New Study Indicates Gulf Stream Shutting Down Due to Global Warming

a reply to: mc_squared

Your welcome. The point of asking people to read it was to show that the way he compiled the first dataset is what came under fire, not the shape. The shape was only an issue on breitbart.com...

originally posted by: Flavian

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.........

pesn.com...

Posted this several years ago, not sure if this exact link however.

I think anyone who doesn't believe there is something like climate change, is just incapable of learning anything.

BUT, I also think the current "religion" of " human causality behind global warming" is a complete fraud.

There have been times in the recent human planetary past that were much warmer than now, and even a mini ice age after that warmer time.

There are stone barns, built by Vikings in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period, that remain under ice today.

The odds are pretty good right now, that we are going to have a catastrophic trend of cooling that negatively impacts human societies.

We have NASA come out and publicly say "2014 is the warmest year on record", and within a week, we see the raw data set that shows a cooling trend... and learn NASA had to "adjust the data" in order to reach their conclusion... a data adjustment that shows a blatant trend in opposition to their claim... and yet not a word from supporters of AGW, even "it's regrettable how NASA handled the data."

If you can't call out un-ethical behavior of those whose ideological positions you support, you undermine the very ground you stand on and don't deserve to be treated with respect.

Finally, OP, I have to say... I find it stunning you would include a video referencing Al Gore on the issue of climate change... a man, who... if he has his way on the topic, stands to become wildly wealthy as a result of the creation of new markets to leverage up and bubble out as a New Frontier of Pump and Dump.

Any issue with the level of politicalization as this issue, is rife with fraud, conflicting agendas, and bankers looking for a new market to loot.

a reply to: Justoneman

Before falling to the dark side, take a look at this paper:
On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20 years of direct measurements (subscription required).

Here about the author:
Rossby: Gulf Stream is Not Slowing

As you prefer the reality of measurements instead of simulation and fantasy, you will appreciate for sure.

An American scientist (can`t remember his name) won a Nobel prize several years ago showing how the warming of the planet would in fact cause the next ice age. It goes like this, the gulf stream is what brings warm ocean currents and air to the northern latitudes,giving Europe its relatively balmy temperatures given that Europe is so far north. When temperatures rise and start melting the ice the fresh water pours into the ocean and sinks below due to the different buoyancy it has in comparison to salt water.This interferes with the jet stream that brings warm water north, eventually stopping it. With no influx of warm ocean currents the north is left with the bitter cold that normally occurs in the higher latitudes.Direct sunlight doesn`t occur like it does at the equator,it`s more glancing and far less of it actually penetrates our atmosphere up north. So without the counter balance the gulf stream provides it gets cold- fast.
I find it absolutely amazing how perfect the Earth is designed. When something is over done the consequences of that stress on the planet usually results in something happening(often cataclysmaliclly) that offsets the event causing the stress. This sometimes takes millions of years for the Earth to get healthy again, but in a lifetime of billions of years that`s like us being sick for a few days.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Elementalist

Well that's a relief. All those scientists with their fancy data and booksmarts had me worried for a minute. When my grandkids ask why the world they live in sucks so hard - I'll just point them to your reassuring post.

You can always tell your grandkids that mankind doesn't control nature, or the universe, and we have to adapt as much as we can. OR do you want to tell them that they can control nature, and the universe to do what you and your grand kids want?

You are going to stand there and claim that nothing similar has ever happened before?... That mankind didn't have to adapt to "climate changes" in the past?...

The Earth is undergoing dramatic changes which have nothing to do with CO2, nor anthropogenic CO2.

How convenient is it for you to forget the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been changing dramatically, and it's weaker now than it has been for a long time... In fact it has been weakening since the 1840s-1860s.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

Changes in the Earth's magnetic field have been known to cause changes in the climate.

Impact of the geomagnetic field and solar radiation on climate change

According to an Italian-French-American research team the Earth's magnetic field can reverse extremely fast. In fact, within a human lifetime.

Extremely rapid directional change during Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic polarity reversal

Leonardo Sagnotti1,
Giancarlo Scardia2,3,
Biagio Giaccio2,
Joseph C. Liddicoat4,
Sebastien Nomade5,
Paul R. Renne6,7 and
Courtney J. Sprain6,7

- Author Affiliations

1Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, I-00143 Roma, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
2Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNR, Monterotondo, I-00015 Rome, Italy
3Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, 05508-120, Brasil
4Barnard College, Columbia University, NY 10027, USA
5Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement, UMR 8212, CEA/CNRS/UVSQ, F-91190 Gif-Sur-Yvette, France
6Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
7Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Accepted 2014 July 21.
Received 2014 July 3.
In original form 2014 May 14.

