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.
Props to FatBigot (11:19:36)!
How ironic would it be for climate alarmists to dismiss this on the grounds that much of this research was carried out in computerised simulations?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Nothing would surprise me at this point.
Lubos …
I’m not aware of what exactly Gavin Schmidt said but I’m sure he’s aware that the “C” HadCM3 (and its predecessors) stands for “Coupled”, as in “we run an ocean model coupled with an atmospheric model”.
Hard to model the ocean if you’re ignoring it …
Can someone explain how this changes current theories about the THC rather than filling in some of the details of it east of N. America – the DWBC? Also where does the Nature article mention any implication for global climate models?
Yep, it’s not just that they don’t know what they don’t know. . . it’s also that some of what they think they know just ain’t so.
Scientific hubris is rampant in most fields –not just climatology– the last twenty years. They are measuring from where they’ve come from over the last hundred years and getting much too full of themselves instead of having a proper appreciation for how much they don’t know yet.
As usual, this study is being severely misrepresented by WUWT.
You can read it yourself.
As for the impact on global warming or climate science? Here’s what the one of the authors said:
The difficulty isn’t to climate science, per se, but rather a whole lot more data gathering in the deep sea is going to be necessary when looking for climate signals. In other words a lot more $$$ and most likely time to both gather and analyze such data.
The paper’s conclusions are based on models. Are you saying the paper’s wrong?
“Oh it’s a stool alright.”
Quote of the year. 8^)
“Can someone explain how this changes current theories about the THC”
I am not sure it would change much about the theories themselves but it would change what to infer from measurements of the return current along the continental shelf. In other words, we know that the Gulf Stream, for example, is there and flows North from the Gulf of Mexico. We also know that this water must somehow return. So that there is circulation is not in question, we already know that it must be.
What it changes are measurements in the return current that was thought to account for the majority of the “conveyor belt”. For example, a slowing of that current might have led someone to the conclusion that the entire conveyor belt was slowing when it might simply mean that the proportion of return flow taking that route has changed, and not a change in overall volume of return flow. It pretty much invalidates any conclusions that were drawn based mainly on data from that part of the return flow with regards to inference of the status of the system as a whole. What was thought to be the major portion of the system turns out to be a very minor part.
In short, it turns out they were touching only a small portion of an elephant.
crosspatch
That was great.
LOL read the article first then jump to wild ass conclusions, the only point here is we may not know what we think we know. See how I used that may in that sentence, it is called uncertainty.
Does that mean we reprint the textbooks in the morning? No! it just means that we have some more observational data to digest and possibly integrate into our heat transfer models to see what effect that would have. If the new circulation patterns better explain observable climate then we move the science train a little farther down the track.
Really people we need to keep perspective. It is this arm waving finger pointing jubilation that defines the AGWers, IMHO we really need not behave the same way.
Of course pointing out that this is how science works might help the policy makers deal with their plans of “elevating science (that agrees with our policy) back to rightful place” so that it’s rightful place is equal to the reality of what science is and is not.
Good comment geo(11:45:51)
This is another example of assumptions being trumped by more acute observation & measurement.
Laboratory science is the “wonder” that has fuelled the Technological Revolution — field sciences, not so much.
Why?
Because assumptions are made by “strong personalities” that can’t be falsified.
And Group-think takes over and creates a “consensus” which can be very hard to change — consider it socio-psychological inertia.
Could someone explain to me the difference between thermohaline circulation and simple convection?
My home is well insulated to reduce the convection between the cold outside temperatures of Minnesota winters and our comfortable rooms on the inside.
Reducing the circulation of the air between warm and cool surfaces, is what home insulation is all about.
To my knowledge, nobody has suggested that I could insulate my home more efficiently, by reducing the salt content of the air.
“This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990’s, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change.”
Another example of Nature’s flagrant and total disregard for computer models.
The Real Reason For Global Warming
http://www.ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/weblog.php?/weblog/the_real_reason_for_global_warming/
“…beware what you learned at school”
Seems to me that started in earnest about 1975 (certainly well established by 1988…)
So, we have a female member of an institute that is unabashedly pro-AGW, publishing a paper in Nature that purports to provide data which will upset established settled climate models (ESCMs), calling into question the unabashedly pro-AGW stance of the institute. What can we draw from these observations:
1) The unabashedly pro-AGW institute will allow anyone on staff to write anything to get published, or,
2) The original grant application said nothing about ocean circulation, or,
3) The Woods Hole boat needs a refit and there’s nothing like open-ended dramatic multi-year research invoking Climate Change AND using the boat, to load the bilge with cash, or,
4) The young lady got tired of the sexism and decided to upset the front office, or,
5) WH wanted to find a way to tap into all of the money available for climate research, but couldn’t find anybody in the GAO who knew what a veliger was, or,
6) Steig finally found a topic that would take some of the bloody heat off his Antarctic boondoggle.
