Arctic Melt Creates Weakest Gulf Stream in 1,000 Years, Weather Shifts Expected

By | March 24, 2015

  • March 24, 2015 at 8:15 am
    Ron Short says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A video presentation by the scientists involved is here – (the first few seconds are from a Hollywood movie) –
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-bXLPLCyek

    • March 25, 2015 at 10:44 am
      Mickey Dee says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Didn’t Al Gore predict this would happen when he invented the Gulf Stream?

  • March 24, 2015 at 10:57 am
    Celtica says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So climate change is now climate shift. Has anyone checked with the Florida Governor to get his okay on this shift in terminolgy? Just wondering.

  • March 24, 2015 at 11:34 am
    Always Amazed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The climate has been warming, changing & shifting way before man first appeared on this planet Earth. According to Al Gore, wasn’t NY NY supposed to be underwater by now along with Florida? So much for the rigged computer programs used to determine their demise. What a bunch of malarkey.

    • March 24, 2015 at 12:11 pm
      Celtica says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Always Amazed — are you an official climate shift denier?

      • March 24, 2015 at 12:22 pm
        Alwasy Amazed says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Well, has NY NY or Florida gone under water yet? No, they haven’t. I do believe that the Earth is, as it always has, is going through its cycles. There was a lot more C02 on this planet way before man came along. What started the last ice age, you know the one we are still going through?

        • March 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm
          SWFL Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          So the benchmark for climate change is that NY and FL have to be underwater? Pretty simplified viewpoint but you’re entitled to it. More people, concrete, pollution, and structures in the world. This combination doesn’t benefit cities or smaller geographic regions. It makes sense it can’t be good for the entire planet either.

        • March 24, 2015 at 3:51 pm
          Celtica says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Always Amazed — actually NY, NY was under water during Hurricane Sandy. It was in all the news; Fox News might have mentioned it from time to time.

          • March 25, 2015 at 10:57 am
            Always Amazed says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Are they still underwater??

          • March 25, 2015 at 3:40 pm
            Celtica says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Always Amazed, I didn’t realize you would only accept evidence of a cataclysmic Armageddon as proof of climate shift. I don’t think even Gore went there. But you go right ahead.

    • March 24, 2015 at 2:46 pm
      David says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Correct, the climate has changed before mankind ever stepped foot on Earth, and will continue to change long after we’re gone. However, the current rapid change in climate over the last hundred years or so is primarily being driven by mankind’s emissions of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.

      Humanity can adapt to climate change over a long period of time, sure. But the next few decades are going to be unpleasant to say the least. We’re talking major migrations of millions of people as islands are swallowed into the sea and coastal cities become uninhabitable. Former breadbaskets becoming barren from drought and brush fires. Plant and animal species succumbing to mass extinctions disrupting entire ecosystems. Severe weather such as tornados and hurricanes increasing in frequency. If even a tenth of the models’ predictions are accurate, the next century is going to see major upheaval.

      The sooner we work to curb our emissions and attempt to reverse the current warming trend we’ve created, the cheaper it will be to mitigate and adapt to these adverse effects. Putting off doing anything about it and kicking the problem down the road for our kids and grandkids to deal with is not only irresponsible, it’ll also be more expensive in the long run.

      • March 24, 2015 at 3:08 pm
        Get Real says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        How drunk are you right now David?

        • March 24, 2015 at 3:43 pm
          David says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Stone cold sober. Everything I’ve said can be independently verified by reading the scientific literature. Ad hominems against me won’t change the facts.

          • March 31, 2015 at 1:34 pm
            insurance is fun! says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            David, SCIENCTIFIC LITERATURE? Come on. Don’t you know that most of these wacko zealots don’t believe in science?

      • March 25, 2015 at 2:13 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        In regards to this:

        Where one breadbasket becomes barren, another will become a breadbasket.

        Climate change will change locations, but on the whole, will not make the world barren.

        You are beyond foolish on this matter.

        • March 25, 2015 at 3:58 pm
          David says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Some new areas for agricultural development may open up over time. But they might not either. Scientists are predicting the latter is the more likely scenario. I’m not willing to gamble my children’s future food security on a maybe.

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/food-and-water-shortages-may-prove-major-risks-of-climate-change/

          http://www.livescience.com/14447-global-food-shortage-urgent-climate-global-warming.html

          I’ve always lived by the attitude of preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. If you want to be a greedy, selfish do-nothing, then be my guest. Just don’t drag future generations down into the abyss with you.

