New Study Indicates Gulf Stream Shutting Down Due to Global Warming

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Elementalist

Gaia maybe - if the Grand Conveyer Current goes all bets on 'life' are off. Humanity, however, has not faced these conditions before nor can she survive them.

Tho I'm absolutely not a climate denier, technology is a B and it would take an amazing event to end humanity. A ice age wouldn't do it. Hell, we survived an ice age before we invented the wheel let alone Rahman noodles and propane heaters! :p


I hear a lot of people suggesting climate change could lead to our extinction, but I disagree. I'm a little more optimistic . Most of us might die, but the species will survive. If we can get another couple centuries before a planet smasher asteroid or gamma burster hits us. I think we get off this rock and maybe we never go extinct.



I don't doubt that a carbon tax would be squandered and might not help at all, but that doesn't mean that there is a massive conspiracy by the science community to pad Obamas pockets. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So 97% of the worlds scientists are secretly trying to influence American politics.... Sorry guys we aren't that important, nor are we (Americans) the center of the entire worlds attention. Nor is every media outlet on the planet in a vast conspiracy to discredit American conservatism. It's nonsensical, if your gonna fall for propaganda, at least make sure it makes sense!

This is BP and all the accidents and its not warmer than usual. Well we're having a warm winter, but last year was cold so its no different than growing up, same thing, warm ones, cold ones. So that part is BS. But BP did change the gulf current.

The whole globe is not warming so the term Global warming is absolutely incorrect. If you are going to try and sound like you know what you are talking about say its because of Climate shift. Its called a polar shift, it happens every 300 or so thousand years. Take a guess what happens when the poles shift, so does the climate. It doesnt take a genius to figure out the two go hand in hand. If you had any sense you would know that at one point Antarctica didnt house 90% of the earths fresh water in ice because it was a jungle/tropical climate zone.

a reply to: mc_squared

There's no such thing as Global Warming. FOX'NEWS' and Congress tell me so.

originally posted by: Unity_99
This is BP and all the accidents and its not warmer than usual. Well we're having a warm winter, but last year was cold so its no different than growing up, same thing, warm ones, cold ones. So that part is BS. But BP did change the gulf current.

So low saline quantity in the water and lower temperatures, combined with a 20% reduction in the Gulf Stream are down to BP in the Gulf Of Mexico? Is that honestly what you are proposing? If so, i would suggest re reading the article, possibly with a text book to hand.

The real clincher for me is the location of the cold water combined with the saline content being just below Greenland - whilst the authors state this doesn't necessarily mean this is from Greenlands melting glaciers, there is certainly a smoking gun in my opinion.

As a Brit though, i have to say it is bloody typical that the world warms and we get colder. I know this was forecast but still.........

a reply to: WonOunce

So much wrong with your post.

Global Warming refers to the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.

Global Warming is the correct term.

If you had any sense you would know that at one point Antarctica didnt house 90% of the earths fresh water in ice because it was a jungle/tropical climate zone.

If you had paid attention in school you would know that Antartica was once part of Pangea before continental drift brought it to where it is now.

In other words, Antartica was once much closer to the equator where it was warmer.

Neither of those things require you to be a genius to know or understand especially with the computer age and search engines, but you at least have to try to look them up if you don't remember from school.

a reply to: shaneslaughta

Wait a bloody minute here. I have seen this play out before. The Day After Tomorrow.

The Day After Tomorrow Might Kinda, Sorta Come True

In a blog post describing the study, lead author Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam University in Germany says this past winter’s pronounced cooling in the North Atlantic “suggests the decline of the circulation has progressed even further now than we documented in the paper.” Rahmstorf’s past work has focused on the impact of climate change on ocean circulations, particularly the thermohaline circulation, Earth’s primary oceanic “conveyor belt” circulation, which is driven by geographic differences in temperature and salinity. (Thermo=heat, haline=salt.) That’s the same mechanism The Day After Tomorrow identified as a tipping point in the global climate system. (By the way, Rahmstorf is also a fan of The Day After Tomorrow.) Since fresh, warm water is less dense than cold, salty water, scientists like Rahmstorf have long argued the thermohaline circulation may slow down as the climate warms and Arctic ice melts.

