. – March 3, 2014 – Several recent studies have generated a great deal of publicity for their claims that the warming climate is slowing the pace of the Gulf Stream. They say that the Gulf Stream is decreasing in strength as a result of rising sea levels along the East Coast.

However, none of the studies include any direct measurements of the current over an extended period to prove their point.


But this is exactly what has been underway at the University of Rhode Island and Stony Brook University for the last 20 years: measurement of the strength of the Gulf Stream. And according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers find no evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down. These new results reinforce earlier findings about the stability of Gulf Stream transport based on observations from as far back as the 1930s.

H. Thomas Rossby, a professor at the URI Graduate School of Oceanography, has spent much of his long career studying ocean circulation – especially the Gulf Stream – and how it makes its way across the Atlantic towards Europe and as far north as northern Norway. For the last 20 years he and his colleagues have measured the Gulf Stream using an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) attached to a ship, the freighter Oleander, which makes weekly trips across the Gulf Stream from New Jersey to Bermuda. The instrument, which measures the velocity of water moving beneath the ship down to more than 600 meters, has collected some 1,000 measurements of the Gulf Stream since it was installed in late 1992.

“The ADCP measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current,” said Rossby. “There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.”

The rapidly flowing Gulf Stream plays a major role in the global heat balance through its transport of very warm water from the Caribbean toward Europe.

For this reason alone, Rossby says, there is good reason to be concerned about the long-term stability of the Gulf Stream, since if the Gulf Stream were slowing, a decrease in the flow of warm water to the northern North Atlantic could cause significant cooling in parts of Europe. But the data tell him that there is no evidence that this is happening, contrary to recent claims in the literature.

Although he officially retired in 2011, Rossby is continuing his Gulf Stream research and hopes to install a new instrument on the Oleander in the coming years that will be able to profile currents to even greater depths.

“Once we do that, all of the water going north will be well within our reach,” he said.

###

h/t to WUWT reader “Patrick

================================================================

On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20 years of direct measurements

T. Rossby1,*, C. N. Flagg2, K. Donohue1, A. Sanchez-Franks2, J. Lillibridge3

Abstract

In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2 s−1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17 m, with sea level decreasing 0.03 m over the 20 year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058636/abstract

About these ads

83 thoughts on “URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream

  1. Another global warming lie nailed.
    A pity that Professor Rossby has retired, as the watermelons will say that he is not an academic.
    Or maybe he couldn’t speak out before retirement?

  2. “The instrument, which measures the velocity of water moving beneath the ship down to more than 600 meters, has collected some 1,000 measurements of the Gulf Stream since it was installed in late 1992.”

    imagine the results were the opposite of what was claimed. Imagine they found a slow down.

    around 50 measurements a year?

  3. If the Gulf Stream is getting slower, then it will be colder not only in UK/Eire but also in Scandinavia. In the latter region we’re missing that kind of cold at the moment …

  4. Be a heck of a job, though. Spending your early retirement strenuously taking electronic readings from a ship plying the Gulf Stream. It’s amazing what actual data will do to clear up a debate.

  5. “…They say that the Gulf Stream is decreasing in strength as a result of rising sea levels along the East Coast….”

    Whoever says so has the dynamics backward.

  6. Nowadays, to ensure integrity, get a retired scientist — what a calamity state of science.

  7. Steven Mosher says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:24 am

    You need to describe what counts as “a measurement” before stating this criticism. Given the proper kind of measurement, fifty might be spot on.

  8. Mosher:
    “In 1992, we installed the ADCP profiling instrument the in the hull of the MVOleander and have operated it continuously since then.”
    The readings are continuous , there are more than 52 readings a year. If you deal with data based on thermometers I can see how you could make the mistake.

  9. around 50 measurements a year?” [Steven Mosher @ 11:24]

    I check the air pressure in the tires of my car at least 2 times a year. It rarely changes so there seems little need to check more often.

  10. Let the character assassinations begin. The heretic. As is typical the watermelons won’t answer with data but with rhetoric.

  11. Mosher: “imagine the results were the opposite of what was claimed. Imagine they found a slow down . . . around 50 measurements a year?”

