It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atlantic Current Halted In 2004

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
I am open to seeing some contradictory research. Got links?

Thanks, sofi


Not sure what you mean by contradictory research? Why is the American Association for the Advancement of Science or Real Climate that is run by climatologists deemed journalistic?

WHOI stated that more data is needed in order to make predictions, I agree.


"Rate of Ocean Circulation Directly Linked to Abrupt Climate Change in North Atlantic Region"), we still have much to learn about the workings of the vast, unexplored and complex ocean before we can make reliable climate predictions WHOI


This recent finding doesn't fit the gulf stream is slowing down theory and shows me we are still in guessing mode too.


Influence of the Atlantic Subpolar Gyre on the Thermohaline Circulation

The new observations - record-high ocean temperatures and salinity - are ascribed to changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic. They have important implications for the climate in northern Europe. On the one hand, the high salinity of the water masses will secure that the strength of the Gulf Stream system is maintained in the upcoming decades. On the other hand, the high temperatures will enhance the impacts of global warming on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere.


My contention is that there are many factors and should include thermospheric dynamics is part of climate modeling too:

Characteristics of the large-scale traveling atmospheric disturbances during geomagnetically quiet and disturbed periods simulated by a whole atmosphere general circulation model



[edit on 18-11-2006 by Regenmacher]




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Regenmacher - Mea culpa - I focused on your link to the Guardian.

...So we both agree climate and weather result from interplays between factors of a complex system - and that understanding is not sufficiently advanced for prediction.

But earlier reports from a variety of sources said the North Atlantic Current did slow for a short time in 2004 and/or is slowing now.

I can't help noticing that the current spate of denials suspiciously parallels the kind o 'communications strategies' that occur in other scientific disciplines.





posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
But earlier reports from a variety of sources said the North Atlantic Current did slow for a short time in 2004 and/or is slowing now.

I can't help noticing that the current spate of denials suspiciously parallels the kind o 'communications strategies' that occur in other scientific disciplines.


I just noticed Bryden's data was referenced to the gulf stream slowing or stalling and Keigwin's response to it in this thread. As for cherry picking data from a single short term observation of deep current eddies, I don't see how they can predict much of anything from it, or produce a viable algorithm. It could all be just bad data gathering or occurs quite often.

Historical accuracy determines if climate models are more than just mere guessing:

Global climate model - Wiki

Climate Models and the Past Logical Science



[edit on 18-11-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by soficrow
But earlier reports from a variety of sources said the North Atlantic Current did slow for a short time in 2004 and/or is slowing now.

I can't help noticing that the current spate of denials suspiciously parallels the kind o 'communications strategies' that occur in other scientific disciplines.


As for cherry picking data from a single short term observation of deep current eddies, I don't see how they can predict much of anything from it, or produce a viable algorithm.




My point is that the North Atlantic Current was specifically observed to have slowed dramatically for 10 days in November of 2004.

Now, suddenly, the veracity of that observation is being denied.

There are numerous and parallel instances of switching gears, denial, censorship, and 'rewriting' the science in virtually every discipline. Which makes me think this turnabout here may be more of the same.


A very quick look at related topics on ATS:

Saving Public Access to Scientific Information

Rewriting The Science: How the Bush Administration is Lying to You!

Bush BLOCKS global warming report

U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

'Dead zone' startles scientists

Trees could grow in Antarctica within century: scientist

Climate Change Could Spread Plague: Scientists

The Pacific's Catastrophic Collapse of Sea and Bird Life




Also of interest from the National Academies Press:

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)
Ocean Studies Board (OSB)
Polar Research Board (PRB)
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC)



Executive Summary

Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.

Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers. At present, there is no plan for improving our understanding of the issue, no research priorities have been identified, and no policy-making body is addressing the many concerns raised by the potential for abrupt climate change. Given these gaps, the US Global Change Research Program asked the National Research Council to establish the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change and charged the group to describe the current state of knowledge in the field and recommend ways to fill in the knowledge gaps.



.

[edit on 18-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The Guardian, which borders on tabloid news, are the ones who ran with the shutdown story and then later made a retraction. I made note that I couldn't find anything of the sort at the NERC RAPID conference.

So let's go back and see what the horses mouth said:


Is the Atlantic overturning circulation slowing down? NERC RAPID

Analysis of the first year of data shows that the observing systems is working and able to measure the various components of the flow, using a combination of undersea cable measurements across the Florida Straits, satellite wind measurements,
temperature and salinity measurements from the mooring array, and bottom pressure data also from the array. These and observations at other geographical locations in the North Atlantic suggest that changes are occurring in the MOC, but distinguishing whether these changes are due to variability or persistent trends requires a longer continuous observational record. Model results confirm the need for long-term continuous observations of the MOC if we are to be able to detect whether significant change is occurring.


