Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ocean-wide Sensor Array Provides New Look at Global Ocean Current (nature.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a Nature article: The North Atlantic Ocean is a major driver of the global currents that regulate Earth's climate, mix the oceans and sequester carbon from the atmosphere -- but researchers haven't been able to get a good look at its inner workings until now. The first results from an array of sensors strung across this region reveal that things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed. Researchers with the Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program (OSNAP) presented their findings this week at an ocean science meeting in Portland, Oregon. With nearly two years of data from late 2014 to 2016, the team found that the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation -- which pumps warm surface water north and returns colder water at depth -- varies with the winds and the seasons, transporting an average of roughly 15.3 million cubic metres of water per second. The measurements are similar in magnitude to those from another array called RAPID, which has been operating between Florida and the Canary Islands since 2004. But scientists say they were surprised by how much the currents measured by the OSNAP array varied over the course of two years.

73 comments

  1. A Big Revelation!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Climate change is false.

    1. Re: A Big Revelation!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Before I decide whether this is a good idea or not, are these liberal sensors or conservative sensors?

    2. Re: A Big Revelation!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're in Australia, the Liberal Party *is* the conservative party!
      Amazing word trickery.

    3. Re: A Big Revelation!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is very interesting is that this story is not about Al or "The Russians."

      Did Miss Mash take a toke and post a real story?

      Those are real stories, too. Enjoy your read and your smoke

    4. Re: A Big Revelation!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, btw here's a good look at the Atlantic gyre with and without the Gulf Stream.

    5. Re: A Big Revelation!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A one-off. Check out latest story.

  2. OSNAP is an excellent name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    for a system that will show in great detail how human activity is irrevocably changing the climate
    of the planet for the worse.

    1. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      for a system that will show in great detail how human activity is irrevocably changing the climate
      of the planet for the worse.

      Hate to break it to you, but it actually proves we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of planetary systems to be able to make reliable predictions 100 years or more in the future.

      From TFA:

      The first results from an array of sensors strung across this region reveal that things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed.

      Ocean currents a huge major factor in global climate trends, and here we're still making major discoveries about things like ocean currents and magma plumes.

      Only recently it was accidentally discovered by a NASA satellite that the accelerated Antarctic ice-melt rates that had been blamed on AGW were actually being caused by a monster-sized magma plume rivaling the Yellowstone magma plume underneath the ocean floor under the Antarctic.

      Given that there is so much we are still learning and have yet to learn, it's patently absurd to insist we can reliably & accurately predict global average temperatures 100 years or more in the future.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That magma plume you speak of doesnâ(TM)t do what you think it does, it explains the slightly higher than expected ice melt rate...the majority of the ice melt is due to climate change though. The magma plume just explains why in one area the ice is melting faster than everywhere else.

    3. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by riverat1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hate to break it to you, but it actually proves we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of planetary systems to be able to make reliable predictions 100 years or more in the future.

      I guess it was just an accident then that a relatively simple climate model from 1967 was able to make pretty accurate predictions of the climate.

      The first climate model turns 50, and predicted global warming almost perfectly

      Only recently it was accidentally discovered by a NASA satellite that the accelerated Antarctic ice-melt rates that had been blamed on AGW were actually being caused by a monster-sized magma plume rivaling the Yellowstone magma plume underneath the ocean floor under the Antarctic.

      What evidence do you have that this magma plume is a recent phenomena that caused a sudden increase in Antarctic ice melt rates rather than something that has existed for thousands of years?

    4. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      for a system that will show in great detail how human activity is irrevocably changing the climate
      of the planet for the worse.

      Hate to break it to you, but it actually proves we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of planetary systems to be able to make reliable predictions 100 years or more in the future.

      From TFA:

      The first results from an array of sensors strung across this region reveal that things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed.

      Ocean currents a huge major factor in global climate trends, and here we're still making major discoveries about things like ocean currents and magma plumes.

      Only recently it was accidentally discovered by a NASA satellite that the accelerated Antarctic ice-melt rates that had been blamed on AGW were actually being caused by a monster-sized magma plume rivaling the Yellowstone magma plume underneath the ocean floor under the Antarctic.