        • March 25, 2015 at 4:11 pm
          David says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          How do you know? You have repeatedly shown that you have done no research on this topic whatsoever. You have yet to post any credible published research backing your views and instead resort to skimming the blogs of right-wing cranks and business journalists. I’m not willing to make a gamble that new areas will open up quickly enough that things will be fine. But maybe that’s because I actually care about my kids’ future.

          • March 25, 2015 at 4:24 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Excuse me?

            I have repeatedly shown I have done research, while you have gone with slogans, and mainstream opinions.

            How do I know…

            I have quoted this one often,

            I happen to have a physicist phd brother. They like to ponder what will end the world.

            Energy crises is their bet. Not climate change.

            The reason it was changed to climate change, was specifically that warming was not as accurate.

            Where one place would become barren another would go from barren to bountiful.

            And let me ask you:

            What research do YOU have to make the comment that the world will go barren.

            The whole world,

            Will go barren slowly

            With no replacements of growth in other areas?

            Are you aware that deserts in Africa that are now barren to complete disdain, were once lush?

            Carbon doesn’t make barren wastelands without making other changes as a whole that would certainly create lush areas.

            We are NOT outside of dinosaur age carbon, which had a lush world.

            http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

            So what precisely is making this time, result in more barren behavior?

            You’re an idiot.

            So don’t ever call me uneducated again.

          • March 25, 2015 at 4:33 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Also, you dumb fuck, and yes I will swear.

            I have kids, and I care about their future.

            The primary lesson they will learn: Is to think for themselves, and not to vote based on lying brats who try to over exaggerate and manipulate science to make people think the world will end.

            It won’t.

            I will also teach them how to interpret data, not the media.

            You are interpreting the media. You are quoting perceptions by the media.

            You have not gone over the data that clearly shows the hockey theory, does not have long term temperature monitoring to compare. The study isn’t anywhere close to science fact.

            Even on global warming, scientists are debating about having temperature monitors closer to the ice, specifically because they can’t monitor all factors on global warming. They are somewhat concerned about that, because they may miss one that ends up being bad.

            This is all theory.

            and let me reiterate, http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

            Why is this destroying the world now, at 1/5th the level.

          • March 25, 2015 at 5:05 pm
            David says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I can’t believe I have to keep explaining simple scientific concepts to you as if you were a special needs child. Guess that’s what the public schools down south are producing now.

            Most significant changes in climate in the past unfolded over the course of thousands if not millions of years. We’re on course to experience dramatic climate change in decades and centuries, and we are currently doing basically nothing to reverse or mitigate this trend. Instead we have multi-trillion dollar industries literally raping the earth and destroying our future doing everything they can to prevent needed changes to the way we harness energy and morons who gobble up their manufactured controversies and ask for seconds.

            Having a relative with a phd doesn’t mean anything. You aren’t your supposed physicist brother just as I’m not my neurosurgeon cousin. You have repeatedly shown that you know jack shit about climate change except the garbage that right wing media has brainwashed you with. The worst part is that your kids will have to grow up under a dolt that is perfectly content with believing right-wing bloggers and cranks more than the worldwide scientific community. There are literally zero major scientific organizations who agree with anything you have said.

            I’m done bashing my head against a brick wall. May God have mercy on your soul.

          • March 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm
            Stan says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Boob, you’re such a tool. Stop concerning your meat-head-mind with complex concepts like “global warming.” Leave the brain-thinking to the adults, dummy.

            Go work on that methadology. lol

          • March 26, 2015 at 12:25 pm
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “Instead we have multi-trillion dollar industries literally raping the earth”

            And by literally I can only assume you meant figuratively…

  • March 24, 2015 at 1:29 pm
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    heres a little info for Always Amazed: there has never been 7 1/2 billion people burning fossil fuels before now. you really think the amount of pollution the world’s population is putting out can’t be making some affect on our world?

    • March 24, 2015 at 2:28 pm
      Destro says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      There aren’t 7 1/2 billion people burning fossil fuels. There are 7 1/2 billion people but they aren’t all burning fossil fuels. The amount of carbon that humans are putting out is miniscule compared to the amount of carbon that is emitted from the oceans.

      • March 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm
        David says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        True, the oceans do emit far more CO2 than humanity does. However, you don’t take into account the fact that nearly all of the carbon dioxide emitted by the land and oceans are then reabsorbed back into them as part of the natural carbon cycle. They have operated in a state of near equilibrium this way for millions of years.

        The problem with our carbon dioxide emissions is that they aren’t being reabsorbed back into the land and oceans, thus breaking the equilibrium. They’re just sitting there in the atmosphere with no where to go, warming up the planet.

