Gulf Stream weakening

November 30, 2005 12:50 PM

Atlantic currents show signs of weakening,according to a new study from the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. I just hope these findings don't provoke the nightmare scenario of a sequel.
posted by homunculus (32 comments total)

Sucks to be Europe.
posted by keswick at 12:53 PM on November 30, 2005

Sucks to be on Earth.
posted by id at 12:57 PM on November 30, 2005

That too.
posted by keswick at 12:58 PM on November 30, 2005

I'm getting planning permission in early for a Chilterns ski resort. "Ski all the way to the Thames". There's a certain ring to it.
posted by movilla at 1:06 PM on November 30, 2005

Nice. When the trans-atlantic bridge from New Jersey to Greenland to Iceland to France pops up, I'll be sure to take the dogsled that way. I love skiing.
posted by id at 1:24 PM on November 30, 2005

Huh. This is one set of measurements from one voyage of a boat taking samples every 50km on a line between the Bahamas to the Canary Islands. From this they extrapolate a 30% weakening in latitudes they didn't even visit. I would like a second opinion please.

The team behind the new study are the first to spot these signs of decline in Atlantic currents.

Yes, they're the only people to spot it. It really doesn't take much to get headlines on Global Warming does it. "World doomed, it's all our fault" seems to play to something we want to hear.
posted by grahamwell at 1:30 PM on November 30, 2005

Damn those sensationalist hacks at Nature!
posted by Tlogmer at 1:35 PM on November 30, 2005

Sensor-equipped moorings installed at 25 locations across the subtropical Atlantic have now begun to monitor continuously the circulation at all depths. The next four years or so should tell us whether the Atlantic heating system is still working well, says Marotzke.

So I guess we'll see.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:37 PM on November 30, 2005

This is one set of measurements from one voyage of a boat taking samples every 50km on a line between the Bahamas to the Canary Islands.

The story says there were four similar surveys over the last ~50 years. Not a staggering quantity of data, perhaps, but it doesn't seem honest to characterize a group of 5 surveys taken years apart as "one set of measurements."

...they're the only people to spot [signs of decline in Atlantic currents]. It really doesn't take much to get headlines on Global Warming...

Who else has looked?

Does a story in Nature count as "headlines?"

The story points out the need for further study and mentions that further research into the phenomenon is already underway.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:46 PM on November 30, 2005

Here's a marvellously sensational write up from the BBC. This does count as headlines (check its position on the news home page). You have to work your way right down the page to discover that they are actually talking about the same results. It's worthwhile though. The method seems to have changed - according to the BBC the lmost recent set of measurements, the one that was out of line, were the first taken with stationary buoys.

The analysis involves only five sets of measurements, made in 1957, 1981, 1992 and 1998 from ships, and in 2004 from a line of research buoys tethered to the ocean floor.

Compare with the Nature quote:

Similar measurements along the same latitude were previously made in 1957, 1981, 1992 and 1998. But until now, the data never showed any significant decline in circulation. "In 1998 we saw only very small changes," says Bryden. "I was about to give up on the problem."

One set of measurements, because the other four did not show any variation. It is not clear whether the method changed or not. Rather a lot is being made of this, no?

Perhaps here's the reason:

To answer this question, the Rapid team plans to continue their measurements in the next few years.

Their buoys remain in place, and ships can go to gather their data as often as finance allows.

I feel a grant application coming on.
posted by grahamwell at 1:55 PM on November 30, 2005

I'm sorry, the BBC item is here.
posted by grahamwell at 1:57 PM on November 30, 2005

Real Climate (a most informative and reality-based site on climate issues run by real climate scientists) has a non-sensationalist analysis. In short this is not about nighmare scenarios - but it is very interesting, to say the least.

And yes grahamwell, they're only in it for the grant money, aren't they? In which case it's a pity these scientists aren't clever enough to pimp "scientific" PR for Exxon-Mobile - that's where the *real* money is...
posted by talos at 2:17 PM on November 30, 2005

If only I'd worked harder at school I could have been paid for cruising from to Bahamas to the Canaries doing something or other every 50 kilometres! Beats my office in Battersea.
posted by terrymiles at 2:22 PM on November 30, 2005

Climate scientists steal all the valuable computer time!!! Give someone else a chance you greedy bastards!
posted by ozomatli at 2:38 PM on November 30, 2005

It doesn't take a hefty backhander from Exxon-Mobil to poke holes in this story though, just a brief consideration of the actual data. If you're up against a sinister, well funded conspiracy of denial, shouldn't you do better than this?

