North Atlantic Drift (Jet Stream) Slowing Down.....consequences?

[kpm62]

North Atlantic Drift (Gulf Stream) The Gulf Stream is the most important ocean-current system in the northern hemisphere, which stretches from Florida to north-western Europe. It incorporates several currents: the Florida current, the Gulf Stream itself, and an eastern extension, the North Atlantic Drift. The Florida Current is fast, deep, and narrow, but after passing Cape Hatteras the Gulf Stream becomes less effective at depth and develops a series of large meanders which form, detach, and re-form in a complicated manner. After passing the Grand Banks (off Newfoundland), the flow forms the diffuse, shallow, broad slow-moving North Atlantic Drift.

The relatively warm waters of the North Atlantic Drift are responsible for moderating the climate of western Europe, so that winters are less cold than would otherwise be expected at its latitude. Without the warm North Atlantic Drift, the UK and other places in Europe would be as cold as Canada, at the same latitude. For example, without this steady stream of warmth the British Isles winters are estimated to be more than 5 °C cooler, bringing the average December temperature in London to about 2°C.

Within the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf Stream is very narrow, only 50 miles wide, and travels very fast at 3 mph, carrying water at about 25°C. The North Atlantic Drift widens considerably to several hundred miles, slows to less than 1 mph and splits into several sub-currents. Off the British Isles it splits into two branches, one going south (the Canary Current) and the other going north along the coast of W and N Europe, where it exerts considerable influence upon the climate as far as northwestern Europe. For example, the Drift is particularly important because it keeps many Norwegian ports free of ice throughout the year.

The two main driving forces behind it are the prevailing southwesterly trade winds and the circulation of the water far below the oceans surface, the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) circulation. Water in the north Atlantic sinks because it is dense. Density of water is increased by both salinity and temperature - the colder and saltier the water is the denser it is. This deep water flows to the Gulf of Mexico until it warms enough to resurface and flow back north as the Gulf Stream.

Some 11,000 years ago the NADW shut down in response to subtle shifts in global climate. This slowed and diverted the course of the Gulf Stream to such an extent that the regional climate of the Northeast Atlantic became considerably cooler. As a result Northwestern Europe dropped back to ice age conditions within tens of years. It is now suspected that global warming may trigger a shutdown in the NADW, and a slowing or diversion of the Gulf Stream, which would ironically lead to colder climates throughout the UK and Northwest Europe.

The film "The Day After Tomorrow" is based on this weather dynamic,and the drastic consequences that could result if the NAD did stop

Edited February 4, 2010 by kpm62

[kpm62]

Scientists have uncovered more evidence of a dramatic weakening in the vast ocean current that gives Western Europe its relatively balmy climate by dragging warm water northwards from the tropics.

The slowdown of the North Atlantic Drift, which climate modellers have predicted will follow global warming, has been confirmed by the most detailed study yet of ocean flow in the Atlantic.

Most alarmingly, the data reveals part of the current, usually 60 times more powerful than the Amazon River, came to a temporary halt during November 2004.

The nightmare scenario of a shutdown in the meridional ocean current that drives the Gulf Stream was dramatically portrayed in disaster film The Day After Tomorrow.

That scenario had Europe and North America plunged into a new ice age virtually overnight. Although no scientist thinks the switch-off could happen that fast, they do agree that even a weakening over a few decades would have profound consequences.

The Gulf Stream originates in the Gulf of Mexico, flows up the US east coast, then crosses the Atlantic, where it splits in two, with one branch crossing to West Africa. The other branch, the North Atlantic Drift, extends towards Europe. The warm water it brings to Western Europe's shores raises the temperature by as much as 10 degrees in some places and without it the continent would be much colder and drier.

Researchers are unsure what to make of the 10-day hiatus in the current in 2004.

"We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen," said Harry Bryden, of Britain's National Oceanography Centre, who presented the findings to a conference in Birmingham on rapid climate change.

Is it the first sign that the current is stuttering to a halt?

"I want to know more before I say that," Professor Bryden said.

Lloyd Keigwin, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the US, said the 2004 shutdown was "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record". "Suppose it lasted 30 or 60 days, when do you ring up the prime minister and say let's start stockpiling fuel? … How can we rule out a longer one next year?" he said.

Professor Bryden's group stunned climate researchers last year with data suggesting that the flow rate of the Atlantic circulation had dropped by about 6 million tonnes of water a second from 1957 to 1998.

If the current remained that weak, he predicted, it would lead to a one-degree drop in temperature in Britain in the next decade. A complete shutdown would lead to a four- to six-degree cooling over 20 years.

[kpm62]

Scientists have uncovered more evidence of a dramatic weakening in the vast ocean current that gives Western Europe its relatively balmy climate by dragging warm water northwards from the tropics.

The slowdown of the North Atlantic Drift, which climate modellers have predicted will follow global warming, has been confirmed by the most detailed study yet of ocean flow in the Atlantic.

Most alarmingly, the data reveals part of the current, usually 60 times more powerful than the Amazon River, came to a temporary halt during November 2004.

The nightmare scenario of a shutdown in the meridional ocean current that drives the Gulf Stream was dramatically portrayed in disaster film The Day After Tomorrow.

