You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Failing ocean current raises fears of mini Euro ice age
2005-12-01
Picture here
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. The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
I'm sure it will, right or wrong. The weather gets hot, it's evidence of global warming. The weather gets cold, it's evidence of global warming. I'm starting to miss the nuclear winter...
Harry Bryden at the Southampton Oceanography Centre in the UK, whose group carried out the analysis, says he is not yet sure if the change is temporary or signals a long-term trend. "We don’t want to say the circulation will shut down," he told New Scientist. "But we are nervous about our findings. They have come as quite a surprise."

The North Atlantic is dominated by the Gulf Stream – currents that bring warm water north from the tropics. At around 40° north – the latitude of Portugal and New York – the current divides. Some water heads southwards in a surface current known as the subtropical gyre, while the rest continues north, leading to warming winds that raise European temperatures by 5°C to 10°C. But when Bryden’s team measured north-south heat flow last year, using a set of instruments strung across the Atlantic from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas, they found that the division of the waters appeared to have changed since previous surveys in 1957, 1981 and 1992. From the amount of water in the subtropical gyre and the flow southwards at depth, they calculate that the quantity of warm water flowing north had fallen by around 30%.

When Bryden added previously unanalysed data – collected in the same region by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – he found a similar pattern. This suggests that his 2004 measurements are not a one-off, and that most of the slow-down happened between 1992 and 1998. The changes are too big to be explained by chance, co-author Stuart Cunningham told New Scientist from a research ship off the Canary Islands, where he is collecting more data. "We think the findings are robust."

But Richard Wood, chief oceanographer at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate research in Exeter, says the Southampton team's findings leave a lot unexplained. The changes are so big they should have cut oceanic heating of Europe by about one-fifth – enough to cool the British Isles by 1°C and Scandinavia by 2°C. "We haven’t seen it yet," he points out.

Though unseasonably cold weather last month briefly blanketed parts of the UK in snow, average European temperatures have been rising, Wood says. Measurements of surface temperatures in the North Atlantic indicate a strong warming trend during the 1990s, which seems now to have halted. Bryden speculates that the warming may have been part of a global temperature increase brought about by man-made greenhouse warming, and that this is now being counteracted by a decrease in the northward flow of warm water. After warming Europe, this flow comes to a halt in the waters off Greenland, sinks to the ocean floor and returns south. The water arriving from the south is already more saline and so more dense than Arctic seas, and is made more so as ice forms.

But Bryden’s study has revealed that while one area of sinking water, on the Canadian side of Greenland, still seems to be functioning as normal, a second area on the European side has partially shut down and is sending only half as much deep water south as before. The two southward flows can be distinguished because they travel at different depths.

Nobody is clear on what has gone wrong. Suggestions for blame include the melting of sea ice or increased flow from Siberian rivers into the Arctic. Both would load fresh water into the surface ocean, making it less dense and so preventing it from sinking, which in turn would slow the flow of tropical water from the south. And either could be triggered by man-made climate change. Some climate models predict that global warming could lead to such a shutdown later this century. The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.
Posted by:lotp

#16  ROFLAO, Big Ed!

This could be the worst catastrophe in French history. The yoots would certainly torch every snowmobile in France when glaciers crush their mosques. Beyond that, how would the tourist trade survive? Who wants to sit at a sidewalk cafe when it's 40 below, on Bastille Day no less?

Certainly all this Greenpeace global warming propaganda is not helping matters. I know. Call out the French Navy, they will know what to do.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2005-12-01 18:54  

#15  Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Posted by: BigEd   2005-12-01 16:59  

#14  This is perhaps Europe's last hope of sending Islam into retreat.
Posted by: Halliburton Gulf Stream Div.   2005-12-01 10:27  

#13  This is good news. Tens of thousands fewer old folks will cook off in frogistan next summer.
Posted by: Phoper Hupomons3757   2005-12-01 10:15  

#12  This is a very study-worthy area although I doubt there is much anyone can do to change things.

We laugh.
Posted by: Boots un Coots   2005-12-01 09:47  

#11  If ocean current changes mess up western Europe's temperate climate, it will have to also change other climates. How? Will North Africa become moist and fertile? Or crank out even more hurricane seeds? Will the Atlantic basin develop monsoons? This is a very study-worthy area although I doubt there is much anyone can do to change things.
Posted by: Glenmore   2005-12-01 09:28  

#10  humour. Mine (on a good day) is 'dry' and it can be hard to tell if I am being serious, sarcastic or ironic.