...
During the terminus of the upper RPI minimum, a directional change of about 180 ° occurred at an extremely fast rate, estimated to be less than 2 ° per year, with no intermediate virtual geomagnetic poles (VGPs) documented during the transit from the southern to northern hemisphere. Thus, the entry into the Brunhes Normal Chron as represented by the palaeomagnetic directions and VGPs developed in a time interval comparable to the duration of an average human life, which is an order of magnitude more rapid than suggested by current models.
...

Extremely rapid directional change during Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic polarity reversal

From 1994.

Geomagnetism, volcanoes, global climate change, and predictability. A progress report
G. P. Gregori

Abstract
A model is investigated, by which the encounters of the solar system with dense interstellar clouds ought to trigger either geomagnetic field reversals or excursions, that produce extra electric currents within the Earth dynamo, that cause extra Joule's heating, that supplies volcanoes and endogenous processes. Volcanoes increase the Earth degassing into the atmosphere, hence the concentration of the minor atmospheric constituents, including the greenhouse gases, hence they affect climate temperature, glacier melting, sea level and global change. This investigation implies both theoretical studies and observational data handling on different time scales, including present day phenomena, instrumental data series, historical records, proxy data, and geological and palaeontological evidences. The state of the art is briefly outlined, mentioning some already completed achievements, investigations in progress, and future perspectives.

www.annalsofgeophysics.eu...


How convenient for you to forget the fact that it has been shown that underwater volcanoes have been melting glaciers in Antarctica.





Or the fact that such warming from underwater volcanoes can affect climate change.

New Research Shows Southern Ocean as a Powerful Influence on Climate Change

Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate
February 5, 2015
New Data Show Strikingly Regular Patterns, From Weeks to Eons


Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years—and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses—apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth’s orbit, and to sea levels--may help trigger natural climate swings. Scientists have already speculated that volcanic cycles on land emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide might influence climate; but up to now there was no evidence from submarine volcanoes. The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
...

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...


How convenient for you to forget that if the claim behind CO2 being the cause of these changes then GCMs would be more accurate and they aren't...



Less than 5% "prediction" is less than what you would get from luck. So GCMs are not very lucky... and don't work at all because they try to pin climate changes on CO2...

But like always this will be dismissed by those who "just want to believe they have the power over nature and the universe."

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: mc_squared

I just watched James Hansen's latest (I think he did one or two before) Ted Talk and he talked about a neutral carbon pricing plan that made a lot of sense to me.

Now the tragedy about climate change is that we can solve it with a simple, honest approach of a gradually rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies and distributed 100 percent electronically every month to all legal residents on a per capita basis, with the government not keeping one dime. Most people would get more in the monthly dividend than they'd pay in increased prices. This fee and dividend would stimulate the economy and innovations, creating millions of jobs. It is the principal requirement for moving us rapidly to a clean energy future.

Several top economists are coauthors on this proposition. Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection describes it thusly: "Transparent. Market-based. Does not enlarge government. Leaves energy decisions to individual choices. Sounds like a conservative climate plan."

Link to transcript.

But what you are talking about is a droplet of water in a swimming pool. Humans and the filth we produce can not, and does not significantly affect the environment. Even an all out nuclear war wouldn't do as much as some believe. While cutting pollution, using more green energy and avoiding nukes is a great idea, it is not the emergency the "Global Warming" crowd makes it out to be. We are insignificant...we think we matter and therefore think we affect the universe. We don't...we can't and this is all part of the cycle and process of the universe.

Better than trying to stop something that is far, far, far beyond our control, lets do what we have rarely done before. Prepare for it. Spend the money and effort on preparing for the problems coming...don't waste it trying to fix something that is unfixable. American...at least...has this stupid idea that if the economy is not doing well, we should throw money at failing corporations. If a corporation is failing...that is a good thing. Survival of the fittest is what a strong economy is all about. If we are going to go into a depression...why throw money at a company that is doing poorly to artificially make it look better when that money could be better spent on supporting the out-of-work people WHEN the company fails, instead of wasting it on a dying beast.

Same with the "Global Warming" stuff. We probably couldn't cause this if we tried...we don't matter that much. So spend the time, money and effort on preparing for the inevitable.

IMHO!

originally posted by: dasman888
I think anyone who doesn't believe there is something like climate change, is just incapable of learning anything.

BUT, I also think the current "religion" of " human causality behind global warming" is a complete fraud.

There have been times in the recent human planetary past that were much warmer than now, and even a mini ice age after that warmer time.