That scenario had Europe and North America plunged into a new ice age virtually overnight. Although no scientist thinks the switch-off could happen that fast, they do agree that even a weakening over a few decades would have profound consequences.

The Gulf Stream originates in the Gulf of Mexico, flows up the US east coast, then crosses the Atlantic, where it splits in two, with one branch crossing to West Africa. The other branch, the North Atlantic Drift, extends towards Europe. The warm water it brings to Western Europe's shores raises the temperature by as much as 10 degrees in some places and without it the continent would be much colder and drier.

Researchers are unsure what to make of the 10-day hiatus in the current in 2004.

"We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen," said Harry Bryden, of Britain's National Oceanography Centre, who presented the findings to a conference in Birmingham on rapid climate change.

Is it the first sign that the current is stuttering to a halt?

"I want to know more before I say that," Professor Bryden said.

Lloyd Keigwin, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the US, said the 2004 shutdown was "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record". "Suppose it lasted 30 or 60 days, when do you ring up the prime minister and say let's start stockpiling fuel? … How can we rule out a longer one next year?" he said.

Professor Bryden's group stunned climate researchers last year with data suggesting that the flow rate of the Atlantic circulation had dropped by about 6 million tonnes of water a second from 1957 to 1998.

If the current remained that weak, he predicted, it would lead to a one-degree drop in temperature in Britain in the next decade. A complete shutdown would lead to a four- to six-degree cooling over 20 years.

What future climate scenarios should we consider?

The debate on global change has largely failed to factor in the inherently chaotic, sensitively balanced, and threshold-laden nature of Earth’s climate system and the increased likelihood of abrupt climate change. Our current speculations about future climate and its impacts have focused on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has forecast gradual global warming of 1.4° to 5.8° Celsius over the next century.

It is prudent to superimpose on this forecast the potential for abrupt climate change induced by thermohaline shutdown. Such a change could cool down selective areas of the globe by 3° to 5° Celsius, while simultaneously causing drought in many parts of the world. These climate changes would occur quickly, even as other regions continue to warm slowly. It is critical to consider the economic and political ramifications of this geographically selective climate change. Specifically, the region most affected by a shutdown—the countries bordering the North Atlantic—is also one of the world’s most developed.

The key component of this analysis is when a shutdown of the Conveyor occurs. Two scenarios are useful to contemplate:

Scenario 1: Conveyor slows down within next two decades.

Such a scenario could quickly and markedly cool the North Atlantic region, causing disruptions in global economic activity. These disruptions may be exacerbated because the climate changes occur in a direction opposite to what is commonly expected, and they occur at a pace that makes adaptation difficult.

Scenario 2: Conveyor slows down a century from now.

In such a scenario, cooling of the North Atlantic region may partially or totally offset the major effects of global warming in this region. Thus, the climate of the North Atlantic region may rapidly return to one that more resembles today’s—even as other parts of the world, particularly less-developed regions, experience the unmitigated brunt of global warming. If the Conveyor subsequently turns on again, the “deferred” warming may be delivered in a decade.

[egret]

What future climate scenarios should we consider?

The debate on global change has largely failed to factor in the inherently chaotic, sensitively balanced, and threshold-laden nature of Earth's climate system and the increased likelihood of abrupt climate change. Our current speculations about future climate and its impacts have focused on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has forecast gradual global warming of 1.4° to 5.8° Celsius over the next century.

It is prudent to superimpose on this forecast the potential for abrupt climate change induced by thermohaline shutdown. Such a change could cool down selective areas of the globe by 3° to 5° Celsius, while simultaneously causing drought in many parts of the world. These climate changes would occur quickly, even as other regions continue to warm slowly. It is critical to consider the economic and political ramifications of this geographically selective climate change. Specifically, the region most affected by a shutdown—the countries bordering the North Atlantic—is also one of the world's most developed.

The key component of this analysis is when a shutdown of the Conveyor occurs. Two scenarios are useful to contemplate:

Scenario 1: Conveyor slows down within next two decades.

Such a scenario could quickly and markedly cool the North Atlantic region, causing disruptions in global economic activity. These disruptions may be exacerbated because the climate changes occur in a direction opposite to what is commonly expected, and they occur at a pace that makes adaptation difficult.

Scenario 2: Conveyor slows down a century from now.

In such a scenario, cooling of the North Atlantic region may partially or totally offset the major effects of global warming in this region. Thus, the climate of the North Atlantic region may rapidly return to one that more resembles today's—even as other parts of the world, particularly less-developed regions, experience the unmitigated brunt of global warming. If the Conveyor subsequently turns on again, the "deferred" warming may be delivered in a decade.

A most interesting thread and one which rings a bell with thoughts I have held since spending some time speaking with scientists from NERC /Centre of Oceanography on this very subject (10 years ago now!) when they were obtaining data on the pattern of slowdown. Since then I have also listened to subjective evidence from local fishermen on the South Coast who have noted changes in fish movements which are consistent with cooling as opposed to warming.

Several points:

1. There is evidence that this has happened before in recorded historical and pre historical times, which begs detailed and urgent explanation of the triggers and patterns of occurrence.

2. Data collection has developed at an almost exponential scale over the past century, creating the risk of distortion when making comparisons with historic data.

