Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Super Pathway Discovered In Southern Ocean

Posted by kdawson on Fri Aug 17, 2007 03:34 PM
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Dude! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2007, @03:36PM (#20266473)
    More radical than the EAC!
  • by stratjakt (596332) on Friday August 17 2007, @03:37PM (#20266497) Journal
    Al Gore already figured ALL OF THIS OUT.

    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.

    • Global climate change can affect ocean currents, which in turn affect global climate change. Your strident ranting adds nothing to the debate except anger and misunderstanding. What is your motivation?
      • by OrangeTide (124937) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:01PM (#20266857) Homepage Journal
        I want to be that guy's friend now.

        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?
        • 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)

          I'm a global warming skeptic, and I work in the dental industry, you know mercury based amalgam filings, and I'm going to tell you I'd rather have a few mg of Hg in the land fill than the amount of mercury and thorium going up the power-plant stack that the bulb would prevent.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            I'd rather not burn coal and release mercury and radioactive particles into the environment, and use CFLs (and dispose of them properly) so we can use hydro, solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power more effectively.

            I want to have my cake and eat it too.
              • Skeptics know that NASA just had to revise the warmest year on record to 1934 instead of 1998 because their software had a Y2K bug.

                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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2007, @03:39PM (#20266523)
    Obviously anyone talking about any so-called "ocean currents" affecting the Earth's climate is in the pocket of Chimpy McBushitler and his cronies in Big Oil. We all know that only SUVs, incandescent light bulbs, and not listening to Al Gore cause changes in climate.

    Holy shit, it's hot out today! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Obviously anyone talking about any so-called "ocean currents" affecting the Earth's climate is in the pocket of Chimpy McBushitler and his cronies in Big Oil. We all know that only SUVs, incandescent light bulbs, and not listening to Al Gore cause changes in climate.

      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

  • So does this deprecate the "The Day After Tomorrow"?
    • So does this deprecate the "The Day After Tomorrow"?
      Too late. That film did a pretty thorough job of deprecating itself.
    • Hey now we can have the Day after Tomorrow 2 or as I like to call it 2 days after tomorrow. This time the problem starts in the south and we can have nice special effects of a kangaroo freezing to death. Hell we could throw in some junk science to explain why Australian animals are so different (something to do with a previous freeze) The big thing is we could use all the Australian actors - Mel Gibson Tom Cruise Nicole Kidman as the main characters and ask them to their native Australian accent for a chang
  • Bad bad reporting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yath (6378) on Friday August 17 2007, @03:43PM (#20266573) Journal
    None of the quotes in the article support the reporter's opinion that the intent is to detect adverse effects. It's almost like the reporter is trying to stir things up... troll, if you will, by making it look like the scientists are out to confirm some already-held conclusions that the climate is getting worse.
    • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:11PM (#20266993) Journal
      Nearly all of the major news reporters are simply trying to make big headlines (save for several which have their own agenda's). All will spin in to suite their purpose. A good example was back in the 70's, a scientist say that climate change WAS happening and suggested that it COULD lead to global cooling. From that, a number of the articles came out that pushed that. So, quite paying attention there.

      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.
    • Global Warming Swindle ....search for it on google video, watch it,
      learn a lot from "former" members of the IPCC.

  • Energy source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuickFox (311231) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:00PM (#20266833)
    We should tap these ocean currents for energy. We should have machines somewhat similar to wind turbines, anchored to the sea floor, floating in the middle of the flow.

    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)

      by evil agent (918566) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:32PM (#20267329)

      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]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Isn't that what they said about global warming, that we're basically so insignificant to the size of the planet that nothing we could possibly do would harm the environment (hint: look at measurements for human-caused CO2 emissions into the air)? And wait, didn't we just read about (at least on a lower scale) China happily forcing the white dolphin to extinction because of their insignificant push on the environment (yay, toxic dumping!)?

          Don't for a second dismiss out of hand the effect we might have on the
  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:15PM (#20267033) Homepage
    It's an underwater series of tubes!
    • Re:Adverse changes? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Elemenope (905108) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:13PM (#20267013)

      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.

    • by E++99 (880734) on Friday August 17 2007, @04:17PM (#20267085) Homepage

      The intent is to detect any change in ocean circulation that may adversely influence global climate.

      How would they discriminate between adverse and beneficial changes?

      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.
    • desalinzation on a massive scale, we could pump billions of gallons of water inland into the continents of Africa and Asia.

      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: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