Gulf Stream shutting down?

[ruskinPalms]

I’ve read a few articles here and there that talk about the Gulf Stream shutting down as the climate warms. Fresh water intrusion from melting glaciers in the north apparently decreases salinity and shuts off sinking water in the north that would otherwise flow back south in the deep ocean like a big conveyor belt. They say if this shuts off then Europe and parts of North America are heading for a deep freeze among other very disruptive weather pattern changes. What they never talk about is where does all that warm water go that doesn’t flow north anymore? What are the predicted weather changes at more southerly latitudes in the northern hemisphere? Would it affect the Southern Hemisphere in any way? Apparently the Gulf Stream has shut off in the past so it is bound to happen again no matter what you think about global warming/climate change/politics/etc. please don’t make this thread political! Just curious what other people’s thoughts are on this and how it would change the weather in the world if it did shut off. Thanks!

[Jcalvin]

This is really interesting. Do you have any links? 

[ruskinPalms]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
 

Here is the latest journal article (behind a paywall unfortunately) and a free news article about this. 

[Silas_Sancona]

It's an interesting subject for sure..  My " throws darts blindfold, in the dark "  thoughts would be that as the current slows down, as it appears to be doing atm, the depth of warm water will pool over the more southern portions of N. Am. ..possibly lingering longer into the cool season / warming faster during spring.. but, just a random guess..  The other, more significant consequences, which are already being seen includes

**displacement of ideal fishing areas, say off the coast of New England, as warmer water sp. shift north.. Recall a few days ago hearing of Reef Sharks being sighted along the coast off New York/ New Jersey? ..i think.. Anyway,,

**Rising sea levels - since warm water expands-  Without any doubt S. FL. for sure will see much bigger issues than currently in the near-er future.. Parts of the Southeast are already seeing early signs of rising sea levels as well.

**shifting ranges of animals / plants..

Another less discussed aspect of warming seas / slowing near- shore currents is what is ..and appears ready to accelerate occurring off California and the Pac. N.W.  Essentially, the CA. current that flows down the west coast appears to be slowing down as well, w/ consequences already being observed.  ( less " fog " / marine layer influence, more years than not.. Collapse / shifting of Kelp beds / Fish, like Salmon, that depend on cooler water / species from southern areas shifting further north.. Mass die- offs of  tide pool zone animals/ replacement by others moving up the coast..  Love Crab?.. like Salmon, this popular seafood may be harder to come by in the future ( ..or cost quite a bit more to purchase )

Sea Snakes.. something you'd only anticipate finding in the West Pacific, maybe around Hawaii, and/ or off western Mexico are now included in a few of California's " native " Herpetological  guides..

While not guaranteed in my lifetime, or my Niece's / Nephew's, CA. will ultimately face increasing threats - to a higher degree than currently- of seeing tropical activity reach into the state in the future as well, let alone big, warm and soaking wintertime storms, when they occur, between long and increasingly dry ( and warm ) episodes..

As far as the complete shut down " Day after tomorrow " doom and gloom kinda' outcomes?? Don't care what anyone says.. Not gonna happen anytime soon, unless you're lucky enough to live for the next 8-10,000+ years..  That said, yea, at some point, the overall cycle will start again w/ a massive cool down ( unless the planet warms enough that SSTs are in the mid- 70s, in the Arctic / Antarctic, in mid - winter ).


 

[chinandega81]

My thoughts (basically educated guessing) are as follows: Water will basically stay put, so that means, look at areas outside of ocean currents to see what the temperatures are like to get an idea of what they would be like without the transport. In Florida for example, Gulf waters get into the 60s. I would assume the Atlantic would be slightly warmer in the upper 60s in winter and longer into Spring. Summer warming would take longer to set in and cool off faster. This would mean a much drier weather pattern with so much cool water surrounding the state for much of the year. I think Florida, like much of North America, would be exposed to more intense swings in temperatures, more severe cold fronts and more intense heat waves. Not a good combination for us or anyone north of here.

I think the Caribbean temps would stay the same, warm to hot in the summer and mild to warm in the winter. Cuba would see weather similar to what South Florida sees now, South Florida would be more similar to Central Florida and so on...but with less precipitation. 

I have read that North America and Europe will become drier and colder if this happens. I'm not sure about to what to degree, but it doesn't seem like it will be beneficial to gardening, farming, crops, palms, etc. 

[ruskinPalms]

I think it would be really hard to predict what happens even with today’s super computers. Probably best to look at fossil records from times when it was shut off at different latitudes (while also accounting for plate tectonics etc) to see what the flora and fauna was like to get an idea what the climate was like. It has shut off before apparently while humans were around so fossil records shouldn’t be too deep and plate tectonics probably hasn’t moved things around too much since the last off time. 