3. This appears to be one of the more significant short term impacts of global warming

4. IMO the historic evidence of oceanic and climate behaviour is such that man made (AGW) effects are probably trivial by comparison with natural causes

5.Firm evidence is required to determine whether or not previous perturbations of NAD have been caused by random and unrelated events (meteorite impact, volcanic eruptions, related to solar activity, periodic changes in ocean circulation without specific cause - as happens within flow patterns in fluids at any scale)

6. From such evidence explore probabilities as to whether AGW alone is sufficient to trigger such events

I personally have seen insufficient evidence to support AGW as being causal. Historic patterns of climate change support explanation of rising temperatures over the past 100 years without AGM and also evidence the risk of very rapid cooling to come as part of some natural(but as yet not fully understood) cycle. The patterns of historic trends are IMO simply too strong and reliable to ignore.

Current preoccupation with man's impact upon climate may prove to be little more than a distraction. Research really needs to focus more upon understanding the past and upon planning response to those change events which nature will, unaided, surely deliver.

We should reflect that humans have a remarkable capacity to accept risk and ignore history and natural geological and geomorphological processes (hence we still chose to develop and inhabit vulnerable low lying areas including Amsterdam, London and indeed Sri Lanka post tsunami!). In the UK we continue to develop in flood plains and coastal areas and seem to believe we can control nature rather than cope with it. Attempts at control are essentially ephemeral and local in scale.

Having said all this is not to dismiss issues relating to the rate at which we currently deplete precious natural resources

and pollute the environment on a global scale. Here too we are rather slow to learn from the past and should heed historic aspects of social and economic geography.

This post might be regarded as being a bit off thread - but it is intended to highlight the need to interpret slow down of the conveyor against long term historical evidence if we are to properly understand cause and impact.

I would welcome links to any research relating to points 4 and 5 above.

Edited February 27, 2010 by egret

[MR EXTREMES]

good posts in here there has always been for me a possibility of the breakdown of this still id rather not say to much as i got shot down in the climate change thread for my thoughts.

but you guys are right to bring this to the front of the pack as is the solar thread which im also convinced there maybe a connection with the suns currents and ours o earth.

[egret]

good posts in here there has always been for me a possibility of the breakdown of this still id rather not say to much as i got shot down in the climate change thread for my thoughts.

but you guys are right to bring this to the front of the pack as is the solar thread which im also convinced there maybe a connection with the suns currents and ours o earth.

Badboy, its a shame if anyone feels reluctant to post because they 'got shot down' and glad you are not 'terminally deterred'!

We all hold beliefs based upon our understanding and will adapt those, depending upon information we receive and trust. It is healthy if we are all prepared to accept challenge and to change our viewpoint if good evidence suggests the need. We will all harbour doubts of one sort or another.

I too do not feel as knowledgeable as the many experts here, and was prompted to respond to the two recent excellent posts in this thread which appeared well informed and presented a sensibly balanced commentary.

Incidentally, I purposely did not name the persons I spoke to in NERC/Southampton Centre of Oceanography because they were personal discussions and off the record. The important thing however is that their evidence appears dramatic. The persons concerned admitted that there were possible serious and rapid consequences. They didn't wish to be alarmist however because the data was at that time a new 'snapshot in time' with no historic data to compare it with directly. I have not heard what changes have occurred in the past 5 years as my work no longer brings me in contact with these scientists.

At that time other data was emerging from deep sea floor sediment analysis which indicated very clearly that recent trends are actually very not unprecendeted. This leads me to believe that they are the result of some wholly natural process, which is not materially affected by mankind. It also suggests reasons for fluctuations in fish and sea bird breeding success and migration patterns (which is why I talk to fishermen with interest).

As you suggest, there does appear to be some correlation with solar activity. I do not know a lot about Weathe Action and a certain Piers Corbyn, however he uses solar activity as a basis of fore casting and predicted several years ago that last year would herald the first of 10 much colder winters. The graphs evidencing this cyclical activity are very compelling indeed and the long term cycles are consistent into geological timescales.

In that regard I find the historic trends more compelling than recent GW forecasts (which are not proving reliable in the short term).

Edited February 27, 2010 by egret

[Lynxus]

I think its just a way the planet regulates its temp.

The hotter the planet the more ice melts..

The melted "non saline" water drifts south , This effectivly stops the conveyor from sinking and returning south.

This on its own would slow it down and cause cooling in the north.

HOWEVER!

The cooling would then increase sea ice and icepack and lower the amount of fresh water draining into the oceans.

NOT just this, But the extra ice cover would also reflect UV rays and heat back up, Also increasing the cooling.

This would then encourange the conveyor to move north again and increase speed.

This would then push the icepacks further north over time and warming the NE up again.

Rinse repeat.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Lynxus

[kpm62]

I think its just a way the planet regulates its temp.

The hotter the planet the more ice melts..

The melted "non saline" water drifts south , This effectivly stops the conveyor from sinking and returning south.

This on its own would slow it down and cause cooling in the north.

HOWEVER!

The cooling would then increase sea ice and icepack and lower the amount of fresh water draining into the oceans.

NOT just this, But the extra ice cover would also reflect UV rays and heat back up, Also increasing the cooling.

This would then encourange the conveyor to move north again and increase speed.

This would then push the icepacks further north over time and warming the NE up again.

Rinse repeat.

