Study: Past Climate Change Was Caused by Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere 185
Chipmunk100 writes Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere. Researchers have found that circulation of the ocean plays an equally important role in regulating the earth's climate. The study results were published the journal Science (abstract. "Our study suggests that changes in the storage of heat in the deep ocean could be as important to climate change as other hypotheses – tectonic activity or a drop in the carbon dioxide level – and likely led to one of the major climate transitions of the past 30 million years," said one of the authors."
"caused by Ocean" (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire future of the planet may depend on us tracking down Billy Ocean... and stopping him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Quit confusing the issue with facts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Oh nos! A majority of Democrats voted against the act!! There goes your theory!
And then there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] Robert Byrd. Served as a Democrat senator all the way up to 2010 and was a member of the KKK!. Oh yeah, and he
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "caused by Ocean" (Score:5, Insightful)
Um....Im guesing you cant read.
The split wasnt along party lines.
The split was geographic. Idiot.
A majority of BOTH parties voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of '64.
The vote totals from wiki, --that you linked-- :
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As for lincoln, he wasnt speaking against socialism or liberalism. He couldnt be, because he and his party WERE THE LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY.
But again, the liberal/conservative split back then had more to do with geographical location than party lines. Northerners in general, of either party, were more liberal than those in the South.
The only ones trying to pull a switcharoo are peiople like you still trying to paint the dems as racists while ignoring the 150 years of history between then and now.
I direct you to the piece I just finished to explain it to another uneducated historical newbie like yourself: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He was right. He would states with 40% of the vote.
The south didn't turn republican until 1994 so ... either this is a bullshit meme or Nixon was one hell of a long-term s
Re: "caused by Ocean" (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't help that the mainstream politicians are always left of the southern standard. David Duke was a "local" Democrat, but when going national, he changed parties to the one that's more conservative. A Southern Democrat is right of a northern Republican. So dividing on party lines for such things is useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not you know it, that's the "southern strategy".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you have stated today is factual.
You toss wikipedia links around like confetti, as if they prove something, when it is appparent that
you dont even bother to read them first because thus far they have contradicted you each and every time.
The only revisionist here is you.
The only liar here is you.
The only person getting his history wrong here is YOU.
Re: "caused by Ocean" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on a very intelligent post. I have no Mod points but you should be +5 for sure. I call myself a conservative but the Republicans of today are not conservative for the most part but radicals. W did more to build big government during his tenure in office than anyone with the exception of his successor and yet he had the audacity to call himself conservative. I think I actually voted for 5 people in the last election as most of the choices were between fucked up one and fucked up two. It'
Re: "caused by Ocean" (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
And that fact you even try to go anywhere with that canard shows just how loose your concept of history is.
Saying they were all democrats is as relevent as saying they were all Christians, ie, not relevent. The KKK was oriented around fear/hatred of the outsider. IE, xenophobia, people who arent "us". And trying ot use it to paint the modern Demcoratic party based on your misreading of history is pathetic.
Read and be enlightened, 100 years of political history in 5 minutes:
Also happening around the turn of the century was the advancement of "Progressivism". It was becoming popular. It was largely in answer to Communism/Socialism. Like them it had its roots in opposition and pushback to the unfettered excesses of capitalism and the Gilded Age, but unlike them it did not seek to replace capitalism root and branch, but instead to simply curb and restrain its excesses. Both parties flirted with progressivism, running many candidiates who were unabashed Progressives who sought to curb the "fat cat bankers" and "bust the trusts" (that's how bad the Gilded Age was, that even the parties found common ground against them). One of the most famous progressives was Teddy Roosevelt.
Both parties had had candidates who wre "for the common man", and both parties also had folks who sidled up to business interests. Much like today. But the democratic party had a fundamental fracture within it. There were basically two wings within the Democratic party: the wing that was about "the common man" and became more and more liberal over time, and the wing that had more in common with the Tea Party. That wing was the Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats, and they were very very conservative in ideaology.
