Failing Ocean Current Raises Fears of Mini Ice Age 568
Designadrug writes "This article from Newscientist paints a picture of a major climate control mechanism teetering on the brink:
"The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age. The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.""
Global Warming! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Global Warming! (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Europe, and North America get colder yes (and to be honest I'm not all that happy about that, living in Canada at the moment), but the rest of the trapped heat from global warming doesn't magically vanish, it simply gets pushed elsewhere - so think more more heat (and droughts) for Africa, more energy in the Carribean to help power hurricanes etc.
This is why the term "global climate change" is preferred these days. While there is "global warming" in that there is more energy trapped and retained in the system, that doesn't mean it's going to be evenly distributed as warming, it just means more energy in the system which can result in more dramatic swings and changes in climate.
Jedidiah.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly it would be nice to simply halt climate change by altering the amount of green house gases being released, but there is no guarantee that we can change fast enough to have any noticeable effect. There also isn't any guarantee that we haven't already slipped over some equilibrium point and are accelerating to a new one regardless of green house gas levels.
Personally, I am curious why we don't look for more grand scale technological solutions to environmental problems. We have certainly proven that we can very effectively destroy the ozone with just a little CFCs. We know how to increase global warming. Why in the hell hasn't anyone found a chemical that promotes ozone expansion or reduces global warming?
Re:Global Warming! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well there is plenty of work being done, you just have to know what to look for. Here's some Wikipedia information [wikipedia.org] on various schemes at artificial carbon sequestration - basically just getting the carbon out of the atmosphere and locking it up somewhere.
As to mitigation with regard to a stalling north Atlantic conveyor - the cause, according to the models that predict such a thing, is lowered salinity of water in the north Atlantic, which means lowered density which means it doesn't sink when it should, and hence the system stalls. The obvious ways to "correct" that are to increase the salinity by removing fresh water, or by adding salt, or some combination thereof. Doing such a thing would be a huge and expensive exercise, but depending on how badly tthings stall and how bad the weather gets, it may well be worthwhile. I expect that there are people working the numbers for various schemes along those lines.
Jedidiah.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just off the top of my head, I would estimate that all the energy ever released by human activity, from the first cave man's fi
Re:Global Warming! (Score:4, Informative)
However, greenhouse gases work by trapping natural heat, not through the energy of combustion. They work much like a catalyst, not getting used up in the process. Much like a blanket or a greenhouse is not consumed in keeping things warm, greenhouse gases do not get consumed in the process of warming Earth. The gas equivalent of a millimetre-thick dry-ice blanket around the Earth is about all it takes to cause substantial global warming. If you do the math, you'll find that the amount of CO2 we've spewed is several times larger than enough to account for the warming observed, and in fact, scientists are curious as to why there hasn't been more warming that has been observed. (current theories are that the ocean is acting as a buffer, both for CO2 and as a thermal buffer).
Re:Global Warming! (Score:4, Interesting)
The climatological community, you know, those guys whose field is climate (and consequently climate change) have no doubts as to global warming. Yes, they are not yet certain as to what extent non-human forces play into this, but the evidence is there that there has been a large increase in green house gasses in the last two centuries which corresponds to the recent warming trend. Furthermore, as we gain more knowledge of recent climate history, the more it looks like recent events are not simply some sort of natural fluctuations.
But even if, as the anti-global warming crowd essentially suggest, the vast majority of climate experts are a pack of morons or evil political operatives trying to destroy the economy, the fact is that global warming is happening and that with it will come some very important consequences.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
RAmen!
My favorite sites to point out to people whenever this debate arises is a site like this [lakepowell.net]. Yes, if you look at extremely short timelines [lakepowell.net], like 20,000 years, it appears that OMFG we are experiencing the warmest temperatures EVAR! *gasp**full melodrama* However, when you put things into their proper perspective [lakepowell.net] you see that for the last 25 Million years or so, we have been coming out of an unusually long period of glaciation. In fact, if you change the logrithmic timescale in the last link to linea
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
I firmly believe that the rise we are currently seeing is indeed the start of an accelerating trend. One that human activity has very little impact on, or if any, has been slowing the rise thus far by emitting clouds of smoke thus keeping temperatures artificially low. Now that we are cleaning up our soot emissions the CO2, and natural process that drive the climate, are regaining their direction. As you noted, we are woefully unprepared for such an event. I would say that we desperately need to start
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo 13no25_alarmism.htm [thenewamerican.com]
Perhaps, should we enter a new ice age, the northern countries will want to reconsider this idea...
