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."
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.
That's right. Whenever the global warming science is shown to be questionable, you just need to dive right in and blame the problems on the deniers. It's all their fault that the science doesn't ever work out, so they need to be reassessed to a pole, with a large fire build around them, for a very hot conclusion, then you'll have your new evidence of warming by roasting marshmallows on their frying butts!
Global warming has to be real, otherwise how would someone like Algore have gotten a Nobel Prize for making a movie about it?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
It equally implies that the evidence underpinning the "denial" is incorrect.
So lets face it, there is very little science and an awful lot of jealous hatred of Al Gore motivating the deniers in this thread.
The payroll program isn't totally wrong when it calculates that you owe 5X more taxes than you get paid, it's just a slight miscalculation. you wouldn't want to discredit the program for something this minor. Just leave a check to cover the taxes at the front desk every week.
Algore and friends are using flawed models like this to increase the costs of living. Higher taxes, more expensive goods and services. While he is using 50x the normal power for ONE of his own houses. It's "do as I say, not as I do".
The "science" always turns up flawed. Until they can come up with a model of the planet that can predict the current/past history, how do they expect to predict future events? How are you supposed to fix something when you don't even begin to understand, and aren't even sure it's happening? Are you sure what you're doing isn't having the opposite effect on the environment from what you want?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
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.
Thank you for disclosing your idiocy club membership. In 50-100 years the cost will not be the same, it will be MUCH MUCH higher even adjusted for inflation. Damn near everything costs more the longer you wait to address the problem, why would this be any different?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
No, you're wrong! We *always* muck with our climate simply by the acts of living, breathing, and eating. What we're doing is making *very* expensive decisions about how to handle something that we don't even understand. Al Gore should have stuck with "inventing the Internet" if he wanted a personal legacy that isn't going to look like muck itself in 50 years or less.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
They haven't bothered to scientifically test to see if CO2 warms the atmosphere -- they've only shown that correlation exists between increased atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide content. They've also seen that when temperatures increase, carbon dioxide and methane is released in greater quantities from natural sources. They've shown that carbon dioxide blocks heat rays as well. If taking these 3 observations and using them to say "It's a scientific fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere" then you are operating under a different definition of "science" than I do.
What makes you think they'll "scientifically" incorporate this model? Despite popular belief, making a documentary and pretending it's a NOVA special doesn't make something science. Neither does appearing on public broadcasting.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
> This confirms suspicions that have been around
> since the 1990's, and likely plays havoc with
> global models of climate change.
Not that this will change our country's fixed delusion about global warming...
while this in no way invalidates climate change models
Be careful, get too far ahead of orthodoxy and you will be judged a heretic.
However, you seem to be moving comfortably with the tide. Oh that comfortable groupy flow.
Mine is Good
I don't think that's true, but even if it is, they're not in a position to make that call, are they? They're not economists, for one thing, and while they may be expert in climatology, they are not expert in macroeconomics. A climatologist can tell us, "If you want to avert X degrees of warming, you'll need to reduce CO2 emissions by Y." But - as experts - they cannot make the call of how much X degrees of warming is likely to cost, how much a reduction of CO2 emissions by Y is likely to cost, or what trade-off should be made between those extremes.
Finally, while climatologists have just the same vote that I do for making these trade-offs in a democratic society, they don't have more votes than I do. Ultimately, it's up to voters to decide where the trade-offs should lie. The alternative is basically global tyranny*, which I (for one) consider a cure worse than the disease.
* I'm not even being hyperbolic here. The scale of measures being proposed is massive and there would be a huge incentive to cheat. Therefore, the only way to enforce these measures would be to subjugate every nation to a global power capable of enforcement.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...