New Discoveries Improve Climate Models
Underwater Ridges Impact Ocean’s Flow of Warm Water
New discoveries on how underwater ridges impact the ocean’s circulation system will help improve climate projections.
An underwater ridge can trap the flow of cold, dense water at the bottom of the ocean. Without the ridge, deepwater can flow freely and speed up the ocean circulation pattern, which generally increases the flow of warm surface water.
Warm water on the ocean’s surface makes the formation of sea ice difficult. With less ice present to reflect the sun, surface water will absorb more sunlight and continue to warm.
U.S. Geological Survey scientists looked back 3 million years, to the mid-Pliocene warm period, and studied the influence of the North Atlantic Ocean’s Greenland-Scotland Ridge on surface water temperature.
“Sea-surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans were much warmer during the mid-Pliocene warm period than they are today, but climate models so far have been unable to fully understand and account for the cause of this large scale of warming,” said USGS scientist Marci Robinson. “Our research suggests that a lower height of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge during this geologic age was a contributor to the increase of poleward heat transport.”
“This is the first time the impact of a North Atlantic underwater ridge on the ocean circulation system was tested in a mid-Pliocene experiment,” said Robinson. “Understanding this process allows for more accurate predictions of factors such as ocean temperature and ice volume changes.”
Research was conducted on the mid-Pliocene because it is the most recent interval in the earth’s history in which global temperatures reached and remained at levels similar to those projected for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Therefore, it may be one of the closest analogs in helping to understand the earth’s current and future conditions.
The article was published in the journal, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, and can be viewed online. Any journalists who are not registered with this journal and cannot view this article can contact us to have a copy emailed to them.
This research contributes to the scientific foundation needed to make sound planning decisions in response to changes in climate and land use. To learn more, visit the Climate and Land Use Change website.
The USGS led this research through the Pliocene Research, Interpretation and Synoptic Mapping group. The primary collaborators in this research are the University of Leeds, University of Bristol and the British Geological Survey. More information about PRISM research is available online.
If USGS really wanted to make a contribution to climate science perhaps they could peruse their maps of today with maps of 100 years ago and tell us just how much land has been lost to the rising oceans.
Oh, hold on a minute, they wouldn’t want to do that would they……
Well, this couldn’t possibly be a new discovery relating to climate, because the science is settled!!
“Warm water on the ocean’s surface makes the formation of sea ice difficult. With less ice present to reflect the sun, surface water will absorb more sunlight and continue to warm.”
The formation of sea ice is always dificult. ( It is as much dependent on air temperature as it is upon wind speed.) The cold water coming down the east coast of Greenland is less salty than normal Atlantic sea water, (melting multiyear sea ice pluss fresh water from Russian rivers )thus freezing at a higer temperature. Sea water only absorbs more sunlight when the sun is shining. For most of the year open sea water radiates more thermal energy than ice covered sea water. It is the gain or loss of thermal energy that is more important that ice area, extent, or thickness. We talk about the effect of the oceans on climate but seem to ignore the effect of open polar waters on the cooling of said oceans.
I wonder if a cold water current stricking an under sea ridge would cause said current to ccreat an upwelling?
Looks like another natural factor in climate that everyone already knew about beside climate scientists? Heh
Regards from the Ocean Ridge Tennis Club – just north of Perth, Western Australia. We’ve been watching the unfolding climate for a number of years and were hoping that we were connected in some way. By the way, this part of the world has had a climate shift beginning around 1978 which has reduced rainfall by one third, and runoff by almost half. A real severe drought over here now.
What is really new here, as far as I can see, is that due to geological activity, the depth of the GSR was larger some millions of years ago, which contributed to a different climate in the Nordic Seas then compared to today.
However, the USGS scientists are left as amateurs in this article, since it states that new discoveries show that ocean ridges are important for ocean currents. Erh, we already knew that… And for us who model the Nordic Seas, it is nothing new that increasing the depth of the overflow sills also affects the inflow fluxes of AW into the Nordic Seas.