    Yeah, I imagine the warmists would have about 8 “peer reviewed” papers out, some [snip] like Rachel Madcow would have the liberal herd moooing about how we are “killing the ocean” and when someone rational tried to point out that data might be too sparse for “certainty” they’d be called holocaust deniers. After that, the readings would be “adjusted” and predictions of catastrophic earth killing current-change would be broadcast by the MSM and Al Gore would propose a “current tax” and then my tax dollars would get invested in ManBearPigs “green current company” which would go bankrupt while some the President called anyone that didn’t believe in “Current Change” an anti-science-flat-earth-denier.

    Did I miss something, or did that cover it for you?

  12. Can someone who understands this stuff comment on the following:

    According to World Ocean Review, the oceans hold approximately 38,000 gigatons of CO2.

    http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/

    According to the IEA, if I’m reading this correctly, our fossil fuels burning has emitted approximately 32 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    We know that some of our CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere, some is utilized by the biosphere, and some goes into the ocean (due to condensation and rainfall?)…

    My question: since 32/38000 = 0.0008; or… our total cumulative emissions in the past few hundred years is equal to 0.08% of the amount of CO2 stored in the oceans (less than 1/10th of 1%, how can our emissions have any appreciable impact on marine life? Is the ocean ‘that’ sensitive to less than 1/10th of 1%?

    What am I missing?

    Thanks!

  13. The Gulf Stream is a laminar flow of a large mass of water, not turbulent, so each measurement will be highly reliable and of far greater significance than a single thermometer reading.

  14. ‘directly measured’ you see that is where he goes wrong , only ‘model’ data is of real value

  15. SDB says:
    March 4, 2014 at 12:17 pm
    What am I missing?
    Thanks! 000

    Religion and Funding are what you are missing SDB, you are on the Scientific side.
    regards

  16. Steven Mosher says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:24 am
    around 50 measurements a year?

    From the ,pdf copy of the Rossby et.al paper:
    Key to the above results is the ability to monitor the ocean with high horizontal resolution on a repeat and regular basis.The ADCP enables us to scan ocean currents at high horizontal resolution, here every 2.4km (16 knot vessel speed × 5 min ensemble-averaged profiles).

    Read their paper for the extended description of how their data is reduced and presented.

  17. When I went to engineering school they taught us KE=1/2 m V^2. Does it take energy to move this water and are changes part of the earth’s total energy balance?

  18. But this is exactly what has been underway at the University of Rhode Island and Stony Brook University for the last 20 years: measurement of the strength of the Gulf Stream. And according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers find no evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.

    {Warmist meme]The measurement process must not be right if it doesn’t match pre-ordained models.[/Warmist meme]

    :)

  19. “Resourceguy says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Direct observation and model error evaluation are so last century and non-consensus.”

    Nowadays you could even call it Pre-Science!

  20. SasjaL says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:27 am

    If the Gulf Stream is getting slower, then it will be colder not only in UK/Eire but also in Scandinavia. In the latter region we’re missing that kind of cold at the moment …”

    The warming effect of the gulf stream is easily overwhelmed by the temperature of the air masses transported into our region and in this respect Western and Northern Europe have been relative lucky this winter because the low solar activity responsible for “blocking” in and a split core of the Polar jet in combination with a (still) positive AMO) got us on the path of air masses coming in from the South South West all winter without any Arctic or Siberian air masses reaching our area. The relative warm Atlantic triggered the heavy rains we saw in the UK and the wild weather in Southern Europe. At the same time in the USA and Canada the blocking was (is) responsible for a continuous influx of cold Arctic air. Just realize that the landmass of the USA is only 2.5% and Western Europe is only 1%. (2% including Russia). Although the winter in Western Europe was balmy, Russia and Eastern Europe including former Yugoslavia had a cold snowy winter, just like Scotland with so much snow that the ski lifts were totally buried.
    Both in the US and Western Europe people think they live in “The Center of the World” and every change in weather is a sign of climate change.

    Well, our history tells a totally different story. The heaviest storms happened with CO2 below 350 ppm, the warmest period in the past century took place during the 30’s and the warmest period during the past .1.000 years was the Medieval Warmth Period. Non of the temperature records from the 30’s have been surpassed during the second half of the past century and the past 14 years of this century. We had many cold periods, the last one called the Little Ice Age and all signs point to a new cold period for the simple reason of the PDO and AMO going negative, bringing us the weather we had in the seventies when the world, including the CIA thought we were entering a new ice age. Over the past thousand years the Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Dalton and Maunder minimum have been identified and those periods were very bad news for our populations and brought them the pandemics (black plague) and famines whereas the Medieval warmth period was a time of wealth and prosperity allowing our ancestors the to build the beautiful Cathedrals in Europe and the vineyards in England.

