Gulf Stream

[Drinky Crow]

"IT’S ONE OF THE MIGHTIEST RIVERS you will never see, carrying some 30 times more water than all the world’s freshwater rivers combined. In the North Atlantic, one arm of the Gulf Stream breaks toward Iceland, transporting vast amounts of warmth far northward, by one estimate supplying Scandinavia with heat equivalent to 78,000 times its current energy use. Without this current — a heat pump on a planetary scale — scientists believe that great swaths of the world might look quite different.

Now, a spate of studies, including one published last week, suggests this northern portion of the Gulf Stream and the deep ocean currents it’s connected to may be slowing. Pushing the bounds of oceanography, scientists have slung necklace-like sensor arrays across the Atlantic to better understand the complex network of currents that the Gulf Stream belongs to, not only at the surface, but hundreds of feet deep....."

In the Atlantic Ocean, Subtle Shifts Hint at Dramatic Dangers

A warming atmosphere is causing a branch of the ocean’s powerful Gulf Stream to weaken, some scientists fear.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Will Gilmore]

I don't buy it. Maybe the Gulf Stream is slowing, but we have only recently started measuring this major current with any depth and detail. We don't have a baseline that makes such statements about cause reasonable. We are experiencing global changes in things like magma movement that are causing the magnetic pole to travel like never recorded before, there is new evidence of continental drift at an ever increased rate and the Sun is going through a rare cycle of hyper-activity followed by a very low active period. Any or all of these things are unlikely to have anything to do with surface temperature changes and very likely have an effect on deep ocean currents. Cause and effect are not that obvious.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[PaulK]

What happened to the shrimp in the Gulf of Maine? Where did all the lobsters in Long Island Sound go? Why did all the oysters in Long Island's bays die off? Are neonicotinoids killing all the bees? Making guesses about causes and their effects at least enables us to try to find out what is happening, and why, so that we can perhaps do something about things we don't like. Maybe the guesses are wrong. That's what Science is for - finding out what the right guesses are. People thought illness was caused by 'bad humours' which could be removed by bloodletting until people came up with new guesses that were proved to be right. Let's find out about what's going on with the Gulf Stream. We may not be able to do much about it, but we'll at least have a better idea about what to expect, and be more able to plan for it.

 

[Will Gilmore]

I agree, Paul, to a degree, but taking an initial guess for a line of inquiry isn't the same as asserting an authoritative opinion that sounds like settled fact in a non-scientific arena populated by people with the potential power to influence the commercial, social and political organizations that write the grants for the scientific study.

A hypothesis is only good science when it remains understood to be a hypothesis. The big failing of the Scientific Method is the human ego. When we get locked into proving our ideas are right instead of remaining open to the possibilities that we could be wrong, the Scientific Method becomes an obstacle to truth.

I understand that the NY Times is not a scientific journal and their interest is more in keeping their readership engaged than in presenting unbiased science. I see this approach as problematic when it comes to swaying a public into supporting financially one line of inquiry over another. Scientists may strive to be open and unbiased, but they also want their research to be supported.

It wouldn't have made the article less interesting if they had said, "Global Climate Change is being looked to as one of the possible causes for the slowing of the Gulf Stream." That, however, is not how it is presented.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[jssailem]

Rational thoughts @Will Gilmore.

 

[Mr Fox]

Scientists have been using sensors to track the speed, density and temperature of the AMOC (Gulf Stream) since 2004. There’s a trackable relationship to an increase in ocean temperature and decreased salinity to the slowing of the current.

Using Atlantic silt data, underwater sediment cores and deep-sea coral population records, researchers have been able to track the currents strength and water conditions fairly accurately back 1600 years. The last 2 decades have been the slowest in that period, a direct correlation to increasing water termperature and reduced salinity and therefore density (caused by polar ice melt).

The oceans most dramatic overall average temperature increase has been since 1970, 0.11c each decade. Factoring in volcanic emission, man made emissions account for at least 76% of this temperature increase.

So, man made emissions have caused the oceans temperature and salinity to change dramatically, and after a couple decades of that, the Gulf Stream is slowing dramatically because of rising sea temperatures and salinity change. I’m no scientist but if it walks like a duck...

These facts are from the Met Office Hadley Center and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Both highly regarding within the scientific community and are researching this phenomenon currently.

I like The NY Times a lot, (I also like the WSJ) but yes they need readers so they can do things like fact check their information (which single person opinion media posing as news does not do); they use attention grabbing headlines that will resonate with their audience.

