Climate change may be driving increases in many ocean current speeds

[Networker]

Originally Posted by SeaRags

Sounds like nobody REALLY knows what is causing it. The past 30 years I've seen science become so politicized that it's hard to tell what information comes from actual unbiased, objective scientists and what comes from science that is funded by ideologs. Most science is funded by large organizations now. I remember when it was called global warming, now it's called climate change. I guess in preparation for when the natural cycle starts going in the other direction.

All scientists who study this know what causes it. You’re unqualified to comment (unless you can prove me wrong) . It just sucks you have a vote as you can’t handle basic facts, this is above your lay grade it seems.

[pendragon]

If ocean currents and wind speeds around the globe are your only concern , you don't want to read this: http://www.aisdigital.com/global-warming.docx

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SeaRags

Did your research include Wikipedia this time too?

That and other sources...Does that matter? Wiki actually uses references like Universities and think tanks. I can tell you it didn't include FOX news or News Max.

[Patrigo]

Climate Change/Global Warming is not the problem. It is the, stands to reason, what we should expect, natural result, of the problem. The Problem is too many people on this Planet, especially those in backward and Third World countries. Those who must scratch the Earth, pollute, kill, deaforest, and whatever else they need to do, to survive, due to extreme poverty, corrupt/useless governments and population increase. I have read that we have to increase World Food Production 60% by about 2050, to have a chance of feeding the increasing population. The First World has to drastically change its massive polluting and plundering of natural resoures and learn quickly to fit in more with the Natural World. The Planet needs to get rid of about 5 billion people very quickly. Because the First World is not replacing its population due to low birth rates, about 95% of the World's population increase is amongst those who are most impoverished. This is a ghastly and grotesque solution and obviously cannot be done.
It will not be done, so we are doomed! In not many decades this will be a Planet mostly of rats, cockroaches and flies and whatever we have not destroyed or made extinct. I would hate to be a young person in our terminally ill environment.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Patrigo

... The Problem is too many people on this Planet, especially those in backward and Third World countries. Those who must scratch the Earth, pollute, kill, deaforest, and whatever else they need to do, to survive, due to extreme poverty, corrupt/useless governments and population increase...
... The First World has to drastically change its massive polluting and plundering of natural resoures and learn quickly to fit in more with the Natural World...
... we are doomed! In not many decades this will be a Planet mostly of rats, cockroaches and flies and whatever we have not destroyed or made extinct...

This seems to be a good example of drawing a logically unsound conclusion, from two, mutually exclusive, premises [a syllogism?].
However, this doesn’t mean that the conclusion of the argument is necessarily false [the fallacy fallacy], since even fallacious arguments can [accidentally] have true conclusions.
It’s important to remember that when you make an argument, the burden of proof is on you, to properly support your premises, and it’s generally not other people’s responsibility to disprove your unsupported claims.

[Mike OReilly]

I really don't want this to turn into another climate change pissing match, but on the question of global human population, it definitely IS a major problem, and IS a major driver of the problem. HOWEVER, it is a problem with a rapidly-approaching solution.

The reality is that we are rapidly heading to peak-population. This will happen sometime with the coming decades. Could be as early as 2050, but might be as last as the 2100, but either way it is coming fast. After this peak, global population will decline rapidly.

So while population is a problem, it's a problem that is coming under control. What isn't coming under control is the intensity of resource use by people in the developed world. In other words, the problem is us.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...int-by-country

[GordMay]

Annual world population growth peaked at 2.1%, in 1968, has since dropped to < 1.08%.[1] (and chart below)

How far will global population rise? Researchers can’t agree
The UN says world population will plateau at 10.9 billion, by the end of the century. But, other demographic groups [Global Burden of Disease Study] forecast earlier, and smaller peaks, with global population reaching 9.7 billion, by 2070, and then declining to 8.8 billion in 2100 [2].
More about ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02522-6

