Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected 658
techno-vampire writes with word that a long-accepted model of deep ocean currents is inaccurate. Deep Sea News has a summary of the research, to be published in Nature. The Woods Hole press release has more details. "A 50-year-old model of global thermohaline circulation that predicts a deep Atlantic counter current below the Gulf Stream is now formally called into question by an armada of subsurface RAFOS floats drifting 700 - 1500m deep. Nearly 80% of the RAFOS floats escaped the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), drifting into the open ocean. This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990s, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change."
The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Funny)
aren't accurate? For Gore's sake, what a surprise!
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
Ocean current that might vary in flow and not exactly match models that are decades old...sheesh. Don't they teach kids how to do fluid dynamics calculations with billions upon billions of variables all of which change over with time and depend on a multitude of other models which themselves have varying levels of accuracy to their data these days.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Funny)
sheesh. Don't they teach kids how to do fluid dynamics calculations with billions upon billions of variables all of which change over with time and depend on a multitude of other models which themselves have varying levels of accuracy to their data these days.
My wife went to grad school in physical oceanography (at WHOI, it turns out).
One of my MIT buddies was this guy who pretty much finished up course 18 (Mathematics) undergrad requirements at the end of his sophomore year, and spent the next two years studying these really thin, expensive, and badly printed books of what looked like the output of a line printer on the wrong parity setting. I knew my then girlfriend was in trouble when I told this guy what she was studying and he was impressed.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:4, Funny)
That guy must really be a moron if it took him two years to figure out perl.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Funny)
Calculations! Huh! In my day, we solved Thermodynamic Navier-Stokes equations analytically or we didn't solve 'em at all. Yes sir, if you wanted something done right you had to solve it by hand! None of these razzle dazzle calumalators. We derived systems of diffeo-integral equations from first principles, solved them using power series with Bessel's Functions and we liked it!
Boundary conditions!? Hah! We used elliptic integrals and n^th order polynomials to generate our boundaries. None of your hoi polloi "splines" and "fractals". What good's a function that's not 10^th order continuous, I ask yah?! Bunch of whippersnappers! Let's see how your spline deals with my 4^th order constraint! Hah!
Floating point?! What luxury! In those times, if you wanted some numerical results, well sir, you had to generate an asymptotic series out to fifteen terms, and calculate your answer using surds and continued fractions, uphill both ways. In the snow. Course if you were lucky, you might get your 5 minute turn with the shared slide rule. That is, if it wasn't rusted up from the damp and cold. Great days.
"Billions upon billions of variables". You youngsters and your numerical models. Nothing gained that couldn't have been got from one afternoon with a fluid dynamics problem set. No wonder the world's gettin' warmer with all the HOT AIR comin' out you an all your bippity-boppity, hankly-pankly, good for nothin' electromonic computers !!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, we can forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness if you can forgive us for not paying too much attention to a group of people who think this kind of rambling and incoherent strawman bullshit is "insightful".
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Interesting)
First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT. They will tell you there is sufficient evidence that supports the models and predictions. Science is about collecting evidence, not establishing facts. Sometimes, new evidence comes along that completely contradicts previous evidence (rare), but more often than not it simply guides "tweaks" to the models to incorporate new data. This new data is of the latter type. It does not in any way invalidate the previous research and data, it simply sheds new light on it.
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue.
No, it was made into a hot button issue, that was the problem. That's not the fault of the science, that's the fault of the ignorant media leading the even more ignorant populace.
But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness
Why? If the cynicism is justified, that's one thing, but you're comporting the effect the media has had on sensationalizing the issue with the science behind it. The two are intertwined, but distinct.
those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering
Ya-huh, so who exactly are the people getting rich and powerful off of this? I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply? The ocean currents play a very deep and integrated part into the weather/climate of the planet. There was a study done in colorado which claimed that all of earths recorded warming can be attributed to changes in ocean temps. There was another claiming that the decadal oscillations have more of an effect on the climate and temperatures then Co2 has. Then there is the idea that the decadal oscillations have something to do with the solar cycles and the magnetic effects on the earth's magnetosphere and the solar storms we see.
