It's snowed again and freezing.Any one still believe in Global warming?

The gulfstream has moved due to global warming. We are more or less level with Moscow (horizontal wise if you see what I mean), yet we have enjoyed a slightly warmer climate, all because of the aforementioned current. We're doomed.

The gulf stream is mostly regulated by the Coriolis effect and unless the earth stops
rotating, the gulf stream will continue to bring warm waters to areas of the current beneficiaries.
To think that mans emissions of CO2 will effect global rotation and hence change the
gulf stream is ludicrous.

The planet overall might be warming but whether it's caused by man is another thing.
How did we get from the ICE AGE to what we have now.
There were no factories etc.then to cause things to get hotter.
Just a natural thing.

Global warming is a misleading term IMO

al gore, who some would call the political head of the climate change movement, has a vast sum invested in "green companies" who stand to make a fcking fortune out of this. in much the same way various highranking us politicians had massive investments in companies who made a lot out of the iraq invasion.

just follow the money.

Just because we've been freezing are arse off in the UK doesnt mean the rest of the world are..

"Olympic organisers, who have endured a record warm January in Vancouver and are bracing themselves for more of the same, are transporting truckloads of snow to a melting mountain to ensure events go ahead."

The real big money in this is what the oil compnies stand to lose if they are unable to derail the carbon taxes with their dirty tricks campaigns.

oh and don't forget - wikipedia can be ignored as an impartial source of info on climate change! (take heed, wur! ;) )

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

Its not global warming anymore - that has been debunked.... its climate change now.

All a load of bull!

TAX TAX TAX!

Are you an oil company man then?

Odd how people who never normally post on this forum (like Sunset Cristo) start up these threads from time to time.

^^^
I'll brave it by staying here...

Yes we're all doomed, man made climate change formerly known as global warming is actually going to cause catastrophic northern hemisphere cooling, just remember the IPCC told us we have 7 years to save the planet from irreversible warming, I mean cooling. Now from one piece of nonsense to another - the Gulf Stream nonsense...

Prof Carl Wunsch is one of the world's leading experts on this subject, the wider label for which is 'THC' (thermohaline circulation). His letter to the publication Nature is below, also a link to the excellent content on the Gulf Stream / THC at 'CO2 Science'.


"Sir - Your News story "Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure" (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like "without the Gulf Stream." Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new iceage in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.

European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.

Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero."

Professor Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
(Nature 428, 601, April 8, 2004)

----------------------------------------------





http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N46/C2.php



Reference
Lund, D.C., Lynch-Stieglitz, J. and Curry, W.B. 2006. Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium. Nature 444: 601-604.
Background
Many people fear -- or at least claim they do -- that global warming will lead to enhanced precipitation and melting of ice in high northern latitudes, which will lead to augmented freshwater runoff to the North Atlantic Ocean, which will lead to a precipitous decline in North Atlantic Deep Water formation, which will produce a swift reduction in the global ocean's thermohaline circulation, which could shut down the Gulf Stream and bring cold times to Europe.

What was done
In a study that comes to bear upon this climate-alarmist scenario, Lund et al. used the ä18O of foraminifera obtained from sediment cores retrieved near the Dry Tortugas and Great Bahama Bank to reconstruct density profiles of the Florida Current (the portion of the Gulf Stream that flows through the Straits of Florida) over the past millennium.

What was learned
In the words of the three researchers, "the cross-current density gradient and vertical current shear of the Gulf Stream were systematically lower during the Little Ice Age (AD ~1200 to 1850)," and they estimate that the "Little Ice Age volume transport was ten percent weaker than today's," stating additionally that "the intervals 0-100 yr BP [years before present] and 1,000-1,100 yr BP are characterized by higher transport."

What it means
In contrast to climate-alarmist contentions that the Gulf Stream could weaken in response to global warming, real-world data indicate that during portions of both the Medieval and Current Warm Periods the strength of the Gulf Stream was actually enhanced relative to what it was during the cooler Little Ice Age, which finding runs exactly counter to what Al Gore and many of his followers have long suggested should be the case.

Moon light have you come up with any solid evidence for man made global warming yet? Apart from what you have seen on tv.Do you believe everything you see on tv? Don't you do your own research on line?

Just read that thread. No evidence on there either. No evidence on the Nasa site either.Just a Tautology

Moon Light, here's another attempt to reassure you but I won't hold my breath, you can lead a horse to water etc.

In an even more explicit study of the subject, Rind et al. (2001) employed different versions of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to perform multiple virtual experiments with sustained and gradual St. Lawrence freshwater inputs to the North Atlantic Ocean that are similar to what is predicted for future CO2-induced global warming. This exercise is particularly relevant in light of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Abrupt Climate Change (2001) report on the subject, wherein it is claimed there is a heightened potential for large and rapid temperature transitions to occur in response to continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

The National Academy report talks of "large, abrupt climate changes" of "as much as 10°C change in 10 years," stating that these changes "can occur when gradual causes push the earth system across a threshold." They also claim that "human activities could trigger abrupt climate change," stating that "warming and the associated changes in the hydrological cycle constitute a threshold for the THC [thermohaline circulation]" of the world's oceans. "Once reduced, the THC is more susceptible to perturbations," the Academy Committee claims," also stating that "very close to a threshold, the evolution of the THC loses predictability altogether."

