Skip to comments.Scientists Study Ancient Gulf Stream
Posted on 12/05/2006 3:11:40 PM PST by blam
Scientists study ancient Gulf Stream
PASADENA, Calif., Dec. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say they've determined the Gulf Stream was weaker during the Little Ice Age -- a time of unusually cold conditions in the North Atlantic.
That finding by David Lund and colleagues at the California Institute of Technology suggests changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation might have had a significant impact on climate during historical times.
The researchers analyzed sediment cores from the Florida Straits -- the region where the Gulf Stream enters the North Atlantic Ocean. They discovered the Gulf Stream was about 10 percent weaker during the Little Ice Age, which occurred between approximately 1200 and 1850.
The heat transported by the Gulf Stream is known to be an important control on North Atlantic climate, and the possibility of changes in that flow is one of the main uncertainties hampering the forecasting of climate change.
Since current knowledge of Gulf Stream behavior on long timescales relies in large part on geologic records of past changes, the scientists say studies such as theirs should contribute to future climate prediction.
The research appears in the current issue of the journal Nature.
"Little Ice Age - Big Chill" History Channel tonight (Tues 12/5)
So can they also tell if there were other little ice ages by the use of these core samples, possibly a bit further back in time than our records describe?
Sure, but which was the cause? Or is it an unstable feedback system that drives itself into freeze and then into thaw, etc. forever.
"...,the scientists say studies such as theirs should contribute to future climate prediction."
Does this help in the 5-day forcast?
Is this an "inconvenient truth"?
The question is, what did Man do to bring on the Little Ice Age?
I've always loved those little travel trailers - maybe if they study the ancient ones, they will be able to discover how to make them sooo cool...
Got it, thanks.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Global Warming+Carbon Credits=UNRipoff.
Those "scientists" should read The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions to see how quickly "consensus" can change in light of new work. IMHO a lot of the global warming crowd is gonna look very foolish in future hindsight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.