Now we are being told the ocean currents are completely different then once believed. it's a matter of time before the differences are connected or disconnected to the other works but we are seeing the possibility that Global warming or climate change as they like to call it after the warming stopped, is completely founded in erroneous information and needs to be reexamined. We cannot in good faith claim that global warming is fact today given the severity of this claim. It's simply impossible to do so.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:4, Informative)
Because the warming has been observed. The problem of the ocean currents summarized here is not one of causative mechanism, but of energy transfer. In other words, this is more about the pattern of global warming, not the existence of it.
Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, now we don't know what might happen and we're *still* mucking with our climate.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Today's oil and coal was once carbon dioxide that floated in the atmosphere. What was life like back then? Pretty much the same as now, but more tropical. Giant reptiles roamed the planet, while smaller reptiles (proto-mammals) scurried underfoot. It was one of Earth's most-productive periods and a great time to live, not a tragedy.
I think global warming, if it happens, will be great. No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands and grow more food than in the entire existence of humankind. It requires adaptation, not fear.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Interesting)
And what happens if this change comes too rapidly for most life to adapt to it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those species go the same place the other 99.9% of species currently are (extinct). I don't think the planet is going to cry if that increases to 99.9000001%
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
So, wait, industry, powered by free market pixie dust, will be able to move us to other planets (and presumably terraform those planets so we actually want to live there) if the world become inhospitable. But confronted with relatively modest regulations, they'll be utterly crippled. How strangely fragile of industry.
Industry whines and cries about the end of the world whenever regulation is proposed. Industries have wailed about limits on rat droppings in food, lead in paint, asbestos in insulation, minimun fuel efficiency, minimum wages, adding seat belts, banning smoking from restaurants. Somehow the world hasn't ended.
Of course, I can appreciate the agility of the free market. Take for example all of the freedom the banking industry had to agilely create new derivative securities and self management. That worked out gangbusters!
I'd have more faith in the free market to solve our problem if it wasn't so easy to turn costs like pollution into externalities, if the stock market didn't demand that companies think no further than a few years into the future. A few percent hit in our GDP today may be a good investment if it will save us from a massive hit in a decade.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're asking is if ALL life could adapt quickly enough. But I'm sure the question on your mind is can humans adapt fast enough.
There is plenty of life on the planet that can handle extremely harsh environments. As the weaker life dies off, the stronger life will thrive. New ecosystems will form, and life will continue. We may not be happy with it, but it will be life.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands...
As a Canadian I just wanted to let you know that we have already "settled" our land and you can't have it.
I really hope we don't warm up due to global warming as our climate is what keeps most of the idiots out.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I've driven through Canada. It's mostly empty. While traveling through the Yukon, I did not see another human being all day. I don't think you can claim you are suffering from overcrowding. There's a LOT of space there just waiting to be turned into farmland once the tundra thaws-out.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Informative)
There's another word for "thawed tundra". It's "bogland", a state it already achieves for a couple months each summer, rendering it impassable to surface vehicles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably to some degree -- perhaps to about like Britain's peat bogs. I'm not saying it'd be a bad thing over the long haul, but it wouldn't be instantly usable either.
However, the targa and plains that that are NOT just frozen bogland are another thing -- given even another month of growing season, those areas could go from zero production to being as productive as anywhere else for dryland farming.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Interesting)
Ireland is about the same distance north as the south of Hudson Bay. Due to the Atlantic currents and coastal climate, it's fairly mild here all year round. Our midlands and indeed hillsides/mountainsides are mostly bog, and not particularly useful for anything (sheep or forestry have only made things worse on the hillsides). It does keep people warm mind you - one of the common heating fuels here is peat briquette - a processed form of peat (less smokey and hotter than turf but similarly slow-burning with lots of ash). We even manage to run some of the most inefficient power stations ever on vast amounts of mechanically harvested turf (needless to say the resulting countryside isn't much use after either - although it can be made quite nice and nature-friendly - just not particularly useful for humans). Also "peat production" provides compost material for gardening too - but despite the large amounts of peat "harvested" each year, and even some amount of exports, it's not exactly a massive moneyspinner.
I suspect thawed out Canadian wilderness would simply be like the Midlands of Ireland - fairly desolate despite the milder temperature.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to be picky, but how do you know it was a great time to live?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It requires adaptation, not fear.
