LAT: Evidence of Slowing Ocean Currents Alarms Scientists

[DeepModem Mom]

Evidence of Slowing Ocean Currents Alarms Scientists
By Usha Lee McFarling, Times Staff Writer


The powerful ocean currents that transport heat around the globe and keep northern Europe's weather relatively mild appear to be weakening, according to a new scientific report.

A group of British oceanographers surveyed a section of the Atlantic Ocean stretching from Africa to the Bahamas that has been studied periodically since 1957 and found the overall movement of water had slowed 30% in the past five decades.

The report, published in the current issue of the journal Nature, is the first evidence of such a slowdown.

Computer models have long predicted that the warming of the oceans and the "freshening" of the seas with water from melting glaciers and increased precipitation — all linked to the warming of the Earth by greenhouse gases — could slow the currents, but scientists did not expect to see such changes so soon.

"The result is alarming," Detlef Quadfasel, a climate expert at the University of Munich, wrote in a commentary accompanying the research, and provides "worrying support for computer models."...


http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-113005ocean_lat,0,1653296.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews

[converted_democrat]

1. I really don't even understand how they can deny Global Warming exists.

This is proof enough for me.

[janedoe]

12. Perhaps it's not "simple" global warming, but something more sinister.

"Global warming" doesn't simply increase by factors of 1,000,000,000, like a step function, over a weekend in August 2005.

Don't you wonder how much extra heat is added to the earth's system by the weather-control gizmos? I don't have the link, now, but remember several articles that appeared about a month ago, talking about a huge (and sudden) fish kill (along with other wildlife) over a very large area of the Pacific ocean.

"Natural" global warming might cause the fish to migrate more north than they are usually seen, or they might dive deeper to get in the cooler water. The fish may or may not adapt... over time. If they don't adapt, the population dwindles... and some big monster fish will gobble them up if they are staggering around. And, with natural diversity, including age, some will start staggering before the others... and will make the monster fish bigger. This may change the balance of the ecosystem over some duration. It would no cause a HUGE fish kill over hundreds of square miles of the ocean, over a weekend. It also wouldn't take out many different species on the same weekend, throughout this region.

It looks like "somebody" was screwing mother nature over the weekend.

[alittlelark]

25. I saw that movie.... it was called 'The Arrival'

I know you're not talking about a movie, but it explained global warming in a quite sinister way.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=136284

It sounds like SwampRat's kind of flick... but I'm willing to keep a VERY open mind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. We need your links to know what you're talking about

because you're talking about a factor of a billion of 'something' - and we haven't the faintest idea what. What weekend? What gizmos? What fish kill?

[alarimer]

54. This would actually have the effect of cooling Europe

Somewhat paradoxically I suppose since it would be caused by the melting of polar ice which IS caused by global warming.

[XemaSab]

77. Hence the

"Beginning of the next ice age" scenario. If there's no heat translocated to the arctic, a dramatic cooling could occur. Possibly very dramatic.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Please be a blip!

Not good news.

[niallmac]

3. I think Hollywood should re-name 'The Day After Tomorrow" to "Today."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Farenheit 911 might not be too far off if this keeps up.... nt.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. I think I know why the Fundies don't care about global warming.

The books will burn themselves.

[katty]

86. Fundies believe they will be Rescued and Raptured

[Megahurtz]

89. Wait until they find out that they will be stuck in their own mess. n/t

[stepnw1f]

5. Oh No...

this is not good at all.

[billbuckhead]

7. Faux news was saying today that the record hurricane season had nothing

Faux News was saying today that the record hurricane season had nothing to do with global warming.

[janedoe]

13. They would be correct to say hurricanes weren't caused by mother nature...

I suspect the hurricanes were the cause, not the consequence of it it all.

Screwing with mother nature has consequences.

[tkmorris]

14. Huh?

Are you implying that this years hurricanes were CREATED in some way?

[janedoe]

47. Let's say, "managed." (n/t)

[norml]

6. Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather
· Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday December 1, 2005
The Guardian


The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today.
Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago.

The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously.

The network should also answer the pressing question of whether the significant weakening of the current is a short-term variation, or part of a more devastating long-term slowing of the flow.

If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said.


snip


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html

[toska]

8. With the arctic tundra melting and releasing lots of methane,

it's sad that a weakening gulf stream is probably the only thing that can save us from a runaway greenhouse effect. Other than that not screwing up the earth in the first place this might be the lesser of the two evils.

That's also a lot of heat that's not flowing to the UK and instead sticking in the gulf and tropics. Plenty of hurricane fodder in the years to come.

[Barrett808]

9. Game over.

Thanks for playing.

