Skip to main content

Climate Change – Which Way Up?

 In the last few days I have seen various mentions in the news of a report on the state of the system of currents that form the Gulf Stream, which keeps northern Europe warmer than its latitude would normally allow. As I understand it, when a lot of fresh water pours into the North Atlantic, usually as a result of the melting of ice sheets in North America, the salinity of the ocean is reduced and the currents drop lower, rather than staying near the surface. As a result of global warming, there has been a lot of quite rapid melting of glaciers in Canada, and the current system is becoming unstable. If it collapses completely the warming effect of the Gulf Stream would stop, bringing about (fairly swiftly, probably over a couple of decades) abrupt cooling of north-western Europe.

A New York Times news item this morning explains: ‘… a crucial ocean circulation system in the Atlantic Ocean, which helps stabilize the climate in Europe, is now starting to slow down. While the [IPCC] concluded with “medium confidence” that the system was unlikely to collapse abruptly this century, it warned that if the planet keeps heating up, the odds of such “low likelihood, high impact outcomes” would rise…’ However, the authors of this article quote this merely as an example of the overall effect of continued global warming - which the IPCC, by the way, rather alarmingly now considers to be beyond human ability to stop, even with the enormous efforts to control carbon emissions that are now under way. 

The authors of the New York Times article don’t, however, make the more interesting connection that I’d like to explore here. The northern hemisphere, with its enormous landmasses, especially east of the Atlantic in the form of the Eurasian super-continent, governs global weather just as much as carbon dioxide levels do – possibly more. Historically, from the evidence of land and ice cores, if the northern hemisphere landmasses cool, the climate in general cools. When they get warmer, the knock-on effect is also for the global climate to warm. Why is no one pointing out that this would solve the global warming problem, at least for a while?

In my next blog, I’ll explore the history of cooling and warming in a bit more detail for those who are interested. It is a lot more complicated (and interesting – perhaps even reassuring) than current popular climate science would suggest.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Speaking Truth to Power

I read this morning, in Guy Watson’s musings on the card that comes with my Riverford Vegetables box, of his grave disquiet about the plight of farmers not only in this country but elsewhere. They have become squeezed between the power of the big corporations which no one seems able to challenge successfully and the costs of fuel and other inputs which they need to grow food. The big corporations include both retailers who continually revise downwards the payments they negotiate with farmers for the food we eat and the fossil fuel giants whose diesel is a necessity for farming machinery. Both are making profits while the farmers are making a loss. As Guy points out, farmers have cut their costs to the bone, sent their partners out to work in other industries, and done without employees, working themselves into the ground as a result. Increasingly, the only way of making a living from farming is to become part of an agribusiness, dedicated to profit at the expense of everything that has...
Post a Comment
Read more

Global warming and power usage

  Reading in The Guardian that the need for minerals to use in the production of electric cars is driving undersea mining, and that this mining is likely to be disruptive to an already threatened marine environment, prompted me to offer an alternative theory. Unfortunately it does not offer any easy solutions to global pollution and climate change, but if I am correct it means that we are diving off down a dead end route which will not actually solve any of the problems. First of all, I continue to be slightly sceptical that the current upward trends in global temperatures are totally anthropogenic in nature. Warming periods have come and gone throughout Earth’s long and turbulent history, and historically we are overdue for the next ice age, a phenomenon which seems from the available paleontology evidence to have been preceded on each occasion by a very warm period. (Think, for example, of the evidence that there were wild hippopotamuses in London 125,000 years ago.)   Su...
Post a Comment
Read more

Climate Change: A brief (1000 year) history

 I’m writing this third post partly because I am concerned at the level of what is called ‘climate anxiety’ in the general population, and particularly among young people. This has clearly been caused by the media heavily emphasizing every possible negative climate story, as well as talking up the disaster theories, not least because these headlines ‘sell newspapers’, as we used to say (!). Our current climate mania seems still to be stuck in the ‘hockey stick’ era, with every new piece of research seized upon by the media and stacked up with all the rest to create terror; and the scientists have - understandably but I think without fully considering the effects of all the media hype - allowed this to happen because it captures public attention and increases the likelihood that policy makers will actually address the issues. However, this global anxiety is, in my view, largely misplaced and may actually be dangerous, not only to individuals who are being made anxious, but also beca...
Post a Comment
Read more