Gulf Stream and a Colder Europe: FYI

[BeFree]

It has been claimed that the Gulf Stream current carries warm water from the east coast of the US all the way to Europe and helps to keep western Europe from freezing like it is.

There is now some science making the case that the Gulf Stream is dissipating and not reaching Europe like it used too.

Two scenarios are at play here:

One: that the melting glaciers are pushing the warm water away from it's historic course.

Two: that the polluted waters from the Gulf of Mexico (which make up a large portion of the gulf stream)are allowing the cold water and the warm water to mix in the Atlantic, causing dissipation.

[David Zephyr]

1. The Atlantic Ocean's Conveyor Belt, or Thermohaline Circulation

Your first scenario is the one that is the most disconcerting.

The melting cold water in the Arctic will impact the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic.

They are having a very cold winter and we are drowning in California.

Something has changed.

[Hawkowl]

2. Oh indeed

The planet can not remain the same if you melt the entire North Polar cap into the Atlantic conveyor. Climate change is on ultra fast forward now. Nothing we can do but move inland and watch.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. I thought it was that the fresh water from melting ice is lighter

than the salt water in the oceans, so even though it is colder it does not sink.

I am no expert but as someone who follows climate change predictions it was my understanding that this is the effect which was considered most dangerous to the "conveyor belt" ocean currents like the gulf stream.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Can you link to this science saying the Gulf Stream is dissipating?

Because the general opinion seems to be that the cold Western European winter is due to atmospheric affects, not oceanic ones, though they may well be related to global warming:

The weather we get in UK winters, for example, is strongly linked to the contrasting pressure between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. When there's a big pressure difference the winds come in from the south-west, bringing mild damp weather from the Atlantic. When there's a smaller gradient, air is often able to flow down from the Arctic. High pressure in the icy north last winter, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, blocked the usual pattern and "allowed cold air from the Arctic to penetrate all the way into Europe, eastern China, and Washington DC". Nasa reports that the same thing is happening this winter.

Sea ice in the Arctic has two main effects on the weather. Because it's white, it bounces back heat from the sun, preventing it from entering the sea. It also creates a barrier between the water and the atmosphere, reducing the amount of heat that escapes from the sea into the air. In the autumns of 2009 and 2010 the coverage of Arctic sea ice was much lower than the long-term average: the second smallest, last month, of any recorded November. The open sea, being darker, absorbed more heat from the sun in the warmer, light months. As it remained clear for longer than usual it also bled more heat into the Arctic atmosphere. This caused higher air pressures, reducing the gradient between the Iceland low and the Azores high.

So why wasn't this predicted by climate scientists? Actually it was, and we missed it. Obsessed by possible changes to ocean circulation (the Gulf Stream grinding to a halt), we overlooked the effects on atmospheric circulation. A link between summer sea ice in the Arctic and winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere was first proposed in 1914. Close mapping of the relationship dates back to 1990, and has been strengthened by detailed modelling since 2006.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/20/cold-burn/#more-1311

There are explanatory links in Monbiot's piece - especially to this article: http://www.geologywales.co.uk/storms/winter1011a.htm (in part 2 - below the photos of frozen Wales in part 1).

[BeFree]

4. Yes, thank you

The link is right there in your piece. I'll quote:

"..it also bled more heat into the Arctic atmosphere. This caused higher air pressures, reducing the gradient between the Iceland low and the Azores high."

The Gulf Stream bleeds more heat into the atmosphere reducing the gradients.

There are many factors which make the weather happen in any local. The Gulf Stream is a HUGE factor.

[Greybnk48]

5. Watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" where he

thoroughly explains this phenomenon with graphics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. No; 'it' in that sentence is the open Arctic sea

The only mention of the Gulf Stream in either article is when Monbiot says many of us were too busy worrying about the Gulf Stream to pay attention to the atmospheric circulation.

Anyway, your claim was that the Gulf Stream is slowing down. If that were the case, then the Gulf Stream would be bleeding less heat into the Arctic atmosphere, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying that the Gulf Stream can't be slowing; it's just that I haven't seen any scientist say that it is. If you know of any paper, report etc. that says it is, I'd like to read it.

[BeFree]

8. I'm surprised

Monbiot article pointed out that sea temperatures DO effect the weather.

Confirming the idea that if the Gulf Stream is dissipating well before it reaches Europe
then Europe will become colder.

I read the article at flaoilspilllaw.com ...don't have the link handy, but there has been a lot
written over the years on the science of the Gulf Stream. Surprised you have to ask me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. What it says in the article is that *warmer* Arctic sea temperatures are affecting the wind

There is a lot of difference between "warmer Arctic sea temperatures" and "dissipation of the Gulf Stream". They are almost the opposite of each other - the Gulf Stream helps transport heat towards the Arctic, so, if the Gulf Stream dissipates, you would expect to see cooler Arctic sea temperatures. The article says the warmer Arctic sea temperatures are due to the loss of sea ice, especially in autumn, not a decrease in the Gulf Stream.

