Retreating sea ice linked to changes in ocean circulation, could affect European climate
From the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean, and could ultimately impact the climate in Europe, says a new study by an atmospheric physicist from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) and his colleagues in Great Britain, Norway and the United States.
“A warm western Europe requires a cold North Atlantic Ocean, and the warming that the North Atlantic is now experiencing has the potential to result in a cooling over western Europe,” says professor G.W.K. Moore of UTM’s Department of Chemical & Physical Sciences.
As global warming affects the earth and ocean, the retreat of the sea ice means there won’t be as much cold, dense water, generated through a process known as oceanic convection, created to flow south and feed the Gulf Stream. If convection decreases, says Moore, the Gulf Stream may weaken, thereby reducing the warming of the atmosphere, in comparison to today.
Their research, published in Nature Climate Change on June 29, is the first attempt to examine and document these changes in the air-sea heat exchange in the region — brought about by global warming — and to consider its possible impact on oceanic circulation, including the climatologically important Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
Previous studies have focused instead on the changing salinity of the northern seas and its effects on ocean circulation.
Moore and his fellow researchers based their findings on wintertime data from 1958 to 2014 that was provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and model simulations.
Traditionally, the Gulf Stream moves warm water north toward western Europe, says Moore, where it loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere, acting to moderate the climate in this region. The resulting colder, denser water sinks and returns south at a great depth eventually rising to the surface in the tropics, where the cycle, known as the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation, begins all over again.
The Iceland and Greenland Seas are among the only places worldwide where conditions are right and this heat exchange is able to change the ocean’s density enough to cause the surface waters to sink. The largest air-sea heat exchange in these seas occurs at the edge of the sea ice.
In the past, this region of maximum heat exchange has coincided with the location where oceanic conditions are optimal for convection to occur. However, in recent years, the sea ice has retreated and with it the region of maximum heat exchange. As a result, there has been a reduction in the heat exchange over the locations where sinking occurs in the ocean. This has the potential to weaken oceanic convection in the Greenland and Iceland Seas.
“The heat exchange is weaker — it’s like turning the stove down 20 percent,” says Moore. “We believe the weakening will continue and eventually cause changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Gulf Stream, which can impact the climate of Europe.”
The paper’s other authors are Kjetil V?ge from the University of Bergen, Robert Pickart from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Ian Renfrew from the University of East Anglia.
###
Update: The original headline was unintentionally misleading, a product of travel pressures today back from the Kennedy Space Center where I witnessed the SpaceX launch and explosion yesterday. Thanks to free WiFi at Dallas Love Field, he headline has been corrected to accurately reflect the article. My apologies to readers for the error. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Arctic sea ice retreat due to ocean circulation changes
and
Retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation
Don’t you have the title wrong? Cause and effect reversed?
Correct.
Hi Doc
Walking in the woods, came across some rather odd mushrooms… anyhow…
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-60yrCycle.gif
Plain old cyclomania. Better not eat those mushrooms, they make you hallucinate…
Possible reasons for the temporal instability of long-term effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower atmosphere circulation were studied. It was shown that the detected earlier ∼60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes (Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, Adv.Space Res., 2012) are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of SA/GCR effects. An intensification of both Arctic anticyclones and mid-latitudinal cyclones associated with an increase of GCR fluxes at minima of the 11-year solar cycles is observed in the epochs of a strong polar vortex. In the epochs of a weak polar vortex SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems at middle and high latitudes were found to change the sign. The results obtained provide evidence that the mechanism of solar activity and cosmic ray influences on the lower atmosphere circulation involves changes in the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474
Been debating same kind of thing on another thread. Torture any wriggly noisy data enough and a child can find a match right at 12:00 every time. And then the child hopefully goes to school and learns how silly that is.
One side will make you grow taller, and the other side will make you grow shorter.
“The results obtained provide evidence that the mechanism of solar activity and cosmic ray influences on the lower atmosphere circulation involves changes in the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474”
Better to look at ozone changes in the polar stratosphere rather than cosmic rays since the former can alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles leading to changes in jet stream behaviour and total global cloudiness.
Jetstream mileage varies depending on solar activity. Therefore, there is circularity temperatures in the Atlantic.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/DailySummary/GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_WS250.png
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:2009/to/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1950
Ren & Stephen Wilde
It might take some decades to find out if it the effect is related to the GCR or UV.
