Deep Pacific Waters Are Cooling Down Due To Centuries-Ago Little Ice Age, New Study Suggests (inquisitr.com) 144
schwit1 quotes a report from The Inquisitr: Most of the world's waters may be warming as a result of climate change, but a new study shows that the deepest parts of the Pacific Ocean still appear to be cooling down hundreds of years after the period in history known as the "Little Ice Age." According to a report from Science Daily, a team of researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) and Harvard University discovered that there has been a "lag" of a few centuries in terms of temperature change in the deep Pacific. This part of the ocean, the report stressed, is still seemingly cooling and adjusting to the temperature drops of the Little Ice Age while the rest of the Pacific gets warmer as a result of modern factors.
"These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history," commented WHOI physical oceanographer Jake Gebbie, lead author of the new study. As documented in a paper that was published Friday in the journal Science, the researchers created a model simulating how the deep Pacific's temperature might react to changes in climate on the surface, then compared the data from the model against two historical sources. These sources included ocean temperature data taken in the 1870s by scientists aboard the HMS Challenger and temperatures gathered over a century later, through the World Ocean Circulation Experiment in the 1990s. Based on how these comparisons aligned, the researchers found that warming was present in most parts of the world's oceans and consistent with the current trend of climate change. The only exception was the deep Pacific, where temperatures were cooling at around 1.25 miles (two kilometers) deep. This suggested that long-ago changes in surface climate, such as those that took place during the Little Ice Age, could still have an influence on the effect of climate change in modern times.
"These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history," commented WHOI physical oceanographer Jake Gebbie, lead author of the new study. As documented in a paper that was published Friday in the journal Science, the researchers created a model simulating how the deep Pacific's temperature might react to changes in climate on the surface, then compared the data from the model against two historical sources. These sources included ocean temperature data taken in the 1870s by scientists aboard the HMS Challenger and temperatures gathered over a century later, through the World Ocean Circulation Experiment in the 1990s. Based on how these comparisons aligned, the researchers found that warming was present in most parts of the world's oceans and consistent with the current trend of climate change. The only exception was the deep Pacific, where temperatures were cooling at around 1.25 miles (two kilometers) deep. This suggested that long-ago changes in surface climate, such as those that took place during the Little Ice Age, could still have an influence on the effect of climate change in modern times.
Cooling due to old ice age? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, yes, when I unplug my freezer it gets colder
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Would've learned years later in school. Too bad you weren't paying attention that day in school either....
No ice age! (Score:1, Funny)
This is all republican trumptard billshit!
We all know the ice age was limited to just a piece of Europe and was not world wide so these guys are just stupid or trolling for trump (they are from Harvard, good old boys!) or taking money from the oil industry.
The world is warming at an historically unprecedented rate and these shills can not publish this stuff that trump will use to say it isnt. They should have their degrees removed and get fired immediately for being right wing propagandists and white supre
Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the worst pseudo-science since Trump shut down the EPA for generating most of it.
An this the exact kind of crap that you keep saying about any study that doesn't agree with your views on what should be. If a study doesn't support your ridged views on climate change is fake science or pseudo science. It has gotten so bad that you throw this label at a study, such at this one, that doesn't in any way refute man made climate change in any way.
All this study shows is that an event that happened hundreds years ago can still have an effect on the climate today. That just goes to show how complex the climate is and how much we actually don't know about it. This study in no way refutes any affect that man made effect will have on the climate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You are not very smart
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it would also keep a lot of hot air from being produced in DC.
Re: (Score:1)
An this the exact kind of crap that you keep saying about any study that doesn't agree with your views on what should be.
Nope, it's what I say about "scientific" studies and reports that state things like "water remembers what it was like last century."
Pro tip: That's been the trend in climate "studies" for decades, to anyone who legitimately knows how to construct an experimental setup and can spot the glaring holes.
Re: (Score:1)
I have no reason to validate myself to an AC, I already outrank you.
Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull. You saw an opportunity to bash Trump and you took it. That is all there was to that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.
Would you have a car analogy for that?
Re: (Score:1)
This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.
At least it's not with a whimper.
Re:Where is the heat going? (Score:5, Informative)
If the water is cooling then ...
The water is NOT cooling. Warmer water is being displaced by colder/saltier/denser water flowing in from further south.