Re:Global Warming! (Score:4, Interesting)
It lead to global acid rain, and a hell of a lot of deaths. We could also skate on reiers in England in the winder, which we have not been able to do since.
It looks to me like the whole matter is a lot more complex than some people think.
Dont forget, the gulf stream, and its return path, don't only take heat from the carribean to the UK, removing it from hurricanes in New Orleans, but also return cold water at the bottom of the Atlantic, and ech of these effects is in its own positive feedback loop, so the combined effect is magnified many-fold.
While "the day after tomorrow" showed it happening much faster than it is likely to, the effects may well be as profound. Fortunately, I have some nice warm winder clothes for sale, see e-bay :-)
why fight the inevitable? (Score:3, Informative)
Some people say that the real "global warming" problem has to do with increased energy output from the sun. Good luck stoping that one.
Magnetic Poles May Be About To Flip [slashdot.org]
Earth's Magnetic Field Weakens 10 Percent [slashdot.org]
The New York Times On Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flop [slashdot.org]
Since there's nothing I can do to prevent the change tha
Re:why fight the inevitable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people say the universe is three thousand years old. Some people say people from Pleadies visit the eath in their beamships. Some people say ancient warriors speak through them.
Some people say a lot of weird things. I don't listen to them. I listen to people who have spent their entire lives studying and methodically researching something using strict scientific methods and extensive peer review. Those people are more likely to be right.
Re:why fight the inevitable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why fight the inevitable? (Score:3, Interesting)
The ride gets bumpier from here on out, until about 2011 or 2012, which is the end of a cycle in the Mayan calendar. As I understand it, their calendar cycles back to zero on December 21, 2012. (The universe has an "overflow bug" too!
Well, actually it's the Mayan calendar that has the bug. The designers of the Mayan calendar probably figured that their product would no longer be in use by the time it became a problem. At least they had the good sense to put their bug far enough into the future
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this:
Russian Scientist Suggests Burning Sulfur in Stratosphere to Fight Global Warming [mosnews.com]
Just to give you a quantitative perspective, the amount of sulfur he is proposing to burn is abou half of this little stockpile:
http://www.cuug.ab.ca/kmcclary/sulfur/ [cuug.ab.ca]
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see more study and effort on the are of how to live with it. We have lots of population resources right along the sea at sealevel. Should we move as much of it as we can upland a little? Many of the clima
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Global Warming! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, depends if you're having a heart attack or not.
Medic 1: "Nah, look he's fine, his long-term yearly heart rate has only dropped 0.05%"
Medic 2: "But he's turning blue... and he's stopped thrashing about!"
Medic 1: "Look,long term averages show that this is just a minor blip. He'll be up and about in no time!"
Re:Global Warming! (Score:5, Informative)
The one thing about global warming that people must understand is that it will throw all the climate regions into chaos, and change them, which will change the local fauna and flora.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
Change? Yes, but will it be better or worse? Will the effect be a bad one or a good one overall for the fauna and flora. This is what we really don't know or understand.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is safe to say that for some species it will be worse while for some it will be better. Some species will find their native climate expanded, some will find it diminshed or non-existant, some will find it shifted geographically. Some mobile species will be able to move and adapt. Others that are less mobile or less quick to spread wi
Re:Global Warming! (Score:5, Funny)
1. Humans cause global warming.
2. Earth's ice caps melt
3. Oceans rise & current flow stops.
4. World cools.
5. Ice caps grow.
6. Ice caps kick human's ass
7. No more humans = no more global warming. Problem solved.
8. Ice caps go back to normal.
See? Makes sense to me.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because obviously, following a treaty designed to economically punish the United States for a few years would have solved all of this.
Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_
Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Interesting)
that's 4538444610 gigajoules
for comparison that's about the same as a gigaton nuclear bomb(heat and blast)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Careful there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the economical consequences, wasn't the Kyoto protocol designed to prevent global warming?
Oh, but the moment it has any economical consequences, suddenly it's an evil plot to take money away from "our precious and beloved country!"
Sorry to crush you with this, but the world's needs are more important than a few enterprises' economical whims.
Re:Careful there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. But when your whole culture is just that, a few enterprises, it could mean a lot.
It can also mean your culture isn't very deep and that affecting these few enterprises' economical whims might actualy improve things around, but that's another story...
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the only way we could have made Kyoto would have been to build a bunch of nuke plants. Good thing we have the tech - we have been exporting trouble free nukes to other countries for years. Built a bunch in Japan.