    The Western world, 3% of the World landmasses is the home of an alarmist neurotic and psychotic public. This public has the highest consumption rates of pharmacuetical medication, tranquilizers and legal and/or illegal drugs and because they all believe they live in the center of the Global civilization (many of them even believe the sun is orbiting the earth) they believe they can control the weather and stop the natural evolution and change of the environment.
    The sum of the worst mental cases (we have a lot of them) believe human kind = our civilization, has become a threat to the planet and here lies the cause of all the absurd claims made about CO2 and the hysterical claims about the weather, sea level rise, mass extinctions of polar bears and other species even though our observations show none of this is happening.

    These people are on a continuous “trip” and hallucinate about the new Utopia where everything is controlled, even the number of inhabitants and Gaia is their new master.

    Of course some clever cookies have found way’s to make money out of the drug addicts and managed to politicize the entire subject securing an endless flow of state funding.

    As a result our science has been corrupted and no sane argument comes through.
    No wonder it is difficult to have a level exchange of opinion because a psychotic and neurotic public doesn’t listen and lost any ground for reason.

    As a result of their practices our energy infra structure has arrived on the brink of collapse (it’s going bankrupt) and so is our economy.

    All we need now is a new ice age, a pandemic or a collapse of our economy and our energy infra structure, whatever comes first so we get rid of them.

    Those of us who see this coming will prepare.
    Those who believe the world is in for a thermogeddon won’t

    I am convinced that very soon we will be back in times ruled by the basic law of life, the survival of the fittest.

    The addicts won’t make it.

  21. The clear open water currently extending well north of Iceland to Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya is a clear indication that a very large volume of warm water from the Gulf Stream is still quite happily making its way into the far reaches of the Norwegian and Barents Sea, and not stopping short due to any hypothesised/modelled slowing of said current.

    Naughty nature playing nasty tricks on the climastrologists/carbon cultists again by defying their robust ocean circulation models.

  22. Direct observations always trump speculations based on inferred relationships and fancy modeling results.

  23. Steve Mosher asks a good question. Woud we reject this study if the results were oposite, since it is based on what appears to be a tiny number of measurements?
    I reject the premise of the GS slowing in any significant or unprecedented fashion because it has been highly variable in prior studies and specifically that a few cms. of change in shoreline is not going to impact a deep ocean current much at all in the first place.

  24. Obviously their instrumentation is not as sensitive as thermometers. I’m sure if they had better instrumentation they’d find that the Gulf Stream is slowing by 0.01425 knotts a year. Disaster is on the loom, more grant $ for better instrumentation is needed.

  25. R. de Haan on March 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    Yes, agree. We sometimes talk here about “Russian winter“, when we get hit by Sibirean weather systems.

  26. This does not make sense. Higher gulf stream flow means more heat transported to the Arctic and less Arctic sea ice. By contrast slowdown in the gulf stream will lead to Arctic ice recovery. Alternation between periods of stronger and weaker gulf stream flow probably constitutes the main element of the AMO.

  27. @SDB

    …My question: since 32/38000 = 0.0008; or… our total cumulative emissions in the past few hundred years is equal to 0.08% of the amount of CO2 stored in the oceans (less than 1/10th of 1%, how can our emissions have any appreciable impact on marine life? Is the ocean ‘that’ sensitive to less than 1/10th of 1%?

    What am I missing?…

    (Puts Global Warming hat firmly on)

    What you are missing is the tipping point. We are now on the edge of stability, according to my upside-down balanced wine-bottle model, and another sugar-loaded evil fizzy drink can will cause the entire Gulf Stream to halt in its course and start running backwards. I don’t have any data to back this up, but suppose I’m right? I conservatively estimate that this will cost humanity $200 tn(modeled), or about 4 times the Earth’s yearly GDP. Plus, if it starts WW3, it will cost 5bn lives(estimate).