There were claims during the summer that the Gulf Stream could be altered by the BP oil spill. But they weren't by scientists familiar with it. And, as far as I know, no-one ever saw any evidence of any slow down. Over the years, people have suggested it could slow down. The most recent science on it I can find is from March this year, which says there had been no slow down then:

The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.

Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.
...
The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8589512.stm

[BeFree]

13. Yes, of course, quite confusing, isn't it?

So... an attempt to cut through the crap:

The 'dramatic' changes to the Gulf Stream, coupled with the decreasing sea ice, have led to atmospheric responses resulting in dramatic changes in atmospheric pressure gradients which has produced record weather changes in Europe.

Simply: 1 + 1 = 2 = Colder than normal in Europe.

We all agree, except on the idea of: What Happens Next?

The science I have read for years now has constantly exclaimed that what is going to happen next is that we would see wild swings = "dramatic changes" in the weather. They have been correct all along.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. No, we don't know there are *any* changes in the Gulf Stream

It is possible there has been a change in the Gulf Stream (collecting and analysing the data on it takes time), but nothing at all in this thread, or anything I've seen reported this year, indicates it.

What has happened is decreasing Arctic sea ice, which has altered the winds coming to north-western Europe, which is colder than usual (notice that, for instance, eastern Europe was warmer than average in November)

[BeFree]

16. Exactly

The science has been exclaiming wild swings in temperatures, just like you have shown to know.

And the point is that the dramatic variability in the Gulf Stream is having an impact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I'[m not sure we're even talking the same language here; it's not 'exactly' at all

The Gulf Stream has been shown to be staying the same, over a period of years. It is not 'dissipating'. It has some natural variation, which appears always to have been there. There is no correlation claimed between this variation and any weather effect.

The cold winter in north-west Europe, this winter and last, is due to air currents. These are thought to be due to warmer Arctic waters, which cause higher Arctic atmospheric pressures, which alter the wind direction. If the Gulf Stream were to 'dissipate', ie not send so much warm water north, then it would cool Arctic waters, which would oppose the effect seen.

[BeFree]

21. Oh

So the increased sunlight on the Arctic waters is making the water warmer and melting the ice?

That isn't quite possible since it is winter now and the waters of the Arctic are showing the temps there to be cooler. Why cooler? Because the ice has melted, turning into liquids which makes the temps go down.

And then you turn the Gulf stream away and the moderating warm waters allow the water temps to go even lower.

So what then is melting the ice? Warmer air. And the warmer air does what? It holds more moisture, and when moisture laden air hits cold air what does it do? It precipitates.

Warm air expands, cold air contracts. When air expands it creates a higher pressure, which pushes out wards. When air cools it shrinks causing lower pressure gradients.

That's how the Arctic lows and the Bermuda highs get going.

Case in point: A hurricane is a low pressure system, right? Right. However, for a hurricane to develop it must first develop a high pressure system over the top.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Did you read the geologywales (reply #3) article?

If you did, and want me to paraphrase it, I will.

I have to say this again: the Gulf Stream has not 'turned away'.

And this has nothing at all to do with hurricanes. These are different forms of weather system.

[BeFree]

25. No

But here's what you said above:
"the Gulf Stream has been shown to be staying the same, over a period of years. It is not 'dissipating'. It has some natural variation, which appears always to have been there. There is no correlation claimed between this variation and any weather effect."

Yet even earlier you claimed that the warmer waters of the Arctic are causing weather effects.

Well, ocean temperature either effects weather changes or it doesn't. You need to decide.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Stream is changing, on schedule, as predicted. Just because you haven't read the science doesn't mean it hasn't. And, keep in mind that there are many powerful forces who will deny to their dying day that climate change and global warming have no correlation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. The Gulf Stream is in the Atlantic; the autumn ice is less in the Arctic

The Gulf Stream has not changed; the Arctic autumn ice has, because of general global warming. Yes, the warmer waters of the Arctic are causing weather effects in Europe; but, since the Gulf Stream has not changed, the Gulf Stream is not connected to this.

No, the Gulf Stream is not changing; you have no evidence whatsoever for that. On the contrary, the scientific evidence showed that the Gulf Stream has not changed. I have read the science; it was referred to in the BBC article entitled Gulf Stream 'is not slowing down'. So, no, there was no 'schedule' for the Gulf Stream to slow down to, and no slow down has occurred. Stop claiming that it has. The temperature change is in the Arctic, not the Atlantic; and it is an increase. The Gulf Stream is not dissipating.

