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."
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:that won't stop old Al (Score:3, Interesting)
Manbearpig
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: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: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: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:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (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 bit harsh, it says that if CO2 goes up, then temperature goes up, but it is untestable because the effect is below the signal to noise ratio when you factor in long term climactic cycles. Basically, it's JUST A MODEL. When a major factor of your model is destroyed, it puts to lie ALL of the assumptions based on that model. Since you obviously aren't going to do that, nor will the politicians, I guess that makes it a matter of who makes the choices.
That is to say, it's politics. Another flamebait moderation in 3..2..1..
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (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?
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.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:4, Interesting)
And what happens if this change comes too rapidly for most life to adapt to it?
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:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (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 be more worried about meteors than climate change).
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:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (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:Driving Blind (Score:0, Interesting)
And the best thing is, all those pesky liberals who love the coast are gonna drown! Only the rustbelt, bible belt, and midwest will be left. Oh yeah, we'll have Detroit too, if you want what's left of GM. Just think about it: Portland, San Francisco, Washington D.C., New Hampshire; they're all gone thanks to global warming. Won't life be grand when the rednecks and bible thumpers are left alone to try to figure out how to survive the winter without government?
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, this conversation highlights exactly why this will work... In all reality tremendous instantaneous changes are not really required to mitigate some of the risks and damage by global warming.
I *thank* the crazy environmentalist nutjobs for providing a solid shove in the needed direction.
I *thank* the crazy conservative nutjobs for refusing to budge.
The net result of all of this discussion? More general awareness and many more people making small changes to help cut energy use and find cleaner means of producing energy. Slower change, still effective, and much more manageable.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Driving Blind (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Driving Blind (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)
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, Interesting)
Read that, then try and tell me all the global warming hysteria is legitimate.
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: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:Driving Blind (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually last time the earth warmed (after the middle ages and the defeat of muslims in spain when the colonization of greenland started), it scarcely took 10 years. Plenty of soil pockets left in Greenland and Siberia. Of course it warmed only to start cooling again (and when that cooling, known as the "mauder minimum", stopped and reversed global warming started. Temperatures have been steadily increasing ever since). When the global warming streak stopped an entire country, Greenland, died out to the last man. Literally.
Greenland was scarcely the only country to die out due to global cooling, but it was the only western one, the only one we have something of an account of the decline and death of the cities.
But in Siberia, in fact, there are still humans living there that still till a few fields. Greenland has productive, if slightly confused neighbors. Especially Siberia will repopulate very very quickly indeed. And not with brown people.
Plants, bacteria and the other stuff in "soil" doesn't have to cross the distances, it's already there. Even humans don't.
Perhaps you should read Jared Diamond's book. It's not all that scientific (though more so than most websites on the subject), but it'll certainly make you think.
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
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:3, Interesting)
But to extend your analogy, the answer is still positive. If the question is whether the answer is positive of negative, or within a certain range (as such models tend to only answer in confidence ranges), then even wrong can be right, as long as the answer is "close enough".
The question left to be answered is "how much does this change the climate modeling results?" Right now, it does not appear that the data has been entered, and the authors are only speculating that this particular change in a parameter may change the answer. Being sensational gets you a lot more press than saying you've increased the precision by another half a digit.
Re:Doesn't contradict global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
As the submitter of the story, I'd like to congratulate you. Not only did you RTFM, you understood it. Alas, AFAICT, nobody's mentioned what I consider the most important fact: the cold water is descending into the Abyss, and taking with it large quantities of CO2. This is sequestering it just as if it were taken up by old-growth forests, harvested, and the wood dumped down old coal mines. This acts as a moderating factor, taking up at least some of the CO2 we're spewing into the atmosphere, but nobody on Slashdot seems to have noticed.