Warning signs of Gulfstream collapse

newusername said:
Language clarified by another expert & said the newspapers are being imprecise.

Gulf stream is driven by winds & so it will continue, although with the loss of AMOC, it is likely to be more direct east / further south than it currently is.

They agreed with the possible impact on global weather though as highlighted in the article:


Said a similar mini event in the late 70's early 80's lead to drought, war & then the famine in Ethiopia.
Click to expand...
Not sure that's accurate, winds do effect the stream but it is driven more by the different saline content at different depths and the thermocline. Winds alone wouldn't make the water travel at the speed it does, about 6 mph which doesn't sound fast but its 300 times faster than the average flow of the amazon. The Atlantic is largely static when compared to the gulf stream.
 
Without the Gulf Stream our climate would be like the East Coast of Canada - about five degrees colder in the Winter and three degrees warmer in the Summer. The GS generally warms us - it also brings most of our rain, so we would be drier especially on the West Coast of Britain. Overall not good news.

I was told we had 100 months to change in 2009. I still have the card. The World overall did not change in the next 8 years. More cars, more planes, more coal fired power stations (China was opening 1 a month).
 
Redwurzel said:
Without the Gulf Stream our climate would be like the East Coast of Canada - about five degrees colder in the Winter and three degrees warmer in the Summer. The GS generally warms us - it also brings most of our rain, so we would be drier especially on the West Coast of Britain. Overall not good news.

I was told we had 100 months to change in 2009. I still have the card. The World overall did not change in the next 8 years. More cars, more planes, more coal fired power stations (China was opening 1 a month).
Click to expand...
Not sure that it's true Redwurzel. I believe prevailing winds from the Eastern seaboard keeps Canada a bit warmer in winter than it would be without the gulf stream. Whilst it does head east just off the coast of Canada the wind does bring warmer air from the gulf stream over Canada.
 
Laughing said:
Not sure that's accurate, winds do effect the stream but it is driven more by the different saline content at different depths and the thermocline. Winds alone wouldn't make the water travel at the speed it does, about 6 mph which doesn't sound fast but its 300 times faster than the average flow of the amazon. The Atlantic is largely static when compared to the gulf stream.
Click to expand...

Better take that up with this guy...
www.jesus.ox.ac.uk

Professor Tim Palmer - Jesus College

www.jesus.ox.ac.uk www.jesus.ox.ac.uk
 
BoroMart said:
why would you believe that when the vast majority of scientists in this field utterly disagree with what you 'believe'?
Click to expand...
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment BM. Soutra is probably correct in as much as global climate change is cyclic and driven by many complex things that we cannot model. To a large extent it can be argued that the evidence for climate change being driven by humans burning fossil fuels is largely statistical and that the earth was heading this way on its own.

The difference between Soutra's position is only that he is ignoring the fact that the small difference humans are contributing may well mean that our way of life becomes unsustainable sooner.

We actually don't know by how much our interactions with the planet speeded up a natural process.

It makes perfect sense to do everything we can to put off an event that is inevitable with our without mankind.
 
The good news is that we know. The bad news is there is very little being done about it.

The industrial Revolution has moved East, I doubt they see it from our point of view.
 
Laughing said:
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment BM. Soutra is probably correct in as much as global climate change is cyclic and driven by many complex things that we cannot model. To a large extent it can be argued that the evidence for climate change being driven by humans burning fossil fuels is largely statistical and that the earth was heading this way on its own.

The difference between Soutra's position is only that he is ignoring the fact that the small difference humans are contributing may well mean that our way of life becomes unsustainable sooner.

We actually don't know by how much our interactions with the planet speeded up a natural process.

It makes perfect sense to do everything we can to put off an event that is inevitable with our without mankind.
Click to expand...
huge assumptions that the impacts we are seeing today are based on 'natural cycles'. Yes there are many many variables, but the science of the impact of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is well understood, undisputed. The argument from the deniers is that the planet is too big for anything we do to impact, but scientists have modelled why that isn't the case, many times. Regardless of cycles, we are impacting the planet, if over the next 50,000 years 'cyclical events' will extinct us, why speed it up to 20,000 years with our own stupidity?
 
Regarding size, if the earth was a snooker ball it would be the most perfect snooker ball ever made.

A bit of c rap for you.
 
Soutra said:
Absolutely right - how much climate change is due to mankind, and how much is down to natural cycles?

I believe that the climate is changing but I'm very skeptical that we have much to do with it.
Click to expand...
I do a lot of archaeology and read a lot of archaeology and I believe the experts that take the long view and look back over Deep Time are of absolute no doubt whatsoever that climate change was kick started by human kind - from the Neolithic farming revolution and then massively speeding up after the Industrial Revolution and then going light speed late 20th century.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we are already in a time of climate change and if we don't recognise why then we won't be able to alter the decline - and then our children will be completely betrayed living far worse lives because of our IN actions.
 
Same_as_before said:
Regarding size, if the earth was a snooker ball it would be the most perfect snooker ball ever made.

A bit of c rap for you.
Click to expand...
Not actually true though. It would be as round as a snooker ball, but not as smooth. You would be able to feel the highest mountains with your fingertips.
 
Way_Out_West said:
Not actually true though. It would be as round as a snooker ball, but not as smooth. You would be able to feel the highest mountains with your fingertips.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I saw an episode of QI where it said the earth isn't a perfect sphere which is why the top of Mt everest isn't the furthest point from the centre of the earth?
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
I'm sure I saw an episode of QI where it said the earth isn't a perfect sphere which is why the top of Mt everest isn't the furthest point from the centre of the earth?
Click to expand...
True. The scale is so big though, it would come in within tolerance for the roundness of a snooker ball, bit only just.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top