Comments on: Deep Ocean Conveyor Belt Reconsidered

By: Peter Etnoyer

Peter Etnoyer — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:23:43 +0000

I’m going to check my references and get back to you, Robinson. I am obviously not an expert in climate change, I use circulation models to help predict currents, downwelling, stratification and other parameters that may infuence the distribution of my study animals- deep corals.

Its important to note, though, that just because drifters escape the DWBC doesn’t mean the current doesn’t exist, as I mentioned, it was always considered a slow flow. The models clearly need to be adjusted, though.

By: Robinson

Robinson — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:03:07 +0000

True Peter, but then you say “we fixed the hole in the ozone layer”, which isn’t strictly true. What we did was fix a problem that didn’t exist, in that the hole in the ozone layer comes from natural variation (indeed, some connection with high energy particles has recently been described). Of course, nobody talks about the ozone layer any more; did you hear a retraction in the media? I didn’t.

I don’t agree that CO2 is a problem. As I’ve said before, CO2 is close to a record low with respect to Earth’s climate. It isn’t true to say that comparable levels of CO2 occured in the past causing drastic changes. Where on earth did you get that information from? It can be demonstrated that CO2 responds to temperature, not the other way around (the forcing from CO2 is tiny!). CO2 has been thousands of PPM in the past; higher temperature is always associated with a thriving biosphere. The same cannot be said of the cold.

AGW is based on and constructed with the output of GCM’s. That the GCM’s are blatantly wrong should be cause for concern. Less credulous and stupified minds have long understood this.

By: Peter Etnoyer

Peter Etnoyer — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:18:42 +0000

What I’m taking from this is that people are angry about alarmism, angry that global warming is being “rammed down their throats”, and angry that they may be taxed. This is not necessarily to say they disbelieve that the climate is warming, just that opinion is split on whether the causes are natural or human-induced.

Let me be clear about my position. I sympathize with this confusion, because I am familiar with circulation models, and I know its an inexact science. I am also familiar with environmental NGOs, and I know some are prone to fear mongering to stimulate new resources. I’ve been taught that there is a causal connection between humans and elevated CO2, and that where comparable levels of CO2 occurred in the past, drastic changes have occurred.

Still, I try to be balanced and optimistic. We fixed the problem ozone layer, apparently. We can do better than fossil fuels. The CO2 problem does exist, and it can be addressed. How it manifests itself is open to debate, as we have happening here. However, just because a circulation model is inexact does not mean human induced climate change is not a problem.

By: rnelson

rnelson — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:17:44 +0000

You are welcome and thanks for making the correction.

By: Peter Etnoyer

Peter Etnoyer — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:08:31 +0000

Thanks RNelson. I was mixing them up with another float, still calling 2m “big” in relation to plankton. That’s fixed above.

By: rnelson

rnelson — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:55:09 +0000

“You have to wonder whether a big yellow float responds to these currents the same as suspended matter, like plankton and particulates.”

RAFOS floats are not big and yellow, they are made of glass and are about 2m long and 170mm diameter.

By: Michael Backers

Michael Backers — Sat, 16 May 2009 04:41:13 +0000

I can off the cuff hypothesize reasons why empirical data may not match theory in this case such as simple Brownian motion or periodic local events like Atlantic ridge eruptions creating a temperature gradient. These could explain why empirical measurements would make the the model difficult to calibrate.

Look. We know the earth is heating up on a geometric path. Do you really want to just ignore it? We are smart enough to realize that h
humans have an impact on the environment. The temperature elevator is a good theory.

Just because we can measure it yet doesn’t mean the world is flat. Look how long it took us to empirically measure dark matter from a solid theory. There are plenty of acute reasons to reduce smog. Do your share.

By: M Lopez

M Lopez — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:19:15 +0000

@Peter: Not necessarily, but it raises questions that can’t simply be dismissed easily or flippantly. Case of pot calling the kettle black ? People seem to think that to even think of questioning “climate change” is some sacred cow that can’t be poked and prodded. The idea in all science IS to question. Nothing precludes doing what one can to push for reduced emissions, replanting forests, just the same.

By: L1ttl3J1m

L1ttl3J1m — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:56:18 +0000

I’ll confess to being one of those Slashdot geeks, but something about this makes me wonder if 700-1500 metres sounds a bit shallow, somehow.

I mean, if there is a massive river of cold water moving down there, it’ll be right down at the bottom, wouldn’t it? Being the coldest water, it’ll sink right down to the bottom of the water column and flow more or less across the ocean floor, doing what water does (running downhill) through the lowest part of the ocean.

So, if the abyssal plains are at 4,000 to 6,000 metres, and the trenches are even deeper than that, it occurs to me that there’s plenty of room for a five or ten mile wide, 20 metre “deep”, say, river to be pouring away south down there and for these buoys to miss it completely.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:29:12 +0000

I’d say a more accurate response is “just because a scientist says something IS, doesn’t mean it IS.” Most people would appreciate an honest statement that says “Given our current information, we believe this to be accurate.” when most of what we hear is “It’s this way, end of discussion.”.