Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
July 31, 2008 at 14:32:31

View Ratings | Rate It

ARCTIC ICE MELTDOWN WILL LEAD TO A GLOBAL FREEZE

by Allen L Roland

www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

As the temperature rises in the Arctic, it could effect the Deep Ocean Current Conveyor Belt which would send a chill around the planet ~ much as it did 12,000 years ago when it all but shut down the Gulf Stream plunging Europe into a 1,300-year deep freeze : Allen L Roland

Having recently re-watched the incredible BBC production of Planet Earth ~ winner of nine Emmys and countless other worldwide awards ~ I was, once again, amazed at both the footage and the responsibility we must assume in maintaining this incredible living organism, our planet.  As such, we must be fully aware of the consequences of our continued addiction to fossil  fuel ~ for our existence, not the planet's, is at stake.  

One of the great merits of the series is that it fully illustrates the huge economic value of the environmental services that nature renders without charge to humanity, e.g., pollinating, cleaning water, cleansing the atmosphere, restoring soil. and stabilizing the climate. 

But the lymphatic system of this living organism, Planet Earth, is the deep ocean current conveyor belt which stabilizes the climate throughout the world.  

Technically, it is called thermohaline circulation which is the global system of surface and subsurface ocean currents that is driven by temperature and salinity differences that create density gradients between adjoining water masses. Sometimes referred to as the oceanic "conveyor belt," it is responsible for moving great amounts of thermal energy around the globe, both influencing and being influenced by the planet's climate.

With the obvious current melting of the Arctic ice cap ~ it poses dire consequences for humankind if this thermal current did not cool at the artic and sink ~ thus interrupting the vertical circulation at a crucial point in the cycling of heat through the ocean with the potential of, believe or not, a deep freeze as once occurred 12,000 years ago. 

ocean conveyor belt, text follows for description

Just yesterday ~ it was reported that a four-square-kilometre chunk has broken off Ward Hunt Ice Shelf - the largest remaining ice shelf in the Arctic ~ threatening the future of the giant frozen mass that northern explorers have used for years as the starting point for their treks. Scientists say the break, the largest on record since 2005, is the latest indication that climate change is forcing the drastic reshaping of the Arctic coastline, where 9,000 square kilometres of ice have been whittled down to less than 1,000 over the past century, and are only showing signs of decreasing further.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080729.wice29/BNStory/National/  

Eugene Linden explains the phenomenon and consequences fully in this excerpt from his excellent article The Big Meltdown. 

Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/07/31.html

THE BIG MELTDOWN

As the temperature rises in the Arctic, it sends a chill around the planet

Eugene Linden

http://www.eugenelinden.com/thebigmeltdown.html

 "  Even greater climate change could be on the way. Growing numbers of scientists fear that the warming trend will so disrupt ocean circulation patterns that the Gulf Stream, the current that warms large parts of the northern hemisphere, could temporarily shut down. If that happens, global warming would, ironically, produce global cooling ~ and bring on a deep freeze. 

Without action, major changes appear inevitable. Should surface water temperatures in the high Arctic rise just a few degrees, the sea ice could disappear entirely, but even a partial melting could devastate the northern hemisphere's climate. A combination of melting ice, increased precipitation and runoff from melting glaciers on land could leave a layer of buoyant freshwater floating atop the denser salt water, at a point in the North Atlantic where water ordinarily cools and sinks.  (The Global deep ocean conveyor belt )

The lighter freshwater wouldn't sink, interrupting the vertical circulation at a crucial point in the cycling of heat through the ocean ~ as if you're grabbing this conveyor belt and slowing it down.

So how would that produce cooling?

Ordinarily the conveyor is propelled by the pull created by masses of water sinking in the North Atlantic. When this pull diminishes, the movement of warm water north in the Gulf Stream could slow or stall, driving down temperatures in Europe and North America, and possibly elsewhere.