As long as you yourself know which one of them it is , it's probably fine. ;-)

Hope your wife can tell the difference too. ;-)

Just to stir a pot...

Approx. 7500 BCE and 5000 BCE, there was something called a "climatic optimum". The temps averaged about 2.5 deg C more than recently (the period covered by sustained temperature observations).
I would have to dig the info how this was actually extrapolated, and I will do that at some point when time allows. Why I mention this is that if you calculate the effects of it, it translates to disappearing of polar ice caps. Entirely. No ice cover left. Got the idea?

Then the calibration of the ice cores is simply wrong, as it is based on assumptions that are invalid.

In other words, if the temperature data are correct, then the measurements of ice cores are not correct and that the ice has been deposited since about 5000 BCE. There may have been ice before 7500 BCE, but we don't have a precise way to tell when and how much, because it is all gone. The data based mostly on occurences of sea critters (moluscs) suggest, as you correctly state, that the Quartenary is, essentially, and ice age, in comparison with previous climatic conditions. But beyond that, most of the conclusions are rather a conjecture than 'solid truth'.

To try to beat one conjecture (global warming) with another (no matter how consensual the conjecture is) is somewhat... ahm... reminiscent of Flatland disputes whether the visitors are circles or squares, while in reality they were spheres and cubes.

Myself, I'd rather stick with uncertainity than with articles of faith of any kind.
Posted by: twobyfour   2005-12-01 08:45  

#9  Red Dog, in case you thought I was putting you down, I most definitely wasn't. One of the Burg's considerable charms is when others pick up a joke and spin it in their own style of humour. Mine (on a good day) is 'dry' and it can be hard to tell if I am being serious, sarcastic or ironic. I was just elaborating your joke.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-12-01 06:44  

#8  "most of the slow-down happened between 1992 and 1998"

Damn those Clintons!
Posted by: Angus Ebb   2005-12-01 06:23  

#7  I suggest Euors turn their thermostats waaay up. May help bring some global warming.
Posted by: badanov   2005-12-01 03:40  

#6  I with you phil_b, yours was a spot on comment.

ignore my wise ass comments. lol
Posted by: Red Dog   2005-12-01 03:00  

#5  have they considered how many trillions³ of calories are locked up in all the millions³ of Kyoto & EU documents?

Thanks Red Dog. I was wondering how that carbon capture thingy was going to work.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-12-01 02:53  

#4  mini Euro ice age

phil_b, not to worry plz.

I had me a western edumication, and the reason ima not depressed at all is 'cause i have gud scientific suggestions for K00L AID peples.

1) have they though about burning more cars to git em thru them cooler nites?

2) have they considered how many trillions³ of calories are locked up in all the millions³ of Kyoto & EU documents? burn em for solstice celebrations.

3) Main hot air back up system...just keep feeding Jacques-strap & Dominique de Villepin. [Dominique isa man I think]
Posted by: Red Dog   2005-12-01 01:54  

#3  While I am an optimist about most things, I can work up a deep depression about the lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of those who are and have recently gone through Western educational systems.

If there was one thing I would fix in this world it would be to make sure everyone had a basic knowledge of science (and economics). Incidentally China and India seem to understand this.

BTW, .com drop me an email, I have idea that has been kicking around in my head for a while now, that I'd like to run by you.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-12-01 01:18  

#2  Amen, phil_b. It's so much easier to just blurt out some phoney charge than it is to refute it. I used to post, back upon a time, loads of links (there are real scientists out there - in hiding) to substantiate your point, which is 100% rock-solid Truth - then realized no one read 'em, no once cared, the meme rulez. If a favorite Talking Point is refuted, they learn nothing, they just move on (pun intended) to another one - eyes still blazing with the same level of self-righteous Kool Aid Klarity.
Posted by: .com   2005-12-01 00:43  

#1  was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago.

For the umpteenth time, we are currently in an ice age, which began over a million years ago. An interglacial (a short (relative to the ice age) period of warming within the ice age) began close to 20,000 years ago.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-12-01 00:34  

00:00