[are_we_united_yet]

10. Folks, this is bad news.

:(

[Clutch Cargo]

11. I don't get it

Global warming is responsible temperatures becoming warmer and temperatures becoming cooler? So, regardless of whether the temps go up or down, it's because of global warming?

[Boomer]

15. The effects of global warming...

... can't be written on the head of the pin. So the dynamics are considerably more complex than "it's getting warmer." Global warming is a crude term for the havoc we're wreaking on climate dynamics.

The North Atlantic current is a heat conveyor -- it carries warm water from the equatorial areas northward, which serves to create a milder climate in England than it warrants given its northern location.

Ocean water surrounding this current is much colder, and much more salty, and this differential of temperature and salinity helps to drive the pump effect.

Having dumped its heat off on the journey, the NA current then dives down to the ocean floor and circles back down to the southern hemisphere and the cycle continues endlessly.

Until....

As the overall ocean temperatures grow warmer, and as melting glaciers dump more fresh water into the ocean, the temperature and salinity differential is reduced, and the pump action slows... and may even stop.

When the NA current stops bringing that extra warmth up from the tropics, then northern Atlantic land masses return to the temperature more typical for high latitudes -- cold. Like Siberian Russia cold. Even a globally warmed Siberia is a hell of lot colder than England is right now.

[Marie26]

33. So is it that global warming basically

causes more temperature extremes - both warm and cold? If the current stops warming Europe, won't this mean that it'll stop cooling the ocean in the tropics? W/hotter tropical oceans, it seems like it'd spawn even more hurricanes in the south, while European coasts in the North become Siberia. How could the population sustain such a change? Europe's agriculture depends on a mild climate - would they still be able to grow these crops if the temperatures change? Would the increased heat in tropical oceans lead to more hurricanes? How would this affect ocean life & fishing? Wouldn't the warmer current also eventually lead to more glaciers melting at the Poles? It seems like the current + global warming could trigger a massive cycle of even greater temperature extremes all over the world. Is this a near-term risk or more something that will happen gradually over a hundred years? (Sorry for all the questions!)

[Boomer]

76. Yes, yes, very poorly, no, yes, badly, yes, sooner than that

>> So is it that global warming basically causes more temperature extremes - both warm and cold? If the current stops warming Europe, won't this mean that it'll stop cooling the ocean in the tropics? ...It seems like the current + global warming could trigger a massive cycle of even greater temperature extremes all over the world. <<

One of the biggest public misconceptions about "global warming" has been the expectation that weather will gradually grow balmier as the whole world gently warms. Instead, climate models predicted an increase in climate extremes, and not just in temperatures. Longer droughts in some areas, heavier rains in other, colder winters, hotter summers. The changes from one to another will be more abrupt, and the volatility of the short-term weather will also increase.

That pattern is already emerging, with some of the hottest summers on record for Europe, record rains and flooding, prolonged drought in the American Northwest, snow in areas that are usually too hot for snow, warm winters days in the Arctic that bring unseasonable thaws. The list goes on and on for climate anomalies over the past decade.

Part of the changes may be due to ocean currents, but most are not. I can't speak to the specific climate dynamics at work, but generally what is happening is that heat/energy is pouring into the ecosystem, which makes it more active. More activity translates into violent weather.

>> W/hotter tropical oceans, it seems like it'd spawn even more hurricanes in the south, while European coasts in the North become Siberia....Would the increased heat in tropical oceans lead to more hurricanes?

Meteorologists are still heatedly debating whether the recent hurricane season has been affected by global warming. What they do agree on is that the number of hurricanes has not increased (globally), but the INTENSITY of the them is definitely on the upswing. And a few researchers have put forth calculations showing how much more energy is created by even a half-degree change in ocean water temp. I don't see how anyone can ignore the possibilities, but oddly enough, this issue is still considered controversial.

>> How could the population sustain such a change? Europe's agriculture depends on a mild climate - would they still be able to grow these crops if the temperatures change?

The result of a previous climate change (the Little Ice Age in the 1300s) was widespread famine as grain crops failed due to colder temperatures and long periods of rain. It took decades for farmers to learn change their crops, their entire approach to agriculture, and for populations to accept new foods (such as the potato).

Currently, there have been major crop failures in Spain, France, England and China due to extreme weather events, including drought. The U.S. northwest is just a few years away from a similar disaster story. This will get a lost worse before it gets better.

>> How would this affect ocean life & fishing?

We are already identifying widespread coral bleaching, which is due both to temperatue changes and the growing acidity of ocean waters that serve as a carbon sink -- forming a weak solution of carbolic acid. Fish populations around the globe are crashing due to overfishing and the sudden drop in plankton, which is the base of the ocean food chain. As a result, sea birds are dying in record numbers, apparently starved to death.

Studies have not confirmed why the plankton is disappearing, but changing water temperatures and rising acidity are probably contributory causes, if not the primary cause for damage.

