Gulf Stream Slowing Down

[mamooth]

The latest science, published 23 Mar 2015.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2554.html

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation

Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box, Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford & Erik. J Schaffernicht

Abstract
---
Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.
---

The summary ... the North Atlantic ocean is one of the few spots on the planet where temperatures have gone down.

It's a persisent cool spot. And it's because the Gulf Stream is starting to slow down. As was predicted.

No, it won't mean England or anyone freezes, like as in that dumb movie. It just means England doesn't heat up as fast from global warming. The more direct effects are to the USA, where, for various complicated reasons, it means faster sea level rise on the east coast.

RealClimate What s going on in the North Atlantic

 

[MisterBeale]

And you believe it is all because of man's activities, right?

 

[depotoo]

Interesting, when you check the present knots it is normal.

 

[mamooth]

And you believe it is all because of man's activities, right?

What I believe is not relevant. What the science demonstrates is.

When you understand that, you will on your way to joining the reason-based community.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares

Only the AGW k00ks want us to be walking around with wooden cell phones due to some shaded orange on a map!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The AMOC is not the Gulf Stream..

The Gulf Stream is caused by the earths rotation and drag on our atmosphere and oceans.

SO the OP is disingenuous to start... Then the first words in the abstract say "possible" indicating that they have not fully explored ALL of the possible causes for the oceanic turnover slow down and that the science is incomplete.

As I read further into the paper it shows great uncertainty and no link to human causes that are made by scientific analysis. Only Inference without proof is given. All of the access to the paper are paywalled that I can find so if you want to read it you will have to pay for it.

A good article i found had this to say about the paper and gave a good both sides of the coin view.

Delworth offered a similar assessment: "Right now we don't have any good evidence that there's likely to be an abrupt change [this century]," he said. "But there are still uncertainties, in part because our models don't capture how the AMOC works in great detail."

Indeed, in its 2013 review, the National Research Council suggested that "it is important to keep a close watch on this system" — possibly with more observation devices. That way we can better understand the impacts of a slowdown, as well as keep an eye on the possibility of big, drastic shifts.

The paper admits that it doesn't have a clue as to causation or the systems function itself. Its rather odd that this paper was published with so much uncertainty. They do draw a lot of conjectured opinions which is wrong for scientific papers.

Source

 

[depotoo]

He won't let facts get in the way of his illusions.

The AMOC is not the Gulf Stream..

The Gulf Stream is caused by the earths rotation and drag on our atmosphere and oceans.

SO the OP is disingenuous to start... Then the first words in the abstract say "possible" indicating that they have not fully explored ALL of the possible causes for the oceanic turnover slow down and that the science is incomplete.

As I read further into the paper it shows great uncertainty and no link to human causes that are made by scientific analysis. Only Inference without proof is given. All of the access to the paper are paywalled that I can find so if you want to read it you will have to pay for it.

A good article i found had this to say about the paper and gave a good both sides of the coin view.

Delworth offered a similar assessment: "Right now we don't have any good evidence that there's likely to be an abrupt change [this century]," he said. "But there are still uncertainties, in part because our models don't capture how the AMOC works in great detail."

Indeed, in its 2013 review, the National Research Council suggested that "it is important to keep a close watch on this system" — possibly with more observation devices. That way we can better understand the impacts of a slowdown, as well as keep an eye on the possibility of big, drastic shifts.

The paper admits that it doesn't have a clue as to causation or the systems function itself. Its rather odd that this paper was published with so much uncertainty. They do draw a lot of conjectured opinions which is wrong for scientific papers.

Source

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

 

[Billy_Bob]

He won't let facts get in the way of his illusions.

The AMOC is not the Gulf Stream..

The Gulf Stream is caused by the earths rotation and drag on our atmosphere and oceans.

SO the OP is disingenuous to start... Then the first words in the abstract say "possible" indicating that they have not fully explored ALL of the possible causes for the oceanic turnover slow down and that the science is incomplete.

As I read further into the paper it shows great uncertainty and no link to human causes that are made by scientific analysis. Only Inference without proof is given. All of the access to the paper are paywalled that I can find so if you want to read it you will have to pay for it.

A good article i found had this to say about the paper and gave a good both sides of the coin view.

Delworth offered a similar assessment: "Right now we don't have any good evidence that there's likely to be an abrupt change [this century]," he said. "But there are still uncertainties, in part because our models don't capture how the AMOC works in great detail."

Indeed, in its 2013 review, the National Research Council suggested that "it is important to keep a close watch on this system" — possibly with more observation devices. That way we can better understand the impacts of a slowdown, as well as keep an eye on the possibility of big, drastic shifts.

The paper admits that it doesn't have a clue as to causation or the systems function itself. Its rather odd that this paper was published with so much uncertainty. They do draw a lot of conjectured opinions which is wrong for scientific papers.

Source

illusions or delusions?

But a paper which the alarmists will use despite it not having any factual evidence to support their conjectured opinions.

 

[depotoo]

Maybe both?

He won't let facts get in the way of his illusions.