As time went on within the Republican party progressivism died out, such that by the time of the New Deal, barely 20 years after Teddy Roosevelt, they were completely opposed to it, and mostly represented business interests.
But the Democratic party held onto progressivism. It became the defacto party of the common man, the little guy. That helped keep the fracture in the party from coming to a head because since Reconstruction the South was still reeling from economic hardship ("someone told us Wall Street fell, but we were so poor we couldn't tell"). The Solid South stayed democratic for a long time.
But the thing about Progressivism is it is a naturally supporter of Civil Rights. And that would start to prove to be too much for the Southern Democrats. And eventually it was this fracture that Nixon exploited in the Southern Strategy that basically split the democratic party in the south, and even nationwide. The segregationist minded democrats nationwide but particularly of the south, along with the dixiecrats (a seperate party by now), went Republican. And in the following years the few moderates and liberals remaining in the Republican party would be pushed out over the new few decades by the Religious Right and the Reagan Revolution.
So this whole "the Democrats created the KKK" thing is at best a misleading misdirection and revision of history, and at worst a myth.
More: http://quietmike.org/2013/12/0... [quietmike.org]
The issue here is the fact that the historic context is completely missed by conservatives, and often just plain embellished. Yes, in 1868 the Democrats were the racist party. However, what also must be known is that the Democrats were also the more conservative party at the time. The Republican Party, believe it or not, were the more liberal party. From the Civil War up until about 1948, the Southern Democrats were the most conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
[..]Yes, in historic perspective the Democrats were a more racist (conservative) party. However, I emphasize conservative. Liberals did not found the KKK, nor did they support segregation. By social standards, these were more conservative minded people at least in regards to race. These were not leftist
really? (Score:2, Informative)
The year is 2014, and these "scientists" are just NOW realizing that the ocean plays a key role in global climate change? We learned about this in elementary school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's been pretty well known that oceans play an important role in climate, yes. That is why, for example, Norway is habitable. But you might want to read the paper (or at least the abstract) to see what specifically it's claiming. They are not claiming to have discovered the idea of oceans being related to climate.
Also: El Niño is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of geological timescale phenomena.
Re: (Score:3)
"scientists" are just NOW realizing that the ocean plays a key role in global climate change?
No, they've known for a while.
We learned about this in elementary school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E [wikipedia.org]...
Ten to one odds that the article is something deeper than you realize.
Re: (Score:2)
The article? Who the fuck reads the articles?
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope the statement was taken out of context. I'm a layman, but I read a lot and I know that. Anyone who studies climate should have learned that in the beginning of their first year classes. Well, grade school is just a fuzzy memory, but I believe it was taught then.
Re: (Score:2)
The year is 2014, and these "scientists" are just NOW realizing that the ocean plays a key role in global climate change?
No, they've known this for a long time. Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
It just took them until 2014 to write it all down, eh?
Why would Science publish an article tell us what we already know?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they found more information about details and confirmation. Such things get published all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I read a bit about the Atlantic Conveyor Belt. This is why it is much warmer in Paris France (48 51 N 2 2 E) than Gaspe, Quebec, Canada. (48 50 N 64 29 W). You just freeze your butt in Gaspe.
Even Montreal at 45 30 N 73 34 W is cooler than Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
No. The models have included oceans as a thermal body for heat storage for a very long time. The part they play however has been under active investigation and debate however.
Don't get fooled by clickbait headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
It just took them until 2014 to write it all down, eh?
Why would Science publish an article tell us what we already know?
This paper finds that the start of the current ice age, being the formation of ice sheets in the northern hemisphere, was due to a change in ocean currents that more closely thermally connected the hemispheres.
So I think the finding is a little more specific than "Past Climate Change Was Caused by Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere".
Re:really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time an idiot posts a "scientists are just NOW realizing that..." post we're seeing Dunning Kruger in action.
Re:really? (Score:4, Interesting)
The year is 2014, and these "scientists" are just NOW realizing that the ocean plays a key role in global climate change?
No, the slashdot summary paints a binary picture of air/water, to say that such a naive picture would find itself in one of the world's most respected scientific journals stretches credulity well past it's breaking point.