>> Wouldn't the warmer current also eventually lead to more glaciers melting at the Poles?

Yep, for the ice masses that are submerged in ocean water. These glaciers are melting from above AND below, at rates seriously underestimated by scientists until fairly recently.

>> Is this a near-term risk or more something that will happen gradually over a hundred years? (Sorry for all the questions!)

A common prediction is "by 2100" or sometimes "by 2050" yada yada yada. But for anyone on this forum who tracks the outpouring of scientific literature, the most common refrain from ALL these reports is "but it's happening much faster than we predicted." Not once have I read the opposite, where an optimistic prediction held true or overestimated the effects of global warming.

So I greatly suspect that most of us on this forum will see significant changes within our lifetime.

[Marie26]

99. Thank you

so much for taking the time to answer all that. You're painting a pretty scary picture - I hope the US wakes up soon to some of the long-term consequences of this.

[tkmorris]

18. Let me try to explain

Believe it or not, an increase in the average global temperature will actually cause most of Europe to cool dratically. Here's why.

Have a look at Europe's climate. Try England for starters, it's a good example of this. England is actually a good deal warmer than it has any right to be at it's northern latitude. The reason for this is that the ocean currents in the Atlantic carries warm water from the gulfstream across the ocean to the shores of northern Europe, thus keeping the winter temperatures there warmer than they would otherwise be.

As global temperature averages increase immense quantities of fresh water which had previously been locked into the polar icecaps, glaciers, etc melts and runs off into the oceans. It is believed that this influx of fresh water would dramatically slow or even stop that oceanic current, thus leaving Europe's temperature at a level more appropriate to it's latitude.

As you can see global warming does not affect all areas equally. Most of the globe would experience warmer temperatures but the rise would not be the same across the board and in fact a few areas would cool down, at least in the short term. Scientists who believed that global warming would be a problem predicted these effects before anyone observed the effects in the real world. The fact that these predictions are in fact being validated by real world measurements is evidence that they are in fact correct.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. I would just like to note...

...that the article does not state the Europe will necessarily be cooled by a slowing of the current. It suggests that the likeliest outcome is a slowing down of the warming that is currently affecting Europe due to other factors related to global warming. So it won't necessarily get cooler. It'll just get warmer more slowly.

[Nihil]

53. Nope. Less warmth to fight the cold results in cooling.

> So it won't necessarily get cooler. It'll just get warmer more slowly.

A slowing of the warm current heading to Western Europe results in less
warm water & air reaching Western Europe. As the cooling effect of the
latitude of Western Europe is currently being held at bay by this warm
current, as the source of warmth reduces, it is less able to offset the
latitude cooling effect and so results in a cooler Europe than at present.

Hence, Western & Northern Europe *will* be cooled by a slowing of the
current. The southernmost stretch (Spain, Mediterranean coast) will
warm up due to the other global effects (but they're not naturally
cold anyway).

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. I understand.

However, the article is somewhat ambiguous on this point:



Scientists differ on the effects any slowing of the currents would have. Some say weaker currents would cool Europe by several degrees, causing problems for agriculture and ecosystems and ushering in far more severe winters. Others say the cooling would likely balance out the effect of global warming in Europe, which is expected to raise temperatures globally by several degrees over the next century.

"My personal guess is there would be no overall cooling, just a slowdown of the warming," Quadfasel said in an interview.

[Nihil]

62. OK - I see what you mean.

The snag with the "cooling would likely balance out the effect of global
warming" argument is that Europe is too large an area to be treated as
a single entity. (This is why I was specifying "Western Europe" and
"Northern Europe" in my reply.)

The area of Europe that will be warming (big time) is the Mediterranean
fringe (e.g., the Iberian, Latin & Greek regions). There is currently
a major drought in Spain & Portugal at present and evidence of a trend
towards desertification (commonly labelled as "the Sahara extending into
Europe"). These countries do not benefit from the warmth from the Gulf
as their "heat input" is due more to their latitude.

It is the Central & Northern reaches of Europe that will cool when the
North Atlantic Conveyor slows/stops. There is far less heating from
global warming in these regions unless you go to some of the more
extreme models. Most models will result in the South getting hot while
the North & West get cold and will thus generate some extreme weather
conditions in the "temperate" region between the two.

Now if the heating effect from global warming *is* strong enough to
cancel out the cooling effect from the loss of the NAC then we're all
f*cked anyway ... recall that the UK is at the same latitude as Canada,
further North than any US state apart from Alaska, and think of the
heat input required to bring those areas to the same temperatures as
the UK currently enjoys (Alaska or the top end of Hudson Bay up to
Norway's climate, etc.)