There are stone barns, built by Vikings in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period, that remain under ice today.

The odds are pretty good right now, that we are going to have a catastrophic trend of cooling that negatively impacts human societies.

We have NASA come out and publicly say "2014 is the warmest year on record", and within a week, we see the raw data set that shows a cooling trend... and learn NASA had to "adjust the data" in order to reach their conclusion... a data adjustment that shows a blatant trend in opposition to their claim... and yet not a word from supporters of AGW, even "it's regrettable how NASA handled the data."

If you can't call out un-ethical behavior of those whose ideological positions you support, you undermine the very ground you stand on and don't deserve to be treated with respect.

Finally, OP, I have to say... I find it stunning you would include a video referencing Al Gore on the issue of climate change... a man, who... if he has his way on the topic, stands to become wildly wealthy as a result of the creation of new markets to leverage up and bubble out as a New Frontier of Pump and Dump.

Any issue with the level of politicalization as this issue, is rife with fraud, conflicting agendas, and bankers looking for a new market to loot.

I feel fairly confident that EVERYONE knows there is climate change. What us skeptics DON'T believe is that we have such a significant impact that WE are the cause of it. While this isn't stated directly at you...it is for the Global Warming crowd. If humans never existed, you are saying that climate change wouldn't exist. THAT is what you preach. And you are so wrong it is unfathomable. Climate change is part of...well...the climate. The Earth has gone through the ups and downs for billions of years. WE have little to do with it. We are the scratch on your forehead after a car crash that has broken all your bones.

Should we be more careful with the environment...of course. Do we need an emergency procedure, laws and a has-been ex-vice-president telling us we have to stop everything to fix what the Earth has been doing for billions of years? No way!

When has the earth gone through this before?
This is the age when when we can read the latest research in an instant.
And yet you espouse beliefs not supported by any research.
I'll stick with the scientific community and facts.reply to: ATF1886

a reply to: mc_squared

I think you misunderstand what that means. Greenland FULLY REBOUNDS during the winter. However there is more ice lost in the summer. What does that mean? A net loss of ice throughout the year. The sheet however, is not any smaller during the winter according to satellite data.

That is what

Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year

means. It means at the end of the year there is 200 Gt/yr less ice per year, but that is due to the extra melt in the summer months. Over all, the ice shelf remains the same, for nearly the same period of time, during the winter months.

Does this mean I disagree that we are warming? No, I absolutely think we are warming and have stated as much in the past and my post history shows that. However, we are not in the middle of catastrophic climate change.

a reply to: mbkennel

I read your link and while Dr Rahmstorf's science is sound, the way he interprets it is not. One person in the comments even shows that he was flat out wrong on one of his "facts" about ice coverage. However, what nails the coffin shut on his opinion for me is how he ends the essay:

This May, for the first time in at least a million years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has exceeded the threshold of 400 ppm. If we do not stop this trend very soon, we will not recognize our Earth by the end of this century.

400 PPM Is not a threshold. It is only a threshold to CC Alarmists and fear mongers.

co2 isn't playing as big a factor as you think and is even outlined in the latest IPCC report: Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate which clearly states the next step for co2 is 600PPM, the result would be a ~.08c increase in temperature. The next way-point? 2100 PPM. Guess how much? 0.09-0.10c...co2 warming is logarithmic. Do you know how much PPM we would need to have a runaway greenhouse effect? 30,000 PPM It would need to be 10,000 PPM before it starts to affect humans, 20,000 PPM in a negative way. Do you know how much PPM we would need to lose our glaciers? 3,000 PPM.

The best times for flora and fauna in the past were when the earth had significantly higher concentrations of co2. And yes, 400 PPM is high when compared to the last 1m years, however before then? If you look at the Phanerozoic over time you see that we are actually at very low levels still...

I authored a post previously concerning leading climate scientists, all of whom have contributed to the IPCC, who in testimony to congress stated that mans contributions to co2 could be completely undone if man committed to things like reforestation.

That thread is here

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
if the gulf stream is slowed/impacted, wouldn't that make northern climes colder, bringing in a rapid building of the ice caps?

I get the "drag" effect of the rushing waters in the gulf stream. And i get that there would be a period of increase.

But wouldn't a gulf stream slowing also create a much colder northern climate with shorter warm seasons and much more brutal winters?

Great OP, by the way.

At its latitude, England/Scotland should have considerably colder temperature averages. It is due to the action of the Gulf Stream circulating warmer water from the tropical region that the weather there is distinctly different from other areas, like Nova Scotia. A massive slowing, pronounced southern shifting or complete cessation of that current would have drastic and fairly rapid climate effects on the eastern Atlantic coastal regions in this hemisphere. Well, within a certain range of latitudes.

originally posted by: ATF1886
These are all phases the earth goes through this is nothing new.

the only thing that has changed is that there is more carbon dioxide in the air well that's not a problem the earth actually needs it.