BTW: El-Nino is caused by oscillating prevailing winds pushing warm water east or west, it acts like a "see-saw" in a strong wind, however you're correct in that the imbalance does "pump" some deep water to the surface. I haven't RTFA but what they are more likely talking about here is the The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt [youtube.com] and the effect on prehistoric climate when those currents abruptly changed for some geological reason (such as a gazzillion tons of ice falling off greenland, tectonic movements, etc).
Re: (Score:3)
It was a study about the past.
You know how you folks are always going on about "the climate has changed before, and nobody knows why" ??
Well....this is scientists figuring out that why.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell them about the "minimalistic" impact of the sun too then.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the greenies we're killing 8 fish species every hour. That means we're killing more than 70,000 species each year despite only having about 30,000 fish species in the entire genetic tree.
The 30,000 is only described species.
It remains unfortunate that this issue is so... (Score:5, Insightful)
... political. It would be nice to just talk about the science and mute all the political gamesmanship.
Re: (Score:3)
The ocean is a liberal conspiracy!
Re: (Score:2)
It's all Bush's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of science is discussed here and elsewhere all the time by laymen. You don't need the controversy to get people to talk about it.
The politics do cause people to obsess on it, but the obsession isn't useful for spreading understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
I just read this on Facebook which will turn your brain into mush [ijreview.com]. People really believe that scientists who believe go are radical socialists with funding from Soros. After all the majority are democrats! Problem is this is mainstream as we all know we ascended into communism when Clinton was elected ... rolls eyes. It would not be an issue if just 10% believed this. Not 45% of all Americans
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
The trick is to make that "eventually" happen sooner. Because the politicians who are playing off of it are lying to us. So the political implications, not to mention economic implications, are much farther reaching than "Oops, we made a mistake."
The junk science has got to stop. GAO report [gao.gov]: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
The junk science has got to stop. GAO report [gao.gov]: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.
It turns out its cheaper to produce essays denying science than to actually do science.
A lot of people would say that it is also more valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
you just have to put up with them and keep them from burning the neighborhood down with their ineptitude.
There seems to be a lot of pyromaniacs in politics in Canada and Australia at the moment. Also in the US Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the problem was that Democrats wanted to use it to win elections - "If you don't vote for us, the oceans will cover the entire planet and we'll all die!!" Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
How come the EU are committed to 20% reduction on 1990 CO2 emissions by 2020 [theccc.org.uk], and want to negotiate that up to 30%?
How come the UK, is committed to an 80% CO2 reduction on 1990 levels [wikipedia.org] by 2050?
Did the democrats get to them, or is there some non-american-centric science behind the policy?
FYI the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are both in use in the scholarly literature. For instance:
Global warming and changes in drought [nature.com] NATURE (2014)
Climate change and wind intensification in coastal up [sciencemag.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It remains unfortunate that this issue is so... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason the Democrats are big on trying to do the same. It is a great way to funnel taxpayer dollars to their cronies.
So your claim is that all the world's climate researchers and in cahoots with all the worlds policy development people, to create a false sense of climate threat so that the tax money can be "funneled to coneys"?
Are all the world's university's in on this or is there a head of each climate science faculty that has been infiltrated by a crony scientist?
Are general science publishers like Science and Nature in on this, and are risking their circulation by publishing work they know to be dodgy?
Or are the climate scientists getting this stuff in under their reviewers and editor's noses?
How is this a "great way" for funnel taxpayers dollars? Doesn't it require paying off a whole lot of publishers, a whole lot of scientists, or seeding the high schools with your agents ten years earlier, and taking over the science of climate change with infiltration?
Wouldn't just giving your cronies a lucrative contract be a million times simpler?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, my claim is that the politicians have seen in the proclamations of climate researchers an opportunity to funnel money to their cronies and since the only way to get money for climate research is to proclaim what the politicians want to hear, the only people left in climate research are those who buy into that theory.
