Slashdot Mirror
Ocean Current That Keeps Europe Warm Is Weakening Because of Climate Change (washingtonpost.com)
The Washington Post: The Atlantic Ocean circulation that carries warmth into the Northern Hemisphere's high latitudes is slowing down because of climate change, a team of scientists asserted Wednesday, suggesting one of the most feared consequences is already coming to pass (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has declined in strength by 15 percent since the mid-20th century to a "new record low," the scientists conclude in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature. That's a decrease of 3 million cubic meters of water per second, the equivalent of nearly 15 Amazon rivers.
The AMOC brings warm water from the equator up toward the Atlantic's northern reaches and cold water back down through the deep ocean. The current is partly why Western Europe enjoys temperate weather, and meteorologists are linking changes in North Atlantic Ocean temperatures to recent summer heat waves. The circulation is also critical for fisheries off the U.S. Atlantic coast, a key part of New England's economy that have seen changes in recent years, with the cod fishery collapsing as lobster populations have boomed off the Maine coast.
The AMOC brings warm water from the equator up toward the Atlantic's northern reaches and cold water back down through the deep ocean. The current is partly why Western Europe enjoys temperate weather, and meteorologists are linking changes in North Atlantic Ocean temperatures to recent summer heat waves. The circulation is also critical for fisheries off the U.S. Atlantic coast, a key part of New England's economy that have seen changes in recent years, with the cod fishery collapsing as lobster populations have boomed off the Maine coast.
Don't get me wrong, I personally think that ACC is real, and a problem. But––
The story I heard on NPR [1] today said:
...scientists disagree about what's behind the sluggish ocean current...
but did go on to say:
The only thing we really can do is obviously try and prevent global warming because that's the root cause of why we think it's weakening now...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13...
Amazon sells about 30-40 million books, the Library of Congress has about that many.
So an Amazon is roughly equal to a Library of Congress.
and I'm getting about a foot of global warming deposited onto my driveway. Yup, this science is definitely settled.
Well, as long as it's only a foot of global warming then there's nothing to worry your little head about.
But if you were getting a foot of climate change that's a whole other thing. We all (well those of us with more than about two neurons to rub together and who have been paying attention) know that climate change means more extreme swings in intensity. What once would have been some late season flurries can now be <gasp> a foot of snow with an increase in intensity.
So yeah, IMO, your foot of snow in mid-April definitely fits the Climate Change science.
And do let us know what your particular qualifications are. I'm sure your AA from Hicks and Rubes in Flyover State Community College puts you in a unique position to play armchair meteorologist with the big boys and girls who have PhDs and publish peer reviewed research.
Because, you know, it's Science, bitches.
(Yeah, go ahead, mod me down; and prove I'm right.
There is still some good conversation here on technical subjects, but on climage change it's a bunch of people who know very little about the subject being jerks.
There is no "cooling trend". The current as it is today provides anomalously warm temperatures to northwestern Europe. If this current is fully disrupted, the UK and friends will end up having the same general climate as northern Canada. Along with northen Canada, it then will slowly warm in accordance with the generally accepted global rates.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
If AMOC stopped then the climate of Europe would line up with that of its corresponding North American latitudes. Which is to say, it would be come like Canada, not the North Pole. New Foundland is snowier than contemporary France but the latter's albedo would not significantly change. In any event, the AMOC is unlikely to stop any century soon without a significant forcing event. Perhaps if a meteor hits Greenland.
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
Paris accord will solve all the issues with Climate Change. I am sure that if we do not focus on stopping growth in emissions, and instead all focus on per capita emissions while allowing CHina, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc to grow, that it will solve all of these issues.
I mean what could possible go wrong with stopping 1 small group of ppl while allowing others to grow far bigger in their emissions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you have a DC power supply and you increase the voltage at some gradual rate, what happens is you introduce high frequency "ringing" into the signal. In fact, there will be points in time where not only is the voltage decreasing, but it will actually drop below the original value. You can confirm this easily by connecting an oscilloscope and capturing the signal. Will you then begin to doubt that you ever turned the voltage up at all?
This property is common to all non-linear dynamical systems, that is to say, everything in the Universe. In every field of physics, you see the same pattern.
The science is settled.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
. Yup, this science is definitely settled.
I'm sorry: the science is NEVER settled. If it is, it's dogma. You might as well stay with religion, because random($Holy_Book) is singularly, literally correct and everything else is absolutely wrong, and they'll TELL you that upfront. If you fight it, then either somehow you've misunderstood the words and need a re-education OR the $Evil_Deity has you under control. (The Earth, Gods Creation, is still the Center of the Universe, right? RIGHT?? If not, back in you go and we'll try it again later.)