I have seen many weather models go through years of debate in light of new observations, and they do not change what is currently working based some anomalous non-verified data that may be an error or due to turbulence. If they are covering up gulf stream data from a year ago, current Atlantic SSTs would show temperature anomalies and the UK wouldn't be talking about the return of English vineyards or record setting temps.

MODEL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE: COMPARISON and EVALUATION

I have yet to see the much graphical data supporting or corroborating the gulf stream stalling out, but I have seen multitudes of data that say it is unchanged or has increased.

The current weather, long range forecasts, animal migrations say get ready for a baking:

London, United Kingdom Weather
Munich, Germany Weather
Amsterdam, Netherlands Weather



UK: warm winters 'ruin' currant crop FreshPlaza, Netherlands
Warm weather wrecks Russian bears' winter slumber Reuters

Here comes the sun:
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle UCAR
SOLARCYCLE 24.com

I see little reason to stock up on mittens and firewood for long winters, but I do see a lot of reason to expect more severe weather as the temps rise.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Regenmacher,

My readings focus on weather and climate becoming more erratic, in response to multiple factors.

You seem to be saying the most critical factor is the solar cycle and within that context, weather and climate are stable.

Do I understand you correctly?


.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Sun is the most critical factor, since with no solar radiance we would have no weather.

The sun's role is like the conductor of our weather symphony and we have many players that can be still be thrown out of synch by increasing levels of galatic dust, pollutants, aerosols, particulates, greenhouse gases, etc.

It could get to the point solar forcing is cirumvented to a some extent due to a build up of greenhouse gases, in that if our solar radiation was reduced like during the Maunder Minimum it would only offset the effects of about two decades of accumulated greenhouse gases.

We are now in solar minimum and the seas were rather calm this hurricane season, so was it only mere coincidence? We still have a lot to learn before accurately predicting weather future past next week.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Hi There,

Pardon me for my show of ignorance, but could some scientifically-minded person be so kind as to explain to me how 'wind' drives an underwater current such as the gulf stream? Are we saying that wind fans the volcanic vents deep on the ocean floor, by some rather natural and eccentic mechanism, or are we suggesting that wind blows under water also?

The concept that the gulf stream is driven purely by wind is total nonsense, whereas the 'real' engine for it is heat, centrifugal force of the earth's rotation, and many other variables, many probably not thought about, but ought to be taken into account. Another factor is the density of salinity, and the contents in the ocean such as plankton, free-floating minerals, etc, etc.

The gulf stream is a colossal current of water that manages to retain most of the heat it collects during its circuitous route, and dumps it on any land it washes against. There is no doubt that wind affects the surface of water, but it does not affect the deeper parts of the ocean, its energy does not transfer too well to deeper depths, so how is wind driving the gulf stream?

Cheers



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
It's not possible to have winds only effect a part of the ocean and not the rest. This should give you a better understanding about the ocean's fluid dynamics.


Carl Wunsch, The Economist and the Gulf Stream

Carl Wunsch usually has very interesting things to say about the climate system, and although his arguments don't necessarily win everyone completely over, they often generate an improvement in the level of scientific discussion. In this week's Economist, he has a letter printed concerning the mis-definition of the 'Gulf Stream' concept in the magazine's climate change survey a couple of weeks ago. This is essentially a reprint of his letter to Nature that was published in 2004, which stated correctly that the Gulf Stream is basically a wind driven phenomenon and will not stop or reverse while the wind still blows and the Earth still turns.


But if this deep circulation doesn't derive its energy from density contrasts, where does it get the energy from? Most of the energy in the oceans is derived from two sources, the winds and the tides. Both of these forces generate small scale turbulence and internal waves which cause mixing of ocean waters. It is this mixing which energetically fuels the deep ocean circulation.

Since the winds will continue to blow and the Earth continue to turn, does this mean that there can't be any changes to the MOC? Emphatically no. The circulation may well derive it's energy from the winds and tides, but it is heavily steered by density contrasts and the stratification of the ocean (witness the difference between the North Pacific and the North Atlantic).


Papers on Large-Scale Ocean Circulation

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Hmm.

There's more to that article.



Since the winds will continue to blow and the Earth continue to turn, does this mean that there can't be any changes to the MOC? Emphatically no. The circulation may well derive it's energy from the winds and tides, but it is heavily steered by density contrasts and the stratification of the ocean (witness the difference between the North Pacific and the North Atlantic). Changes in that modulation can have profound effects on the currents, and in particular, additions of fresh water from massive lake drainages (i.e. the 8.2 kyr event) or ice sheet collapses (the Heinrich events) most likely caused severe slowdowns or shutdowns of the MOC in the past. Wunsch is a little sceptical of this research (he calls fresh water the 'deus ex machina' of climate change), but in this he is probably mistaken - for instance, there is enough information from the 8.2 kyr event to reasonably attribute it to the drainage of Lake Agassiz into Hudson Bay.