        • March 24, 2015 at 3:15 pm
          Always Amazed says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          And if man would stop chopping down trees and killing off elephants for their ivory who are the gardeners of the forests – a lot of the CO2 would be absorbed by the trees and turned into oxygen.

          Science has proven that global warming has been a hoax. And now we’re calling it climate shifting. Nice. I wonder what it will be called within the next year?

          • March 24, 2015 at 3:36 pm
            David says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            It’s going to take more than planting a few more trees to counteract the billions of tons of CO2 we’re trapping in the atmosphere. We have to switch to renewable energy sources and kill off as much fossil fuel burning as possible. And the sooner we do it, the cheaper it will be in the long run.

            You couldn’t be any further from the truth in stating that global warming is a hoax. NASA, NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences and every other major scientific organization on the planet agrees that it is occurring and that humanity is the main driver of this current warming period. Tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers have been published in academic and trade journals that verify this fact. You can count the number of peer reviewed articles that state the contrary with your fingers.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

            It’s very easy to find out more about this subject if you’re willing to do a little bit of reading. If you’d like, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society coauthored a book detailing the evidence and causes of our current climate change. It’s only 36 pages and is free to download as a PDF. Once you’ve learned more, you can make more informed statements.

            http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes

          • March 24, 2015 at 5:35 pm
            Always Amazed says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            http://americanprosperity.com/weather-channel-founder-debunks-global-warming-hoax/

            Dave, Not buying it. Since when is Wikipedia a reliable source for anything.

            Major scientific blah blah blah have been tweaking this information all along. Al Gore should be stripped of his Nobel Prize – along with Obama being stripped of his was well for crying out loud.

          • March 24, 2015 at 5:57 pm
            David says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Do you dispute the vast scientific consensus on this topic? That 97% of published climatologists agree? That over 99% of all published peer review articles on this topic confirm man driven climate change? This is very easy to find out if you would bother to read something other than press releases from right wing think tanks.

            Wikipedia cites its sources. The page I linked to contains dozens of links to universities, major news outlets, scientific organizations, and academic journals. I challenge you to find a website that cites its sources as well as comprehensively as Wikipedia does. So far, the best you could come up with is some think tank’s website that references the opinion of a tv weatherman with absolutely zero training as a scientist and no research papers published in his name.

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp

          • March 25, 2015 at 10:54 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            the words quoted above were indeed written by John Coleman, the statement that they “refute” global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is something of an exaggeration. As Coleman’s critics have noted, he does not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor has he studied or conducted any research in that field; he merely parrots arguments advanced by others.

            Moreover, much of his criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work:
            Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp#OPMUxAx5FPhkvmd3.99

          • March 25, 2015 at 2:04 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            The right side here tends to say global warming is a hoax,

            The left say it’s a fact that it is occurring and say the sky is falling.

            You’re correct that 97% of scientists agree we affect climate. You are incorrect that they think we are the main factor, and you are incorrect that they believe it will be catastrophic.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

            Scientists agree carbon affects the climate. That is as far as it goes. They are not universally agreed on the amount.

            This is why I said there is NO fine science to the hockey schitck theory. No scientist says it is fact, they say theory, as they cannot say “the temperature was this 1000 years ago, here is the equation, and the temperature will be this tomorrow”. They have basic ideas, but nothing concrete, and even in that, most scientists agree man made global warming is not a threat to the planet.

          • March 25, 2015 at 2:58 pm
            David says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob, you are just flat out misinformed. Contrary to what you claimed, the 97% figure represents the percentage of climate scientists who agree that man is the main driver of our current warming trend.

            “Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible
            for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century (1–3).”

            http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

            You are also wrong about the evidence for the hockey stick. I have posted here before a comprehensive book authored by the National Academy of Sciences outlining all of the lines of evidence supporting the hockey stick. Here is the link again. Please inform yourself. Quit elevating the opinion of business news columnists who are trying to make a quick buck writing contrarian books over the actual published research of thousands of scientists who have made studying this phenomena their life’s work.

            http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-

            Finally, of course global warming isn’t a threat to the planet’s existence. No one believes that. The earth will be here long after we’re gone. It’s just humanity that is going to be in for a very rough ride.

            Mass migrations of millions of people from coastal cities and islands receding back into the oceans, mass extinctions of plant and animal species, current breadbaskets becoming barren and increased frequency of severe weather events are all survivable by humanity. However, I would rather do everything in my power to prevent all of that from happening and if that cant be done to mitigate the severity of it, than do nothing and have my kids and grandkids bear the brunt of my generation’s selfishness, greed, and stupidity.

          • March 25, 2015 at 4:29 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            A:

            You are wrong, regarding hockey. Get over it. It is a theory, we do not have a formula to predict the rings and make a matching ring for 30 years down the line. They have estimates. Nothing more. It is not science fact it is theory.

