ADVERTISEMENT

Why some scientists are worried about a surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,440
62,557
113

January–August 2015 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles. (NOAA)

It is, for our home planet, an extremely warm year.

Indeed, last week we learned from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that the first eight months of 2015 were the hottest such stretch yet recorded for the globe’s surface land and oceans, based on temperature records going to 1880. It’s just the latest evidence that we are, indeed, on course for a record-breaking warm year in 2015.

Yet, if you look closely, there’s one part of the planet that is bucking the trend. In the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland and Iceland, the ocean surface has seen very cold temperatures for the past eight months. What’s up with that?

First of all, it’s no error. I checked with Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, who confirmed what the map above suggests — some parts of the North Atlantic Ocean saw record cold in the past eight months. As Arndt put it by email:

For the grid boxes in darkest blue, they had their coldest Jan-Aug on record, and in order for a grid box to be “eligible” for that map, it needs at least 80 years of Jan-Aug values on the record.

Those grid boxes encompass the region from “20W to 40W and from 55N to 60N,” Arndt explained.

And there’s not much reason to doubt the measurements — the region is very well sampled. “It’s pretty densely populated by buoys, and at least parts of that region are really active shipping lanes, so there’s quite a lot of observations in the area,” Arndt said. “So I think it’s pretty robust analysis.”

Thus, the record seems to be a meaningful one — and there is a much larger surrounding area that, although not absolutely the coldest it has been on record, is also unusually cold.

At this point, it’s time to ask what the heck is going on here. And while there may not yet be any scientific consensus on the matter, at least some scientists suspect that the cooling seen in these maps is no fluke but, rather, part of a process that has been long feared by climate researchers — the slowing of Atlantic Ocean circulation.

In March, several top climate scientists, including Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Michael Mann of Penn State, published a paper in Nature Climate Change suggesting that the gigantic ocean current known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, is weakening. It’s sometimes confused with the “Gulf Stream,” but, in fact, that’s just a southern branch of it.

[Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences]

The current is driven by differences in the temperature and salinity of ocean water (for a more thorough explanation, see here). In essence, cold salty water in the North Atlantic sinks because it is more dense, and warmer water from farther south moves northward to take its place, carrying tremendous heat energy along the way. But a large injection of cold, fresh water can, theoretically, mess it all up — preventing the sinking that would otherwise occur and, thus, weakening the circulation.

In the Nature Climate Change paper, the researchers suggested that this source of freshwater is the melting of Greenland, which is now losing more than a hundred billion tons of ice each year.

I asked Mann and Rahmstorf to comment on the blue spot on the map above by e-mail. Here’s what Mann had to say:

I was formerly somewhat skeptical about the notion that the ocean “conveyor belt” circulation pattern could weaken abruptly in response to global warming. Yet this now appears to be underway, as we showed in a recent article, and as we now appear to be witnessing before our very eyes in the form of an anomalous blob of cold water in the sup-polar North Atlantic.

Rahmstorf also commented as follows:

The fact that a record-hot planet Earth coincides with a record-cold northern Atlantic is quite stunning. There is strong evidence — not just from our study — that this is a consequence of the long-term decline of the Gulf Stream System, i.e. the Atlantic ocean’s overturning circulation AMOC, in response to global warming.

I also asked Rahmstorf whether, if his thinking is right, we should expect this cold patch to become a permanent feature of temperature maps, even as the world continues to warm. His answer was complex, but not anything that gives you much reassurance:

The short term variations will at some point also go the other way again, so I don’t expect the subpolar Atlantic to remain at record cold permanently. But I do expect the AMOC to decline further in the coming decades. The accelerated melting of the Greenland ice sheet will continue to contribute to this decline by diluting the ocean waters.

Granted, it’s not clear that all climate scientists agree with this interpretation of what’s happening in the North Atlantic — but clearly some important ones do, and they have published their conclusions in an influential journal.

The longer the situation continues, the more it is likely to attract attention. But it has already been around for a while. “It’s been really persistent over the last year and a half or so,” NOAA’s Arndt says.

Indeed, I spoke with Rahmstorf previously about the cold patch in the North Atlantic in March, when his study came out — and when a NOAA temperature chart for December 2014 through February 2015 also showed record cold in this area. As Rahmstorf wrote back then, “The North Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland is practically the only region of the world that has defied global warming and even cooled.” Since then, the trend appears to have only continued.

So in sum, if Mann and Rahmstorf are right, a slowing of Atlantic Ocean circulation could be beginning, and even leaving a temperature signature for all to see.

This won’t lead to anything remotely like The Day After Tomorrow (which was indeed based — quite loosely — on precisely this climate scenario). But if the trend continues, there could be many consequences, including rising seas for the U.S. East Coast and, possibly, a difference in temperature overall in the North Atlantic and Europe.