So you claim that:
1) Climate scientists with tenure will somehow get that withdrawn if they don't proclaim what politicians want to hear?
How? Do the politicians bribe the university to withdraw tenure? On what grounds is the tenure withdrawn?
2) Something happens to professors without tenure to remove their teaching positions and research funding.
Who judges this? Do all universities forward a dossier on the research findings of their teaching staff to the government so that they can determine that the un
Re: (Score:2)
Again: you dont understand how science funding actually works.
Federally funded research grants is not based on reaching a preconcieved notion.
The politicians arent even involved in the process.
You are ignorant on this subject. Completely and absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Americans don't appreciate telling them which car to buy
Re: (Score:2)
>Because Americans don't appreciate telling them which car to buy
Which is why no car company has ever bothered to waste their money on advertising in America, right ?
Obvious to Engineers (Score:5, Informative)
Any engineer who has studied thermodynamics knows that water has about four times the specific heat as air. The mass of the oceans is about 260 times that of the atmosphere. Combine these facts, and you find the oceans have about 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Thus it should be obvious that in any scenario of temperature change, the oceans will play a big, if not dominant part.
In regards to Chipmunk100's summary, greenhouse gases affect the heat input to the planet. The oceans represent a vast amount of thermal storage capacity. One is the current rate of change, the other is the integrated total of the changes over a number of centuries. Different units with different dimensions. A change in greenhouse gases today will take a long time to show up as an overall change in ocean temperature.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that this also has feedbacks. The global oceans hold ~60x atmospheric levels of CO2, and warm water will hold less dissolved gasses, leading to outgassing of CO2 and leading to more ocean warming. You will also get more water vapor ( another greenhouse gas ) in the atmosphere, but that will - eventually - be countered somewhat by the albedo effect of the large scale clouds that will form.
Re: (Score:2)
but that will - eventually - be countered somewhat by the albedo effect of the large scale clouds that will form.
Possibly, but probably not [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the reflective effect of cloud coverage, but isn't that useless if the steady-state temperature is very different from current temperatures? What prevents extreme greenhouse effects from pushing Earth into a Venus-like state?
Re: (Score:2)
What prevents extreme greenhouse effects from pushing Earth into a Venus-like state?
A: Its more distant orbit from the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even the most extreme global warming activists believe that there will be 10 degrees of warming (degrees C or F). The changes measured in the atmosphere and the oceans to date are so small as to be barely detectable. Comparing the Earth to Venus is like comparing a rocket-propelled grenade to a nuclear warhead. Both can kill you if you get close enough, but the preventative measures are entirely different. Telling people to build nuclear bomb shelters in the face of a grenade attack won't ultimately bri
Re: (Score:2)
>A: Its more distant orbit from the Sun.
You say that, and Neil De Grasse Tyson specifically says that Neptune's closer orbit had no significant impact on it's climate and that prior to massive greenhouse gasses, all the evidence suggests it was quite similar to early earth - especially it's climate, without that impact, Venus may have had as much life as Earth does.
So now I wait for you to show me why I should trust YOUR claims about Astrophysics more than Tyson's - a PHD in Astrophysics along with your
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite curious what this "evidence" is that you recite that suggests the conditions of Venus billions of years ago. As far as I know, only the Russians have landed anything on Venus, and those crafts basically took a few pictures and died within a couple of hours due to the extreme conditions.
And, of course, you tried the old shift-the-burden-of-proof gambit. I really don't care whether you trust my answer or not. Common sense will tell you that the Earth has already experienced this "runaway greenhouse"
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't make claims - I merely said that Tyson said (in an episode of Cosmos actually) that Venus's being closer to the sun had little or no impact on it's climate but greenhouse gasses did.
That is ONE claim - singular, with a citation.
You've given no evidence at all for your disagreement.
You started out with zero credibility (since I have no reason to believe you), and instead of gaining some by citing good sources or pointing me at evidence you cited "common sense" - which causes anybody who knows anyth
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim that Tyson said something in an episode of Cosmos is not a citation.