All science can do is tell you what's WRONG, hopefully in a way so that you can find something next time that's NOT-QUITE-SO-wrong. Then: "Iterate." See: Iterate.
Seriously -- I applaud the flat-Earth nutcase (I think he's one too) that launched himself in a rocket the other month. But he thinks something, and he's out actively trying to prove it. I don't understand why lunar eclipses don't help -- I think it's because they believe the Earth has to be sitting on something: the "Down" thing. They "get" gravity as down, but can't figure out that for something floating in space, down is always near the center. (But way down there isn't down, it's UP.) But he's at least trying. I don't see why he can't fly an unmanned rocket with a GoCam on it and collect it himself, or radio down the pics. What, are the Illuminati going to intercept and change the SD Card / Radio Signals / have Elvis's UFO fly by it and hang pictures in front of the camera to deceive him? He wants to see it with his own eyes, except how does that change the UFO picture problem? (Unless of course he finds an edge. THEN it's a different story.)
HE'S taking action. When's the last time you (or *I*) did something like that? Here's a weird thing you could try. (Or just finish watching the video.) But the the MiB could be sponsoring the video -- that's why science wants everything out in the open and repeatable.
And that's why Sci and Rel don't mix -- Miracles are by definition NOT repeatable but science wants them to be, to find the edges and exceptions. And that's just fine, pick you poison. I'm an atheist but believe they're independent -- you can believe both at the same time. But some people want you to pick one EXCLUSIVELY over the other.
I'm a bad example since I've done just that -- except I'm actually an agnostic, and I really just don't care about the religion side. If so, then God and I will eventually be having a quick little chat. (I imagine it'll be a QUICK one before being smited: "Oh, hi there God -- well, shit." If not, then I imagine we won't, it'll be more: " " I'm anxious to find out, but not enough so to hurry along the process. BTW: Watch Youjo Senki / The Saga of Tanya the Evil
So what science experiments have YOU tried to re-validate lately? AGW? Dropping and timing light and heavy objects? Birds fly by ONLY flapping their wings? Fridge light always on or goes out? ANYTHING?
Science isn't special -- DO some. Explain things. Or explain why you CAN'T explain them. I was looking for the Feynman quote about a freshman lecture, but insead, this one fits better: 12th one down. -- "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." It's NEVER settled, but the longer it goes the more " 'PLAININ' you got to do."
But I'm going to finish with the highest authority available, a quote from ANIME: "It's your fault for being unable to differentiate between religion and science." Trying to remember where that came from. Something about two little girls and a ?slug?, one is much more religious than the other -- hence the comment.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
The sad truth is most folks don't realize how fragile our planet is, it's a finely balanced chaotic system where a slight change in something as small as the CO2 concentration in the air is enough to cause a massive shift in climate. Nature normally takes thousands of years but we're essentially speeding it up into centuries or even decades. It's been known for years that the ocean sea currents could change with climate change and unfortunately it looks like it's coming true. If the oceans current shutdown it won't just cause Europe to get cooler. It could disrupt the monsoon rains which allow India to farm and provides water. If you have a billion people starving to death, I wouldn't want to explain to them how this wasn't my fault and I'm not sharing.
Europe needs to get ready for a few years of colder winters.
For now, I'm not seeing any. Just see the "War on Christmas": when I was a kid, the Christmas was white every single year, with multiple months of snow. There wasn't a single white Christmas this decade. This year, there was a single day of snow, the day before Easter.
(Yeah, a real scientist would look at measurements rather than color of Christmas, but using this particular set of data points is far more accessible to an average voter.)
That's about it about northern Poland getting cooler. Once the current stops down for real, we'll see the effects, but for now, we're getting full brunt of literal "global warming".
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind.
I applaud the good link, that's an interesting map. Tiny opposition to your point is it does mention TX is #1 in wind.
However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it.
True. This is probably just a difference on emphasis - I'd emphasize that it can be minimized. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power, but that's a different convo.
The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.
I do agree, we should be realistic. I bring up Germany, and the real results of them leading the solar industry in the 90's, and it rocking their stock market. Solar was profitable for them, not because it saved costs of electricity generation, but because they developed technology and sold it. A lot of your solar power converters are still German. I say real estate boom because all of a sudden, the roof Germans already owned made their house more valuable, almost instantly. There are so many secondary effects of green policy that actually make it profitable in the long run. Sustainable practices cost less than non-sustainable ones, is that not a realistic statement? How much money would we save if there was less air pollution and asthma occurrence dropped? Lung cancer. I often wonder what pollution has to do with my stupid allergies. It's hard to imagine the costs of the worst possible effects of this ocean current stuff.
Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.
Again, that link is an impressive map. I have to admit it's taking me a while to absorb all the info in it. But why can't there be 2 goals? Make money and save the planet? If the goal is decarbonization, it's much easier to accomplish the goal if we make it profitable. Germany proved it can be done. They did it with solar, and this is a country that gets as little sun as Portland. Yes they invested some money and worked hard, but they ended up with a smarter grid than us, and some days they have to pay everyone on the gird to use electricity. The horror.
I can attest to this. Almost every time I go diving, the tourist pamphlets and nearby sea museums and info pictures show beautiful vibrant colors. And then I go diving and I see so much less color than the images I'd been set up with. This is not anecdotal. This is already seriously alarming, people. Hopefully, there's a lot of wrong scientists out there. Probably, they're not.
Vote. Or, if you're flippant about math, statistics, and science, don't.
Not change? On average, for virtually all of the last 250 million years.
The last century has seen more change than in any given ten million year period. I assume you've done calculus. Ok, maybe not.
Nobody is spending trillions on climate change. If they had done so, it wouldn't be a problem. It's because they're too busy spending it on known things like warships, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads and pay raises for bankers and the uber-wealthy that there's a problem.
No, I have absolutely bugger all sympathy for your argument.
Oh, and Get Off My Lawn!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ice forms on oceans fairly easily, but ice during arctic night paradoxically keeps the arctic warm(ish) by acting as an insulating blanket on top of the ocean. (the air's cold but life below the ice is busy)
Ice during the arctic day is a good light reflector but there's not so much of it anymore and the ice thickness is decreasing, meaning it disappears sooner in summer and takes longer to reform in winter. Both these add to the warming effects.
Snow on land needs moisture in the air and that comes from oceanic evaporation - mainly stuff bought northwards by the atlantic conveyor hitting cold polar air, so one of the effects in Europe can quite easily be colder, drier, less snowy winters - this was seen during the middle ages mini-ice age when the antlantic conveyor is believed to have slowed down. The effects included bringing cropping levels down by about 1000 feet across europe and generally moving agricultural bands southwards a couple of hundred miles.
Countering this is the heating effect of the oceans themselves. Air is a really poor heat carrier compared to water and it the real cause of concern should be small increases in water temperature. These have increased a fraction of a degree in the last 200 years, but that's equivalent to 1 degree or so of air temperature and makes it harder for ice to form (remember: it takes as much energy to melt 1kg of ice at 0C as it does to heat the resulting 1kg of water from 0C to 80C - and the same amount of energy needs to be extracted to freeze it - and that energy needs to be radiated into the air, which all things considered is actually a pretty good insulator.
This may be moot anyway, if the arctic ocean methane plumes(*) turn into a cascade failure or trigger a Storegga-style series of landslides(**). The effect of several Gigatonnes(***) of methane being dumped above the arctic ocean will be quite profound. it's probably not a coincidence that Storegga coincided with the knee point of the end of the last glaciation and rapid sea level rises over the following 3-4 centuries.
(*)Until 2006 the concensus was that methane clathrate plumes could never reach the ocean surface. News that they'd being doing that in the Leptav Sea (off the north coast of Siberia) since at least 2004 was met with widespread disbelief. By 2008 those plumes were over 1km wide in some areas and they're right on the edge of the continental shelf. Several climate physicists have summarised the news as "we're fucked", with the only questions being how badly and how soon.
(**) Storegga was a series of undersea landslides around 9000 years ago at the edge of the continental shelf off norway which released somewhere between 3 and 7GT of methane clathrates into the atmosphere. The heat forcing effect of methane is 20 times that of CO2 when averages over a century but it's more than 100 times higher in the first decade.
(***) Leptav clathrates are estimated at 1-5GT on the continental shelf. Noone knows how much is on the continental margins but a landslide or series of them could easily release 2-3GT in one go - and then there's the Tsunamis to contend with - Storegga sent enormous waves across Doggerland (now the north sea) and left scars across large chunks of Northern Europe. It looks like the impacts were around 1000 feet high in the northern parts of the British isles and Scandanavia.
"So when will the poles stop warming"
They won't. The mechanisms will simply change a little.
The atlantic conveyor may slow, or descend below the surface before reaching Europe but it won't stop bringing warm water northwards even if it stops bringing warm weather. It's that water which matters as its where all the energy is. Weather is just what you see as a side effect.
Incidentally if it did stop or slow down dramatically, apart from the other effects noted one of the more obvious details would be a fairly dramatic rise in local mean sea level along the USA east coast, peaking at around 3 feet in Chesapeake Bay area. Oceanic currents "pull" water towards them kind of like a like a valley in the ocean surface.