    Can you afford to take the risk? Think of the children! Join my crusade for sealed Cola drinking rooms with carbon capture equipment installed NOW!!!…

    signed

    DG (Director, Hermetically-Sealed Halls Corp and Lime-Water Bubbling Equipment Inc.)

    PS Donations accepted from all political parties. (Cash in unmarked bills, or unaudited grants, please)

  28. Mosher writes “around 50 measurements a year?”

    But surely jests. Each “measurement” is something like the equivalent of a “global temeperature measurement” which itself is made up of many individual regional measurements gridded and averaged across the whole globe. So in that sense the equivalent would be we only get one “global temperature measurement” per day.

    Now why would you wonder that? Provoking discussion? Or something else?

  29. Is anyone actually counting on the Warmists even acknowledging this paper and its data? They likely see the slow down of the Gulf Stream caused by man-made carbon dioxide as solid fact by now so the observational data must be wrong and this Rossby guy, if he even exists, is just a Koch-paid anti-science denier. Or, maybe the current is just decelerating everywhere data has not been collected.

  30. Mosher writes “around 50 measurements a year?”

    How many measurements did Franklin use to map the gulf-stream?

  31. would seem that if the GS is slowing, measuring a difference over time at a few points would suffice just to show a change. Unless there is some severe changing of the channeling (a widening or narrowing of the stream’s width or depth), it doesn’t really need a lot of simultaneous data points to show increases or decreases over time. More is always better, but in this case, more measurements in the same places over longer periods is more better…and that is what was done. Correct me if I’m missing something.

  32. Off Topic, but I think you all should know that Global Warming is likely to wake up ancient frozen pathogens. Giant prehistoric germs will roam the world, rending our flesh with their enormous teeth.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/30000-year-old-virus-from-permafrost-is-reborn/5296436

    We’re doomed.

    (Also, we’re getting more extreme weather, allegedly. Not clear how this will affect the Germs From The Dawn Of Time.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/climate-extremes-increasing-carbon-dioxide-levels-rise-report/5295876)

  33. SDB Mar 4 12:17pm asks “since … our total cumulative emissions in the past few hundred years is equal to 0.08% of the amount of CO2 stored in the oceans (less than 1/10th of 1%, how can our emissions have any appreciable impact on marine life? Is the ocean ‘that’ sensitive to less than 1/10th of 1%?

    What am I missing?“.

    As I understand it, there is an ocean surface “mixed” layer, some tens of metres thick, into which the CO2 mixes quite quickly. Transport from there to deeper parts of the ocean takes a lot longer. The CO2 therefore has a much larger effect in the surface layer than as per your calcs.

    However, I would ask whether the impact of of the CO2 on marine life could in fact be a net positive. I’m sure that many organisms would relish the extra CO2.

  34. And as a note of intrest the news article that Iinked to in the first of my comment above is from year 2006 and in it Dr. Rossby is cited sayin that 14 years worth of data has already been colleceted so add the time gone by since then and update the number to more than 21 year of the same now.

  35. “50 measurements a year” doesn’t mean the measurement of current in one spot. From the context of the article and press release it is clear that each transit of the Gulf Stream while continuously measuring is considered “one measurement”.

    Think “50 transit lines per year” rather than 50 point measurements.

  36. Steven Mosher says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:24 am

    “The instrument, which measures the velocity of water moving beneath the ship down to more than 600 meters, has collected some 1,000 measurements of the Gulf Stream since it was installed in late 1992.”

    imagine the results were the opposite of what was claimed. Imagine they found a slow down.

    around 50 measurements a year?

    =================
    You failed to include the following sentence in your quote:
    ” …. Doppler current profiler (ADCP) attached to a ship, the freighter Oleander, which makes weekly trips across the Gulf Stream from New Jersey to Bermuda. …”

    Can you see how “around 50 measurements per year” is understandable?

    You write “imagine the results were the opposite of what was claimed. Imagine they found a slow down.” You have quite an imagination.

  37. Charlie A;
    Think “50 transit lines per year” rather than 50 point measurements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It is also a measurement of one thing at one place on earth over 20 years. We’re not trying to calculate an average ocean current index for the whole earth where we don’t know if a rise in one spot is off set by a decrease in another spot. Just the Gulf Stream at THAT spot. Unless the data is highly variable, and it doesn’t sound like it is, I for one am OK with 50 per year.

