New study confirms gulf stream weakening(phys.org)
phys.org
New study confirms gulf stream weakening
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-definitively-gulf-stream-weakening.html
69 comments
Sadly, we have reached a stage at which change is much harder – first because we've waited way too long, secondly because the West is currently faced with a war (which might be in the process of blowing up into a world war, we'll see), a financial crisis and a democratic crisis.
So... I'm not optimistic.
So... I'm not optimistic.
It is increasingly out of control of the western world: most CO2 emissions are now coming from Asia - and the current trend is falling emissions in the west, more than offset by rising emissions in the rest of the world.
Some countries (China and Russia) see advantages in warming for themselves (shipping through the arctic for both, increasing agricultural land area for both).
I generated a little graph showing the trends (using Our World In Data) and wrote a few comments a while back:
https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-risin...
Some countries (China and Russia) see advantages in warming for themselves (shipping through the arctic for both, increasing agricultural land area for both).
I generated a little graph showing the trends (using Our World In Data) and wrote a few comments a while back:
https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-risin...
This[0] paints slightly different picture about 'rest of the world', especially China.
[0]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
[0]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Good god. That's a sobering graph.
> more definitive action will be taken against climate change
a) our problem is not only the climate change, but overshoot / polycrisis
b) there is a profit to be made even from the collapse, maybe bigger than ever
Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.
a) our problem is not only the climate change, but overshoot / polycrisis
b) there is a profit to be made even from the collapse, maybe bigger than ever
Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.
> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.
I don't want you to be correct, but I fear that you are. My heart breaks thinking about it. My stepdaughter is 23, and she's going to live through some very tough times.
People in positions of power and influence seem to think they can flee to New Zealand and life will continue as before. I don't know how to disabuse them of that notion.
I don't want you to be correct, but I fear that you are. My heart breaks thinking about it. My stepdaughter is 23, and she's going to live through some very tough times.
People in positions of power and influence seem to think they can flee to New Zealand and life will continue as before. I don't know how to disabuse them of that notion.
A lot of people are making money by building fear in the ultra rich. They are really gullible. Really hard to bring people that have been scammed up to reason.
Fear is being being built everywhere and everyone is very gullible, including the poor.
Maybe the biggest problem is how big a problem it is. The extent of the problems we're facing may be too overwhelming for the average person to fully comprehend.
Overshoot encompasses many aspects, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, resource depletion, and much more.
The fundamental issue is the need for constant growth in a finite environment. Almost all money in the system is created through loans by banks, and there is an interest on that money that must be paid, typically around 3% or so, and this interest compounds exponentially.
As a result, our growth is exponential, and there is no sign of it slowing down. Our GDP doubles every 30 years, while our finite natural environment is the first to be sacrificed in an attempt to service one's debts.
All we see is an attempt at solving the energy, and only partially - because it's the easiest problem. We don't see any real debate about degrowth, reforestation, equity, food system, financial system ... no real progress on any front.
- We should stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible.
- Transitioning to plant-based diets can free up an area the size of both Americas, allowing for reforestation that would halt biodiversity loss and sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.
- Agriculture must be reformed to eliminate our reliance on harmful pesticides and practices that destroy biodiversity.
- Overfishing and pollution must be stopped to preserve marine life and ecosystems.
- Developed countries should pursue degrowth while supporting the development of less developed nations.
- Education and restoration should be prioritized over exploitation.
Animal species have witnessed a 70% decline in just the last 50 years. How long until our insect and pollinator populations collapse? How long until forests completely lose their ability to retain moisture and generate rain? How long until oceans are devoid of fish or sharks (with 90% already gone), leading to the collapse of the entire marine ecosystem? How long until major crop failures occur?
There have been collapses of civilizations before, but there has never been a total collapse of the biosphere as well. So I too worry for the future of today's young.
Sorry for the rant.
Overshoot encompasses many aspects, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, resource depletion, and much more.
