by frog
A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.
However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.
Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.
The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.
The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.
No doubt those of my readership who hold the belief that global warming is a scam will be dancing in the streets, particularly after my last post. I prefer to look at the coming decade as the end of the golden weather. I plan to savour every minute of it.
Published in Campaign | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, May 2nd, 2008
Tags: AMO, atlantic multidecadel oscillation, Frog, frogblog, german, global warming, green, nature, new zealand, party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
These scientists, eh. Whatever will they discover next?
Just so long as noone gets **too** serious about long-term predictions of the behavior of complex systems. Oh, wait….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the “cooling will counter global warming”, then does that simply mean temperatures will only remain stable?
Will the cooling/stabilisation only be restricted to the Atlantic area of the world?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…and will stabilisation respond to taxation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Damn it! I was looking forward at no longer needing to buy tickets to Queensland and Fiji to get decent weather.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The complexity of the models and uncertainty makes it easy for people to conclude “well we don’t know enough to be sure of anything”… which seemed to be BP’s point, however scientists have their snouts pressed closer to the problem than we do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It doesn’t matter which way the global warming debate goes, the Greens are all about sustainability. That’s a much more important issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>however scientists have their snouts pressed closer to the problem than we do
And their opinion is divided…..and the models they produce often don’t sync with emerging data….so, we’re left to assume that many scientists may not understand this issue quite as well as is being made out, which has been my position all along.
New article in New Scientists yesterday….
“”POLITICIANS seem to think that the science is a done deal,” says Tim Palmer. “I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.”
Palmer is a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, and he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC’s predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC’s predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate.
On top of this, some climate scientists believe that even the IPCC’s global forecasts leave much to be desired. …
“
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whatever way you read that it means a warning light flashing, certainly not a green light as some will try to spin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and bush and the oil and coal lobby want weak climate and environmental legislation and policy, and lazy people dont want to change their lifestyles, and groups like the buisness roundtable and so on want buisness as usual.
what is your point blue peter – vote national, act or united future if you want to support skeptic or GW denier positions.
talk to Dr. R.K. Pachauri when he is here for world environment day if you have questions about the IPPC, or go spam a climate skeptic forum, you aren’g going to drap people back to skeptic positions here.
we need to change, it is rather simple…eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“green light”…was that some sort of very subtle double entendre on the Green party blog or am I reading too much into it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>what is your point blue peter
I would have thought that was obvious.
>>vote
It doesn’t matter which way we vote, nothing we do makes the slightest bit of difference in terms of AGW.
>>go spam a
I see. Warmist position = not spam. Gothcha….
>>we need to change, it is rather simple
It is, indeed, rather simple. Simplistic….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I shall post on this soon, and RealClimate will have something up at the weekend, apparently.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are you Gareth Renowden then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
According to my mother, I am.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So BOSH is GR…I thought hot-topic’s popularity had extended to the aristocracy myself…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The BOSH moniker is one I use elsewhere. A reference to Sir Henry at Rawlinson End, the meisterweerk of the late, great Vivian Stanshall. I used it the first time I commented here, long before the birth of Hot Topic, and my browser never forgets…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have a general question.
How does one become certified to produce and sell carbon credits?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Easiest way in NZ is to plant some trees on land that was unforested in 1990, then register them with the govt’s forestry scheme. You’ll need to pay to have them monitored, but you’ll be earning credits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Last year, catastrophic global warming was predicted to take off in 2009, now it’s 2020?
Hmmmmm I suppose somewhere between 2017 and 2019 they’ll bump it back to 2030
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How about international? Could I buy up some cheap third world land somewhere and plant trees?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes. But then you have to take responsibility for the trees staying there. Not trivial. That was what Coldplay got wrong (Google Coldplay carbon offsets mango).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pop quiz
Who said this less than two months ago?
While many people now accept the consensus on climate change may be wrong, it is because evidence now seems to show change is happening faster than we thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dunno who it was, but they’re right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some believe there is an external gravitational force (outside of our solar system) that is exerting more influence upon our system as it comes in on a polar orbit of our sun,that’s why the americans put that low powered radio telescope down at their base in antartica,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If it should be getting colder but it only stays the same, it’s sort of like watching the a stock price level off after going up, rather than going down. It means that there’s upward pressure and the next move is more likely to be to a new high.
Can’t imagine that this is unfamiliar to folks on the business as usual side of this discussion but stranger discontinuities of understanding have manifested themselves.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It was Frog
Doesn’t really stack up with this post, though does it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It does, if you realise what this study is actually about, and really saying. I’m working on a post about that now…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This whole subject (climate change) highlights some interesting, and unfortunate (in my opinion) aspects of human psychology.
Basically, many (most?) people only listen to what they want to hear. Optomists see a rosy future, pessimists see the end of the world, and everyone believes they are a realist (viewing things as they really are).
I’m not sure why we bother to fund science; if scientists say something we don’t want to hear, we simply don’t listen. If they say something we want to hear, it means all other views must be wrong. Objectivity doesn’t come into the equation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Seems to me this heading is wrong. The report actually only predicts that warming in the North Atlantic will stall. It predicts that the world as a whole will keep getting warmer through that period. See http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/05/04/cool-for-cats/#more-385
Because of the overwhelming number of books and periodicals coming from Europe and the east coast of North America, it’s quite common for people to make the mistake of assuming global patterns based on North Atlantic trends. For example, the Medieval warm period is oftem mistakenly thought of as a global warm period, but it was actually only a North Atlantic warm period. The world as a whole was cooler then than it is now – only the North Atlantic wasn’t
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, so why do the media reports about global warming mostly focus on a small in area of Greenland and the West Antarctic peninsula and not the whole world equally?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If I had to guess, I would say it is because those areas will have the most impact on sea level and water solubility etc? I don’t know if those *are* the areas with those characteristics, but if they aren’t, then the media should be reporting on the ones that *are*.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I heard an opinion that all this global warming issue was a political thing from a beginning. Anyway in order to properly judge the climate changes, scientists should have meteorological data for at least 4 or 5 centuries, or even more. But they don’t have it, so in my opinion they plain and simple can not tell if this is a global warming or a mere ordinary fluctuation of weather.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What about Paleoclimate data?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
page 467, perhaps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)