Common sense had better apply to most theories: common sense was developed in your ancestors that survived the winters and famines. It is not always accurate, but it is a better starting place than psychopathic fantasy.
If you hold your hand closer to a light bulb or a heating element, it will get warmer. That is all the evidence needed. If you cannot understand that, then I don't suppose I have much to talk about with you.
Re: (Score:2)
>Your claim that Tyson said something in an episode of Cosmos is not a citation.
It's hardly difficult to verify.
And here is a description of the episode and the opening sequence I was talking about:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2... [evolutionnews.org]
And here is some deniers complaining BECAUSE he said it:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/... [thefederalist.com]
>Common sense had better apply to most theories
It doesn't because common sense was evolved to deal with extreme macro-level abstractions based on extremely imperfect measuring devices kn
Re: (Score:2)
I've entertained your references there, and they don't provide a theory or an explanation of how Earth could have a runaway greenhouse effect such as that posited for Venus. They are of no value toward verification of your ideas.
The Earth isn't wrapped in foil. It is exposed to the same radiation as Venus, but at a lower exposure. The Earth orbits 150 million km from the Sun, for Venus it's 106 million km. As the exposure goes down by the cube, that makes the Earth's exposure (106/150)^3 = 35% that of Venus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>I've entertained your references there, and they don't provide a theory or an explanation of how Earth could have a runaway greenhouse effect such as that posited for Venus. They are of no value toward verification of your ideas.
I NEVER said the Earth COULD have such an effect on that scale, nor in fact that Tyson - though he certainly hinted at the possibility.
I said that Neil De Grasse Tyson says the proximity of Venus to the sun had little or no impact *there* - and I gave you proof that he said that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenhouse gases aren't simply heating the atmosphere, they reflect infrared radiation, including anything radiating from the surface of the ocean. The heat isn't going anywhere, regardless of where it started.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 in the Atmosphere (Score:2)
1% is a bad number to use, especially out of context. 1 degree C is better, but the more exact answer is 3.7W/m^2. The Earth receives about 240W/m^2, which gives us a black-body temperature of 255 K, or -18 degrees C. The observed global average temperature is about 33 degrees higher than that, thanks to the atmosphere.
The effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 is to extend the CO2-rich region further into space. Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) has a low mean free path (which varies with altitude
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck.
Ocean currents changed (Score:2)
The question of course to ask is, what caused the lowered ocean levels in the first place?
In Related News (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
link [wattsupwiththat.com]
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014. Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature. 18 years of no warming is just temperature, but 6 months of warmer is climate.
No one believe your lies anymore, give up, you are the only delusional ones that belive yourselves.
Re:In Related News (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.
No, that's just the USA.
Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature.
No, it's that record highs globally means global warming, record lows in the USA only means that 1.9% of the planet is cooler.
The reason that this is not inconsistent is that 1.9% of the planet doesn't have to have the same temperature trend as the global mean.
18 years of no warming is just temperature,
This 18 years? [woodfortrees.org]. Because that's warming.
but 6 months of warmer is climate.
Six months of warmest.
No one believe your lies anymore
This from the guy who tried to pass off the USA as the globe, the last 18 years of warming as not warming, and restated the latest 6 months that were the warmest ever recorded as 6 months warmer in the context of 18 years (falsely) not warmer.
Care to explain yourself on any of those points?
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to use RSS because Roy Spencer is a warmist stooge.
Ah.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. 0.1C of warming in 30 years.
Nope. Nearer 0.5C [woodfortrees.org].
That's statistically indistinguishable from 0.
If it's not, then you have no basis for claiming there's a pause. A pause is when you can show that there has been at most 0 increase.
Perhaps you should test against the weaker criteria, that it is distinguishable from 0.16C. Then at least you could claim there's been a slowing.
Even the IPCC would admit that; that's why they're in a panic trying to explain "the pause."
Dude, the AR5 was last year. IPCC aren't doing WG1 publications now.
In terms of climate science, analysis of deeper ocean warming is now consistent with radiative forcing from other calculations. You're ten month [reportingc...cience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.
