Slashdot Mirror
Study: Past Climate Change Was Caused by Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere
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."
no...please...not Billy Ocean
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...
Yes I am executive at MSNBC
So to prevent climate change we just need to eradicate the ocean? Simple!
... political. It would be nice to just talk about the science and mute all the political gamesmanship.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
Of course NASA is used to doing this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
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."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
""Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "
Why would a 150 year melt cycle be "right on time" in warming world? Never mind somebody made the headline "Unprecedented melting of Greenland ice".
How can a cyclical even be unprecedented?
I believe Mr. Hansen left shortly after this. I could be wrong but I think it was around that time.
Need Mercedes parts ?
The study says that the ocean currents changed (of course, everyone knows that will cause a different climate). The reason the currents changed is because of lowered ocean levels and much more ice on Antarctica (blocking the flow of the water).
The question of course to ask is, what caused the lowered ocean levels in the first place?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They are just settling down the science a little more.
These Last 6 Months Were The Warmest Humans Have Ever Recorded On Earth
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. (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 million years. Particularly for the current warming, it is the largest single forcing.
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.
The USA is less than 2% of the surface area of the planet. 2014 is on track to be the hottest year on record. Notice on the world map figure that there is a cold feature centered on the Great Lakes region. Another interesting item from the reference: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, and 2003, in that order are the warmest years on record.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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 that without more prisons and military spending, they will lose their jobs?
I'm don't think you've thought this through rationally.
As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity.
Sounds important to know.
Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it.
Like mine above? Pointing out that the OP was about the glaciation of the northern hemisphere 2.7million years ago, not current climate change?
Wonderful
It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.
Florida's not a very large sample space.
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. - apparently.
In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize.
What do you think needs to be discarded. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 concentration? The fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect?
You're talking like these aren't well proven points with a century of optics and thermodynamics behind them.
You moron.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/
And that doesn't count "anecdotal" claims that will remain anecdotal because Democrat DAs and AGs refuse to investigate or prosecute.
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.
That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...
The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.
Plants love CO2. Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?
It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down? Should we be working on reducing such jumping world-wide?
The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years. Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold". Probably, because other — much greater — factors affect climate...
But I intend to stick around for another 10 years. We can continue this discussion then...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.?
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
The Atlantic has two sides, and stretches two hemispheres. Florida is not that large.
That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...
Okay, that statement is from the AR4, but if you're big into actual data, you're claim is that the data shows that "Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity [...] — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.
As sea level is rising , I assume that you mean that hurricane activity has been demonstrated to be decreasing. However, I can't find any confidence calculations in your link. What statistical significance do you claim can be attributed to this decrease in activity?
The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.
Okay, show me the proof that they were wrong, and to what confidence. And give me the names of these researchers that you want fired. And show me who was doing better at the time that we can replace them with.
Plants love CO2.
Yes, but not equally. Poison ivy loves it more than woody plants. And coral reefs, and so ocean productivity hate it.
Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?
Carbon in the biosphere is a cycle dear. How are you going to keep animals from eating the plants, and how are you going to keep the plants from rotting once they die?
It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down?
No. Momentum is conserved during the jump.
The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years.
Yes. It accelerated.
Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold"
Show me the statistical signficance of the first claim.
The second claim is one that you're happy to hang your hat on? How was it received in the scientific literature?
For instance, SB11 [8] fail to provide any meaningful error analysis in their recent paper and fail to explore even rudimentary questions regarding the robustness of their derived ENSO-regression in the context of natural variability.
Addressing these questions in even a cursory manner would have avoided some of the study’s major mistakes. Moreover, the
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.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
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"
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Since [ theoretical nuclear physicists ] produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ. We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.
Close down that boondoggle at CERN now!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
only part of the US.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The part that is settled is that CO2 causes warming, and there aren't actually more facts to be discovered there. However, if your world includes more than one way for radiation to enter and exit the Earth, please claim your Nobel.
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 but is generally in the low tens of meters), so it doesn't make much difference near the surface. The lower atmosphere is already more or less opaque to IR, so the effect is for OLR to take slightly longer to leave the upper atmosphere. Overall this means that the system retains more heat energy, by a tiny amount.
The problem is that CO2 isn't the only gas in the atmosphere, and there happen to be huge reservoirs of a much more effective greenhouse gas covering some 70% of the Earth's surface. It would be nice if either we could figure out another way that heat is transferred to space, or if there were some agent in the upper atmosphere that would counteract the effect of CO2. The first one can be ruled out by the physics of radiation, and the second one has not been observed by satellites. So, that leaves us with a certainty of 3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, plus water vapor feedbacks, which are likely to be strongly positive, because the amount of water vapor that can be held in the atmosphere goes up exponentially with temperature, and as stated, water vapor is a much more effective GHG than CO2.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
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 are other much better and easier ways to committ vote fraud than in-person voter impersonation or multiple voting.
They're also much more common for that reason.
And Voter ID does precisely squat to prevent them.
And yet, these states with really restrictive Voter ID arent running around trying to stop those methods with really draconian laws. no, just Voter ID, cause that's all they apparently think is important when it comes to "protecting the integrity of the elections".... or maybe the disparity could more easily be explained by "if we make it hard for the poors to vote, we have a better chance at winning". care to take a wager?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Next year's Nobel prize, no doubt!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
No, of course. They should have called you.
A silly question: Opining about climate stuff... doesn't this make you a climate scientist (they are only common guys with opinions, right?) My quesion is: What happens that the Evil IPCC is NOT paying you a living? That's what climate scientists do, isn't it?
Well, I'm enjoying our record warmth here in Holland, no, don't take me wrong, I am not an Apostate I know that Global Cooling is coming soon and I firmly believe in the Hiatus (whatever this may be). Insh Allah!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
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.
Well, given all that, do you think it's more likely that: a) the submitter oversimplified their summary or b) an article in Science both has the intellectual value of "derp" and was accurately summarized on Slashdot?
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
What if climate change is caused by God, and he's punishing humanity for not doing well enough?
A valid point. Consider it a criticism of the summary.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.