SCI/TECH: Significant Weakening Of Gulf Stream Detected

Could that colder than normal area be caused by rain or dense cloud cover over the area? I'm just wondering. Do you have a link to a satellite pic of the area in question? I don't know what the normal temperature variations in the ocean are but that spot seems to be much colder than normal.

Don't have a satellite image handy but that spot has evolved over the past serveral weeks. It started closer to the US coast and expanded and moved out over the middle Atlantic. This is the biggest departure from normal since I have started watching this area. Here is the first image I grabbed from May 23rd.




I take it back. There was an area on May 30th that was slightly colder...



Its as if something has upwelled a large pool of cold water.

And of course here again is the latest image...

I was wondering if anyone can tell us what the status of the gulf stream is now, since this thread left off last year. I haven't been able to find anything specific myself.

Indy - you still following this?

You know I have completely slacked off on this with everything I have going on. I'd just keep an eye out on the sea surface temperatures. You can get the latest SST image here...

www.climatepatrol.com...

Or you can watch the changing water temperatures here...

www.climatepatrol.com...

By default you'll be able to see the sea surface temperature changes over a period of 20 days. Right now though I only have 15 days worth in my database. I'll try and get ahold of the group that models gulf stream velocities and see if they will allow me to archive their images as well.

Interesting... it took a few for me to realize the original post was a year old.

Well, I can tell you what effect it's had on Texas. We've had the longest statewide drought in memory and more grassfires than a Rastafarian's pipe.

I'd heard, however, that the gulfstream wind that crosses the U.S. slipped south by about 500 miles and that had caused it (hence my interest in this article). Now it turns out that it was due to cold water not sinking fast enough in the ocean?

Oh boy. Day After Tomorrow was sorta right... This is gonna suck. At least we don't have to worry about the whole supercooled air thing freezing us instantly. Apparently a naked human body can (in theory) survive out in space without popping or instantly freezing for at least a minute or so.

Yay...

Originally posted by thelibra
Interesting... it took a few for me to realize the original post was a year old.

Well, I wouldn't have revived it if I had realized it was going to look like current ATSNN. I figured it was in Fragile Earth or something, which would be appropriate for a longer term discussion.

Maybe one of the Mods will move it? Or should we just start a new thread there? I just think it should be looked at again now that a year has gone by.

The following website discusses the movie version of "An Inconvenient Truth" which is scheduled to be released on May 24th:

www.climatecrisis.net...

This documentary on global climate change (and next month's book version) is authored by Al Gore. Based originally on slide shows given by this former U.S. Vice President, then expanded with the help of climate scientists and others, movie industry insiders persuaded Gore to assist with the creation of this film version. The above site includes a film clip and other info.

The current issue of Vanity Fair magazine includes a current analysis of climate change and (my favorite part) eye-opening artist renderings of New York and Washington D.C. partly submerged, per the latest global warming scenarios of a growing number of climatologists. Much of their content on that topic can be viewed online:

www.vanityfair.com...

The most startling TV coverage I've seen recently is the PBS NOVA show on global dimming. Basically, global dimming explains why our planet isn't hotter than it already is, thanks to aerosol pollution from jet exhaust, etc. Here's that link:

www.pbs.org...

On that page, there is a link to an excerpt from that show. They should also be posting the show transcript soon.

Finally, here is a link to a New York Times review of a book published in March 2006 on climate change, titled Field Notes from a Catastrophe, authored by a NY Times science writer:

nytimes.com

I agree with Astronomer 68 that there should be more ATS discussion of this topic.





[edit on 12-5-2006 by FutureLibrarian]

[edit on 12-5-2006 by FutureLibrarian]
mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 13-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Are we having a re-run here, or what? This discussion has been held at least three times over the last year--and all stemming from the same original article. Since the original article was first published, a great deal of attention has been paid to global warming in the Arctic region. The new studies have attempted to assess the amount of fresh water pouring into the arctic basin and from that, see if any correlations can be found for sea water temperatures and salinity levels in the region--since these are the primary things that influence the subsidence of the Gulf Stream. Increased levels of fresh water entering arctic waters along with increased temperatures are predicted to slow the Gulf Stream--indeed the entire Atlantic Conveyor--but not all that rapidly. However, I am struck by the rapidity of arctic warming in general and more than a little concerned that the conclusions being reached so far may be way to conservative.

A sudden catastrophic failure of the Gulf Stream would be a major world altering event.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
..............
A sudden catastrophic failure of the Gulf Stream would be a major world altering event.
[edit on 12-5-2006 by Astronomer70]

Several members including myself have been talking about this and given evidence for at least over two years now of what is happening. Back then there were signs of this "world altering event" (borrowing Astronomer's phrase) but a lot of people didn't want to even believe this was possible. Now the signs are indisputable.

People should learn to leave the political bickering behind, which nowadays is part of every topic because certain people are just interested in furthering a political agenda instead of the truth. We have to work together, and each person should be making plans on their own for any possible disaster/s instead of waiting and believing the government can do everything and if it doesn't, they can latter on blame everything on the government.

People who live in coastal areas should have some contingency plan to evacuate whenever it is necessary, having medicines, some clean clothes, water and some food in their cars, an emergency kit and a first aid kit among some other things.

It never hurts to be prepared.

Anyways, Indy has picked up where some of us left the topic and he is doing a good job.

Thanks for the information Indy.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Muaddib]

You are probably aware Muaddib that the pentagon has conducted at least one study on the ramifications of a sudden stoppage of the gulf stream. There are plenty of weasel words in the study indicating it is only conjecture, but the widespread nature of the potential ramifications are none-the-less alarming.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, Indy has picked up where some of us left the topic and he is doing a good job.

Thanks for the information Indy.

Welcome. I have a flat spot on my butt where I've been sitting on it for a few weeks coding stuff and getting all the updates in on the site in time for the 2006 hurricane season. If you find any good data sources related to the gulf stream please let me know. I'll be happy to contact any group as long as I speak their language and ask for permission to archive the data. This will give us a way to easily plot out and track changes.

Astronomer
Maybe I'm not reading your post right or Muad's right but I think you two are on the same page but your last post gives me the impression you think you two are on different pages.

I know the Pentagon issued a report covering the worst case scenario of an ocean current failure. Honestly there is no way to know exactly how bad it will be if it happens. The rate at which the current would fail would be a guess at this point. However it was just in the past 12 months or so that a Cambridge University researcher released results of the status of large columns of sinking waters in the North Atlantic. The columns of sinking water had all but vanished in a matter of a few years or so. The details of the report may even be posted in one of the pages in this discussion. From the stories I have seen online it seems the rate of freshwater runoff is increasing. So is it safe to assume that the rate of failure in regards to the sinking columns of water is increasing as well?

I have a relative that lives in Germany and this is a person who always remembers the weather being worse when they were growing up. No matter how bad the weather is now it was worse back then. I'm sure you know the kind of person I speak of. The kind that walked up hill in the snow to school while barefoot. She told me that she had never seen a winter like this one before. She said it seemed endless. Starting in November and not ending until April. She was blessed with 5 to 6 months of winter. She said it just seemed as if it would never end. This comes from a person that would always remark about how they really didn't have much of a winter anymore.

Is this a fluke? Or is this a sign that the change has already started? It is Europe that will feel the effects first.

I saw a show on this the other day. I don't remember what channel, but it was pretty interesting. While they did say that things such as Global warming and this weakening of the gulf stream are becoming apparent, it would take centuries or even millenia for another ice age to settle in; not a few weeks or months of years as depicted in movies like The Day After Tomorrow.

Be careful of agendas. Why would they not say that an ice age can set in over the course of a few years instead of hundreds or thousands of years? Because this is something that can happen in the course of a person's lifetime thus it could influence a person's point of view in regard to climate change. Its no good to have people thinking that it might be warming now but a cooling trend could start in a short period of time. To feed the agenda you need people to believe that it is just going to keep getting hotter for the rest of their lives. Evidence from ice core samples taken from Greenland suggest that major climate shifts do indeed happen over the course of a few years. Maybe over the course of a decade. At the rate things are changing now it means that this change can happen in my lifetime and your lifetime. That also means that we have to plan for the possibility of a colder world and not a hotter world. But if you are someone that has preached that we are going to keep heating up for a hundred years this will put a huge dent in what you've been pushing. A scenaior that plays out over a matter of days like in the movie is unlikely. But major changes do happen in a hurry. To rebuind an ice sheet may take many decades but to shift back to much colder temperatures can happen very fast. If the gulf stream fails it WILL happen fast and the effects won't be diluted like those pushing endless warmth would have you believe.