Unless you live in Bangladesh. In which case you are straight fucked.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the biggest population centers are vulnerable to being wiped out by the rising sea levels. If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean disruption of global economy on a scale far greater than WWII and over far longer period, with all the wars, famines and who knows what else this will bring. In short, yes humans will probably adapt to the changes in climate but the cost will be enormous, so I wouldn't call that "great".
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Interesting)
50-100,000 years ago "brown people" moved into Asia and Europe and North America (and then gradually faded from brown to pink). They can do it again. Migration is what humans do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Giant fertile plains ... in a few thousand years after some soil has had a chance to develop.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Water Shortages (Score:3, Insightful)
Many water shortages today aren't cause by a lack of water, but a lack of clean, fresh water.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Read that, then try and tell me all the global warming hysteria is legitimate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lacrosse is more fun than hockey.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like "denier" talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Being skeptical of scientists giving dogmatic claims of incredibly complex weather systems with billions of variables, known and unknown, sounds like Denier talk to me. Either that or you are obviously under the employ of oil companies, Dick Cheney or you are the guy who controls Karl Rove's weather machine. The one Bush used to destroy New Orleans.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm struggling to reconcile this...
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:4, Informative)
I am not a scientist, but I know that you can us eNewtonian mechanics to figure out where a planet is going to be on any given date time. But if ylou want to slide a satellite into orbit around that planet you need to bust out Einstein. I'm guessing it might be something similar in that this doesn't affect the general trend, but it will change the rate of the trend.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, Newtonian physics will allow you to predict a planet's orbit with 99.9% accuracy; but add a bunch of planets that interact in complex ways, and let them orbit for a million years, and see how close your prediction is.
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:4, Funny)
Of course 1+1=1. Schrödinger only had one cat in the box. 1 living cat + 1 dead cat = 1 cat.
that won't stop old Al (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly this is a product of Western materialism. However, Al Gore will stop at nothing to demonstrate our danger:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_caught_warming_globe_to [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Manbearpig
No, No, now it's worse!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry. It won't affect us before the CERN black holes have eaten the planet. :-)
"long accepted" (Score:4, Informative)
what a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I love science (Score:5, Informative)
Damnit, I love science!
This is how it's supposed to work.
Doesn't contradict global warming (Score:5, Informative)
These results don't say that global warming is occurring. In fact, they neither support nor oppose the idea at all. The Woods Hole press release [eurekalert.org] is fairly neutral:
"May impact the work of global warming forecasters" is true; it might also influence the thinking of UFO chasers but that won't help determine whether they're piloted by little green men. This research will complicate models designed to model the specific effects of global warming. Given how much is unknown yet, and how much has yet to be determined by human activities (to the extent that we choose to mitigate or fail to mitigate our impact on the biosphere) those models are already only potentially correct by marvelous coincidence anyway.
Um, not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
IAAPO (physical oceanographer).
The quoted blog is being a little over-excited about this. There's nothing in WHOI's press release that suggests that this brings the thermohaline circulation tumbling down, and certainly nothing to play "havoc" with climate models. Quoth the press release:
And since this cold southward-flowing water is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters.
"This finding means it is going to be more difficult to measure climate signals in the deep ocean," Lozier said. "We thought we could just measure them in the Deep Western Boundary Current, but we really can't."
In other words, the circulation is there, but it's more diffuse that expected, and so you can measure it by looking at a well-defined path along the continental shelf as expected. That requires some revamping of theory, and will make circulation model validation and data assimilation more difficult, but that's all.
The DWBC has an interesting scientific history -- it's one of the few ocean phenomena predicted by theory before it was observed, in part because its depth and slowness prevented observation.
But, hey, never mind, Al Gore, manbearpig, lalala I can't hear you.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, (Score:4, Insightful)
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
-- Isaac Asimov
The Difference Between Science and Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Science: "We've observed that the Earth's climate is getting warmer by nearly a full degree Celsius over a period of observation of around 200 years. We've noticed a correlating increase in CO2 emissions in that timespan."
Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR LIVES!"
Science: "But the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so our dataset is incomplete."
Politics: "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE EARTH!"
Science: "Of course, we've seen in tests that increasing the level of CO2 in an environment can significantly increase the temperature of an environment."
