The North Atlantic Current Is Gone

[ZONE 51]

We read, we study, we learn...

[Skyhi]

We read, we study, we learn...

We do indeed nimbilus, the evidence is everwhere if you look hard enough. It's the same old thing, they wont aknowledge something unless it has already happened...otherwise, it's an educated guess. There seems to be evidence in favour of both warming and cooling of the planet, but I for one, truly believe that cooling will win out the argument.

[ZONE 51]

What ever happens..we shall see extreme world weather events more so than now, its only a short (hope not of course) time before the next one happens, they are frequent, and elements of climate change not known in modern day are happening, things that might have occured before when science was'nt advanced enough to know the cause, but being discovered today, huge climatic and solar events thousands of years ago returning? but through new causes, manmade causes?(minus solar) or a natural phase?

please move/a copy to iceage thread-thanks.

Edited October 21, 2010 by nimbilus

[Methuselah]

We do indeed nimbilus, the evidence is everwhere if you look hard enough. It's the same old thing, they wont aknowledge something unless it has already happened...otherwise, it's an educated guess. There seems to be evidence in favour of both warming and cooling of the planet, but I for one, truly believe that cooling will win out the argument.

It's just that the 'evidence' in favour of cooling has so-far failed to influence real-world things like thermometers?

[WhiteXmas]

Melted ice causing freshwater in the ocean changing the salty mixture, as warming causes ice melt it affects the gulf stream that disrupts north europe and the uk's weather patterns, in turn with other cold factors these parts turn colder. The scientists know somethings wrong but they won't be heard like the global warming scientists, but why? a reason being GW is happening but minis our quarter, thats three quarters to GW and one quarter to the ice age zone. global warming is making some cooling!

How did I know that this would end up with someone blaming it on Global Warming. I see you have been effectively brainwashed by the powers above. Do we even know that Global Warming is a real scenario? No. It is a theory and nothing more so I think people should stop stupidly linking everything bad that happens in the weather to Global Warming as it is still no more than a theory, not a real life scenario. How do we know that this hasn't happened many times before? The simple answer is we don't. We are small fish in a very very big pond and we only know a fraction of how it all works.

Again, I will say I think the most sensible thing would be to apply a "wait and see" approach rather than dive in the deep end and blame it on radical factors that are outwith our depth.

Edited October 21, 2010 by WhiteXmas

[Midlands Ice Age]

How did I know that this would end up with someone blaming it on Global Warming. I see you have been effectively brainwashed by the powers above. Do we even know that Global Warming is a real scenario? No. It is a theory and nothing more so I think people should stop stupidly linking everything bad that happens in the weather to Global Warming as it is still no more than a theory, not a real life scenario. How do we know that this hasn't happened many times before? The simple answer is we don't. We are small fish in a very very big pond and we only know a fraction of how it all works.

Again, I will say I think the most sensible thing would be to apply a "wait and see" approach rather than dive in the deep end and blame it on radical factors that are outwith our depth.

I am a fan of yours WhiteXmas!!

Most people on here cannot remember the summers of the 1950's. I maintain we have gone back to that era with very many similarities..

[ZONE 51]

Most people on here cannot remember the summers of the 1950's. I maintain we have gone back to that era with very many similarities..

I cant, but the older generation tells me the stories of great winters and great summers and a normal climate, but if we go back to the last ice age, normal climate? no or maybe yes, earth and space phases combined ex: solar, are cycles that happen over periods of many decades to hundreds of years, these greatly affect the climate and weather, mega volcanic eruptions to. the earth has warmed before(tree rings data/ice cores) ,thats before cars..factory's.......So the cause back then was?

[WhiteXmas]

I am a fan of yours WhiteXmas!!

Most people on here cannot remember the summers of the 1950's. I maintain we have gone back to that era with very many similarities..

