• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science: Ocean Circulaion Drives Climate

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's an interesting take in a new paper in Science. Oceans more important than CO2?

North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation




  • [*=left]L. G. Henry1,*,
    [*=left]J. F. McManus1,
    [*=left]W. B. Curry2,3,
    [*=left]N. L. Roberts4,
    [*=left]A. M. Piotrowski4,
    [*=left]L. D. Keigwin2
+ Author Affiliations


Abstract

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean's persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.


The new study explores what happened to ocean circulation when the Earth went through a series of abrupt climate changes in the past, during a time when ice covered part of North America and temperatures were colder than today. It looks at the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which distributes heat as it moves warmer surface water from the tropics toward Greenland and the high northern latitudes and carries colder, deeper water from the North Atlantic southward.

New Paper finds ocean circulation drives the climate on the surface


During the last ice age (and others before it) temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere would abruptly swing up and down by a hefty 3 – 6°C every 1,500 years or so. A new study using isotopes on the sea floor rather provocatively suggests that the Atlantic ocean circulation was to blame. Apparently it slowed almost to halt, and before the surface water cooled. It seems that when the Atlantic currents slow too far they stop bringing warmer water north from the equator and Southern Hemisphere, and thus the north ices over. During these super-cold periods the ice sheets spread down and cover much of North America, (and real estate in Australia costs a motza). Massive icebergs break off and drift, but apparently things took a lot longer to get cold in the Southern Hemisphere, and the north and south possibly got a bit out of whack cooling and warming in opposite phases. The researcher used the word “bipolar”. . . .

Ocean Circulation Implicated in Past Abrupt Climate Changes

June 30, 2016


 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This isn't the first time I have read a similar report either.
They came out with a similar report about 4 ot 5 years ago.
It was an interesting lead.

The oceans play a huge role in our climate and probably more than what we know.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yet another instance of climate-science deniers in their crusade of confusion and obfuscation: "No, the climate isn't warming!" "The climate's warming, but not because of humans!"

Make up your minds, willya?

You seem to be the one who is confused.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yet another instance of climate-science deniers in their crusade of confusion and obfuscation: "No, the climate isn't warming!" "The climate's warming, but not because of humans!"

Make up your minds, willya?

The totally consistent, but nuanced, argument has always been that the impact of human activity on the climate is low. That the climate has been stabel since 1998. That it warmed between 1978 and 1998. That we don't know what it will do in the future although generally we expect it to warm a bit due to increased CO2. That this is generally a good thing and that any negative imapcts will be extremely slight.

If that's all too much, too many things to think about at the same time it's just that you are not very clever.
 

Pin dÁr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
3,185
Reaction score
112
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ah well, those 'clowns' change their minds all the time. And the people fall for this nionsense.

It is all politics. this is used to drive an agenda (agenda 21).
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The totally consistent, but nuanced, argument has always been that the impact of human activity on the climate is low. That the climate has been stabel since 1998. That it warmed between 1978 and 1998. That we don't know what it will do in the future although generally we expect it to warm a bit due to increased CO2. That this is generally a good thing and that any negative imapcts will be extremely slight.

If that's all too much, too many things to think about at the same time it's just that you are not very clever.

Concerning the bolded sentence above - that shows me that you, like all the other climate deniers, haven't been paying attention.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Concerning the bolded sentence above - that shows me that you, like all the other climate deniers, haven't been paying attention.

From the 1998 El Nino to the 2015 El Nino the climate was indeed remarkably stable. I don't think that's seriously in dispute. The point at issue between skeptics and AGW believers is not so much the observed record as the mechanism(s) that drive climate. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick is an exception: skeptics regard it as fraud.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Concerning the bolded sentence above - that shows me that you, like all the other climate deniers, haven't been paying attention.

To what degree does nothing of any significantce cover?????

If there has been zero climate change since 1998 you have a point but since there has been a tiny climate change over that period it has been very very stable by comparison with almost all other periods.

Have you been paying attention to what the other side has been saying ever?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's an interesting take in a new paper in Science. Oceans more important than CO2?

NO NO NO.
Climate isn't driven by anything NATURAL, it's driven by BIG OILS GREED and you're just a PUPPET of their need to enrich themselves while ruining the future for "the children!" I bet this "study" was written up in Exxon's boardroom while they laughed! You want us to believe that the Ocean, water, just... water could have any impact on something as massive as Climate? Next thing you'll tell us is the Sun's output and Earth's orbit affect climate.

More big oil, RWNM lies!!!
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NO NO NO.
Climate isn't driven by anything NATURAL, it's driven by BIG OILS GREED and you're just a PUPPET of their need to enrich themselves while ruining the future for "the children!" I bet this "study" was written up in Exxon's boardroom while they laughed! You want us to believe that the Ocean, water, just... water could have any impact on something as massive as Climate? Next thing you'll tell us is the Sun's output and Earth's orbit affect climate.