Politics: "CO2 CAUSES WORLD OT GET HOTTER!"
Science: "One of the leading theories we have as to the increase in global temperatures is this so-called 'blanket-effect'"
Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING IS BLANKET EFFECT! WE ALL MUST USE HYBRIDS NOW OR DIE!"
Science: "On the other hand, it's still a possibility that we're in a natural cycle of global warming. We saw a similar pattern in history, which occurred right before we experienced a miniature ice age."
Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL CYCLE. ICE AGE IMMINENT!"
Repeat until you either change the channel or become so psychotic from the endless political bashing that you go out and kill 50 or 60 people, just to relieve the stress.
Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Very well put. Unfortunately, you find that when you talk to someone who doesn't like the scientific conclusions for political reasons, they'll use any rationality on your part in talking about the inherent uncertainty as weakness and claim it invalidates anything you say.
Evaporation... (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading the news release makes it sound as if the problem was that the expected deep ocean return current was just in the wrong location. They put the floats in the areas where the current was supposed to be and only 8 percent of them actually even went in the 'right' direction. So...their 'conclusion' is that the current is just in the 'wrong' location but that it still exists, although they have never actually observed it. Without being any sort of climate 'expert' it seems obvious that evaporation of water in the northern latitudes is a far more important contributor to the gulf stream flow than the hypothesized deep ocean return current. It even seems probable that most of the evaporation of water on this planet occurs in the northern and southern latitudes. In that model, warm water flows north and south around the planet from the equatorial regions towards the poles and evaporates, thereby cooling the ocean waters and transferring heat and moisture into the atmosphere where it eventually falls as precipitation as it moves back towards the equator. Of course, this evaporation model cannot be correct because it allows the atmosphere to be a major conveyor of heat (as vapor phase water) which does not fit well with the 'greenhouse gas' idea in which the earth is surrounded by atmospheric gases which are blocking the radiation of long-wave infrared radiation into space, thereby warming the earth. I don't think there are any Eisteins in the atmospheric sciences field at the moment.
Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article (Score:5, Informative)
I am a nature subscriber and I just read the letter which this crap is 'based on'. In what I find to be depressing regularity the content in Nature Magazine is misrepresented. Presumably because some of the content at Nature.com is only available to subscribers.
So the title of Slashdot submission is wrong. The summary and free article at deepseanews it is based on mischaracterize the content of the letter. And naturally most of the comments here on Slashdot don't take into account the article, the letter, or anything that smells to much like reality.
If anyone is particularly interested the study found additional new details about ocean currents which the suggest should be included in future model of global ocean currents. This isn't especially exciting but I suppose it's interesting from a point of view of making our understanding and models more complete.
So nothing there about ocean circulation not working the way scientists have described (or a "a major paradigm shift in ocean circulation theory.") Nothing there about failure of models. Nothing there about climate change being either true / not true or stronger / weaker.
This is just what most science is all about... making current understanding more complete or more correct. Below is the excerpt, which I believe to be publication available.
To understand how our global climate will change in response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, it is essential to determine how quickly and by what pathways climate change signals are transported throughout the global ocean, a vast reservoir for heat and carbon dioxide. Labrador Sea Water (LSW), formed by open ocean convection in the subpolar North Atlantic, is a particularly sensitive indicator of climate change on interannual to decadal timescales1, 2, 3. Hydrographic observations made anywhere along the western boundary of the North Atlantic reveal a core of LSW at intermediate depths advected southward within the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC)4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. These observations have led to the widely held view that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for the export of LSW from its formation site in the northern North Atlantic towards the Equator10, 11. Here we show that most of the recently ventilated LSW entering the subtropics follows interior, not DWBC, pathways. The interior pathways are revealed by trajectories of subsurface RAFOS floats released during the period 2003â"2005 that recorded once-daily temperature, pressure and acoustically determined position for two years, and by model-simulated 'e-floats' released in the subpolar DWBC. The evidence points to a few specific locations around the Grand Banks where LSW is most often injected into the interior. These results have implications for deep ocean ventilation and suggest that the interior subtropical gyre should not be ignored when considering the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.
In Short... (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, we don't know what's really happening, but our political leaders are making very expensive decisions based on the belief (of some) that we do.
That's a great textbook definition of Stupidity!