[ruskinPalms]

Also, the heat/energy from the sun would keep coming like always so that heat/energy has to go somewhere, do something. The Gulf of Mexico is full of lots of eddy currents so I suspect the Atlantic would get more eddy currents as well without the Gulf Stream so lots of energy swirling around in a small area instead of being transported north. I tend to think the waters would stay disgustingly warm for more of the year in the the lower latitudes with lots of eddy currents not moving it anywhere in particular. The main transport for heat to the north at that point would be wicked hurricanes. I’m sure there would be more arctic blasts penetrating south as well so even though it may be much warmer overall in the more southern latitudes, still no luck on those Uber tropical palms in south coastal Georgia for example. 

[Tyrone]

My thoughts are that super computers have trouble predicting with accuracy what will happen in two weeks with the system we already have. To predict with any degree of accuracy what would happen if a huge climate driver like the Gulf Stream were to shut down is in my mind beyond current technology and any predictions about that are probably educated wild stabs in the dark at best.

One thing is for sure that the Earth is always trying to equalise it’s temperature between the poles and the equator through the atmosphere and the oceans, so if the Gulf Stream were to shut down, the Earth will likely generate another path to do what the Gulf Stream did. Very complex science this. 

[RedRabbit]

Great thread, I’ve been reading about this lately and it’s very fascinating. If the Gulf Stream stopped flowing I think it reasons SE Florida could lose a half zone. I’m also curious about what happens with all that hot water without the Gulf Stream. I read that in 2010 the Gulf Stream briefly cut off Europe by going west of Greenland.
If the Gulf Stream shut off completely though, perhaps the Loop Current in Gulf of Mexico would flow a different direction or circulate the water around the gulf? 

It’s hard to really know about this from looking at historical records. I understand just 10,000 years ago Florida extended another 200 miles west so the local land masses haven’t been static. Usually you think about these kinds of changes taking place over millions of years, but not the case with Florida. 

[bubba]

Poppy Cock Grant Renewal Fodder! If Ben Franklin could not pull it off, it will remain click bait! Saw it yesterday as I was flying out of Dodge!

[bubba]

The climate alarmists are working a hustle. Please read: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/14/north-atlantic-nonsense/

[Silas_Sancona]

1 hour ago, bubba said:

The climate alarmists are working a hustle. Please read: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/14/north-atlantic-nonsense/

Acknowledging the very real near and longer effects of rapid, human influenced Climate Change is far from a " hustle ".  Is 100% Science..  Science wins ..every time. 

[bubba]

Silas,

Please read the above article and comments from highly regarded scientists of far greater pedigree than Rahmstorf and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The scientific article and commentary takes exception with the premise articulated in the presented article at the commencement of this thread. Should you spend the time necessary to read the article and evaluate both sides of the argument, you may come away with a different perspective.

Science should be a constant battle of ideas, which are ultimately settled by the fundamental strength of the argument and data. The article attached to my response honestly explores the concept. This article demonstrates that the data supporting the original concept of this thread is skewed and presents a misleading oversimplification. True science is the art of weighing vacillating ideas until it becomes clear what is accurate and what is not. Science should be a realm of open ideas that can be honestly argued without fear so that the truth can be ascertained. It should not be a contest of emotions. It should be based solely on the facts.

Please read the article with an open mind adopting the scientific method. Feel free to bring your intellect to inform precisely where you disagree.

Best, bubba

[sonoranfans]

I recall reading that ten thousands years ago, it snowed regularly in florida because the thermohaline currents were reversed in parts of the world.  West coast currents ran north and east coast ran south, opposite of today.  North africa was a jungle, not a desert, and britain was very cold as currents were reversed and running south on that side of the atlantic as well.  We spend about 15B a year studying climate change, far more than any other scientific area.  The funding is there and the danger is that it is continued  based on a periodic  "need to get results" as grants expire.  My concern is that scientists are out there searching every possible relation to climate change.  We study the impact of climate change on many animals from minnows to birds and mammals.  In this scenario, my concern is that statistical foundations of the studies are poor with results needed when funding of a grant dries up.  I have seen plenty of science in all areas where it looks like it follows the saying:  "When all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail."  I hate the way this kind of funding works today.  The risk is plenty of false conclusions based on NOT considering all possibiities or limitations of studies.  On top of that we have the great difficulty in predicting the future.  Its very hard to do, and the further into the future you try to predict, the harder it is.  We could produce lots of future predictions that cannot be validated until that data is collected hundreds or thousands of years from now.   I have been modeling multivariate systems(not future models) for 25 years, even the ones that don't predict the future are not easy and must be validated for use.  The problem with predicting the future is that if the complex system is not stationary, you have an extrapolation of the nonlinear multivariate model.  While I am not a climate scientist, I have more experience than 95% of these guys in multivariate modeling and we learn from success when they have been validated with prediction.   Learning from success in a long term future model is impossible.  Scientifically, this is more like reading tea leaves than modeling a known complex system with a validated model.  The magnetic poles of the earth are shifting, this has happened before, long before modern man.  Thermohaline currents change very slowly, taking thousands of years.  They have changed without the help of man for hundreds of thousands of years.  Can man prompt a change in these?  Perhaps, but the shifting of the magnetic pole can certainly do this my exposing more polar icecap to warmer weather.  https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1339  I dont hear anyone out there with a good explanation of how climate influences shifting of the magnetic poles of the earth.  The poles shifting has to do with the earths molten/magnetic core, and we just haven't studied that much at all.