Thanks MIA

I can't remember said dates as I myself am only 21! :lol:

But it is certainly important to remember that many things have happened in the past that haven't been understood or documented therefore we cannot compare today to yesterday (within reason) if you will.

[jethro]

Been digging around for info on the NAD, thought some of you may find it interesting.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/benchmarks/Guls%20Stream%20Position/Gulf%20Stream%20position.html

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_NATCGulfStream.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091127134037.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B757H-48B0S6H-HC&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1968&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1509607056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=00c096afddd3e801104ff5f492b3344a&searchtype=a

[blitzen]

Been digging around for info on the NAD, thought some of you may find it interesting.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/benchmarks/Guls%20Stream%20Position/Gulf%20Stream%20position.html

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_NATCGulfStream.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091127134037.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B757H-48B0S6H-HC&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1968&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1509607056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=00c096afddd3e801104ff5f492b3344a&searchtype=a

Blimey Jethro, i'll be reading 'till Christmas! A lot of interesting articles to go through. Thanks.

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

How did I know that this would end up with someone blaming it on Global Warming. I see you have been effectively brainwashed by the powers above. Do we even know that Global Warming is a real scenario? No. It is a theory and nothing more so I think people should stop stupidly linking everything bad that happens in the weather to Global Warming as it is still no more than a theory, not a real life scenario. How do we know that this hasn't happened many times before? The simple answer is we don't. We are small fish in a very very big pond and we only know a fraction of how it all works.

Again, I will say I think the most sensible thing would be to apply a "wait and see" approach rather than dive in the deep end and blame it on radical factors that are outwith our depth.

Wee bit off topic, but after a few beers, might as well lay my cards on the table…

I studiously avoid getting into climate change related debates. However, I will say your comment gets my strong support. This kind of view is what we need – pragmatic.

As a working geologist/geochemist, now consultant chemical engineer and researcher, the one thing I’ve learned is that we know really so little and that dogma is very commonly just that. I teach my PhD students not to accept anything they read in the scientific literature as gospel, even what is currently ‘well established’, and look at all evidence/results in terms of what they are saying to them, not try to make them fit an accepted theory. My colleagues and I have proven in the past with the most simple experiments that even ‘high quality’ peer reviewed articles in Journals such as Nature are commonly completely wrong – often this is just because of a little thing that was not seen, maybe because the authors so wanted a conclusion to be true (and note, you can prove something is wrong or right, at least in basic, few component equilibrium systems)?

In chemistry, just trying to measure the precise temperature and pressure of a phase transition (e.g. the melting point of ice in a saline solution) is actually not that easy to do within even +/-1 C (the kind of values we’re looking at in terms of recorded ‘global warming’). There are so many little things that can influence the result, T probe calibration, probe positioning, mixing, thermal effects, mass transfer effects, metastablility…. If in a lab environment with very expensive equipment (10’s to 100’s of £k) people still find measuring the properties of very simple, equilibrium systems with absolute precision/accuracy difficult, to say we know what the massive disequilibrium of atmosphere/ocean system is doing with any certainty is just silly. We can’t predict the weather the next day, never mind in 20 years time.

The climate of the earth has varied hugely over geological time, on both the very short (10-100’s of years) to the long (millions of years). There is no ‘normal’ climate; that is a ridiculous fallacy based on the limited understanding/time people (including us ‘boffins’) take thinking deeply about the workings of the world around them. Climate is inherently highly dynamic and subject to rapid changes; records show this and we greatly struggle to explain these with any certainty. We are just not that clever.

I am on side with the global warming camp in that there is reasonable evidence that things have got a touch warmer recently (keep in mind we are still in a glacial period in terms of Earth history). However, the fact that all publicised models show warming, warming, warming in various degrees makes me, personally, highly sceptical. With the huge number of factors involved (positive and negative feedbacks…), we should really have odds either way should we not? If 60% of projections said warming over the next 100 years and 40% said cooling, then I would be more convinced our understanding of global climate, at least on the short term, is bearing fruit and we’re getting an idea of short term possibilities.