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do enjoy the irony.
This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990's, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change.
So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.
Hence the label, 'denier'.
That is not what I understand to be science.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
The perennial war cry of the crank is "If this one thing is wrong, then nothing they say can be trusted!"
Of course, in the real world, all data has flaws, and all interpretations are subject to revision. So a demand for absolute perfection gives the crank license to engage in cherry-picking, rationalizing away the data he doesn't like, while accepting that which feeds his obsession.
Real science doesn't work that way. When new data comes in, or errors are found in old data, the scientist carefully reassesses conclusions in the light of the new evidence.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Informative)
There are two separate issues here. On the one hand there are certainly serious scientists working on climatology and climate change. I have no doubt they will incorporate the new information and work to improve their models. However, they are also much more careful about their certainty of the future, than...
The other side of the debate, which is political; it deals with what policies (if any) should be put in place to combat climate change. And in this realm, we are being bombarded by "it's settled science", "it's going to happen", "we have to act in ten years or it'll be too late", etc. ad inf. And the unseriousness of these positions is made clear by radical flaws in models such as the one referenced in this article.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Funny)
OMG. Best. Game. Title. Evar.
Cranks descend (Score:3, Insightful)
A fairly reliable indicator of a crank is the conviction that the dominant view is a house of cards, and the most recent finding, whatever it is, is about to bring the whole thing down. Press releases tend if anything to overstate the significance and novelty of a result, but what does the press release say? The lead sentence is "Oceanographers have long known that the 20-year-old paradigm for describing the global ocean circulationâ" called the Great Ocean Conveyor â" was an oversimplification.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This obvious fallacy is a virtually infallible indicator of a crank--science is not infallible, therefore any result I don't like is most likely wrong.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Interesting)
The down side is that if the 'conveyor' belt doesn't work as we expect, global warming may actually end up being WORSE. The (now questined) premise of the conveyor belt is that if the northern Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice, etc. Which in turn reflects more sunlight lessening the effects of global warming.
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
Or at least that was the theory. If the conveyor belt doesn't work as we thought, it might just mean we will feel the full effects of global warming.
Some of the deniers will jump on this as a natural cycle. Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
Does the Gulf Stream actually have much of an impact on North America? Wouldn't the typical weather patterns (i.e: west to east) suggest that the heat moved by the Gulf Stream would wind up making most of it's impact on the Atlantic Ocean and Europe?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, it could also make global warming somehow better than it was predicted. It could be either worse or better, and those studies that predicted the end of the world if Kyoto wasn't ratified will need to be redone.
This will take time.
Shoring up conclusions today without considering that these original assumptions were false is NOT science.
And, on a side note, I like these sorts of statements:
Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.
As if humans have the capability of creating matter from thin air now...
Every molecule of carbon on Earth was here b
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, does the guy who opens the flood gates at the dam 'create' the water that flows out of it? not hardly. But that doesn't diminish the effects of LOTS more water downstream does it?
Humans have clearly and measurably increased the carbon dioxide in the ATMOSHPHERE. That comes from burning MILLIONS of years of carbon sequestered in the oil. This is the problem and the 'unnatural' influx of which I spoke. it would not have happened this much this fast without us actively digging it up and burning it.
As for the other sources of heat you mention, the solar aspects are the most reasonable to affect global temperatures since its the basis for just about all life in the first place
However, global warming is not because we are producing more heat than the earth can handle. It is because we are retarding the rate at which it sheds heat into space. How much heat we as a species produce is probably actually pretty measurable as is the amount of heat added by the Sun (Sun heated asphalt would be in our bucket not the Suns). I'd be willing to bet we don't hold a candle to the Sun in that department.
But generally those wonderful thermodynamics laws really do prevent us from 'increasing' the heat on the planet. The rate at which it moves (into space) however is something we can and have readily affected. That's where the vast majority of 'extra' heat is coming from. Without the extra CO2 blanket, transfer rates would simply go up in response to any larger heat concentrations we've caused, still reaching a reasonable equilibrium.
But as you say, by paving over fields and forests, and then reducing the rate at which the extra heat can leave (through processes producing yet more heat) we aren't helping ourselves.
The main problem is still the 'greenhouse' effect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see if I understand this correctly:
Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
OK, so ice melts, the conveyor stops... got it!