But we will never build one here because of all the green knee jerkers, and the
Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the meantime, China seems to be the only large country that's actually working on decreasing CO2 output. I don't believe the EU countries are going to make their targets, too much rhetoric and too little action.
In a few years, we'll be forced to switch to other energy sources anyway, because peak oil is more or less here. We'll see what happens then.
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Informative)
In the meantime, China seems to be the only large country that's actually working on decreasing CO2 output.
There are some grass roots changes happening elsewhere that are very hard to measure, let alone assess the results. Although the USA federal government rejected Kyoto, several states have adopted Kyoto goals for environmental policies (example: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware have created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [rggi.org]).
Re:Careful there... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what we are seeing is the right-wing fuckers and the Bush administration crying like babies over the introductory step towards the problem. It took seven fucking years to get even the first hint of action, something that was only supposed to slow it and give us a little more time while we cleaned up our act for real. At this rate, the real solutions will never come. Many climatologists already believe we have passed the point of no return, the only question is how bad will it get before whatever fixes we do finally adopt take effect. But we know the next hundred years are only going to get worse, there is nothing we can do about that. Right now, we are fighting for the fifth or sixth generation ahead of us, whom we will never see.
Kyoto was not designed to fix anything. It was an introduction to real discussion. And we killed it, and with it any hope for our future for generations to come.
(While I'm at it, China and India both signed Kyoto, and they will both be subjected to the same restrictions that we would have been within ten years, for the restrictions ratchets up on them as their economies ramp up. And going by standard of living, both China and India are still third-world and will be for a while yet. They will be regulated as first-world nations when they will have barely reached second-world status. "Economic catastrophe for the U.S.," my ass!)
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... how about back when everyone voted to invade Iraq?
Re:Careful there... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if the treaty makes any difference, but do you really think the climate change is not going to punish the USA economically?
India and China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Less water the world over. Probably the 2 best countries with fairly good water will be America and Russia. In contrast, China and India (the 2 most populus nations) will have quite a bit less water.
Do you really want to live in a world where two other highly-populated nuclear powers face political instability because of a shortage of water while you apparently still have enough to spare?Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider that the third world and much of asia is desperate to ramp up industrial production to help their economies grow. The way they look at it, they can either worry about global warming or the bigger fish they have to fry, i.e. poverty and catching up to the rest of the world. Are they going to spend huge amounts of money trying to clean up their industries? No. They're going to pollute the fuck out of everything while they manufacture all the disposable crap they'll be selling to the rest of us. Crap we ASKED them to produce, of course.
Consider that the first world has already shifted most of its heavy industry to the third world. The only thing most of US can do to reduce global warming is stop driving cars and use clean energy generation methods. Is this going to happen? No. Not while our self-absorbed leaders are so fascinated with the oil economy they're willing to overthrow other countries to increase their supply.
Conclusion: The situation is completely and hopelessly fucked. Everyone is acting in their pathetic selfish self-interest, and nobody is willing to give anything up to change anything. Whatever's going to happen is going to happen.
It'll be an interesting few decades while things settle down. I'm betting on the following:
1. Mini ice age lasting two hundred years or so, sort of like the last one, in all nations bordering the North Atlantic. Actually I don't mind this, I hate hot weather and I've always loved snow. Here in New York, things should be pretty nice, if a bit chilly. And blizzards are fun as long as you don't have to travel. It's an excuse to stay home and play Halo II on XBox Live.
2. Very hot weather and major storms throughout equatorial regions. Florida and the other gulf states, for example, are going to get the shit beaten out of them every year. I expect most people to get fed up and move inland to get away from the hurricanes, and away from the plains states to get away from "Tornado Alley". Lots of migration will produce new ghost towns along the coasts, not due to disasters per se, but to people getting fed up with having their houses knocked down biannually. Actually I'm endlessly surprised this hasn't already started.
3. Ocean levels might rise a bit, but this might be offset by increased ocean ice due to the mini ice age, so the whole "waterworld" thing is going to be a non-starter. Of course we knew that.
4. Everyone is going to completely freak out and run around with their hair on fire for years and years. We on Slashdot will argue about it endlessly, never arriving at any conclusion, but it'll be interesting and take our minds off the fact that none of us have been laid recently.
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Informative)
Time for a review of archimedes principle. Ocean levels are expected to rise during warming because the antarctic ice cap and many glaciers (i.e. non-floating ice) will melt into the oceans. However ocean ice floats, i.e. displaces its own weight in water, and so its presence has no effect on water levels.