Actually it's now about 1.45 to 1 [noaa.gov] in 2014.
Re: (Score:3)
The only one lying is Watts and anyone who links to his blog of misinformation.
Really?! Sad and Laughable (Score:2)
No, really, how many of you thought that the whole effect of the ocean was understood and implemented in the existing climate models?
When the climate models are provided with both their assumptions, omissions, and error, then maybe we can consider basing public policy on them. Until that time, keep them in the lab and out of public debate because they are nothing more than an opinion ... and we have more than enough of those to go around.
Oh boy... here we go again (Score:3)
Scientists: "Our studies have increased our knowledge of the climate, which will help us to make our models even more accurate and refine our generic theories further giving even better immediacy to the results"
Deniers: "See, scientists still know nothing about the climate - they are constantly finding things that influence it which they didn't know about before so we should just ignore whatever they say about it forever"
Deniers with rabies: "See, humans can't possibly be influencing the climate because there are all these huge natural forces more powerful than us and there's no way humans could EVER change their environment and even though we always change it to suit ourselves surely none of our changes could ever have negative unintended consequences - only governments and LAWS have unintended consequences because guvmit is evil and this whole thing is just a giant hoax they made up because they hate my SUV"
Re: (Score:2)
They are just settling down the science a little more.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter: Based on the summary this isn't new information. If the story matches the summary, then it beats me why anyone would bother to mention it.
Re: (Score:2)
wow. its like you read the headline, of a blog post, and decided that was all you needed to hear, so didnt bother to RTFA.
Voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that Voter ID laws can possibly prevent, is the stupidiest, most costly and least rewarding form of voter fraud.
A lot of people, particularly low income folks working multiple minimum wage jobs, barely have time to wait in line to vote ONCE, let alone repeat the process somewhere here. And for all that effort they get....one extra vote.
There ar
Re: (Score:2)
Deeply appreciate your posting that on your own ID. I am surprised the man made warming folks haven't mod bombed you. At the very least you should be 5 insightful and informative.
Re:NASA disagrees (Score:4, Insightful)
The paper in the OP is about a change in ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. The NASA papers are looking at the current warming.
I note that if you read the abstract of the paper [nature.com] that you first link to, the findings are the net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W/m2 from 2005 to 2013 which does not, as the press release implies, inconsistent with gobal warming, which is estimated to be about 0.9 W/m2.
And I note that your second paper, while there is a 150 year cycle, Greenland is also losing mass on top of that [noaa.gov]. Chart from this page [noaa.gov].
I believe Mr. Hansen left shortly after this.
About nine months later.
Re:NASA disagrees (Score:5, Informative)
It discusses current heat content to try to refute that the ocean thermally connected the Antarctic with the Arctic 2.7 million years ago to start the current ice age.
It also casts the recent NASA paper that showed the increase in ocean heat content to be consistent with current estimates of radiative forcing as not finding the "missing heat". If the radiative forcings agree, there's no missing heat.
And raises the question "Why would a 150 year melt cycle be "right on time" in warming world?"
The answer is "Because the melt cycle is on top of a melting trend".
I can only assume that this got modded to +5 because there are too many climate change deniers on slashdot with mod points. I remember when the people posting and modding here had an interest in science.
WTF people? Science denial here? It's supposed to be "news for nerds" not "news for US tea-party morons from the trailer park" is here. [foxnews.com] Please go there an leave
Re: (Score:2)
It is a travesty that we let any independent thought or dissenting viewpoints be heard.
Well informed, and, dare I say it, nerdy, dissenting views are well tolerated. Anti-science: Climate change denial, anti-vax, intelligent design proponents, moon landing hoaxers ... I don't mind these people having a voice, but "+5 Informative"?
I beg to differ.
(Although at time of posting, it's +1 Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014... [nasa.gov]
Of course NASA is used to doing this.
The ocean below 1.24 miles hasn't warmed. The ocean above that has, and it turns out it has warmed more than originally thought: Link [nature.com].