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice , etc.
More ice? WTF?!!? You just said there would be LESS ICE due to ice melting, then you say that will cause THICKER ICE?
Wouldn't this restart the conveyor and return everything to normal?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to poi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
Just tossing this out there - this is believed to be at least partly responsible for the last mini-ice age.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I see is the scientific establishment diligently working to identify flaws in the existing theory of climate change and freely publishing any flaws found. The FACT is that the scientific community is vigorously collecting data to challenge and correct where necessary climate change theory, and has been for over two decades now. Note this is the same scientific community that has endorsed the current climate change theories and it's predictions - which include pretty fat error bars you know.
I understand that to be science and is why I respect the consensus of National Academies of Science (or equivalent bodies) across the first world in this matter (and not Mr Gore or Exxon or the headline of the week).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.
Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that. This doesn't call that "conclusion" into question; at best it implies we have even less understanding of why the planet is getting hotter, which suggests we need *less* calm, not more. Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What? Every case of causation I've ever heard of also showed correlation. Correlation does not PROVE causation, but it is a big flashing sign with a buxom topless girl waving pom poms jumping around it pointing in the right direction.
Note that at this point, the link between smoking and lung cancer still doesn't have a definitively proven causation.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. Global warming isn't science, it's politics.
No, it's actually science.
What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?
Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.
Unless, of course, your contention is correct and they are not scientists - then they will simply ignore the new data, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all well and good, and as it should be. The ONLY problem here, is that some folks want to make trillion-dollar adjustments to industry all over the world based on these
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there are TWO problems — the one you mention, and another one, where the people who make their coin on the status quo (and the politicians that they own) will ignore all evidence that the current way of doing business might make the planet unlivable. Or, at a minimum, cost a trillion dollars to adjust to as it changes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wa
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I say stick to the status quo until we know we can't.
The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?
The risk is that the "bullet has already been fired" so to speak. It won't hit for another 50 to 100 years, but it's on the way, and it'll cause damage when it finally does hit.
We don't know for sure if that's the case, but there certainly is a risk.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're suggesting that we have somehow set off a chain of events that will result in the entire planet being inhospitable to humans, and it will occur in as small a timescale as 50 years?
There certainly is a risk. I can't see it being much greater than the risk that a solar storm is about to wipe out all our electronics, or that a large meteor will land in my garden next week and the resulting dust cloud will block out the sun (hey it wasn't my garden but this has actually happened - we should definitely b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What climate change critics often say is that the science isn't good enough yet. What they mean is migrating away from burning billions of barrels of petroleum and billions of tons of coal for cheap energy is hard, expensive work that we can kick down the road un
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when confronted with a choice, you choose money over the only known planet that sustains human life in the entire universe.
I'm not sure I can get on board with that. And something tells me that using less energy to do everyday tasks will lead to more technology, not less. Sticking with the status quo is the choice that provides no technology, and possibly spends finite resources on luxuries that could be used later for needs.
But fuck it. Hop in your hummer, crank the AC, and rush to sit in traffic. Buy the house tens of miles away from work so you can have a library and basement bar that get used about twice a decade. Terraform your yard with nice looking weeds, so the neighbors can enjoy it the whole 30 seconds they spend outside their front door.
Enjoy these pinnacles of human achievement, while they last.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you've got the wrong idea.
The Stern Review [wikipedia.org] came to the conclusion that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change considerably outweigh the costs.
Waiting fifty years might be the worst thing we could do.
Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have to remove that cancerous tumor now or wait a year, what will you do?
Right now, it has already been proven to an extremely high degree of certainty, that global warming is both very serious and has a high probability.
Broken model? What broken model? The model for global warming is fully intact. The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.
The only thing this study shows is that water that circulates in depths of 700 to 1500 meters under the surface travels in wider and slower paths than had been previously thought. The total flux of water is, naturally, the same, water isn't accumulating in the Arctic.
You speak as if we weren't already spending hundreds of billions to keep companies [chrysler.com] that cause global warming [gm.com] alive.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? What makes them preliminary state? The simple fact is, that the majority of data that feeds these models ARE known. In fact, it was because of these models that this experiment was done. Will it change the models? I would think so. Would it change them DRASTICALLY? I seriously doubt it. The simple fact is, that these models have been being developed for over a couple of decades. The real problem is that they do not appear to match what is going on. They all seem to indicate that we have MUCH longer time. Every time they make a prediction of things to occur in 20-30 years, it keeps happening NOW.