In early 2010 U.S. scientists published new findings that showed the current was prone to short term variability but that there was no long term decline. Though the mechanisms dictating the short term changes are still poorly understood, changes in the current are believed to be part of a natural cycle,so there may be some logic in your reasoning.

The results are not entirely conclusive however. The scientists believe that their system is good enough to detect long term changes in flow of around 20%; however, the volumes of water involved are massive – up to 35 million tonnes of water a second – and accurate sensing equipment across the Atlantic has only been available for a relatively short period of time.

The large variability in seasonal and annual flows also make it difficult to provide a conclusive long term projection. The scientists are, however, actively working to get a better understanding of the phenomena and it is hoped that their research will inform future predictions of climate change hazards.

The Gulf Stream is a feature of Western European climate that has a great warming effect on Western European nations, particularly during the winter and in the north. If the Gulf Stream were to slow down or sink entirely it may lead to a drop in temperature across Western Europe. Scientists have previously predicted that global warming could produce such a slow down but recent studies have shown that this may not be the case. However, the studies are still inconclusive and it is likely that the real mechanisms governing the flow of the Gulf Stream will not be understood for a long time.

Edited April 14, 2010 by kpm62

[noggin]

Well, here's a silly question! Would the quantity of ice being melted by the Icelandic volcano (the name of which is somewhat beyond my spelling ability ) have any effect whatsoever on the Gulf Stream, or is it just a drop in the ocean? (pun not really intended!)

What about if the bigger volcano went up (Katlya ) and melted even more ice....would that have any effect?

That's two silly questions then!

Edited April 16, 2010 by noggin

[kpm62]

Well, here's a silly question! Would the quantity of ice being melted by the Icelandic volcano (the name of which is somewhat beyond my spelling ability ) have any effect whatsoever on the Gulf Stream, or is it just a drop in the ocean? (pun not really intended!)

What about if the bigger volcano went up (Katlya ) and melted even more ice....would that have any effect?

That's two silly questions then!

Doing a bit more research, the Katla caldera is apparently approximately 10*14 kms, presumably some sort of ovoid, and the ice sheet is about 700 metres thick. Drawing a pretty loose bow around this, this could easily represent 50-80 cu. kms of ice.

Eyjafjallajökull has now developed a new magma fissure, and if I was a gambling type I would say that the chances of Katla joining in were increasing.

The key question seems to be: would 50 cubic kms of fresh water dumped into the surface layer of the North Atlantic around Iceland very quickly be enough to reduce its density sufficiently to force the North Atlantic Drift to "dive" to abyssal depths much earlier than normal?

If I was a European meteorologist, this is something I would be investigating with considerable interest.

[kpm62]

Doing a bit more research, the Katla caldera is apparently approximately 10*14 kms, presumably some sort of ovoid, and the ice sheet is about 700 metres thick. Drawing a pretty loose bow around this, this could easily represent 50-80 cu. kms of ice.

Eyjafjallaj�kull has now developed a new magma fissure, and if I was a gambling type I would say that the chances of Katla joining in were increasing.

The key question seems to be: would 50 cubic kms of fresh water dumped into the surface layer of the North Atlantic around Iceland very quickly be enough to reduce its density sufficiently to force the North Atlantic Drift to "dive" to abyssal depths much earlier than normal?

If I was a European meteorologist, this is something I would be investigating with considerable interest.

The latest satellite data establishes that the North Atlantic Current (also called the North Atlantic Drift) no longer exists and along with it the Norway Current. These two warm water currents are actually part of the same system that has several names depending on where in the Atlantic Ocean it is. The entire system is a key part of the planet’s heat regulatory system; it is what keeps Ireland and the United Kingdom mostly ice free and the Scandinavia countries from being too cold; it is what keeps the entire world from another Ice Age. This Thermohaline Circulation System is now dead in places and dying in others.

This ‘river’ of warm water that moves through the Atlantic Ocean is called, in various places, the South Atlantic Current, the North Brazil Current, the Caribbean Current, the Yucatan Current, the Loop Current, the Florida Current, the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Current (or North Atlantic Drift) and the Norway Current.

The thermohaline circulation is sometimes called the ocean conveyor belt, the great ocean conveyor, or the global conveyor belt.

It is a university level physics experiment to use a tub of cool water and inject a colored stream of warm water into it. You can see the boundary layers of the warm water stream. If you add oil to the tub it breaks down the boundary layers of the warm water stream and effectively destroys the current vorticity . This is what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Atlantic Ocean.

The entire ‘river of warm water’ that flows from the Caribbean to the edges of Western Europe is dying due to the Corexit that the Obama Administration allowed BP to use to hide the scale of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster. The approximately two million gallons of Corexit, plus several million gallons of other dispersants, have caused the over two hundred million gallons of crude oil, that has gushed for months from the BP wellhead and nearby sites, to mostly sink to the bottom of the ocean. This has helped to effectively hide much of the oil, with the hopes that BP can seriously reduce the mandated federal fines from the oil disaster. However, there is no current way to effectively ‘clean up’ the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, which is about half covered in crude oil. Additionally, the oil has flowed up the East Coast of America and into the North Atlantic Ocean, and there is no way to effectively clean up this ‘sea bottom oil’. It is likely, based on numerous reports, that the oil is still flowing in massive amounts from multiple places on the seabed floor. This effectively means, that even if we had the technology in place to somehow clean up the free flowing thick crude oil deep in the ocean, it would likely not be enough to reverse the damage to the Thermohaline Circulation System in the Atlantic Ocean.