The fundamental issue is the need for constant growth in a finite environment. Almost all money in the system is created through loans by banks, and there is an interest on that money that must be paid, typically around 3% or so, and this interest compounds exponentially.
As a result, our growth is exponential, and there is no sign of it slowing down. Our GDP doubles every 30 years, while our finite natural environment is the first to be sacrificed in an attempt to service one's debts.
All we see is an attempt at solving the energy, and only partially - because it's the easiest problem. We don't see any real debate about degrowth, reforestation, equity, food system, financial system ... no real progress on any front.
- We should stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible.
- Transitioning to plant-based diets can free up an area the size of both Americas, allowing for reforestation that would halt biodiversity loss and sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.
- Agriculture must be reformed to eliminate our reliance on harmful pesticides and practices that destroy biodiversity.
- Overfishing and pollution must be stopped to preserve marine life and ecosystems.
- Developed countries should pursue degrowth while supporting the development of less developed nations.
- Education and restoration should be prioritized over exploitation.
Animal species have witnessed a 70% decline in just the last 50 years. How long until our insect and pollinator populations collapse? How long until forests completely lose their ability to retain moisture and generate rain? How long until oceans are devoid of fish or sharks (with 90% already gone), leading to the collapse of the entire marine ecosystem? How long until major crop failures occur?
There have been collapses of civilizations before, but there has never been a total collapse of the biosphere as well. So I too worry for the future of today's young.
Sorry for the rant.
> allowing for reforestation that would [...] sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.
That's a common mistake. It won't. Plants sequester carbon only while they are alive. When they die, the carbon returns to the atmosphere. A forest, even with that size won't make a significant impact on carbon stored compared to how much oil and coal we burned. The only solution would be to re-create the carbon deposits, but that can't happen anymore.
That's a common mistake. It won't. Plants sequester carbon only while they are alive. When they die, the carbon returns to the atmosphere. A forest, even with that size won't make a significant impact on carbon stored compared to how much oil and coal we burned. The only solution would be to re-create the carbon deposits, but that can't happen anymore.
The oil we mined from the ground in about 150 years took hundreds of millions of years to form and from what I recall from the subject, it happened in a time where bacteria and fungus didn’t exist to release that carbon from downed trees Abe plants or whatever. The only way to sequester carbon now would be to spend more energy than was released (putting those bonds back together is hard) from our oil use to create something like inorganic carbon bricks we could try and bury underground somewhere that bacteria and fungus cannot reach.
Good luck to us, I’m not confident we can do it. I’m hoping we can though, I have a toddler. I hate climate deniers, to me they are trying to make my son’s life worse and worse because they don’t want their life to be lesser than they expected.
Good luck to us, I’m not confident we can do it. I’m hoping we can though, I have a toddler. I hate climate deniers, to me they are trying to make my son’s life worse and worse because they don’t want their life to be lesser than they expected.
Don't ever apologize for caring. I didn't think it was a rant really.
So if it’s inevitable, what are the possible positive effects?
Are there regions that benefit from the changes that will happen to the weather?
New places that can be used to grow things, new places that might be more appealing to live than it is now?
Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes that you say are inevitable?
Are there regions that benefit from the changes that will happen to the weather?
New places that can be used to grow things, new places that might be more appealing to live than it is now?
Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes that you say are inevitable?
> So if it’s inevitable, what are the possible positive effects?
I cannot see any positive effects. We should try to prevent the inevitable, while there's still some time. Not long. But some.
> Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes
I’m starting to think we're likely to face a future akin to that depicted in Threads (1984) or The Road (2009), and I’m not sure anyone can truly prepare for it.
I cannot see any positive effects. We should try to prevent the inevitable, while there's still some time. Not long. But some.
> Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes
I’m starting to think we're likely to face a future akin to that depicted in Threads (1984) or The Road (2009), and I’m not sure anyone can truly prepare for it.
What do you mean though when you say you see no positive effects?
You see negative effects because scientists who have spent great time and effort have found connections to and predicted negative effects.
