Sunlight has more powerful influence on ocean circulation and climate than North American ice sheets
November 6, 2008A study reported in today's issue of Nature disputes a longstanding picture of how ice sheets influence ocean circulation during glacial periods.
The distribution of sunlight, rather than the size of North American ice sheets, is the key variable in changes in the North Atlantic deep-water formation during the last four glacial cycles, according to the article. The new study goes back 425,000 years, according to Lorraine Lisiecki, first author and assistant professor in the Department of Earth Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lisiecki and her co-authors studied 24 separate locations in the Atlantic by analyzing information from ocean sediment cores. By observing the properties of the shells of tiny marine organisms, called foraminifera, found in these cores, they were able to deduce information about the North Atlantic deep water formation. Scientists can discern historical ocean temperature and circulation patterns through the analysis of the chemical composition of these marine animals.
Previously, scientists relied on a study called "Specmap," performed in 1992, to find out how different parts of the climate system interacted with one another during glacial cycles. Specmap analyzed ocean circulation at only one place in the Atlantic.
"What I found was that the one site that the Specmap study used actually didn't match most of the other sites in the Atlantic," said Lisiecki. "They just happened to have a strange site that didn't behave like most of the other sites. The other sites show that the circulation is not responding to the ice volume, but that it is responding to changes in the distribution of sunlight."
Previously, scientists believed that deep ocean circulation the amount of water formed in the North Atlantic that goes into the deep ocean varied or responded according to the amount of ice volume in the Northern Hemisphere. The prevailing idea was that when ice ages occur, with large sheets of ice over North America, the amount of North Atlantic deep water is reduced.
"That's an important part of circulation," said Lisiecki. "The Gulf Stream brings up warm water from the tropics and that water is turned into this North Atlantic deep water that then sinks and moves southward at depth so you have a cycle. Warm water moves northward and then cools and sinks. That's the North Atlantic deep water formation process."
When warm water in the Gulf Stream comes north, it brings heat to the North Atlantic and Europe and then sinks in the North Atlantic and flows back southward at a depth of 3,000 meters.
"This is fairly important for the climate because it brings this heat northward," said Lisiecki. "The Specmap study in 1992 found that circulation is reduced when you have large ice sheets presumably because you have less of this North Atlantic deep water forming. Our results show that this is not always true."
She explained that the new data changes our understanding about how the different parts of the climate system are interacting with one another and in particular the influence of the ice sheets on climate.
"Because the ice sheets are so large, it was a nice simple story to say that they were having the predominant influence on all the parts of the climate system," said Lisiecki. "But our study showed that this wasn't the only important part of the changes in climate. The distribution of sunlight is the controlling factor for North Atlantic deep water formation.
"Our study tells us a lot about how the ocean circulation is affected by changes in climate," she adds. "The ocean does not always follow the climate; it exerts its own impact on climate processes. In other words, the ocean circulation doesn't just follow along with the rest of the climate, it actually changes in different ways than the ice sheets during glacial cycles."
Source: University of California - Santa Barbara
Nov 12, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Given we are not in the peak of a glacial cycle the study doesn't directly relate to our current situation.
Perhaps those who are unconcerned or in denial about global warming would like to buy some nice beachfront properties in bangladesh or elsewhere?
I think that the naysayers (on the whole) are not saying there is no Global Warming. My reading of the comments lends me to believe that what I am reading is that most naysayers are disputing the interpretation of the facts.
The interpretation does include some conclusions that many are just not prepared to go along with.
Some do go further and say there is no Global Warming but the majority are willing to accept that perhaps there is Global Warming but that the exact cause cannot yet be determined and that wider vision is needed.
WOW was that bad luck or what?
Bad luck happens. You should design your experiment to account for it (as much as it possible.)
Anyway,I'm more interested in that specific site that goes against the other.I wonder why they didn't say where that is. It's very very curious...
http://tothefutur...spot.com
I'll take all the beachfront property I can. It's a win win.
If AGW is wrong then I have cheap property. If AGW is right, I own the beach. Either way there is profit to be made.
Isn't this a horse and cart issue? The ocean may be driving the climate. In fact, given the relative masses involved I'd say that the ocean is the predominant factor in climate (next to the Sun.)
And, as observed above, I have no problem with the idea that warming occurs on Earth. It has done so for millions and millions of years. I do, however, take issue with the hypothesis that man is responsible for global warming. AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming = unproven hypothesis!
That we pollute the atmosphere and oceans I have no doubt. That CO2 is a pollutant I disbelieve. All we do is release into the atmosphere what was once already there. The amounts of CO2 we release is quite small compared to the overall picture.
At one time the CO2 in the atmosphere was over 7000 ppm and life flourished just fine. Plants can photosynthesize at levels up to or below 0.9% of atmosphere.
Our current levels of atmospheric CO2 are at a point between 0.03% and 0.04%. We will never be able to get the levels as high as the maximum, even if we burned everything organic on the planet at once.