Dr. Deagle: The evidence has come in from ROV video and other experts such as Matt Simmons, BK Lim, and Lindsay Williams and my own anonymous whistleblowers from inside the closed circle of Cameron Ironworks, Tranocean Marine , Oceaneering International. My source provided very solid info re the ROV analysis by Oceaneering engineers that the BOP Blow Out Preventer was ‘modified’ and never had hydraulics to close the BOP. BP knew that the field had dangerous high levels of methane, hydrogen sulphide, and pressures exceeded any valve technology as the current state of the art. The seeps continue along a fractured fault line from the Macondo well site where evidence presented by BK Lim that the only well of three that reached the abiotic batholith ocean of oil and gas was never capped or stopped and has continued to leak along the ocean floor and inject oil and gas and tar into the rock strata.

Dr Gianluigi Zangari PhD from the Frascati Institute is a Theoretical Physicist, who has worked for years with a collaborative network of scientists monitoring the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and its contribution to the Thermohaline Current System that makes the Gulf Stream that becomes the North Atlantic Drift Current and subcurrents. After receiving a contact from a naval scientist via a regular guest on the NutriMedical Report national radio show, on Genesis Network, John Moore sent Dr. Deagle the info on Dr Zangari’s work. Dr. Deagle contacted him by SKYPE and and within minutes was conversing by SKYPE to Italy with Dr Zangari re his serious analysis with data from six satellites of the May to June 12th 2010 dissolution of the Loop Current. Over the next few weeks to July 28th, with numerous interviews on The NutriMedical Report and LiveStream.com/TheNutriMedicalReportShow updates, final proof was provided that the Gulf Stream had been stopped cold at the 47th longitudinal parallel with a 10 degree Celsius ocean temperature drop, and loss of velocity and energy, so that the Gulf Stream was only able to be measured by satellite to less than one-third the way across the Atlantic ocean. As Dr Zangari stated, this is not the butterfly effect but the ‘elephant effect’, and with the amount of oil released, the natural system linked as the pacemaker to world climate for millions of years, this was now gone, replaced by an artificial system with a Gulf of Mexico by late July seven degrees Celsius above normals, and totally disconnected Loop Current from the Florida current that becomes the Gulf Stream. In his reported on June 12th 2010 in a journal article, the CCAR Colorado data agreed with the NOAA and US Naval Satellites data. This live satellite data map later altered on the CCAR servers, and he emailed that this was “to falsify†and he could not explain this fact logically. He returned to NOAA and US Naval data on the same and later dates and stated by early August that the CCAR data was no longer reliable and his conclusions was not changed in quality or quantity of the serious consequences. His conclusion that ‘glaciation’ at an unknown pace was inevitable from this disaster.

Almost a month ago, we broke the story that the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico had effectively died. We quoted Dr. Gianluizi Zangari, who first discovered the damage to the Thermohaline Circulation System:

“As displayed by both by the sea surface maps and the sea surface height maps, the Loop Current broke down for the first time around May 18th and generated a clock wise eddy, which is still active. As of today the situation has deteriorated up to the point in which the eddy has detached itself completely from the main stream therefore destroying completely the Loop Current. ..â€

“It is reasonable to foresee the threat that the breaking of [such] a crucial warm stream as the Loop Current may generate a chain reaction of unpredictable critical phenomena and instabilities due to strong non-linearities which may have serious consequences on the dynamics of the Gulf Stream thermoregulation activity of the Global Climate.â€

- Dr. Gianluigi Zangari

The massive amount of crude oil, ever expanding in volume and covering such an enormous area, has seriously affected the entire thermoregulation system of the planet, by breaking up the boundary layers of the warm water flow. The Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico ceased to exist a month ago, the latest satellite data clearly shows that the North Atlantic Current is now GONE and the Gulf Stream begins to break apart approximately 250 miles from the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The Thermohaline Circulatory System, where the warm water current flows through a much cooler, much larger, ocean, effects the upper atmosphere above the current as much as seven miles high. The lack of this normal effect in the eastern North Atlantic has disrupted the normal flow of the atmospheric Jet Stream this summer, causing unheard of high temperatures in Moscow (104F) and drought, and flooding in Central Europe, with high temperatures in much of Asia and massive flooding in China, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Asia.

A Normal Gulf Stream taken from 5 September2004.

Figure 1. Gulf Stream velocities one week ago: Sunday 22 August 2010

Figure 2. Gulf Stream velocities two weeks ago: Sunday 15 August 2010

Figure 3. Gulf Stream velocities three weeks ago: Sunday 8 August 2010

Figure 4. Gulf Stream velocities four weeks ago: Sunday 1 August 2010

Older data charts:

Figure 1. Gulf Stream velocities one week ago: Wednesday 18 August 2010

Figure 2. Gulf Stream velocities two weeks ago: Wednesday 11 August 2010

Figure 3. Gulf Stream velocities three weeks ago: Wednesday 4 August 2010

Figure 4. Gulf Stream velocities four weeks ago: Wednesday 28 July 2010

The most current data continues to show a dying of the entire Thermohaline Circulation System in the Atlantic Ocean. This is indicative of the fact that the dispersants have caused the oil to remain in place below the surface, and according to most reports remain in almost full amounts (up to 80%) long after the BP Oil Disaster began. Since there is no current way to remove this massive amount of free flowing oil below the sea at depths up to one mile deep, it is apt to continue to effect any natural recovery of the Thermohaline Circulation System.