Has anyone spent a similar amount of time and effort looking for positive effects? If not, how can we expect to know about any positive effects?
You see negative effects because scientists who have spent great time and effort have found connections to and predicted negative effects.
Has anyone spent a similar amount of time and effort looking for positive effects? If not, how can we expect to know about any positive effects?
> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.
For now, American citizens can ask congress to support a carbon fee and dividend [1], which would create a financial incentive for the system to dismantle itself. There are few forces in the world more powerful than individuals deciding to save money.
[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...
For now, American citizens can ask congress to support a carbon fee and dividend [1], which would create a financial incentive for the system to dismantle itself. There are few forces in the world more powerful than individuals deciding to save money.
[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...
> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system
Oh well, the system may simply collapse and not be able and it won’t be pretty. But that will be a starting point for rebuilding.
Oh well, the system may simply collapse and not be able and it won’t be pretty. But that will be a starting point for rebuilding.
Climate change is one of the reasons that I'm actually glad that we didn't have children. When I talk to people that have children and understand what is happening it ends up being quite depressing.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, perhaps you’re sees as selfish which I don’t share. I do have kids and am indeed horrified for them. I too may look selfish to others but in all honesty when you have skin in the game it the reaction is more intense.
What is the point of being horrified for your children? It will not make them stronger or more successful in an uncertain future.
"What is the point of feeling emotion X" is a category error. Emotions aren't selected intellectually for their chosen outcome, they are felt.
Fair
It’s parents’ anxiety, irrational but not something one can easily snap out of…
Compared to Europe in the 20th century with two world wars? Quite a lot of the rest of the world now?
The world not being in great shape globally, does not necessarily mean individuals not having good lives.
The world not being in great shape globally, does not necessarily mean individuals not having good lives.
What would be the consequence of this on various regions? A colder Europe?
Higher sea levels for east coast us, colder and stormier Western Europe, drier Indian and Africa.
The latter sounds like the worst part. The world is not prepared for the immense headache that would be crop failure across India.
The latter sounds like the worst part. The world is not prepared for the immense headache that would be crop failure across India.
I believe there's also some fear about the cold Arctic water flowing south and destroying the fishing banks off Canada and some other Really Bad Stuff...
On the Pacific side? Because on the Atlantic side the fish stocks still haven't recovered no?
For Europe generally - and the UK in particular, where the seas around it act as a natural temperature buffer - yes, it's would likely get quite a lot colder. Take a look at how the temperature average and variations in NYC at ~41 degrees north compare to London which is more like 51 degrees but bathed in the gulf stream (caveats involved, both coastal northern hemisphere east coast cities but a lot more land to the west of NY than for London).
Isn't that... great? Europe is currently annoyingly hot in the summer, so getting colder sounds like an improvement.
I've seen one model in which Europe gets hotter summers and colder winters. Also, in this model, a monsoon.
So, overall, not necessarily positive.
So, overall, not necessarily positive.
You’re assuming a uniform reduction in temperature. What if summers get hotter and winters get colder?
Well that would be terrible.
Yeah that’s kind of interesting actually. All other things equal, Europe getting colder than it has been in the last few hundred years would be bad. But, in the context of the entire earth getting warmer, Europe getting colder than it would get otherwise does seem like a good thing.
I don’t think it’s Europe getting colder overall but lower lows and higher highs.
As far as I can tell this is not expected to be a direct effect of the Gulf Stream weakening. I think the Gulf Stream just warms. The ocean carrying the Gulf Stream may also cool due to the general moderating effect of water, but the ocean itself isn’t going anywhere.
Hotter or colder Europe is a minor problem. At least we have air conditioning.
If Africa becomes uninhabitable, everyone there will either die or migrate to Europe. Most EU coutries already hope that they drown crossing the Mediterranean. It's already happening, but the migration now is very low. When the migration will increase, I see WW2 repeating: concetration camps, genocide, shoot-them-at-the-border type of things.
