Talk:Gulf Stream/Archive 1

Lack of table of contents
i'm just wondering why there's no table of contents on this article - i assume it's automatic... is there some minimum number of subsections before a TOC is automatically added? Boud 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Section - auto TOC only for more than 3 headings. :P Boud 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Shutdown/switch off
I've consolidated the text on this that was split between here, Thermohaline_circulation and Effects_of_global_warming into the latter. William M. Connolley 13:33:23, 2005-07-30 (UTC).

The effects of global warming page looks very good (unfortunately). Thanks for the good work. ("unfortunately", because it would be nicer to believe the fairy tales from the oil industry...) Boud 21:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I've readded a brief reference to the thermohaline circulation, so that the larger picture is not scattered and blurred. --Wetman 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Change this, please!
"For example, in January, the temperature difference between coastal Norway and continental Canada is approximately 35 °C on average"

I KNOW that can't be right.

You are right, the difference isn't that big.

Whitehorse, Canada, has an average January temperature (24hr average) of -18.4 Celsus. Whitehorse

Bergen, Norway, which is almost exactly the same latitude, has an average January temperature (again, 24hr average) of 1.3 degr Celsius, so the difference is 20 degr Celsius, which is a lot, but less than 35 centigrades. Bergen


 * Note from Richard Bruce, Bergen Norway appears to be a sea level. Whitehorse ranges from 670 to 1702 meters above sea level. The high altitudes should make it much colder.


 * Furthermore while Whitehourse appears to be about 250 kilometers from the Pacific the wind may not be from the South West. If the wind is coming directly from the West then there is much more land it has to pass over.  On the other hand westerlies do come from the southwest.


 * This is a real comparison of apples and oranges. You need to look at two sea ports at the same latitude.  End of Bruce comment. 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but as you see from the discussion below, even if we compare coastal stations there is a large difference. Nome, Alaska, at the coast and at sea level (4 m above sea level) has a January average of about -14 degr Celsius link title, while Brønnøysund slightly further north has a mean of approx 0 degrees in January. 85.167.163.115 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some more data in the article about Norway

Orcaborealis

Hmmm, I just discovered that Whitehorse isn't that far from the Pacific coast...If we look at Baker Lake the January temperature drops to nearly -33 Degr Celsius.. Baker Lake

If we compare that with the coastal town Brønnøysund which is just a bit further north, we get the January average of 0 degr Celsius...Brønnøysund  so that's a stunning 32.5 centigrades difference.

Furthermore, if we look at Yellowknife, the January average is -28 centigrades Yellowknife

At the roughly same latitude is Ålesund, with a January average of 1.3 Celsius... all temperatures are 24hr averages.

So the difference actually is approaching (and sometimes exceeding) 30 centigrades...if we keep to what perhaps is more continental stations (?) in Canada... Eastern Siberia is even colder in winter.

Orcaborealis

This is an example of a "climate urban legend". The main reason that Norway is warmer than eastern Canada is that it is a coastal region. The relevant comparison is to the coast of Canada, where the difference is only a few degrees.

In numerical models where the Gulf Stream is shut off, the bulk of the cooling occurs over the central Atlantic. I will try and get some hard numbers on this over the following week.

--Agnana 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the article started out by comparing continental Canada to coastal Norway, although, as you pointed out, this confounds the effects of coastal region with the specific effect of the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic drift. If you compare coastal Norway with the west coast of Canada or Alaska, the comparison is more relevant, yes. Even so, Hammerfest at 70&deg; N has about the same year average (1.9&deg;C) as Anchorage at 61&deg; N, (although Hammerfest might be more coastal). Orcaborealis 21:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Power vs. heat
The Gulf Stream transports heat (heat transport is in units of J/s or W). However, the power dissipated by this heat transport is much smaller. The entire heat transport only requires about 200 GW of power input (Gnanadesikan et al., J. Climate 17, 2604-2616) and the mechanical energy budget of the ocean is in terms of terawatts, not pW.