Re:Careful there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider that the first world has already shifted most of its heavy industry to the third world. The only thing most of US can do to reduce global warming is stop driving cars and use clean energy generation methods. Is this going to happen? No. Not while our self-absorbed leaders are so fascinated with the oil economy they're willing to overthrow other countries to increase their supply.
Conclusion: The situation is completely and hopelessly fucked. Everyone is acting in their pathetic selfish self-interest, and nobody is willing to give anything up to change anything. Whatever's going to happen is going to happen.
I think you nailed the real issues at work here and I thank you for that.
What's needed is a radical reaction, should we *really* want to curve the global changes about to kick our asses. But *who* is really ready to abandon some petty comfort to reduce his/her energy consumption? It's not a treaty or some tame government decisions that will truly make a difference if the global populace keeps expecting things to be solved without any effort on their side. Western societies are made of servile, assisted and selfish individuals who, for the most, expect others to solve the bigger issued without them ever lifting a finger (hey, that's what I pay tax for!).
Drive/ride a power-efficient vehicle (and less) or public transports when possible, use low-power lightbulbs, don't abuse the heating and A/C, put solar tiles on your roof (for hot water and electricity), properly insulate your home (VERY important if you live in temperate/cold regions), etc. Just these few technical changes and some behavior adjustments would already make a HUGE difference in the yearly domestic energy bill of any country, which means less CO2 (and other crap) released in our collective environment. But also less taxes paid over oil...
Industries comply more and more with environmental regulations and since energy has become more expensive it has become a concern to use it as efficiently as possible, since in the end energy saved = money saved. But I don't see individual homes being targeted by energy-saving regulations, incandescent lightbulbs taxed so people stop buying them, etc.
Unless there's a true collective initiative (followed by at least 80% of the population), what we now call "efforts" to address the true problems won't do much to reduce the impact of what Mother Nature is about to slap us with.
I think humanity is about to get its collective ass kicked in a proverbial way... Hopefully it will happen quickly enough for the collective memory to remain and be passed to future generations, so they won't repeat the process (hey, one can hope! It's free!).
Cheers,
Re:Careful there... (Score:3, Funny)
You've got it backwards. The US overthrew the country to decrease the oil supply, so that prices would increase, and boy did it work out well for the oil companies.
See Iraq was dumping oil on the market to buy food. The US tried to keep Iraq from being able to sell oil for food but the UN approved it. This drove oil prices down. So the Big oil guys tappe
Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Informative)
How was it "designed to economically punish the USA"? By requiring USA to cut down emissions? Guess what Einstein? It required EU (among others) to cut their emissions as well! In fact, the requirements were higher for EU than for USA! And there's few things to consider:
a) In Europe, power is generated relatively cleanly (nuclear etc.). Not so in USA
b) Cars in Europe are relatively environmentally-friendly, when compared to cars in USA
c) Industry in Europe (steel among others) had already spent lots of money modernizing their plants, making the more environmentally friendly.
d) People actually use mass-transportation in Europe, not so in USA.
What does all that mean? It means that USA could easily reach the requirements of the treaty by doing the stuff EU already did. EU could not, they would have to find other ways to cut their emissions, since all the easy things have already been done (not so in the USA).
Even simpler: EU worked hard to cut down emissions. Then they were told to cut their emissions by 9% (IIRC) more. USA did jack-shit to cut down their emissions, and then they were told to cut their emissions by 8% (again, IIRC). So it would be relatively easy for USA to cut their emissions, while it would be considerably harder for EU.
"Punishing the USA" my ass!
Re:Careful there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they pollute less. Because they take less space, reducing the severity of traffic-jams.
There is no legislation in Europe which mandates people to buy small cars. People just realized that they do not need over 2 tons of metal around to move their ass around the city. and they realized that in small cars are much more convenient than humungous cars. We do have taxation on gasoline that makes small cars more attractive though.
Where exactly have I said that sales of SUV's should be prohibited? They are not prohibited in Europe either. The difference between USA and Europe seems to be that the government is actively pushing people to buy SUV's, by excluding them from fual-consumption and emission-regulations.
In this particular case: because Americans are wasting resources that
a) should not be wasted because it's a finite resource
b) they are harming the globe with their wasteful lifestyle
c) they could manage just fine without wasting those resources
If Americans were wasting their own resources and they only harmed themselves, I wouldn't complain. But they are wasting resources which is shared with others, and they are harming others while doing so. That is why I (and many others) complain.
And this isn't a case of "telling Americans how to live". This was a question of cutting down emissions. EU was willing to do it, USA was not. No-one was telling USA how they should cut their emissions, only that they should cut their emissions.
I grasp them just fine. What you don't seem to grasp is that most Americans don't live in rural areas. Finland's population-density is even lower than USA's is, and yet we seem to manage just fine.
Every single American lives in the "west"? I don't think so.
I don't give a flying fuck how Americans live as such. What I do care is that what they are doing to the globe. And I do get annoyed when they waste finite resources and harm the globe while doing so. If you had a next-door neighour that liked to burn old car-tires in his backyard, and the smoke spread to your yard, would you complain? If you did, wouldn't you be telling him "how he should live"? Same thing here: USA is wasting finite resources and they are harming others while doing so. They also absolutely refuse to do anything about it. And when other complain about it, you start to whine?
Many people perceive USA as being very selfish on this issue, and with good reason.
Re:Global Warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
They've been saying this for years... (Score:2, Funny)
Skiing in Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you ocean currents!
Bring warm water in (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bring warm water in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bring warm water in (Score:3, Interesting)
Nature is much bigger and more powerful than us and is totally beyond our control through methods like that.
Except the problem may have been caused by our activities, so the idea we can generate focused activity to alter something we set into motion isn't that far off?
FUD? (Score:2, Funny)
First Microsoft, now scientists? Noooooooooooo!
Re:FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think it realistic that huge, powerful, and rich environmental organisations would perform evil acts that only employees of sensible and socially responsible oil companies can save us from? Is it reasonable or realistic that environmental scientists, who in the real world are willing to forgo lucrative careers to take low-paid academic positions because they love and care about researching the natural world, would cause massive destruction of the natural world to score political points?
In the real world, who has the most money for public relations and the most political capital? The ex-chief executive officer of the giant energy corporation Halliburtons is the vice president of the USA for goodness sake. Could the head of Greenpeace ever hope to reach such an influential and powerful position?
All the local environmental fund raising events I've been involved with have been in conjuction with people that have very little financial resources but care deeply about recycling, local environment issues, etc. Very different from Crichton's own protagonist, who zips about the world in a Gulfstream Jet.
So what happens to all that energy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what happens to all that energy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what happens to all that energy? (Score:5, Informative)
Well the current that pushes northward occurs due to the conveyor effect that occurs when the water reaches up north, cools, sinks, and flows back as cold water much deeper. In general the current just circles around the equatorial Atlantic [bbc.co.uk], and only a portion branches north due to said conveyor. If the conveyor effect stalls the most likely outcome is simply more and warmer water circulating in the equatorial Atlantic. That, of course, is going to have significant impacts on climate in Africa and central and South America. Potentially a lot of the energy may end up providing more power for hurricanes out in the Atlantic. What exactly will happen is unclear, but I think its safe to say that assuming everything will magically right itself is betting on the long shot - there's really no evidence for such a thing. The most likely outcome is simply a lot warmer and more energetic weather for Africa and South and Central America.
Jedidiah.
Re:So what happens to all that energy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what happens to all that energy? (Score:3, Interesting)
It turns into hurricanes in New Orleans, and Tornados in Texas. I am surprised you haven't noticed already.
More specifically, for hurricanes to occur, the surface of the sea has to be hotter than 30C (maybe its 32, I forget). This is a BINARY SPLIT - over Tcrit you get a hurricane, under Tcrit you don't. Thus a good solid one degree hotter, and there won't be time between hurricanes to rebuild NO.
And don't forget Tsunamis. The media are going round saying "it was
If sledding in August... (Score:3, Funny)
Save Europe (Score:4, Funny)
(Plus it comes with a 12,000 LB wench, think of all the beer that could serve, Germany)
No, thank you K-street boys for abusing it. (Score:3, Informative)
It is the tax system which is at fault for most disparities. It allows the rich to dodge payment as they can buy loopholes from Congress.
Re:No, thank you K-street boys for abusing it. (Score:4, Informative)
And thank you incompetent politicians who failed to write "trucks and agricultural machinery" into the law. That some people will use any tax loopholes they can has been known for decades, it should not come as a surprise anymore.
Now, what to do about it?
In the current system, the obvious step would be to elect better politicians in the hope of eventuaaly getting better laws. Of course, this requires smarter voters in the first place, but it would be the civilized and legal way.
If you like lynch mobs, you could also go after the people who exploit the loopholes. But that would be a real messy way, with a good chance of total anarchy breaking out.
OH! I saw this movie! (Score:3, Funny)
Is this supposed to be news? Because I thought climatologist have been talking about this potential for awhile. At least before "Day After Tomorrow".
What's next? "Scientist think that Birds evolved from Dinosaur like ancestors?"
Re:OH! I saw this movie! (Score:2)
Ah, good old global warming... (Score:2, Funny)
And the cause of the cooling? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Temperature warms up. Surface ice in the northern/southern reaches melt. This is something we've been seeing with the shrinking glaciers/nothern ice cap/Antartic icebergs melting.
2. Ocean rises, which causes a lowering of the ocean temperature from the influx of cold water.
3. With ocean levels higher, the ocean is able to absorb more energy, which shuts down the warm ocean currents.
4. Without the warm ocean currents, weather patterns are altered. Cold air that would have been warmed by the ocean currents remain cold. In time, the water that melted is converted into ice.
5. With the altered weather patterns and no warm air, the ice age comes into being. The more ice that forms, that more sunlight redirected back into space.
6. This continues until enough build up of ocean warmth.
Or - something like that. It's been a decade or two since I studied it, and I'm sure a meteorologist would do a better job. But what I do recall is that a good chunk of research shows this process can take place in as little as three years - which means it might be a good time to start buying some land down in Mexico....
Re:And the cause of the cooling? (Score:5, Funny)
Not to worry - Here at Slashdot, such disclaimers are considered credentials.
Re:And the cause of the cooling? (Score:3, Insightful)
This statement is false, I'm pretty sure. Oceanic currents are driven by the Earth's rotation and some wind, as I've commented in this thread.
Also, your step (4) leads directly back to step (1).
m
Re:And the cause of the cooling? (Score:5, Informative)
Floating ice that melts has ZERO effect on the total level of the water. If you don't believe me, take an ice cube, put it in a glass of water, mark the level and let it melt. It will be at exactly the same level. Yes, some of the ice was above the surface of the water, because it was less dense.
The only melting ice that will raise sea levels is ice that is currently stuck on a land mass, above the ocean. That melts and then joins the ocean, causing an increase.
Re:And the cause of the cooling? (Score:3, Informative)
Who know what kind of an effect that will have.
Re:And the cause of the cooling? (Score:3, Informative)
Ocean is salt water, while ice swimming in it is fresh water. If the latter melts, ocean _will_ rise.
In practice this would be negligible of course in comparison to the effects of melting Greenland and Antarctica caps, but it _will_ add to the effect a bit.
new investment opportunities (Score:2)
Original source articles (Score:3, Informative)
news article [nature.com] in Nature
5 Data points? (Score:3, Informative)
I assume that the last 2 things were speculation, since the only way I could think of these things being measured is if it's somehow preserved in glacial layers etc.. could anyone who knows more explain what types of evidence back up these long term speculations? And if not, why we should draw any major conclusions from 5 data points over 50 years, when we don't know the variance of the system over hundreds or thousands of years, which 'seems' to be a 'normal' timescale for change?
I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, but the information in the article is woefully incomplete.
Bad news for Turtle Island too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the Animals know something we don't (Score:4, Interesting)
The article went on to describe the states plans to back exploration of a "Northwest Passage" across the Arctic, in cooperation with a Finnish company. Apparently other countries are also working on plans to exploit the route.
50 Degress Below (Score:3, Interesting)
Realclimate (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it the situation is that the mechanism proposed for sudden climate change by Broecker some 15 years ago (and exaggerated beyond recognition in a silly movie lately) shows some signs of actually occuring. New measurement expeditions have reinforced the evidence in this direction. Though the evidence isn't absolutely conclusive, it's starting to weigh in that direction and the new evidence makes the case stronger. There is well-understood physics at work, but it involves delicate small-scale structures that are hard to capture in global scale models.
Though most scientific opinion expects it won't be enough to trigger a European ice age (unlike the YD event some 11KA ago) it could lead to a great deal more climate variability in our lifetimes especially in Europe and the northern reaches of the Atlantic than has been captured in most climate models, and in the extreme it may even cool Europe a bit as the rest of us get hotter.
Re:Realclimate (Score:3, Informative)
Big deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, is the thirty percent a decrease from some sort of primal mean value? Or perhaps from a peak period with softer weather?
It's impossible to make any meaningful statement on climate and climate variabilities, let alone climate change, without taking all those questionmarks and other factors into account. I'm sure this report will cause another hype amongst environmentalists. So be it. If people want to call a decade of colder winters a "mini ice age", that's fine by me, but I for one will not panic.
This is nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the question: what caused it(it being the forementioned oceanic conveyor), and what caused it to stop(in less than a decade)? The problem is, everyone has a theory and very few agree. Some say it was increased volcanic activity caused it, some say increased salinity of the water, some just don't know.
Those in the volcanic camp say the reason it stopped is the greatly reduced amount of volcanic activity. Here's an example of how volcanoes affect GLOBAL climate. In 1815, the Tambora volcano in Indonesia erupted. It was 100 times the magnitude of Mt. St. Helen's in 1980. The amount of ash and sulfur ejected into the atmosphere lowered global temperatures up to 3 degrees C, and caused the "Year without a Summer" in New England(where crops froze during all of the summer months, and there was 6+ inches of snow in June).
This mini-ice age led to numerous important historical events. The French, which in the 1700s, subsisted on cereal grains(wheat, barley, etc). However, in the years prior to 1789, the harvests were meager, due to the colder temperatures. Having no food, and not wanting to learn how to grow potatoes like Germany and Spain did, they decided to riot and steal whatever stores of grains they could find. This lead to the French Revolution. Still in French history, 1812 Napolean has marched his troops into Moscow. However, supply lines being incredibly weak, the cold, harsh Russian winter beats Napolean. Of the 600,000 troops he takes into Russia, less than 4,000 make it out, and less than 1,500 make it back to France. To Irish history, the Irish, unlike the French, learned to grow potatoes. To the Irish, the potato became their staple food, however, they only grew one low maintenance variety called "Lumpers". When the blight came, it was easy for it to propagate, as there only one variety to kill off. Had their been multiple species, the famine wouldn't have been so widespread. So, millions of Irish died due to starvation, and disease.
So, while some of you sit there saying, bring on the snow...remember, all of our civilizations have existed based on expectations. We expect farmers to be able to raise grains, vegetables, meat, cheese-producing animals, etc to feed the rest of us. However, how would we survive if global climates change and once fertile fields dry up(think U.S. Dust Bowls of the 1930s)? We could have world wide food shortages. Imagine if the rice producing areas of China dried up? Then the Chinese would go looking for land/food. The lion would be out of the cage.
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:2)
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:2)
The idea here is that it's not the temperature that will destroy the ocean current, but rather the decreased salancy of the ocean surface.
It's something that real climatologists are considering... but they're certainly not of the opinion that it will suddenly and dramatically flip the global warming to global cooling... unless you consider a decade or two fast.
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not even suggesting a "flip" to "global cooling". What is being suggested is that despite gloablly getting warmer, locally eastern North America and Northern Europe are going to get colder. That just means all the extra heat is going to get pushed elsewhere (the suggestion seems
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry dont have any links tho
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimat e.asp [wunderground.com]
Here is the part I wanted to reference: "Since the Great Ocean Conveyor belt is driven in part by differences in ocean water density, if one can pump enough fresh water into the ocean in the key areas on either side of Greenland where the Gulf Stream waters cool and sink, this will lower the ocean's salinity (and therefore its density) enough so that the waters there no longer sink. The Atlantic conveyor belt and Gulf Stream current will then shut down in just a few years, dramatically altering the climate. "
Also here is a write up specifically dealing with the "science" of "The Day After Tomorrow."
http://www.wunderground.com/education/thedayafter. asp [wunderground.com]
Re:"The Day After" premise (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless of the rest of your argument, it is definitely the case that global warming is expected to warm the polar and subpolar regions more than the tropics, decreasing the temperature gradient, and it is also definitely the case that the greatest effects so far have been in high latitude continental interiors, specifically the interiors of Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Now it is starting to show up in the high Arctic
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Well, more boring.
Re:Pump up the pollution! (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, just because someone disagrees with a liberal doesn't mean they're Rush Limbaugh fans.
Re:no more blame game (Score:5, Insightful)
who cares why! forget the blame game!
just deal with it!
It's easier to solve a problem if you know what caused the problem. Otherwise you're just applying bandages.