Geomagnetic balance between two focal points North East Canada and Central Siberia has altered around 1995 in favour of Central Siberia.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif
a) if it is UV factor it will make no difference
b) if it is GCR than the Northern Hemisphere weather patterns (and eventually long term temperatures) trends will alter.
if the ‘18 year pause’ is related to it, not possible to say; if it is then the GCR effect is the determinant.
RoHa
Absolutely, one side is characterised by warmer climate, more vegetation, more food for the fauna and humans alike; and for the other side is exactly opposite.
The change cycle is also visible in the growth of ice since 2010.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2010/to/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/plot/none
Indices of the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation show correlations on the day-to-day timescale with the solar wind speed (SWS). Minima in the indices were found on days of SWS minima during years of high stratospheric aerosol loading. The spatial distribution of surface pressure changes during 1963–2011 with day-to-day changes in SWS shows a pattern resembling the NAO. Such a pattern was noted for year-to-year variations by Boberg and Lundstedt (2002), who compared NAO variations with the geo-effective solar wind electric field (the monthly average SWS multiplied by the average southward component, i.e., negative Bz component, of the interplanetary magnetic field). The spatial distribution of the correlations of geopotential height changes in the troposphere and stratosphere with the SWS; the geo-effective electric field (SWS∗Bz); and the solar 10.7 cm flux suggests that solar wind inputs connected to the troposphere via the global electric circuit, together with solar ultraviolet irradiance acting on the stratosphere, affect regional atmospheric dynamics.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
Changes of troposphere pressure associated with short-time variations of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) taking place in the Northern hemisphere’s cold months (October–March) were analyzed for the period 1980–2006, NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data being used. Noticeable pressure variations during Forbush decreases of GCRs were revealed at extratropical latitudes of both hemispheres. The maxima of pressure increase were observed on the 3rd–4th days after the event onsets over Northern Europe and the European part of Russia in the Northern hemisphere, as well as on the 4th–5th days over the eastern part of the South Atlantic opposite Queen Maud Land and over the d’Urville Sea in the Southern Ocean. According to the weather chart analysis, the observed pressure growth, as a rule, results from the weakening of cyclones and intensification of anticyclone development in these areas. The presented results suggest that cosmic ray variations may influence the evolution of extratropical baric systems and play an important role in solar-terrestrial relationships.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713007606
“We demonstrate that the detrended annual means of global surface air temperature in 1965–2012 show the maxima during CRs [Cosmic Rays] and Dst index [of the solar wind] minima. It proves that CRs [Cosmic Rays] play essential role in climate change and main part of climate variations can be explained by Pudovkin and Raspopov’s (1992) mechanism of action CRs [Cosmic Rays] modulated by the solar activity on the state of lower atmosphere and meteorological parameters. Following this we have to seek for another ways of looking for global warming reason, first of all, as a man impact on climate.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714005286
What they show is that there is a small 0.1 degree solar cycle in the detrended temperatures, which is not a surprise [can be explained byvariations in TSI and not necessarily in cosmic rays], and they conclude that that ‘global warming’ which is ten times larger is not due to the Sun, but to Man, thus that there is AGW.
“Retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean, and could ultimately impact the climate in Europe, says a new study by an atmospheric physicist from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) and his colleagues in Great Britain, Norway and the United States.”
Ahhh . . .
Retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean, or the distribution of A grades in Latvian education, and could ultimately impact the price of cheese on Svalbard or South Island New Zealand, says a new study by an adequately dischuffed – at ‘could’ & may, ‘might’, and ‘potentially’ – old fart who would like some ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in published science.
Not sure if the rewrite really helps – it might do – but it gets a lot out of my system!
Smiles
Auto
That confused me as well.
What’s worse is the second line. Is that supposed to be a single sentence? If so, the comma is wrong. It should be:
“Retreating sea ice linked to changes in ocean circulation could affect European climate.”
Or is it two “headline language” clauses? If so, it would be better to link them with a semi-colon.
“Retreating sea ice linked to changes in ocean circulation; could affect European climate.”
That make the relationship clear.
more confirmation bias !
the text says: “Retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean”.
No tortured messing with commas or semicolons can change the meaning here.
The thing of it is, they may be on to something. Retreating sea-ice causes ocean circulation to change, which causes sea-ice to advance, which causes ocean circulation to change back. IE: A cycle.
Nature is full of cycles: Dawn, noon, sunset, midnight. Spring summer fall and winter. Sunspot cycles.
Why should oceanic cycles surprise anyone?
My favorite ocean cycle:
http://cliffsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/beachcruiser.jpg
Of course retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean.
Just as advancing sea ice in Antarctica may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the southern ocean.
Big deal, so what? If there is some global impact, prove it – put up or shut up. Oh, and please use empirical data, and NOT computer model BS. Computer models don’t even pass the smell test.
Caleb
June 29, 2015 at 5:53 pm
I had a manager who used to say:
Life is like being on a farm cartwheel, sometimes you’re in the warm sunshine and sometimes you’re in the sh*t. Make the most of the sunshine and remember it will be back again when you’re in the sh*t.
Same is true for climate
Might not this be part of how the AMO changes state? Didn’t the 30’s and 40’s have a lot of arctic melting, right before the Northern Hemisphere went into it’s cold cycle?
I think this is the abstract:
The air–sea transfer of heat and fresh water plays a critical role in the global climate system1. This is particularly true for the Greenland and Iceland seas, where these fluxes drive ocean convection that contributes to Denmark Strait overflow water, the densest component of the lower limb of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC; ref. 2). Here we show that the wintertime retreat of sea ice in the region, combined with different rates of warming for the atmosphere and sea surface of the Greenland and Iceland seas, has resulted in statistically significant reductions of approximately 20% in the magnitude of the winter air–sea heat fluxes since 1979. We also show that modes of climate variability other than the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO; refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) are required to fully characterize the regional air–sea interaction. Mixed-layer model simulations imply that further decreases in atmospheric forcing will exceed a threshold for the Greenland Sea whereby convection will become depth limited, reducing the ventilation of mid-depth waters in the Nordic seas. In the Iceland Sea, further reductions have the potential to decrease the supply of the densest overflow waters to the AMOC.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2688.html#ref8
4 Authors:
G. W. K. Moore, K. Våge, R. S. Pickart, I. A. Renfrew
Pamela, quotes”Here we show that the wintertime retreat of sea ice in the region, combined with different rates of warming for the atmosphere and sea surface of the Greenland and Iceland ”
As the AMo turns, is this not likely to reverse, a it has before.
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard
vukcevic
“Walking in the woods, came across some rather odd mushrooms..”
lsvalgaard
“Better not eat those mushrooms, they make you hallucinate…”
I was talking figuratively
translation : woods = NOAA and SIDC data files
magic mushroom = mysterious quasi-periodic 60 years
Metaphor or not, I think it’s sage advice not to swallow anything coming out of NOAA lately.
Hi Mr Harvey
Less of a metaphor more of data metamorphosis or more appropriate for the age of computer enumeration, unprejudiced data morphing.
Don’t forget the SIDC (‘historic’ sunspot numbers) too, may well not be tomorrow as it was a year, or a month, a week or even a day ago.
Fashion in data tailoring is changing; the long gowns of the Grand Maximum have been cut down to the mini-skirt size, more appropriate for the modern age of the catastrophic global warming.
Mind you, from yet another method using parallax magnetometer * metering the opposite side of the solar disk, there are already new estimates of the sunspot activity, that have not been witnessed before. Thus, another change is in the offing, and may be another and another and so infinitum. (*non est verum)
Seems that in some aspects of Climate Science the tail is really swinging the dog
The Day After Tomorrow….Again! Until it is discredited; again.
The earth’s “great thermostat” has many working parts. Man’s vain belief he has any ability to affect the workings of that massive thermostat is almost certainly foolish.
Claude, I’m pretty sure we don’t even understand the “great thermostat” at this point in time, much the less be able to control it.
Arctic ice melting increasing the cooling rate to space acts much like a thermostat in your cars cooling system.
micro6500,
My CO2 belching van only has one thermostat, but I am pretty sure the earth has many — perhaps some that we don’t even know about yet — but at the least several we don’t fully understand. I submit we don’t understand the system yet. Climatology is a very young science and it went off the rails into the CO2 delusion very early on in its history. That was darn unfortunate.
~Mark
But has the Gulf Stream been reduced by 20% at the same time?
??? Back up this drive by comment or be gone.
We don’t tolerate unsubstantiated BS here.
Well, it’s hot here in England! Some reports say we could hit 32c on Wednesday, that’s 90f for all you Americans who are still living in the century before the previous one!
Looks like we could be singing Bobby Goldsboro tomorrow here. If you are a certain age, you’ll know what I mean. I wonder if young boys still think the same things we did back then, with our Mrs Robinson thoughts. All cryptic stuff for anyone under 50 years of age!
Really like the way you are thinking, Big Jim.
“…could hit 32c on Wednesday, that’s 90f for all you Americans who are still living in the century before the previous one!”
————
Hey, we will adopt the metric system just as soon as you start driving on the proper side of the street!
We already do. When you’re driving your chariot, you hold the reins in your left hand, leaving your right arm – your sword arm – free to deal with the oncoming enemy traffic on your right. ‘Tis traditional, going back centuries.
The only reason anybody started driving on the wrong side of the road was that bloke Napoleon, and he only did it to be different from the traditional way, which he regarded as “English”. So, when you all come to your senses … and decide to spell litre and metre properly … 😉
You guys also used to drive on the correct side of the road before that unfortunate spat which led you to losing out on all the joys and benefits of colonialism.
In Hong Kong I have seen paper cars which are made to be burned at funerals, so that the deceased will have a car in the next life. The steering wheels are on the right, which shows that driving on the left is Heaven’s Way.
I believe England agreed to adopt the metric system in exchange for Greenwich Mean Time becoming the universal standard in the 19th century, rather than Paris time, or various other contenders.
A promise which apparently came without time constraints.
Actually, “Stay on the right” long predates that, Steve. It goes back to Rome in 1300. Dante mocked it in Circle 8.1 of Inferno, a good 5 centuries before Napoleon
You really think left hand drive (the proper way) had anything to do with Napoleon? Hah! It actually has everything to do with the decisions made by a guy named Henry Ford, you’ve heard of him? And actually it was the advice given to him by mechanical engineers and safety experts at the time. The model T was designed left hand drive and the rest is history.
90f? Heck, that’s tonight’s low…..
My commiserations.
Ghost: enjoy both your wit and insight. Here in Rockford, Illinois our record high is 112F and our record low is -27F. And my ancestors left England? Must have listened to that Hanson Mann who worked for George III.
No point, just an interesting difference.
Fahrenheit is still vastly superior to Celsius, since (a) the gradations are finer and (b) 0 F is the absolute freezing point of water, even in motion, as I understand it. Furthermore, 40 C doesn’t even sound hot, but it is. (The temp in the comment, 32 C, sounds freezing cold, as 32 F actually is for standing water.) Anyway, I like F and will continue to use it, employing those tiresome conversion formulae when necessary (F = 9/5 C + 32 and its arcane derivatives). So–the whole world can use C (or K), and I will still use F when I want to know what the C reading really actually truly means. Today we had 84 degrees F with moderate dew point and a light breeze; very pleasant. Tomorrow is expected to be more humid and to reach 90 F, so I will get my outdoor work done long before that time arrives.
Hear, Hear,
I agree. My nightmare is the conversions necessary to convert time. I am in CDT, I use CST to be consistent throughout the year, and I recently shifted the GMT/UTC to align with CST.
But now, no one knows what time it is when they enter my house….
Oh, BTW, now I am trying to align GOES 15, 13, and maybe another with DSCOVR. Getting correlations are getting tough. Now I understand why the big boys are so homogenic. I look at it as a fantsy way of filtering the data to express a point. I’ll stick with real data every cadence I choose. Some times it is 5min, and other times it is hourly. If I see something interesting it is easy to fill in to make hi-res comparisons.
That is when correlations get more complicated if not impossible. Metrick to me seems weak, like a #10. And the threads strip out so easily…. And, where is that d**n socket at anyway?
I am starting to go back and check the Temp vs Humidity records to get a grasp of the sharp changes in temperature. Im using 1minute cadence and there seems to be a really close connection (within 4 minutes or less). Any suggestions?
Why are you using metric money then? You should still be using Pounds and Pence.
Lee, the daily summary of dew point is fairly worthless, though from watching my weather stations, it does change rather slowly.
But remember nightly cooling removes water (most places anyways as rel humidity get up near 100%).
And I feel your pain with time adjustments, the data I work with is from local timezones, put the server is all gmt, and then there’s various date fields that have order restrictions, a pain.
Then there is this:
http://thevane.gawker.com/fahrenheit-is-a-better-temperature-scale-than-celsius-1691707793
“Well, it’s hot here in England! Some reports say we could hit 32c on Wednesday, that’s 90f for all you Americans who are still living in the century before the previous one!”
Summer there too, is it?
Not to worry, we have turned the corner, and winter is a-comin’!
Once we pass the Fourth of July, next thing you know it is Labor Day.
Better get up to the attic and dust off the ole’ Christmas lights.
http://www.askamathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/analemma.jpg
http://borealis.astroclubul.org/imatis/_data/i/galleries/solarsystem/20140122_121110_imatis_analemma-me.jpg
Why would we want to be like the French? Look at what its gotten you?
Sorry, that was mean. ;>)
But the Met Office forecasts show the wind speed in miles/hour. Why?