Monday’s study showed that process has likely already begun. In a press statement, Rahmstorf said, “we have detected strong evidence that the global conveyor has indeed been weakening in the past hundred years, particularly since 1970.”

I really #ing wish people would stop browsing Reddit to find # to repost here.

I only have 1 question on this subject. Where does chemtrailing fit in.
Chemtrailing was started in the early 70's as a response to climate experts
warning of a coming ice age. They haven't stopped yet.
Logic says you don't use a process that would cool the planet to combat cold
so chemtrailing must produce heat in some way. If so isn't it reasonable to say that
chemtrailing might be driving global warming rather than co2 that all green things
need? It seems to me the easiest way to get rid of the excess co2 would be trees.

a reply to: tmeister182

Well it depends, what exactly are the chemicals in those chemtrails?

a reply to: mc_squared

So just to be clear, because you obviously don't have access through the pay-wall, you believe these studies say the gulf stream is currently shutting down?

If you had access through the pay-wall you would see that is not what the study said at all...

The study is a what if scenario and discusses "possibilities", none of which are substantiated with observation...That much is even pointed out in the abstract which you have access to. On top of that, they used data several years old. Intentional? (Their models are from 2006 and 2008, the height of AGW scare) Further, in their study behind the pay-wall I have to ask: When actual Gulf Stream measurement data (the ADCP data cited by Rossby 2014) is available, why would Mann and Rahm use proxies? And why try to say that temperature is the indicator, when you have actual speed data?

Here is a more recent study, although previously published, that uses more accurate and up to date data (i.e. real data)...

Edit: I am linking you to the Article they wrote for Scientific American, their paper is behind a pay-wall, you can see it in the information at the end of the article if you have access.

Source

For a century, schoolchildren have been taught that the massive ocean current known as the Gulf Stream carries warm water from the tropical Atlantic Ocean to northwestern Europe. As it arrives, the water heats the air above it. That air moves inland, making winter days in Europe milder than they are in the northeastern U.S.

It might be time to retire that tidy story.

Yet recent modeling studies with higher resolution of ocean currents suggest that fresh Arctic meltwater may pour mostly into currents that are more restricted to the coastlines and therefore have less influence on the open ocean, where downwelling primarily occurs. Even if freshwater significantly affected the amount of waters downwelled in the North Atlantic, it turns out to be highly unlikely that this change would effectively shut down the Gulf Stream.

Published by Stephen C. Riser, UofW and M. Susan Lozier, Duke. Both are PhD Oceanography specializing in Ocean Circulation.

But hey, if Duke, UofW and Scientific American aren't good sources for you, I am sure you can visit AlGore.Com or DailyKOS and get your fix for scientific knowledge.

If you want more peer reviewed papers that give accurate and up to date information on the Gulf Stream (And that it isn't shutting down) see:

Source

Abstract
In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2 s−1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17 m, with sea level decreasing 0.03 m over the 20 year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period.

And, Greenland's ice sheet isn't even melting:

Source

a reply to: Flavian

He's on to something. There is a giant tar bar sitting on the bottom of the Gulf stream currently. A Giant toxic tar ball. Don't know how that would effect salinity, but it always seemed to me the whole 'accident' and 'correxion' was designed to gum up the gulf stream. None of it went anywhere.

Seems much more likely than CO2 did it.

originally posted by: Unity_99
This is BP and all the accidents and its not warmer than usual. Well we're having a warm winter, but last year was cold so its no different than growing up, same thing, warm ones, cold ones. So that part is BS. But BP did change the gulf current.

Dude it's average global temp.... Not the temp where you are right at this moment lmao

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Flavian

He's on to something. There is a giant tar bar sitting on the bottom of the Gulf stream currently. A Giant toxic tar ball. Don't know how that would effect salinity, but it always seemed to me the whole 'accident' and 'correxion' was designed to gum up the gulf stream. None of it went anywhere.