It's always the same one person cried global warming while the same person will call global cooling as well there are far greater things to worry about than global warming.

just my two cents don't take my head off...
😬😬

You are entirely correct that the climate has gone through warming and cooling cycles, and the geological record confirms this as well. And you are also correct about the increase in atmospheric CO2. But if you will kindly indulge me, what exactly do you mean by 'the world needs it'?

originally posted by: ATF1886
I dont know if i could do warmer in Florida we are already in the 80's to mid 80's this summer is goin to be brutal..a reply to: olaru12

I have to say, the Miami weather has been quite enjoyable so far. Though, as I am not from this area, and only here for work, I have no idea what to expect from summer.
Thankfully I will be leaving again before it has a chance to get into full swing.

originally posted by: BlueMule
Well it's certainly interesting times we live in. It's probably too late to do much except live each day as if it were your last and make peace with whatever higher power you believe in.

👣

I have read your posts and comments in other threads. I must say, the defeatist attitude of this statement does not sound much like you. Hope that dark cloud moves from over your head soon...

Cheer up, they haven't stolen your kidneys yet!
Pfishy.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: ATF1886
All summers down here are brutal, i hope this one ain't any worse,Miami usually hits low 90's which in some states would be fine but the humidity here is almost unbearable.

Ah, that answers my previous question nicely. And being that I am from south Louisiana, and deal with high humidity and mid to upper 90s in the summers regularly, the constant ocean breeze here should make low 90s pretty much comfortable.

originally posted by: dasman888
There have been times in the recent human planetary past that were much warmer than now, and even a mini ice age after that warmer time.

There are stone barns, built by Vikings in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period, that remain under ice today.

There are?

Any examples of such? At one point, there were structures buried by glacial sand and permafrost, but glacial ice would have scraped away evidence of a structure.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: ATF1886

You know its kinda scary when you guess my county right... hmmm your a CIA agent lmao I've lived my entire life in Florida I love hurricanes I'm waiting lol I've heard every year this is the year blah bla blah and on and on and so forth still haven't gotten anything decent since andrew...

i live in the panhandle, ivan was pretty sporty. i felt the effects of that one for a couple of years.

Katrina, Rita and Gustav were definitely interesting experiences where I live. Thankfully, I don't live in New Orleans, mainly because I'd rather not have to be in constant fear for the safety and lives of my family and myself. Yeah, rich history and culture, huge party town, blah blah blah. New Orleans is a terrible place.

a reply to: Entreri06

I don't believe for a second that the world's scientists are working for Obama. Like most people they are working for themselves.

Also, the ones who aren't just blindly working with the data they're given without questioning it, or are using the models they're provided without questioning them, are just working with the status quo because they know how dissent is rewarded.

You don't understand how paradigms and the scientific machina works if you think that all scientists have to be "IN" on a conspiracy for the paradigm to be completely wrong and for many scientists to KNOW that it's wrong but keep working with it anyways.

Their dire warnings have proven to be false time and time again, how anyone can NOT be questioning their models and therefore their entire premise is beyond me.

Jaden

p.s. Keep on keepin' on with that you must be crazy to anyone who disagrees with you, those ad hominems work great...

a reply to: mc_squared

thermohaline circulation takes thousands of years to complete one cycle. www.wisegeek.com...

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
But what you are talking about is a droplet of water in a swimming pool. Humans and the filth we produce can not, and does not significantly affect the environment. Even an all out nuclear war wouldn't do as much as some believe

Humans have changed the rotation of the planet (minutely) by building huge dams, so don't be naive - of course we can change the environment.

Take Oklahoma - once upon a time, there were very few trees in much of the central and western parts of the state. Many of the trees that did exist were cut for structures by settlers who moved in during the land runs. Many of these people didn't know how to farm and even those who did didn't work with the land. As soils were used for crops, the native grass was destroyed. This grass was much more drought-tolerant than the crops these settlers were planting.

Then, drought and the dust bowls came, and a whole lot of topsoil blew away - sometimes it blew far, far away. Enough to cloud the sky in Washington and coat the decks of ships off the east coast. After an education and forestry campaign led by the federal government, a vast network of shelterbelts (now deteriorating) was planted - and individuals planted windbreaks around their farms. This reduces the wind speeds across fields and helps to keep the soil on the ground. Many of those windbreaks can be seen today, just driving around.