Another “observations are not models” story is emerging. For more on the status quo of thermohaline circulation, see this Wiki article – Anthony
Deep Ocean Conveyor Belt Reconsidered
Science Daily is reporting that just because they teach you something in graduate school doesn’t make it right. A 50 year old model of global thermohaline circulation that predicts a deep Atlantic counter current below the Gulf Stream is now formally called into question by an armada of subsurface RAFOS floats drifting 700 – 1500m deep. Nearly 80% of the RAFOS floats escaped the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), drifting into the open ocean.
This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990’s, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change. The findings by Drs. Amy Bower of Wood’s Hole and Susan Lozier of Duke University et al. are published in a forthcoming issue of Nature.
The implications would be for more cold, oxygenated water along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but I’m just making that last part up. Best to read for yourself. As I recall, the DWBC was notoriously slow. You have to wonder whether a big yellow float responds to these currents the same as suspended matter, like plankton and particulates. Either way, the research represents a major paradigm shift in ocean circulation theory.
Citation:
Bower, A., Lozier, M., Gary, S., & Böning, C. (2009). Interior pathways of the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation Nature, 459 (7244), 243-247 DOI: 10.1038/nature07979
Image above from Wikimedia Commons.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a common trend lately….beware what you learned at school, knowledge is an ongoing process.
So that science aint settled either.
Just goes to show that science is settled – until it is unsettled.
As always Humboldt’s current is lacking, a cold current which runs from south pole northwards along the south american coast and which is opposed by the El Nino eastward and then southwards conter current, making humboldt’s current retreat and sink (taking with it, of course, in such events, all cold water fish fauna).
What? This wasn’t settled? Wasn’t there, at least, a consensus?
Does this mean that the whole Thermohaline circulation is made up — that no one ever really measured it?
The article that you can read for free doesn’t explain much.
I wouldn’t worry too much about this article. The existing climate models are robust and have already anticipated and internalized this so called news. These currents could all be going backwards or doing loop de loops and it would not change the fact that the world is burning up. Besides, the science is settled. If you don’t believe me just ask the scientists at CT… (sarc)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514083753.htm
These guys say the trans polar drift has increased over the last thirty years and that’s why the Arctic Ice is declining, I think.
Interesting but I think we already new this.
Oh dear, established concensus overturned again. On the other hand this is true science. Keep learning, discovering, and dont assume dogmatically that you are correct in your assumptions
The Slashdot story also links to the Woods Hole press release.
Yet again, real world measurements don’t agree with theory. And note that after getting a few measurements, the researcher simulated 7,000 buoys. We don’t know in what ways the assumptions in the simulation have contaminated the study.
Listen, the models will be adjusted to take this into account and….. they will show rapid runaway Global Warming much sooner than previously predicted; you know, like five years ago.
Things are not what they used to be – and THEY NEVER WERE.
Well, that could bring some work only for the most sophisticated global climate modelers because as Gavin Schmidt and many others have explained, most of the modelers are still very happily ignoring the existence of the oceans and their interactions with the atmosphere. 😉
But, but, we thought we knew all about the climate, and now all what we know about the climate is falling down all around us O.O
Just goes to show the reality may be we know little about how climate even works, so it’s not a good time to even think of CO2 causing the Earth to warm.
Frederick Michael (09:56:51) :
Why does the return current in the Atlantic being somewhere than the western boundary invalidate the concept of a meridional overturning circulation? Why is it even that surprising?
The Gulf Stream, the Agulhas, and the Kuroshio aren’t always easy to measure either. And those are the parts we can see on the surface.
But,but, but,but
How many legs does the AGW stool have anyway? Between McIntryre and Watts and others they’ve kicked out DOZENS? Maybe it’s not a stool. Maybe AGW is more like a Hydra? I know one thing, you can’t shake the faith of the true believers.
Much like climate, science is always changing.
Does this mean the climate modelers don’t know what they’re talking about? Come on man. Watts you got to cut these guys some slack. Everytime I pull up your page your cuttin their knees out from under them. Hehehehe
I think the study is just saying the deep ocean current moving south in the mid-north-atlantic did not follow the expected path of sinking and flowing along the deepest part of the ocean.
Should be able to see it in this map.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=39.707187,-51.152344&spn=32.17618,56.25&z=4
Theoritically, the densest water is the saltiest water at a temperature of just under 3C. This is the most dense water and it should seek the lowest depths of the ocean (or just be at the lowest depths). Any colder or any warmer or any less salty ocean water will rise above this level.
With all the sinking and rising that goes on over long time scales, it should effectively flow at the deepest part of the ocean (very slowly of course).
The study just didn’t find a definable region or flow in the expected location.
The area is almost all the same depth so there should just be a very slow, very diffuse general movement anyway and there should not be a river-like flow as the graph shows.
Gotta Love science.
Speaking of science/Non-Science, the news has just reported that the Catlin crew stopped short of the north pole because of unexpected early ice melt…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_britain_polar_explorers
L. Motl (10-25-09): You forgot to misspell “Schmidt”.
I have a big problem with this study.
They dropped floats in the water and took measurements for 2 YEARS (count them, 1, 2). They then use that brief snapshot of data to come to a conclusion about a long term (and I thought well documented) oceanic climate phenomena ?
It is analogous to measuring the temperature at midday in Phoenix in July and coming to the conclusion that the average temperature of the Earth’s surface everywhere and at all times of the year is 105F.
I don’t buy it.
So.-What I get from this is we really_don’t_ understand what is going on?
(I’m tempted to do a Captian Renault -Claude Rains-‘Shocked!Shocked!)
Pierre Gosselin (09:53:42) :
Settled science is really unsettling.
Mr Pofarmer said (10:46:13) :
“How many legs does the AGW stool have anyway? Between McIntryre and Watts and others they’ve kicked out DOZENS? Maybe it’s not a stool.”
Oh it’s a stool alright.
This is a major problem. We have researchers who are constantly rocking the boat by learning new things. That must be stopped immediately. We have millions, perhaps billions invested in policies reflecting the current knowledge base. New knowledge will possibly be contradictory to the existing knowledge and could threaten vital programs costing us a lot of money when people are sensitive to unnecessary costs. The ending of research that could potentially conflict with existing policy could therefore save billions of dollars in what might otherwise become useless programs.
Therefore, from this day forward, I propose that only research that is intended to validate current policy be funded. This nonsense of simply studying things out of curiosity with no regard as to what conclusions could result is reckless and expensive. All requests for research grants must now include a statement of intended conclusion. This conclusion must agree with current policy. As policy is subject to change, rejected research can be resubmitted when official policy changes.
We must stop this reckless and unbounded research into areas where policy has already been established in order to maintain the integrity and relevance of existing programs and rhetoric. Should such unbounded research continue, policy makers could end up looking like total idiots, which must be avoided at all costs.
The confidence of the people in our spending and policy is much more important than understanding the realities involved. Besides, our understanding pf the realities will probably change as yet more of this rogue research transpires. This could result in serious whipsawing of policy decisions and millions of dollars in consulting fees in order to develop new catch phrases, buzz words, and program titles to reflect the new reality. For the sake of stability, all this “learning” simply has to stop.