--Agnana 20:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm pretty sure you're right its heat not power. William M. Connolley 22:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Gulf stream may not warm Europe, says Columbia U
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/02/richardSeager_research.html

They say half of Europe's winter warmth comes from the way the Rocky Mountains in the US that direct cold air over the US and warm air over Europe, and the other half comes from the ocean storing heat in the summer and releasing it in the winter (into the prevailing easterly winds). The Gulf Stream allegedly doesn't make much difference.

Comment by Richard Bruce, that is prevailing westerly winds, not easterly. They are called the Westerlies.

This was published in Feb. 2003.

NASA's website does not reflect this finding, so it may be unconfirmed or unfounded, but seems worth at least asking about here in discussion. If it's plausible, the article should probably be updated. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW_InfoCenter_Europe.html


 * Yes, I remember this, it was in QJRMS. Dont have the exact ref to hand, and sadly that PR page doesn't either.

William M. Connolley 10:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC). http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu//papers/qj.pdf

Here is an American Scientist article saying that, "The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth". http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963?fulltext=true&print=yes Seager's findings should be mentioned in the article. Roger 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the linked paper (Seager et al. 2001). Its point is that The Rockies warm Europe by influencing the atmspheric circulation over the continent. It is a new and interesting theory. However it never says Gulf Stream does not warm it either. Look at Figure 10 to see that Scandinavia in January would be 10 to over 20 deg cooler without the thermohalone overturning (Gulf Stream for friends). No papers I've read on the subject claim that Gulf Stream (or "Atlantic conveyor") warm the whole Europe. It's effect is limited to Scandinavia and most probably the British Isles (though Seager et al. 2001 does not show the effect for them). However, take note that European glaciations start in Scandinavia so the Stream may be what stands between us and the next glaciation. Friendly Neighbour 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seager says:


 * "But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic—one that would most likely be overwhelmed by the warming caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." (From above American Scientist article) Roger 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Effect of salinity on freezing point
I thought increasing salinity decreased the freezing point of water (at least near 0°C), and I've changed the article to say that, instead of saying it increases the freezing point. See Fahrenheit for instance. Please change it back if I'm wrong. -- JimR 04:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Shutdown: on Effects_of_global_warming
I hope I'm not offending those whove recently changed this section, but I feel rather strongly that the "shutdown" stuff should be in one place only, otherwise we are going to end up with incompatible descriptions. I don't much care where it is, but at the moment the main stuff is at Effects_of_global_warming. So could people modify stuff there rather than here?

In particular (Natalina...), I would like to see an explicit see-elsewhere link, rather than just some text wiki'd.

William M. Connolley 11:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Oh, I really dislike "see elsewhere" links and feel they should be used sparingly, as they look too unprofessional. Perhaps a Template:main would suffice? Of course, I'm just being stubborn about it and would be willing to revert my own edit if needed. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've put a main template in. An adventure for me: I had to guess how it works... William M. Connolley 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC).
 * See Template talk:Main. The convention is for template documentation to be on the Talk page.  (SEWilco 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Wind stress?
JimR asked for a citation for the gulf-stream-is-mostly-driven-by-windstress. I'm pretty sure this is true; but can't find you a citation now (and maybe not in the future). However... what else do you think causes it? William M. Connolley 21:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC).