  38. To my comment above about gigatons of CO2…

    I think I incorrectly interpreted the approximately 32 gigatons as cumulative over the entire course of human fossil fuel use, when in reality that number is for 2012 alone. See here:

  39. It’s really rather simple physics. With warming, the seawater becomes less viscous and the current speeds up. It is with cooling that the current slows down because it becomes more viscous. Sediment studies from South of Florida clearly show that warm and cold periods have fast and slow currents, respectively. It is simply wishful-thinking that warming would slow the current, it fits their political agenda. Idiots, all.

  40. daddylonglegs says:
    March 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm
    Alternation between periods of stronger and weaker gulf stream flow probably constitutes the main element of the AMO

    ————————————

    That is exactly what I thought. It is simply the best match with global and local temperatures and Arcitc sea ice.

  41. I think we need more retired professors publishing because they have less fear of being blackballed by the global warming movement for telling the “truth”.

    The Gulf Stream not slowing down also means that the Winds which drive it (the trade winds in the equatorial Atlantic forcing it into the Gulf of Mexico and into the mid-depth channel next to Florida, and the mid-latitude winds coming off of North America moving it back across the north Atlantic), have also not slowed down or changed.

    Mid-depth ocean depth down to 400 metres is required for this type of current.

    https://goo.gl/maps/m63H6

  42. Darwins quote of ‘survival of the fittest’ was not about brute force it was referring to the breeding of one generation to another and so on. That is why the Nazis killed children and adults, breaking the line of biological inheritance. But in last glacial periods there were warmer periods firstly and the melting of the ice caps introduced fresh water into the gulf stream and it diverted the warmer currents from the Northern hemisphere countries and they froze. Some idiot scientists suggested a few years ago placing huge fans under the sea to keep the gulf stream circulating? Talk about windmills being bird choppers, what would they do to fish?

  43. I have always thought that scientists have tried to convince people through subterfuge that the planet was warming and their real fear was another glacial age, that we are overdue for. This would have a drastic effect on human kind in the Northern Hemisphere where the globes population is mainly concentrated. And on energy supplies.

  44. Don’t let the hockey team get their hands on that data. You never know what adjustments might occur.

  45. daddylonglegs says on March 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm:

    “This does not make sense. Higher gulf stream flow means more heat transported to the Arctic and less Arctic sea ice. By contrast slowdown in the gulf stream will lead to Arctic ice recovery. Alternation between periods of stronger and weaker gulf stream flow probably constitutes the main element of the AMO.”

    Except for invoking an imaginary AMO you have it right. Arctic warming today proceeds twice as fast as climate models predict. It is not greenhouse warming because it is caused by warm Gulf Stream water carried into the Arctic Ocean by currents. And because it is not greenhouse warming it is the only warming going on today while the rest of the world is enjoying a hiatus-pause of warming for the thirteenth year in a row. That pause is caused by the failure of the greenhouse theory of warming which predicts that putting carbon dioxide in the air as we do should warm the atmosphere. Arctic warming itself started at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. The start of the warming was sudden and there was no concomitant increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide which rules out the greenhouse effect as a cause. It paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is apparently still active. This on-again, off-again, on-again behavior is caused by changes in north Atlantic current flow patterns. But what has happened in nature before can happen again so I don’t rule out the possibility of another cold spell like what happened in the middle of the last century. To learn more download my paper from Climate Etc.

  46. I would not expect the pace of the current to vary much.

    I would be most interested in the total volume of the waterflow at speed over time.

    Wishful thinking?

  47. UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
    March 4, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    “It is interesting to note that H. Thomas Rossby at URI is the son of the legendary Carl Gustav Rossby, after whom Rossby waves are named.”

    ——————

    Thanks for that bit of info – the first thing I thought of when I saw the author’s name is if there was a connection to the legendary Rossby.

  48. Here is another paper by Rossby et al. from 2010:

    http://www.po.gso.uri.edu/rafos/research/ole/Files/Rossby_etal_JMR_2010.pdf

    In it they compare data from the first oceanographic research expedition ever (HMS Challenger in 1873) with modern conditions. The Challenger data on water flow in the Gulf Stream (derived from temperature profiles) is identical to modern values (though there is a 15% uncertainty due to the somewhat more primitive measurement methods of the 1870’s).