If global warming has done this, it will have already melted not only
the Greenland Ice Sheet (~+7m sea level rise) but also the Western
Antarctic Ice Sheet (~+7m sea level rise) along with the continental
glaciers (Alps, Himalayas, Rockies, Cascades, ...) - i.e., the sea
level would have risen by over 14 metres and humanity is starving
all across the globe.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. It's enough to give one a headache, isn't it?

If Greenland is warming up enough to melt, doesn't that imply (at least to some extent) that the UK will be warming up quite a bit as well? People here say that winters are now much milder than they were even 10 to 20 years ago.

[mcscajun]

19. Read up on it here...

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231

[AuntiBush]

22. Physical Geography...

A class at a local Community College will do you wonders, filling in gaps some do not understand.

And imagine all the chemicals released in the air due to bombings (war), war planes release in the atmosphere, etc.

http://geography.about.com/cs/globalwarming/
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/topicsub7.htm

[stepnw1f]

27. wow...

[freethought]

31. Just consider "Global Warming" a misnomer.

The more accurate name is "Global Climate Change".

[hatrack]

65. "Climate Breakdown", "Climate Disruption" . ..

"Climate Destabilization" is probably the best, but it doesn't fit easily on the tongues of blow-dried McNews anchors.

[KittyWampus]

34. Global Warming Is A Misnomer, Really. Think Global Volatility.

[DeepModem Mom]

35. Hi, Clutch Cargo -- I regret...

having to welcome you to such a disturbing discussion, but I do welcome you to our DU community. I'm glad you joined us!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

38. It's not really an accurate term, I agree...

I'm leaning towards "global weather chaos"

:scared:

[Odin2005]

16. Uh Oh! It's worse than I thought.

Although I think a complete thermohaline convayor belt shut-off can only occur from glacial lakes empting into the North Atlantic, this is still definitly not good for Europe and, especially, Iceland.

I'm sick of the repukes fiddling while rome burns. :nopity:

[mcscajun]

20. It's worse and then some....

...with the melting of significants parts of the Greenland ice shelf.

[0007]

29. I'm not indeed sure it can be reversed at this point in time.

Then again who knows what a world's effort could produce? :shrug:

[TX-RAT]

60. It will reverse it's self, in time.

Just like it's done many times in the past. Wasn't that long ago close to 50% of the US was under water, from the Gulf of Mexico to the northern most tip of Canada.

[M155Y_A1CH]

61. Does that mean that the little bi-valved creatures,

Does that mean that the little bi-valved creatures, who's shells make up the rocks around here, will be living in my house soon?

Now that's a real problem!

[TX-RAT]

63. I live 2300 ft above sea level

We were 3000 ft below sea level just a few million years ago. One of the mountains North of us has a 5 ft wide shelf of ancient oyster shells, all the way around it.

[lynne]

17. The History Channel gets it right -

- I just watched "Little Ice Age - Big Chill" a week or so ago regarding our last mini ice-age where exactly the same thing occurred. It was a very interesting program and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. You can buy the DVD at their online shop.

From the History Channel website:

"Not so long ago, civilization learned that it was no match for just a few degrees drop in temperature. Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and two feet of snow fell on New England in June and July during "the Year Without a Summer". Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past--an era that may be a window to our future. TVPG cc"

[Boomer]

21. That was a fascinating documentary

What I found really telling was the abrupt appearance of the Ice Age. There was no gradual, incremental approach to cold temperatures -- instead, one year winter simply didn't stop.

So these scientists with their furrowed brows muttering about so many degrees over so many years are still trapped in the mindset that weather changes gradually, a gently sloping line on a graph.

But increasingly the evidence points to state changes -- one minute you're on, the next minute you're off. Temperate climate this year, ice age next year.

The one constant is all these climate predictions is the underestimation of how quickly things will change. Year after year, scientists have uttered the same mantra "This (fill in the climate change event) is happening sooner than we anticipated."

[Nihil]

46. Catastrophe theory anyone?

> So these scientists with their furrowed brows muttering about so
> many degrees over so many years are still trapped in the mindset
> that weather changes gradually, a gently sloping line on a graph.
>
> But increasingly the evidence points to state changes -- one minute
> you're on, the next minute you're off. Temperate climate this year,
> ice age next year.

Reminds me of a book lurking somewhere in my library ... think the
title was "Catastrophe Theory" but the best link I can give at the
moment is Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory

"In mathematics, catastrophe theory is a branch of bifurcation theory
in the study of dynamical systems; it is also a particular special
case of more general singularity theory in geometry.

Bifurcation theory studies and classifies phenomena characterized
by sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in
circumstances, analysing how the qualitative nature of equation
solutions depends on the parameters that appear in the equation.
This may lead to sudden and dramatic changes, for example the
unpredictable timing and magnitude of a landslide.