As to the trillion dollar adjustments, had America followed Nixon/Ford/Carters lead back in the 70's, and pushed for being off oil/coal, we would not be in Iraq, likely not be in afghanistan, and not have the exchange deficit that we have. The vast majority of the wests security and economic issues can be tied DIRECTLY to our being dependent on the same price fuel that other countries are on.
Actually, we pay more than most because we clean it up more. While China surpassed us in CO2 emissions several years ago, they surpassed us nearly a decade ago in major pollutants. The west MUST get off of importing fossil fuel and skip this garbage about Cap/Trade. Instead, we need to put in place a cap at TODAY's amount (i.e. no more), and then put in a time progressive co2 tax on all goods, esp. imported goods.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Global Warming is a science the way String Theory is a science, which is to say that it makes no testable predictions. Well, that's a bi
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're citing stock climate change deniers' arguments. They were refuted looooooong time ago. Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?
Specifically:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php [scienceblogs.com]
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php [scienceblogs.com]
From the long list of:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php [scienceblogs.com]
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're citing stock climate change deniers' arguments. They were refuted looooooong time ago. Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?
Specifically: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php [scienceblogs.com]
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php [scienceblogs.com]
From the long list of: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php [scienceblogs.com]
Ummm, your links agree with me. Temperature rises preceded CO2 increases. It then goes on to claim that somehow the CO2 STILL causes it. Apparently CO2 moved faster than the speed of light and violated causality back in those days. The second link admits that CO2 levels are not well correlated with historical temperature (he blames this on a lack of comprehensive data--meaning that he recognizes that they don't have data, but he's somehow still right).
There is a lot more to the story of climate change than CO2, but governments around the world would shut down civilization rather than hear that.
You and I must have wildly different understanding of the word "refute".
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:4, Interesting)
For example: "During the glacial/interglacial cycles, CO2 concentrations and temperatures show a remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but actually lags by many centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2. Though this period does not demonstrate greenhouse gas initiated warming, it does lend support to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat."
The data disproves what he is saying, but he says it supports it. This person must be a mental gymnast.
Next link: "While there are indeed poorly understood ancient climates and rather controversial climate changes in Earth's long geological history, there are no clear contradictions to greenhouse theory to be found. What we do have is an unfortunate lack of comprehensive and well resolved data. There is always the chance that new data will turn up shortcomings in the models and unforeseen new aspects to climate theory, and I guarantee you scientists in the field are working hard to uncover such things - every scientist relishes the thought of uncovering new data that overturns current understanding. But it does not make any sense at all to reject CO2 as a primary driver of climate change today because it looks, through the foggy glasses of time, like CO2 has not always completely controlled climate changes in the past."
Basically he says that there is no historical correlation, but that because the current CO2 is produced by humans, there suddenly is some sort of correlation. Also he questions the strength of the data, which when you question it from the other way you are called a "denier". Why would the Earth get warm when people produce CO2, but not when it rises naturally?
Again, it's all politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, it's JUST A MODEL.
I challenge you to name a set of "natural laws" or really any aspect of current scientific research or long established dogma that isn't just a model at heart.
I'll grant you that it may not be fine-grained enough to allow for testable predictions within natural cycles, but it does show that there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Whether that means that CO2 changes cause temperature changes, or that temperature changes cause CO2 changes, or that some other process causes them isn't really all tha
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Researchers ignore data that break their theories all the time.
It may be worst in the medical world. For example, why do you think that cholesterol is targeted as enemy number one for heart health? There is no study that has ever demonstrated causality; 50% of people with heart disease have "normal" cholesterol; nearly all studies on the subject show that all-cause mortality is higher with low cholesterol; much better working theories exist.
So why is that hypothesis still treated as correct? Because reputations and huge amounts of money would be lost. Prominent people and institutions may even be found liable. Good science goes out the window in the face of that.
Regarding the subject at hand, you might want to look at what an ad hoc hypothesis [wikipedia.org] is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "fact"?