It has happened before. Roughly 12,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, a natural warming sent freshwater from melting glaciers flowing out of the St. Lawrence River into the North Atlantic, all but shutting down the Gulf Stream and plunging Europe into a 1,300-year deep freeze. The more that becomes known about this period, named the Younger Dryas (after a tundra plant), the more scientists fear that the rapid melting of sea ice could cause the same catastrophe again. Only next time, writes geophysicist Penn State's Richard Alley in a forthcoming book, Two-Mile Time Machine, the effects would be much greater, "dropping northern temperatures and spreading droughts far larger than the changes that have affected humans through recorded history." Would this be "the end of humanity?" he asks rhetorically. "No," he replies. "An uncomfortable time for humanity? Very."

A sudden chill would shorten growing seasons, and the resulting changes in precipitation could be even more damaging. Colder air is dryer air, and Alley points out that during the Younger Dryas, the monsoon weakened in Asia and the Sahara expanded. Harvey Weiss, a Yale archaeologist who has studied the role of climate in human history, notes that it's not changes in temperature that bring down civilizations but changes in precipitation.

Protecting civilization is the goal of the Kyoto Protocol, but the treaty allows 12 more years for implementation, on the assumption that climate change will be gradual. That assumption looks shaky. Studies of deep underground ice layers in Greenland, which reveal a record of climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years, show that major climate shifts, like the onset of the Younger Dryas, can come very abruptly ~ within a few decades. " 

It is increasingly obvious to me that this glorious self sustaining living organism, Planet Earth, will survive regardless of how we mistreat it ~ but we as humans may well not survive unless we unite, consciously evolve and become in sync with nature's interdependent and loving plan.

Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/07/31.html

Freelance Online columnist and psychotherapist Allen L Roland is available for commentsinterviews, speaking engagements and private consultations    ( allen@allenroland.com

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website allenroland.com He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on  www.conscioustalk.net

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
ONLY THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.allenroland.com

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "Activism Environmental Americans"
The greening of American capitalism: could Wall Street become the vanguard of environmental activism?: An article from: OnEarth
by William Greider

$5.95

Number of pages: 7
Publisher: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Forging a Common Bond: Labor and Environmental Activism during the BASF Lockout (New Perspectives on the History of the South)
by TIMOTHY J. MINCHIN

$59.95
Lowest New Price $48.31

Number of pages: 256
Publisher: University Press of Florida

Power Politics: Environmental Activism in South Los Angeles
by Karen Brodkin

$23.95

Number of pages: 240
Publisher: Rutgers University Press

Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society
by Kathryn Hochstetler

$84.95
Lowest New Price $74.97

Number of pages: 304
Publisher: Duke University Press

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
11 comments


The oceans are warming...

 

Allen:

 

The oceans are warming - not from above, but from below.

 

Volcanic eruptions cause ice to melt as if from within. Water has far greater density than air to melt ice due to heat released from the core of the Earth.

 

I believe the underlying purpose of the "global warming" initiative - to "do something" about it - is actually to avoid the fact that we can do nothing about it.

 

Power to control does not discriminate; those in control exercise power any which way they can. It doesn't matter - to them - what the outcome is, so long as they remain in power to control.

 

Cheers!

 

by Drew Terry (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 125 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:02:09 PM

Recommend  (0+)

OMG-I am terrified

18 sq km out of over 7 million sq km floats away

Looks like there is a lot of ice still. 

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/polar-ice-check-still-a-lot-of-ice-up-there/#more-1938 

 

 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:18:14 AM

Recommend  (0+)

The Gulf Stream will be fine

This silly new ice age idea has been thoroughly debunked. Below is a letter from Carl Wunsch, a leading expert in the field & a believer in anthropogenic global warming:

Gulf Stream safe if wind
blows and Earth turns

Sir — Your News story “Gulf Stream
probed for early warnings of system
failure” (Nature 427, 769; 2004) discusses
what the climate in the south of England
would be like “without the Gulf Stream”.
Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too
often, usually in newspapers concerned
with the unlikely possibility of a new ice
age in Britain triggered by the loss of the
Gulf Stream.