Small changes in parameters can cause previously stable equilibria
to disappear, leading to a large and sudden transition of the
behaviour of the system. However, examined in a larger parameter
space, catastrophe theory reveals that such bifurcation points tend
to occur as part of well-defined qualitative geometrical structures."

(My emphasis)

[AntiFascist]

23. Uh, oh.....

I hope this doesn't mean we're going to start seeing HAARP threads again.

China and India are becoming industrialized, they are starting to dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than probably the rest of the continents combined. Ice caps are melting, and this is causing the desalinization of the ocean which is slowing the ocean currents and contributing to hurricanes, etc.

If fish and other creatures in a large area of ocean died overnight it might have to do with an underwater volcano? This could also warm the ocean, I suppose.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Erm, no.

China and India combined - Even though they contain a third of the worlds population - still produce less CO2 than the US, with 5% of the population. And given that * has enabled them to do all the US's production, why shouldn't they? :evilgrin:

http://climate.wri.org

[AntiFascist]

36. So I exaggerate....

and you're right, China and India have every right to become just as industrialized as the US. But with their populations being in the billions, and the rate of accelerating economic growth, the implications are the same. As the world's leading superpower we should be setting an example by quickly transitioning to alternatives.

[renegade000]

24. i believe this is refering to the Thermohaline Currents

it would indeed be not so great if these were interrupted

[David Zephyr]

26. Kick.

Thanks, DeepModem Mom for bringing us this story. :thumbsup:

[Lisa]

28. I wonder what Wally Broecker thinks of this?

His granddaughter actually posts here on DU. He's the guy who's the world expert on the "conveyor belt" theory of abrupt climate change.


Speaking of which, here is the the link to the Pentagon study on a worst-case scenario, if the Gulf Stream stalls. Yes, this is kind of extreme, but it's meant to be, because governments need to know just how bad things might get. Kind of what like FEMA is supposed to do, but doesn't.


http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf



As far as "The Day After Tomorrow" goes -- I teach climatology and global environmental change, and I tell my students that it doesn't take anything as dramatic as a massive superstorm flash-freezing the British Royal Family to cause disruptions which could affect them. A big storm, or a forest fire aggravated by global warming, can leave thousands of people homeless and jobless, and have economic repercussions on the local and even national scale. Even slower-moving things like a drought can inconvenience a lot of people.

[Tesha]

51. The person who mentioned "Global Climate Chaos" had it correct.

> A big storm, or a forest fire aggravated by global warming, can
> leave thousands of people homeless and jobless, and have economic
> repercussions on the local and even national scale.

The person who mentioned "Global Climate Chaos" had it correct and
you've provided a good example of why. Let's suppose that some
localized warming turns a former forest into a tinderbox and that
tinderbox then catches fire and burns to ashes.

In the process, it may emit a continent- or world-affecting cloud of
smoke. (Does anyone remember back a year or two to the time when the
forests in Canada were burning? The effects were *VERY* visible in
the New England skies and weather patterns).

But it's more than we can model to say what effect that smoke will
have. It has both warming-promoting effects (from all the CO2 released)
as well as warming-retarding effects (from the particulates reflecting
sunlight back into space). Even a small event like this hypothetical
forest fire is just too complicated to accurately assess before the
fact.

One thing is for sure: Global climate change will be an interesting
ride!

Well, two things are for sure: Republicans will do the wrong things
in response to this, but they'll make short-term money as billions of
us face death.

Tesha

[donkeyotay]

75. I feel the urge to torture another Titanic analogy here. The 2 things sure

"Republicans will do the wrong things in response to this, but they'll make short-term money as billions of us face death."

Making money seems to be the only important thing to the GOP junta, but makes little sense when you destroy the environment - as if living in a gated community would make you immune. It's like a high-stakes poker game on the Titanic. The players are so wrapped up in the game they ignore the steward telling them there's a lifeboat awaiting them. They're so sure they're winners in the game they won't listen to anyone that tells them they are also in a bigger game.

[Lisa]

85. we might have to dig out some of those old nuclear-winter models ...

... from the early 1980s. (Which did provide a major kick to global-scale climate modelling, resulting in a number of advances, according to some climatologists I've talked to.)

There was also the flurry of studies after the first Gulf War, looking at the impacts of the smoke. (Forest fires seem to have a different particle size and composition, if I'm remembering correctly from Paul Crutzen's work, but the pollutants from those burning oil wells did travel for hundreds, even thousands of miles. I don't think they messed up the monsoon patterns as much as had been originally forecast, but still.)

I remember the smoke event you mentioned -- and also some earlier ones (I was working in the central Arctic in 1989, and the smoke that summer from what seemed like half of Manitoba catching fire the same week drifted way past the treeline).