So on future climate maps, even as we rack up more hot months and years, we’d better watch the North Atlantic closely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-north-atlantic-ocean/?tid=pm_business_pop_b
 
A shutdown or significant slowdown of the AMOC is a 'tipping point' that might not be easily reversible, if it would even be possible to reverse. It would almost certainly cause very significant shifts in our current climate; it's very possible that major shifts in ocean currents (like this) might explain abrupt changes in climate that we know have occurred in the distant past.

I think scientists are very conservative in making any alarmist claims that 'it is happening already' or 'we're certain this is occurring now'; but even a small probability that it may be starting, or that we are seeing patterns which might be consistent with an AMOC slowdown or shutdown is pretty scary....especially considering we do not yet have any long-term treaties or plans (or realistic technologies) to get our CO2 emissions to net-zero anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
A shutdown or significant slowdown of the AMOC is a 'tipping point' that might not be easily reversible, if it would even be possible to reverse. It would almost certainly cause very significant shifts in our current climate; it's very possible that major shifts in ocean currents (like this) might explain abrupt changes in climate that we know have occurred in the distant past.

I think scientists are very conservative in making any alarmist claims that 'it is happening already' or 'we're certain this is occurring now'; but even a small probability that it may be starting, or that we are seeing patterns which might be consistent with an AMOC slowdown or shutdown is pretty scary....especially considering we do not yet have any long-term treaties or plans (or realistic technologies) to get our CO2 emissions to net-zero anytime soon.
How do greenhouse gases effect ocean currents?
 
How do greenhouse gases effect ocean currents?

If you read the article, and the links, it will explain it to you.

In a nutshell:

Increased greenhouse gases trap more heat, raising global temperatures.
Higher global temperatures melt ice in Greenland and Antarctica (satellite gravitational measurements confirm massive ice runoff and lost mass from both).
Melted ice runoff from Greenland makes North Atlantic sea water less salty and LESS dense.
Fresh water is LESS dense than normal ocean saltwater.
The global ocean current (AMOC) is driven, in part, by cooler salty water on the surface being MORE dense than underlying warmer salty water.
Fresh water runoff makes that water LESS dense, thus it does not sink like 'normal' seawater, it pools more on the surface.

This slows down one of the main forces driving the AMOC currents (or the Gulf Stream current, which is one branch of it).
That higher density water drops to the bottom of the ocean, and flows like a giant river southward and around the globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

In 2005, British researchers noticed that the net flow of the northern Gulf Stream had decreased by about 30% since 1957. Coincidentally, scientists at Woods Hole had been measuring the freshening of the North Atlantic as Earth becomes warmer. Their findings suggested that precipitation increases in the high northern latitudes, and polar ice melts as a consequence. By flooding the northern seas with lots of extra fresh water, global warming could, in theory, divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe's climate would be seriously impacted.[19][20][21]
Downturn of AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation), has been tied to extreme regional sea level rise.
Here is another great link on thermohaline circulation:
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150290/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
How do greenhouse gases effect ocean currents?

The warming atmosphere melts the ice on Greenland. This icy freshwater runs into the North Atlantic. Being less dense than the saltwater, it creates a cold surface "bubble" that drives the AMOC - and it's warming influence on Europe - below the surface.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
Ciggy has pushed nothing other than cut and paste articles.
Ask him about economics and how dropping further into debt is a good thing. He won't tell you why that is, because he can't, but he will tell you that debt means nothing and you should just spend away.
No need to pay anyone back.
 
I was actually, what a rough summer this was huh? All those Hurricanes, heat waves, etc. It seems as the world warms, things get better.

Just because hurricanes don't hit the US, doesn't mean they never existed.

We actually are on pace for a fairly 'normal' hurricane season in the Atlantic, which is unexpected with an El Nino and shear winds that usually attenuate activity a bit.

Here is what this Atlantic year looks like vs a normal year, by Sept 25:

Named systems: 9 (2015), 8 (normal)
Hurricanes: 2 (2015), 4 (normal)
Major hurricanes: 1 (2015), 1 (normal)

In the eastern Pacific, by Sept 25:

Named systems: 12 (2015), 12 (normal)
Hurricanes: 9 (2015), 7 (normal)
Major hurricanes: 6 (2015), 3 (normal)

Of course....CNN doesn't cover them when they can't put a reporter out in the street to whip up a sensationalistic frenzy 24/7, so you won't hear about them unless you actually look the information up.
 
Where's LC and his name calling and deflections away from science when you need him?
 
You could read about it or just watch this movie for a more entertaining version.

the_day_after_tomorrow.37681.jpg
That's what popped into my mind as I read the first few paragraphs. I notice the article mentions this at the end.

That movie was very underrated. Even though they took the science and got a little carried away, at least they started with some real science. Plus there were some great scenes. The freezing helicopters. The scenes with the wolves. The initial flooding in NYC.

Highly recommended.

