So what on earth is the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) you ask?
It is the 'conveyor belt' that brings warmer water up into the North Atlantic - the gulf stream that makes the UK's climate considerably warmer than it really ought to be. Full story is from The Telegraph.
The MOC "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."
And scientists do not understand quite how reductions in salinity (as caused by fresh water run-off from melting ice sheets and glaciers) may additionally affect these long term ocean circulation trends.
So, although the earth will continue to warm as a whole, probably as a direct consequence of our CO2 emissions, those of us in the UK, and elsewhere around the North Atlantic, are probably going to see little or no overall temperature increase until 2015.
2 comments:
Here are two unfortunate truths related to the Global Climate Change debate:
1) Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth—Vladimir Lenin
2) Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem—Joseph Stalin
I read a recent comment the other day on a Global Warming post responding to the question: “How Will We Know When Climate Change has Stopped? The commenter lamented that no one is seriously suggesting that we can stop climate change completely; but maybe we can stop catastrophic climate change before it's too late. . I should have re-engaged with the question: How Will We Know When Catastrophic Climate Change has Stopped?, but didn’t because all I read and hear is phrased—Stop/Halt Global Climate Change. Until we all start Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change, the Lenins and Stalins among us will get their way.
My invited co-poster Dave is more (though everything is relative) concerned than many with the fine details of the science of climate change, and hence picks up and shares more here on this topic than I do.
My views are quite clearly stated, which is why I prefer to spend more time on mitigating and reduction where I think I can than debating the bigger picture, working on the basis that PMWNCC (Probably Man Worsened negative Climate Change) is worth acknowledging, and addressing where and when practical. Which, simplistically, means reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
I fully accept the little efforts I am making, and encouraging, are minor compared to some. And much greater efforts need to be made at a much grander scale in other areas, but I don't feel qualified enough to really weigh in as definitively as many often do, one way or the other.
However that does not stop me cranking an eyebrow at some things that just don't seem to add up (pro or con, in theory or practice).
And a huge concern of mine is how much of the ongoing debate plays with the majority of the general public.
Hence I am personally uncomfortable how each piece of the (less than certain) 'science' jigsaw is trotted out so definitively as with this Telegraph article. As with all things, stuff can go up or down, and each twist and turn seems to get pounced upon as 'evidence' to support certain advocacies and, just as certainly, to try and discredit others.
And the language can soon become emotive at the expense of reasonable debate.
You have pointed via two interesting links at some further discussions which, from my quick scan, do raise worthy questions on the value of having much broader overall strategic thinking by those at the top. The devil is, of course, in the details. And with many interconnected global democracies, highly active free media and a paucity of true international statespersons, the whole thing is not so far encouraging... at least to me.
In their frustration, some do seem to advocate the actions of dictators. Whilst others can invoke their names, often with fair cause, when it seems debate is being hijacked by those who will accept no other truth than their own.
The irony of all this is not lost on me, which is why I tend to stay away. You pick the battles you think you can fight effectively. For what it's worth, as moderator I do get twitchy when I see certain emotive names being used on my blog to push 'a' view, and will even more if it is in a perjorative sense at the expense of others in debate.
The other day (bearing in mind we are talking several days hence from this post) there was a BBC Newsnight piece that suggested the issue could be decided one way or the other by investing, to a factor of 1,000, more in the climate science (mainly by those who would enjoy the direct and immediate benefist of such largesse, which was enough to get my eyebrow cranking).
Hence I asked of the programme and David Miliband why then this investment was not made, bearing in mind the stakes. At least we would know (though I must say I had my doubts on the veracity of the claim, which did not trouble our national broadcaster) where we stand and what we are aiming at. Which would involve an answer to the question you pose. Sadly, none was forthcoming.
Maybe one, less than worthy, reason is that uncertainty still serves the interests of too many with ambitions only within their own lifetimes. And while I am not sure whether it was your namesake who first coined the strategy, one that tends to still work in keeping populations in line is 'divide and rule'.
Post a Comment