Those arguing for climate change and its terrible consequences may have the angels on their side, but they are done no favours by the terrible exaggerations of their supporters and cheerleaders.

If the 'Real Climate' view was widely read, as opposed to the Times, Independent, and ultimately "The Day after Tomorrow", then no problem. Millions however will read an entirely inaccurate gloss and their perceptions will influence policy. This matters, here in the UK we are in the process of being bounced into a new generation of Nuclear Power stations, an argument being driven by unsubstantiated fears such as those set out here.

Both sides are to blame. There has been, what Britain's 'most senior scientist' describes as an upsurge of fundamentalism which is skewing debates over some of the most pressing issues facing humanity, such as climate change and emerging diseases.

The oil companies seem happy to play both sides of this game, witness this miserable press release from BP.

That's a wonderful list though Talos, how do I get on it?
posted by grahamwell at 2:59 PM on November 30, 2005

That's a wonderful list though Talos, how do I get on it?
A PhD in Climate science is probably required. Or something similarly useful. Then you advertise your availability by placing one or two "climate skeptic" articles in news outlets somewhere. Then you wait. If you're lucky someone will call.

BTW: May is most certainly unequivocal on the issue of climate change as he states (in the link you posted) that:

"The problem is most prominent in the debate over climate change, Lord May claims, comparing the climate change denial lobby, which is "funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars" by the petroleum industry, with the tobacco lobby, which continues to deny that smoking causes lung cancer."

The smoking industry examples sheds some light on BPs Damascene conversion as well: when the body of evidence becomes so incontrovertible that you can't deny it - fess up and use your newfound "concern" as a PR tool. This is of course better than what Exxon-Mobile is doing (and smarter business-wise I'd say).
posted by talos at 3:16 PM on November 30, 2005

grahamwell: One set of measurements, because the other four did not show any variation.

Oh, come now. That's a rhetorical trick you can play with any set of data that shows a sudden, recent change. If you took your own temperature every day for a year, and found it was always 98.6F, except for day #365, when it was 103F, you could explain it away by saying "Hey, it's only one measurement, and therefore nothing to worry about." Is that really reasonable? Would you actually react that way? Would you expect anyone else to?

The change in the measurement method is more troubling, and certainly the whole issue needs more study. But "sensational?" This?

The NOC researchers admit that the case is not yet proven ... Even if the trend is confirmed by further data, it could be down to natural variability rather than human-induced global temperature change.

I didn't personally get the impression that the sky is certain to fall, or even that anyone is predicting that the sky will fall tomorrow. It doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be taken seriously.
posted by Western Infidels at 3:26 PM on November 30, 2005

Wait a minute, I thought Europe was supposed to be getting warmer?
posted by A dead Quaker at 3:37 PM on November 30, 2005

Talos, agreed, but forgive me, the BP press release is a shocker.

"You just have to turn on your television to catch a weather forecast these days ..."

Those ex-smokers, they're always the worst.

Western, to answer an earlier question, on a quick Google, Gulf Stream observation and measurement seems to be a fairly sophisticated activity. Lots of people are involved, using techniques from satellites to robots. There's certainly no shortage of Papers, this summary caught my eye ..

".. one gains the impression that the Gulf Stream evinces considerable temporal stability over a wide range of time scales. This, in addition to its now well-documented structural robustness."

Still, you can find anything you want on Google. I suspect we should go and give proper attention to the Real Climate link. Now about this rhetorical trick.

You're quite right that if my temperature suddenly jumped I would be alarmed. But I'd know (or not) whether the measurement was accurate. I would feel it and it would be trivial to take a confirmatory measurement. That's what I would want.

That's not the case here. These are widely spaced, periodic readings subject to margins of error and without any alternative evidence (apart from all the stuff above which doesn't seem to corroborate). We can't go back and get another reading, we have to wait for the next voyage (or not - it isn't clear whether the method has changed). The sample is small. The last reading may indicate that something is up, alternatively it may be a rogue result. We don't know and we can't find out - not yet. The key reading will be the next one (assuming that this method has value).