So what does this mean? Violent mixing of the seasons, crop failures, and increased drought and floods in diverse places is now daily news since the April 20th 2010 BP Oil Volcano. They have killed the pacemaker of world climate in the worlds of Dr Zangari PhD. Dr Mike Coffman PhD geologist resource climatologist, and Dr Tim Ball PhD climatologist have confirmed that if this data is correct, that an ice age and massive climate shift with famine is now imminent. We are now seeing Russia stop all delivery of wheat crops on prior contracts, and most sources of staple food crops moving worldwide in a crisis of famine. The Gulf Stream and related currents are effectively DEAD. This should enrage the public and bring forth scientists to challenge and support the data and analysis, for the consequences to the civilization of mankind and ecological collapse have global consequence producing famine, death and massive population migration away from zones of advancing ice age and regions unfit for human habitation. Let us get the facts and call the corporate and government to task on these issues now or face worldwide catechisms of biblical proportions. We shall continue to report with new scientific experts on this most important disaster.

The ‘process’ of entering a new Ice Age could begin coming upon us in full force (rather like in the movie “The Day After Tomorrowâ€) at any time, or it could take three to five year to fully play out with early glaciation beginning in North America and Europe and Asia this winter (both models have existed in the beginnings of different Ice Ages in Earth’s past).

Current sea surface temperature satellite data show pre-Ice Age cooling continuing – image ~

A new Ice Age, could kill 2/3 of the human race in the first year in a rapid onset; a slower onset would likely kill close to this number but simply take a handful of years.! Thank you BP; thank you President Obama, the lies and the dispersants were just great. Now if you could just direct all that hot air to the right places maybe we can avoid a icy hell in our near future.

UPDATE 2 September 2010: Europe is going into an early winter ~ link ~ with snowfall in the Alps coming a month early ~ link ~ half a meter of snow in late August in Norway ~ link ~ early snow in Russia ~ link ~ Additionally, sea ice in the Antarctic is at near record levels ~ link ~ and coldest August in South Australia in 35 years ~ link ~ This is indicative of a major climatic change to the entire planet and is to be expected from the dying Thermohaline Circulation System in the Atlantic Ocean

[k19]

The entire ‘river of warm water’ that flows from the Caribbean to the edges of Western Europe is dying due to the Corexit that the Obama Administration allowed BP to use to hide the scale of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster. The approximately two million gallons of Corexit, plus several million gallons of other dispersants, have caused the over two hundred million gallons of crude oil, that has gushed for months from the BP wellhead and nearby sites, to mostly sink to the bottom of the ocean. This has helped to effectively hide much of the oil, with the hopes that BP can seriously reduce the mandated federal fines from the oil disaster. However, there is no current way to effectively ‘clean up’ the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, which is about half covered in crude oil. Additionally, the oil has flowed up the East Coast of America and into the North Atlantic Ocean, and there is no way to effectively clean up this ‘sea bottom oil’. It is likely, based on numerous reports, that the oil is still flowing in massive amounts from multiple places on the seabed floor. This effectively means, that even if we had the technology in place to somehow clean up the free flowing thick crude oil deep in the ocean, it would likely not be enough to reverse the damage to the Thermohaline Circulation System in the Atlantic Ocean.

Thanks very much for your post, it is very informative. But I think there is a couple of assumptions in there, could you clear these up for me?

Surely it is wrong to say about half the gulf floor is covered. There are several reasons for this. The main one being that you have contradicted yourself, you say the government hid the scale of the disaster, yet you can give this measurement? Also, for the time the oil was leaking there couldn't possibly have been enough in total to cover the sea floor, considering almost all the oil would have formed a slick on the surface anyway. Only a small percentage ( Possibly heavier fractions/ carbon chains?) would have sunk. Also you see the oil is up the coast of USA, can i see the source? I also believed that as oil traveled that distance it would disperse and would become very diluted.

thanks

[kpm62]

Thanks very much for your post, it is very informative. But I think there is a couple of assumptions in there, could you clear these up for me?

Surely it is wrong to say about half the gulf floor is covered. There are several reasons for this. The main one being that you have contradicted yourself, you say the government hid the scale of the disaster, yet you can give this measurement? Also, for the time the oil was leaking there couldn't possibly have been enough in total to cover the sea floor, considering almost all the oil would have formed a slick on the surface anyway. Only a small percentage ( Possibly heavier fractions/ carbon chains?) would have sunk. Also you see the oil is up the coast of USA, can i see the source? I also believed that as oil traveled that distance it would disperse and would become very diluted.

thanks

From the legal point of view BP will be fined based on the amount of oil that leaks.

The official answer to how big the leak is keeps getting put off reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. For the first time, BP gave high resolution video to scientists trying to figure it out, but it's still holding back other material.

"Our estimate should be independent of BP," says Purdue University professor Steve Wereley. "We should take them out of the process."