Yes, we should stop relying on fossil fuels and should ‘reduce/re-use/recycle’, if only as these things are undoubtedly a finite resource and it is just plain sensible, but the climate will change by its own accord, in its own time and there is not much we can do about it – we just are not in control.

The next glaciation will come at some point, or we’ll be hit by an asteroid and half the population will be wiped out. That’s Earth.

Looking forward to a typical UK winter – does what it wants and what we least expect…. Fascinating stuff to try to learn about.

Here endeth SS finally stating his weather politics…

Cheers

[jethro]

Blitzen - there's quite a lot to plough through, sorry! Hope you enjoy it though.

Scottish Skier - please, please, please join in over in the Climate section.

[ZONE 51]

Yes Scottish skier very interesting read, and thanks jethro il take a look at those links and save any of interest.

I think warming is causing some cooling due to melting ice changing the ocean saltiness, affecting the gulf stream causing n-atlantic cold pools distrupting uk/europe weather patterns, this would not cool the southern hemiphere as the gs cools around greenland, and heats at the tropics, the part of the gs that reaches our area of ocean NAD(north atlantic drift) could be bringing us less warmed atlantic.

Mild winters over? we are in cold phase now ,something is changing, i want more evidence on gulf stream slow, after all the ocean temps and warm/cold water movements are a huge influence on weather patterns.

[blitzen]

Wee bit off topic, but after a few beers, might as well lay my cards on the table…

I studiously avoid getting into climate change related debates. However, I will say your comment gets my strong support. This kind of view is what we need – pragmatic.

Yes, we should stop relying on fossil fuels and should ‘reduce/re-use/recycle’, if only as these things are undoubtedly a finite resource and it is just plain sensible, but the climate will change by its own accord, in its own time and there is not much we can do about it – we just are not in control.

You should drink more often SS! What a refreshing, un-biased post.

[stewfox]

Been digging around for info on the NAD, thought some of you may find it interesting.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/

http://www.aoml.noaa...20position.html

http://www.appinsys....CGulfStream.htm

http://www.scienceda...91127134037.htm

http://www.sciencedi...4a&searchtype=a

Interesting , particulary this bit and comment at the end re the slow down of the Gulf Stream 22nd October 1907 !

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_NATCGulfStream.htm

[jethro]

Interesting , particulary this bit and comment at the end re the slow down of the Gulf Stream 22nd October 1907 !

http://www.appinsys....CGulfStream.htm

I thought so too. Might be interesting to compare the state of other drivers back then with the current situation - what was the Sun up to, ENSO, ice levels etc. Of course, it may yield sod all of interest and reveal nothing but I'm sure they all have more relevance than an oil spill.

Anyone with time to spare to dig the info up?

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

You should drink more often SS! What a refreshing, un-biased post.

Thanks – I’m glad some people found my beer-fuelled philosophy had credence. I was wondering this morning what reactions might be to my late night ramble…

As for commenting on the climate change forum – in the past when I have posted some – what I felt were pragmatic – posts questioning the certainty over global warming, I’ve immediately had some global warming converts ranting and raving at me; sensible discussion is impossible if one side is so firmly convinced they are right to the point of ignorance.

As noted in my earlier post, I have a background in geology, including global climate history, and have done some meteorology a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away as an undergrad. However, my current views on GW come as much from my ongoing work as a fluid thermodynamics researcher, designing and using specialist equipment to measure phase behaviour and kinetics in solid-liquid-gas systems, particularly ice, gas hydrates etc. In such systems, we often have only a few components and are going to great lengths to ‘control’ things carefully, yet getting good data is always hard work. Hence my view that if even simple measurements of basic systems is tricky, understanding hugely complex systems like the atmosphere is extremely difficult, if not impossible currently. We can just try to pick out general trends and try to see how right we are with hindsight.

