Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cwkoss | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

cwkoss

What would happen if the Gulf Stream did collapse?

Would a different similar circulatory system emerge soon after?

Would the lack of a dominant system lead to many more smaller chaotic systems?

Do we just not know what would happen, so that it's concerning in that it's unknowable?

View on HN

There will always be a Gulf Stream as long as there are westerlies, a coastline, and Coriolis [0]

[0] https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/9-4-west...

You can kiss Northern Europe as a habitable area goodbye. So yes, it matters quite a bit.

Northwest Russia is habitable. Not that pleasant, but habitable.

For a relatively limited number of people and with a standard of life that doesn't compare to western/northern Europe. It will be 'a bit of an adjustment' to put it euphemistically.

I've lived in Northern Canada, which is somewhat comparable to Northwest Russia and sure, it's doable, but civilization as it currently exists in the countries that are exposed to this will cease, the present day number of inhabitants will be unsupportable.

Just trying to imagine the UK with a climate shift like that and the mind boggles. What works for Iceland will not work for the UK without a massive reorientation, which is probably a friendly way of writing 'mass die-off'.

Novosibirsk, Russia is 1m+ city... with some effort you can live. Russians are obsessed about populating their country all over even in the most inhospitable places vs Canadians who are just fine with living south of 60th parallel.

Go ask them how many of them would like to move family and all to Paris or Amsterdam and how many people from Paris or Amsterdam would like to move to Novosibirsk.

I've lived in Northern Canada. Snow isn't nearly as much fun as it is cracked up to be when there is 6+ months of it in some years (I recall one year where the snowplow went on the tractor in October and we had the last snow in June).

Those areas are well outside the ones where humans feel comfortable most of the time and don't underestimate the energy budget on a per-person basis required to make those places habitable to begin with.

Gamify it. Make them think it's practice for settling on some ice planet! Sell tickets via a lottery for the real thing some time really soon.

Northern Europe doesn't have ownership of Southern Europe, so they may not be comparable in the sense that habitability is somewhat subjective in the age of modern logistics.

That’s the thing. Growing food may be tough up there, but otherwise you can still have thriving cities if you have the capital to build appropriate infrastructure.

And are willing to spend a very high amount of energy per person.

You can get a slight hint as to what it would look like by looking to the pacific northwest, Canada, Alaska. The northern pacific ocean has a "Gulf Stream" called the Kuroshio. However, there is no appreciable meridional overturning in the north pacific. Thus north-west portion of north america is colder than Europe at the same latitude. Roughly.

I've lived there. Let's say I like the European climate a bit better.

There is no requirement that water MUST circulate. It could simply stagnate. That's pretty much the worst case though, a weakened gulf stream is not the same as a total collapse.

As long as there are temperature differences between the poles and the equator, there will be movement of water. That's thermodynamics in play.

I think that would require all the water be the same temperature.

Just watch The Day After Tomorrow to know what happens.

No, that is heavily sensationalized. But a new 'small ice age' as a result of the gulfstream shutting down is a serious possibility, even if it changed direction that would already cause serious problems for very large parts of Europe.

Although the benefit would be increased reflection of sunlight due to more icy (reflective) surface which would alleviate (or reverse?) the current weather warming trend.

Sensationalized? Sure. Hollywood. But incorrect? It's hard to know.

The basic premise is faulty, a chance in the ocean currents would not immediately cause massive climate change, it would take a couple of centuries but would be pretty much inevitable. It likely would also accelerate other processes already in motion, so more extreme weather would be a pretty safe bet but not to the degree depicted in the movie.

Well, they forgot to account for adiabatic heating of that cold air getting pulled out of the upper atmosphere, which would have made it quite hot when it hit the ground. If I recall, that cold air was the central threat in the movie.

We actually ran the numbers on that as an exercise during my undergrad degree (meteorology), iirc it would end up the same as the surface air temperature

I guess the joke flew over your head :P

I guess you're on the wrong website.

No worries, I don't usually joke much on HN. Sometimes jokes work here, maybe climate change is a bit too polarized.

Or maybe it is just a bit too serious.

Films like that, showing immediate and extreme change over a couple of hours instead of the gradual over-decades change that is more likely to happen, are part of the problem.

People remember the film, and see nothing similar happening, and claim nothing is actually happening. All this while the change is going steady.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com