From The Daily Caller
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
- New evidence suggests climate model predictions are way off when it comes to the Gulf Stream.
- Scientists warned global warming could halt the Atlantic’s “conveyor belt” and plunge temperatures.
- However, observational data contradicts this alarming prediction and suggests climate models are wrong.
New evidence casts further doubt on model-based predictions that global warming could halt the Gulf Stream currents as part of an alarming scenario that inspired the 2004 disaster film, “The Day After Tomorrow.”
For years, scientists warned global warming could halt the Atlantic’s “conveyor belt” and foment extreme weather and raise sea levels from North America to Europe. That prediction is based on climate models that, the new study found, may be analyzing the wrong thing.
“Some of these models are producing five times the amount of Labrador Sea water they should be producing, based on observations,” lead author Susan Lozier, a professor at Duke University, told The Washington Post Friday.
Lozier’s study found that climate models overestimate the role of the Labrador Sea west of Greenland in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). The study found the Nordic Sea east of Greenland played a dominant role in the AMOC.
Lozier led an international effort to measure AMOC in the North Atlantic. Scientists from 16 organizations launched the Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program (OSNAP) in 2014, and now released data collected during the first 21 months of operations. (RELATED: Bizarre Theory Linking Global Warming To ‘Polar Vortexes’ Resurfaces. Scientists Are Pushing Back)
Jake Gyllenhaal (L) and Emmy Rossum, cast members in the motion picture ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ pose during a photocall in Berlin May 5, 2004. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch.
Some researchers cautioned that 21 months of data is too sparse to draw firm conclusions, but that, if these results hold, it would be a dramatic change in our understanding of how the AMOC works.
Observational data is available for the Gulf Stream closer to the U.S., which brings warm water north. A 2014 study examining actual measurements taken off the U.S. coast found “absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down,” its lead author said.
The AMOC is like a conveyor belt that brings warm, salty water north towards Greenland where it’s mixed with fresher cold water. As the water cools, it sinks and influences the climate and regional weather patterns.
Polar ice melt and enhanced rainfall is putting more cold, fresher water into the Labrador Sea, reducing salinity and disrupting the key current, some scientists say. Climate models generally predict warming will weaken the AMOC, but observational evidence has been scant.
Indeed, a 2018 study claimed of a “tipping point” in the coming decades whereby the AMOC could shutdown completely. That study analyzed sea surface temperatures since the mid-19th Century, but did not collect any field data on the AMOC.
“The specific trend pattern we found in measurements looks exactly like what is predicted by computer simulations as a result of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream System, and I see no other plausible explanation for it,” scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, one of the 2018 study’s authors, said in a statement last year.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore attends a screening for “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” in Los Angeles, California, U.S., July 25, 2017. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni.
A second 2018 study used proxy data, not observational evidence, to claim the AMOC had become “anomalously weak over the past 150 years or so” in comparison to the previous 1,500 years.
Former Vice President Al Gore featured that prediction in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and it also formed the premise of the 2004 blockbuster disaster film “The Day after Tomorrow.”
However, many scientists were skeptical of the studies since neither relied on observational evidence. Lozier’s study provides further evidence that climate models may be wrong on more than just temperature rise.
“I think that’s one big take-home message from our study, is that these previous papers that have discussed that are almost like barking up the wrong tree,” Bob Pickart, an oceanographer and a co-author of the study, told ScienceNews.
The Day after Tomorrow is fiction that relies on a pseudo-scientific “hook” that has as much validity as the 1950’s “atomic testing creates huge monsters” trope. Even as a grade school kid back then I liked seeing monsters destroy Tokyo but knew the “science” was nonsense.
“atomic testing creates hug monsters” – Obviously, you have never seen “The Attack of the 50 Ft Woman”. She was amazing! Her clothes were amazing, too! They stretched to stay with her amazing growth! Amazing stuff!!!
Ok, let see if possible to save some time here.
Is not quite efficient to be drawn into a mud fight…not efficient at all.
It will take the aim off the priority, in this case the precautionary principle.
According to precautionary principle, as “bright” “leaders” like Trudeau, Climate Barbie and company can not ignore, deny or reject scientific research and papers about man-made climate,,, these “leaders” are subject to seriously consider cold and very cold freezing climate condition prospect.
As in the very basic point of precautionary, “first come first served” even when the whole have to be considered, these guys have to be very careful and responsible how they decide to depart off with taxpayers contribution and the wealth means of their own countries in context of climate change , in such a given condition,
especially if these guys clearly notified by their own good and concerned citizens about the current and respective scientific research and scientific finds shown and presented by such scientific papers, as mentioned in this blog post and other ones before it and the comments.
Why be lullaby and drawn into a mud-fight, when very well by considering the priority of the condition,
the precautionary principle, could actually have these guys, all of their kinds, political leaders, activists and the scientistas sort this among themselves, according to their duty accountability and responsibility.
That could actually be a more interesting mud-fight.
These days is quite effortless to subject and notify officially leaders like Trudeau almost allover, about some of the latest scientific research on climate change.
And with the “Day After Tomorrow” connotation to it, ain’t going to be too hard for any of these political and otherwise leaders to get the picture…and it’s projections.
Oh well, another way to look at it..
cheers
I saw The Day After Tommorrow in the early sixties, it was a semi-documentary based on the events of WWII and contained footage of the Dresden firebombing and its aftermarth. It was banned in some countries because of its horrific footage.
It was a warning of what a nuclear holocaust would look like.
No Hollywood BS involved.
Different movie to the one being discusses here.