And ask an English person how much they weigh, and they’ll give the answer, not in kilograms, but in Stones (whatever they are???)
There are apps that can convert. BTW a stone is around 14 lbs.
And isn’t the ice an insulator that prevents cooling, sinking seawater?
Did I read this right? Global warming is causing it to get colder?
It causes everything.
And a few extra things to boot.
No.
What is the “can, “may” “could” and “might” count in this latest bucket of bilge?
Look, as long as the government money keeps a-rolling in, why bother with absolutes. Gotta keep those hands waving.
There is also a
even though there are so many can/may/could/might that ‘believe’ has to be confirmation bias at its best (worst?).
Exactly which is what I have been saying for years as well as others. it is tied in large part to the phase of the AMO.
GHG’S have nothing to do with it.
These people know that because of the solar minimum which is ongoing, there will be colder winters than “normal”. They have to find some excuse and blame the cooling on global warming or climate change or whatever.
What will they say when the arctic ice grows at record rates after the AMO turns completely negative (as time goes by) and the cycle repeats it’s history by mimicking 1978? That’s not even taking into account the historical “writing on the wall” of a possible grand solar minimum that coincides.
sigh…
In places yes. The clue is in the A in AGW
This is hot on the heels of last week’s bad news for winters in Europe: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html
It’s more complicated than that, with decadal and multidecadal cycles involved
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/climate-on-ice-ocean-ice-dynamics/
They studied the 1958 to 2014 data. That’s a whole 56 years. Now they know all about it.
/s
But, but, but, I just finished reading in http://www.iceagenow.info the headline “Arctic sea ice as high for this date in a decade.” WTF
If it was well founded it would have been published in a better journal.
Nothing rational comes out of Nature Climate Change. They predict the end of the world twice a fortnight.
“Nothing rational comes out of Nature Climate Change. They predict the end of the world twice a fortnight.”
Given an infinite number of fortnights, they’re bound to get it right eventually. On second thought, they’ll probably still get it wrong.
If ever single prediction was wrong, in chemistry or electronics, you’d say I was using the wrong formula to the applied problem. The probability of getting so many things wrong is smaller than that of you reaching the wrong number but dialing the right digits.
But the world does end twice a fortnight.
So maybe this regional cooling will offset the global warming and Europe’s climate will remain unchanged.
they could almost be describing a negative feedback, almost.
The title of this post is not indicative of the content of the paper.
Could, may, we believe, is possible. Another faith based prediction to ignore.
Sounds like they are describing the AMO
So they’re rediscovering the AMO – again? How many paper is that already this year?
Why not? Trenberth rediscovered the PDO.
Let me get this straight:
as the climate changes, certain aspects of the climate change;
or is it
as certain aspects of the climate change, the climate changes?
Exactly
Thanks for the confirmation, Colin.
I feel so much less confused now.
Precisely so. Here we finally begin to unravel the ‘think of a number’ warmist game and realise that what causes Climate Change is…er…Climate!.
Overall negative feedback via non linear differential equations + time lag gives (apparently) random climate change.
A warm climate causes a cold one, eventually. Lack of snow cover causes snow, eventually. Snow changes ocean circulations that result in a warmer climate, eventually.
“Its all designed to blow your mind
but your mind wont really be blown
Like the blow that will getcha
when you get your picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone”.
Or in this case, Nature presumably.,..
I BELIEVE…..I BELIEVE….I BELIEVE….(I need a paycheck)…I BELIEVE….d****r than rocks… My apologies to the rocks.
Retreating sea ice in the pond in my backyard in northern Wisconsin (USA) MAY be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean, and COULD ultimately impact the climate in Europe, says a new study by an atmospheric physicist from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) and his colleagues in Great Britain, Norway and the United States, but I don’t think so.
WHICH IS PRECISELY THE REASON THAT THE EPA NEEDS TO TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR POND!!! Don’t you get it?
What is dollar value of a cause and effect reversal?
No data, no graphs, no statistical analysis? But at least they go allll the wayyyy back to 1958. Perhaps the warmer waters, which are making it colder are also producing more CO2? I had to teach senios in undergraduate school to obtain graduate school funding. Now just write a paper supporting consensus science and you get money. Maybe I’ll go back to school. Are they in need of old guys to fill some minority or cultural deficiency notch?
‘Norwegian observations confirms: The Gulf Stream has been stable over the past 20 years
Anthony Watts / May 23, 2015’
The above paper is based on empirical evidence and demonstrates clearly that the Gulf Stream is as strong as ever.