I would say 1600 years establishes a good baseline.

 

[RoyS]

Read "Chicken Little."

 

[Head Sail]

Scientists have been using sensors to track the speed, density and temperature of the AMOC (Gulf Stream) since 2004. There’s a trackable relationship to an increase in ocean temperature and decreased salinity to the slowing of the current.

Using Atlantic silt data, underwater sediment cores and deep-sea coral population records, researchers have been able to track the currents strength and water conditions fairly accurately back 1600 years. The last 2 decades have been the slowest in that period, a direct correlation to increasing water termperature and reduced salinity and therefore density (caused by polar ice melt).

The oceans most dramatic overall average temperature increase has been since 1970, 0.11c each decade. Factoring in volcanic emission, man made emissions account for at least 76% of this temperature increase.

So, man made emissions have caused the oceans temperature and salinity to change dramatically, and after a couple decades of that, the Gulf Stream is slowing dramatically because of rising sea temperatures and salinity change. I’m no scientist but if it walks like a duck...

These facts are from the Met Office Hadley Center and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Both highly regarding within the scientific community and are researching this phenomenon currently.

I like The NY Times a lot, (I also like the WSJ) but yes they need readers so they can do things like fact check their information (which single person opinion media posing as news does not do); they use attention grabbing headlines that will resonate with their audience.

I would say 1600 years establishes a good baseline.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

 

[Will Gilmore]

"Now, a spate of studies, including one published last week, suggests this northern portion of the Gulf Stream and the deep ocean currents it’s connected to may be slowing. Pushing the bounds of oceanography, scientists have slung necklace-like sensor arrays across the Atlantic to better understand the complex network of currents that the Gulf Stream belongs to, not only at the surface, but hundreds of feet deep....."

I would say 1600 years establishes a good baseline.

I would call that a good baseline too. The question is, if the new technology and initiative to measure parts of the deep ocean Gulf Stream is giving us never before seen insight, can this baseline really be factored in?

One of the problems with advancing technology as well as our growing presence on the planet is we are constantly seeing a different picture, not just more detail. Satellite imaging gives us a different image of the planet than a few scattered surface thermometers. Adding more weather stations across the planet will also give us a clearer picture, depending on where those weather stations are located. If we add more weather stations around ever growing cities, centers for asphalt induced surface heating, but don't invest in more remote stations, our view can look distorted. My point is that the article talked about how we had never been able to measure so deeply and completely, before. How then, can we have a reliable baseline?

A correlation is important to establish, but it is also important to keep in mind that a correlation is not a cause and effect relationship. Considering the large range of planet wide changes that we are seeing just in the last century, there are any number of correlations that can be drawn, but that may only be coincidental.

I don't deny what might be happening. Scientists are intelligent, perceptive and deeply thoughtful people. Their work is often cited in support of non-scientific agendas. My comments are an uneducated caution, that's all.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Mr Fox]

I totally agree that any information met as gospel and not with critical thinking isn’t a benefit to anyone. You’re absolutely right that environmental relationships are incredibly complicated and more information is needed and does nothing but help.
You also make a great point that information we get (especially not directly from the scientific community) typically has an agenda. Might be to incite, gain subscribers, pacify, or justify and enable irresponsible behavior, or to gain wealth. Might be someone’s own soapbox.

Let me say I greatly appreciate discussions like these- respectful of different opinions, calm, measured and dignified in argument. I personally think if more members of our congress took notes from Dragonfly, our country could accomplish great things. If you’re ever in Portland ME I would happily buy you a beer/rum/soda and have more discussions, as long as we leave my single hand docking techniques off the table

 

[Will Gilmore]

Portland ME

I went to Art School in Portland, for a year before they gave up on me. A great city and, at least in the early 80s, I discovered and was a big fan of Old Port's Three Dollar Dewey's chili. So, be careful what you ask for.

as long as we leave my single hand docking techniques off the table

Of course. One always has to use two hands, otherwise, what do you hold your beer with?

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[NotCook]

We don't have a baseline that makes such statements about cause reasonable

Zackly! We keep making all these observations about how radically things are changing, with (for the most part) only relatively recent observations (a few hundred, or even a few thousand, years. Anyone notice the glaciers have left the Great Lakes states?

 

[Drinky Crow]

Just in case.....

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The current warming trend is extremely likely human-induced and proceeding at an unprecedented rate in the past 1,300 years.

climate.nasa.gov

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.