If Africa becomes uninhabitable, everyone there will either die or migrate to Europe. Most EU coutries already hope that they drown crossing the Mediterranean. It's already happening, but the migration now is very low. When the migration will increase, I see WW2 repeating: concetration camps, genocide, shoot-them-at-the-border type of things.
[deleted]
There’s a documentary about it: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
/s
/s
From the link:
> "While we can definitively say this weakening is happening, we are unable to say to what extent it is related to climate change or whether it is a natural variation," [the first co-author] Piecuch said. "We can see similar weakening indicated in climate models, but for this paper we were not able to put together the observational evidence that would really allow us to pinpoint the cause of the observed decline."
but also...
> [The second co-author] Beal added, "The Gulf Stream is a vital artery of the ocean's circulation, and so the ramifications of its weakening are global. I used to think of the ocean as our last remaining frontier, wild, pristine, and indomitable. It saddens me to acknowledge, from our study and so many others, and from recent record-breaking headlines, that even the remotest parts of the ocean are now in the grip of our addiction to fossil fuels." (emphasis mine)
Seems a little disingenuous to state in the publication that you cannot conclude the cause of the decline, and then in the press release go about definitively blaming it on fossil fuels, including stating that this conclusion is supported by your study.
> "While we can definitively say this weakening is happening, we are unable to say to what extent it is related to climate change or whether it is a natural variation," [the first co-author] Piecuch said. "We can see similar weakening indicated in climate models, but for this paper we were not able to put together the observational evidence that would really allow us to pinpoint the cause of the observed decline."
but also...
> [The second co-author] Beal added, "The Gulf Stream is a vital artery of the ocean's circulation, and so the ramifications of its weakening are global. I used to think of the ocean as our last remaining frontier, wild, pristine, and indomitable. It saddens me to acknowledge, from our study and so many others, and from recent record-breaking headlines, that even the remotest parts of the ocean are now in the grip of our addiction to fossil fuels." (emphasis mine)
Seems a little disingenuous to state in the publication that you cannot conclude the cause of the decline, and then in the press release go about definitively blaming it on fossil fuels, including stating that this conclusion is supported by your study.
The thing is it's impossible to prove any single event or change is caused by climate change because we have no way of showing what would be happening if humans hadn't altered the planet.
With weather we can show that severe events have become more common.
I'd have to read the study thoroughly to know for sure but it seems they can show certain effects of the fossil fuels industry but not actual causation of the overall slowdown, which may be impossible to prove.
With weather we can show that severe events have become more common.
I'd have to read the study thoroughly to know for sure but it seems they can show certain effects of the fossil fuels industry but not actual causation of the overall slowdown, which may be impossible to prove.
“Prove” has different meanings for most people compared to scientists. As you say, it is impossible to prove that something like this, which results from a complex set of conditions and most likely a complex set of causes, results from a single thing. So we speak in probabilities, confidence intervals, and significance. That’s just science speak.
This results from human-made global warming in the same way as a smoker’s lung cancer results from smoking. The conclusion is also the same in both cases: “don’t do it”. Nobody can prove that it will kill, but it drastically increases the odds.
Also, note that this is not at all unexpected. I remember articles in scientific vulgarisation magazines in the 1990s discussion this and the fact that, counter-intuitively, global warming could result in local cooling in Western Europe because of a weakened Gulf Stream. We are still far from that.
This results from human-made global warming in the same way as a smoker’s lung cancer results from smoking. The conclusion is also the same in both cases: “don’t do it”. Nobody can prove that it will kill, but it drastically increases the odds.
Also, note that this is not at all unexpected. I remember articles in scientific vulgarisation magazines in the 1990s discussion this and the fact that, counter-intuitively, global warming could result in local cooling in Western Europe because of a weakened Gulf Stream. We are still far from that.
> local cooling in Western Europe
This would be bad, but now has me wondering, what would happen to all that energy if it doesn't travel up towards the north pole to be cooled? Could we have an extra hot Central Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean?
Does anyone know of any studies which have looked into this?
This would be bad, but now has me wondering, what would happen to all that energy if it doesn't travel up towards the north pole to be cooled? Could we have an extra hot Central Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean?
Does anyone know of any studies which have looked into this?
Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on HN; nor is using the site primarily for ideological battle. I know these issues are important and your commitment to them is sincere, but we're trying to have a particular kind of conversation here, and this is not a platform suitable for pre-existing agendas.
Since we asked you to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37384170) and you've not only ignored that request but persisted in doing exactly what we asked you not to, I've banned the account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Since we asked you to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37384170) and you've not only ignored that request but persisted in doing exactly what we asked you not to, I've banned the account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> global warming could result in local cooling in Western Europe because of a weakened Gulf Stream. We are still far from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
In July 2023, a paper from a pair of University of Copenhagen researchers suggested that AMOC collapse would most likely happen around 2057, with the 95% confidence range between 2025 - 2095.
It may be a controversial paper, but all probabilities are off after this year. So there is a possibility that it could collapse as soon as two years from now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
In July 2023, a paper from a pair of University of Copenhagen researchers suggested that AMOC collapse would most likely happen around 2057, with the 95% confidence range between 2025 - 2095.
It may be a controversial paper, but all probabilities are off after this year. So there is a possibility that it could collapse as soon as two years from now.
Everything is impossible to prove. However fossil fuels are demonstrably casual factors in mechanics that generate the exact effects we see. Effects which correlate extremely well with the timing of our emissions and we’re largely unchanged on such time scales previously.
>> We can see similar weakening indicated in climate models
>> we were not able to put together the observational evidence that would really allow us to pinpoint the cause of the observed decline
>> the grip of our addiction to fossil fuels
I take the above to mean that the ocean’s current state cannot be proven to be caused by climate change. But climate change models do indicate a similar effect would be had. So, given the current state, any future effect of climate change would only make things worse.
Importantly, “in the grip of” only implies a future determined by “the hand that grips” not that the past or present was necessarily produced by the same hand.
>> we were not able to put together the observational evidence that would really allow us to pinpoint the cause of the observed decline
>> the grip of our addiction to fossil fuels
I take the above to mean that the ocean’s current state cannot be proven to be caused by climate change. But climate change models do indicate a similar effect would be had. So, given the current state, any future effect of climate change would only make things worse.
Importantly, “in the grip of” only implies a future determined by “the hand that grips” not that the past or present was necessarily produced by the same hand.
You're under-emphasizing the "and so many others" part. The causes of ocean circulation change are well known. This paper didn't even address the causality part and only focused on confirming the change. But the causality has been studied elsewhere: we know temperature and salinity are two of the drivers, and those are directly influenced by anthropogenic climate change.
So it's more accurate to say that the synthesis of all recent research indicates fossil fuel emissions are a causal factor. The statement could have been worded more clearly, but it's supported by the scientific evidence.
So it's more accurate to say that the synthesis of all recent research indicates fossil fuel emissions are a causal factor. The statement could have been worded more clearly, but it's supported by the scientific evidence.
You know, we're supposed to assume sincerity and general good intent to folks here...
But you know, you have to wonder just how many big business astroturfers there are here. We know the oil companies knew about climate change in the 70s, and buried it. It's not at all unbelievable that they would pay influencers and the like to peddle downplays of climate devastation, in order to slow responses.
Obviously, we don't know for sure, since accts here are semi-anonymous. But it would make a great deal of sense to sow confusion and condemnation and downplay the anthropocene.
But you know, you have to wonder just how many big business astroturfers there are here. We know the oil companies knew about climate change in the 70s, and buried it. It's not at all unbelievable that they would pay influencers and the like to peddle downplays of climate devastation, in order to slow responses.
Obviously, we don't know for sure, since accts here are semi-anonymous. But it would make a great deal of sense to sow confusion and condemnation and downplay the anthropocene.