The AMOC is not the Gulf Stream..

The Gulf Stream is caused by the earths rotation and drag on our atmosphere and oceans.

SO the OP is disingenuous to start... Then the first words in the abstract say "possible" indicating that they have not fully explored ALL of the possible causes for the oceanic turnover slow down and that the science is incomplete.

As I read further into the paper it shows great uncertainty and no link to human causes that are made by scientific analysis. Only Inference without proof is given. All of the access to the paper are paywalled that I can find so if you want to read it you will have to pay for it.

A good article i found had this to say about the paper and gave a good both sides of the coin view.

Delworth offered a similar assessment: "Right now we don't have any good evidence that there's likely to be an abrupt change [this century]," he said. "But there are still uncertainties, in part because our models don't capture how the AMOC works in great detail."

Indeed, in its 2013 review, the National Research Council suggested that "it is important to keep a close watch on this system" — possibly with more observation devices. That way we can better understand the impacts of a slowdown, as well as keep an eye on the possibility of big, drastic shifts.

The paper admits that it doesn't have a clue as to causation or the systems function itself. Its rather odd that this paper was published with so much uncertainty. They do draw a lot of conjectured opinions which is wrong for scientific papers.

Source

illusions or delusions?

But a paper which the alarmists will use despite it not having any factual evidence to support their conjectured opinions.

 

[westwall]

And you believe it is all because of man's activities, right?

What I believe is not relevant. What the science demonstrates is.

When you understand that, you will on your way to joining the reason-based community.

But the "science" does nothing of the sort. The paper states that there is an area of cooling that they can't explain and which they claim is "unprecedented over the last millennia". However, they mention nothing about the speed, or course, of the Gulfstream which is operating within its well known range.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And you believe it is all because of man's activities, right?

What I believe is not relevant. What the science demonstrates is.

When you understand that, you will on your way to joining the reason-based community.

But the "science" does nothing of the sort. The paper states that there is an area of cooling that they can't explain and which they claim is "unprecedented over the last millennia". However, they mention nothing about the speed, or course, of the Gulfstream which is operating within its well known range.

LOL... Mantooth is displaying how conjectured opinions, which are facts-less, is done..

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, insulting me won't make the science go away.

You'll keep trying, of course. After all, it's not like any of the science agrees with you, so what else can you do?

 

[bripat9643]

The latest science, published 23 Mar 2015.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2554.html

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation
Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box, Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford & Erik. J Schaffernicht

Abstract
---
Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.
---

The summary ... the North Atlantic ocean is one of the few spots on the planet where temperatures have gone down.

It's a persisent cool spot. And it's because the Gulf Stream is starting to slow down. As was predicted.

No, it won't mean England or anyone freezes, like as in that dumb movie. It just means England doesn't heat up as fast from global warming. The more direct effects are to the USA, where, for various complicated reasons, it means faster sea level rise on the east coast.

RealClimate What s going on in the North Atlantic

Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt except reality says otherwise Watts Up With That ​

Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except reality says otherwise

Anthony Watts / 9 hours ago March 24, 2015

From your “Day after Tomorrow” department (where a slowing Gulf Stream turned NYC into an icebox) comes this claim from the bowels of Mannian Science. Unfortunately, it looks to be of the caliber of Mann’s Hockey Schtick science.

As WUWT reported on a peer reviewed paper last year, H. Thomas Rossby says: URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream saying in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters:​

“The ADCP measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current,” said Rossby. “There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.”​

Of course, Rahmstorf and Mann don’t list Rossby’s study in their references, nor seem to use the “highly accurate” ADCP data. Instead they use a model along with [proxies, reconstructions, and] the highly interpolated GISS data to come to the conclusions they want. So, it isn’t surprising they are chasing phantoms in their study.​

 

[westwall]

Deniers, insulting me won't make the science go away.

You'll keep trying, of course. After all, it's not like any of the science agrees with you, so what else can you do?

What science is that....exactly? The "study" you posted supported nothing that you claimed in the OP. So, admiral....when are you going to post some science that actually has something like...well you know..facts to support it?

 

[Moonglow]

We just discovered the jet stream 75 years ago, and it's already changing?

 

[bripat9643]

Deniers, insulting me won't make the science go away.

You'll keep trying, of course. After all, it's not like any of the science agrees with you, so what else can you do?

Mamooth:

 

[westwall]

We just discovered the jet stream 75 years ago, and it's already changing?

"GULF STREAM" Moonie, gulf stream. Known about for centuries....

 

[bripat9643]

And you believe it is all because of man's activities, right?

What I believe is not relevant. What the science demonstrates is.

When you understand that, you will on your way to joining the reason-based community.

The problem with your so-called "science" is that any time an independent investigation is undertaken it turns out to be riddled with methodological flaws and downright fraud.

 

[Moonglow]

We just discovered the jet stream 75 years ago, and it's already changing?

"GULF STREAM" Moonie, gulf stream. Known about for centuries....

The one in the ocean or the upper atmosphere...??