Slashdot Mirror
Ocean-wide Sensor Array Provides New Look at Global Ocean Current (nature.com)
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.
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.
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.
This. Trashing science is easy. Doing science is hard.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
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.