Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

A Critical Ocean System May Be Heading For Collapse Due to Climate Change (sfgate.com) 110

The Washington Post reports: Human-caused warming has led to an "almost complete loss of stability" in the system that drives Atlantic Ocean currents, a new study has found — raising the worrying prospect that this critical aquatic "conveyer belt" could be close to collapse.

In recent years, scientists have warned about a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which transports warm, salty water from the tropics to northern Europe and then sends colder water back south along the ocean floor. Researchers who study ancient climate change have also uncovered evidence that the AMOC can turn off abruptly, causing wild temperature swings and other dramatic shifts in global weather systems. Scientists haven't directly observed the AMOC slowing down. But the new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Nature Climate Change, draws on more than a century of ocean temperature and salinity data to show significant changes in eight indirect measures of the circulation's strength. These indicators suggest that the AMOC is running out of steam, making it more susceptible to disruptions that might knock it out of equilibrium, says study author Niklas Boers, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Science in Germany.

If the circulation shuts down, it could bring extreme cold to Europe and parts of North America, raise sea levels along the east coast of the United States and disrupt seasonal monsoons that provide water to much of the world.

"This is an increase in understanding . . . of how close to a tipping point the AMOC might already be," said Levke Caesar, a climate physicist at Maynooth University who was not involved in the study. Boers' analysis doesn't suggest exactly when the switch might happen. But "the mere possibility that the AMOC tipping point is close should be motivation enough for us to take countermeasures," Caesar said. "The consequences of a collapse would likely be far-reaching..." The new analysis suggests "the critical threshold is most likely much closer than we would have expected," Boers said...

[T]he apparent consequences of the AMOC slowing are already being felt. A persistent "cold blob" in the ocean south of Greenland is thought to result from less warm water reaching that region. The lagging Gulf Stream has caused exceptionally high sea level rise along the east coast of the United States. Key fisheries have been upended by the rapid temperature swings, and beloved species are struggling to cope with the changes. If the AMOC does completely shut down, the change would be irreversible in human lifetimes, Boers said. The "bi-stable" nature of the phenomenon means it will find new equilibrium in its "off" state. Turning it back on would require a shift in the climate far greater than the changes that triggered the shutdown.

"It's one of those events that should not happen, and we should try all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible," Boers said. "This is a system we don't want to mess with."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Critical Ocean System May Be Heading For Collapse Due to Climate Change

Comments Filter:
    • by bosef1 ( 208943 )

      Oh no... not again.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re:In other news: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Saturday August 07, 2021 @10:25AM (#61666935) Homepage

      For once I don't mind.

      Some things bear repeating, this isn't about another new 'phone which is 0.1mm thinner than the last one.

  • ... do I call out the /. "editors" for posting yet another dupe [slashdot.org] ... or further repeat my theory that they're posting dupes on purpose to drive more engagement and, thus, better ad rates ... ?
    • How does one get "better ad rates" from an audience that uses ad-blockers universally?

      • How does one get "better ad rates" from an audience that uses ad-blockers universally?

        Pssst. I'll let you in on a little secret: Many of the "articles" are just ads pretending to be news. They use the same strategy on their other site, BoingBoing. Not sure how or if they get paid for it though. Isn't there some kind of a requirement to say if a "news item" or an "article" was sponsored content?

    • ... do I call out the /. "editors" for posting yet another dupe [slashdot.org] ... or further repeat my theory that they're posting dupes on purpose to drive more engagement and, thus, better ad rates ... ?

      They don't read what they post.

    • Where, in the sign-up forms for Slashdot, or in it's description, do they promise that there won't be any "dupes"? Or even that the editors actually work in the same building (or same country)? And as for the editors talking to one another? I bet they're on piece-work rates.

      Sometimes I try to work out which editors are working on Macs, and in consequence post more non-ASCII characters than editors using less design-focused machines. But there's not a lot of mileage in that.

