Norwegian University of Bergen: Gulf Stream Shows No Longterm Weakening Over Past 20 Years!
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated by P. Gosselin]
Not long ago we asked German public radio Deutschlandfunk why they mentioned only the alarmist viewpoint of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in a report on the Gulf Stream published in March. The DLF replied that they indeed had reported on deviating models in the past.
PIK scientist Stefan Rahmstorf naturally detests it when the German media express criticism over his statements. In the Süddeutschen Zeitung of July 3, 1999 Rahmstorf was cocksure, claiming:
The Atlantic ocean current probably will weaken notably over the coming decades – here the simulations from various institutes are in broad agreement.”
Over the past one and a half decades that “broad agreement” has turned out to be a fantasy. The wide majority of scientists see no long-term change in the Gulf Stream. At the end of May 2015 yet another institute that refuses to follow the PIK has appeared. Oceanographer Kjell Arild Orvik of the Geophysical Institute of the University of Bergen has studied the Gulf Stream at the west coast of Norway and has determined that the ocean current has remained stable over the last 20 years. At the Forskning.no website (via WUWT) Orvik explains:
What we see is that the stream is lively in the sense that it varies both seasonally and from year to year. But when observing it over 20 years, it shows long-term stability.
Of course neither German national public radio Deutschlandfunk nor the Süddeutsche Zeitung have reported on this interesting development from Norway.
Have you tried to add a linear trend since 2003 to the result from the Norwegians?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/fig-2-golf-stream-temp-measurements-west-coast-norway.jpg
We don’t add anything to measurement data. That’s a warmunist sport.
Why since 2003? Are you aware that there are ocean cycles operating that last several decades? A trend from 2003 to 2015 does not even fulfill the 30 years climate definition… First try to undertand the cyclicity and then think about long-term trends.
I see already the next headline coming: climate change makes the sky brighter and brighter – based on measurements yesterday from 4 am to noon.
The 30 year-period is gone since long, now called “classic”, and already naive when first formulated in the 1930s. But now climatology seems happy to work with the stupidest of all possible definitions. Details at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/is-the-term-climate-too-unspecific.html
For example, the IPCC Glossary (2007) has not listed weather, and on climate it is said this:
“Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/06/05/rahmstorfs-fantasy-of-a-weakening-gulf-stream-gets-refuted-yet-ag… […]
A new paper finds that “Consistent with other results for the Northeast Atlantic component of the THC, we find no indication of weakening. The transports of the Faroe Current, on the contrary, increased”
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/12/1013/2015/osd-12-1013-2015.html