digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at sciencedaily.com

New Ocean Current Discovered

sciencedaily.com — Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have discovered a new climate pattern called the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation. This new pattern explains, for the first time, changes in the water that are important in helping commercial fishermen understand fluctuations in the fish stock.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • insanebrain, on 05/03/2008, -14/+18- "...in helping commercial fishermen understand fluctuations in the fish stock"
    So we can more efficiently make the fish go extinct ?
    • th954, on 05/03/2008, -5/+3yes
    • Nodnarbs, on 05/03/2008, -2/+12Actually I think commercial fisherman have the most interest in understanding fish populations and maintaining sustainable fishing. Unfortunately industry will probably take the lead in advocating sustainable environmental policies because so called environmentalists are too busy shooting down any practical solutions because they have their head firmly rooted in their ass.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Yeah, funny how that works out - commercial fishermen actually have the most vested interest in wildlife conservation, specifically because their livelihoods depend on it.
      • SpinningHead, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2While small commercial operations do work towards sustainability, larger operations have already been wiping out the tuna by using nets to catch large and small tunas and moving them all to inland farms. By doing so, they have been unable to reproduce in the wild and maintain stocks. The 1st group cares about livelihood, the latter cares for quick profits.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_3 ...
      • diggimator, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Don't tell that to the landlocked countries of the International Whaling Commission
  • maxer64, on 05/03/2008, -3/+6Yes, I agree. Shallow and pedantic.
  • thosewithnoeyes, on 05/03/2008, -0/+13With fishing being such an important industry, you'd think that the sustainable fishing techniques would be more wide spread.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/03/2008, -4/+5Not to stereotype or anything, but environmentalists have a history of being jerks when it comes to sustainable fishing, often recommending ludicrous suggestions that do nothing to maintain sustainability while only hurting fishermen's profits.
  • semperfidoordi, on 05/03/2008, -13/+2And i care... why?
    • PL3NTY, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8you fool
    • lazyfisherman, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3do you eat fish ? you might have a reason to care when you can't buy fish anymore
  • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -15/+5According to right wingers, these guys are wasting their time trying to predict the effects of global warming on ocean currents. This is because right wingers claim that the earth is currently cooling, not warming. Right wingers should contact these scientists and tell them not to bother investigating this phenomenon, because it isn't happening.
    • phybere, on 05/03/2008, -5/+4I have a really hard time not digging you down when I see annoyingly broad and sweeping terms like "right wingers"
    • buddarien, on 05/03/2008, -8/+2Why does the climate have to become politicized?

      The earth is becoming warmer at this moment in time. 30 years ago, we were entering another ice age.
      The local weatherman can hardly forecast the weather next week.

      Sorry chicken little. Nobody claims that the earth is cooling.


      • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -4/+4http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/p ...

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2005746/p ...

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997551/p ...
        • phybere, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2It's true, evolution hasn't made idiots extinct yet.
        • CodeCobalt, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1Word, theres still debate on whether the world is actually warming or cooling. either way its not soo good for us.
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -6/+3Where do you see debate? According to the right it's conclusive: the earth is cooling. Period. End of story.
          • buddarien, on 05/03/2008, -7/+2What a hypocrite.

            How many years has global warming been jammed down everybody's throats? And the facts do not seem to bear it out.

            Environmentalists do not want debate. Accept what they say as fact. No questions. No debate. Sorry, your BS is just that. BS.
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -5/+7Climate scientists want debate. They're constantly testing their theories. Remakarbly, theories that predict a long term gradual warming trend have been consistently supported by the data. But because the scientists aren't satisfied, they keep testing them more and more. They take temperature samples from a wider range of sources. They examine historical data to see if the values predicted by their models bear out. Turns out that the models that predict warming in response to increased CO2 levels are born out again. And again. And again.

            Right wingers claim that one cold year = a trend. You can't reason with them. When you point out that climate scientists have long been predicting that climate change will cause an overall long term warming trend, but that there will be periodic, localized cooling, right wingers claim that that's just crazy talk because "duhh, global warming means everything has to heat up."
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1From 1998 to 2008 the average trend has been cooling. If one year was colder in a trend upwards it wouldn't impact a decade trend unless it was cold as hell. 2008-1998 = 10 years which equals a decade. 2007 was very hot. 2007=1 year which means you are the one clinging to one year. We have a decade of average cooling, and 2007 was hot so we are supposed to throw the last decade out of the window because of one el nino year? Ok Petro I'm trying to break this down as simple as possible,
            the trend over the last decade has been cooling
            the trend over the last decade has been cooling
            the trend over the last decade has been cooling
            Now scientist (people ones who actually study this stuff) are saying due to ocean currents the next ten years will be increased cooling.
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.h ...

            "The only year in the last ten not among the warmest ten is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The ten warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 (tie), 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, and 1990."

            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
        • buddarien, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4So the Free Republic somehow represents all right wingers huh?

          petrodollar = continual ignorance on display
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -4/+4Where did I say anything about all right wingers? Do you see me make any express claims about all right wingers in any of my posts?

