New Study Indicates Gulf Stream Shutting Down Due to Global Warming

Pretty sure this started happening with the Deepwater Disaster. The effects were noticed near immediately and they have been getting worse ever since.

It is a convenient idea to blame it on global warming though.

How many meters would sea level increase? O.o

originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
Pretty sure this started happening with the Deepwater Disaster. The effects were noticed near immediately and they have been getting worse ever since.

It is a convenient idea to blame it on global warming though.

In addition to being 'convenient', it's also correct, thanks to the facts of geography and physics.

The "Gulf Stream" is not in the Gulf of Mexico, the location of the oil spill.

Next the oil spill had influence for a few months, not many years. And finally there is no physical explanation involving oil spills and large-scale changes in current, whereas with thermohaline circulation there is 80 years of research and observations, including specific observations about this particular phenomenon, now.

Or do you think science is just guessing?

"From the “we told you so yesterday” and the “settled science” department. This study was released in 2010, and they used actual measurements, rather than proxy data and reconstructions like Mann did. Gee, what a concept!
NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing
03.25.10 wattsupwiththat.com... "

if global warming is 'global' one would think south pole would melt too... but in fact ice sheet on Antarctica was at record highs in 2014 (since measurements started)...

funny thing, pseudoscientists are blaming... take a guess: global warming

hilarious

originally posted by: Frocharocha
How many meters would sea level increase? O.o

Commentary on this that I have seen has suggested that the current diminishes the sea level up to a meter or even a meter and a half along the east coast.

So, if it goes... yeah, there will be problems.

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
if global warming is 'global' one would think south pole would melt too... but in fact ice sheet on Antarctica was at record highs in 2014 (since measurements started)...

funny thing, pseudoscientists are blaming... take a guess: global warming

hilarious

Speaking of pseudoscientists, your claim seems like pseudoscience. Care to support it?

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Could Fukushima radiation and the oil spill in the gulf be to blame?

Extremely unlikely, to the point of a zero probability.
When speaking of a circulation system such as this, you are dealing with dynamics and quantities of energy on exponentially larger scales than either of those two events could even begin to effect. While they were both large in scale for what they were, when talking about ocean currents like this one, Nature takes less notice of events like that than you would a grain of sand in your shoe.
The oil spill and meltdowns really did nothing more than increase the toxicity where they occurred. And while it's possible that the dark oil slick absorbed more solar energy and raised the immediate surface temperature where it was, it would have been a negligible amount and long dissipated now.
The main factor in changing the Gulf Stream would be an increase in glacial melting and cold, fresh water flowing into the northern Atlantic. Due do the difference in density between fresh and salt water, this influx disrupts the northern loop of the Gulf Stream, where it runs closer to the surface, and causes it to either diminish in volume, shorten it's flow pattern, or stop entirely.

a reply to: donhuangenaro

That isn't how it works. We are definitely warming, that is an indisputable fact.

funny thing how people believe scientists everything they say without a question (similar to religious people believing in anything preachers say)... yes, scientists are saints, they can not be corrupted or make fraud...

dream on

here is a little example of a typical scientific fraud:



and for the ice on the antarctica:

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Ha.. that poor station has become a chestnut. But alas... seems it's you that has been played the fool.

What the figure above shows is a number of data points that fail quality control, and it also shows two stations moves; one just after 1970, and the other just after 2005. Given that anomalies are determined relative to some long-term baseline, you have to remove any data points that fail quality control, and you need to adjust the temperatures to account for station moves (or for other non-climatic influences, such as time of observation changes).

If you look again at the information for this station the trend before adjustments was -1.37oC per century, after quality control it was -0.89oC per century, and after adjusting for the station moves was +1.36oC per century. Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century, and for the country for the same months it is +1.28oC per century. So, not only can one justify the adjustments, the result of the adjustments is consistent with what would be expected for that region and for the country.

And Then There's Physics

a reply to: Kali74

what part of the 'scientific fraud' you don't understand?

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Is up also down?
Are you posting from opposite world?

There was nothing fraudulent about adjusting that particular data.

a reply to: Kali74

looks to me that up is down to you...

heat creates cold...

war is peace

etc...

ta-ta

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Not going to explain why it's fraudulent? You stopped by just long enough to take a dump and without so much as a squirt of air-freshener you're gonna bail? How rude...

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.

I hope to God not, because I really don't want to have to sell my house and move. Which I will do if there's another winter or two like this last one in Chicago. Seriously, if the climate is going to go out of whack, how about making parts of Africa a bit cooler with more rainfall and cutting us some slack!!

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
and for the ice on the antarctica:

www.nasa.gov...

I think you misunderstand. That is sea ice - ice around Antarctica - not on the continent nor on the ice shelf.

This sea ice is seasonal and more sea ice does not mean good things for the ice shelf - it might be indicative of increased melting of the ice shelf into the ocean. Ice is mostly fresh water and salty seawater does not freeze as easily as fresh water.

a reply to: mc_squared

Well, I hate to say it, but I already saw the documentary on how this all ends. You can all watch it as well, it's on Blu-Ray now!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Justoneman

What is H2?

If you mean Hydrogen then how do you plan on acquiring it without massive amounts of energy expended?

MTSU's H2 car uses batteries that gets the energy from solar panels... I have been saying this on ATS for a long time now... The powers that be want oil so they can TAX us to death is my conclusion. All this other stuff about man made warming, climate change, now warming again is to convince the masses to fork over money. No offense folks, but that is the real story and why i keep saying we are being played like a fine fiddle.

China is now reporting they will be using a Hydrogen powered tram/train..... I was saying they would beat us to the punch on this a long time back. We have let the politicians give their buddies our alternative energy monies while our enemies get it done.

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Steve McIntyre at Climate audit is doing a audit of the paper and has a new post up .

Rahmstorf and Mann’s results are not based on proxies for Atlantic current velocity, but on a network consisting of contaminated Tiljander sediments (upside-down or not), Graybill’s stripbark bristlecone chronologies, Briffa MXD series truncated to hide-the-decline and hundreds of nondescript tree ring series statistically indistinguishable from white noise. In other words, they used the same much-criticized proxy network as Mann et al 2008-9. It’s hard to understand why anyone would seriously believe (let alone publish in peer reviewed literature) that Atlantic ocean currents could be reconstructed by such dreck, but Rahmstorf et al 2015 stands as evidence to the contrary.

climateaudit.org...