            B:

            Your point doesn’t matter, as scientists still don’t think it will harm the world, and by world, they mean Humanity, the world.

            C:

            http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

            If we got to 5 times our current levels, we would be at the world’s most tropical point in history.

            I won’t even debate the other points because these are the only of importance.

      • March 25, 2015 at 8:53 am
        Bill says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Actually, the oceans usually absorb CO2 and sequester it, to the tune of 30% of the CO2 caused by humans. Scientists have found recently, though, that since the oceans have been warming they have now been emitting CO2. An analogy I saw compared it to warming a can of soda. You warm the soda and the gases trapped in it are released. So, the increase in Earth’s overall temperature (arguably caused or exacerbated by human greenhouse gas emissions) are causing the the oceans to release CO2. It is a vicious cycle now. The oceans heat up due to global climate changes. They then release CO2 instead of absorb it. The release of CO2 by the oceans then make climate change worse.

  • March 24, 2015 at 2:24 pm
    Always Amazed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bob,

    Of course it does. However, Global Warming, changed to Climate Change and now what’s the latest catch phrase? Oh yes, climate shift – come on! There was never any global warming in the first place and Europe is having colder, freezing winters and other parts of the globe aren’t. And there ya have it – climate shift.

    Sorry I don’t buy into Al Gore and his liberal mantra. The sky is falling! NY and FL will covered in water. Malarkey.

    • March 24, 2015 at 5:31 pm
      Jess Sayen says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Person to Noah: The sky is falling ! Rain for 40 days and 40 nights ? ! The whole world covered in water ? ! Malarkey !

  • March 25, 2015 at 9:29 am
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Has anyone thought that maybe the fact that we are more diligent in reducing, reusing, and recycling, incorporating more clean, renewable energy sources, improving gas mileage in vehicles, and less manufacturing (air pollution), may actually be helping to minimize man’s impact on the climate? Instead of saying all of the doomsday predictions were wrong, how about we recognize that man can have a positive imopact on the environment if we make some changes?

    • March 25, 2015 at 2:06 pm
      David says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Reminds me of an old cartoon:

      http://imgur.com/r/energy/up6yu

    • March 25, 2015 at 3:08 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I will agree with this, so long as it isn’t used by one side to demonize for example oil, and so long as we don’t practice business punishment techniques to ensure the transition.

  • March 26, 2015 at 2:34 pm
    patrick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s enough! I’m staying off beans until the climate gets back to normal. Others should do the same.

  • March 30, 2015 at 10:24 am
    oldwarhorse says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can’t help but wonder if those uninformed souls who deny the evidnce of global warming, and its effects on climate shift are the same folks who refuse to believe in evolution; maintaining that the earth is around 6,000 years old, and that all of the scientific evidence supporting evolution is the work of the devil!

    • March 30, 2015 at 6:14 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Climate change is utter foolishness, but the rapture is completely rational.

  • March 30, 2015 at 12:10 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Time Magazine

    “When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

  • March 30, 2015 at 1:47 pm
    PETE says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, No, Maybe so. The bottom line is this – we should do all we can to minimize our impact on the environment – WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN A DISADVANTAGEOUS SITUATION AS RESPECTS GLOBAL COMPETITION. China (one of the worst polluters in the world – ever been to Beijing?) isn’t doing squat, and there are over a billion people in China. They are NOT going to slow the pace of progress over `climate whatever’. Same goes for India.
    I am all for lessening our impact – but I’m not willing to travel 80 miles every day in a horse and buggy to make that happen. Even my electric car requires POWER, generated by fossil fuel fired power plants. We can’t control China, India or anyone else – so invest in coping with whatever change comes. THAT should be the focus.

  • March 30, 2015 at 1:52 pm
    PETE says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And AL GORE is a pathetic human being. He flies around in his pollution junkie jet making speeches of alarm so that he can profit (via his carbon trading businesses) from the resulting national and international legislation he hopes to impose on us all. What a disgusting piece of excrement.

  • March 31, 2015 at 4:12 pm
    earlybird says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow, I am an insurance salesman, or as Snuffy Smith, cartoon character for you all that dont read the Sunday funnies, I am a “flat land insurance peddler.” As such I have not personally been able to check the speed of the gulf stream, myself. So, I called my friend who is a charter boat captain, in Hatteras NC, the closest point to the gulf stream in the whole USA! He said it’s a good thing because he will use less lead to get to the bottom, once the stream slows down.
    Stop frettin’ about something you cannot change. Adapt, it will all work out!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*