Senators fired off a letter telling BP it "must not hinder" or "undermine(d)" a "truly independent" estimate.

Meantime, there's mistrust over another issue: oil lingering unseen beneath the surface.

It's marine scientists from gulf state universities - not the government or BP - who have been flagging giant undersea plumes for weeks. University of Georgia researchers found one three miles wide.

The University of South Florida found an even bigger one.

But BP, responsible for managing the fall-out, appears to be in a perpetual state of denial. They insist all the oil is on top.

"The oil is on the surface," said BP CEO Tony Hayward on May 30.

BP COO Doug Suttles echoed that sentiment to CBS News Early Show anchor Harry Smith Wednesday. Asked directly by Smith if he believed the underwater plumes existed, Suttles said, "Harry, no one has found any large concentrations of oil beneath the surface."

Smith responded, "So scientists are making it up?"

"All we can know for certain is what we measured," said Suttles.

Environmentalist Philippe Cousteau says, "I think it's irresponsible for them to be denying that."

Edited January 21, 2011 by kpm62

[k19]

From the legal point of view BP will be fined based on the amount of oil that leaks.

The official answer to how big the leak is keeps getting put off reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. For the first time, BP gave high resolution video to scientists trying to figure it out, but it's still holding back other material.

"Our estimate should be independent of BP," says Purdue University professor Steve Wereley. "We should take them out of the process."

Senators fired off a letter telling BP it "must not hinder" or "undermine(d)" a "truly independent" estimate.

Meantime, there's mistrust over another issue: oil lingering unseen beneath the surface.

It's marine scientists from gulf state universities - not the government or BP - who have been flagging giant undersea plumes for weeks. University of Georgia researchers found one three miles wide.

The University of South Florida found an even bigger one.

But BP, responsible for managing the fall-out, appears to be in a perpetual state of denial. They insist all the oil is on top.

"The oil is on the surface," said BP CEO Tony Hayward on May 30.

BP COO Doug Suttles echoed that sentiment to CBS News Early Show anchor Harry Smith Wednesday. Asked directly by Smith if he believed the underwater plumes existed, Suttles said, "Harry, no one has found any large concentrations of oil beneath the surface."

Smith responded, "So scientists are making it up?"

"All we can know for certain is what we measured," said Suttles.

Environmentalist Philippe Cousteau says, "I think it's irresponsible for them to be denying that."

Sorry, i may have missed something, but you don't appear to have answered my question about evidence. Do you have a source for these claims? They are quite extraordinary. But even if they did find one 3 miles wide, and a bigger one off Florida, assuming that is as little at 5% of the undersea oil ( Which I doubt; if they have had this long, with modern technology and the extent of the research any external agency probably would've found most of the larger plumes by now) then that is still only a miniscule portion of the Gulf. The quote from Tony Hayward doesn't mean anything. There was oil on the surface, and by the laws of physics most of the oil would have gone straight for the surface.

[kpm62]

Sorry, i may have missed something, but you don't appear to have answered my question about evidence. Do you have a source for these claims? They are quite extraordinary. But even if they did find one 3 miles wide, and a bigger one off Florida, assuming that is as little at 5% of the undersea oil ( Which I doubt; if they have had this long, with modern technology and the extent of the research any external agency probably would've found most of the larger plumes by now) then that is still only a miniscule portion of the Gulf. The quote from Tony Hayward doesn't mean anything. There was oil on the surface, and by the laws of physics most of the oil would have gone straight for the surface.

These are not my findings they are those of Professor Zangari and his team of scientists,which have given rise to extensive discussion in the scientific community

The accurate figure of the gulf oil spill is a matter of conjecture,but for the period of the leak millions upon millions of gallons of crude oil was released from that fracture. Based on the satellite traces that have been carried out and the extensive testing on water samples along the coastal regions and out in the deep sea , the evidence indicates a substantial contamination .

Zangari is a Theoretical Physicist at the Ascati Institute in Italy. He has worked for years with a collaborative network of scientists monitoring the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and its contribution to the Thermohaline Current System that makes the Gulf Stream that becomes the North Atlantic Drift Current.In June Zangari published a paper based on CCAR Colorado, NOAA and US Naval satellite data revealing the Ocean Conveyor Belt had stopped a month earlier, breaking into small eddies 250 miles from the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Zangari blamed this on the millions of gallons of Corexit BP dumped into the Gulf. This combined with oil to form a sludge that sunk to the ocean floor that gradually spread via ocean currents along the US Atlantic coast.

“As displayed by both by the sea surface maps and the sea surface height maps, the Loop Current broke down for the first time around May 18th and generated a clock wise eddy, which is still active. As of today the situation has deteriorated up to the point in which the eddy has detached itself completely from the main stream therefore destroying completely the Loop Current. ..â€

“It is reasonable to foresee the threat that the breaking of [such] a crucial warm stream as the Loop Current may generate a chain reaction of unpredictable critical phenomena and instabilities due to strong non-linearities which may have serious consequences on the dynamics of the Gulf Stream thermoregulation activity of the Global Climate.†—Dr. Gianluigi Zangari,

[jethro]

Is there any info about this from a source other than Zangari? I'm not being funny but this story and accusations have been circulating for some time now but I haven't seen any other scientists confirming them. Surely if this were true or even a possibility it would have been investigated by others?