      Given that there is so much we are still learning and have yet to learn, it's patently absurd to insist we can reliably & accurately predict global average temperatures 100 years or more in the future.

      Strat

      You don't need perfect understanding of every little detail to make accurate general predictions.
      I can't predict the exact path traveled by the neighbor & his dog on their nightly walk but I can make some predict good guesses as to where they'll be & roughly when.

      The big question is how much additional heat is being added to the oceans as that can't be handwaved away and while a lot can be absorbed, it'll eventually be released.
      Never mind how much heat will be added in the years to come, what's already been sequestered in the oceans will come back to bite us in the next several decades.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by KeensMustard · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but it actually proves we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of planetary systems to be able to make reliable predictions 100 years or more in the future.

      So the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions could be even worse than predicted?

      Why are we delaying action again? I've forgotten.

      Given that there is so much we are still learning and have yet to learn, it's patently absurd to insist we can reliably & accurately predict global average temperatures 100 years or more in the future.

      So those guys who confidently predict that no harm can come from increasing greenhouse gas emissions should be treated with considerable scepticism - yes? Because I think those guys are somewhat less methodical and less trustworthy than an old crone reading the chicken gizzards

      Your argument seems to be that because we can't predict the impacts of our emissions, we should therefore take immediate and substantive action and shut down all our emitting technologies.

      Is that your argument?

    6. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You don't need perfect understanding of every little detail to make accurate general predictions.

      I'm glad you said that, I was waiting for someone to post that.

      In order to predict the behavior of any system, one must first identify the most statistically-relevant major variables. We don't yet know what they are/could be, or how many are necessary, as we don't know yet what all those major factors are and have a very imperfect understanding of many of the ones we do know about, like ocean currents and magma plumes, etc etc etc.

      Humans are a blind man trying to describe an elephant by feeling it's trunk. We don't know what we don't know yet, but it's damned sure it isn't anywhere near certain enough to make predictions accurate & reliable enough 100+ years out that we should make major upheavals in society or cripple ourselves and slow development of civilization.

      That doesn't mean I favor "no limits, pollute all you want". We should take reasoned, well thought-out, pragmatic, economically reasonable, responsible, and practical steps to reduce all forms of pollution. Nobody wants to shit where they eat.

      Maybe some day, with the advent of AI near, AI could be harnessed to help us understand this immensely-chaotic system we live on so that we can make these sorts of climate predictions with some reasonable amount of certainty.

      But, that day ain't today.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What evidence do you have that God isn't a giant fly spaghetti monster?

      You're so dumb. He -just- got through explaining that because we're still making major didcover9about the planet (as opposed to faith based AGW bullshit), we can't possibly predict with any reasonable accuracy what will happen in 100 years.

      Hell, we can't even measure it -right now- without data mysteriously disappearing or needing to be forced into pre-determined curves.

      And finall,y this really needs to be said twice, it's so important: you're dumb.

    8. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to have a faith based belief that scientists don't know nuthin'.

      We already know that there is a greenhouse effect on Earth since the normal thermodynamic temperature of an object orbiting at Earth's distance from the sun is about 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 degrees Celsius). Earth's average surface temperature is about 58 F. The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere explains that temperature difference nicely. It makes sense that increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would increase temperatures. So scientists may not be able to predict with precision exactly what temperatures will be in 100 years but they can pretty easily predict they will be warmer than they are now as long as greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere continue to increase. It's difficult to predict exactly what will happen since there are no analogs in Earth's history to the current rapid increase in greenhouse gases. Uncertainty is not your friend because the effects could just as easily be worse than expected as they could be better than expected.

    9. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      That is one theory. One that is not supported by the OSNAP network at this time.

    10. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      I'm able to use stock graphs to predict the market well enough to earn money. I don't even bother with the fundamentals. I don't understan. the underlying data. All I am doing is looking at graphs and projecting into the near future. 50 years of accurate predictions might we have a pretty good grasp of climate change. Or it could mean we are predicting the long term weather, as indicated by the recent activity and millions of years of data.

    11. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA says that Antarctica is gaining ice mass except for the area with the plumes, so...

