Slowing ocean circulation prompts more Mann bashing from deniers at WUWT Update: The Rahmstorf paper is getting more important by the minute. Now there are not one, not two, but three protest articles by Anthony Watts in the space of a few hours. You'll be surprised (probably not) that what Anthony thinks refutes the study actually lends support See below .Sou 6:30 am 26 March 2015 new paper in Nature Climate Change by Stefan Rahmstorf and others, which is getting a lot of protest from deniers. This signifies that it is potentially an important paper. Stefan has written about it at realclimate.org . several years of work described in papers by Jason Box and colleagues. They have put together reconstructions of the Greenland ice going back decades - from 1840 to 2010. reconstructions of sea surface temperature based on work by Michael E Mann and co (2009). the realclimate article :VIDEO from NOAA , which I've annotated to show the region that this research is focused upon.the paper itself .wrote about it in Science back in 1997. He said, referring to climate models and their inability at the time to properly simulate the ocean circulations at the proper locations:we must take seriously the predictions by the existing ones that a large buildup of greenhouse gases might cause the ocean's thermohaline circulation to collapse this article by Richard Seager from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. He writes how atmospheric circulation plays a greater role than the temperature of the oceans. At best it would offset some of the greenhouse warming in that region. He says:argues against a weak AMOC, as the latter would have warmed the Southern Hemisphere here and here ). Two protest articles isn't a lot by denier standards. ( Remember Marcott13 and the 30 plus WUWT protest articles!) However the fact that Anthony returned from his months-long vacation to write them, and that he wrote them back to back, suggests that the paper worries him rather a lot. It's important to deniers.Anthony's second protest . He reckons that all it takes to refute a paper in Nature Climate Change is two lines in a newspaper. No need for any research, let alone a published peer-reviewed paper or comment. Anthony relies on an article by one of his science deniers, who trumpets one short quote from another oceanographer, Martin Visbeck , at the tail end of a German newspaper article on the subject, with no supporting evidence, as proof that the research has been "debunked". The quote being (courtesy of Google translate):recent paper by Tom Rossby and colleagues, which indicated there has not been a slowdown in the gulf stream over the past twenty years. However that research doesn't necessarily conflict with the Rahmstorf paper . For one thing it was using measurements from the gulf stream in the mid-north Atlantic, far from the sub-polar gyre. More particularly the observations were taken between 1992 and 2012. From the Rossby paper :before Rahmstorf paper states in the abstract:Broecker's 1997 paper (my emphasis):especially given indications of increased ice melt on Greenland hence the need for continued and improved observation and further research here ) protesting the Rahmstorf paper. This latest one is about a NASA study , which, like the Rossby paper, found that the AMOC showed no significant slowing between 2002 and 2009, and that it "sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009".lends support from Rahmstorf15 (click to enlarge):Rahmstorf cites the NASA research that deluded Anthony thinks refutes the work (the 19 at the end is a reference to the NASA study ) - my emphasis and h/t David Sanger :This recovery is consistent with the finding of an AMOC increase since 1993 based on floats and satellite altimeter data 19 . he thought the NASA press release was new. He was much chagrined to be told by Andrew Freedman that it was from 2010!Sou 6:30 am 26 March 2015 ]Curious George thinks seas cannot rise because there is a limited water supply on our planet :) March 24, 2015 at 2:13 pm blog.hotwhopper.com 
