One the more alarming claims about global warming is that is will cause a change in ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream.
Øystein Nordfjeld of Norway writes in with this submission:
In Norwegian media this week, professor and oceanographer Kjell Arild Orvik at Geophysical Institute , University of Bergen, confirmed their results of 20 years of measurements of the Gulf Stream. The observations have taken place outside Måløy at the west-coast of Norway, were the speed, force, and temperature have been measured every hour since 24th April 1995.
On the science web site Forskning.no he states :
What we see is that the stream is lively in the sense that it varies both seasonally and from year to year. But when observing it over 20 years, it shows long-term stability.
In the national newspaper “VG”, he emphasizes the importance of long-term observations and explains : – During the first 10 years we saw an increase in the temperature of one degree Celsius. But, during the following ten years, the temperatures dropped again and are now back to the 1995-level. This confirms the long-term variations in the Gulf Stream.
References:
http://forskning.no/klima/2015/05/golfstrommen-stabil-de-20-siste-arene
VG is the largest national newspaper in Norway. Forskning.no is the leading national science web site.
The temperatures of the Gulf Stream flow are relatively meaningless without those of the return water along with the mass involved,
Hey, with the Gulf stream being so important to Norway, any news about it national news.
Of course it is stable. It’s not driven by wind or salt gradients as the warmists believe, but by the fact that huge quantities of heat are transported from the warm tropical areas to the cold north. Or, to put it differently: it’s driven by the first Law of Thermodynamics. Last time I looked it up that hadn’t changed one jota.
The atmospheric composition changes (in parts per million) are not slowing down the Gulf stream? What a shocker.
If the Labrador Current is not slowing down either, no need for Scandinavians to start seeking for climate refugee status in Baffin Island and the rest of Europe in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fig 2 suggests overtopping of the AMO around 2005. Arctic ice recovery started soon after and will continue. Poleward heat transport appears to have slowed in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
That’s the Arctic ice which has “recovered” to only 912000 sq km below the 1979-2008 30-year average? Which is 300000 sq km lower than last year at this time? Which has the lowest value for this date since 2011?
Arctic ice area doesn’t mean much at this time of year – wait till September.
Well, maybe not, but it does give a rough indication of where it’s been (2nd lowest maximum area), and where it might be going (probably below 4 million sq km for the 9th year in a row).
Before 2006 the minimum was above 4 million every year. Since then it’s been below 4 million every year. Unless it bottoms out at above, say, 4 million, then it won’t constitute any sort of recovery. In recent years it has dropped below that level in August, so there are only a few weeks to wait and see!
It is a tabloid in every respect.
If you are looking for real changes in the Gulf Stream you picked a stupid starting point. As I proved in E&E 22(8):1069-1083(2011), Arctic warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century. It involved a redirection of the Gulf Stream as a result of rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system. It was a complete change from a slow, linear cooling that had lasted for 2000 years before that. The warming was interrupted for thirty years in mid-century and then resumed in 1970. All those years of active oceanic changes are by-passed by this and other observers of the Arctic who typically start their observations in 1979 or later when all the big changes were over. I suggest you learn Arctic history before you publish such irrelevant observations.
Once again, a map purportedly showing the GULF Stream fails to even show that the current goes INTO the Gulf of Mexico WHERE IT PICKS UP ALL THE HEAT.
Sheesh! It’s bad enough when warmists short-circuit the “Gulf Stream by showing the current veering directly around Cuba. WHY in the world is anyone on this site showing the warmists’ distorted view of this?
What is my point? That unless the current goes INTO the Gulf of Mexico, there is not enough heat to warm Europe and moderate the climate there. There IS no Gulf Stream without the heat from the GULF OF MEXICO.
This is also pertinent because all of the oceanic conveyor shutdowns try to pretend that all of that heat isn’t even IN the Gulf Stream. And that if that oceanic conveyor shuts down, then what happens to the heat in the Gulf of Mexico? Where does it go? . . . . . . Is it supposed to just SIT in the Gulf of Mexico, stewing forever? Of course not. As long as the current comes west across the north end of South America, it will push INTO the Gulf of Mexico and then end up pushing the VERY WARM waters out of the Gulf of Mexico and north of Cuba. And once back out in the Atlantic, the Coriolis effect and the westerly winds WILL push that current north along the coast. And the coast, being slanted, will were the current right toward Europe.
Notice that there was no SUCTION from sinking cold waters. That is my REALLY big issue, but I will leave off there… Naaaah, one jab: NOTHING can suck waters 4,000 miles, especially not the VERY WEAK downward force of convection in sea water. The suction is not the driving force of the Gulf Stream. The rotation of the Earth is.
Moderator — “Golf” is the Norwegian spelling of the English word “Gulf”. It might be better to use the English spelling in the image captions.
Observations confirm
or
Observation confirms
Pick one.
It is amazing to me that you guys can treat the subject so lightly. But I guess even a published article in the Nature journal wouldn’t be enough would it?
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2554.html
Party on peoples…