Where did the Gulf Stream go?

[BillyDoc]

I have a nasty hurricane bearing down on me (Dennis) and have been surfing around trying to understand why things are so "active." I found the picture below on the NOAA site. I'm getting old and my memory isn't what it used to be, but didn't the Gulf Stream go up the coast and across to England recently? I used to sail out of Chesapeake Bay 20 years ago and would hit it about 60-80 miles out, and it would become suddenly hot over a distance of a few miles! It was a very well defined stream at that time --- or so I seem to remember.

Does anyone know where to locate historical data such as these? A bunch of heat staying south could well explain why Dennis is so early for the party. Has the Gulf Stream already stopped as predicted? Or is this just a seasonal variation?

[marshmat]

This is a strange one, for sure.
I don't have historical data on this, although I'm certainly interested in finding some. My understanding is that several of the minor currents that feed the major Atlantic currents (Gulf, NAC) have not been observed this year. As in, they're gone. Modelling is proving very difficult but increased Arctic temperatures and the resulting change in seasonal currents appears to be partly to blame.
All bets are off as to forecasting. The only thing that is remotely certain is that as temperatures continue to rise worldwide, disruptions such as this will become more common and more severe. A climate shift of this magnitude and speed has never occured in recorded history or as far as we can trace back via ice/lake cores. It is doubtful we will be able to predict what will happen beyond the current season.

[PowerTech]

The problem is there are to many damn humans.

[woodboat]

The problem is there are to many damn humans.

Are you volunteering to do something about it?

[JonathanCole]

There are not too many damn humans. There is too much hydrocarbon fuel being consumed. Too, many complacent people driving big SUVs and trucks and dare I say it it? Too many fuel guzzling boats, planes, ATVs, jet skis, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, etc.

For less than the amount we have all ready invested in the Iraq war, the US could have nationwide hydrogen distribution infrastructure. The studies have already been done. We could be burning the stuff, we don't need fuel cells. BMW already designed a hydrogen burning car. The fact is we have the solution and it is ready to be deployed now. Hydrogen already is competitive in price with gasoline at these prices. But vested interests in the petroleum industry have their man in the White House, so its not too many people that's the problem, its too many greedy people who are willing to send the whole human race down the tubes in order to keep their profits flowing.

[mackid068]

"There is too much hydrocarbon fuel being consumed. Too, many complacent people driving big SUVs and trucks and dare I say it it? Too many fuel guzzling boats, planes, ATVs, jet skis, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, etc. "

Yeah, da** Iraq War/Republicans/Conservatives/Oil Industry Lobby.
But it's not the boats in general...it's the SUVs. Get rid of them and we'll be much better off.

[Skippy]

Keep your politics off the forum kid.

[Raggi_Thor]

We still have the Gulf Stream here, or we would have to move :-)

[woodboat]

Skippy, keeping politics out of this thread will be nearly impossible. As you can see there are still some people that believe global warming is caused by humans.

[BillyDoc]

I think of "politics" as the sort of thing you might argue about if you "support" one football team and your friend supports another --- except on a national level. In the case of politics the assumption is that both "teams" are men of good will looking out for the well-being of the rest of us but with slightly different points of view. That seems to be how most Americans view it anyway, and it certainly is the foundation under which a republic is supposed to stand. The issue of global warming, or the stopping of the Gulf Stream, is very much more and qualitatively different. This issue is not mere "politics" this is a matter of the survival of our species --- and so far that doesn't look too promising.

In the United States it seems clear to me that our "leaders" are bent on securing any remaining resources at any cost. They are stealing "like there is no tomorrow" because they don't think that there will be a tomorrow, for most of us. They claim that the science behind global warming is all "junk" science because they don't want to be forced to stop their theft. Moreover, the forces that drive their behavior are relentless, and surprisingly, mostly beyond their power to change. Anyone who takes the trouble to check the facts for themselves can see that global warming is an established scientific fact, and it has been an established scientific fact at least since the "Club of Rome" report that came out in the early 70's. Now, of course, it is too damn late to realistically do much of anything about it, so a powerful few have decided to sacrifice most of us to their own hopes for survival and their own sequestering of power. These are not stupid people, these are evil people who will do absolutely anything for their own gain. We are the stupid people, because we let them get away with it. And because we are stupid and placid, we and our progeny will most likely die off. This is, after all, how evolution works.

Jon is absolutely right when he points out that this future could be aborted if we would act sanely, but when was the last time you actually witnessed sanity in our leaders? Such sanity diminishes their own chances of survival, and the survival of their progeny, and they are clearly not about to take that chance. Would you, in similar circumstances? As I said above, this is a process that will proceed regardless of anyone’s attempts to stop it.

You may think that my position is pessimistic, and I would agree with you. But I have tried in my own small way to turn this thing around (http://breakthelink.org), and have found from my efforts that it simply can’t be done. Not because of anything technological, but because of who and what we are, which is too trusting, too polite, too superstitious, and generally not intelligent enough. It would seem that it is time for a major culling. Too bad that the one’s destined to be culled would be judged by many of us to be the best of our species. But then, it's all relative and ideas of "best" are like ideas of "beauty."

So, about that Gulf Stream — can anyone locate historical data? Has the collapse of our ecosystem now begun in earnest? I really am curious about that.

[woodboat]

Billydoc, I believe your current post is extremely political. Global warming and/or cooling is a natural phenomena. When I was in High school all the news were reporting AS FACT that the next ice age was coming. It is even in a clash song. The scientists that report on Global warming need it to be proven so they can get paid. Add to that Scientists on the other side that state it is all bunk. What you end up with is a contested topic that fits into the liberal agenda of our press in the USA and elsewhere. These facts throw the whole thing into the area of suspect at the very least. So to take global warming as FACT would be a little ludicrous. Now with that said you point to one NOAA map and ask where did the gulf stream go? Raggi Thor posted that it obviously is alive and well or else the temperature in norway would have been affected. So the question is not where did it go but why is this NOAA map not showing it properly.

[woodboat]

Here is a shot that shows it a little better from NASA
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/...242003_1km.jpg

[cgorton]

Also see http://users.erols.com/gulfstrm/
There's nothing wrong with the image. The stream turns generally east a good 200 miles south of Cape Cod and the surface temp cools as it approaches Europe, otherwise you'd go to England instead of the Caribbean. And it's why you can swim more comfortably in England than in Labrador, though they're at the same latitude.

[Chris Ostlind]

Yo Wooden! from where did you get the NASA image and at what point in time was it taken?

I'm kinda reminded of the happy, vital, youthful shots of people in the obituary column.

If you want to make a comment about scientific issues and you want to haul out the show and tell material, you desperately need to provide accurate, researchable data in support of the argument. Attribution, my man. Don't leave your scientific claims home without it.

If it can't be substantiated... it's as valid as the shots of the aforementioned dead folks. That's why it's called science and not voodoo.

Chris

[woodboat]

What claims have I made? Do you mean you want me to dig up articles that are 20+ years old about the ice age? I know the name of the clash song, London calling isn't that good enough for that particular point? In my experience the mere mentioning that global warming may not be caused by humans sends some into such a tiz that it is like you just blasphemed. So for the most part I keep quiet and pray for the day we have cheap clean power, like maybe my own personal nuclear reactor so I only have to fill my boat once every twenty years If you want current maps they are just a google away. Here are some from JHU. http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gs_n/a..._0318_mult.png
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gs_n/0...umb_short.html

On a similar note when are the poles gonna flip? I heard we are long overdue for the earths magnetism to flip ends.