What actually amazed me was that all these measurements were being taken so far South.

Sensational, well yes, go back and read the first three paragraphs of the Nature article. What particularly troubles me is this "...have substantially weakened over the past 50 years." As with the BBC article it wants to imply that there is a body of evidence over time. In fact, if we assume the readings are correct, the evidence is for a sudden and dramatic shift, over only a few years. Now that's a rhetorical trick.
posted by grahamwell at 3:56 PM on November 30, 2005

We're screwed. Victims of our own success.
posted by marvin at 4:14 PM on November 30, 2005

> Sucks to be Europe.

I am a wooly mammoth. I live in Lyons-la-Forêt, in Normandy. I am sick, sick, sick to death of this damned interglacial. It can't end fast enough for me. I just wanted to say it.
posted by jfuller at 4:14 PM on November 30, 2005

grahamwell writes "The sample is small. The last reading may indicate that something is up, alternatively it may be a rogue result. We don't know and we can't find out - not yet. The key reading will be the next one (assuming that this method has value)."

And yet, when the same scientists who got this off-scale result say "Sensor-equipped moorings installed at 25 locations across the subtropical Atlantic have now begun to monitor continuously the circulation at all depths. The next four years or so should tell us whether the Atlantic heating system is still working well" your answer is

grahamwell writes "I feel a grant application coming on."

Besides being utterly dishonest, this grant money accusation is so off-base compared to vast amount of capital and resources available at the denial side that it borders the insane. The press, naturally, is quite happy to vent the same insinuation, that climate scientists are just pimping global warming for the grant money (yes, so they can park a Ferrari in a twenty bedroom Beverly Hills house and expend eleven and half months each year half a world away in the middle of nowhere measuring tiny changes in ocean temperatures, ice melting volumes and wind velocities).

Your arguments, put together, show exactly where you coming from. You another person who, for ignorance or vested interest, will do your best to discredit people whose work you can barely understand. Perhaps you should apply to the Kansas Board of Education, I hear they are hiring anyone willing to discredit science in general.

And everywhere in the Nature article, the same scientists you criticize never once make a sensationalist claim - just that they found so and so and will look deeper into it. What now, the climate scientists must monitor editors and journalists too?
posted by nkyad at 4:17 PM on November 30, 2005

I'm sorry nkyad, whilst you were polishing the ad-hominems did you get round to reading the first paragraph of the Nature report. My version has this ..

The North Atlantic's natural heating system, which brings clement weather to western Europe, is showing signs of decline. Scientists report that warm Atlantic Ocean currents, which carry heat from the tropics to high latitudes, have substantially weakened over the past 50 years.

Not 'may have weakened', not 'are awaiting additional measurements to determine whether ', not ' are looking into the possibility that '. It's a sensationalist claim, not supported by the evidence provided (as I think we all agree).

Nykad, if you can figure out exactly where I'm coming from, you are way ahead of me.
posted by grahamwell at 4:34 PM on November 30, 2005

an excellent article from the woods hole institute that has been posted by myself and others in the past - safe to say the price for not dealing with global warming through conservation, sequestration and alernative energy sources now - will be vastly outwieghed by the costs incurred in the future.

for all you naysayer, stingy republicon types.
posted by specialk420 at 6:47 PM on November 30, 2005

In fact, if we assume the readings are correct, the evidence is for a sudden and dramatic shift, over only a few years.

It doesn't look that way to me, as I peer intently at the charts which are presented over here. It doesn't look like anything all that definite, either, but it's more suggestive of an accellerating long-term trend than of a sudden discontinuity. If you do have access to "the actual data," then by all means let us know what exactly they say. If not, you seem to be at least as guilty of reaching too quickly for the conclusions you want as anyone you've accused of it.
posted by sfenders at 7:19 PM on November 30, 2005

I haven't reached any conclusions. I asked, if you'll recall, for a second opinion. I don't think the case, as put in the Nature article, is strong enough for any conclusions to be drawn.

Like you I've squinted at the abstracted charts on that 'Peak Oil' board and like you I can't make much sense of them. My comment about dramatic change was based on the quote, again in the Nature article, quoted above but again:

But until now, the data never showed any significant decline in circulation.

Which seems to speak for itself.

