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."
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Ocean Circulation doesn't affect the *global* temperature directly. It simply redistributes the heat around the planet. Hence the name CONVEYOR.
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.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
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.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The place I used to work at 15 years ago created global land cover classification maps based on satellite data. When they started creating their 1km resolution maps, a few GC scientists got pissed since the data broke their climate models. It seems their assumptions of what the land cover was like for different areas of the planet were quite different from observed reality.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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
I remember after one flood there some clueless tv commentator asking why the Bangladeshis (Bengalis?) don't build dikes. The answer was - "build dikes out of what? We don't even have rocks"
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
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 that cause global warming alive.
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.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051411
Read that, then try and tell me all the global warming hysteria is legitimate.
Nope, no fertile plains, just Sahara style desert. There's enough methane stored in the permafrost of Canada and Russia to make our bit of car exhaust look like cow farts.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
But global warming (what? oops) climate change is FACT FACT I TELLS YA
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.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com