  • by maxeji9815 ( 8040160 ) on Saturday August 07, 2021 @10:40AM (#61666969)
    1. There is no climate change
    2. We're not causing climate change
    3. Climate change won't be so bad
    4. Climate change might be bad, but shit happens
  • by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Saturday August 07, 2021 @11:07AM (#61667023)

    The reaction of China (and indeed the other countries doing 75% and growing of global emissions) is likely to be to welcome it.

    There is no way they are all going to reduce their emissions with the associated costs for their economies. You can see this in China's case, they are building out coal generation internally and abroad as fast as they can. India has rejected requests for reduction.

    So I am not sure who this is directed to. The suggestion is that we the West should wake up and reduce emissions to save the Gulf Stream. We cannot. Even if we reduced our emissions to zero, given what everyone else is doing, it will not materially reduce global emissions below current levels.

    And if requested to reduce so as to save the Gulf Stream, the Chinese response is likely going to be one of the sooner the better. What do they care about the Gulf Stream? In fact, all those dire consequences are probably things they would welcome.

    I am not sure by the way about the science - I seem to recall stories in the UK Independent forecasting the end of the Gulf Stream, think it was back in the nineties. The science did not seem to support it back then, because there was no way that a warming would affect it. No mechanism.

    But anyway, if it is a threat, and if its due to global emissions, there is no way China and India are going to be motivated to help with it, so get ready to live with it.

    • What do they care about the Gulf Stream?

      https://img2.cgtrader.com/item... [cgtrader.com]

      Without the global oceanic conveyor, where will China find moisture for clouds? Maybe they can yell at it and demand that there used to be clouds, so they own those clouds?

      think it was back in the nineties

      That's not thinking, that's wishing that reality matched your worldview, a type of magical thinking. In the 90s, they were warning about what is happening now. Duh. they warned. Now it is happening; the gulf stream has slowed dramatically already. Already. And there isn't much seasonal ice left to wish an

    • While true that they build new plant, their utilization in % dropped. They are building more and more alternative (in fact utilization decades ago was 80% - about 50% today). As such They DO seem to take that into account if only because they want to lower local pollution...
  • Self correcting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aggles ( 775392 ) on Saturday August 07, 2021 @11:09AM (#61667029)
    My high school science teacher told the class about this scenario in the late 1960's, so I'm getting a kick out of watching it happen 50 years later. He included a theory that once the Gulf stream is disrupted, the artic area would freeze up again within 30 years and the Gulf stream would start up again. I never believed something like that could happen in just 30 years, but it is worth considering what is next after the initial impact.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      This is the basis of the 'global cooling' theory of anthropic climate change that was popular in the late last century. The one that all the AGW proponents pooh-poohed. Until someone actually did some math and said, "Yeah. Looks like there is a negative feedback loop."

      Look folks, the science isn't done yet. If you expect us to make economically significant decisions, you need to have things nailed down to where your cute little theory actually predicts something useful. It's not bad science. But you still

      • I guess you guys didn't see the documentary "The Day After Tomorrow" which says the exact same thing about the Gulf Stream, just with good looking people.
        • That's hysterical. I just made a similar comment about that particular Roland Emmerich film but calling it a documentary is genius.
      • I don't think that this will result in the "global cooling" you're positing. Net energy balance for the planet will still be warming. A loss of the gulf stream would result in warmer equatorial regions as they accumulated more heat. And unless there was a very persistent increase in ice in the northern latitudes, the energy reflected back out wouldn't "override" the greenhouse effect globally.
      • A old friend of mine is a climate scientist (Ph.D. in mathematics and weather modeling.) He spent many a year at some of the advanced arctic and antarctic research bases doing climate research.

        He left the field some years ago over the politics in the scientific community: too much infighting and not enough science. That's a problem throughout the scientific community, really. The less your proposed research is perceived to fit in with the prevailing ideas the more other scientists will try to stymie your
      • This is the basis of the 'global cooling' theory of anthropic climate change that was popular in the late last century.

        Wow, that takes me back. I don't think I've even heard AGW denialists bothering to push the old "Oh no the scientists all believed in global cooling before!!!! [wikipedia.org]" nonsense for at least 5 years, probably longer.