            Where did you learn to read so poorly, buddarien?

            How does your inability to read make ME ignorant?
          • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -3/+3Do you prompt Hillary Clintons speaches? Where did you say anything about all right wingers??? It's all you ever ***** type!
            "According to right wingers..."
            "right wingers claim..."
            "Right wingers should..."

            Give me a break.
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2petro
            "Where did I say anything about all right wingers? Do you see me make any express claims about all right wingers in any of my posts?"
            petro from a post literally 2 minutes earlier...
            "Right wingers claim that one cold year = a trend. You can't reason with them."

            BTW, its a decade of cooling now and scientists are estimating the next decade will be an increased cooling trend.
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2I'm afraid you folks need to go re-take 2nd grade reading.

            Saying "apples are red" does not mean "ALL apples are red." It's just as likely that it merely means that "SOME apples are red." The fact that apples are also green does not mean that they cannot also be red, and vice versa.

            I very deliberately wrote my statement in such as way as to avoid establishing a necessary/sufficient relationship between the two variables "right wingers" and "believe in global cooling."
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2"BTW, its a decade of cooling now and scientists are estimating the next decade will be an increased cooling trend."

            LOL, you forgot to mention that SOME scientists claim the next decade will be colder, and that SOME measurements show cooling over the past decade. Surely you didn't intend for us to misread your statement to say that ALL measurements show/predict cooling, right twomeyw23334?
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1So when you write "Right wingers claim" you only mean red right wingers? That was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Now, I purposely left out the specifics of that last sentence. I could be stating it's the stupidest thing I've ever read in the last 2 minutes, or in my life. I, like petro, like to be purposely ambiguous so I can talk myself out of any stupid statements someone may call me on later.
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1OOps. petro's backyards measurements show sever warming over the last decade, should have mentioned that.
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1"So when you write "Right wingers claim" you only mean red right wingers?"

            Huh? I don't get you.


            Also, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
          • buddarien, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2@petro

            You are simply a hypocrite. Since you bring up 2nd grade, I will try to explain it on your level.

            When you make a claim and say right wingers, you imply ALL right wingers or else you would clarify and say SOME. This is what you meant and you know it. It has nothing to do with misreading.

            In your attempt at logical fallacies, you fail. Stating that apples are red does not leave the door open for apples to be green. It just so happens that most people know that apples are also green. If I state that democrats are followers of neo-marxism, do I mean all or just some? Since nobody can really know that answer, it must be clarified or else it fails.

      • macweirdo42, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Well, you're the one politicizing it right now. Science doesn't work like that. You don't just come out and pronounce that you've suddenly figured everything out. If you were truly interested in science, you'd say "Let's forget about the political implications, and just study climate change." Instead, you just want to come out and prove to everyone how you're right and they're all stupid for even questioning your wisdom. Frankly, I don't care about the political implications - I don't care if we reduce emissions or whatever, I don't care which side is right - I simply think that studying climate change is important, and I'm getting sick of people like you who claim it's simply a waste of time.

        And for the record, I am firmly neutral on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, because there simply isn't enough evidence either way, which is part of why I get pissed off at people like you who wish to stand in the way of studying and investigating it, thus ensuring that there will never be any evidence.
      • buddarien, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2I am politicizing the global warming hype how? And where have I stated that everything is all figured out? I have stated that it is a waste of time?

        You got all of that from my comment? I have no issue with studying the climate, just don't reach into my pocket and steal my money to do it.
    • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -3/+2Why haven't I blocked you yet. If anything this shows that we still have a lot to learn before we make any absolute statements about climate. We think we're working on one of those 500 piece jigsaw puzzles but we keep finding more pieces.
      • fonebone2, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5Rational choice theory states that, when presented with a 95% chance that one will experience substantial losses if preventative measures are not taken, and a 5% change that substantial loss will be avoided even if no measures are taken, one should take the preventative measures so long as the cost of those measures is less than 0.95 x the amount of predicted loss.

        The problem is that rational choice theory presumes that the person making the choice is in fact rational. But right wingers are not rational. Therefore they think that it's safe to roll with the 5% odds and do nothing.

        Oddly, right wingers apply the reverse logic to Iraq. According to Dick Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine," it was reasonable to blow upwards of $2 trillion on a war in Iraq even if there was only a 1% chance that Saddam had WMD.

        These two examples illustrate the extreme irrationality of right wingers. You just can't reason with these people.
        • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -3/+3It's hard to call the odds when you don't fully understand the forces at work.


        • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1You're excluding the possibility that those rusty old trailers in the desert that we saw in those satellite photos could have caused over $200 trillion worth of damage. If that were the case, our investment of $2 trillion to overthrow him would be reasonable.

          You're also ignoring the fact that noahhoward is one of "these people," meaning you can't reason with him.
          • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3No petro you'll find if you can successfully dismiss the evidence that contradicts you you'll have a lot of success in reasoning with me. It also helps to not be a douche.

            I'll ask you again, how accurate is a climate model that is missing information. A Pacific ocean current is a fairly large input.

