backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by jbartabas.. on Feb 18 at 12:44 PM


A recent map of North Atlantic currents shows warm, subtropical water being ferried far into the northern latitudes. The increased water temperature has enabled fast sea ice and glacier melt in recent years.  (Source: Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Warmer ocean currents are driving Greenland's glacial melt.

It remains to be seen exactly how much mankind understands the science of climatology. While global climate models continue to be produced, disproved, corrected, and debated in the administration, there is still some solid research being done. And that research keeps showing that there's a possibility that climate science is missing large tracts of data it needs.

Recently 
DailyTech reported on research concerning the Bering Strait and how this comparatively small geological formation might be responsible or at the least involved in the regulation of the North American temperature via ocean currents. Oceans have been understood to partially control temperatures and overall climate for years, but marine science has only recently been getting any media time with all the political hubbub over the global climate change debates.

A multi-institutional research team, led by Fiamma Straneo, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution physical oceanographer, has been studying ice loss in Greenland, particularly in the Sermilik Fjord, which connects the Irminger Sea to the Helheim glacier. The last decade has seen accelerated ice loss in Greenland -- the Helheim glacier has already retreated by several kilometers.

Unfortunately, the area has not been monitored regularly for long enough to perfectly reconstruct the ice melts before the recent accelerated melt, but a combination of ship and moored survey data, combined with temperature and depth data taken from the radio collars of hooded seals in the area have allowed them to piece together just how quickly things can change.

They found that changes in the North Atlantic ocean currents have been bringing much warmer, subtropical water further and further north. Water as warm as four degrees celsius was found during the time data. That warm water combined with swift current propagation has enabled the massive uptake in Greenland's glacial ice. The warmer water quickly moves through the fjords, taking away with it the melted ice and keeping the temperatures relatively warm.

Straneo explains, "This is the first extensive survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters circulate and how vigorous the circulation is. Changes in the large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a matter of months. It's a very rapid communication."

She goes on to stress how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions and that continuous observation will be extremely important in coming to a full picture of how they affect each other and sea-level regulation. It is also likely that understanding how these entities cooperate will help understand how the ocean currents and sea ice as a whole may affect regional and global climates. A rapid influx of cool, fresh water could serve to disrupt the global ocean current system, known as the Ocean Conveyor even as the area appears to be warming.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wha-wha-what?
By acase on 2/17/2010 8:14:00 AM , Rating: 4
What's this? A global climate article on daily tech not written by Mick or Masher/Mandrews? Not overshadowed by bias? Not only written to get people flaming at eachother?

As uninterested as I was in this read, it was a very relaxing breath of fresh air.




RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Hieyeck on 2/17/2010 8:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
I digress, a science article on a purportedly science site is most interesting. Best read in a while.

That said, the trolls do make for much more colorful conversation (Literally! All those red comments!).


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 9:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Water as warm as four degrees celsius was found during the time data.

Ahhhh... bath water temp. :)

I have to agree with your statement. Also this article has more logic behind it then any GW article I've read.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 9:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

quote:
He goes on to stress how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions and that continuous observation will be extremely important in coming to a full picture of how they affect each other and sea-level regulation.

And finally a smart research team. Other's tend to jump to a conclusion/side. Why once a decision is made we don't need to fund you any more? Well played here keep your findings factual and don't take sides, that way both sides can continue funding you (as it should be).


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By BBeltrami on 2/17/2010 10:54:54 AM , Rating: 3
Just speaking for myself, I appreciate a climate research team utilizing Scientific Method. Most tend to advocate their desired outcome to guarantee funding or lend support to a political position. They seem to keep their findings objective, that way neither "side" can impact, alter, manipulate or otherwise compromise the research, regardless of funding source.

I'm not an AGW advocate. But I'm not unreasonable. Compared to Jason Mick's posts, this was truly refreshing. Jason's alarmism, advocacy and bias are so flagrant that, for me, he personally has done much more to damage the "cause" of AGW than help it. The more he talks, the less I hear being said... But believe me, I'm listening.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 1:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific Method eh?

Anyways, the same team from Sep 23 last year:
quote:
Scientists say it's a natural process — in one period the cold waters will have the upper hand, and in the next it's the other way round. But the rapidly increasing temperatures of the subtropical oceans suggest that the balance could be tilted beyond natural variability, Curry says.

"We've actually measured the waters at their source and have seen their temperature going up, up, up in a way that can't be explained without taking into account human influences," she says

The research underscores the complex interaction between the world's oceans and a warming atmosphere.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32986328/ns/us_news-en...

In the end, it's probably hard to find completely unbiased human beings, but this reasearch seems necessary.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:43:27 PM , Rating: 5
So they did some more research, and found out it could be explained by natural variability. Not surprising they'd then change their minds, eh?

In any case, I would take any quotes on MSNBC with a grain of salt. They're well known for hanging up on any climate scientist who doesn't give them a scary enough quote.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 1:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your first two sentences are ambiguous. They seem to say the researchers first thought something, then more research made them think natural variability, and then they changed their minds (again)?

Anyway, I suppose you mean that they first inclined towards man-affected, then natural variability?

Your statement is flawed because 1. In this news release (released Feb 2010) they say this area hasn't been studied much and needs to be studied further, they don't lay the root cause anywhere specifically.

2. This news release concerns studies conducted in 2008, (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=6... ) , the MSNBC article is from Sept 2009 and refers to "..zigzagged between majestic icebergs in the Sermilik fjord last month".

3. Everyone has a reputation. Show some sort of substantial reference that MSNBC only listens to certain angles.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 2:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
1. The "need to be studied further" mantra is doublespeak for "give us more research funding". You won't ever find a scientist in ANY field who EVER says their field of interest doesn't need more study.

2. This news release is from data COLLECTED in 2008. The actual analysis and conclusions were just completed. This article lists actual scientific conclusions. Your MSNBC article is just an off-the-cuff comment from a minor project member who is also a well-known AGW activist:

http://www.whoi.edu/science/po/people/rcurry/ppt_f...

Interestingly enough, the research LEADER in the MSNBC article said nothing whatsoever about human-induced change.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
1. Who would be a scientist that didn't want to pursue their subject? You are using caps, this does not reinforce your point. And science needs money, yes?

2. Where does it say she is "a minor project member"? Where does it say that others do not agree with her (why would they have her on the team, on the trip, if she saw things completely differently?)
"Well-known AGW activist"? Lol, isn't the whole institute suspect then? You are certainly a well-known caps-activist now.

The LEADER said nothing of 'result of natural variances' either, he said 'more research required'.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can shuck and jive all you want, but you can't hide the facts. This article highlights recent research findings. You cannot compare off-the-cuff quotes made without any scientific backing to actual study results.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
Grabo, please try to think clearly. The statement "man is affecting climate" is a positive, not a negative. It requires support. That support can ONLY come by understanding a system well enough to eliminate natural variability.

Now (and here comes the part that requires more than a room temperature IQ, so follow closely) if a scientist says "we don't understand the system well enough to explain it", they ARE saying it could be natural variablity. It's the same thing.

They are NOT saying "it has to be anthropogenic". The'yre not even saying the obverse, which is "it has to be natural". They're saying "we don't understand, so it could be either".

Did you follow that this time, or should I rephrase it in smaller words?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 4:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the paper?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/18/2010 5:34:56 AM , Rating: 1
They do, in fact, not seem to mention the word 'natural variability', or 'man-made' for that matter, in the news release.

quote:
They're saying "we don't understand, so it could be either


Almost. They're saying, "we don't entirely understand this, more research is required".

The only thing hinting either way is Curry's comment, for whatever it is worth (something we don't know as we haven't heard the outrage or agreeing murmur of any other team-member).

You seem seem stuck on "the changes could be due to natural variances" = "the changes are probably due to natural variances".
You don't write that outright, but phrases such as "well-known AGW activist" and "and then found out it could be due to natural variances" "not surprising they'd change their minds eh" and everything else you've written to this blog post suggests as much.

You still haven't backed up your claim that the MSNBC are biased.

I guess most readers predicted arguments such as ours :p


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually researchers know that they don't know (that's why they are researching). When they have findings it's all well and good but they keep going.

It's the MEDIA that says "look they found such and such that means that so and so". When later findings contradict everyone bashes the researchers as biased. If you ask them they'll be like "meh...still researching".


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 9:41:30 AM , Rating: 3
Except Masher isn't biased. He posts facts. We need more Masher on Daily Tech, a lot more.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Amiga500 on 2/17/2010 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 3
Ben ? Ben Kenobi is that you ?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes like I said, facts. And right now you are an idiot if you don't the facts are anti-global warming.

Masher tells it like it is and backs it up. Period.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 3:40:53 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, well of course the NSIDC and NASA are less informed than Masher.

Equally certain is that to criticize Slant is to get downrated to 0 in a blink.

Fear the Faith.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 3:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I heard NASA was a space exploration division of the US government. Not climate experts. And since they are funded almost entirely by the government, do you actually expect them to go against the grain ?

And the NSIDC ?? Good grief man, they have been involved in more scandals than Bill Clinton. You drop their name like it's credible !?!

Graba, it's obvious you can neither believe or comprehend the massive scope of the global warming scandal. I know it's hard to fathom, it honestly is, but do yourself a favor and deal with it.

quote:
Fear the Faith.


I do fear the faith. Belief in Climate Change is an absolute faith. A religion. Backed up by about as much facts and science as a Christian would use proving there were a god.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:23:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Last time I heard NASA was a space exploration division of the US government. Not climate experts.


In space there are planets, among which there is the Earth. NASA has had for a very long time experts on everything that regards climate (ocean/fluid dynamics expert, atmospheric physicists and chemists, biosphere and cryosphere experts, etc ...), whether it is to study Earth's climate or other planets'. I am not sure why you think there are no climate experts at NASA, but you should really be more curious about what NASA does ...

quote:
And since they are funded almost entirely by the government, do you actually expect them to go against the grain ?


Your point being that when the government was AGW skeptics, NASA scientists were skeptics too? Or does it work only one way?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 8:33:54 AM , Rating: 4
Our Government has never, EVER, been "skeptical" of Global Warming. They latched onto it and started passing regulations based on it before ANY hard science was done on it. And now we see how reputable even the "hard science" has been on it. None. A fraud, a lie, 100%.

quote:
I am not sure why you think there are no climate experts at NASA, but you should really be more curious about what NASA does ...


There is no such thing as a "climate expert". That's the dirty little secret climategate has exposed. No models have shown to be accurate. Hell, half the "experts" said this recent snow storm wouldn't even happen. If you can't predict what happens next week, how in the hell can you tell me what's it going to look like in 100 years ?

Who are these "climate experts" ?? Can you point me to one piece of work they have done that is relevant, useful, and beneficial in some way ?

If I went to college for 8 years for horticulture, and told you I was a "grass expert" and that if you didn't bulldoze your front lawn you were going to die, would you do it ? Of course not !! That's f'ing absurd. But for some reason you and every other sheeple gives the same power to "climate experts" ?

Just live your goddamn life and let others do the same. This issue is OVER. You have lost. You lied, cheated, ruined peoples lives, stolen untold prosperity, and in the end it all came down on your sides heads.

If you can't call a fraud a fraud after it's been exposed right in front of your own eyes, then you people deserve to be as miserable as you are.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Amiga500 on 2/17/2010 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last time I heard NASA was a space exploration division of the US government.


Oooohhhh, NASA are into sooooo much more than just space exploration.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Lol, well of course the NSIDC and NASA are less informed than Masher."

Don't smear all of NASA with this climate change nonsense. The climate division is GISS, which is really just a few guys at Columbia University, who lobbied the government to become NASA's official "climate science wing".

GISS is led by James Hansen, a personal friend of Al Gore's, and a man who began making ridiculous GW pronouncements way back in the 1980s -- look at his papers from 1985, where he was predicting warming of 20-30F!

NASA has a lot of good folks. Don't smear them by associating them with GISS.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By AlexWade on 2/17/2010 8:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Please read this, I just found it today.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%8...

A quick overview is a blogger put in a FOIA request to NASA GISS two years ago that was finally honored a few weeks ago. NASA GISS is the division that studies global temperatures. Here is a quote from one of the emails obtained: "I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data." How trustworthy can these scientists be if they have to get copies from journalists?

So, in response to your sarcastic reply, it would appear that Masher is better informed than NASA. How sad is that? It looks like WHOI is more informed than NASA GISS too.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By SiN on 2/17/2010 12:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's made my month!


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki