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

RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 1:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
At one time in history a large group of scientist thought the world was flat (not all but enough). So, by your thoughts you would agree with the flat world thinkers because some many of them are saying it is flat.

I'm not a climate expert and have not read a large number of the reports. However, one thing I have noticed, most of the article I have read do not talk about the Sun at all. I know the Sun's temp changes and I know it effects the temp and condition on this planet. I know it is probably one of the largest factors for the conditions... So why have they not confirmed the condition of the Sun in these articles? There are several other factors they do not note or acknowledge in these articles.. Mainly because I think it would be to hard to measure everything that has an effect on the climate. However, until you can measure 100% of everything that effects the climate you are working with bogus numbers, reports and stats. You will cause more harm then good working with these numbers. So, before people run around screaming the sky is falling, prove to me you can ID the Sky and it's proper location, historical location, verse current location, and then all details on what causes the location of the sky to change or move. In todays world, I do not think anyone can do that with the climate, they can not even write a computer program to simulate the climate correctly... other wise you could have the program repeat the last 100 years of climate conditions.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
"So why have they not confirmed the condition of the Sun in these articles?"

To a very simplistic degree, they have. They've measured changes in solar insolation (the absolute amount of radiative heat reaching the ground) and found its varied only by enough to account for maybe 25% of the warming.

That simplistic approach ignores several factors though, such as :

a) the massive thermal inertia of the earth (perhaps insolation increased before we began measuring it, and the warming is just now showing up)
b) changes in temperature from solar effects not based on insolation (such as solar magnetoshere-driven albedo change, due to cloud effects0
c) corruption of the global temperature record from UHI (urban heat island) and other effects, meaning the amount of warming recorded is higher than actuality.


RE: AGW simplification.
By sigilscience on 2/17/2010 1:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious but do you work in the geosciences?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 2:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
And I do not even have to read further your mess of a hypothesis. WTF is wrong with you people?

Yes, that is right, you just proved you are a flat world'er type person. You mis-quoted me by only using part of a quote and not the full quote - so altering data that was fully proved to you. You then even state you do not need to read further. So, you do not know what was said, and you are forming an opinion without all the facts. So, like all your other climate alarmist, flat world type thinking friends; you are going around without all the information thinking you know better then everyone else and you do not need all the facts because you just know better. Think what you want, but do not take any action... please remember this is our world not yours alone and I do not want people like you screwing it up because they think they know better....


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 3:00:51 PM , Rating: 1
Do not chastise me for pointing out on your absurd statement.

Is your quote ridiculous? - undoubtedly yes

Why don't you just have the courage to acknowledge this;
move on, stop blaming people for your folly.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Nyeh kulturny, Vitaly. Why not argue the facts here, instead of continually insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 1
So, he launches tirade against me for my justifiable remark and now I have to feel guilty about it, right? "porkpie". Your logic never ceases to amaze me.


RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 3:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
He can not argue the facts... because he does not have all of them. He just wants to claim he knows better because several other people agree with him...

Vitaly, I have indirectly asked you to show me a report that factors in everything... EVERYTHING... Sun, plant life, Animal life (termites in South America put out more CO2 then humans...), Volcano - CO2 out put there, and so on till you get humans and everything else on this planet. Once you have all this data put together and show how they effect each other, past, current, and future. Once you have a report you can start talking about the effects humans have on the climate. So, do you have this report? Until you do you have un-answered, incomplete data. Therefor at best guessing at what is real and what is not real.

Now if you want to talked about real things (controllable), like how we need to stop dumping waste in the sea because it's pooling up somewhere in the South Pacific and harming the wild life in the sea. Or we can talk about get more out of the limited resources located on this planet. Well now that we can do and prove the results of our actions.


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 4:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
read:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessmen...

Key IPCC conclusions by Martin Parry, Osvaldo Canziani, Jean Palutikov:

http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/bulletin/57_2_en/documents...

Summary, drafted by B. Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) benefited from helpful reviews by T.Stocker (University of Bern), R.C.J. Somerville (Scripps Institution of Oceanography), S.J. Hassol (Climate Science Communicator), and P.C. Frumhoff (UCS).

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...


RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 6:09:57 PM , Rating: 3
You still have not produced a report to cover the real question that would need to be addressed be for taking action... We all know the planet is changing what we do not know is why it is changing other than history shows that the planet climate does change from time to time. So, showing snow has increased and decrease on certain mountain is not the answer.. Even your third article states:

"Human Responsibility for Climate Change
The report finds that it is “very likely” that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century."

I can sum that up in just a few words THEY DO NOT KNOW. That is why they say "very likely", they can not prove it. This is the evidence I would need. There is evidence of pollution in the sea from us dumping garbage in the sea. We made the garbage, we dump the garbage, so the pool of garbage is our fault, nothing to debate.
Now I read your articles very fast (skimmed) so maybe I missed these areas. However, termites in South America produce more CO2 then all the human on the planet... Your articles do not talk about them. We have more Volcano's going off right now in last hundred years, then in other hundred year blocks. Each one of the volcano's put out in 1 day to 7 days the amount of CO2 that all mankind puts out in a year. Again your articles do not address them either. There is just so much more data that would need to be gathered before you can even try and guess the effects man is having on the planet verse what the planet is doing to itself. Remember the Earth has been doing this type of changes for billions of years. It's the planets way of cleaning it's self. So, it may be time for us to use the money that is going to stop global warm and use it towards something smart, like creating builds to help mankind live through the next ice age which maybe only a few decades away... Otherwise maybe mankind will repeat history and be wiped out like the dinosaur.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













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