Thus while density changes don't 'drive' the circulation (in an energetic sense) they can 'drive' (in a modulating sense) changes in that circulation. If this seems complicated, think of the example of greenhouse gases - they don't drive the climate in an energetic sense (the sun does), but they can drive changes in the climate (by modulating radiation flow in the atmosphere).




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I don't recall reading about this event back in late 2004.

So this begs the question: Was information held back or lies given to the public regarding the halting of the Atlantic current?



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by khunmoon

This bogus piece of science I just don't buy.


Rather than slinging emotionalisms as proof of flawed science, let's stick to factual matters.

Let's do so!

Taken another look at the before and after crops I posted of the NW Atlantic and Europe you might argue that the changes to the most Western part and Mediteranian of Europe isn't dramatical, but if you go to Scotland and Middle Scandinavia they certainly are. I mean minus 20 in Stockholm instead of minus 10 sure is difference. Not to mention Luleå where the temprature wil drop 15 to 20 degrees.

What you're saying is almost heretical to me brought up in a country where social security is our religion and the Gulf Stream the God above it all making possible our life of welfare. That said in a slightly sarcastic meaning, I'm open to new concepts on the mechanics of interactions at play on our climate.

Still I do believe huge interrests are at stake, and as any study has to be founded, it is hard for me to really see the objectivity in a sensible issue like climate change. The biggest cover-ups and conspiracies of our time are liable to take place in that field.

Your point of view is completely new to me. I tend to stick to my common sense, what comes to my knowledge and is presented to my senses. They are open, so yes, let's stick to factual matters as long they can add to common sense.

The sun as modus operantus sure is very plausible. Give me a few days to look into it.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Hi There,

I thankyou Reg and Sofi; I came across the article you provided after I made my initial post, yet somewhere in the back of my mind, the thought of wind being the only means of energy to propagate modulated pulses of heat across a vast distance, in a medium not known for its heat retentive abilities (it loses most of it back into the atmosphere), still pricks at my common-sense thinking.

What we are discussing here is a 'mechanism' of propulsion, and I cannot see how wind alone provides enough consistent energy to drive that mechanism...what happens on 'windless' days...does the current slow or stop altogether? I'm sure we are missing something?

Cheers


Edn

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Regenmacher I don't think you understand how much a "few degrees" can affect a country. A temperature drop of even a few degrees here in Scotland is all thats needed to produce blizzards, if the gulf stream had shut down by now and it only effected Scotland be just 4 degrees I would be walking in 4 feet of snow right now instead of just water.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by Edn]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
Regenmacher I don't think you understand how much a "few degrees" can affect a country.


I wouldn't worry about a long term cold spell anytime soon and your more likely to need a boat in the future. Until someone rewrites the laws of physics, heat will continue to flow from warmer bodies to cooler bodies and it's getting warmer all over.

Global warming: Stormy Scotland up to 72% wetter

[edit on 20-11-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Edn
Regenmacher I don't think you understand how much a "few degrees" can affect a country.


I wouldn't worry about a long term cold spell anytime soon and your more likely to need a boat in the future.

Global warming: Stormy Scotland up to 72% wetter






Sounds like an argument about which scenario is more likely: Waterworld or Day After Tomorrow.

Doesn't matter, imo.

The point is - climate change is real. Whichever scenario develops, we're in for a wild ride - and need to prepare.

Defensive and preventive action sounds like a good call too.



.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Sounds like an argument about which scenario is more likely: Waterworld or Day After Tomorrow.


Perhaps a sailboat world...


Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what? NASA

Including 2006, September sea ice is declining at a rate of approximately 8.6 percent per decade, or 60,421 square kilometers (23,328 square miles) per year. The NSIDC science team reported that at this rate, the Arctic Ocean will have no ice in September by the year 2060. NSIDC scientist Mark Serreze said, "The reduction in summer sea ice is a bad omen for animals like the polar bear, which need sea ice for their survival."

"I'm not terribly optimistic about the future of the ice," Serreze said. "Although it would come as no surprise to see some recovery of the sea ice in the next few years— such fluctuations are part of natural variability—the long-term trend seems increasingly clear. As greenhouse gases continue to rise, the Arctic will continue to lose its ice. You can't argue with the physics."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Map of Europe were ocean levels have risen by 150 meters.
The Netherlands and Denmark are gone.
The Alsacian inland sea is rather interesting.
Paris and London are under water. source



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Australia suffering worst drought in 1000 years

www.guardian.co.uk...


And as soon as you read that their gulf stream has slowed by 30% in the last 12 years (which accounts for 5-8 degrees C of cooling) it suddenly makes perfect sense.

melbourne.indymedia.org...

So if these modellers are correct we will enter a period of continual conflict due to resource shortages and the Pentagon paper references exactly that.. I do not think the US cannot survive without Canada's water so they will have to be included. But will people be fleeing the US for the warmth of Mexico in 15 years?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join