[HN Gopher] New study confirms gulf stream weakening
___________________________________________________________________
New study confirms gulf stream weakening
Author : leononame
Score : 75 points
Date : 2023-10-08 17:59 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| anonymousiam wrote:
| This is an El Nino year.
| https://www.weather.gov/news/230706-ElNino
|
| El Nino can cause these effects.
| https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
| beowulfey wrote:
| El Nino has nothing to do with ocean currents in the Atlantic?
| this_steve_j wrote:
| 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.
| iamflimflam1 wrote:
| 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.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| 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.
| bloopernova wrote:
| I know it's naive of me to hope, but I hope that if a large part
| of the "western" world is affected by the gulf stream weakening
| then more definitive action will be taken against climate change.
|
| 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.
| myshpa wrote:
| > 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.
| bloopernova wrote:
| > _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.
| ta988 wrote:
| 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.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| Fear is being being built everywhere and everyone is very
| gullible, including the poor.
| myshpa wrote:
| 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.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Don't ever apologize for caring. I didn't think it was a
| rant really.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| > 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.
| SirMaster wrote:
| 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?
| myshpa wrote:
| > So if it's inevitable, what are the possible positive
| effects?
|
| I see no 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.
| SirMaster wrote:
| 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?
| p1mrx wrote:
| > 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...
| pixl97 wrote:
| Congress doesn't even have a speaker of the house to put
| forth a bill to vote on.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Sounds like they'll have plenty of time to read some
| email.
| Yoric wrote:
| 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.
| OceanKing wrote:
| 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.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| >> 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.
| perrygeo wrote:
| 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.
| pierat wrote:
| 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.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| 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...
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| aCoreyJ wrote:
| 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.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| 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.
| kergonath wrote:
| "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.
| myshpa wrote:
| > 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_overturni
| n...
|
| _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.
| Smoosh wrote:
| > 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?
| myshpa wrote:
| https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/climate-
| tipping-po...
| happytiger wrote:
| I'll take "Things that make me go Oh Shit" for 1000, Alex.
| jl6 wrote:
| What would be the consequence of this on various regions? A
| colder Europe?
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| 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...
| morkalork wrote:
| On the Pacific side? Because on the Atlantic side the fish
| stocks still haven't recovered no?
| [deleted]
| jncfhnb wrote:
| 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.
| voisin wrote:
| There's a documentary about it:
| https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
|
| /s
| zh3 wrote:
| 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).
| andersa wrote:
| Isn't that... great? Europe is currently annoyingly hot in
| the summer, so getting colder sounds like an improvement.
| Yoric wrote:
| 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.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| 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.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| I don't think it's Europe getting colder overall but
| lower lows and higher highs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-08 23:01 UTC)