    12. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere explains that temperature difference nicely

      No actually it doesn't. See the problem I have with this is that according to the makeup of the atmosphere

      • Nitrogen — 78 percent
      • Oxygen — 21 percent
      • Argon — 0.93 percent
      • Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
      • Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor

      There are only 4 CO2 molecules for every 10000 molecules of air, so basically 1 CO2 molecule in a group of 2500 others. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 mirocmeter wavelengths which equates to CO2 blocking no more than 8% of infrared radiation going through the atmosphere.

      That means mathematically for CO2 to increase the temperature by 1C degrees that a single molecule of CO2 must be capturing and radiating back 2500C degrees.

      So while we may have been having temperature increases since the end of the last ice age, it is hard to say for certainty if things are speeding up or not, but mathematically it just seems unreasonable that CO2 is the culprit. Perhaps the Earth itself is radiating more heat, we are seeing quite a bit more volcanic activity so maybe more magma is closer to the surface. Or perhaps it is just the heating from the Sun cycles and as we start to enter the coming minimum the cooler temperatures will prevail. Or maybe it is just the natural cycle of heating after an ice age.

      But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere just doesn't appear to be capable of being the big bogey man everyone is trying to make it out to be. CO2 is, however, a direct by product of an industrialized society so stopping CO2 emissions would mean slowing down industry. And if you follow the money trail, in the US at least, when the USSR collapsed the US based Communists needed to go somewhere else to ply their trade so they joined the environmentalism movements. What better way to destroy capitalism then to claim the artifacts of a capitalist society are going to destroy all life on the planet by increasing plant food - CO2 ? Hard to see how our current levels of CO2 can destroy life when during the reign of the dinosaurs the atmosphere had CO2 levels in the range of 2000ppm and we're only at 400ppm.

      But never let a good crises go to waste, fake or not, right?

    13. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We don't yet know what they are/could be
      Actually we do.

      We just don't know if a specific current is changing its track more to the left or more to the right, hence w don't know if New York is hit or Casablanca or if the current continues to the north and hits Island and Norway as it is right now.

      No idea about what bullshit you want to argue.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Your argument seems to be that because we can't predict the impacts of our emissions, we should therefore take immediate and substantive action and shut down all our emitting technologies.

      Is that your argument?

      I already answered if you'd actually bothered to read all the way through my comment. Apparently however you seem to be among those that barely manages to read the title and first line before you REEEEE! and dash out a snarky (if dumb) comment.

      That doesn't mean I favor "no limits, pollute all you want". We should take reasoned, well thought-out, pragmatic, economically reasonable, responsible, and practical steps to reduce all forms of pollution. Nobody wants to shit where they eat.

      "Reading is fundamental."

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    15. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by mikael · · Score: 1

      The alternative explanation is that CO2 levels follow the growth of vegetation (warmer weather = humidity = rapid vegetation growth = more CO2). But there is also plankton which releases chemicals to boost cloud cover when temperatures get too warm. That cloud cover then reflects sunlight out to space.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    16. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by mikael · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to simulate the heating of the Earth, you would need temperature, density, humidity, gas ratio levels (everything to run a fluid dynamic simulation in the atmosphere). But you also need to know the topology of the Earth for river flow. That would also require geology and the actual knowledge of every underground river. Then there are underwater volcanoes and fault lines in the oceans which have vents which allow in the inflow of cold water and venting of hot water carrying minerals. Another complication is the interaction of the Sun's magnetic field and the Earth's magnetic field since this has an affect on cosmic rays and their ability to influence cloud formation. There are also long period effects like the orbit and inclination of Earth's rotation axis which also affects climate.

      Some simulations exist to model each of these, but there is no one single system.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    17. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And, if you read The Black Swan, by Nicholas Nassim Taleb, you will learn why even what you are doing -- predicting the market by assuming that it will behave tomorrow much like it behaved today (which is an excellent way to predict weather as well for up to three days) will one day cost you more money in a day than you've made in all the transactions up to date -- rare, large, expensive fluctuations in the market that do NOT conform to the usual Gaussian, linear regression, simple extrapolation models are a feature of chaotic systems and their kin.

