Slashdot Mirror


Failing Ocean Current Raises Fears of Mini Ice Age

Designadrug writes "This article from Newscientist paints a picture of a major climate control mechanism teetering on the brink: "The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age. The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.""

10 of 568 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bring warm water in by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't make anything that would work on that massive a scale without spending as much money as would be lost if South America suddenly vanished. Nature is much bigger and more powerful than us and is totally beyond our control through methods like that.

    --
    I am Spartacus
  2. Re:Careful there... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because obviously, following a treaty designed to economically punish the United States for a few years would have solved all of this.

    Regardless of the economical consequences, wasn't the Kyoto protocol designed to prevent global warming?

    Oh, but the moment it has any economical consequences, suddenly it's an evil plot to take money away from "our precious and beloved country!"

    Sorry to crush you with this, but the world's needs are more important than a few enterprises' economical whims.

  3. Re:no more blame game by Peyna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why?

    who cares why! forget the blame game!

    just deal with it!


    It's easier to solve a problem if you know what caused the problem. Otherwise you're just applying bandages.

    --
    What?
  4. Bad news for Turtle Island too. by Apuleius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the Gulf Stream isn't pushing as much water toward Europe, then the water is lingering longer in the Gulf of Mexico, which goes a long way to explain why so many storms churned up to Category 5 hurricanes as soon as they reached the Gulf all through this autumn. Doesn't sound like fun for North America either.

  5. Re:no more blame game by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The climate has been changing since before humans evolved. How do you know what's causing it now? Sure, there may be a correlation between industrialization and mean global temperature, but how do you prove causation?

    Generally the argument goes something like this:

    1. It's a perfectly observable, testable fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide can trap heat - in precis: it lets ultraviolet and visible light from the sun through, but reflects the radiated heat that the earth converts the ultraviolet and visible light into back. For detail you can read the fine points here. It comes down to basic well known physics.
    2. Since the industrial revolution we have produced a very large amount of carbon dioxide in comparison the natural fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels. In practice this means we have produced sufficient carbon dioxide that we currently have the highest levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 650,000 years, fully 30% higher than at any time in the past, and easily (by an order of magnitude or so) the largest short term fluctuation in the last 650,000 years. Given that according to that same ice core record (and others covering slightly shorter historical time frames) there is a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature one would expect we may see some repurcussions
    3. Historical temperature reconstructions, created by cross referencing between different proxy data series from around the world (including glaciers, ice cores, tree ring data etc.) show a distinct upturn in temperature over the last 200 years that is unprecendented in the last 2000 years or more. We are coming out of a "little ice age" 400 years ago, and there are natural fluctuations, but the very dramatic acceleration in increase in global temperature appears well beyond what might be expected from natural processes alone. Here is a nice chart showing 10 different, largely independent, historical temperature reconstructions showing how closely they agree on general trends, and how dramatic the current change really is.

    Is that conclusive proof? No, but then we don't have conclusive proof of general relativity or evolution either, we've just got a lot of good evidence. There's a lot more evidence that the 3 points laid out above as well, but they provide the solid backbone: atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat; human activity has produced an unprecedented spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels; the beginnings of the acceleration in warming predicted by such a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide has been observed.

    Jedidiah.
  6. Re:Careful there... by rannala · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Because obviously, following a treaty designed to economically punish the United States for a few years would have solved all of this.

    I don't know if the treaty makes any difference, but do you really think the climate change is not going to punish the USA economically?

  7. Re:FUD? by Minimind · · Score: 4, Insightful
    State of Fear has very silly politics and terrible science.

    Do you really think it realistic that huge, powerful, and rich environmental organisations would perform evil acts that only employees of sensible and socially responsible oil companies can save us from? Is it reasonable or realistic that environmental scientists, who in the real world are willing to forgo lucrative careers to take low-paid academic positions because they love and care about researching the natural world, would cause massive destruction of the natural world to score political points?

    In the real world, who has the most money for public relations and the most political capital? The ex-chief executive officer of the giant energy corporation Halliburtons is the vice president of the USA for goodness sake. Could the head of Greenpeace ever hope to reach such an influential and powerful position?

    All the local environmental fund raising events I've been involved with have been in conjuction with people that have very little financial resources but care deeply about recycling, local environment issues, etc. Very different from Crichton's own protagonist, who zips about the world in a Gulfstream Jet.