  49. There’s only one reason for the existence of the Gulf stream: transporting excess heat from the tropics to the cold of the pole(s). In fact, the Gulf stream is the predominant transporter in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Claiming that it “could” slow down is like saying that heat could stop flowing from to cold places.

  50. SasjaL says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:27 am
    These people are on a continuous “trip” and hallucinate about the new Utopia where everything is controlled, even the number of inhabitants and Gaia is their new master. … As a result our science has been corrupted and no sane argument comes through. No wonder it is difficult to have a level exchange of opinion because a psychotic and neurotic public doesn’t listen [b]and lost any ground for reason.[/b]
    >>>>

    Don’t want to ‘alarm’ you SasjaL, but they did not ‘lose’ any grounds for reason. 90% of them never had it, to begin with, and were never going to develop it. And that includes a significant fraction of university graduates. Sad, but true.

    The reality of the situation is that most of us are expecting ordinary people to make sense of and to understand thinking, and how to do it systematically. They don’t have that talent or capacity in them, and they aren’t going to improve.

    It’s a conundrum, because the majority, who can’t understand the subject, get to elect savvy manipulators who play them with ruthless efficiency and thus get to make the policy ‘decisions’.

    I’m sure you see the functional problem with that process, or rather, the dysfunctional potential of it, that we see expressed, today, a result of it.

    Because they don’t actually try apply themselves to understand AGW in the way we do. But they still profess that it is something which they are really, really, [b]reeeally[/b] ‘concerned’ about. Well, shock horror, they clearly aren’t serious enough to care to know much about it, despite its end of the world potential.

    It’s all a bit much you see

    So becomes our problem; firstly, because we do know something about it, and secondly, because in their naive innocence, they’re easily manipulated by CAGW Al’s daft and dishonest propaganda, and cheap-shot dishonest terms like, ‘denier’.

    Plus wonton deviates like Dr Suzuki make a nice living off this tremendous vegetable like gullibility of the oh so concerned “but please, you take care of it”, dimness of the general public.

    Yes, its a downer that most people are like that. So we try to educate them, and that has some limited success. But if we get annoyed with them being so dim and unwilling to learn about what they vote about, this still does not help.

    We have to keep it simple.

    We can’t argue them into the ground, with data and stats, because they can’t function at that level.

    The only level they may understand is simplified but empirically correct graphics and videos.

    Because that is largely the outer envelope of their ability perceive.

    And that is what the CAGW ratbags and govt have been using to sway them and misrepresent the entire issue.

    And we continue trying to speak to them like they can understand the topic. But they majority did not lose any ground to reason, they never had it to lose in the first place.

    So what should we [b]do[/b] about it, given these same people are actually voting in and out the governments of the entire developed world?

  51. Arno Arrak says:
    March 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    daddylonglegs says on March 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm:

    “This does not make sense. Higher gulf stream flow means more heat transported to the Arctic and less Arctic sea ice. By contrast slowdown in the gulf stream will lead to Arctic ice recovery. Alternation between periods of stronger and weaker gulf stream flow probably constitutes the main element of the AMO.”

    Except for invoking an imaginary AMO you have it right. Arctic warming today proceeds twice as fast as climate models predict. It is not greenhouse warming because it is caused by warm Gulf Stream water carried into the Arctic Ocean by currents… [quote curtailed]

    There is data from Levitus showing very close correlation between water temperatures in the Barents sea at 100-150m depth, and the AMO, posted here in 2009:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%c2%b0c/

    This correlation is the main reason for my belief that the AMO, whatever that represents, correlates with changes in strength of gulf stream flow to the Arctic since only ocean currents can change temperatures at 100-150m by up to 4degrees C, not weather only.