Seems much more likely than CO2 did it.

Except for the fact that's exactly what was predicted due to rising global temp....

Why people will go so far and ignore so much just so it's not CO2 blows my mind.... What can't stand the thought of gore being right? Like gore was one of the scientists who figured it out instead of the spokesman?!?


It's not that difficult...nearly every scientist and mathematician on the planet says CO2=heat, exactly like Venus. On top of that you have the BP spill and all the other garbage we dump EVERY where. Why would it have to be one or the other?


How big oil co opted the conspiracy crowd I will never know. We even have a conspiracy by the politicians and corporate kings to deny that they are screwing the planet up. How do y'all let the enemy trick you into doing there work for them I will never know.

a reply to: mc_squared

I don't give a crap on which side of the divide someone rests on, if they think that govt running anything will be better than the people, they are nutso.

Govt wastes so much, what will be the cost of the agency that runs it??? Where will that money come from??? Out of the dividends? and when the oil companies raise their prices to offset, how will the dividends not only cover the costs of the govt running this program but return enough money to the people to offset the increase in price???

The whole idea is idiocy. Taxing people and companies (which becomes the people with cost increases) to try and prevent something that likely doesn't exist is idiocy.

Yes, I SAID it, it likely doesn't exist, especially not AGW or ACC whatever the catch phrase to distract their inability to predict ANYTHING accurately is right now.

How do we know that this isn't the effect of the gulf of Mexico oil spill that was predicted after that fiasco? Why do people that believe in AGW always blame EVERYTHING on global warming..

It's ludicrous, it's one of those circular arguments, if it's colder than they predicted, oh, we were right, if it's warmer, oh we were right. It is unequivocally a catch all.

Jaden

Just remember what a little tea tax caused in the late 1700's if you REALLY think taxing CARBON credits is a good idea.

a reply to: Entreri06

I guess people are laughing at the suggestion that a little tiny bit warmer means it is suddenly going to get sauna hot.

Or the suggestion that it will lead to a sudden cold stretch, and all because of C02.

Why is it so hard for believers of this official warming theory to understand that the crap they are quoting is not complete and is being pushed by those who want to profit from it ??

I see such amazing closedmindedness on this topic, and it is coming from the believers who want to believe that this ONE TIME, the authorities are telling the truth and are begging US to help them stop our fellow man from doing anything.

Meanwhile the scientists are closed in boxes themselves and not allowed to look outside for causes or for the real numbers on said topic.

Too bad we cannot and WILL not ever jump on this bandwagon, it is a wagon that has no winner....but feel free to carry on with the doom porn.

a reply to: Entreri06

To be clear, this post:

a reply to: raymundoko

Shows how ridiculous the OP is and completely debunks the premise it is based on.

Anytime Mann's name is attached to a study, remember, this is the Hockey Stick Guy

Basically they used Proxy data (as he did again in the paper from the OP) instead of actual data. Weather (Climate)[Including Ocean Current and Temperature] has been tracked greatly since 1880, and further expanded in the 1900's. To use Proxy data for anything in the last one hundred years is disingenuous and misleading.

a reply to: raymundoko

The stick guy got caught in a funny with his face book .

Climate scientist Martin Visbeck of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel sees Rahmstorf’s interpretation of the results critically: ‘The study’s focus on the sub-polar part of the Atlantic and the spectral analysis are interesting,’ he says. But there are other AMOC assessments that point to a completely other development. The paper does not offer any strong indication of the development of the AMOC during the past fifty years.”

Mann on the run – latest paper ‘dead at birth’, rejected by German warmist scientists, deletes inconvenient Facebook challenge wattsupwiththat.com... hallenge/

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Interesting.

Using something from Watts..haha...moving on.

Well, sort of. Making issue about deleting facebook posts on a site that deletes any post that goes against their agenda.


Classic.

a reply to: raymundoko

The completely vindicated Hockey Stick?