Slashdot Mirror
Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected
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."
Despite the fact that we didn't have accurate data about the pattern of ocean currents earlier, we can now welcome panicked decrees that we are changing the pattern of ocean currents!
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.
who would have ever guessed that we would have trouble forming an accurate model of a vast, complex, chaotic system
Mod parent up. Global warming isn't science, it's politics.
"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.
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.
The ultimate goal of these models is to make solid predictions on the effects of climate change. As of yet, few if any are much more than toys. They're useful toys in so far as they help move us towards a good model, but toys just the same.
However, the fact that climate change is occuring and directly related to human activity is based on empirical data. The models being wrong do not change that conclusion.
Not a typewriter
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?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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).
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.
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.
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 models which are still in such a preliminary state.
(The trillion-dollar adjustments involve increasing everyone's cost of living in order to internalize costs that may not actually be negative externalities, and include the imposition of a very expensive administrative layer atop everything carbon-related.)
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
In other words, now we don't know what might happen and we're *still* mucking with our climate.
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.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
-- Isaac Asimov
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
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 before we were aware of it, and it will all still be here long after the race has ran itself out.
You can reasonably blame human behavior if you like, but placing the blame squarely on 'carbon' is a fashionista tactic, and little else.
Personally, I wonder why we're not considering the impact of all the little heat pockets we need to survive on this planet. Think about it - we warm our cars, our homes, our beverages, we use electrical devices that ALL radiate heat, and we're actually producing a fair amount of thermal energy just by walking around and breathing...
For that matter, what about all the concrete/asphalt in the world? That stuff gets HOT in the sun light, and there's a lot of it. Could that not warm things up a bit? There used to be trees there, you know...
All that heat, and yet we blame poor little 'carbon'. :D
But seriously, I do fear that an all-electric world will produce more net heat than an oil-powered one, if for no other reason than oil has a far greater energy density than we can currently achieve with electricity.
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.
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 wait the fifty.
But more importantly, there's a philosophical point to be made. When faced with a possible problem, should you always make a radical change to the status quo? Well, what do you do in your personal life? Most people don't do this, unless the potential problem is both very serious and has a high probability. The ones who want to effect massive changes know this and want to convince us on both counts.
Ultimately, though, broken models like this one do damage to the radical policymakers. Those policy choices are dependent on not just climate models, but economic models based on those climate models. If we can't even trust the climate models, where do you think we are with the economic models? And how can we possibly justify spending such massive sums with that much uncertainty as to the outcome?
We might end up impoverishing ourselves to such a degree that we don't have the technology to handle whatever the climate does throw us. And that would be just as disastrous. So there are risks either way. I say stick to the status quo until we know we can't.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
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.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The fact that temperature has been dropping for a decade doesn't change the warming theory?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
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. " And as far as the impact on climate theory, "this finding may [my emphasis] impact the work of global warming forecasters." Doesn't exactly sound like a startling, paradigm-shifting result, does it?
So while we'll have to wait for the modelers to incorporate the new data to see what the real impact is, I think that it is safe to say that anybody who is seizing upon this finding at this early stage as casting doubt on global warming certainly qualifies as a crank.
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 is.
^X^S ^X^C
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.
The "fact"?
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 that relevant. The model is sufficiently robust as to state, quite clearly, that increasing CO2 emissions is potentially a bad idea, and that reducing them is potentially a good idea.
The question isn't "is the model fine grained enough that we can make large predictions based on it?".
The questions are "what are the risks associated with the possible courses of action/inaction provided it's right/wrong?
It's a factor in a risk assessment, plain and simple. Not to mention the fact that there are likely hundreds of thousands of business opportunities involved in becoming more green. It's all a matter of how it's done.
Disclaimer - I'm a meat-eating, V6-driving, ex-military hunter who is completely addicted to technology. ie. A far cry from a tree-hugger. That being said, if you can present me with green alternatives to the energy-hungry devices I RELY on, that aren't 150% the cost of the non-green versions, I will happily take them.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Cost isn't always just the money you spend, it's also the consequence of what you don't do. We're already seeing the economic consequences of global warming and there is no reason to believe that this won't continue to be a more serious problem.
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 until it's someone else's problem.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
(Never have mod points except when tedious faggotry like the World's Biggest Lego Soup Spoon stories are up....)
So... it's harder to get the right answer than previously though, but the previous calculations done the 'easy' way are still correct?
I'm struggling to reconcile this...
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue. Of course the science needs to evolve and of course scientists are refining their models. But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness from those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering that this issue has and is enabling.
It was meant more like "$FACT doesn't change the warming theory" (except for a cooling theory, which is also admissible and probably equally valid)
Truth is, we're not getting any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has never been there before. IF carbon dioxide is heating up the planet, it's not going to be warmer than what we once had. This might be bad news for penguins and polar bears, but humans who thrive from equator to polar circle probably have not much to worry about as a whole.
Building dams in the lowlands and combating moskitoes and deserts should be the first line of defense, because that's where it will be needed, if ever.
Are people really claiming that *the* single most effective AND efficient method to prevent a flood is burning less oil? It's only a few steps above Voodoo, but I personally can think of several hundred things that can prevent future floods much better than stopping today's cars.