        It's like seeing someone showing up at a party wearing a mullet and thinking they look cool.

      • Since numerous predictions of AGW have come true and the fringe global cooling idea, which was *always* fringe, has been entirely discredited, but here you are pushing the climate change denialist talking points of 20 years ago even they gave up on, I bet you're one of the types that would be denying you have covid right up until you're put on a ventilator and can't run your mouth anymore, because 'The science isn't settled, I just have pneumonia, or cancer, WHERE'S MY HCQ??' after rejecting the vaccine, be
        • by PPH ( 736903 )

          Oh and swine flu vax! Thalidomide!

          Just waiting to see how far off the topic the mad rambling will go. Don't stop. I have plenty of popcorn left.

          • It's all just "popcorn" until there are no cheesypoofs left with you clucksticks. You've got your head stuffed so far up your television you can't imagine that you live on planet Earth.

    • He included a theory[sic] that once the Gulf stream is disrupted, the artic area would freeze up again within 30 years and the Gulf stream would start up again.

      If not for things like melting permafrost it would have been a reasonable hypothesis.

  • Great. So you're telling me that Roland Emmerich was right? Oh well ... I always figured one of his end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it scenarios would come true sooner or later.
  • There is a big rally going on right now to combat Climate Change. If you are interested see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]

    Many Climate Change activists are in attendance and flew in especially for this event.
    • Yep, agreed, the elite scientists are all comfortably jetting to this conference and probably riding a comfortable diesel shuttle bus to the comfortable well airconditioned and well lit conference location comfortably proving man-made climate change because of all the comforts we enjoy! I think they realized that we shouldn't get comfortable with climate change!
  • One of the strangest aspects of GW is that some places will likely get colder. The gulf stream has been a source of concern for years, given that Greenland's melting glaciers might end up shutting it off.

    Yes, parts of Europe might get colder. And the British Isles, where in parts of Ireland, palm trees grow now because of the gulf current, https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com] will likely be really hit. The Center of the British Isles are roughly the same latitude as Edmonton, Alberta in Canada.

    So we can

    • where in parts of Ireland, palm trees grow now because of the gulf current,

      To be fair, many types of palm trees grow in well below freezing temperatures.

      • where in parts of Ireland, palm trees grow now because of the gulf current,

        To be fair, many types of palm trees grow in well below freezing temperatures.

        Yeah, but considering that latitude, it's pretty unusual at around 53 degrees north. (center point of the British Isles)

  • I always thought the oceans of the world were connected and water fluid, thus ultimately flowing to where gravity points. What mechanism is proposed to make sea levels rise "in the east of the US" while not on every other ocean shoreline?
    • Not just rise but

      exceptionally high sea level rise

      I guess if it's .10cm rise and everyone else has risen .01cm then it is exceptionally high? They make is sound like the entire coastline will be flooded.

      The moon causes high and low tides, but that is a big object in space. I guess maybe there is a siphoning effect in that area causing sea level to be lower right now?

    • Actually, it's not that the sea is higher in one location, it's that it's lowering everywhere else! :*) :*) :*) You are correct, the average sea level, ignoring tidal moments, cannot be higher in one location than the rest of the connected seas - that's why it's called "sea level" (even though the earth is somewhat spherical). Saying a sea level is higher in one location than another is fake news and ignores science/physics. Although someone has invented a water level elevator, and that causes water le
  • The climate is changing due to climate change! In other news, scientists say 75% of the people make up 3 quarters of the population!
  • If climate change is caused by humans, as the Washington Post claims, then the solution is obvious and simple. The planet just needs less people and the climate will be perfect again and never change. My unpublished and un-peer reviewed "scientific" study found the earth can sustain around 2 billion people. The Earth has enough arable land, fresh water, and can recycle the waste from 2 billion humans without resorting to petrochemical fertilizers, nuclear power, oil, aquifer depletion, air pollution, and
  • May be. But it's not.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...