Smoke (and also the "black carbon" issue) are pretty complex, as you've noted. I like to use Donald Rumsfeld's quote when teaching: there are the "known knowns" (as in, we know about what trace gases can do); then the "known unknowns" (things which we realize are significant, but we still don't know exactly how they work, so we need to do more research -- smoke, clouds, and all manner of feedbacks); and the "unknown unknowns". The last category are things which might show up out of nowhere, and which we had no clue about. For sure, an "interesting ride"! (The weird "global warming twilight" observed in the Canadian Arctic may be one of these.)

p.s. apparently some places in BC still haven't recovered from the fires in Kelowna and other locations a couple of years ago ... and those were relatively local. Sawmill not yet rebuilt, and hundreds of folks are still out of a job. If that was one high-fire year, I don't want to see what a succession of high-fire years across most of the boreal forest could do!

[freethought]

30. HOLY S__T! It's the "Day After Tommorrow" for real!

I'm not a religious man, but isn't there a quote in the Bible that says "Forgive them father for they know not what they do."

[Odin2005]

37. Not quite.

TDAT was based on some psudoscientific crap in a book by Art Bell. There will be no global superstorm like in the movie. He got his "theory" from when he somehow got in his head those frozen mammoth remains found in Siberia must of been flash-frozen (they actally fell through lake ice and drowned). If a major weaking of the thermohaline convayer belt occured it would probably take a few years for the effects to become major. When climatologists talk about sudden climate flips, "sudden" means several years, not a few days.

[freethought]

40. Excellent points! Sorry! I kind of jumped the gun.

Think I'll head for the sack now.

[XemaSab]

80. If you think about the seasons

the weather can change day to day depending on where the jet stream is, or hour to hour depending on things like catabatic winds or ground heating.

My understanding of the "global climate chaos" scenario is like this:

A few times a year, the jet stream dips down to Southern California, which is an area usually under the influence of the subtropical high. This is a normal event. But some years the jet stream doesn't get down there at all, causing drought, or parks there for a while, causing flooding and mudslides.

So if in the period of a few weeks, the jet stream lashes southern california several times, dumping 15" of precipitation in areas that usually get 5", then that's a fluke, but if it happens year after year, then that's the new norm.

For the most part, climate change is "normal" systems behaving "abnormally."

[Odin2005]

90. The way I understand it...

Is that it will flip back and forth between normal and abnormal, just like during spring and fall when the weather fluctuates between the stable configurations of summer and winter, untill it seatles down into a new stable state, which, according to my reading, will probably occur when summer sea ice on the arctic ocean disapears. The massive continental ice sheet already has a bigger effect on climate systems than the arctic cap of sea ice, which is why the meteorologicaL equator, represented by the band of low presure where the trade winds converge that gives year-long rain to trropical rainforests, averages about 5 degrees north of the geographical equator. if the arctice sea ice disappears, the influence of Antarctica will push the meteorological equator to around an aveage of 10 to 15 north latatude, shifting tropical climates big time as the rainforest zone shifts northward, incrasing the sizr of the south subtropical desert zone, not good for many countries in the southern hemisphere, Though it will cause the deserts in the northern subtropics to shrink.

[AlienGirl]

39. This could get interesting

I think it will be a good idea to see Europe soon, before it becomes a skating rink...

Tucker

[alfredo]

41. Let's say our government has known for many years that this

could happen if nothing was done to cut greenhouse gasses. Let's say that they figured it would hurt our economic and military competitors more than us. What would they do? Would they back treaties cutting greenhouse gases, or would they only think of the economic advantages of having Europe turned into an icebox?




where's my tinfoil hat?

[lovuian]

42. Ocean changes to cool Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4485840.stm

Changes to ocean currents in the Atlantic may cool European weather within a few decades, scientists say.

Researchers from the UK's National Oceanography Centre say currents derived from the Gulf Stream are weakening, bringing less heat north.

Their conclusions, reported in the scientific journal Nature, are based on 50 years of Atlantic observations.

They say that European political leaders need to plan for a future which may be cooler rather than warmer.

The findings come from a British research project called Rapid, which aims to gather evidence relating to potentially fast climatic change in Europe.

more...

Fascinating!!!

[Ferret Annica]

43. New England will be affected as well

The Connecticut shoreline area where I grew up gets less snow and ice then interior New England because of the Gulf Stream.

[Odin2005]

44. Facinating?

I'll say "Oh Shti!"

[Up2Late]

45. Here's an Update: Global Warming Trends Are a Current Affair, Study Finds

(Don't know if their is much different)

Global Warming Trends Are a Current Affair, Study Finds

As predicted by computer models, the flow of heated water has slowed since the 1950s, but scientists debate the causes and effects.