      One of the many things I dislike intensely about the way climate model results are presented and used -- and I am not making this up, you can read Chapter 9 in AR5 to verify -- is that they take a weather model, where weather models are where chaotic dynamics was discovered, tap it with a magic wand to call it a climate model instead, coarse grain it to where they can afford to run it (ignoring things like the actual Kolmogorov scale for the dynamics, the spatiotemporal scale where stepwise dynamics MIGHT actually integrate the problem you are trying to integrate), select model parameters -- many of them, the model space itself has a high dimensionality -- on heuristic grounds, making it simple to insert confirmation bias without even knowing it if you are building the model, select initial conditions that are more or less arbitrary because we do not KNOW the state of the Earth's climate system at a resolution anywhere close to that needed to initialize the model, then run it forward for as long as they want to/can afford to wait, tell themselves that they've reached some sort of "equilibrium" that means something relative to the Earth's climate state, make changes (like ramp up CO2) and run the model forward for as long as they can afford to.

      Sometimes, of course, the Earth cools. Sometimes it warms. Sometimes it is in between. It's chaotic!

      So then they AVERAGE all of those trajectories, and claim that the average is a prediction, projection, whatever, without ever actually acknowledging the width and variance of the range of outcomes.

      This happens for ALL the many models in use. Many if not most of these models are not independent -- there are whole families of similar but not quite identical models all run by NASA GISS, for example. They then take ALL of the averages of ALL of the models -- without considering or eliminating the fact that multiply represented models get (in effect) more than one "vote" -- and superaverage them together and call that "the grand projection" because if they actually called it a prediction the gods of all science would smite them with lightning where they stand. Again, they ignore the considerable variance between all the model superaverages before they super-superaveraged them WITHOUT EVEN THINKING about how many actual RUNS contributed to the superaveraged results being super-superaveraged, so again a model with 10 runs counts as much as another model with 1000 in the statistical weighting.

      The inclusion is also done without any reference to how successful the model(s) are. A model that hasn't come within three of its own standard deviations of the actual climate in its entire history is treated on the same basis as a model that has kept the actual climate within one standard deviation the entire time. This results all by itself in an enormous warming bias as the earth just hasn't warmed at anything like the rate the models overall have called for, and make it easy to then write a really scary summary for policy makers, leaving all of the actual warnings about the unbelievable travesty abuse of statistics that this is IN chapter 9 where nobody reads it or understands it unless they are in on the game.

      I don't care for this because I actually do statistical analysis, statistical mechanics, predictive modeling, and so on, and this really, truly is horrific. Again, if you don't believe me, read chapter 9 in AR5. By the way, if anyone wants to argue, they can start by directing me to a paper wh

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    18. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      "much more complicated than scientists previously believed" is code for "climate trolls, ready your weapons!"

      --
      Dark Reflection
    19. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Informative

      What evidence do you have that this magma plume is a recent phenomena that caused a sudden increase in Antarctic ice melt rates rather than something that has existed for thousands of years?

      Perhaps you missed this /. article:

      https://science.slashdot.org/s...

      Or, perhaps you were hoping nobody would actually call you on it.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except not all trajectories are chaotic in the truly chaos sense of the word, they just noisy and in those situations, they can be averaged.

    21. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by habig · · Score: 2

      That means mathematically for CO2 to increase the temperature by 1C degrees that a single molecule of CO2 must be capturing and radiating back 2500C degrees.

      I'm afraid your math is missing two parts: one, the thermodynamics of the problem, the CO2 molecules aren't sitting there in a vacuum, they're rattling around in thermal equilibrium as part of the atmosphere; two, the direction of outgoing vs. incoming radiation. So, in order of what happens:

      any given CO2 molecule happens to be really good at absorbing IR (much more so than the rest of the stuff you list) while being transparent in the visible. Yep, very true, just go into a lab and measure absorption spectra. Turns out some even less common items like methane are even better at it, but let's consider just CO2 for now.

      Next, that CO2 molecule, with the extra eV or so of IR energy it picks up from that one IR photon coming from some warm parking lot, can get rid of the bonus energy in one of two ways. It can give up that energy in a collision with other air molecules, turning the energy into thermal energy: air warms up slightly.

      Or, it can spit an IR photon back out in a random direction. If the IR is coming from ground warmed up by sunlight, it's headed up into the air. When the CO2 re-radiates, half the time it's still going up. Half the time it's shining back down. So, in this very simple view, half the energy stays trapped ... also warming things up slightly. Nowhere required a 2500K blackbody as you implied, two ways to get heat trapped.

      Making sure all the details are accounted quantitatively for is a bigger job (what's the exact absorption for each atmosphere component? What fraction is re-emiited vs collided away?): but people have done it. Important test: does all that work it agree with reality? Yeah, pretty much. Average temperature of a bare rock in orbit at 1AU is below freezing. Average temperature of the Earth with a CO2-laced atmosphere: not below freezing. Even just comparatively the simple energy balance equation outlined above gets this part right. In fact, yay for the greenhouse effect, or we'd be closer to Mars-like climate than what we are. A large fraction of the cold nasty Mars weather is due to its lack of a decent thick atmosphere (even though what's there is mostly CO2, there's not enough to help out very much), more so than the "it's a bit farther from the sun 1/r^2" contribution. And vice-versa for Venus: it's huge column depth of CO2 makes it the lead-melting sweatbox that it is, much more so than being slightly closer to the sun.

      So while we may have been having temperature increases since the end of the last ice age, it is hard to say for certainty if things are speeding up or not,

      Turns out that it's not hard to say. That's not even a particularly tricky bit of data analysis.

      but mathematically it just seems unreasonable that CO2 is the culprit. Perhaps the Earth itself is radiating more heat, we are seeing quite a bit more volcanic activity so maybe more magma is closer to the surface. Or perhaps it is just the heating from the Sun cycles and as we start to enter the coming minimum the cooler temperatures will prevail.

      Geologists say no to the first, although volcanic activity can contribute to greenhouse gases. And it also goes the other way, by reflective aerosols that cool things (this is where some cool potential geo-engineering ideas were born). As an astronomer I can say with more certainty that solar cycles do not change the overall energy output of the sun enough to account for what we're seeing now. Why? We measure that solar radiation as seen at the earth really well, and have been doing so for quite a few solar cycles. Not enough delta-luminosity.

      Or maybe it is just the natural cycle of heating after an ice age.

      There are certainly larger cycles, and of all the things you said, this is the least bo

    22. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by barakn · · Score: 1

      No, we didn't miss that article, we just didn't misinterpret it as you have. Nowhere did it state that the magma plume is short-lived. In fact, the NASA press release states "the heat source isn’t a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet." And constant references to the Yellowstone hotspot should have clued you in to the fact that this is likely a long-term phenomenon (Yellowstone has been at its current location for 2.1 million years and is at least 16 million years old).

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    23. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      So you agree with the basic premise: So the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions could be even worse than predicted?

    24. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      No, I did not miss that article. It's certainly possible that the magma plume affects the stability of the ice sheet in Marie Byrd Land. But the magma plume has probably been there for over a million years while the ice sheet there has advanced and retreated many times. Meanwhile ice sheets are melting not just there but all over the place around the periphery of Antarctica and in Greenland, most of them not affected by magma plumes. So the question still is what makes you think there has been a sudden change in the magma plume that has caused an increase in ice melt rates rather than something that's been going on for many thousands of years?

    25. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by barakn · · Score: 1

      OP was being sarcastic and obviously had read through your comment. -1 point to BlueStrat for lack of reading comprehension.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    26. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Humans are a blind man trying to describe an elephant by feeling it's trunk. We don't know what we don't know yet, but it's damned sure it isn't anywhere near certain enough to make predictions accurate & reliable enough 100+ years out that we should make major upheavals in society or cripple ourselves and slow development of civilization.

      You're assuming that not responding to the threats that climate science has so far been pretty accurate in predicting won't cause "major upheavals in society or cripple ourselves and slow development of civilization". If the worst of the predictions come to pass that won't be a good assumption.

    27. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere just doesn't appear to be capable of being the big bogey man everyone is trying to make it out to be.

      For your edification here is a link to a study that measured the change in forcing from the increase in CO2 over about a decade. It found a statistically significant trend of an increase in forcing of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade.

      Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

      And there's a PDF copy of the whole thing here so you don't need a subscription to Nature to read it.