This appears to be the “Nature” letter:
“Interior pathways of the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation” Nature 459, 243-247 (14 May 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07979; Received 24 April 2008; Accepted 5 March 2009
Abstract:
To understand how our global climate will change in response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, it is essential to determine how quickly and by what pathways climate change signals are transported throughout the global ocean, a vast reservoir for heat and carbon dioxide. Labrador Sea Water (LSW), formed by open ocean convection in the subpolar North Atlantic, is a particularly sensitive indicator of climate change on interannual to decadal timescales1, 2, 3. Hydrographic observations made anywhere along the western boundary of the North Atlantic reveal a core of LSW at intermediate depths advected southward within the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC)4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. These observations have led to the widely held view that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for the export of LSW from its formation site in the northern North Atlantic towards the Equator10, 11. Here we show that most of the recently ventilated LSW entering the subtropics follows interior, not DWBC, pathways. The interior pathways are revealed by trajectories of subsurface RAFOS floats released during the period 2003–2005 that recorded once-daily temperature, pressure and acoustically determined position for two years, and by model-simulated ‘e-floats’ released in the subpolar DWBC. The evidence points to a few specific locations around the Grand Banks where LSW is most often injected into the interior. These results have implications for deep ocean ventilation and suggest that the interior subtropical gyre should not be ignored when considering the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.
And the link
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature07979.html
Link to the Figures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/fig_tab/nature07979_ft.html
Link to Supplements:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/extref/nature07979-s1.pdf
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 ?
My take on it, is that what they thought they’d find, (and what the Climate models are based on) they didn’t. Somehow, warming theory says that the atmosphere is supposed to be warming the oceans, and the currents are taking this warmth to the depths and storing it now to be released later and really ramp up the warming. Now, never mind that the volume of the oceans is much larger than the volume of the atmosphere. Never mind that he ocean absorbs much more heat than the atmosphere. Never mind that the ocean can transfer much more heat than the atmosphere. So, you’ve got this theory of how the atmosphere is supposed to be heating the oceans, and you put some buoy’s out there and it- Just. Ain’t. Happenin. And the AGW true-believers will do what they always do-ignore it, degrade it, villify the researchers. It really IS treated as a religion. I’ve seen it on some blogs that are not climate related. You get a true believer and NOTHING will dissuade them from their “facts,” especially not evidence.
Slightly off topic (but I don’t know where else to put it here), I saw a “skeptical” article/interview on Fortune/CNN about AGW. I thought I’d note it here as it’s “mainstream media” covering the other side of the story more honestly than usual. It starts with a discussion of research conducted by John Christy of U of Alabama-Huntsville and ends with a short Q&A between the interviewer and him.
Link: http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
Note: I don’t always keep up with all the comments on articles, so this might have been mentioned already yesterday. Thanks!
Robert
Second commendations of crosspatch and geo.
Sure am glad I don’t have hard won insights to discard here!
Let’s remember to keep perspective. While a single fact can disprove a theory or falsify an hypothesis, it still needs to be debated, reviewed, verified and repeated before we rewrite the textbooks entirely.
Well I’m not a fan of the “thermohaline” circulation; despite its bloated name.
Oh I believe the oceans circulate all right; and I also believe that salinity can determine when and if and where water will decide to sink. But I also believe that the energy driving this is essentially the rotation of the earth. I have always had a plan to reverse the rotation of the earth so they could have cold water and Atlantic salmon running down the East coast of the USA, and we could have warm water and Mahi Mahi swimming up the West coast of the USA.
And because I believe the earth rotation is the drive behind the ocean circulation, I also believe it won’t ever stop in our liftimes; salt or no salt.
But I suppose that actual salinity could decide just where the currents will meander to.
I also found I couldn’t understand what they are even talking about in the article; other than some buoys moved.
“And since this cold southward-flowing water is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters.”
What is this, excuse number 329 as to why their AGW models don’t work?
The statement also takes the position that human-caused climate change is a proven fact and that it is large enough to have a natural condition moderate it.
Dhogaza,
You are so right.
Read the paper, see the problems. More money for research/ refining the models. Results were based on models therefore we don’t know if they are correct or not because they were based on models. More money for research/ refining the models. Results were based on models therefore we don’t know if they are correct or not ……ad infinitum
dhogaza (11:47:38) :
As usual, this study is being severely misrepresented by WUWT.
You can read it yourself.
I read it. I don’t see how WUWT is misrepresenting it. Of course, anything that even hints at a crack in your facade, even if only indirectly doing so, is something folks like you need to pounce on to set the record straight. “Phew! Our ivory tower isn’t being threatened by this!” Oh heaven forbid…
The difficulty isn’t to climate science, per se, but rather a whole lot more data gathering in the deep sea is going to be necessary when looking for climate signals. In other words a lot more $$$ and most likely time to both gather and analyze such data.
And this implies a mis-representation by WUWT how? The last line of the OP clearly says:
“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.”
or, in other words, “was the experiment even legitimate?” Hardly a mis-representation and, in fact, it reads more like WUWT called into question the conclusions.
The paper’s conclusions are based on models. Are you saying the paper’s wrong?
Wow, way to erect a strawman. The conclusions are also based on real-world observations that the models can’t account for. I.e., models aren’t the end-all be-all of science. They are merely a tool, and scientists need to keep that in perspective.
Mark
FYI, the jpg ad block in front of this thread is Nature Canada’s two polar bear “Let’s Stop Global Warming” pitch. Funny.