This is called thermohaline circulation [wikipedia.org], and it is a well know phenomena.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for that. So, I guess that what is going on is that the water in the ocean is at different temperatures in different places and at different depths and it is moving around (currents) and as that happens some areas at certain depths will have warmer water displaced by colder water....and the mistake is to think heat is being removed from the ocean as a whole.....when in fact because of global warming the ocean is truely getting warmer as a whole.
Is that right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the prevailing notion around themohaline circulation (THC) is that it is slowing down. As such, if it slows, we'll actually see global cooling...
You've got a smattering of truth there, but a whole lot wrong.
The oceans have already taken up about half the CO2 and the related warming that we've caused as humans. This warmer water is generally surface water, but does make it into the thermohaline circulation. If that slows, and we don't have really great evidence that it is globally, we won't see global cooling but rather more warming. The warm surface waters won't sink, and colder water won't be pulled to the surface if that circulation slows down or
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, nobody complains, you can keep him. Could you just, ya know, finally come and pick him up, he's getting kinda ripe.
Re: (Score:1)
Thermohaline circulation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
weather forecast (Score:2)
Pumping cool water to surface to delay CO2 affects (Score:1)
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Informative)
During the Little Ice Age, surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere dropped by about 2C, and sea ice expanded while snowfall decreased. The coldest and densest water in the ocean is Antarctic bottom water, which forms as ice freezes on the surface. The ice is nearly salt free, which means the seawater left behind is extra salty, and thus dense, so it sinks. When it reaches the bottom, it can't just immediately flow toward the deepest part of the sea, because there is no monotonic slope. Instead it fills basins close to the ice shelf, and only flows to deeper water when those are full. Yes, this can take centuries. Reason: The ocean is big. Really big.
Here is an excellent description of the topology of the ocean bottom [xkcd.com]. Especially look at the last map, showing the deep basins around Antarctica.
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no type of proof that cannot be warped into the Global Warming Armageddon myth.
"Proof" is a mathematical concept. In science, there is only evidence.
The evidence is that the very deepest ocean water, in the Marianas, Philippine, and Bougainville trenches, is getting colder. A plausible hypothesis is the one made in TFA: A lag of Antarctic bottom water from the Little Ice Age, because of the deep basins in the Southern Ocean.
This is supported by models, and (most importantly) is falsifiable: If the hypothesis is correct, the water in the southern basins should be getting warmer. Surface waters should also be warming. Only the extreme depths should be getting colder.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, then please tell us, and explain how it can be falsified.
Other "contradictory" evidence, such as expanding sea ice around Antarctica, is also best explained within the context of global warming: As air temperatures rise, they hold more moisture, which means more snowfall onto the ice pack. So the ice pack is expanding even as measured air temperatures rise. Notably, this is NOT happening in the Arctic, since temperatures there are already higher. The northern ice pack has shrunk by over a million square miles. Feel free to post an alternative falsifiable hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
There's a lot of things that could have gone wrong with this study, their corrections and adjustments to the historical deep sea temperature data could be incorrect, the model could have bad assumptions, their assumptions about the relationship between the deep sea and other waters could be incorrect, etc, etc.
Thi
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
That we've had climate change already is incontrovertible.
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
We're already in the middle of a mass extinction, that is just a fact.
To risk even more climate change in the middle of a mass extinction is lunacy. Sure the scientists might be wrong, and we might find some cool technological solution, but we also might be underestimating the severity of the situation we're
Re: (Score:1)
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
What blog did you read that on?
Re: (Score:2)
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
What blog did you read that on?
Every serious news organization and magazine for the past 2 decades.
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus. If you want into any sciences department at a University and start declaring that AGW isn't happening people are going look at you like you're a fruitcake.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees. It doesn't matter whether you drown in two or two hundred meters of water. There are certain levels at which it doesn't really matter whether it's "more" or "less", there is such a thing as "enough". One bullet is enough to kill a person. Of course you can use 100, but one is sufficient.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be. Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever? You talk like the earth gives a shit if we're on it or not and will always balance for us. Spoiler alert, it won't. Regardless of the causes we can see the average global temperature is going up and that's bad for us so were trying to do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?
The obvious solution, to any scientist, is to do more research and figure out what is happening. Fearmongering and hysteria (which you are promoting) helps nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees.
What are you talking about? The earth is going up to 200 degrees? Do you think that's science? Do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?
I remember way back in my youth hearing about this thing called "erring on the the side of caution", especially when consequences rise to the level of 'catastrophic'.