“Population Boom and Bust?” ~ by Katharina Buchholz
➥ https://www.statista.com/chart/26258...950-2020-2100/

[1] “Two centuries of rapid global population growth will come to an end” ~ by Max Roser
➥ https://ourworldindata.org/world-pop...th-past-future

[2] “Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study” ~ by Prof Stein Emil Vollset, DrPH et al
➥ https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0...677-2/fulltext

[GordMay]

Oceans have rivers and lakes

The reason for formation of such rivers can be varied. Some of these lakes and rivers may form, when seawater seeps up through thick layers of salt, beneath the seafloor, causing the salt to collapse, and form depressions. The dissolved salt makes the water denser than the water above it, so it settles into the depressions. They even have shorelines and waves of their own.

"Great rivers of the ocean" ~ by Jeremy Thomson
➥ https://rdcu.be/cNkRW
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/news010111-6

Originally Posted by J. Thomson

”Vast currents, like giant rivers, flow deep in the seas shaping the Earth's climate with their changing temperatures...
... Vast currents, like giant rivers, flow throughout the seas driven by differences in temperature and salt concentration...
... Oceanographers call these deep-sea currents collectively the 'thermohaline circulation' -- thermo meaning heat and haline meaning saltiness. Heat and salt change the density of water. Colder, saltier water plummets to the bottom of the ocean whereas warmer, fresher water rises. Areas of oceans where cold salty water predominates are called 'sinks', those dominated by warm, less salty water are dubbed 'upwellings'...
... So there appear to be at least two stable patterns of circulation in the world's oceans, one associated with ice ages and the other similar to the present day. Unfortunately it is not yet clear is what triggers the shift from one circulation pattern to another. Changing from the current pattern to the glacial circulation mode is one of the most potentially worrying aspects of climate shifts: it could plunge the planet into another ice age.”

See also:

The giant undersea rivers we know very little about
➥ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...eep-sea-rivers

Is there a River Under the Sea?
➥ https://www.marineinsight.com/enviro...under-the-sea/

[Rumrace]

Mike there is a shipwreck 109 miles off the New York Coast just past the Nantucket light ship. The Andrea Doria. It was lovely and in sad shape when I dove her 25 years ago. It takes 3 hours to decompress from a short dive on the way back up you pass through a massive cold current and a hot one considering your only heat source is some argon in your suit. We hung like bats to a flag pole with safety lines to survive.
Dive magazines have raised concerns that dives like the Doria are impossible with increased current speeds.
In the St.Clair River is a upsidedown wreck we affectionally call the turtle. We take senior divers there going for Dive master. We tell them to bring a passport in a dry bag in case you mess up. You shore line entry and staying tight to the bottom you side kick to the wreck. Near the wreck if you get a meter off the bottom you’ll be in Detroit in 8-10 minutes no way to stop it. Spring is impossible to dive the turtle.

[GordMay]

Oceans Warmest & Most Acidic on Record

Four key climate change indicators: greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level rise, ocean heat, and ocean acidification – all set new records in 2021.

The World Meteorological Organization’s flagship annual report, “State of the Global Climate report” [1], gives details of climate indicators, such as temperatures, ocean heat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, sea ice glaciers and extreme weather.
It also has a section devoted to impacts on sustainable development, food security, displacement and ecosystems.
It includes input from National Meteorological and Hydrological Services, climate centre and dozens of experts, as well as a wide range of UN partners.

Oceans bear much of the brunt of the current warming and emissions.

They absorb around 90 per cent of the Earth's accumulated heat, and 23 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions, from human activity.

The ocean has warmed markedly faster [than the planet as a whole], in the last 20 years, hitting a new high in 2021, and is expected to become even warmer, the report said. That change would likely take centuries or millennia to reverse, it noted.

The ocean is also now its most acidic in at least 26,000 years, as it absorbs and reacts with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Sea level has risen 4.5 centimetres in the last decade, with the annual increase from 2013 to 2021 more than double what it was from 1993 to 2002.