[BeFree]

35. That's cute

The way you stomp your feet and rant.

The BBC article was like jello. It wiggled until it couldn't wiggle anymore. Like it said: It doesn't really know what's going on. But it's looking!!

Meanwhile all the predictions and assumptions are coming true and thrown in with the BBC statement of "dramatic variations" in the Stream and your argument, whatever it is, is sinking.

What is your argument? That everything is stable and will last forever and nothing can change the Gulf Stream?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. My argument is NASAs

The first week of December was a chilly one for much of Europe and parts of the United States. This image shows the temperature of the land surface for December 3-10, 2010, compared to the average temperature for the same period between 2002 and 2009. The measurements are from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

Clearly, 2010 was cooler than average in northern Europe and the eastern United States. Greenland and parts of northern Canada, however, were exceptionally warm. This temperature pattern was caused by the Arctic Oscillation.

The Arctic Oscillation is a climate pattern that influences winter weather in the northern hemisphere. It describes the relationship between high pressure in the mid-latitudes and low pressure over the Arctic. When the pressure systems are weak, the difference between them is small, and air from the Arctic flows south, while warmer air seeps north. This is referred to as a negative Arctic Oscillation. Like December 2009, the Arctic Oscillation was negative in early December 2010. Cold air from the Arctic channeled south around a blocking system over Greenland, while Greenland and northern Canada heated up.

The unusual cold brought heavy snow to Northern Europe, stopping flights and trains early in December. Cold temperatures and snow also closed roads and schools in the eastern United States and Canada during the first week of December. The diagonal path of a powerful winter storm is visible as a streak of cold across the Upper Midwest of the United States.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=47880&src=imgrss

See? Nothing to do with the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream has not changed. It's air currents. I'm not saying the Gulf Stream can never change; just that it hasn't changed yet, and that the reason for the recent weather is known. Your claims that 'predictions and assumptions' of change in the Gulf Stream are coming true is simply false. It has not changed.

[BeFree]

39. "It has not changed" Eh?

And that is where you sink. You don't KNOW that. You're adamant that you do, but you don't.

The BBC link claims that the Gulf Stream make for @ 4 degree temp elevation, so there ya go.
Take that away and Europe is colder, and it may be happening as we speak, what with the dramatic variations you linked too.

Winds are always blowing around the globe. From every direction. But the ocean currents are pretty much stable in one direction. There have been predictions and assumptions that the altered ice would cause change in the Gulf Stream and there is science backing just that. I noticed you attacked the messenger website and stayed clear of the message and the science in that other post. That was decidedly NOT cute.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. The scientists say it hasn't changed

I haven't made the measurements myself, but neither have you. Climate scientists, is the ones in Geophysical Research Letters, say the Gulf Stream has not changed.

We know what's happening know, and we know why. NASA tells us. It's the unusual air currents from the Arctic. The Gulf Stream is giving western Europe the same 4 degree elevation it has for thousands of years.

Some people speculated the Gulf Stream could change. They never set a time on it, and it hasn't happened yet.

If, by 'the messenger website' you means the global warming deniers and the chemtrail believers, of course I attacked them. They both tell lies for profit. If you think they have any credibility whatsoever, you are very vulnerable to getting ripped off by con artists. There is no 'science' from such sites. It's like 'debunking' Stormfront on matters of race - you know they lie for their own ends, and there's no point in taking into account their arguments.

[BeFree]

42. Read the link

The scientist there has been researching the Stream for years.

And remember your "dramatic variations" eh? Do you? Well, do you? What do you think that means?
It means it is changing. Gawd, how much more do you have to know before you know you don't f'n know?

Even your BBC link tells you, you don't f'n know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Which link? the 'sott' one?

'sott' is Signs Of The Times, which, as I have shown, is a site which denies that global warming is caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. There is no point in reading what they say, because they may well be lying. They're not a science site either. If they have, for once, written what a genuine scientist whose work is checked by others has said, then he'll have also said it somewhere reliable. Find me somewhere with any credibility whatsoever where he's said this, and I'll look.

If you mean another link, then specify which one.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

27. Thanks, Xicano

That's the guy I was reading about.

It's a damn scary scenario.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Those are a bunch of non-scientific con artists

"The Nutrimedical Report"? They are con artists trying to sell you 'supplements' who believe in chemtrails.

"Signs of The Times"? They are another kook website, trying to sell you things, who deny that global warming is caused by man-made carbon dioxide. Look at this bit with their comments on an excerpt from an article in The Independent about global warming - SOTT's comments are in italics:

The cold, hard facts about global warming

What do most scientists believe caused global warming?

Comment: Notice how the question is phrased: using the terms "most" and "believe." The word "most" is quite misleading, though "believe" is pretty much right on; has nothing to do with facts and data.