Working with many scientists, some very eminent in their field, has also shown me how very stubborn some can be; stubborn to the point that they can never admit they are wrong. If people build their careers around a particular area of research/theory, even if it turns out later on that there are big holes in this, they can still stick to their guns to the bitter end. Dogma in science is very common, and once established, can be very hard to break. Unfortunately, GW is now dogma in many ways I feel – does not mean that there is not truth in it, but it is very far from being sealed, stamped and delivered.

I suppose I could become resident expert on the potential role naturally occurring methane gas hydrates have on climate change – gas hydrates is something I do have in-depth knowledge on! Time is always the problem – work keeps me very busy.

Jethro – your links are very interesting. I love the one about the Gulf Stream not greatly influencing the UK climate. This is how I've always understood it and I’ve been explaining the same to friends for years – i.e. we live next to a warm ocean to the west with the winds mostly blowing W to E, hence we’re a bit warmer for the latitude in the simplest terms. We quickly see in an easterly what happens when the winds blow the other way.

Maybe, if I start to post longer posts like this, I need to start a ‘long, philosophic, often beer fuelled, views on climate science’ thread.

[jethro]

As for commenting on the climate change forum – in the past when I have posted some – what I felt were pragmatic – posts questioning the certainty over global warming, I’ve immediately had some global warming converts ranting and raving at me; sensible discussion is impossible if one side is so firmly convinced they are right to the point of ignorance.

Maybe, if I start to post longer posts like this, I need to start a ‘long, philosophic, often beer fuelled, views on climate science’ thread.

Hi SS, I accept that the climate area in the past, did at times become more trouble than it was worth but it has changed - honestly. The code of conduct is strictly enforced, ranting for the sake of ranting isn't tolerated.

Informed, open-minded, pragmatic views are exactly what are needed to break through the dogma.

If time permits, I hope you'll give it a go.

[knocker]

I thought so too. Might be interesting to compare the state of other drivers back then with the current situation - what was the Sun up to, ENSO, ice levels etc. Of course, it may yield sod all of interest and reveal nothing but I'm sure they all have more relevance than an oil spill.

Anyone with time to spare to dig the info up?

I believe there was a quiet (in intensity) La Nina in 1907 following a fairly long Nino) before the decline in both the frequency and intensity of warm events from 1925 until 1958.

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

Hi SS, I accept that the climate area in the past, did at times become more trouble than it was worth but it has changed - honestly. The code of conduct is strictly enforced, ranting for the sake of ranting isn't tolerated.

Informed, open-minded, pragmatic views are exactly what are needed to break through the dogma.

If time permits, I hope you'll give it a go.

Hi - had a look in the climate change section and certainly things seem to have changed. Much more civilised in there now. I might well pop in and give my tuppenceworth from time to time.

I wonder if a thread on gas hydrates and climate change might be of interest? There's a lot of study going into this although it is still not well known/accepted in 'man-made CO2 causes climate change, end of story ' circles. Gerald Dickens has done a lot of work on this (e.g. http://www.geotimes....re_climate.html) and we're organising a special session on this topic for the 7th International Conference on Gas Hydrates in Edinburgh next summer (muggins here is the organising committee secretary/general dogsbody). See http://www.icgh.org

Should prove a very interesting session. Guess I can be the netweather on-site reporter come the time

As for the Gulf Stream. As I stated earlier, from what I understand, it does not greatly influence the climate of the UK; our mild weather is mainly due to the summer heat absorbing Atlantic and a general W-E track of winds driven. The pacific analogy is the NW coast of canada and S coast of Alaska; these are quite wet and mild (Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort suffers this problem) until the costal ranges of the rockies are passed and colder air in the pacific sheltered continental interior is met.

