Month: February 2020

Study shows acceleration of global mean ocean circulation since 1990s

Map of prevailing trade winds over Earth [credit: Wikipedia]

A change to about 0.01% of the atmosphere is now claimed to be speeding up the oceans by making winds stronger. Really? They used to claim global warming was weakening the Pacific trade winds:
“The researchers predict another 10 percent decrease by the end of the 21st century. The effect, attributed at least in part to human-induced climate change, could disrupt food chains and reduce the biological productivity of the Pacific Ocean, scientists said.” (2006 report)

A study published today in the journal Science Advances, suggests global ocean circulation has accelerated during the past two decades, reports Phys.org.

The research team found that oceanic kinetic energy shows a statistically significant increase since early 1990s, calculating a 36-percent acceleration of global mean ocean circulation.

The trend is particularly prominent in the global tropical oceans, reaching depths of thousands of meters.

The deep-reaching acceleration of the ocean circulation is mainly induced by a planetary intensification of surface winds, authors said.

The study was led by Shijian Hu, who performed the work as a postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Janet Sprintall, an oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego who is a co-author of the paper. Hu is now a scientist at the CAS Key Laboratory of Ocean Circulation and Waves, at the Institute of Oceanology (IOCAS) in Qingdao, China.

“The magnitude and extent of the acceleration in ocean currents we detected throughout the global ocean and to 2000-meter (6,560 foot) depth was quite surprising,” said Sprintall. “While we expected some response to the increased winds over the past two decades, that the acceleration was above and beyond that was an unexpected response that is likely due to global climate change.”

Large-scale ocean circulation is the main dynamic process that redistributes ocean water mass and heat and plays an important role in Earth’s environment and climate system.

It regulates land temperatures, most notably in regions such as western Europe where a flow of relatively warm water makes the climate of cities such as Madrid warmer than cities such as New York, despite being at the same latitude.

Because of internal dynamic processes and natural variability, ocean circulation in different regions has different responses to global climate warming. And there is still a lack of systematic and continuous direct observations of the earth’s ocean circulation. Hence circulation trends have not been well-understood, study authors said.

A growing body of evidence suggests, though, that continuous greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities give rise to Earth’s energy imbalance and continuous ocean warming. Thus, it is essential to know what large-scale ocean circulation is going to be under the background of global warming, said study co-authors.

An international team of scientists from IOCAS, Scripps, NOAA and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia used ocean circulation and wind speed data from multiple sources, including observations from the global Argo network of robotic floats and numerical simulations, to investigate global mean ocean circulation and global mean sea surface wind speed.

They concluded that the recent acceleration is far greater than what would be explained by natural variability. The rest is induced by the influence of continuous greenhouse gas emissions.

Full report here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2vQNcWe

February 7, 2020 at 04:40AM

The Fight-Back Begins: Education Minister Gives British Universities Final Warning On Free Speech

The education secretary has given universities a final warning to guard free speech or face legislation.

In an article for The Times, Gavin Williamson says that universities must make clear that intimidation of academics by student or other protesters is unacceptable, issue strong sanctions and work with police to prosecute those who try to disrupt events.

He is considering greater regulation, possibly through law, if universities do not promote “unambiguous guidance” on academic freedom and free speech. One measure under consideration is to “clarify the duties” of students’ unions.

“Universities themselves could be doing much more in this area,” Mr Williamson writes. “The right to civil and non-violent protest is sacrosanct. However, intimidation, violence or threats of violence are crimes.

“Universities must make clear that intimidation is unacceptable and show a zero-tolerance approach to the perpetrators, applying strong sanctions and working with police where appropriate to secure prosecutions.”

He points to research in November which suggested that students wanted to hear a range of views. He adds: “If universities don’t take action, the government will. If necessary, I’ll look at changing the underpinning legal framework, perhaps to clarify the duties of students’ unions or strengthen free speech rights. I don’t take such changes lightly, but I believe we have a responsibility to do whatever necessary to defend this right.”

Universities have repeatedly claimed that there is no problem with free speech on campuses. Questions have been asked about the cancellation of talks by academics whose views are controversial with students.

Protests are sometimes led by campaigners who support gender self-identification. The feminist artist Rachel Ara had a talk at Oxford Brookes University cancelled at short notice in November after students accused her of prejudice against transgender people.

A seminar on criminal justice and gender issues was cancelled at the University of Essex after organisers said that trans activists had threatened to “obstruct” debate. Jo Phoenix, professor of criminology at the Open University, had been due to speak.

Last year the Open University cancelled a conference on prison reform after trans activists said that they would protest. The organisers had said that trans women in prison should be kept apart from biologically female inmates.

Mr Williamson says that too often “activists’ threats are able to shut down events”.

He also voices concern that universities have caved in to petitions of students and academics who oppose the research interests of others.

Full story (£)

The post The Fight-Back Begins: Education Minister Gives British Universities Final Warning On Free Speech appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2v9H7E6

February 7, 2020 at 04:40AM

Alex & Andy: Madness or Culture?

One of the best things about this website is the quality of comments under posts. See for example Jaime’s latest on Scottish summers and RCP8.5 or Paul’s on Boris Johnson’s promises on climate and electric vehicles.

