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 8:33:38 PM , Rating: 3
" Do yourself a favor and go read the original interview "

I'm glad you linked it. Let's see exactly what the poor Professor -- once the loudest harbinger of doom and gloom on the planet -- now has to say, shall we?

quote:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
This is Jones agreeing that the warming from 1975-1998 was no faster than the warming we saw from 1910-1940, or an earlier warming trend from 1860-1880. Entirely at odds with what he said 5 years ago, and a statement incredibly damaging to those who still believe in the "hockey stick" graph of unprecedented warming from AGW.

Now, lets proceed.

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.

Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming. He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Now, let's continue:

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant
Here, Jones admit the surface record shows cooling, but says its not significant due to the period being too short. Fair enough...we'll check back in a couple years when it hits the magic 10 year mark.

To continue:

quote:
Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties
This speaks for itself. Yet another scientist refutes the myth of "consensus". With 32,000+ now disputing AGW entirely, how many more need to speak up?

Continuing:

quote:
Q: Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

This is a matter for the independent review.
Translation: I take the Fifth.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 7:41:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
quote: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just.

Porkpie: Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming . He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.


Correct, there's no room for debate ... you obviously have no clue of what you are talking about!

To say the "world stopped warming", he would have to say that he calculated a trend that is flat (or negative) and that it is statistically significant . He says nothing of the sort. He calculated a trend, it is positive but it is not statistically significant, at the 95% confidence level, yet.

You could say, at best, that he does not know with a high degree of confidence if the world has warmed in the last 15 years, which you would surely translate into "he has no clue if the world warmed" considering the poor understanding you have already demonstrated. The fact is that there also nothing magical with a 95% degree confidence and being close to reach that level of confidence for a positive trend has nothing to do with the trend being flat or negative. What you call "weaseling" actually contain information you obviously had no capacity to process.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
"He says nothing of the sort. He calculated a trend, it is positive but it is not statistically significant"

The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive. From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless. The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive.


What does the "trend" from 2001 has to do with your statement that "the world stopped warming 15 years ago"? If it demonstrates one thing it is that you have serious ADD going on ... are you capable of following a discussion for more than 2 sentences, seriously?? That's not even mentioning that while the 15 years positive trend is not quite statistically significant yet, your 9 year pseudo trend is a statistical joke. I guess you missed that point too ...

quote:
From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless.


The trend from 1995 is 0.12 C/decade, to be compared to a longer term value of 0.16 C/decade or a model-projected value of the order of 0.15 C/decade (give and take depending on scenario and model). That isn't weak, by any stretch of imagination. The not "statistically significant" does not refer to the fact that the trend is so weak that it does not count (it is not), it refers to its calculation not being in the 95% confidence interval. It appears now that you totally misunderstood what it means for a calculated trend to be statistically "significant at the 95% significance level". Seriously, you should read stuff like that before engaging in conversion on topic you know nothing about:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

or check this figure in particular that shows you why the trends from around 1995 are not statistically significant:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gissrat2...

quote:
The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.


Correct, this phrase is accurate ... but your phrase "people like Phil Jones [...] are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago" is a just bull from someone who does not begin to understand what statistically significance means ... period.

quote:
You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?


I don't ignore anything, it's just it has not been discussed yet. I could indeed care to explain you what individual model runs and ensemble averages tell you about underlying long term trends and short term natural variability, but considering your obvious intellectual shortcoming on basic notions such as the ones previous discussed, I won't even bother.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles













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