I understand there has been some slow-down in the glulf stream in recent decades, this has had people worried and it may well be related to the run of cooler winters we've had recently. However, I understand it is of course still there and may even have picked up again. Certianly, I ignore the media scare stories about how the loss of the gulf stream would plunge northern Europe into an ice age. I enjoyed the day after tomorrow and such a change would be great for the skiing, but I feel just modestly cooler weather due to a reduction in heat delivered to the north atlantic is a more likely prospect, at least in the short term, would be the result of weakened gulf stream.

Edited October 23, 2010 by scottish skier

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Here endeth SS finally stating his weather politics…

Cheers

Thanks, Enjoyed that, and I'll also repeat what Jethro said, come over to the Climate forum

[jethro]

Hi - had a look in the climate change section and certainly things seem to have changed. Much more civilised in there now. I might well pop in and give my tuppenceworth from time to time.

I wonder if a thread on gas hydrates and climate change might be of interest? There's a lot of study going into this although it is still not well known/accepted in 'man-made CO2 causes climate change, end of story ' circles. Gerald Dickens has done a lot of work on this (e.g. http://www.geotimes....re_climate.html) and we're organising a special session on this topic for the 7th International Conference on Gas Hydrates in Edinburgh next summer (muggins here is the organising committee secretary/general dogsbody). See http://www.icgh.org

Should prove a very interesting session. Guess I can be the netweather on-site reporter come the time

Hi SS, glad you can see an improvement, thanks for taking the time to look.

Your suggestion for a thread sounds like a good idea to me, feel free to open one. Look forward to reading it.

Cheers

[Buzzit]

I must also thank SS for the refreshing pragmatism on the GW front

[jethro]

The invite to SS to give the climate area a try is open to you all, please all of you interested in that stuff, pop by and give that area a go - it's not a food fight any more.

It would be fantastic to get more views and conversations with a broader spectrum of voices.

[greybing]

Thanks – I’m glad some people found my beer-fuelled philosophy had credence. I was wondering this morning what reactions might be to my late night ramble…

As for commenting on the climate change forum – in the past when I have posted some – what I felt were pragmatic – posts questioning the certainty over global warming, I’ve immediately had some global warming converts ranting and raving at me; sensible discussion is impossible if one side is so firmly convinced they are right to the point of ignorance.

As noted in my earlier post, I have a background in geology, including global climate history, and have done some meteorology a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away as an undergrad. However, my current views on GW come as much from my ongoing work as a fluid thermodynamics researcher, designing and using specialist equipment to measure phase behaviour and kinetics in solid-liquid-gas systems, particularly ice, gas hydrates etc. In such systems, we often have only a few components and are going to great lengths to ‘control’ things carefully, yet getting good data is always hard work. Hence my view that if even simple measurements of basic systems is tricky, understanding hugely complex systems like the atmosphere is extremely difficult, if not impossible currently. We can just try to pick out general trends and try to see how right we are with hindsight.

Working with many scientists, some very eminent in their field, has also shown me how very stubborn some can be; stubborn to the point that they can never admit they are wrong. If people build their careers around a particular area of research/theory, even if it turns out later on that there are big holes in this, they can still stick to their guns to the bitter end. Dogma in science is very common, and once established, can be very hard to break. Unfortunately, GW is now dogma in many ways I feel – does not mean that there is not truth in it, but it is very far from being sealed, stamped and delivered.

I suppose I could become resident expert on the potential role naturally occurring methane gas hydrates have on climate change – gas hydrates is something I do have in-depth knowledge on! Time is always the problem – work keeps me very busy.

Jethro – your links are very interesting. I love the one about the Gulf Stream not greatly influencing the UK climate. This is how I've always understood it and I’ve been explaining the same to friends for years – i.e. we live next to a warm ocean to the west with the winds mostly blowing W to E, hence we’re a bit warmer for the latitude in the simplest terms. We quickly see in an easterly what happens when the winds blow the other way.

Maybe, if I start to post longer posts like this, I need to start a ‘long, philosophic, often beer fuelled, views on climate science’ thread.

here,here...very true