Political interference and complex science (Score:5, Interesting)
True enough. Problem is that humanity is a long way off from being mature and intelligent enough to determine exactly what sort of climate change to expect, much less the root cause of that change. Does human activity cause climate change? Absolutely. How much and in what way? We have no friggin clue and we wont in any of out lifetimes. This is for a couple of reasons:
1. Humanity's lack of maturity prevents us from putting aside politics and self-interest. We try but in the end out efforts are nearly futile. Our best effort to date many might say is the Kyoto accord and it is doomed to fail. And no, it isn't the fault of the Americans--even if the US signed on it would never work. Why? Because Kyoto is just another political/economic shell game. Developing nations are pretty much exempt from making an effort at reducing CO2 emissions (including 800-pound-gorilla China). I don't care what reasons are behind such exemptions--if we want to affect global change the whole globe must participate. Second of all, there is "selfishness" involved. It is easy enough for the likes of Germany and France to look down their noses at the US and trumpet their wonderful CO2 reductions: France just throws up more nuclear generation and Germany gets to count all those communist-era east-German soot-belching factories in their starting numbers. Then there are nations like Canada, where the infrastructure is already quite modern and efficient for the most part and the cold climate and sparse population make it more difficult to meet targets legitimately--most of those reductions will be met by playing the shell game and trading pollution credits. In the end it means no meaningful impact on climate change.
2. To paraphrase a favourite sci-fi author: "The universe is mind-bogglingly complex". Scientists know almost nothing about the direction of climate change. They have pretty little computer models that make predictions and they can make vague (and often conflicting) pronouncements about the earth heating up or more hurricanes or ice ages and whatnot. In the meantime the good people at Environment Canada cannot even predict the weather two days in advance with any reliability at all. How can we get the "immature public" to buy into a more climate-friendly lifestyle with that kind of track record? The weatherman tells them it'll snow in two days with the accuracy of a coin toss. Big, smart scientists with expensive supercomputers tell us the world is heating up...no wait we are going into an ice age (which was the prevailing theory in the 1970s)...no wait we are heating up (1980s to now)...no wait...the world will heat up a bit, but some places will be really dry and others really wet...no wait...we ARE going to have a sudden ice age...because of global warming melting ice and cooling the oceans....what the hell? Our smartest people cant quite wrap their brains around it much less the general public (I like most others are pretty much mentally retarded on the subject though most like to think theyknow something about it).
I'm sure someone will argue the merits of Kyoto (maybe there are some--I just don't see how it'll change the world meaningfully). Others will argue that science is proving itself now (gee, look at all the hurricanes we had this year--never mind the fact it was only one or two more than the previous record set many decades previously, before we had the technology to spot those that didn't make landfall near civilisation). Thing is, the pronouncements we make and the justifications for Kyotot-like manoeuvring are so vague it is like proving Nostradamus was right.
In the meantime, bandages and maybe a makeshift torniquet is all we have to keep us from bleeding to death in terms of climate change. I figure we should put more emphasis on more concrete, proven environmental factors--like living sustainably (use less energy--get rid of the big old SUVs. Get your lazy ass out of the captain's
Re:no more blame game (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally the argument goes something like this:
Is that conclusive proof? No, but then we don't have conclusive proof of general relativity or evolution either, we've just got a lot of good evidence. There's a lot more evidence that the 3 points laid out above as well, but they provide the solid backbone: atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat; human activity has produced an unprecedented spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels; the beginnings of the acceleration in warming predicted by such a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide has been observed.
Jedidiah.
Re:no more blame game (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you miss his point. If you fall off a cliff and break your legs, you got to the hospital, get your legs fixed, then throw up a fence so other people don't fall off. While you are at it, maybe you should make a nice walkway so people can enjoy the bottom of the cliff without repelling gear.
Technology is rapidly progressing. Our computing powers are growing at expone
when you fall down a cliff (Score:3, Insightful)
no, when you break your leg, you reset your bones and you put them in a cast
what would you do? lie there helplessly with broken legs? that seems to be exactly what you are proposing
you seem to think that because it was stupid to break our legs, that realizing that is all that is needed to unbreak our legs. no, they are broken: we have polluted our environment, the climate is changing. now w
Why the gulf stream goes North - Salinity Gradient (Score:5, Informative)
But all that warm water goes so far north largely because of (cold) water with high salinity. This water is dense and sinks. This is called North Atlantic Deep Water formation, and possibly drives deep ocean currents around the world.
This salinity gradient is the key energy source that "pulls" warm water so far north, more than the thermal or momentum gradients.
This gradient broke down during "the Younger Dryas cold episode, which chilled the North Atlantic region from 11,000 to 10,000 yr BP." "[This] is postulated to be a turnoff [...] of the North Atlantic's conveyor-belt circulation system which currently supplies an enormous amount of heat to the atmosphere over the North Atlantic region. This turnoff is attributed to a reduction in surface-water salinity, and hence also in density, of the waters in the region where North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) now forms." Paleoclimate claims are supported by oxygen and carbon isotope studies on plankton.
see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v341/n6240/a
Here's the quote (Score:5, Informative)