      CO2 is, however, a direct by product of an industrialized society so stopping CO2 emissions would mean slowing down industry. And if you follow the money trail, in the US at least, when the USSR collapsed the US based Communists needed to go somewhere else to ply their trade so they joined the environmentalism movements. What better way to destroy capitalism then to claim the artifacts of a capitalist society are going to destroy all life on the planet by increasing plant food - CO2 ? Hard to see how our current levels of CO2 can destroy life when during the reign of the dinosaurs the atmosphere had CO2 levels in the range of 2000ppm and we're only at 400ppm.

      I find that when people start bringing in economic arguments that they are very motivated to just ignore the science as if economics trumps science. That's a pretty dangerous attitude. If some of the high end predictions about AGW come to pass it won't destroy life on Earth but it could well cause the collapse of human civilization. The Earth doesn't care. It will just respond to whatever the inputs are. Even if AGW causes a massive die off and extinction of significant parts of the biosphere after a few million years evolution will bring it back, but not necessarily with humans in the mix.

    28. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      It's kind of silly to assume I can lose all my money without understanding my investment strategy, but black swans are similar the point I was getting at. Climate is simply too long term and too complex to know if our models work or if they just work under present conditions.

    29. Re:OSNAP is an excellent name... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You're right, things could get a LOT worse than predicted, a lot faster than predicted.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    30. Re: OSNAP is an excellent name... by whit3 · · Score: 1
      Nature doesn't select facts, it takes in ALL of 'em. You would do well to do the same.

      The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere explains that temperature difference nicely

      No actually it doesn't. See the problem I have with this is that according to the makeup of the atmosphere Nitrogen â" 78 percent Oxygen â" 21 percent Argon â" 0.93 percent Carbon dioxide â" 0.04 percent

      So, there's a CO2 screen between ground level and high altitude, in the amount of a few grams per square inch, that blocks IR light. The percentage is NOT significant, only the amount.

      Where did you come up with "actually it doesn't"? Measurements? Theories? That doesn't follow from anything you've said, and your choice of measurements shows no intention to proceed with any calculations or observations. The idea that 0.04 percent means negligible, is TESTABLE, and you didn't test it. No scientist would miss that glaring omission, so... you're no scientist. And, the skeleton argument presented... is not viable, nor salvable. Bury it.

  3. Bah, what do these scientists know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They still haven't found the underground city of Atlantis!

    Or have they?

    1. Re:Bah, what do these scientists know? by hey! · · Score: 2

      They still haven't found the underground city of Atlantis!

      Maybe because they keep looking in the ocean.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Bah, what do these scientists know? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Atlantis was not underground.

      However there are recent findings that indicate Atlantis might have been a coastal city of Spain: http://www.nationalgeographic.... (there is more, just google).

      Assuming the city ever existed as it is AFAIK only mentioned by a single author.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Post say that Scientist were surprised. Scientist are never surprised. They know everything. Just ask a member of /. they will tell you Science is king and anyone who questions a Scientist believes the Earth is 6000 years old.

    Do not question Science or the Scientific conclusions of Scientists.
    Global Climate Change is a FACT as established by study showing that 98% of Scientists believe it to be a fact. When 98% of Scientist say something is true you know it is true. That is how we conduct Science. We the stupid non Scientist need to give more money to conduct more studies to determine what percentage of Scientists believe something. That way our Scientific knowledge can be advanced.

    Hooray for Science.

    1. Re:Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global Climate Change is a FACT as established by study showing that 98% of Scientists believe it to be a fact. When 98% of Scientist say something is true you know it is true.

      Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a conclusion drawn from studies of climate data spanning the last what, 100 years or so? 98% of scientists agree with the conclusion. It has, AFAICT, very little to do with scientists believe. AFAIK scientists believe in the Scientific Method.

      FTFY

    2. Re: Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hate to say it, we really believe in publishing that which gets us further funding. Now, I'm not in climate science, but it's pretty obvious across the fields I've worked with.