I think HN is too liberal (in American terms) to focus the Denial Astroturf on. That plays better with more conservative segments. Liberal audiences are fed the Consumer Awareness Cope: drive less and grow your own tomatos on your veranda. Corporations don't cause climate change because consumers need to buy stuff from corporations for them to survive.
And since this is a wealthy and techy audience you can dial up the upper-middle class fantasies of just buying an EV, installing solar on your roofs, and getting Tesla batteries for your own home.
Go a little further still and you reach the Geoengineering Cope... which also fits here...
And since this is a wealthy and techy audience you can dial up the upper-middle class fantasies of just buying an EV, installing solar on your roofs, and getting Tesla batteries for your own home.
Go a little further still and you reach the Geoengineering Cope... which also fits here...
HN is superficially liberal (in American terms), as a side effect of being a technology community: technology causes progress. I have lived in the American South my entire life, and see that HN has a strong, conservative undercurrent.
I genuinely think there are very few. Nearly every time I see someone concerned about astroturfing it seems more likely that it’s simply surprise that another individual has a different perspective than your own.
It’s well understood that increased average global temperature will shut down the gulf stream.
The question is which of a few different climate change model scenarios we’re in, and which of their tipping points we just crossed, not whether climate change drove the weakening of the Gulf Stream.
The question is which of a few different climate change model scenarios we’re in, and which of their tipping points we just crossed, not whether climate change drove the weakening of the Gulf Stream.
[deleted]
I’ll take “Things that make me go Oh Shit” for 1000, Alex.
This is an El Niño year.
https://www.weather.gov/news/230706-ElNino
El Niño can cause these effects. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
El Niño can cause these effects. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
El Niño has nothing to do with ocean currents in the Atlantic?
The study looked at almost 40 years worth of observational data from multiple correlated sources. That is one of its contributions relative to similar studies that looked at fewer sources of measurements, or used different methods.
Given that polar sea ice peaked in 1979, but decades before had minimums below anything recorded since, and this study begins with 1982 data, I don't see how they can claim such certainty.
> "but decades before had minimums below anything recorded since"
I am skeptical of your claim.
I am skeptical of your claim.
Skepticism is good!
15.9 million square kilometers was the recorded antarctic sea ice coverage in August 1966. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140017193/downloads/20...
15.9 million square kilometers was the recorded antarctic sea ice coverage in August 1966. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140017193/downloads/20...
That link is a paper about Antarctic winter sea ice extent maxima, when your claim was about polar sea ice minima, but I did not follow your argument in any case.
You seem to imply that short term year on year variations in Antarctic sea ice (between 1964 and 1966) is a reason to doubt the multi-decade measurement of gulf stream weakening discussed in the article, but you have provided no reasoning to support your opinion.
You seem to imply that short term year on year variations in Antarctic sea ice (between 1964 and 1966) is a reason to doubt the multi-decade measurement of gulf stream weakening discussed in the article, but you have provided no reasoning to support your opinion.
Please read the paper again. The reason I linked it was to demonstrate that sea ice minimums were lower in 1966 than any other recorded time.
1979 was the maximum, and nobody disputes that.
1979 was the maximum, and nobody disputes that.
?
The paper is about winter (august/september) Antarctic sea ice extent, not minima, and you still provide no reasoning.
I am done with this.
Okay... Winter minima is an important metric cited by "climate scientists" (and reporters) far and wide. Summer minima is less interesting for a whole bunch of technical reasons that I'm probably not qualified to explain.
Something related in the novel Project Hail Mary affected me greatly: "I've run the best models I have. Crops are going to fail. The global staple crops are wheat, barley, millet, potatoes, soy, and most important of all, rice. All of them are pretty sensitive about temperature ranges. If your rice paddy freezes over, the rice dies. If your potato farm floods, the potatoes die. And if your wheat farm experiences ten times normal humidity, it gets fungal parasites and dies."
Sure, we may not be looking at freezing rice paddies, but flooding is absolutely affecting people all over the world due to the warmer air holding more moisture.
Not at all a happy thought, I'm sorry.