European readers should be reassured
that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a
consequence of the large-scale wind system
over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the
nature of fluid motion on a rotating
planet. The only way to produce an ocean
circulation without a Gulf Stream is either
to turn off the wind system, or to stop the
Earth’s rotation, or both.

Real questions exist about conceivable
changes in the ocean circulation and its
climate consequences. However, such
discussions are not helped by hyperbole
and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate
state without the Gulf Stream any time
soon — within tens of millions of years —
has a probability of little more than zero.

Carl Wunsch

Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139, USA

I've posted this letter on this website before & got a thoughtful reply. My hats off to Rady Ananda for having the moral & intellectual courage to face the truth. Here's what she posted in the comments section:

Facts that overturn opinion

Darren ~ Thank you for posting this bit by Carl Wunsch.  I did some research and find your assertion regarding the Gulf Stream is correct.

While Wunsch refers to descriptions like I made above as "urban myth," in my defense, this is what I was taught in Oceanography while obtaining my BS in Natural Resources at Ohio State U. It may spread as an urban myth but it is generated by institutions of higher learning. 

Regardless, I am always glad to tweak my understanding, to learn more, or to find better teachers.  Given his oceanographic expertise, I'm glad to find him; thanks.

(snip)

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:47:30 AM

Recommend  (1+)

Reply: Boy Am I Relieved

Now that Carl Wunsch has said not to worry, no problem I surely am relieved. When George Bush said "Mission accomplished!" I was also relieved. NOT!

Scientist have already noted, recently, that the Gulf Stream is slowing. How does that fit in Wunsch's theories?

We are dealing with some rather basic physics here, above and beyond the density differences beyond freshwater and salt water. Heat expands, cold contracts. Warm water, less dense per cubic inch rises and cold water, more dense per cubic inch, sinks when in relation with each other, or if you happen to dive, when was the last time you dove straight down and found the cold water on the surface and the warm water on the bottom. Now if millions of tons of warmer arctic water are not going to be sinking at the northern end of the Gulf stream at the same rate, or maybe not sinking at all, that is not providing as much "pull" to the warm water flowing from the south is it?

Now perhaps the Gulf Stream may not stop entirely, but as I mentioned, it is already slowing. Even if it doesn't stop, the Gulf Stream will no longer be acting as the same heat transfer mechanism once the arctic is ice free. I am not so sure that  this will freeze Northern Europe, since the Northern zones are warming up too, so Britain might even heat up more in that event, while the more tropical zones dependent upon the Gulf Stream for some relief will be hotter than ever. Hurricanes will have even greater potential for intensity from a hotter gulf stream too. No matter what the scenario, a slowing Gulf Stream is not a good thing.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: No Spare Planet

 

                                     Listen Before it is Too Late.

 

                      

  Whenever a scientist comes up with a scary idea it seems that many people are instantly so very sure this is not right. Wether it is true or not true one would think that we should take more care with being such a quick Naysayer. I just think there is a lot of hubris in these Naysayers. 

 To get to the bottom of things with science it is a good idea to collect a lot of opinions over a long period of time and only then come to a conclusion. 

  The problem with that is that we might not have a long period of time to do careful science here. Too many scientists are sounding serious alarms about the state of our planet to discount all of them. So my guess is I would rather be safe than sorry. Once the planet goes into a serious alteration of her behavior it is going to be a very long time to get things back to where they were. And anyone can see that humans have never had a population of billions on the earth as far as we know in any other time. And ever since the Industrial Revolution we humans have been having an enormous impact on many things with our science and technology. 

 

  Science by its nature observes data and then after a fair amount of time comes to a tentative hypothesis. After the tentative hypothesis has been seen to be correct over another long period of time the hypothesis becomes a theory. And even then the theory is watched to see if it is true in the very long run. All this is fine when one is working with tiny tests that do not hurt anything big. If you kill one experimental plant there is another one one can grow from seed to experiment on. But can we experiment with EARTH????