    3. Re: Anit-Science heretics by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Which makes it all the more impressive 98% aren't taking the oil money.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:Anit-Science heretics by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scientists love to be surprised. It leads to new and interesting insights into the world we live in. Scientists question the results of other scientists all the time. Science is one of the most competitive areas of human activities. The problem for people like you is if you want to question scientific conclusions you need to bring some real science to the table with you.

    5. Re:Anit-Science heretics by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. Trashing science is easy. Doing science is hard.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re: Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Global Climate Change is a FACT as established by study showing that 98% of Scientists believe it to be a fact. When 98% of Scientist say something is true you know it is true."

      At one point in history, more than 98% of scientists thought the earth was flat. Huzzah Galileo!

    7. Re: Anit-Science heretics by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      At one point in history, more than 98% of scientists thought the earth was flat. Huzzah Galileo!

      Actually it was long before Galileo that the flat-earth hypothesis was challenged. Aristotle, around 350 BC, summarized the weaknesses in this view that had accumulated up until then.

      A flat-earth hypothesis is perfectly reasonable as long as you are dealing with a small local area. But as you travel longer distances, the Earth's curvature begins to matter. For more information, consider this famous essay by Isaac Asimov.

      TL/DR: generally, new science does not invalidate old science, but instead shows where it is incomplete.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re: Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simpler explanation is that the oil money isn't there. You've got all of 1 name for climate scientists on oil money.

    9. Re:Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists love to be surprised. It leads to new and interesting insights into the world we live in. Scientists question the results of other scientists all the time. Science is one of the most competitive areas of human activities. The problem for people like you is if you want to question scientific conclusions you need to bring some real science to the table with you.

      No, actually. What you're seeing is an objection to seeing the Autopay box ticked next to any "scientific consensus" that arises. The assumption that such "conclusions" must automatically be reflected in social/economic policies is obnoxious. That's a matter for the political sphere and people's ability and willingness to pay the freight, nothing else.

    10. Re:Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats sounds like science is a formula on how to end up with no science at all.

    11. Re:Anit-Science heretics by KeensMustard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, actually. What you're seeing is an objection to seeing the Autopay box ticked next to any "scientific consensus" that arises. The assumption that such "conclusions" must automatically be reflected in social/economic policies is obnoxious. That's a matter for the political sphere and people's ability and willingness to pay the freight, nothing else.

      What alternative to the consensus theory has been proposed? That fairies did it?

      Pointing out there is a consensus (when there is) is hardly a crime. There's a consensus. Get over it. Why did a consensus on the issue arise? Because the scientists who supported the theory produced evidence, and then further evidence, and not one person who supports the myriad of alternate (and conflicting) views can produce a shred of evidence in support of the alternatives.

      If you want scientists to support your alternative view, stop whining and produce evidence.

    12. Re: Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A flat-earth hypothesis is perfectly reasonable as long as you are dealing with a small local area.

      A very local area as you can see Earth's curvature from 12-15 miles.

      TL/DR:

      *Now*. Now that there's a vast accumulation of knowledge. But even a couple hundred years ago... humors, aether, bleeding for health, phrenology and such. Explain where these topics were simply "incomplete".

    13. Re:Anit-Science heretics by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      No, actually. What you're seeing is an objection to seeing the Autopay box ticked next to any "scientific consensus" that arises. The assumption that such "conclusions" must automatically be reflected in social/economic policies is obnoxious. That's a matter for the political sphere and people's ability and willingness to pay the freight, nothing else.

      Well if the scientific consensus is correct you can pay now to mitigate the problem or you can pay later (and probably a whole lot more) to adapt to the changes coming down the pike. If the high end of scientific projections on anthropogenic global warming come to pass it could cost us our civilization. It doesn't matter that much to me since I'm old enough I'll be lucky to live another decade but if you're young you may be paying out your butt for the cost of adapting to things like sea level rise, more extreme weather events and disruptions in agricultural output. Good luck.

    14. Re: Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consensus... this word doesn't mean what you think it means.

      The faux consensus is based on false data. This is a well known fact. In any scientific field, except the faux study of climate, careers would have been destroyed and the rest fled (see cold fusion for an example) but because AGW is a political movement, not science, we keep funding this crap, making bad Hollywood movies, and pretending it's real science when it's clearly not.