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]
Doubled CO2 means under 2 degrees warming
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
Yes, because a news site without links to the actual published research or subsequent scientific discussion is to be taken at face value. However, it didn't take much Googling to find that the so-called study being referenced in the link was authored by none other than Judith Curry, a well-known climate crank. Her work has been scientifically eviscerated many times over. In o
Re: (Score:2)
There is no 150yr cycle.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
He made this melt event sound like it was caused by a semi-cyclical weather event which occurs, on average, every 150 years. Moreover, he admits to having coached the young scientist to write about this "150 year" melt event. In fact, melt events have occurred at a much lower frequency than every 150 years over the past 4000 years. Melt events were much more frequent than every 150 years from 4000 to 8000 years before present when the summer sun was a lot hotter in the Arctic than it is now. Averaging the warm period that happened 4000-8000 years ago with the cool period of the past 4000 years "created" the 150 year "cycles".
Koenig and Wagner refer to a classic paper on Greenland ice cores to support their claim of an approximate 150 year period, but the first paragraph of the paper's conclusion makes clear that the climate was warmer 4000 to 8000 years ago, with far more frequent melt events.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the ocean is a FACTOR. The Sun is a greater factor.
The ocean is a factor in the Norther Hemisphere Glaciation 2.7 million years ago [sciencemag.org]. (As you can see from the abstract to the paper the articles is about). It is a factor because it transported heat from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Hence the title of the paper: "Antarctic role in Northern Hemisphere glaciation".
The sun has a different effect entirely, it changes the amount of energy incident on the whole globe/
CO2? not so much.
CO2 has been a significant forcing of global mean temperature throughout the past 420 [nature.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No shit, idiots.
Perhaps you missed the actual focus of the paper. Changes in ocean currents that occurred 2.7 million years ago initiated the northern hemisphere glaciation, by enhanced inter-hemispheric heat and salt transport.
If you are just coming to that realization now, maybe we shouldn't be trusting you to 'fight climate change' with our hard earned tax dollars.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about what this is. It's is a scientific paper about a change to ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. It doesn't affect your tax dollars. That is affected by your governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ.
I hadn't noticed that. Do you have a source on these two facts?
We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.
About two thirds of it, in the case of Rutgers, yes, if you live in New Jersey. I personally didn't fund any of it.
But I question your ability to make sensible choices about what a good line of research for a university should be merely because you pay tax. Surely the university board would be better informed and able to make these decisions?
And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government.
Why not the same size? Or smaller with fewer prisons?
Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.
Because university postdocs "instinctively" realize
Re: (Score:2)
Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one? There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming" — they employed by governments, or government-funded universities.
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one?
No, I find it quite plausible that the sky is blue, so I'm prepared to take that on your word, and my impression of its prior plausibility.
The problem is that you claimed that "Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful," which despite your attempt to cast this as plausible as "the sky is blue", sets off my bullshit detector. So I wonder if you dreamed it up yourself, or if you have some plausible basis, or data.
There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming"
What about Remote Sensing Systems. [wikipedia.org]?
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
The Atlantic has two sides, and stretches t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
only part of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I know youre jhust an AC...but do try to at least read TFA before posting.
It was a study about the past.
You say we dont know?
Well....this is scientists trying to find out.
Specifically:
Earth’s climate underwent a major transition from the warmth of the late Pliocene, when global surface temperatures were ~2-3C higher than today, to extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation (NHG) at ~2.73 Ma. We show that North Pacific deep waters were significantly colder (4C) and likely fresher than North Atlantic deep water prior to the intensification of NHG. At ~2.73 Ma, the Atlantic-Pacific temperature gradient was reduced to <1C suggesting the initiation of stronger heat transfer from the North Atlantic to the deep Pacific. We posit that increased glaciation of Antarctica, deduced from the 21 ± 10 m sea-level fall from 3.15-2.75 Ma, and the development of a strong polar halocline, fundamentally altered deep ocean circulation, which enhanced inter-hemispheric heat and salt transport thereby contributing to the NHG.