  We just do not have a spare planet. So why are we advocating such rigid proofs of these scientists? If many of them think there is something profoundly wrong with how we are treating Earth, and many do think that, then we have to give them the benefit of the doubt it seems to me. 

by Theresa Paulfranz (23 articles, 1 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 326 comments [35 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:54:49 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: No Spare Planet

 

                                     Listen Before it is Too Late.

 

                      

  Whenever a scientist comes up with a scary idea it seems that many people are instantly so very sure this is not right. Wether it is true or not true one would think that we should take more care with being such a quick Naysayer. I just think there is a lot of hubris in these Naysayers. 

 To get to the bottom of things with science it is a good idea to collect a lot of opinions over a long period of time and only then come to a conclusion. 

  The problem with that is that we might not have a long period of time to do careful science here. Too many scientists are sounding serious alarms about the state of our planet to discount all of them. So my guess is I would rather be safe than sorry. Once the planet goes into a serious alteration of her behavior it is going to be a very long time to get things back to where they were. And anyone can see that humans have never had a population of billions on the earth as far as we know in any other time. And ever since the Industrial Revolution we humans have been having an enormous impact on many things with our science and technology. 

 

  Science by its nature observes data and then after a fair amount of time comes to a tentative hypothesis. After the tentative hypothesis has been seen to be correct over another long period of time the hypothesis becomes a theory. And even then the theory is watched to see if it is true in the very long run. All this is fine when one is working with tiny tests that do not hurt anything big. If you kill one experimental plant there is another one one can grow from seed to experiment on. But can we experiment with EARTH????

  We just do not have a spare planet. So why are we advocating such rigid proofs of these scientists? If many of them think there is something profoundly wrong with how we are treating Earth, and many do think that, then we have to give them the benefit of the doubt it seems to me. 

by Theresa Paulfranz (23 articles, 1 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 326 comments [35 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:59:11 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Ratings Comment on this article

Got his facts about the Gulf Stream all wrong.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:48:36 AM

Recommend  (0+)

RIGHT ON, MAC

Now perhaps the Gulf Stream may not stop entirely, but as I mentioned, it is already slowing. Even if it doesn't stop, the Gulf Stream will no longer be acting as the same heat transfer mechanism once the arctic is ice free ....

And that is precisely my point ~ remember, Nature will always survive and readjust but we humans are an expendable species unless we learn to live with and cooperate with nature.

Allen L Roland

by Allen L Roland (1045 articles, 7 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 420 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:49:59 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Dramatic Weakening of Gulf Stream

This was written two and a half years ago. Undoubtedly the situation has worsened by now: 

The original article is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/01/science.climatechange

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

Interactive guide to the Gulf Stream

The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today.

Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago.

The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously.

The network should also answer the pressing question of whether the significant weakening of the current is a short-term variation, or part of a more devastating long-term slowing of the flow.

If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said.

Although climate records suggest that the current has ground to a halt in the distant past, the prospect of it shutting down entirely within the century are extremely low, according to climate modellers.

The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor.

Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current.

The researchers measured the strength of the current at a latitude of 25 degrees N and found that the volume of cold, deep water returning south had dropped by 30%. At the same time, they measured a 30% increase in the amount of surface water peeling off early from the main northward current, suggesting far less was continuing up to Britain and the rest of Europe. The report appears in the journal Nature today.

Disruption of the conveyor-belt current was the basis of the film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicted a world thrown into chaos by a sudden and dramatic drop in temperatures. That scenario was dismissed by researchers as fantasy, because climate models suggest that the current is unlikely to slow so suddenly.

Marec Srokosz of the National Oceanographic Centre said: "The most realistic part of the film is where the climatologists are talking to the politicians and the politicians are saying 'we can't do anything about it'."