State of the Global Climate 2021 (WMO-No. 1290) ~ World Meteorological Organization [WMO], released May 18, 2022

The publication provides a summary on the state of the climate indicators in 2021 including global temperatures trends and its distribution around the globe; most recent finding on Green House Gases concentration, Ocean indicators; Cryosphere with a particular emphasis on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, greenland ice sheet and glaciers and snow cover; Stratospheric Ozone; analysis of major drivers of inter-annual climate variability during the year including the El Niño Souther Oscillation and other Ocean and Atmshperic indices; global precipitation distribution over land; extreme events including those related to tropical cyclones and wind storms; flooding, drought and extreme heat and cold events. The publication also provides most recent finding on climate related risks and impacts including on food security, humanitarian and population displacement aspects and impact on ecosystems.

[1] Full Report ➥ https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11178

WMO Press Conference ➥ https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1a/k1afgswsq4

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Although humans have been around for 300,000 years, they only industrialized for 300 years and like mentioned before...Ice ages happen approximately 100,000 years, not every 11,000 years.
Again, a few minutes of research for the information.

Perhaps a few extra minutes of research would have revealed that the planet is still in the grips of an ice age but is currently within the midst of a balmy interglacial period. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-c...al-period-last

Interestingly, the poles have been ice free for much longer than they have been frozen over, CO2 levels have possibly never been lower than in the recent era and the current ice age has been around for about the last 250000 years by most estimates and is still going strong.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Patrigo

Climate Change/Global Warming is not the problem. It is the, stands to reason, what we should expect, natural result, of the problem. The Problem is too many people on this Planet, especially those in backward and Third World countries.

It is the opposite of what you said.

It is too many people in rich countries. poor people have the lowest impact. australians collectively are among the biggest abusers of the environment. Amazingly surpassing the excess and waste of even the united states on a per capita basis.

scratching the earth to survive? australians have caused widespread environmental damage in all kinds of ways that they dont even need to, only to support excessive wasteful way of life.

Thanks, you have further validated my belief that these rich abusers (basically all cruisers) have no right to use combustion engines in their boats.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps a few extra minutes of research would have revealed that the planet is still in the grips of an ice age but is currently within the midst of a balmy interglacial period. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-c...al-period-last

Interestingly, the poles have been ice free for much longer than they have been frozen over, CO2 levels have possibly never been lower than in the recent era and the current ice age has been around for about the last 250000 years by most estimates and is still going strong.

I was commenting on some misinformation regard someone’s inquiry of humans causing an ice age. You can spin it anyways you want it to suit your political or otherwise personal culture. The overwhelming scientific evidence is in and points the finger at industrialized humans

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... Interestingly, the poles have been ice free for much longer than they have been frozen over ...

Technically true, over earth's history - but totally irrelevant to mankind.

The Ice Age became truly bipolar around the Pliocene/Quaternary boundary, a little under three million years ago, LONG before the rise of humanity.

The proportion of true ‘glacial’ time [mostly unipolar], in the last 100 million years, however, may be taken as about one-third.

Prior to the Oligocene, and into the Mesozoic, the world had little [or no] polar ice. Probably, there were small amounts of ice, at least part of the time, for even in the late Cretaceous [generally regarded as a ‘greenhouse’ time] there were oscillations in sea level, of a few tens of metres, that seem best ascribed to the melting, and re-forming of small polar icecaps.

The proportion of true ‘glacial’ time (even if mostly essentially unipolar) in the last 100 million years, however, may be taken as about one-third.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SeaRags

I'm not so much a climate denier as a "Climate Science Questioner" Don't all good science discoveries start with a questioning of existing beliefs?

Good science discoveries are generally made by good scientists, and not so much by the average person after they've been deluged by manufactured FUD (look it up).

Of course we currently have bigger fish to fry, and in addition this looming crisis is only partially caused by global warming. A sneak preview.