By Usha Lee McFarling, Times Staff Writer

The powerful ocean currents that transport heat around the globe and keep northern Europe's weather relatively mild appear to be weakening — a likely and problematic consequence of global warming — a new study by British scientists has concluded.

The currents, like mighty rivers flowing at different depths of the ocean, act as radiator pipes to carry warmth from the tropics to northern latitudes. The best known is the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the coasts of Britain and France. Other currents return colder water from the poles.

With the prevailing winds, the currents warm the climate of much of Europe by several degrees. Paris, for instance, is at a latitude similar to northern Maine and would be much cooler if not for the warmth coming from the sea.

In the new study, published today in the journal Nature, a group of British oceanographers surveyed a section of the Atlantic Ocean stretching from Africa to the Bahamas that has been studied periodically since 1957. They found the overall movement of water had slowed 30% in the past five decades, particularly in the flow of cold water back to the south. The findings are the first evidence of such a slowdown.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-current1dec01,1,5547801.story?coll=la-news-state>
(more at link above)

And a few others:

<http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hswarm014534072dec01,0,2961666.story?coll=ny-health-headlines>

<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article330454.ece>

[leftchick]

49. 7:18 AM and CNN has on "Miracle Tears"!!!!!

omg... :argh:

This is one of the most disturbing, shocking and important articles I have read in years! And CNN stays with the Cartoon News!!

:cry:

[mainegreen]

55. Cross post from science forum: Two visuals that demonstrate the problem

Here are two images that demonstrate the problem. The first shows water density as a matter of temperature and salinity.



As you can see, as temperature increases, density decreases. As salinity increases, so does density. Currently the gulf stream has a higher salinity than artic water, but artic water still is more dense than gulf stream water because it is significantly colder.

Now look at this picture of the artic sea floor:



Notice that the artic ocean is rather like a bowl, with only one exit, denoted by the arrow? The bering straight is way to shallow and narrow to really allow for large amount of water exchange. That leaves the north atlantic, destination of the gulf stream. So all meltwater in the artic reduces the salinity of the artic ocean, and thus the north atlantic. So if the artic ocean warms, or its salinity decreases, the north atlantic will be the outflow destination for the artic currents, and thus one day, the north atlantic will eventually become to warm and/or less salty, and the line will be crossed where the north atlantic waters are less dense than the gulf stream, and will no longer sink below gulf stream waters. Hence, scandinavia is living on borrowed time.

Simple and scary.

[Stahl]

56. This should be interesting...

especially if you combine globally disrupted agriculture with diminishing oil resources and live in Scandinavia like myself. Winters are cold enough in here as they are now, thank you.

[mainegreen]

58. Ouch. Good luck with the living in scandinavia thing.

At least you shouldn't have an immigration problem if things get as cold as they might.

[Bridget Burke]

59. This "possibility" was featured on a recent TV show....

One of those science thingies. They explained how the weakening Gulf Stream would make Europe, etc., colder--even allowing for overall global warming. Just something that "might" happen. Now--here it is!

Climate fluctuates naturally. But we humans are apparently contributing to the change, rather than finding out how to deal with it.

While parts of the world get colder, the Gulf Coast will keep getting warmer. And here comes Hurricane Omega!

[G_j]

66. Fears of Big Freeze as Scientists Detect Slower Gulf Stream

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1201-03.htm

Published on Thursday, December 1, 2005 by the Independent / UK

Fears of Big Freeze as Scientists Detect Slower Gulf Stream

by Steve Connor

The ocean "engine" that helps to drive the warm waters of the Gulf Stream and keeps Britain relatively mild in winter has begun to slow down, say scientists.

Measurements of ocean currents in the North Atlantic reveal that they have weakened by about 30 per cent since 1992. The findings, published in the journal Nature, fit computer predictions of what would happen when Greenland glaciers begin to melt because of global warming. The models suggest that extra freshwater released into the North Atlantic could weaken ocean currents and even shut down the Gulf Stream.

Britain benefits from the enormous amounts of heat - equivalent to the output of a million power stations - carried from the Caribbean by the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift, and a tailing off in these currents could have a major impact on the country's climate.

Scientists estimate that the detected 30 per cent weakening of the Atlantic currents could lead to a fall of about 1C in Britain's average temperatures over the next 20 years.


..more..

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

67. Also in LA times...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1957646

[G_j]

68. thanks

I guess a search with the words "freeze" and "gulf" didn't do it.

[Warpy]

69. Right, this was reported several months ago in scientific

journals and ignored by the MSM (of course). Now that they have a figure of 30% slowing to hang onto it, I suppose the MSM was dragged, kicking and screaming, into publishing it.

This is just confirming computer models of what an Arctic melt would do.

Europe will freeze, but the Sahara may bloom as weather patterns change.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. I think this is the first time the slowing has been detected

as opposed to predicted. That does make it something worth reporting as 'news'.

[longship]

71. Neocons: This is just a normal weather cycle.

Just like the melting glaciers, the increasing CO2, the melting ice pack, record hurricanes, etc.

Plus, the Antarctic is cold!!! How can there be global warming?

The whole thing is normal. Do you hear me? NORMAL!!!
:sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

72. Not to worry, it's only the beginning of the Rapture.

At least that's what the fundi's think. There is no such thing as global warming don'tcha know!

[VegasWolf]

73. Scientists alarmed! Bush consults bible! nt

:sarcasm:

[saigon68]

82. Can the CHIMPANZEE read?

[al bupp]

74. Interesting discussion of this topic at RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=225

[WindRavenX]

78. This is very real and very undeniable

I have no idea how anyone can deny that the world is heating up and that there ARE consequencies for that.
I would love to hear the spin on this story.

[TX-RAT]

79. Haven't heard anybody deny the earths warming.

The reason for it is the big question.

[XemaSab]

81. Been to FR lately?

n/t

[WindRavenX]

83. they are all out there

In huge numbers. Regardless of the fact that you can believe the earth is warming without human influence (personally, I think this is a bunch of BS, but for the sake of arguement, let's leave the human role in this out), that should not detract from the fact that it IS getting warmer, and with VERY negative effects on the climate and, ultimately, human life.

[brentspeak]

84. Just a possibility: Could our sun be going nova?

I don't doubt that greenhouse gases could contribute to global warming. But when you're talking about the slowing of the ocean's currents, there's got to be something more powerful going on.

[Nihil]

93. Not just yet!

> But when you're talking about the slowing of the ocean's currents,
> there's got to be something more powerful going on.

The "something more powerful" impression is simply the difficulty that
the ordinary man/woman has when encountering energy systems of this
scale.

The sun's emissions change over time but they are not matching the
changes in global temperature. The global warming (or climate change)
effects are not the response to an increase in received heat from the
sun but an increase in retained heat here on Earth.

More importantly, the location of the heat that is being retained is
affecting regional systems. For example, increased heat at the North
Pole affects the icecap, which affects the amount of fresh water put
into the ocean, which affects the circulatory patterns along the ocean,
which affects the dispersal of heat from the tropics, which affects the
amount of heat available to fuel hurricanes, which ...
The amount of energy released by the simultaneous detonation of all the
world's nuclear arsenals is exceeded by that released by a single
hurricane. This is why the numbers involved boggle the mind and make
one think that there must be some other cause.

This is also why global warming/climate change should be the single
most important topic for nations to address. Think how long it takes
an oil-tanker to turn around. Now scale that up to the levels here.
We all need to work together in 2006 not 2012 or 2025. This is not
to mediate the climate change in our lifetime but to give our children
and grandchildren a chance to survive.

[hatrack]

97. Our sun isn't nearly big enough to go nova

It would have to be, gosh, five or ten times as massive as it is for that to happen.

My math may be off here, so if anyone wants to correct me, jump right in!

[Whoa_Nelly]

87. *WoW* Take as look at the current satellite photo of Europe

I was checking out the southern coast of Ireland as the Gilf Stram travels up there, and found this photo of current Europe weather

http://www.ireland.com/weather/satellite.htm

[JohnWxy]

88. Michael Chrichton says

Michael Chrichton says Global Warming is just a bunch of hype from researcher's trying to get grants. Michael's written some novels, so he ought to know about climatology, right?

[lwbaby]

91. Climatology...

What human impact caused previous ice ages?

Just wondering...

[Boomer]

94. Little impact before the Industrial Age

The explosive population growth of the last two or three hundred years has resulted in massive deforestation and has also coincided with the rise of industrial technologies that emit greenhouse gases.

So the effect humans have on this planet has changed drastically in a very short amount of time. And it is in that amount of time that C02 levels have skyrocketed. Whether or not that will actually trigger an ice age is impossible to predict with 100% certainty because it's been over 650,000 years since the Earth's atmosphere has contained this much C02.

Even comparing the Little Ice Age of the 1300s with our present situation only goes so far because of the carbon issue and because widespread warming is introducing new factors -- like the thawing of Arctic permafrost.

We've created conditions on this Earth that no human has ever experienced; it is new territory for our species. The only guides we have for how to navigate the dangers are computer climate models, a science that is still in its infancy.

[Viking12]

96. None. The question is not relevant.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

98. What's your point? (nt)

[errorbells]

92. right...

:rofl:

[Jim__]

95. Michael Crichton doesn't know the difference between weather and climate

as shown in this statement from one of his "papers" on global warming: Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?.More ...

So much for his expertise on climatology and global warming.