Chris West, director of the UK climate impacts programme at Oxford University's centre for the environment, said: "The only way computer models have managed to simulate an entire shutdown of the current is to magic into existence millions of tonnes of fresh water and dump it in the Atlantic. It's not clear where that water could ever come from, even taking into account increased Greenland melting."

Uncertainties in climate change models mean that the overall impact on Britain of a slowing down in the current are hard to pin down. "We know that if the current slows down, it will lead to a drop in temperatures in Britain and northern Europe of a few degrees, but the effect isn't even over the seasons. Most of the cooling would be in the winter, so the biggest impact would be much colder winters," said Tim Osborn, of the University of East Anglia climatic research unit.

The final impact of any cooling effect will depend on whether it outweighs the global warming that, paradoxically, is driving it. According to climate modellers, the drop in temperature caused by a slowing of the Atlantic current will, in the long term, be swamped by a more general warming of the atmosphere.

"If this was happening in the absence of generally increasing temperatures, I would be concerned," said Dr Smith. Any cooling driven by a weakening of the Atlantic current would probably only slow warming rather than cancel it out all together. Even if a slowdown in the current put the brakes on warming over Britain and parts of Europe, the impact would be felt more extremely elsewhere, he said.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:51:47 PM

Recommend  (0+)

global cooling

Well if global warming has slowed the gulf stream isn't it lucky that we are in global cooling mode now. The global temperature as shown by satellites is now the same as in 1979, after a substantial reduction.

 

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:29:52 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Look at the British

Earth climate is a multi-parameter non-linear dynamic system and nothing (yes, exactly NOTHING) can be said about it without a good computer and tons of data. Any guess made without the proper tools is just a guess, regardless of who makes it, a meteorologist or a house wife. Those who worked with dynamic non-linear systems already know that, and those who did not should just believe me since such things can be experienced but not explained.

Leaving alone any hypothetical US "black projects", who has the data and computers? As far as I know, only British meteorologists can provide a long term forecast without falling back to statistical data. Japan with their Earth Simulator must be not far behind.

Which civilized nations will suffer MOST from the climate change? Once again, British and Japanese. Do they panic? Not really. So, possibly the rest of the World should not panic too.

The melting ice and river runoff hits the Arctic Ocean, while the conveyor belt does not go deep into it. Thus, there are 2 extreme cases. First, the extra fresh water is carried away by the conveyor belt and the net effect must depend on the melting speed. This speed is unlikely to change dramatically so the Gulf Stream should survive. Second, the fresh water is accumulated in the Arctic Ocean so that the water salinity and temperature in the northern Atlantic is controlled by the total amount of extra melt down and runoff. This total amount may be considerable and the Gulf Stream is in danger.

In order to distinguish between these 2 cases one should study local currents and winds in the Arctic Ocean. Do we here a lot about that winds and currents? No.

Thus, I guess we should not panic. For now.

by Andrey Gerasimenko (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:25:40 AM

Recommend  (0+)

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Rothschild's Federal Reserve Must Be Abolished by Allen L Roland

Photo Essay: Thoughts for the Fourth of July: Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk for Peace by Mac McKinney

Health Insurance Exec Whistleblower Wendell Potter Testifies Before Congress by Wendell Potter

Our Nation has a Great Deal to Learn from Phillip Butler about Morality, Law, and Torture by Lawrence Gist

A Not-So-Glorious Fourth Posted by Josh Mitteldorf

Capricorn Full Moon Eclipse 2009 by Cathy Lynn Pagano

Obama and "Pre-Emptive Capitulation" as a Modality of Democratic Governance by Herbert Calhoun

The Real Cause of the Current Financial Crisis by Joe Reeser

Tennessee's Law Allowing Guns in Bars Doesn't Go Far Enough by Grant Lawrence

Israeli Embassy Correspondence Concerning Spirit of Humanity Capture Clarifies Centuries of Conflict by Meryl Ann Butler

Go To Top 50 Most Popular

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum