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 porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
So your position is, until each and every one of authors admits they falsified data, that we should continue to take the report at face value? Wow...just wow.

And yes, this is a different chapter. It's the effects, or the "this is why we have to act now" chapter, rather than the "blame it all on humans" chapter. So? Exaggerating the effects of climate change is just as heinous as misrepresenting its causes.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow...just wow.


I am now totally impressed by the quality of your reflection and argumentative power.
I dare to suggest that hundreds of scientists, many of them from the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, should not be assimilated as one unique moral entity ... i.e. they should be considered innocent until proven guilty and your definitive argument is "wow just wow".

I am still waiting for the so many other incriminating examples that have plagued these reports of hundred and hundred of pages authored by hundreds of people. You must certainly have so many of them considering the amount of claims present in these reports, at least you claimed so.

quote:
And yes, this is a different chapter. It's the effects, or the "this is why we have to act now" chapter, rather than the "blame it all on humans" chapter. So? Exaggerating the effects of climate change is just as heinous as misrepresenting its causes.


I do agree it is as heinous to misrepresents its causes ... but the point is not that it's not heinous, it's that it's irrelevant to the discussion here (and the one with Grabo). Both discussions were explicitly focusing on the attribution of GW, the Anthropogenic A in AGW. You yourself re-focused the debate on the sole chapter regarding the attribution, and its "mere" 42 authors. Then you give ONE example of misconduct to discredit these very 42 authors, except that your example not only is not part of the chapter, but is not even in the same working group as the few other hundreds of scientists. It's irrelevant.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
"I do agree it is as heinous to misrepresents its causes" should read "I do agree it is as heinous to exaggerate the effects as it is to misrepresents its causes"


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 8:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
" dare to suggest that hundreds of scientists, many of them from the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, should not be assimilated as one unique moral entity "

Tell you what. Let's have a soup made by 620 scientists. We know a few of them peed in the pot, but we think the rest kept their pants zipped. Will you still eat the soup?

The IPCC report is undeniably tainted. The IPCC is led by an economist found to be making millions off AGW hysteria, several of the report's claims have been found to be fraudulent, some authors have confessed to inventing claims to scare the public, others are embroiled in investigations for falsifying their research data, and still more have been forced to resign because of emails showing them to be subverting the scientific process.

Are there SOME ethical scientists still in the mix? Probably so...but far too many people have already peed in that soup.


RE: AGW simplification.
By theendofallsongs on 2/17/2010 9:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell you what. Let's have a soup made by 620 scientists. We know a few of them peed in the pot, but we think the rest kept their pants zipped. Will you still eat the soup?
Haha, I think I'll skip to the main course.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













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