More big oil, RWNM lies!!!

Sigh.

Absolutely nobody has said that none of climate is driven by nature. Why do deniers continually argue against strawmen?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sigh.

Absolutely nobody has said that none of climate is driven by nature. Why do deniers continually argue against strawmen?

Why do people that claim government action can stop climate from changing decry those that disagree with them as being "Deniers"? We're not the ones who have an issue with the fact climate, changes.

Frankly, that use of "Deniers" is appallingly bad taste. I know you don't give two ****s, calling us deniers (shades of holocaust deniers) is witty fun for those that believe in Government, but give it a rest would ya?
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why do people that claim government action can stop climate from changing decry those that disagree with them as being "Deniers"? We're not the ones who have an issue with the fact climate, changes.

Frankly, that use of "Deniers" is appallingly bad taste. I know you don't give two ****s, calling us deniers (shades of holocaust deniers) is witty fun for those that believe in Government, but give it a rest would ya?

Wow. Time to get down, Renae, we need the wood.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow. Time to get down, Renae, we need the wood.
You need to get out more, out of the LWNM echo chamber.
Many of the climate change denialist sites have been up in arms by comparisons of climate change denial to holocaust denial. In particular Marc Morano at climate depot has had multiple articles attacking and expressing hysterical outrage at these comparisons.

We know they don’t like the comparison, but the question is, is it apt?

One article in particular from Micha Tomkiewicz, who is himself a holocaust survivor, has earned the ire of climate denialists around the web because in addition to the comparison of the tactics of global warming denialists and holocaust deniers, he additionally creates a moral comparison. While not saying it’s as bad a holocaust denial, Tomkiewicz does suggest they might be denying the possibility of a future holocaust:

I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.
Is the holocaust denial/climate change denial comparison apt? – denialism blog
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,807
Reaction score
14,926
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think the attempt to model such things and explain them are a waste of time. We have only scratched the surface of understanding such things. Too many variables unknown from so long in the past.
 

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yet another instance of climate-science deniers in their crusade of confusion and obfuscation: "No, the climate isn't warming!" "The climate's warming, but not because of humans!"

Make up your minds, willya?


Denying ocean currents contribution to climate IS a form of climate-science denial.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, my bad then. :roll:

Use of the term implies that those of us that disagree with or doubt the AGW position are somehow intellectually dishonest. That we are not coming from a valid position, that we should be marginalized. Science, isn't settled by committee.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,573
Reaction score
38,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NO NO NO.
Climate isn't driven by anything NATURAL, it's driven by BIG OILS GREED and you're just a PUPPET of their need to enrich themselves while ruining the future for "the children!" I bet this "study" was written up in Exxon's boardroom while they laughed! You want us to believe that the Ocean, water, just... water could have any impact on something as massive as Climate? Next thing you'll tell us is the Sun's output and Earth's orbit affect climate.

More big oil, RWNM lies!!!

How many times are you going to beat on this straw man? How many times am I going to have to call you out on this bull**** before you stop repeating it?

Use of the term implies that those of us that disagree with or doubt the AGW position are somehow intellectually dishonest. That we are not coming from a valid position, that we should be marginalized. Science, isn't settled by committee.

You know what's intellectually dishonest? Acting like liberals argue "only man affects climate."

Quit throwing rocks, you live in a glass house.
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,525
Reaction score
14,495
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yet another instance of climate-science deniers in their crusade of confusion and obfuscation: "No, the climate isn't warming!" "The climate's warming, but not because of humans!"

Make up your minds, willya?

Saying there has been no measurable warming in the last 18 years is not he same as arguing that there has been no warming since the LIA ended.

But don't let the actual arguments get in the way of your false narrative.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,573
Reaction score
38,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Saying there has been no measurable warming in the last 18 years is not he same as arguing that there has been no warming since the LIA ended.

But don't let the actual arguments get in the way of your false narrative.

Saying humans can cause climate change is not the same as only humans can cause climate change. But don't let the actual arguments get in the way of your false narrative.
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,525
Reaction score
14,495
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Saying humans can cause climate change is not the same as only humans can cause climate change. But don't let the actual arguments get in the way of your false narrative.

You'd better tell that to the IPCC because their model shows no warming in the atmosphere without anthropogenic CO2....

63y1dF.jpg
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,807
Reaction score
14,926
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Denying ocean currents contribution to climate IS a form of climate-science denial.

There is no doubt the ocean currents contribute to the climate change. The circulation pattern alone varies from 800 to 1200 or so years, and in effect stores a level of heat content and CO2 levels. Then the mass and heat capacity alone of the ocean vs. the atmosphere. The atmosphere is puny in comparison.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,807
Reaction score
14,926
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Saying humans can cause climate change is not the same as only humans can cause climate change. But don't let the actual arguments get in the way of your false narrative.

I seem to remember you using binary logic when it suits you...
 
Top Bottom