Pollution on that scale (and with such a high public profile) and the interruption of a major ocean current would not be ignored by the science community.

[kpm62]

Is there any info about this from a source other than Zangari? I'm not being funny but this story and accusations have been circulating for some time now but I haven't seen any other scientists confirming them. Surely if this were true or even a possibility it would have been investigated by others?

Pollution on that scale (and with such a high public profile) and the interruption of a major ocean current would not be ignored by the science community.

In subsequent interviews, Zangari expressed concern that CCAR began falsifying their satellite data following the publication of his paper. Gee, I wonder why they would falsify data? He added that unless the Loop Current reorganized itself, England would start experiencing Siberian-style winters and possibly another Ice Age.

Another effect of the breakdown of Thermohaline Circulation, according to Zangari, was a disruption in the atmospheric Jet Stream in summer 2010, causing unheard of high temperatures in Moscow (104F) and drought, and flooding in Central Europe, with high temperatures in much of Asia and massive flooding in China, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Asia.

I don’t pretend to understand the advanced calculus Zangari employed to formulate his findings. However now that his predictions have come to pass, I think he needs to be taken seriously.

[jethro]

Falsifying data? Where is the evidence for this?

What predictions have come true? The ocean current isn't a constant, it varies over time.

[Alan Robinson]

Some 11,000 years ago the NADW shut down in response to subtle shifts in global climate. This slowed and diverted the course of the Gulf Stream to such an extent that the regional climate of the Northeast Atlantic became considerably cooler. As a result Northwestern Europe dropped back to ice age conditions within tens of years.

Sorry if someone else has made this comment, but the Pleistocene Epoch (Great Ice Age) began about 1,600,000 years ago, and ended about 10,000 years ago. Are you suggesting that towards the end of the Pleistocene there had been some warming prior to the cooling you mention? That would be necessary for Europe to "drop back" into ice age conditions.

Detailed investigations into the history of the North York Moors show that deforestation by the local inhabitants began about 10,000 years ago, meaning before 8,000 BC there must have been a warm climate for low alpine tundra to become broadleaf forest. Something doesn't quite add up here I think.

[Alan Robinson]

This subject was discussed in another thread recently, and at the risk of being tedious, let me again quote from The Mariner's Handbook, sixth edition, which is the Admiralty's core volume of a collection of publications that describe both the world's oceans and coastal waters for the use of mariners. The information contained has been gathered over centuries by eye witnesses. Concerning ocean surface currents:

"4.20, it is emphasised that ocean currents undergo a continuous process of change throughout the year. .........Over by far the greater part of all oceans, the individual currents experienced in a given region are variable, in many cases so variable that on different occasions currents may be observed to set in most, or all directions................The constancy of the principal currents varies to some extent in different seasons and in different parts of the current. It is usually about 50 to 75 per cent, and rarely exceeds 85 per cent, and then only in limited areas. Current variability is mainly due to the variation of wind strength and direction."

I have misplaced my copy of Ocean Passages for the World, but that excellent companion to The Mariner's Handbook contains a very fine description of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents, dating way back to the days of sailing ships trading with the Far East and Chile. The Gulf Stream is very variable, and people have known these things for donkey's years.

I am not holding my breath over such sensational postulations.

[Alan Robinson]

It is a university level physics experiment to use a tub of cool water and inject a colored stream of warm water into it. You can see the boundary layers of the warm water stream. If you add oil to the tub it breaks down the boundary layers of the warm water stream and effectively destroys the current vorticity . This is what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Atlantic Ocean.

Ask any wind tunnel or towing tank engineer or the designers of the Humber Estuary scale model used in preparation for the construction of the Humber Bridge. You'll be told that there are considerable difficulties scaling up model tests to real life. The experiment you describe is useless when trying to imitate the boundary between the Gulf Stream and, say, the Labrador Current.

Just for guidance, when estimating the power required to drive a 300 m long ship at an economic speed, a one metre long model of the vessel is useless, while a 6 metre long model can be used with caution. Even then, the empirical formulae used to scale the model results up to full size have been developed over 150 years or so, and are still subject to tweaking.

Anyway, I'd like to hear from the author of the piece quoted concerning the Reynolds Number in a classroom tank, and the Reynolds Number relating to the interface between the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[k19]

In subsequent interviews, Zangari expressed concern that CCAR began falsifying their satellite data following the publication of his paper. Gee, I wonder why they would falsify data? He added that unless the Loop Current reorganized itself, England would start experiencing Siberian-style winters and possibly another Ice Age.

Another effect of the breakdown of Thermohaline Circulation, according to Zangari, was a disruption in the atmospheric Jet Stream in summer 2010, causing unheard of high temperatures in Moscow (104F) and drought, and flooding in Central Europe, with high temperatures in much of Asia and massive flooding in China, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Asia.

I don’t pretend to understand the advanced calculus Zangari employed to formulate his findings. However now that his predictions have come to pass, I think he needs to be taken seriously.

To me this sounds like a conspiracy theory, rather than a scientific one. You must provide us with a link to the papers he published if you do not understand it.

Also I think we should note that:

The North Atlantic Drift slowing down ≠ a new ice age

and that

The North Atlantic Drift ≠ the jet stream

Edited January 22, 2011 by K.1000