And regarding climate models – if they want to better represent this in the models, there’s one easy way of doing that: increase the resolution! However, any climate modeller already knows this, of course, and the reason for not increasing the resolution to an adequate degree, is due to computational demands when doing long-term simulations. Nothing new under the sun, in other words.
Another puzzle piece recognized. I didn’t read the paper or look at the bibliography but it seem to me learning about all this as an undergraduate in the 1960’s. Oh well, the more we learn the more we learn we don’t know.
A year or two ago I was watching a TV program about the mid-ocean ridges etc. and the female scientist said that the mid-ocean ridge system of 37k-40k miles puts more heat into the oceans in 24 hours than all the heat input from the sun, man made influences etc. does in a year. I can’t remember the program, but is this a true statement? Or how accurate is the estimate?
Theo Goodwin says:
February 4, 2011 at 5:05 am
“Apparently, this scientist not only talks to her computer and treats it as a colleague but uses it as the main source of her understanding of her science.”
___________________________
Our friends at PETA want scientists to use computer models of animal physiology instead of doing live studies. That makes us the lab rats. Does anyone actually prefer to let their daughter be the test subject for new drugs or cosmetic formulations? The point is to discover things we don’t already know.
GCMs would make us the sheep.
“Our research suggests that a lower height of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge during this geologic age was a contributor to the increase of poleward heat transport.”
With the ridge spreading 20-40 mm now, how do they know the height of the ridges 3 million years ago?
It is obvious many in government elected office are proponents of climate change and the USGS is a government agency.
On Google there is a climate change working group between the US and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam since 2008 involving the USGS.
Scrounging further through Google there is USGS circular 1309 Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017 By U.S. Geological Survey
In the executive summary they state “The U.S. Climate Change Science Program predicts that the next few decades will see rapid changes in the Nation’s and the Earth’s environment”.
In about USGS under Our Programs they state “our leaders need reliable scientific information to guide their decisions”. That is true.
The question is, are our leaders getting unbiased scientific information or information predetermined by request to support legislation. Are tax dollars being used in a conflict of interest?
And of course government agencies get their funding from some of those same politicians that support climate change legislation.
Mike Haseler says:
…………..
I’ve done some research into this area. The map is indeed wrong. More accurate representation is from
http://www.arcticsystem.no/posters/arctic-ocean-currents_en.jpg
or more detailed
http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/people/pwinsor/project_ao02_en1.html
“U.S. Geological Survey scientists looked back 3 million years, to the mid-Pliocene warm period, and studied the influence of the North Atlantic Ocean’s Greenland-Scotland Ridge on surface water temperature.”
Er, at about 2″/year of sea floor spreading, would not the geography have changed a bit and the currents altered? 6 million inches earlier is about 95 miles and the ridge in question may not even have been there.
And, of course, we have sea level variations which would scotch the whole model.
Test driving some of the features from the “Test” page and I hope I don’t cost you any extra effort. Note to all, the Test page is worth a look, defines comment limits but doesn’t contain a lot of Anthony’s pet (ref. to your last post) peeves. See “Test” on the home page header next to “Resources”.
LOL, I have to agree but if you take a look at this amazing “INTERNATIONAL BATHYMETRIC CHART OF THE ARCTIC OCEAN” you can see why the USGS is so sexed to explain some of the geologic formations.
I’d say they should go for it, I’d love to know their opinion about the forces and events necessary to create the Abyssal Plains and Ridges on the Ocean floor.
It’s a great footprint of history without any explanation I’ve ever seen.
Who cares if their using the Climate meme to explore but one would think they could just as easily justify the funding if they simply inspired us with the real benefit?
John from CA says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 4, 2011 at 10:32 am
🙁
not sure where all the italics came from but I’ll be more careful next time. I also included a stupid error, their s/b they’re in the last para.