From what I've read Indy, Europe is expected to turn cooler by 3 to 5 degrees centigrade on average. The changes have been predicted to take upwards of 30 years, but I'm not so sure I believe that part anymore. It seems to me the cooling trend may have already started. While Europe gets colder, the southern U.S. is expected to heat up by about 2 to 3 degrees centigrade over the same time period. If, as I suspect, these trends have already started then we can expect Europe to become dryer as well. The thing that bothers me the most is that I don't know how global wind patterns will be effected and whether or not the Pacific Basin cycles will be completely changed, and if so, over what time period. I do know that drastic changes in the Eastern Pacific Basin could dramatically affect U.S. food production and the availability of fresh water.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Astronomer70]

After reading this book, Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization by David Keys, I understand that many natural forces determine what our weather does.
This book describes what may have happened to the earth's climate after a global climatic catastrophe in A.D. 535-536.

So, how much effect does volcanic activity have on climate?
Especially if a caldera were to erupt.
Would this further the weakening of the Gulf Stream or have no effect at all?

Here's a major volcanic activity today:
Thousands Flee Slopes of Indonesia Volcano


[edit on 13-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Europe is expected to turn cooler by 3 to 5 degrees centigrade on average. The changes have been predicted to take upwards of 30 years, but I'm not so sure I believe that part anymore.

Much like with global warming estimates there are conservative estimates and more liberal estimates. A drop of 3 to 5 degrees falls under conservative. The more liberal estimates have temperatures falling at much as 10 degrees centigrade. I think there are too many variables that have to match up perfectly to get the 10 degree c drop. A drop of 3 to 5 degrees on average is still very bad. But lets just compare Europe to parts of Canada that are near the Pacific.

Vancouver sits at approximately 50N and is right on the Pacific Ocean. Temperatures in Jan average 32f to 42f. Brest, France which is approximately 50N and is very close to the warm waters of the Atlantic has an average temperature in Jan from 39 to 47 (encarta.msn.com...) . Paris sits inland more and slightly north of Brest. It sits in roughtly the same area in relation to 50N and the body of water that Calgargy sits. The temperature range for Calgary in Jan is 4f to 26f. For Paris its 34 and 43. Of course you don't even want to think about parts of Europe being exposed to temperatures that Edmonton gets in the winter where they average temperatures (high temperatures) below freezing for the better part of 4 months.

Of course we have to stop and think of the effects on the northern hemisphere when this moderating effect is wiped out. As it is now systems that cross the Atlantic moderate before reaching Europe. You'll no longer have that bite taken out of the systems. So there is less work to be done for the air masses to get cold again as the cross Siberia. This means they can hit the Pacific a bit stronger than before. It will take some time but the effects will eventually wrap around the northern hemisphere from west to east.

Originally posted by Indy
I have a flat spot on my butt where I've been sitting on it for a few weeks coding stuff and getting all the updates in on the site in time for the 2006 hurricane season.

Thanks Indy, it is exactly the approach of the 2006 hurricane season that made me want to take another look at the status of the gulf stream, because I do think there was significant impact last year in where and how they formed and traveled last year.

I am having trouble finding anything current and/or free at this point regarding the status or monitoring of the gulf stream so far, and I find it a bit disturbing that information like this would be so difficult a search item.

Edit: Wait - do these have anything that help? (This is obviously out of my area).

rads.tudelft.nl...

www.gulfstreamshutdown.com...



[edit on 5/14/2006 by Relentless]

It seems the question may not be able to be answered. Apparently, the report last year of the weakening gulf stream was based on one expedition, and compared to previous data from 12 years prior.

No one is actually moniotring this on an ongoing basis. I find it hard to dismiss the findings from last years initial report, but then again, I am a bit surprised to realize (maybe I just missed it the first time) that in a 12 year time frame, the weakening of the gulf stream does not even seem to be attributed to a specific period. I was under the impression that this was something that occurred last year (as in all the sudden). There seems to be no way to get any deeper into this.

Originally posted by Relentless

Edit: Wait - do these have anything that help? (This is obviously out of my area).

rads.tudelft.nl...

www.gulfstreamshutdown.com...

rads.tudelft.nl used to be reliable until they changed how they reported their data.

"Since 21 December 2004 the velocity maps show the absolute in stead of relative velocities."

It used to be the movement of the water relative to the water around it. It got to the point where there was about nothing left to show. So they switched to a system that shows water movement relative to the ground. So prior to the Dec 2004 change you could actually look at the movement of the gulf stream. Now it is basically just a model.