  52. It’s news to me that “sea levels are rising”. I have a personal concern about this, because when we get a higher than usual tide, I have to pump out our basement. We live on a salt marsh, which is on Boston harbor. Our normal tide range is about 9.5 feet. I have a very well calibrated tide gauge: 9.5 feet, 10.5 feet, 11.5 feet, and our backyard stays dry. At 12 feet, our backyard
    gets wet. At 12.5, the water reaches the basement door. At 13, I start the pumps and get out the mop. No, the seas are not rising, as far as I can tell. If they did, I would have to pump out our basement at EVERY high tide, not just the occasional 12+ footer, accompanied by some low atmospheric pressure and NE winds, pushing the water in towards us, and over 13 feet. So I see nothing different, nothing threatening, and no significant sea level rise. If I do, and this global warming thing works out, I have a plan; cement in the basement door, fish off the porch, tie up our boat in the back yard rather than the harbor, and enjoy my new, increased-in-value, “waterfront” property. I bet my taxes go up……,

  53. davidmhoffer says:
    March 4, 2014 at 3:34 pm
    Charlie A;
    Think “50 transit lines per year” rather than 50 point measurements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It is also a measurement of one thing at one place on earth over 20 years. We’re not trying to calculate an average ocean current index for the whole earth where we don’t know if a rise in one spot is off set by a decrease in another spot. Just the Gulf Stream at THAT spot. Unless the data is highly variable, and it doesn’t sound like it is, I for one am OK with 50 per year.

    I concur. A fine application of the Nyquist sampling theorem. If the effect you are looking for has a periodicity expected in the months to decades time frame, 1 measurement per week is more than sufficient and may even be a little bit of oversampling since 1 measurement a week is sufficient to capture a period of two weeks in the signal reconstruction.

  54. “Steven Mosher says:

    March 4, 2014 at 11:24 am

    imagine the results were the opposite of what was claimed. Imagine they found a slow down.”

    I imagine, if all of the actual measurements being taken actually confirmed all of the models, projections and predictions ( rather than the opposite) we would be in a lot of trouble in the future.
    However, based on almost all the data coming in we don’t have to imagine. Quit living in the imaginary “Model” world and come back to reality.

  55. You write “imagine the results were the opposite of what was claimed. Imagine they found a slow down.” You have quite an imagination.

    Filled with dancing strawmen…

  56. Unmentionable says: March 5, 2014 at 3:11 am

    Didn’t spot your comment earlier …

    You expressed my line of thought in a different way …

    As I see it, it’s partly an educational issue and I have nearby example of how the quality has deteriorated over the years. Our (in Sweden) current school system was created primarily out of politicians who back then (early 1900) thought of the nation’s best, believe it or not actually many left-wing’ers, before the mandatory school system started. The term “Talent Reserve” was coined by one of our country fathers (Per-Albin Hansson, Lab.), when they suspected that there were people out in the country, who couldn’t afford education and at the same time had the potential for learning and later could contribute to the country’s welfare. The term is now used as a derogatory term for people who can’t complete thought processes or just have “bad luck” when trying … (like the pseudo Green movement …)

    Here, primary school is controlled at municipal level, then given the political coloration of local governance. Despite the local responsibility, some municipalities (ex. Gothenburg) with Labour Party / Greens as governance, have the habit of blaming their very own bad performed decisions on seated right wing government … (a.k.a. “psychological projection” …)

    That our functional government controlled school came under municipal responsibility and control, was due to a former Minister of Education – Göran Persson (later “Prime Minister”), which even to this day engaged in some subversive activities (including massive theft from several public pension funds to pay mismanaged large banks’ self-inflicted situation, without any demand of refunding – ie. general earmarked funds, which led to today’s Retirement Game System, mostly controlled by finance institutions – high fees and low returns (w. politicians’ acceptance) … Left wing voters here didn’t and still don’t object to this behaviour …) The “modernization” of our school system led to days authorized teacher being out competed salary wise by cheaper and unauthorized “teachers” (in several cases wannabes with political ambitions …).

    It’s evident that the majority of these unqualified teachers themselves lack important skills, such as pedagogy and even basic knowledge of the subject, in order to teach them. In some communities they have systematically provided access to “teachers” who lacks qualifications, in order to circumvent the hiring genuine teacher full time … An economic cheaper solution, however short term, which is a hard real cost to society in the long run and is very difficult to compensate (lost generations …). Have been talking to parents, who are in despair at being unable to question the lack of educational situation (like in climate issues) for the kids, without the kids risking lower grades …

    I belong to the fortunate here, that had only qualified teachers throughout my education in both primary and secondary school. In the latter, we became even encouraged by teachers in science to think for ourselves and draw conclusions from what we should have learned in the past and even questioning teachers, if necessary, provided that one could specify applicable argument! (Don’t forget the often important overall picture! Without it, the chance of missing something important, is huge …). This means that I (and my fellow student’s) even perceive flaws in statements from “skeptical” scientists in areas such as climate science, containing deficiencies in mathematics, logic, statistics and even in fundamental physics.