So what did the study of Rind et al. reveal? First of all, it indicated that the sensitivity of their model to freshwater input through the St. Lawrence was "similar to that associated with freshening due to the warming climate of the next century," clearly indicating their study's applicability to the CO2-climate problem. Second, although thresholds for changes in the THC figure highly in the speculative scenarios of the NAS Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, the Rind et al. team finds absolutely no evidence for them. They note, for example, that "North Atlantic Deep Water [NADW] production decreases linearly with the volume of fresh water added through the St. Lawrance" and that it does so "without any obvious threshold effects." Third, they find no evidence for great rapidity in the freshening-induced reductions in NADW production. "The effect is not rapid with realistic freshwater inputs," they say. In fact, they estimate that, in the extreme, "NADW cessation would take some 350 years to occur." Fourth, the authors note that other studies, such as that of Schiller et al. (1997), have reached pretty much the same conclusions.

As time has progressed, still other studies have tended to refute the thinking of the NAS Committee on Abrupt Climate Change. Seidov and Haupt (2003) performed a number of sensitivity experiments with the ocean model of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. These experiments showed, in their words, that "Atlantic-Pacific sea surface salinity asymmetry is one of the most critical elements for maintaining the global ocean conveyor," and, hence, that "high-latitudinal freshwater impacts, as a mechanism of altering global thermohaline circulation may be less effective than inter-basin freshwater communications."

Also weighing in on the subject are Munk and Wunsch (1998), Wunsch (2000) and Wunsch (2002), who conclude, on the basis of fundamental theoretical considerations, that the THC is sustained primarily by the work of the wind and secondarily by tidal forcing. So basic are these considerations, in fact, that Wunsch (2000) categorically states "there cannot be a primarily convectively driven circulation of any significance."

In further explaining this fact, Wunsch (2002) notes that "both in models and the real ocean, surface buoyancy boundary conditions strongly influence the transport of heat and salt," acknowledging the matters upon which both the NAS Committee and Seidov and Haupt have focused their attention; but he emphasizes that "these boundary conditions do not actually drive the circulation," noting again that "for past or future climates, the quantity of first-order importance is the nature of the wind field."

Although Munk and Wunsch's thoughts may seem a bit esoteric, the energy requirements of their more basic view of the subject have been observationally verified by the work of Egbert and Ray (2000), while other supporting evidence has been supplied by Berger and von Rad (2002). Consequently, since these data suggest that the mass flux of the THC is primarily a creature of wind and tide, there is little reason to entertain the view that continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to a dramatic shutdown of the THC.

References
Berger, W.H. and von Rad, U. 2002. Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin. Global and Planetary Change 34: 313-325.

Committee on Abrupt Climate Change (Richard B. Alley, Chair). 2001. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Egbert, G.D. and Ray, R.D. 2000. Significant dissipation of tidal energy in the deep ocean inferred from satellite altimeter data. Nature 405: 775-778.

Munk, W.H. and Wunsch, C. 1998. Abyssal recipes II: Energetics of tidal and wind mixing. Deep-Sea Research 45: 1977-2010.

Rind, D., deMenocal, P., Russell, G., Sheth, S., Collins, D. Schmidt, G. and Teller, J. 2001. Effects of glacial meltwater in the GISS coupled atmosphere-ocean model. 1. North Atlantic Deep Water response. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 27,335-27,353.

Ruhlemann, C., Mulitza, S., Muller, P.J., Wefer, G. and Zahn, R. 1999. Warming of the tropical Atlantic Ocean and slowdown of thermohaline circulation during the last deglaciation. Nature 402: 511-514.

Saenko, O.A., Weaver, A.J. and Schmittner, A. 2003. Atlantic deep circulation controlled by freshening in the Southern Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL017681.

Schiller, A., Mikolajewicz, U. and Voss, R. 1997. The stability of the thermohaline circulation in a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Climate Dynamics 13: 325-348.

Seidov D. and Haupt, B.J. 2003. Freshwater teleconnections and ocean thermohaline circulation. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2002GL016564.

Stocker, T.F. 2000. Past and future reorganizations in the climate system. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 301-319.

Wunsch, C. 2000. Moon, tides and climate. Nature 405: 743-744.

Wunsch, C. 2002. What is the thermohaline circulation? Science 298: 1179-1181.

Please don't hold your breath, or waste further time trying to reassure me of this.
Did you see Prof Iain Stewart on TV last night discussing periodic reversal of the Pacific trade wind? El Nino aka Southern Oscillation.

Your own quotes show that the Atlantic Conveyor is unstable and correlated with global temperature change, and esp with past severe and unpleasant temperature change in these islands. Wunsch tells us it is heavily dependent on the trade winds.
Let us hope they don't have a wobble the way the Pacific ones do. They haven't done so since the time of Christopher Columbus, but....

Nothing reassuring in any of your quotes.
PS the guy who can't tell the difference between the St Lawrence Seaway and the polar caps was at least good for a laff.

Moon Light : Let us hope they don't have a wobble the way the Pacific ones do. They haven't done so since the time of Christopher Columbus, but....

Nothing reassuring in any of your quotes.
PS the guy who can't tell the difference between the St Lawrence Seaway and the polar caps was at least good for a laff.

Christopher Columbus you say - must have been all those carbon dioxide emissions. But... Nothing.
Scare mongering theories based on fiction make for Ifs and Buts, mainly the ones that never establish causation.

I assume you're referring to the polar sheets when you say caps, but I must say I didn't find anything to "laff" about.

THC is sustained primarily by the work of the wind and secondarily by tidal forcing. So basic are these considerations, in fact, that Wunsch (2000) categorically states "there cannot be a primarily convectively driven circulation of any significance."


If that's the case, what is El Nino? Prof Stewart tells us that upwelling of warm water from the ocean deep causes reversal of the direction of the South Pacific trade wind at intervals of several years, in a long-term oscillation wich is quasi-stable.

Everyone overreacts to this - just go back through history and there are cycles of hot times and cold times - There was a cold time in 1908 much worse than the one we're experiencing now in the UK... boring subject imo