In terms of actual flood protection per dollar spent, carbon dioxide reduction is totally ridiculous.
...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.
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
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php
From the long list of: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
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".
Many water shortages today aren't cause by a lack of water, but a lack of clean, fresh water.
If you can't measure it (or quantify it in some way) it didn't happen. So yes, while this in no way invalidates climate change models, I would consider it to substantially weaken them.
It IS fact. That part's easy. It's what effect it will have that's hard. Considering the implications of climate shift on food and energy supplies, panicked responses are understandable, if not helpful.
OK now both the so-called 'sides' (the conservative "we can always do what we've always done, no big change to God's earth is possible" partisans and the lefty "zomg humans are unnatural and everything we do that affects the rest of nature is morally wrong" zealots) can come flame away.
Of course, THAT will not help GW.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
And that's ultimate irony of the most hysterical proponents of human caused global warming. They believe that we're already irreversibly doomed and that no matter what economic devastation we wreak on the developing world (read: starvation exacerbation), all we will do is the equivalent of attaching a few life vests to the Titanic. So if we were to believe and heed them, what's the point?
Read my blog: HansMast.com
Heat just one room at a time instead of the whole house. That's how you make a major change to help reduce greenhouse gas.
I tried that, had the heater turned off at all times except a space heater in the bedroom at bedtime. It ended up being more costly and less efficient than heating the whole house and keeping it heated.
My theory is that the insulation makes it pretty cheap to maintain the temperature, but the space heater has to work constantly to counteract the heat lost to neighboring rooms. The other possibility is that natural gas (whole house) is really cheap around here and electricity (single room) isn't.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
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".
You're right, and if this is just a slightly more accurate but complicated reformulation of the old method, that may be the situation. My skepticism comes from the fact that climate models are simulations of chaotic systems, which often have the effect of amplifying very minor deviations in unpredictable ways.
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.
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.
Deaths have decreased because emergency treatment at the hospital has improved and people are less likely to ignore the warning signs of a heart attack. Heart disease rates have actually increased.
^X^S ^X^C
Sure, climatologists are not experts in the economy.
However, stating that we need major CO2 emissions reduction is well within their competence. So they're stating that.
How we're gonna tackle it is a task for economists, engineers and other scientists.
Number of votes is irrelevant. Do you want to abolish CDC and FEMA because virologists have only one vote too?
*sigh*
The atmosphere IS collecting energy.
Our climate IS self-regulating, as well - at least within boundary limits. That we don't know what those boundaries are should terrify you. The implications of climate change can de-stabilize the socio-economic patterns we depend on - perhaps not as a species, but certainly as a civilisation.
I see the disbelief climate-change deniers as being similar to 19th century disbelief that it was impossible for species to go extinct. They all had scientific rationales as to why it simply couldn't happen - until the fate of the Dodo was documented. One difference is that there are fewer GW/AGW deniers in the scientific community than there were extinction deniers, of course.
Now tell me - how many scientists are saying that the fact that we don't understand our deep-ocean currents as completely as we thought we did means that there is no GW? How many are saying that this invalidates AGW? None? No - there are the fraction of scientists that lobby for fossil-fuel industry, or the specialists in other fields and even non-scientists whose faith in their own opinions _are_ their qualifications to speak up. How many of those who 'doubt' GW/AGW do so out of ideological reasons? At least those who give credit to the idea of GW/AGW have the opinion of most scientists on their 'side'. What do deniers have?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Then why are people who question the extreme steps being taken to mitigate global warming being lumped in with holocaust deniers? Scientists are doing this-- not just hack journalists.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
As if you are not just another 'armchair climatologist'.
The very fact that you use the term "Deniers" shows you are just another partisan hack pushing your agenda.
What if...just suppose that the climate change that you fear for its cost is natural and not man-caused?
Should we then muck with the environment in an effort to stop it, because of the cost if we don't?
As far as economic disruption goes, that's going to be no big deal in a free country. People will move out, move uphill/inland and their assets(other than real estate) and work will follow. More will be employed building new harbors, new levees, etc. The economy can readily adapt and does so way faster than any ecosystem can change.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Best estimate for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses from today's level? A 3.5cents per gallon of gas tax. (The HORROR!!!)
The warming of the planet (which is agreed upon - the only controversy is whether this is a natural cycle or man-made) is just putting more energy into this system. When you add energy to a dynamical system 2 things can happen.
1) You can stay in the same regime, but increase the variance in the oscillations. In layman's term, we will have the same kind of weather but it will fluctuate more than we are used to, storms might be a bit more severe, we'll have hot days and then cold days, etc.
2) The other possibility is that we shift to a new regime. In other words, we cross some energy barrier and move into a landscape that is totally new for humans. For example, a world without polar icecaps. A hot earth. If this happens... well, things will be interesting. probably not in a good way.
I can say with some confidence that no one knows what will happen. But it is unequivocal that we are poisoning the earth. Pollution is destroying our food and water supply. It is giving our children asthma. It's wiping out some species and mutating others. This is something we can see happening now and yet, we still can't get people to change their behavior. what is it going to take to get people to realize that our current lifestyle is not sustainable?
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765