Annoying that it isn't available to stream on Netflix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BioHawk and unIowa
Even though they took the science and got a little carried away, at least they started with some real science.

In which sci-fi motion pictures has Hollywood NOT 'taken the science and gotten a little carried away'?

Isn't that pretty much why people go to movies - to be entertained, not be 'taught actual science'?
 
In which sci-fi motion pictures has Hollywood NOT 'taken the science and gotten a little carried away'?

Isn't that pretty much why people go to movies - to be entertained, not be 'taught actual science'?
Yeah, but this stuck with the science a bit more than often happens.

Tell me you didn't love the depiction of the massive "cold hurricanes." I have never seen graphics that made that low pressure phenomenon as accessible as those fictional depictions.
 
I was actually, what a rough summer this was huh? All those Hurricanes, heat waves, etc. It seems as the world warms, things get better.

It was. Of course, you would have to be aware of a would outside of the 30 mile radius of your house to see this. Did you pay any attention to the storms in the Pacific this year? Talk to somebody from California about heat waves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
In which sci-fi motion pictures has Hollywood NOT 'taken the science and gotten a little carried away'?

Isn't that pretty much why people go to movies - to be entertained, not be 'taught actual science'?

With a couple of notable exceptions, Interstellar. Of course, that pretty much explains why most people who saw it didn't understand the movie.
 
It's getting colder, because it's getting hotter. Got it. Riveting stuff here.

It's getting colder when the icemelt runoff from Greenland is chilling the water and air above it (not really rocket science here, but to some it may be 'confusing').

It's kind of like dumping a bunch of ice in your glass of warm water sitting on the back porch in the morning as the sun's coming up....your porch is warming up, but the water in the glass is most certainly going to get colder as the ice melts. Only, eventually all the ice melts and everything warms up.

(For those w/o a chemistry or p-chem background, the specific heat of ice is ~80 cal/g°C. That means it takes 80 calories of energy to melt one gram of ice; in contrast, the specific heat of water is 1 cal/g°C. That means it only takes 1 calorie of energy to heat 1 g of water up 1°C. Thus, melting ice has 80x the heat capacity, due to the heat of fusion, than water. So, when melt 1g of ice, you can cool 80 g of water by 1°C.)

Greenland is losing >100 gigatons of ice per year, and accelerating (based on gravity measurements fro the GRACE satellites).

Based on the 80:1 ratio of ice heat of fusion to water specific heat, that will drop the temperature of >8000 gigatons of ocean water by 1°C.

c640x360_32.jpg
 
Just because hurricanes don't hit the US, doesn't mean they never existed.

We actually are on pace for a fairly 'normal' hurricane season in the Atlantic, which is unexpected with an El Nino and shear winds that usually attenuate activity a bit.

Here is what this Atlantic year looks like vs a normal year, by Sept 25:

Named systems: 9 (2015), 8 (normal)
Hurricanes: 2 (2015), 4 (normal)
Major hurricanes: 1 (2015), 1 (normal)

In the eastern Pacific, by Sept 25:

Named systems: 12 (2015), 12 (normal)
Hurricanes: 9 (2015), 7 (normal)
Major hurricanes: 6 (2015), 3 (normal)

Of course....CNN doesn't cover them when they can't put a reporter out in the street to whip up a sensationalistic frenzy 24/7, so you won't hear about them unless you actually look the information up.


You you post this same info from last years predictions? Just to see how close they were to being right.
 
It's getting colder when the icemelt runoff from Greenland is chilling the water and air above it (not really rocket science here, but to some it may be 'confusing').

It's kind of like dumping a bunch of ice in your glass of warm water sitting on the back porch in the morning as the sun's coming up....your porch is warming up, but the water in the glass is most certainly going to get colder as the ice melts. Only, eventually all the ice melts and everything warms up.

(For those w/o a chemistry or p-chem background, the specific heat of ice is ~80 cal/g°C. That means it takes 80 calories of energy to melt one gram of ice; in contrast, the specific heat of water is 1 cal/g°C. That means it only takes 1 calorie of energy to heat 1 g of water up 1°C. Thus, melting ice has 80x the heat capacity, due to the heat of fusion, than water. So, when melt 1g of ice, you can cool 80 g of water by 1°C.)

Greenland is losing >100 gigatons of ice per year, and accelerating (based on gravity measurements fro the GRACE satellites).

Based on the 80:1 ratio of ice heat of fusion to water specific heat, that will drop the temperature of >8000 gigatons of ocean water by 1°C.

c640x360_32.jpg
Simple question for you:

Does the climate ever "not change?"

Maybe should try another angle.

Global warming err global climate change err...what's next?

Climate change is non-sensical in light of the fact that the one constant throughout Earth is is of constant climate change.

The earth has been several degrees warmer and several degrees colder than it is on average now and humans had absolutely nothing to do with it. That's a fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: txhawk I
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT