Iceland Deems Possible Atlantic Current Collapse A Security Risk 62
Iceland has formally classified the potential collapse of a major Atlantic Ocean current system a national security threat, warning that a disruption could trigger a modern-day ice age in Northern Europe and destabilize global weather systems. The move elevates the risk across government and enables it to strategize for worst-case scenarios. Reuters reports: The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, current brings warm water from the tropics northward toward the Arctic, and the flow of warm water helps keep Europe's winters mild. But as warming temperatures speed the thaw of Arctic ice and cause meltwater from Greenland's ice sheet to pour into the ocean, scientists warn the cold freshwater could disrupt the current's flow.
A potential collapse of AMOC could trigger a modern-day ice age, with winter temperatures across Northern Europe plummeting to new cold extremes, bringing far more snow and ice. The AMOC has collapsed in the past - notably before the last Ice Age that ended about 12,000 years ago. "It is a direct threat to our national resilience and security," Iceland Climate Minister Johann Pall Johannsson said by email. "(This) is the first time a specific climate-related phenomenon has been formally brought before the National Security Council as a potential existential threat."
Elevation of the issue means Iceland's ministries will be on alert and coordinating a response, Johannsson said. The government is assessing what further research and policies are needed, with work underway on a disaster preparedness policy. Risks being evaluated span a range of areas, from energy and food security to infrastructure and international transportation. "Sea ice could affect marine transport; extreme weather could severely affect our capabilities to maintain any agriculture and fisheries, which are central to our economy and food systems," Johannsson said. "We cannot afford to wait for definitive, long-term research before acting."
A potential collapse of AMOC could trigger a modern-day ice age, with winter temperatures across Northern Europe plummeting to new cold extremes, bringing far more snow and ice. The AMOC has collapsed in the past - notably before the last Ice Age that ended about 12,000 years ago. "It is a direct threat to our national resilience and security," Iceland Climate Minister Johann Pall Johannsson said by email. "(This) is the first time a specific climate-related phenomenon has been formally brought before the National Security Council as a potential existential threat."
Elevation of the issue means Iceland's ministries will be on alert and coordinating a response, Johannsson said. The government is assessing what further research and policies are needed, with work underway on a disaster preparedness policy. Risks being evaluated span a range of areas, from energy and food security to infrastructure and international transportation. "Sea ice could affect marine transport; extreme weather could severely affect our capabilities to maintain any agriculture and fisheries, which are central to our economy and food systems," Johannsson said. "We cannot afford to wait for definitive, long-term research before acting."
Re: (Score:2)
> Updated solar observations and contemporary climate models suggest that such a dramatic cooling event may be less likely than originally proposed. With Solar Cycle 25 showing unexpected strength and greenhouse gas concentrations continuing to rise, the dominant drivers of climate appear to remain anthropogenic.
Science how does it work? (Score:5, Funny)
Why can't scientists give us a straight answer on anything? Constantly revising things when new data is discovered and new models are created.
It would be simpler for me to understand if they would just write one book and never change it for thousands of years. I'd be inclined to worship that kind of book, assuming I can read.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to know what to put in a science book that would not be revised in 1000 years. You can put any math theorem that has been verified by Lean [wikipedia.org] which includes 95% of undergraduate math. Almost everything else is less certain. I guess that you can put in Newtonian mechanics with the caveat that it is very accurate only for objects with mass between 1 nanogram and one sextillion kilograms moving at less than 0.1% of the speed of light. You could put in many chemical reactions and the periodic table
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to know what to put in a science book that would not be revised in 1000 years.
Just claim the book is the source of truth and punish anyone who disagrees. It would save millions of people from wasting their time learning there are 7 continents then finding out someone else has always thought there were 5, and someone else split the difference and says there are 6, and when you count them yourself there are only 4.
I guess that you can put in Newtonian mechanics with the caveat that it is very accurate only for objects with mass between 1 nanogram and one sextillion kilograms moving at less than 0.1% of the speed of light.
You can think of everything derived from p=m*v and F= dp/dt as a first-order approximation and incredibly useful, especially when you already have error bars around your phys
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Obamas talking about all we need to do to stop oceans from rising while simultaneously buying a waterfront mansion on Martha's Vineyard. Clearly not too concerned about the ocean actually rising. Last I checked they still own it, still visit, aren't selling it, and it's still not under water.
Time. How does it work? Things happen, but not all at once.
Your example is like saying you can't eat a delicious meal because it will just be poop tomorrow, and you won't eat poop.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism has a solution to climate change that isn't denial, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Glow ball. A lit pulsating orb.
Re: (Score:2)
The Little Ice Age was from 16th to the 19th centuries. The Maunder Minimum was a period around 1645 to 1715. See my references below.
So your dates do not line up. Stop spouting bullshit.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]:
"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region.[2] It was not a true ice age of global extent.[3] The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[4] The period has been conventiona
Little ice age in Europe started before Maunder (Score:2)
The Little Ice Age was from 16th to the 19th centuries. The Maunder Minimum was a period around 1645 to 1715. See my references below. So your dates do not line up.
Too many people don't mentally convert the phrase "16th century" into "from 1501-1600".
In words that anonymous cowards might be able to understand:
The Little Ice Age started in the 1500s. The Maunder Minimum was a period around 1645 to 1715. So your dates do not line up.
Yes: the "little ice age" in Europe started before the Maunder minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if public sentiment would be different if the climate data was presented as "x number of degrees warmer since the end of the last ice age".
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region.[2] It was not a true ice age of global extent.[3] "
Literally right at the top of the article.
Also, for the record, there is no single "baseline timeperiod for climate analysis".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What year is used depends entirely on the study. Some start at the advent of satellite measurements, some at the advent of modern ground-based measurements, some with the era of semi-reliable ground-based measurements, some incorporate further back with more fragmentary measurements, and others use proxies - some recent proxies from 200, 3
Re: (Score:2)
It was not a representative period, but it is the one upon which government policy has been built.
Re: (Score:2)
1) 1850-1900 is not "The Little Ice Age"
2) The Little Ice Age was not global, while you're talking about global climate reconstructions. The planet as a whole was not cold in the Little Ice Age.
3) You're talking about the basis of a particular climate target, not what the science is built on.
4) The mid 1800s is around when we started getting reasonably good regular quasi-global ground climate measurements, hence it's nice for establishing a target. That's why HADCRUT, which is based on historic measuremen
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you doing on /.? This is "news for nerds", and you're clearly an ignorant idiot.
Go look up "Atlantic Current", and see what it does, and the effect it has on US, Iceland, Greenland, and northern Europe (and the UK and Ireland).
Re: (Score:2)
Go look up "Atlantic Current", and see what it does
No kidding. I feel like "security risk" kind of undersells the importance of the current to Iceland.
I'd call it an existential risk.
So Iceland is worried that it may become ... (Score:2)
... ice land? Am I getting this right? 8-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So Iceland is worried that it may become ... (Score:4, Informative)
It's "ís" (accented), and is pronounced "eece" :) "Eece-land" (land said like with a British accent, not an American one)
Fun fact: while ís does indeed mean "ice", it's not the colloquial word for ice - like, if you want ice at a restaurant, you ask for "klaki" (people sometimes jokingly refer to being in Iceland as "á klakanum" ("on the ice" ;) ). "Ís" these days is used as short for "rjómaís", lit. "cream-ice", aka ice cream - if you ask for "ís" at a restaurant, you'll get ice cream.
So in modern parliance, the country is "Ice Cream Land". ;) (Honestly, our ice cream is really good here - try the bilberry ice cream at Erpssta(th)ir for example :) )
Re: (Score:2)
10% of Iceland is covered in glacial ice. It's Greenland that people usually think about when they imagine Iceland. Greenland is 80% covered in ice.
Re:So Iceland is worried that it may become ... (Score:5, Informative)
It does get overplayed though, with people acting like there was no reason to name Iceland "Ísland" and no reason to name Greenland "Grænland". There's plenty of ice here (much of the middle of the country doesn't melt until quite late in the year, and settlers approaching from the south and east sailed past the huge terminal glaciers of Vatnajökull), and the places that were settled in Greenland weren't all that different from e.g. Vestfir(th)ir. Grænland was chosen as a name to advertise it, but it's not like it was some sort of lie - most new settlements, even random villages wherever you are, are generally given pleasing names to try to attract people.
Also, Iceland got its name due to Flóki "Raven" Vilgerðarson, the viking-discoverer of Iceland (though the Irish already knew of Iceland). He had a clever trick to find islands, which was having ravens (land birds) on his boat; they'd fly up, look for land, and if they spotted it, beeline for it, but otherwise had no choice but to return to the boat. Ravens are quite large, black birds and thus easily visible to track from a boat. Anyway, his first winter at Bar(th)arströnd was abnormally cold, and there was sea ice visible offshore (something quite rare in Iceland), so he chose the name "Ísland".
Good time to sell to Donald (Score:2)
Ironically Iceland is green, and Greenland is ice, relatively speaking. Greenland was allegedly named by a shipping marketer trying to downplay the ice.
Here's a fix: sell them to Trump just before they start really freezing over. Since Trump doesn't believe in climate change, he'll deny he's being duped, believing the current cold is just random weather that will change back.
(Some argue he knows, he just wants stuff here and now to brag while alive, the future is Eric's problem.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the first time I've ever heard Eiríkr "The Red" (TH)orvaldsson referred to as "a shipping marketer" ;)
Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
AGW will not necessarily make every place on earth warmer - it's way to complex a system for that. As an example, (in the British Isles) palm trees grow in a few places in Ireland. Pretty impressive for a place around the same latitude as Newfoundland. https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
So yeah, a gulf stream collapse would be a threat to Iceland's very existence. And not a whole lot they can do about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Palms also grow in Cornwall.
https://www.cornwalls.co.uk/ph... [cornwalls.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Palms also grow in Cornwall.
https://www.cornwalls.co.uk/ph... [cornwalls.co.uk]
I did not know that! Here in the US, they are slowly moving upwards. In the Outer Banks we're getting them. I've seen a few on the New Jersey shore. I think those in New Jersey need protection when it gets its coldest there.
But they are all pretty far south compared to the British isles. Let's hope the Gulfstream doesn't collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Palm trees kinda grow in Iceland ;) I had a windmill palm (in an area with geothermal-heated soil) last for like 4 years, though it slowly declined each winter. You can keep them alive by covering them with Christmas lights and then a blanket.
Re: (Score:3)
It would drastically affect most of Northern Europe, also the Eastern US. But Iceland would probably be the most seriously affected. Greenland might refreeze, I believe that the "little ice age" was responsible for the failure of the Norse Colony on the shores of Greenland.
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hard to overstate how bad it would be. Iceland doesn't just get glaciated in ice ages, it gets catastrophically glaciated. As in "mass kills almost all of our plant species". That's why there's currently no native conifers even though there used to be, for example - virtually the whole island ends up under an extremely thick sheet of ice.
Of course, a shorter localized ice age, in an otherwise warming world, isn't as bad as a Milankovitch Cycle ice age. But it'd be pretty awful for us. Right now, we're benefiting from a warming world (though losing our glaciers and regularly getting annoying new insect species which previously couldn't survive here :P). Our growing reason is so short, and the difference between our winter and summer temperatures so small, that even a small amount of warming drastically lengthens our growing season, and makes a vast difference to how well things can grow in it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to overstate how bad it would be. Iceland doesn't just get glaciated in ice ages, it gets catastrophically glaciated. As in "mass kills almost all of our plant species". That's why there's currently no native conifers even though there used to be, for example - virtually the whole island ends up under an extremely thick sheet of ice.
Of course, a shorter localized ice age, in an otherwise warming world, isn't as bad as a Milankovitch Cycle ice age. But it'd be pretty awful for us. Right now, we're benefiting from a warming world (though losing our glaciers and regularly getting annoying new insect species which previously couldn't survive here :P). Our growing reason is so short, and the difference between our winter and summer temperatures so small, that even a small amount of warming drastically lengthens our growing season, and makes a vast difference to how well things can grow in it.
The same growing season extension has happened in Canada. I looked at it some years ago. It is the yearly frost free interval dates. Even a few days can make a difference.
Let's hope the current doesn't collapse. I always thought Iceland was a cool place. (no pun intended)
Re: (Score:2)
The same growing season extension has happened in Canada. I looked at it some years ago. It is the yearly frost free interval dates. Even a few days can make a difference.
Let's hope the current doesn't collapse. I always thought Iceland was a cool place. (no pun intended)
I forgot to add - I nuked my back, a muscle tweaking hard and am on some really powerful muscle relaxants. So my writing style is a bit different. Wife says I'm a lot nicer today, Maybe I need to work on that! 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hi, I remember chatting with you earlier :) Sorry to hear about your back. If you're ever planning on visiting Iceland, drop me a line, I can make recommendations. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It would drastically affect most of Northern Europe, also the Eastern US. But Iceland would probably be the most seriously affected. Greenland might refreeze, I believe that the "little ice age" was responsible for the failure of the Norse Colony on the shores of Greenland.
It did make for the failure. The reconstructed stories paint a terrible picture. Families living in tight quarters with their animals, slowly heading toward the end of their existence as a colony
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only Iceland had a form of Geothermal energy to keep them warm....
Oh that's a help, but doesn't sound like all that great a living to have to remain inside to keep warm. And Grindavik was evacuated earlier this year because the volcano nearby had erupted, https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com] Lots of earthquakes, and heaven help any planes if they are in the wrong area.
The latest eruptions are slowing fortunately, but the risk assessment hasn't been lessened yet. Iceland is a real anomaly. A cool one, but it's a bit dangerous living there, and Gulf Stream current problems i
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland has enormous access to geothermal energy, while having a tiny population, so they aren't as at risk as Europe if such a thing were to happen.
Saving Private Iceland (Score:1)
How about some desalination plants (Score:2)
When desalination plants are built, I hear about the worry of the left over "brine" being too salty so they have to be careful about putting it back into the ocean. In this case, you pull out water a little easier, it would actually help to put saltier water back, so it sounds like a win-win to me. Yeah, the current is huge, so do lots of desalination plants for the volume and ship the water somewhere useful. ... All in theory, YMMV, asterisks apply, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
* no actual numbers considered
** or we could just move the planet a little further from the sun
Re: (Score:2)
The quantities of water and salt involved are not on human scales.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Not yet, but we are getting fatter.
Prepare now because (Score:2)
...not enough people or nations will do anything to prevent this. I'm just the messenger. There are basically 3 categories of people:
1. Those who care and are willing to sacrifice money or time to do something about it.
2. Those who care, but get distracted by other concerns such that they mostly ignore it.
3. Those who believe subject matter experts are liars or exaggerators, and thus ignore the problem.
Each of these is approximately 33%. Thus 2/3 (#2 & #3) won't do much about it, and this reflects leade
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for being the token doomer in the comments section, somebody had to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Reality ain't popular. It's why politicians lie their asses off.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the vast majority of people are in #2, and not because they want to be necessarily. When you're holding down two jobs to feed the family, whatever it takes to get to work trumps the other things you could do to help reduce CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
This was the (Score:2)