Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Super Pathway Discovered In Southern Ocean 167

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super Pathway Discovered In Southern Ocean

Comments Filter:
  • Dude! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17, 2007 @03:36PM (#20266473)
    More radical than the EAC!
    • by ashitaka ( 27544 )
      Wow, right off the bat!

      I was wondering how long into the thread a Finding Nemo reference would be made.
  • 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.


    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I actually laughed out loud reading that. Especially the mercury bit. What's almost as funny is that you will now be modded down for making a joke at Global Warming's expense. That's right, Global Warming is capitalized...that's what you do with religion, right?

      Mod me down baby, waste away those mod points...
      • mod styles (Score:2, Insightful)

        by zahl2 ( 821572 )
        I boggle as to how they were modded up as "interesting" and not "funny".

        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.
    • Apparently they do now.
    • You don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spun ( 1352 )
      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?
      • Which has a greater effect, oceanic currents on weather patterns or weather patterns on oceanic currents?

        I doubt the problem with global climate change is the change in itself. The earth has been experiencing changes in the climate since before recorded history. It is the cause and effect (of what the problem is supposed to be) that is being told to us by some that brings skepticisms.

        Maybe the point of his rantings were to show how silly the debate has been so far. Here we have some people who are so certai
  • And it starts yet again! Another thread debating global climate change!

    Adapt or die! That is the solution!

    Profit by investing in the A/C and flood control industries!
  • 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!!!!
    • There must be a break in the earth's water cooling loop. Maybe it needs a new bigger pump, and some UV reactive dye.
    • 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

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tdent1138 ( 832732 )

        "Al Gore and others taking similar positions point to climate engines like this (though not this particular one in the past, since it wasn't known, but the North Atlantic Current has always been pointed to) as areas of sensitivity because human-produced effects can change the conditions which make these systems operate the way they do, thus causing them to change how they operate, thus producing greater climate change than the human actions do more directly."

        Be that as it may, it seems to me that we keep

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rgravina ( 520410 )
      I don't know whether this is a troll or not, but this attitute really annoys me. While it is true that global warming proponents first reaction often is to link any unusual climate phenomenon with global warming, it makes little sense to pretend there isn't a problem either.

      It's all too easy to just ignore the possibility that we might be screwing up the planet so we can happily go on and do whatever the hell we want.

      Sure, it being a hot day today might have absolutelty nothing to do with what we have done
  • 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.
    • Sequel time (Score:3, Funny)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      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.
    • I must have read a different article. All I saw was an article that describes scientific research that confirmed some theories.
      • by Otter ( 3800 )
        You did read a different article. He's referring to the second link.

        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...?

    • That's how you get people to read articles. Honest unbiased journalist are probably cashing in unemployment checks more often than not. (because their dishonest editors won't print their articles)
    • 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.
      • "Pay attention to what the real scientist are saying directly."

        Good [] advice []
        • The IPCC is a group of frauds. Not particularly clever frauds at that. I mean, c'mon, they cherry pick data, and when it suits them, attempt to destroy evidence. All of their studies are based on their end goal, which any proper scientist can tell you is an extremely amateur way of doing business. Until they throw out any temperature readings taken within the area of influence of metropolitan areas all of their models are complete bunk.
    • 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 [], 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:

      "research that will help them explain more accurately how the ocean governs global climate."

      I am going to walk out on a limb here and reject the premise

    • Three words ... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ex-MislTech ( 557759 )
      Global Warming Swindle 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... .html []

      • 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?

      • "Unsuccessfully"? The article that you link to says their price is already only slightly higher than traditional energy production. That sounds extremely good for such an early stage in new technology.

        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
        • I stand by my "unsuccessful" claim. Yes, it looks quite promising even in early stages, but it hasn't really done anything yet. As far as I can tell, every time they try putting the turbine in the river, it breaks. If you installed a program and it crashed every few minutes, would you call it successful?

          I commend them for their progress and continuing efforts to get this working. I'll call it successful when it's down there and generating electricity for a significant amount of time.

          • If you installed a program and it crashed every few minutes, would you call it successful?

            No, if it was marketed as finished, and yet crashed every few minutes, I would indeed call it unsuccessfull. But if I'm writing a program, and it crashes every few minutes while I'm writing it, I'd call it unfinished. Whether it's successful or not is at that stage not defined by whether it crashes or not.

            I suppose we have different impressions about what stage of development they are in. I do see your point, and you could be right, but I'm not convinced, not with the information I've seen so far.

      • by Raenex ( 947668 )
        Nice article. I like this bit:

        The East River's powerful tides have been wreaking havoc with the giant turbine blades since the first two were installed in December.

        "But the good thing is that there's more power in the East River than we thought."
  • Rather than arguing about the cause of climate change, we need to focus on solutions to the problems it is creating, and monitoring of the climate.

    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
    • 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

    • 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

  • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday August 17, 2007 @04:15PM (#20267033) Homepage
    It's an underwater series of tubes!
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      The Tasman Outflow eats ships, canoes, sailboats, barges, dinghies, divers, bouys, tankers, submarines....AND ESPECIALLY RABBITS!
      • by ashitaka ( 27544 )
        Sadly, most of Slashdot is now too young to get that.

        Besides, "Taz" as he is now called, has become far too civilized and just another generic cartoon character.

        "How come you bury me in the cold, cold ground"
  • so, theres a ginormous ocean flow that no one in the "settled science" camp knew about that has not been taken into account in global warming predictions?

    Arrange this next to the .1 degree miscalc with the y2k problem from NASA last week... and one would get the feeling that settled doesn't mean what it used to mean.
  • Prior Art (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Didn't the sea turtles in Finding Nemo already figure this out?
  • The intent is to detect any change in ocean circulation that may adversely influence global climate.

    Climate change can have huge effects on agriculture, standards of living, and even whether people can live in a certain location, but we all know that real reason is to make sure that the blame is laid on President Bush as soon as any change, however minute, is detected. If it gets warmer, it's Global Warming. If it gets cooler, it's Global Warming. If it stays the same, it's Global Warming.

    In the Name of
  • Oh, no, another factor!

    Lucky for us we haven't committed any funds to the global warming cleanup fund yet.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.