    We even see the school degeneration effect in the media, as in many other countries, where standards of qualification together with professional pride seems to have disappeared and short story writers can make their voices heard in messages disguised as news … (media as tool of politics instead of being genuine scrutineers of politics and power …) Their use of language in terms of grammar and vocabulary? Clearly debatable, even if they usually are not interested in such a discussion … (Some actually defend it as their liberty to express themselves in any way they prefer. A logic that don’t last when presenting news, that are supposed to contain stuff free from politics and religious believes. For me more of a definition of a novel writer rather then a journalist …)

    In the big picture, then humanity can’t afford inhumane people/organizations/public agencies, who really are classified as criminals under legal system that exists, can still be able to perform damage to the society, like they have already done and will continue to try to perform (ex Gore, Obama, W. Bush, The Club of Rome, The Bilderberg Group, EPA, CIA, EU and any associated of these …). The self-proclaimed “Diplomat status” that apply to persons of concerned, is used up since very long time, as I see it …Here in Europe, we are witnessing the EU administration/corruption grow like a cancerous tumor, with shrinking benefits and higher economical/social cost to society in return.

    If nobody is interested to do something, nothing will happen/change!

    … And the “leadership” expect this …

    Some will just settle and say “vote differently“, due to ignorance and/or intent. It’s not enough, as a new generation of truly honest and serious politicians are required, when there are no real options available today high up in the political hierarchy … (Sadly enough, it appears that “the lipstick on the pig” story even applies at local level …) There are to many “sticky fingers” involved, who rather want to act as pure consumers at the expense of others and don’t like to contribute something real (non symbolic) to society – The Parasite Syndrome!

  57. So I emailed the research paper to RI Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the head shriekers of AGW, and here was his pathetic response:
    “Dear Mr. XXXX:

    Thank you for writing to me about climate change. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important issue.

    There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and that it is driven primarily by human activity. I recognize that those who hold a skeptical view of climate change can manipulate the latest data to show different results, as they have with other peer-reviewed analyses that have been released over the years. However, the fact of the matter is that countless studies, surveys, and reports have been published about the high percentage of climate scientists whose research has demonstrated an anthropogenic role in global climate change. Most of the world’s leading climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that human activities are a main driver of global climate change, including 18 premier U.S. scientific organizations and nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations.

    Perhaps the most notable proof of the scientific consensus regarding man-made climate change is the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the science of climate change. It expresses over 95 percent certainty that humans are the primary cause of climate change, which is up from 90 percent in the previous IPCC report. In each of the five reports the IPCC has issued, scientists have linked climate change to human activity. The new report contains more than 7,000 pages of information and involves over 830 scientists from 85 countries, making it one of the most comprehensive scientific studies and one of the largest scientific collaborations in history. If hundreds of leading researchers from across the world can repeatedly find consensus on this issue, surely the scientific evidence must be compelling.

    Climate change poses a serious threat to our health, safety, economy, and security. Because of climate change, some types of extreme weather events are becoming more severe and frequent across the globe and temperature records are routinely being broken. Emissions of heat-trapping pollution have also led to rising sea levels and warmer, more acidic oceans that have compromised our fisheries and harmed marine life. For a coastal state like Rhode Island, these threats are especially dangerous, and they will only get worse if we do not address this threat. I believe the science is convincing, and I consider the environmental and economic implications of climate change are among the most important public policy issues confronting our country and the world.

    Once again, thank you for contacting me about climate change. Although you and I may disagree on this issue, I appreciate having the benefit of your views and you can be sure that I will keep your concerns in mind. I hope you will stay in touch about this, or any other matter of importance to you.

    Sincerely,

    Sheldon Whitehouse
    United States Senator

  58. The warmists make pompous doom laden pronouncements without bothering to go out and do some plain empirical observation, such as used to be known as science before they themselves highjacked the term. Why am I not surprised?

Comments are closed.