  8. Re:Careful there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, no. It was not. Kyoto was designed to slow the rate of global warming by a little bit as a first baby step and temporary stop-gap measure to get the ball rolling so that the world community could start talking about what to do as a real solution. Kyoto was never designed to solve the problem (and anyone who claims that is lying, probably trying to smear it with the tired "Kyoto won't fix anything therefore we shouldn't do it" line).

    So what we are seeing is the right-wing fuckers and the Bush administration crying like babies over the introductory step towards the problem. It took seven fucking years to get even the first hint of action, something that was only supposed to slow it and give us a little more time while we cleaned up our act for real. At this rate, the real solutions will never come. Many climatologists already believe we have passed the point of no return, the only question is how bad will it get before whatever fixes we do finally adopt take effect. But we know the next hundred years are only going to get worse, there is nothing we can do about that. Right now, we are fighting for the fifth or sixth generation ahead of us, whom we will never see.

    Kyoto was not designed to fix anything. It was an introduction to real discussion. And we killed it, and with it any hope for our future for generations to come.

    (While I'm at it, China and India both signed Kyoto, and they will both be subjected to the same restrictions that we would have been within ten years, for the restrictions ratchets up on them as their economies ramp up. And going by standard of living, both China and India are still third-world and will be for a while yet. They will be regulated as first-world nations when they will have barely reached second-world status. "Economic catastrophe for the U.S.," my ass!)

  9. Re:Global Warming! by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suppose someone tries to make decisisions about how to handle their health from 2 measurements taken just seconds apart?

    Really, depends if you're having a heart attack or not.

    Medic 1: "Nah, look he's fine, his long-term yearly heart rate has only dropped 0.05%"
    Medic 2: "But he's turning blue... and he's stopped thrashing about!"
    Medic 1: "Look,long term averages show that this is just a minor blip. He'll be up and about in no time!"

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  10. Re:Careful there... by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So Americans should have to accept smaller cars, because, why exactly?


    Because they pollute less. Because they take less space, reducing the severity of traffic-jams.

    We don't have the European knack for legislating what people can do.


    There is no legislation in Europe which mandates people to buy small cars. People just realized that they do not need over 2 tons of metal around to move their ass around the city. and they realized that in small cars are much more convenient than humungous cars. We do have taxation on gasoline that makes small cars more attractive though.

    If you'd read my comments in the past you've probably heard me lamenting the fact that nobody will build the type of car I want -- a small compact 100% electric vehicle. But nowhere in those comments will you see me suggesting that the government should step in and prohibit people from buying SUVs.


    Where exactly have I said that sales of SUV's should be prohibited? They are not prohibited in Europe either. The difference between USA and Europe seems to be that the government is actively pushing people to buy SUV's, by excluding them from fual-consumption and emission-regulations.

    Why is it that everyone living in Europe insists on telling Americans how to live?


    In this particular case: because Americans are wasting resources that

    a) should not be wasted because it's a finite resource
    b) they are harming the globe with their wasteful lifestyle
    c) they could manage just fine without wasting those resources

    If Americans were wasting their own resources and they only harmed themselves, I wouldn't complain. But they are wasting resources which is shared with others, and they are harming others while doing so. That is why I (and many others) complain.

    And this isn't a case of "telling Americans how to live". This was a question of cutting down emissions. EU was willing to do it, USA was not. No-one was telling USA how they should cut their emissions, only that they should cut their emissions.

    You don't seem to grasp the distances involved and the (lack of) population density in the rural areas of the United States.


    I grasp them just fine. What you don't seem to grasp is that most Americans don't live in rural areas. Finland's population-density is even lower than USA's is, and yet we seem to manage just fine.

    And that example is nothing compared to the low population and distances in the American west.


    Every single American lives in the "west"? I don't think so.

    Why is it that everybody gets all offended when they perceive the United States to be forcing our way of life on other cultures but they turn around and try to do the same thing to us?


    I don't give a flying fuck how Americans live as such. What I do care is that what they are doing to the globe. And I do get annoyed when they waste finite resources and harm the globe while doing so. If you had a next-door neighour that liked to burn old car-tires in his backyard, and the smoke spread to your yard, would you complain? If you did, wouldn't you be telling him "how he should live"? Same thing here: USA is wasting finite resources and they are harming others while doing so. They also absolutely refuse to do anything about it. And when other complain about it, you start to whine?

    Many people perceive USA as being very selfish on this issue, and with good reason.
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.