The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Comment: In fact, this is NOT true. It is an out and out lie.


It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would freeze.

Comment: So far, so good. But here comes the twist:


Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us warmer.

Comment: This is where we find the major dispute. It is clear that the amount of CO2 emissions that are produced by human beings in our time do not anywhere come close to the volumes of CO2 emissions that have been produced at other periods of history that did NOT result in Global Warming. So the human factor is very much in question.

Signs of The Times is a non-scientific, climate change denying website out to sell you the "Éiriú Eolas Program " for 'Stress Control, Healing and Rejuvenation'. It is a con.

Please, everybody, listen to climate scientists if you want to learn about climate science, not herbal pill pushers.

[hootinholler]

28. There was an odd deviation noted last January...

Here's the thread. Basically odd winds were causing a deviation in the GS sending it more westerly than usual.

-Hoot

[BeFree]

40. Good thread

Thanks for pulling that up. Read it back then... everyone should read it now.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

7. I've been dreading this

If the Gulf Stream shuts off, it's all over for the UK.

[XemaSab]

9. Not to mention virtually the entire northern hemisphere

:P

[yawnmaster]

33. I haven't been dreading that as much, since I'm in California...

but I have been dreading the earthquake that will destroy the state...
and also life destroying meteors.

oh and also lab created viruses that will destroy most of us ( and not by turning us into zombies, as that would be cool).

[MoonRiver]

10. Anybody ever watch "The Day After Tomorrow?"

The scenario was horrific. Due to climate change shutting down the Gulf Stream, the entire Northern Hemisphere becomes inhospitable to life. In the US our line of demarcation between life and death is Kansas. :scared:

[Phoonzang]

11. Is cold going to chase us down hallways, only to be stopped by a closed door?

Because that would be exciting. Also...wolves. Watch out for the vicious wolves stalking the frozen streets.

[yawnmaster]

30. Is it giant wolves? if not, I'm not interested...unless there are zombies...

or maybe giant snakes.
Tidal waves? meh.

[social_critic]

18. Reminds me of Armaggedon, the Bruce Willis movie

"The Day after Tomorrow" was junk science. If the Gulf Stream shuts down, the entire Northern Hemisphere doesn't become inhospitable to life. The argument made in the original post is also wacky - it just doesn't work the way the author postulates.

"Armageddon" was also junk science - they had Space Shuttles flying to an intercept of a giant meteorite - and the meteorite looked like the spiky hair on a punk rocker. Plus the "oil well drillers" were a joke, as were the "NASA spacemen". That movie had so much junk science, I like to watch it just to laugh at it.

[Odin2005]

37. The plot was based on kookery by Art Bell.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. That movie is awesomely fun but also full of horrible science.

[Kaleva]

36. "The Day After Tomorrow" is to climate science as "Frankenstein" is to brain surgery.

[malaise]

15. Winter was horrific in Europe last year and that was

before the Gulf oil spill.

[pintobean]

29. An inconvenient truth

that was totally ignored.

[social_critic]

17. A better answer, and a question: Which pollluted waters from the G of M?

I don't see any evidence regarding more pollution coming out of the Gulf of Mexico via the Loop Current. Also, the scenario that melt water is pushing the warm water away is incorrect. The system may be getting jammed if there's too much fresh water on top, this precludes it from sinking and activating the countercurrent which flows in deep water (the conveyor).

I would study this fascinating subject a bit more, it's really interesting - but the arguments you make are what one finds in a Hollywood movie - in other words, they're not realistic.

[BeFree]

22. ok

One, the Gulf of Mexico is polluted, and the polluted waters are entering the Gulf Stream. What effect it is having is the question. Some think that it is allowing the warm and cold waters to mix easier.

Two, where is this fresh water coming from? From ice melt. If ice was building it would be sucking warm water towards the ice, instead it is dumping fresh cold water into the Atlantic. A reversal, eh?

And, the colder fresh water laid out over the warm Gulf Stream is cooling the Gulf Stream, right?

Now, mix in the polluted Gulf Stream with all that soap they dumped on the oil and it makes it even easier for the cold water to mix with the warm water, causing the Gulf Stream to do what? Cool.

[yawnmaster]

32. there is a basic problem with your premise. melting ice at the arctic is actually adding warmer...

water, at least at the surface to about 150 meters down.
The melting fresh water is 0 degrees C. (if it were colder fresh water it would still be ice).
The water temperature under the ice (0 to about -150 meters) is about a degree less than 0, about -1 degrees C.
The melting ice (fresh) water is actually warmer then the subzero salt water at the surface.

Also, I would like a link, if you have it, that describes the property of the soap that allows hot and cold water to mix easier so I can see the metric.