[Reply: Thanks, fixed. It’s a WordPress glitch that sometimes happens. ~dbs, mod.]
John from CA says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:38 am
[Reply: Thanks, fixed. It’s a WordPress glitch that sometimes happens. ~dbs, mod.]
=======
The pet peeves from the doog post should be integrated on the Test page and the Test page perhaps renamed to something more specific to eliminate the errors for mod.
I’d be happy to help with this and can extend the special character set to make it easier for the community. Let me know if you’d like the input.
My favorite site as I multitask all day and half the night.
Best and thanks!!!
John
vukcevic says:
“I’ve done some research into this area. The map is indeed wrong.”
Just to pick on some details:
I’ve also done some reasearch into some of this area. Your map is still wrong (while the Rudels map is a good one):
The Barents Sea branch of the Atlantic inflow to the Arctic cools within the Barents Sea and not within the Arctic Ocean, and it is considerably colder than the Fram Strait branch as they meet north of the St. Anna Trough.
Regards,
Vidar
“This is the first time the impact of a North Atlantic underwater ridge on the ocean circulation system was tested in a mid-Pliocene experiment,”
Would all scientists everywhere quit calling computer model runs “Experiments”
Experiments are when you test something in the real world.
Running a computer model is just saying, “If my model is correct, what would happen?” That is forming a hypothesis which might be testable. It is NOT the test itself.
From USGS:-
“An underwater ridge can trap the flow of cold, dense water
“at the bottom of the ocean.
“Without the ridge,
“deepwater can flow freely and
“speed up the ocean circulation pattern,
“which generally
“increases the flow of warm surface water.
So, it appears to me that we have this large mass of cold, dense water at the bottom of the ocean, presumably with warm water freely flowing on top.
Then, God removes the ridge.
Wouldn’t the immediate effect of that be to add cold, dense water to warm (perhaps not-so-dense) water?
Now, if I try that in a glass, the warm water on top becomes cooler, and the water at the bottom becomes warmer.
So my attempt to replicate the experiment failed,
instead of “increasing the flow of warm water”,
I actually increased the flow of cold water.
Could someone please tell me how I went wrong?
“U.S. Geological Survey scientists looked back 3 million years, to the mid-Pliocene warm period, and studied the influence of the North Atlantic Ocean’s Greenland-Scotland Ridge on surface water temperature.”
Someone help me, I know that 3mm years is a blink of the eye geologically, but how do we know what ocean ridge contours have been from 3mm years ago to now? Could they have changed much over that period?
Peter Melia:
If more dense water leaves the Arctic Mediterranean, continuity requires that more water will also enter the Arctic Mediterranean, and the only way to do that, is to import more Atlantic Water. But then we are of course back to the debate on what drives the Atlantic-Arctic exchanges: Is it driven by thermohaline circulation or is it wind-driven? (most probably both)
Vidar says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:41 am
…………….
I was only referring to the volume (as a reference to the original post ‘One big gripe I have with this map is that it shows the “Feroe bank overflow” as being almost one and the same with the North Atlantic drift.‘), in which case I go by this one:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A-Avolume.jpg
Wait a minute. The science is already settled. It’s too late to be adding stuff! What if it conflicts with the AGW bible?
vukcevic:
Sure, I was just picking on a detail in your map. I agree with the point you made.
Regards,
Vidar
Isn’t it interesting that CAGW was settled science way back in 1990, before the AMO, the PDO and so many other important elements of climate were discovered?
Pro-AGW scientists told everybody back then that everything they needed to know was known, and would anybody who disagrees please don’t let the door hit you in the arse as you exit stage left?
How you can have settled science and be correct, and then LATER discover other stuff – it really doesn’t make sense. If the science is settled, then there are no more factors out there in the gloaming – you know them all.
Over and over again, new stuff comes up. And it just gets patched into AGW like they knew it all along.
WTF?