[The7thLegend]

Another thing to note is Earth's axis is shifting which could explain a lot also regarding the gulf stream.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by The7thLegend

[ZPalms]

I'll actually be annoyed to get set back a couple zones lol

[sipalms]

On 8/7/2021 at 4:28 AM, Silas_Sancona said:

**Rising sea levels - since warm water expands

Does solid matter expand too? Or just liquid

[Tyrone]

The Thames used to have Nypa fruticans in it, so are we really getting cooler now? 

[UK_Palms]

43 minutes ago, Tyrone said:

The Thames used to have Nypa fruticans in it, so are we really getting cooler now? 

Parts of the Thames did actually freeze over this winter just gone for the first time in like 30 years. January and February were unusually cold here this year, although this year in general has been the coldest in decades for London & southeast. I think they only saw -5C and about 36-48 consecutive hours below freezing in January, which managed to freeze sections of the Thames. It was more due to how prolonged the cold snaps were this year though, rather than the absolute lows. 

When I experienced -11C here in February 2018 due to the ‘Beast from the east’ vortex, central and eastern London didn’t drop below -6C, perhaps even -5C in the mildest spots. The biggest factor is that monstrous UHI that adds about 5C of protection on the coldest of winter nights. I suspect that is the main reason why the Thames does not freeze over anymore, due to the extent of the UHI nowadays. It’s effect is way more noticeable in winter than in summer.

While central London can be 5-6C warmer than me on the coldest of winter nights, it is rarely more than 1-2C warmer than me during summer. I’m guessing it’s because of the high concentration of houses with all their central heatings and fires on full blast during winter, as opposed to summer. So the UHI is more pronounced during winter. It’s only going to get more pronounced too as London’s population continues to expand.

So it is probably less to do with climate change and more to do with a big city outputting lots of artificial heat in winter, preventing the Thames from freezing nowadays. That’s not to say climate change isn’t happening though. The fact there are 30+ foot tall CIDP and Washingtonia here now tells me that the climate is changing, although this year has also been one of the coldest and crappiest in decades too, which has me questioning the extent of global warming again. I’m between two minds on the issue. 

[oasis371]

My current understanding is that the Gulf Stream will not shut down but will weaken.  Obviously, this has implications for Northern Europe winters big time.  Winters may become less maritime (i.e., colder),  but summers will still get warmer and growing seasons will still lengthen.   For North America, it has been suggested that a weaker Gulf Stream will permit more warm eddies to move up the coast, and off shore water temps along the Middle Atlantic and NE coastlines have been rising steadily.

[sonoranfans]

On 9/3/2021 at 2:27 AM, sipalms said:

Does solid matter expand too? Or just liquid

Actually ice is less dense(0.936 g/cc) than water at 80F(9.96g/cm3) and while seas may rise due to warming of existing water, any calculation showing a rise makes so many assumptions.  The thing about science is that the more assumptions you have to make about things happening or not happening in the future(cant validate them) the greater the risk that the resulting prediction is way off.  Scientists need to learn from failure, and yet we have no admitted failures in our ability to predict climate change levels.   Tesla said: " I have not failed, I have just found 10,000 ways that won't work".  Great scientists know failure is inevitable and yet we don't see any admitted failures in climate change prediction.  No science has succeeded without failure, I just hope our climate scientists can operate under that premise as its so politicized.  I'm sure some fear they wont get funded if they don't get the timely results that the funding agency wants.  Science funding is way too politically controlled today.  We have eroded the public trust in science as never before.  Green ways of limiting CO2 make sense but so does protecting our oceans which are being contaminated for decades by many millions of tons.  The big gorilla of climate change eats up all funding and other science, like control of contagious disease, is pretty much ignored.  It should be obvious now that we need to consider the immediate health of our popultion before attempting to save the future a couple hundred or thousand years way.  Good news is that remote jobs are better than EV's at limiting CO2, they are much better.  And no one has to buy an expensive 40k+ electric car to reduce their CO2 footprint, its lower yet staying home.  This reduction in gas consumption via remote work could happen much faster than any subsidization of EV's.  And with 5G, the future of dispersed workplaces in many professions should be a relatively doable step.  Now is the time for our government to incentivize this kind of behavior for both employees and employers.