This issue qualifies, and the vast majority of the experts and empirical evidence point in one direction, catastrophe. However, in this case 'erring on the the side of caution' doesn't do this choice justice. This is more about the difference between wishing something were true and informed expert opinions, intelligence and wisdom
Re: (Score:2)
No, we usually call this an analogy. Look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
So we have reached level 4 already?
Re: Don't worry (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that it's moot to calculate the exact amount of degrees that it gets hotter if even the lowest estimate is enough to ensure we're fucked. That's what the analogy of frying with 200 or 220 was pointing to, in the end you don't care about 20 degrees more if the lower one is already plenty to achieve the result.
How dense can a person be that this needs to be explained?
Re: Don't worry (Score:2)
Or not, as the case may be...
Re: (Score:2)
shame you are posting as AC (Score:2)
That was rather good.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow your logic is quite off.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.
And if we one day find ourselves in a position to stop or delay that should we take it or just say hey ho it's the natural run of things and it was fun while it lasted?
Re: (Score:2)
Increased CO2 does improve plant growth, but also lowers nutritional value, which is a bit of a problem for anything that eats it.
And the biggest problem with global warming is not so much that it's happening, but that our best understanding is that if we continue on as we are we're going to make it happen FAST - and every time that happens in the geologic record we see mass extinction events - typically upwards of 90% of all species go extinct, and it takes thousands of years for the ecology to recover.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?
You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.
But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.
Typical human.
More catastrophic than the end of the universe? And of course I care only about humans, it's other species jobs to look out for themselves and we're not in the business of creating ideal climates for hypothetical species yet to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the moronic credo of the climate science denier that until every possible variable is accounted for that there's doubt and therefore no cause to act. Of course in an infinitely complex analogue system this is impossible, if the same criteria were applied to every other endeavour humanity has undertaken we would still be in the stone age and if we listen to these morons that's exactly where we'll return.
Re: (Score:2)
Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.
Where is the science that says everything will be just rosy?
Re: (Score:1)
More ad hominem attacks without substance. You lose sucker.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a completely different story if you put up a What-if-hypothesis and gather data and build models and investigate which consequences this What-if would have. And if this What-if harmonizes with what we see, then you have a valid ground for further scientific investigation.
Albert Einstein was famous for not believing into Quantum Mechanic. But he didn't deny quantum mechanics, he put up a series of very interesting what-if-hypotheses like the Bose-Einstein-condensate, quantum entanglement etc.pp. which would be true if quantum mechanics were true, and which were the base of further scientific work. Today, we know they are real, and Quantum Mechanic is still ruling supreme. Albert Einstein was wrong in this case, and still he managed to greatly further the science of Quantum Mechanics. He even got his Nobel Prize in Quantum Mechanics (and not for Special or General Relativity). That's how doubt works in Science. Not by just declaring "I don't believe it" or "There might be future results contradicting this", but by actually thinking through your alternative hypotheses and publishing possible results.
Yes, it's possible that there are unknown effects lurking somewhere, and we should be open if we get evidence of it. But for instance, we are able to calculate the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide down to 10 digits, and the results of experiments fit the calculation. There is not much wiggle room for Carbon dioxide not being a Greenhouse gas. The planetary greenhouse effect was wellknown already in the 1970ies, when the first probes landed on Venus and Mars and actually measured the effect of a 95% Carbon dioxide atmosphere on both planets. Why for some reason the effect clearly measured on two other planets would not exist on Earth is somehow not clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Little bit of physics for you - warm fluids are less dense than cold ones, so they rise, not sink. The lowest reaches of the ocean will contain the coldest water that's managed to reach it. And while water flows very rapidly on ground, where it displaces air that's 800x less dense, it flows *much* slower while displacing water that's only a bit warmer, and minuscule less dense (even a 20C temperature difference amounts to less than 0.5% density difference, salinity probably makes a bigger difference.)
On t
Re: (Score:2)
The wording sucks, but here's a clue: the quotes around "remember" means it's a bad analogy rather than a literal truth.
Here's a trick - first take an ice cube out of the freezer. Now look at it carefully - is it made out of ice? Wow! Clearly it still remembers having been in the freezer!
Lets try one a little more directly applicable - Find a nice sunny warm spot right at the base of a tall snow-covered mountain with a river flowing down it. Now check the water temperature. Practically ice cold? Amazin