            You can quit calling me a right winger now too, that may make you a bit more credible.
          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1I answered your question about the accuracy of the models. Here's some more reading on this subject if you're still curious: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ...

            "Climate models establish a lower end estimate for global temperature impacts, but the distribution is less clearly bounded on the high side - or in simpler terms, the high-end risk may be considerable. The models are better at predicting temperature patterns than precipitation patterns, and global predictions are considerably firmer than more localized ones. "
        • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2When, after decades of painstaking research, the scientific community is 99% in agreement on a certain point, you can safely call the odds of them being correct as something approaching 99%. And it's not like we "don't understand the forces at work." We actually understand them quite well. And our ability to understand them has rapidly improved in recent years, as new technology has allowed ever more precise modeling. The accuracy of our atmospheric models has been, and continues to be rigorously tested.
          • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3How do you understand the forces at work but somehow miss an ocean current. Accurate models would have led to predictions of this current. If that is what happened then okay, if not then they can't claim to understand.

          • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -3/+2You've got it backwards. Existing ocean currents are an independent variable in climate modeling, not a dependent variable.
      • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1No. The problem is that you keep keep ignoring the pieces that already fit neatly together, and take the existing pieces and try to force them to fit together with other pieces that don't match and claim that that's the way the puzzle was meant to fit together.
        • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Pieces can fit together and still only be part of the puzzle. You're problem is you fit one or two pieces together and think you've accomplished something.

          Tell me petrodollar, how accurate is a climate model with missing pieces?
        • petrodollar, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2Accurate to well within an acceptable margin of error. We know this because when we match their predicted values with actual observed values over the past century, we find that many of the more advanced models give very accurate results. We can also minimize errors by averaging the results of multiple climate models. This is explained here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm
    • expatcatalyst, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1According to whatever you are, you don't realize who is in control.... Go watch this and then just think about the global warming hype and how all it actually does is feed thr frenzy to line the pockets of the oil barons who are really in control: http://digg.com/world_news/Control_and_Facts_about ...
  • phybere, on 05/03/2008, -5/+2The article really should read "New Ocean Current Created" not "New Ocean Current Discovered"
    It's not like it's been there for years, and we just never noticed it before.
    • CodeCobalt, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3and how did they create a new current? Install hundreds upon hundreds of turbines in the ocean floor? RTFA, and gain common sense.
      • phybere, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2Re-RTFA, and notice how the current was created by climate change, and gain reading comprehension
        • adml_shake, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2You sir have been nominated for Digg's dumb ass of the year award. Congrats.

          How the hell do you think the other ones formed?
          • phybere, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Probably by hundreds of turbines on the ocean floor?
          • kss42, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1I've never seen anyone go from making an ignorant statement to sarcastically mocking the same statement in the space of six minutes. Phybere seems to have completely vaulted over the normal range of rational behavior. Years from now, scientists will look back on this thread as the Internet's most perfectly preserved instance of a troll feeding itself.
  • MaceSoul, on 05/03/2008, -9/+7They didn't even know about this current and they think they understand a entire atmospheric system of the planet enough to predict weather 50 years out?
  • Tamant, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2mmm. more sushi..
    • PL3NTY, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Tamant: I am compelled to click on your avatar!?
  • xptoast, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2Funny how we keep figuring this crap out yet we pay tons of money to figure out what exactly is right there the whole time. We are a strange strange people.
  • choreanz, on 05/03/2008, -7/+1Go Dawgs! Sic'em! WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!
    • NecroSexy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Wrong school. To quote Gob: Bzzzzzzzzz BZzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
  • jobbernowl, on 05/03/2008, -0/+7Straight from GaTech: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?id=185 ...
  • PaganHeathen, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Congratulations North Pacific Gyre Oscillation on being discovered!
    To make it you need to:
    - go with the flow
    - keep up on (current) events
    - don't be shallow
    - Don't get drained
  • wdcdigg, on 05/03/2008, -4/+3This isn't really discovery of a 'new' current but rather detection of a previously unknown mode of oceanic variability. Crikey! this is what all those global warming deniers harp on: "We don't know enough about natural climate variability" So now we have new research a large-scale natural mode of climate variability and people pile on rationalizing that since we didn't know about it before that somehow means that we can never predict climate?

    As to fisheries, understanding this doesn't directly lead to greater exploitation of fisheries. Rather the underlying challenge is to try to figure out why fisheries stocks go up and down so much: part of it is overfishing but they stocks are also subject to changes in the natural environment. Having better understanding of the underlying physical setting that the fish live helps scientist factor out the "natural variability" and see the causes of human impacts more clearly.
  • DeFex, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2so is the Georgia Institute of Technology known as "GIT" ?
  • dontclickhere06, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0Thats crazy!
  • killq, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0I scientifically studied the ***** I took today. It says Obama is going to win the presidency and he will be assassinated within two years. It's scientific so it must be real.
  • parkernicky50, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0thanks for news
  • rupturexcore, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah Yellow Jackets!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.