Slashdot Log In
Super Pathway Discovered In Southern Ocean
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Aug 17, 2007 02:34 PM
from the been-there-right-along dept.
from the been-there-right-along dept.
WaltonNews writes in to let us know that a major underwater current called the Tasman Outflow has been discovered by Australian scientists. It helps to regulate the Earth's climate by providing water flow between three oceans in the southern hemisphere. Relatedly, a senior climate scientist has called for the establishment of a Southern Hemisphere network of deep ocean moorings, to complement the network already established in the North Atlantic. The intent is to detect any change in ocean circulation that may adversely influence global climate.
Related Stories
Submission: Super ocean pathway discovered: Tasman Outflow by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Dude! (Score:5, Funny)
I call bullshit! (Score:4, Funny)
There are no natural processes which affect climate. We all know what affects climate, is our use of incandescent light bulbs!
If only we'd all switch to mercury filled compact flouros, we'd reduce this nations energy consumption by almost 0.005%! Not only that, we'd increase the amount of mercury in our groundwater by over 200%! Mercury is good for you and helps build strong bones and teeth.
Also, we should junk our existing cars and build and purchase new ones which are marginally more efficient.
WHEN WILL WE LEARN?! THE ONLY SOLUTION TO CLIMATE PROBLEMS IS TO SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND ON COMPANIES AL GORE HAS STOCK IN.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod me down baby, waste away those mod points...
mod styles (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were me, I'd be torn between modding down as "troll" and up as "funny". But then I have a sick sense of humor.
Does a polar bear pee in the woods (Score:2)
You don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
seems like you're better off keeping a moderately efficient car for as long as you can (maybe 10 years?) instead of dumping it before its time is up to get a hybrid. not just environmentally but financially. not having to make $300/mo payments seems like you could afford a little extra gasoline.
CFL are great, but without a wide spread recycling program it is just going to cause poison to be released into the environment. Causing severe problems to sensitive species, including ourselves. If Al Gore is so smart why did he not propose a federal mandatory disposal/recycling program for CFLs and hybrid's lead batteries?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
seems like you're better off keeping a moderately efficient car for as long as you can (maybe 10 years?) instead of dumping it before its time is up to get a hybrid. not just environmentally but financially. not having to make $300/mo payments seems like you could afford a little extra gasoline.
If all you're concerned about is your personal welfare, then I'd have to say ... it depends. Only an idiot would "dump" a working automobile. Clearly, you'd sell it, thus recouping some fraction of its value. And then you'd pay cash for the hybrid, you're unlikely to get a new car loan on a hybrid for less than 7%. I find that the best way to decide is to calculate the cost (to you) per mile. Depending on what you're driving today, how far you're driving, how fast you're driving, etc., a hybrid may or
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about the "I'm an idiot who bought a car with a nickel metal-hydride battery which when refined produces shitloads of sulfer dioxide. But that's okay since carbon isn't present which makes everything fucking hunky-dory." crowd?
You must be referring to the (totally spurious) article comparing the Prius with the Hummer, where the Hummer comes out as more environmentally friendly. Perhaps some further research [thecarconnection.com] is warranted?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I want to have my cake and eat it too.
I hope that was meant to be a parody (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists (i.e., real skeptics) know that NASA just had to revise the warmest year in the US on record to 1934 instead of 1998 because of a software bug that had nothing to do with Y2K errors, although it did occur in 2000. Scientists also know that 1934 was already a very close second (in the US), and happened during the US dust bowl. Scientists know the difference between l
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE (Score:5, Funny)
Holy shit, it's hot out today! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, lots of people are posting variations on this as if it were some kind of clever skewering of the Al Gore and others advocating policy change to address global warming, but all it really does is demonstrate that the people posting this
Tasmanian Outflow vs. North Atlantic Current (Score:2)
Re:Tasmanian Outflow vs. North Atlantic Current (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Sequel time (Score:3, Funny)
Bad bad reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did you come up with this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I don't really see what the OP's objection is. Literally he's right, but presumably they're not advocating putting in all these sensors so that we can find out about fantastic new developments that much sooner.
Meanwhile, the warming skeptics sure seem to have lots of money to spend on AdWords! I wonder if the proprietors of CoyoteBlog and the Heartland Institute are spending their own money or someone else's...?
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty normal (Score:5, Informative)
Pay attention to what the real scientist are saying directly. Get past what fox news and oil companies have to say. Listen to the top ones (such as Dr. Hansen who is one of thousands ) and even ones like Dr Grey ( from Colo State, who is one of the very few accredited skeptics). It is a good thing to pay attention to both sides, just skip the garbage.
Parent
Bad Marketing (Score:2)
The reporting in the two articles looks pretty good. For that matter it even looks like the science behind the reports is pretty good.