Comments cover everything, from weather to battery technology to the real reason for Boris’s new-found green mania. Sometimes a promising strand in the thread is cut short unnoticed, like a Briffa Siberian larch lurking nervously behind a Mannly Stripbark Pine. For example, this exchange between Alex Cull and Andy West on the thread below Paul’s article, which I reproduce, together with a highly relevant comment from Barry Woods. More comments welcome.

ALEX CULL:

This is something I’ve been wondering about for some time, now. Some possibilities:

1) Politicians are stupid. We’ve all thought this, I’m sure, at some point or another. But is that strictly true? You don’t have to be a genius to see that a near-future mass rollout of EVs, a concurrent ban of petrol vehicles and gas boilers and ever more reliance on intermittent and non-dispatchable electricity generation will be a recipe for disaster and chaos. Not *all* of them surely could have taken a hard look at that prospect and been so dim as to think: nah, it’ll be all right?

2) So are they just deluded? Even ostensibly bright people, with degrees and all that, fall victim to the craziest ideas, as per Orwell’s dictum about intellectuals. However, I’m not totally convinced – these are politicians after all, and if nothing else, might not cold, hard self-interest inoculate them, to some extent? Could running the entire economy full-speed into a brick wall conceivably *not* be the sort of thing they’d want to be remembered for?

3) Could they be playing some sort of devious long game? Lying, in other words. Promote the lunacy in the short term, just to get the green zealots off their backs and steal the opposition parties’ thunder? Then start to reel it all back, once it becomes blindingly obvious even to the dimmest and least engaged members of the public that it’s not going to work? Again, I’m not entirely convinced. If this is some kind of clever 4D chess-type move, it’s also a very dangerous one, as their actions and signals *now* are doing damage, and the longer it goes on, the harder it will be to reverse. Would they really risk that?

4) Or could it just be short-termism? Look good now, hang the consequences later? Don’t think too much about what we could actually be facing in, say, 2030 or 2035. Get all the virtue-signalling and halo-polishing done now, while the country is still relatively prosperous, and leave a poisoned chalice for the opposition once the political tide has turned and everything has started to go belly-up?

Maybe one of the above? Or a combination? Or none of the above? What could it be?

ANDY WEST

Alex: None of the above. It’s a culture.

1) Not only is intelligence no defence against cultural belief, there’s some evidence that more intelligent people who are believers, are more culturally committed. Cognitive capability and knowledge is in service to cultural belief, so can better further this belief compared to less capable / knowledgeable people.

2) This is the closest, but still not in the sense of an individual delusion, which for example cold, hard self interest would typically counter as you say. Nor a medical delusion, cultural believers are perfectly normal in all respects; this is a feature of humanity not a bug and we’re all capable of cultural belief (and in fact several at once). However, cultures do impose a kind of group delusion, which subverts at the brain architecture level, so cannot be countered within individuals by logic or rational interests or such. As the subversion is subconscious, believers *honestly* and indeed passionately (uses emotive paths) believe, so they are not lying and they are not stupid.

3) This is essentially a conspiracy theory, albeit one that proposes a conspiracy against catastrophic climate change, not for it. Would require massively coordinated conscious lies by lots of orgs and individuals at all levels including the highest. Vanishingly unlikely, especially when there’s a much simpler explanation at hand – i.e. cultural belief. The latter coordinates *subconsciously*, it’s what cultures are for, so no lying required. Many, no doubt, are not full believers yet don’t actively disbelieve either, hence one could say they are to some extent pandering to the culture. But this is not actually a double-bluff or lying in that they still think it must be true, just they are just less than fully (emotively) committed. It is these latter folks that can be swayed, and even in the elite they out-number the emotively committed; Boris is very likely one such. In the general pop (i.e. not elite) of countries such as the UK, there are ways to tell that the vast majority of folks are not committed, probably >90% in the UK.

4) Essentially a variant of 3). Requires that there is a widespread conscious conspiracy with knowledge that it’s all not true, and within the elite too (where there are far more cultural believers). Far more likely that committed cultural belief is driving and convenient belief is pulled along in its wake. After all, this has happened endlessly throughout the entire history of homo-sapiens-sapiens. All religions, for a start. Many secular cultures too. Interestingly, strong cultures interact with each other, hence one can see the ‘shape’ of catastrophic climate change culture, via its profile across a wide range of nations having different religiosity. Hope to have some pieces on that soon.

BARRY WOODS

Alex- another simple answer to: Why Tories? Why Boris & climate change, now?.. Carrie Symonds – 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/16/carrie-symonds-warns-politicians-of-gigantic-climate-crisis-responsibility

(Boris wants an easy life)

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/3bgVgzT

February 7, 2020 at 02:58AM

BORIS IN DEEP WATER OVER UK CLIMATE CONFERENCE

This piece looks at the problems being faced by Boris Johnson in hosting the next big climate conference in Glasgow later in the year.  Here is a flavour of the article:

"Regardless of one’s views on climate change, one should welcome the fact that Boris Johnson removed Claire Perry O’Neill* from her post as president of this year’s Conference of the Parties (COP 26), which will be held in Glasgow. He is at last trying to exercise the power of patronage." 
*She was the Climate Minister who stood down at the last election.
Read the rest to find the details 

via climate science

https://ift.tt/2S6GSm9

February 7, 2020 at 01:30AM