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:4, Informative)
That may be true now, but it used to be science, a long time ago, back in the 1990s, back when only journals and magazines such as Science or Nature would talk about it and that no one else cared or listened. I grew up in the 1990s in France reading Science & Vie, global warming was there all along, back then we called it 'climate warming', but then suddenly the American public started caring, and that's when the shit went down and it all became controversial and hysterical.
You damn kids and your newfangled climatological hysteria, get off my lawn!
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:4, Insightful)
That global warming is occurring is based on empirical data I'll grant; but how is the human cause based on empirical data? In order to make an empirical assertion about a cause you would need a control group, which is pretty much impossible with a sample size of one.
We think that the cause his human activity because its the simplest explanation for such a rapid rise in temperatures, that's not the same as saying we have direct experimental evidence that says the same thing.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Funny)
There is no global warming. It's just the surface. The core temperature is unaffected.
Re:Darn it (Score:5, Interesting)
And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!
I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.
They also seem to fail miserably if you have the misfortune of living somewhere that lacks stable voltage. My old apartment had voltage issues because the next door neighbor ran electric kiln's for a glass business. I'd watch the voltage dip from 118V down to 105V and back up to 118V for hours on end when she ran those damn things. The CFL's just couldn't take it. Most of them crapped out within six months. Regular incandescents worked just fine (albeit with annoying changes in brightness when the voltage dipped), as did regular fluorescents.
Re:Darn it (Score:5, Interesting)
Worked for a company that was right next to a private school with their own electrically heated swimming pool. Every morning around 11.00am, the fluorescent strips in our room would start blinking one by one then going out. After 12.30pm when the pool had been heated, all the lights would come back on.
Re:Darn it (Score:5, Informative)
And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!
Dim? The lower energy usage and heat output means I can put "100 Watt equivalent" bulbs in fixtures that are only supposed to have 60 Watt bulbs in them, that's quite a bit brighter. Plus they don't have that horrid long-wavelength tinge to them.
I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.
Most of he ones I have hit full brightness pretty much immediately. The ones that do take a while are "floodlight" shape and can go in enclosed spaces without getting fried, don't know whether they're just crappy or starting quickly isn't compatible with surviving that.
bzzt....wrong (Score:3, Informative)
"The 25 watt CFL you are discussing actually uses 50 watts total power. 25 watts at the bulb, and another 25 at the power company as they try to balance the reactive load."
Please read up on your electronics. It doesn't "use" another 25 watts at the power company. At the most, it uses a very little bit of power due to the extra current flowing in the transmission lines. Maybe a watt or two. This has been discussed here before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"some species will die".
yes, that's kind of the problem, isn't it? Since the oil predates human existence, who's to say the world that results from the release of all of that sequestered carbon leaves us a world in which WE will survive? We have never survived a world in which all that carbon was in the atmosphere before.
I'm not really a big worrier about climate change... other environmental issues bother me a lot more... but your argument is a bit weak.
Re:But Al Gore says (Score:5, Interesting)
It's kind of poetic how stupid you come off trying to dis on the global warming people.
1. Pretty much everyone agrees that the term global warming is bad, since what is happening is global climate change, which is very real and a very big problem.
2. The amount of CO2 is not fixed as you claim, CO2 is a by product of chemical reactions. There are also reactions going the other way, but unfortunately we are producing way more CO2 than is being consumed, this is a problem.
3. While you are correct that the world will probably survive just fine as a whole, some of us are rather concerned about the amount of climate refuges we are going to see and in time the wars that will most likely follow.
Re:Better call Dennis Quaid on Sunday... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but today is two days before the day after tomorrow!
Re:Nice FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes but how can you claim to "know" the future environment, if our models are inaccurate? We can't even come-up with explanations for previous warm/cool spells, like the 300-1300 warm spell that allowed grapes to be grown in northern England, or the circa 3000 B.C. warm spell that helped Egypt become a dominant empire of the region.
I'm skeptical because I studied science and know its history - which is essentially a series of mistakes. For example in the 70s Carl Sagan was telling schoolchildren about dust-in-the-air causing an ice age. And we all know the story of how scientists thought disease was caused by bad air, or bad blood, or "germs".
I'm skeptical because that's what the scientific method demands.