Reading the press releases at CSIRO [csiro.au], it looks like the marketers for the organization are trying to establishes a connection to global warming politics (probably in an effort to get funding). The article I linked to says:
I am going to walk out on a limb here and reject the premise
Three words ... (Score:3, Informative)
learn a lot from "former" members of the IPCC.
Energy source (Score:5, Interesting)
These flows are far more steady and reliable than the wind. And no pollution. A great source of energy.
Re:Energy source (Score:5, Interesting)
They're trying to do this in the East River in New York. Unsuccessfully so far...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/nyregion/13power .html [nytimes.com]
Parent
Re:Energy source - MOD PARENT INTERESTING (Score:2)
Interesting article, though they are using tidal currents and not oceanic currents that are normally induced by thermal convections. Nonetheless, the mechanism for harnessing energy is largely the same.
Wonder if any article similar to this was ever submitted to Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Bugs are to be expected in the beginning. Saying that they are unsuccessful just because they have bugs is like saying that a programmer is unsuccessful because he's debugging his program.
Of course there could be other problems not mentioned in the article. But from the information in the article I'd say their
Re: (Score:2)
A wind farm has far, far more effect on the wind, and to have an important effect on the wind you'd need a fantastically large wind farm.
I'm quite convinced that we can tap huge quantities of energy from deep water currents without having any measurable effect at all on the currents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't for a second dismiss out of hand the effect we might have on the
Actually, it may be a good way to counter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just hit on the solution to global warming. Counteract it by triggering cooling down here in the oceans AND generating an alternative energy source at the same time. We can even sell more high-margin SUVs to fund it, since we can counteract greenhouse heating with oceanic cooling, and tax those sales in the process to fund any environmental program of choice.
More realistically, wind turbines don't sto
This is what we need to be doing (Score:2, Interesting)
We need to come up with solutions.
For example, if we had a way to do desalinzation on a massive scale, we could pump billions of gallons of water inland into the continents of Africa and Asia. This would solve the drought problems by providing fresh water, and it would also reduce sea level.
We could dig massive holding ponds in the middle of Africa, and/or use n
But that would change the climate (Score:3, Informative)
The efforts you suggest would change the climate. The climate change debate says that we need to stop change. It does not say that we need to work on technologies to make our lives better. If a place was covered with a glacier in 1976, then it needs to be covered with a glacier in 2076. If a place was covered with a barren desert in 1976, it needs to be covered with a desert in 217
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I suppose if you like treating the symptoms rather than the cause. But then again, we haven't identified all of the causes and their extents a this point, so perhaps the best we can do is largely treat problems symptomatically for now.
While no doubt what you suggest as "conservation corps" project would certainly do good in Africa, its effect on climate change would probably be relative to pissing in Lake Superior to raise the water temperature.
Oh, yeah. What is the energy source for these desal
Ted Stevens had this comment... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Settled? (Score:2)
Arrange this next to the
Prior Art (Score:2, Funny)
Re:limited knowledge - amen (Score:2)
So much of what we think we know is wrong. It's amazing to see the new discoveries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We knew deep ocean currents existed, the article really just points out that we have firmer evidence of there being a common flow between all of the southern oceans. The existence of the deep Atlantic currents we knew about was pretty good evidence this one likely existed, we just hadn't found it.
As far as climate goes, the deep return currents (much like this one) are very slow. Much slower than say the Gulf Stream in the north Atlantic. The time scale for these large flows to change is in the hundreds
Re:Adverse changes? (Score:5, Informative)
Hey guys, it is mid-August in what was supposed to be a record hurricane season. No storms yet.
Apparently you do not live in Texas, where Hurricane Dean (the fourth named storm of the season) is about to hit. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
*marks amightywind as foe*
Foes don't even show up when I read comments or replies. I don't need input from the likes of you. You hope someone gets flooded out because he contradicts you?
I wish you a long and enjoyable life. I also hope you get a clue.
Anger management therapy might help (Score:2)
Re:Adverse changes? (Score:5, Funny)
Haven't you heard? All change is adverse. Change that hurts humans is bad because it hurts the oppressed, and change that helps humans is bad because it helps the oppressors. Welcome to the 21st century, it's stranger than fiction.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How would they discriminate between adverse and beneficial changes?
A shutdown of global ocean currents, as was the state (IIRC) roughly 10,000-14,000 years ago, will screw the world as we know it hard. Such a shutdown is believed to be a likely effect of a global increase in temperatures. The mechanism is roughly: temperatures rise causing ice packs to melt. This in turn desalinates the ocean. Lower salinity shuts down the deep ocean "salt pumps" which are the major force driving the currents [lighthouse...dation.org]. Once the currents shut down, they no longer act as powerful climate modera
No Baseline (Score:2)
Your post sounds like a mismatch of peer reviewed articles. Modern agriculture started when the ocean currents formed? A shutdown of global ocean currents 10-14K years ago?
I hope the view is pretty at the top of you house of cards.
Re: (Score:2)
This was rated insightful?? Why?
Re: (Score:2)