      When you can point to some real science not based on corrupted data and not from people who have previously corrupted or supported corrupted data, let us know. I've been watching this sham go on for decades now. Have yet to see real science take place. Have seen a whole lot of politics, though.

    15. Re: Anit-Science heretics by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      At one point in history, more than 98% of scientists thought the earth was flat. Huzzah Galileo!
      That actually never was the case.

      Retarded european "commoners" thought the world was flat. That is a huge difference.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Anit-Science heretics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trashing science is easy. Doing science is hard.

      Then I have to ask: is the science of Trash easy or hard?

    17. Re: Anit-Science heretics by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      The faux consensus is based on false data. This is a well known fact.

      Provide the actual data and the studies to allow us to observe that data ourselves.

      In any scientific field, except the faux study of climate, careers would have been destroyed and the rest fled (see cold fusion for an example) but because AGW is a political movement, not science, we keep funding this crap, making bad Hollywood movies, and pretending it's real science when it's clearly not.

      Provide evidence of the political motivations of Arrhenius, Fourier et. al., evidence of their collusion and describe in detail how they benefited politically. Svante Arrhenius would now be 150 years old. How is he still alive? Where is he? Is he a vampire?

      When you can point to some real science not based on corrupted data and not from people who have previously corrupted or supported corrupted data, let us know. I've been watching this sham go on for decades now. Have yet to see real science take place. Have seen a whole lot of politics, though.

      Your alternative theory (that the whole thing is a conspiracy of time travelling communist vampires) is not actually very convincing.

    18. Re: Anit-Science heretics by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Most of them were not scientific theory and some have been shown to be partially correct, eg you can measure things like fetal alcohol syndrome by measuring the face and leeches are still used in medicine for those cases where it is useful.
      The aether is a good example of a scientific theory that made sense (light is a wave and waves need a substance to travel through) and made predictions (the aether would have wind like properties that could be measured). Once the instruments got accurate enough to measure light accurately enough to measure the wind of the Earth traveling through the aether and it was found not to exist, after repeated measurements to make sure it wasn't instrument failure, the theory was thrown out and the search was on for a good theory that explained why light was always measured at the same speed (in vacuum). Eventually new theory was accepted that explained the shortcomings of the aether theory. That's how science works.
      Note that new theory still has problems and scientists continue to search for a better theory, but just like relativity didn't stop Newtons laws from being useful in some cases, a new theory won't mean that relativity does not make accurate predictions.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re: Anit-Science heretics by dryeo · · Score: 1

      More like uneducated people who had never left the valley they were born in or met anyone who had traveled thought the Earth was flat if they ever bothered thinking about it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  5. Have we finally reached peak hubris? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed

    No doubt. And that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

    1. Re:Have we finally reached peak hubris? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed

      No doubt. And that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

      I see no hubris here. Rather, the humility of realizing there is more to understand.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Have we finally reached peak hubris? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Also the realization that perfect understanding will never be achieved. It is easy to predict that something will go down hill, predicting the exact course on varied terrain, not so much, especially when some of that terrain is not in sight. This is just part of the process of learning the terrain.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Have we finally reached peak hubris? by whit3 · · Score: 1

      things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed

      No doubt. And that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

      Well, yeah, but only because it would be silly for a scientist to believe something more complicated than reality. There's really only a single side to the distribution.

      You start with the simple model, then add as observations show embellishments to be necessary.

      This isn't an error, it's normal progress, as disregarded minor items (like 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere) turn out to be nonnegligible. There's absolutely no significance to it, except that scientists aren't being silly. Does that surprise anyone?

  6. Hey Everybody! Just Applied For Fox News Position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But was told I have to get lobotomized. I said, hmmm, thanks, but no.

  7. Re:Hey Everybody! Just Applied For Fox News Positi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they've lightened up a bit. They no longer demand your soul?

  8. Ocean wide sensor array by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    I feel like there's a good yo mama joke in here somewhere.

  9. Nihilsm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know when you are dealing with a nihilist? In the current instance:

    1). The idea that public policy will not reflect objective reality, either now or at some future point;
    2). The idea that environmental science only results in costs, and never any benefits;
    3). The idea that scientific consensus is not real (all accepted scientific theories work on this basis).