I'm a skeptic. Sometimes that puts me in bed with some strange and unpleasant people. So be it. I don't get to choose. I'm skeptical exactly because of exercises like this, reading a sensational headline with apparent scientific backing. Wanting to know more. Examining the evidence from the point of view of the interested layman and finding it crumbling in my fingers. If its a good day then I'll be subsequently attacked for being a dupe of the Oil Companies. It sucks, but there you are.

It must be very pleasant to have faith.
posted by grahamwell at 2:01 AM on December 1, 2005

Trying to read so much into that one little quote in an article you otherwise seem to find entirely unconvincing is not skepticism.

A properly skeptical response is easily found in the RealClimate article: "it might be premature to assert that the circulation definitely has changed." And in Nature: "oceanographers warn that this is not proof of a long-term trend. Possible disturbances such as ocean eddies, and natural fluctuations in the strength of the circulation system, must be considered".

Notice how the real scientists, properly trained in skepticism, are not saying anything like as "why make such a big deal about this?", or "there's too little data to tell us anything important." There is evidence, it is important, it does mean something, but it is not conclusive. Someone so skeptical shouldn't have any trouble with that kind of uncertainty.

If you really want to find some evidence that this paper isn't worthy of making the headlines, you're going to have to go and read it for yourself. To think that you can infer from these short news items what "the actual data" says well enough to have some meaningful criticism betrays a distinct lack of skepticism.
posted by sfenders at 7:19 AM on December 1, 2005

The real scientists were interviewed, and were commenting, before the sensational headlines (although the Real Climate people could see them coming). Those headlines change the situation. Here's one from the Times and another from the Guardian today (I won't bore you with quotes). Faced with this excitable misreading of the information - for that is what it seems to be - what should the real Scientists do? Say nothing? Encourage the speculation? Dampen it down?

I would hope the latter. I wait to see what the response from the Scientific community will be. As with "The Day After" I fear that the response will be, "well it's nonsense, but it's nonsense that may have desirable political fallout, therefore we'll let it be". I am terribly uncomfortable with this since it seems a disservice to truth.

I'm not sure sfenders on what we actually disagree. Do you consider, from what you can tell of the experiment, its method and its results, that the linked headlines, including the Nature article and the title of this post, are warranted? Do you think there might be convincing evidence buried in the article, which neither of us can read in the raw (without a significant investment) but which has not come out in the abstracts. That seems something of a leap of faith.
posted by grahamwell at 7:44 AM on December 1, 2005

Those headlines change the situation.

Well, that's where we disagree. I don't think those headlines are relevant at all. Some portion of the the text under some of them does merit attention. It shouldn't all be taken as some great received wisdom of unquestioned truth, it is necessary to read critically. I prefer to read the bits that are actually worth thinking critically about. Perhaps I am too quick to ignore the rest, but I'd rather err on that side than incorrectly pretend that the trashy headlines are representative of the whole thing. That the news media hype is excessive is nothing new or interesting.
posted by sfenders at 8:19 AM on December 1, 2005

"grahamwell writes "I feel a grant application coming on."

Besides being utterly dishonest, this grant money accusation is so off-base compared to vast amount of capital and resources available at the denial side that it borders the insane. The press, naturally, is quite happy to vent the same insinuation, that climate scientists are just pimping global warming for the grant money (yes, so they can park a Ferrari in a twenty bedroom Beverly Hills house and expend eleven and half months each year half a world away in the middle of nowhere measuring tiny changes in ocean temperatures, ice melting volumes and wind velocities).

Your arguments, put together, show exactly where you coming from. You another person who, for ignorance or vested interest, will do your best to discredit people whose work you can barely understand."

That was well said.

Grahamwell, go play another game. Elsewhere. You are a parasite load on this discourse.
posted by troutfishing at 11:10 PM on December 1, 2005

Eh?

And you've contributed what exactly? - to this 'discourse'.

A 'parasite load'. This is fun.
posted by grahamwell at 2:18 AM on December 2, 2005

Some of the discussion over at RealClimate is, as expected, very interesting. Comment #25 is one worth considering. There is some off-topic noise there, but not so much as is usual here. Naturally, it will take more time to get the real story. Too bad the news media has already moved on.
posted by sfenders at 10:02 AM on December 3, 2005