 * OK, I found one, by happy chance: http://www.ecco-group.org/publications/sciencepersp.pdf
 * And http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html "Note that the Gulf Stream is primarily a wind-driven current, as part of the subtropical gyre circulation. The thermohaline circulation contributes only roughly 20% to the Gulf Stream flow" (don't take the exact numbers too seriously). William M. Connolley 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the references. Wunsch's cautions on the multiple different meanings attached to "thermohaline circulation" are significant. However, given that, although Stefan Rahmstorf allows only 20% of the cause of the origin of the Gulf Stream to be thermohaline rather than wind stress, elsewhere in that article he describes the nonlinearity and bistable state of the thermohaline part. An important question then is whether the overall system including wind stress as well is still nonlinear and bistable; if so then mightn't a small perturbation in the thermohaline circulation still be sufficient to shut down the whole current? If that's the case, then I think perhaps the sentence further down the article
 * There is some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation; however, the Gulf stream is largely driven by wind stress.

should be qualified by a mention of the nonlinearity. -- JimR 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My view is that people make too much of the THC shutdown. Which is one reason for emphasising the wind-driven nature of the GS: reading some accounts, you'd think the GS was purely THC! The THC could shutdown entirely and the effect on the GS might well be small. I was talking about this to an oceanographer whose answer was to define the GS as the wind-driven portion; thats a bit extreme but defensible. The bit that is THC driven (or is a bit of the THC if you like) is the north atlantic drift, which is the "continuation" of the GS northwards. It would be good if the article clarified the GS/NAD distinction. William M. Connolley 11:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Nature article
I added some info I got from the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad ( and ) about an article in Nature that reports a weakening of the gulf stream. William M. Connolley moved that down to the 'The effect of global warming' section. However, there is no evidence that that is the cause. Also, this is something that is potentially so important it needs to be stated in the intro, I'd say. Furthermore, he deleted the links and contorted the story by saying there should already have been an effect. Now I haven't (yet) read the Nature article itself, but the newspaper article says such an effect should come in the next few decades. Furthermore, he removed that bit (about a temperature drop of a few degrees) and the observation that that would have dramatic socio-economic consequences. I get the distinct impression he has rather POV motivations. Has anyone already read the Nature article? Connolley added a link to a comment on the Nature article by people who try so hard to convince me that they're politically neutral that I'm sure they aren't. I'd rather trust the Nature article itself. So for now I've just reverted the whole thing. See what happens. :) DirkvdM 20:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm a well known right-wing wacko. Just check my contribs to global warming or User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change or even Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute. Somewhat more seriously: I like the climate change science in wiki to be correct. Gulf stream/THC is something that people often get wrong, and/or get overenthusiastic about. You say I deleted your links. I don't think I did. Which do you mean? As for RealClimate: let me point out that I'm one of them, though I didn't write that article.


 * Now, onto the science. You keep on saying "the gulf stream is weakening". It isn't. That very Nature article says so (have you read it yet? I have). Read the BBC ref you added more carefully: 'say currents derived from the Gulf Stream''. Not the GS itself.


 * Dramatic consequences: the Nature article claims that the NAD *has already weakened* - by 30%. If this is supposed to cause dramatic drops in temperature, they should have already happened. No? Why not?


 * Detlef Quadfasel: its not clear what paper you're talking about here. I can't read Dutch; what do you Dutch refs say that he is saying? This http://www.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/~wwwro/quadfasel/ says its his publications page... there is a Science thing there, but it looks like a review-thingy. And you say he "confirmed" the Nature result, which presumably implies a publication *after* Bryden. William M. Connolley 21:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC).


 * For the reader: the following is one long text by me (at this level of indentation), interspersed with comments and coments on those comments.... DirkvdM 14:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you didn't remove the links, because they weren't links. I forgot I put them in as invisible comments. My mistake. I'haven't yet read the Nature article because I can't find it. Which issue is it in?
 * The exact ref is in the RC article . I advise you to re-reaad the article carefully, because its the best info you'll find on the web. William M. Connolley 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
 * As sources, I'd rather trust Nature than an interpretation of their articles by an 'indescript' group of self-proclaimed scientists.
 * I'm not sure whether you're deliberately trying to be offensive - I'll assume its an accident - but what you're written comes across as very offensive. We're not indescript: there are full bios for all of us. And we're not self-proclaimed scientists: there are links to our publication records. And I'd rather you relied on Nature; sadly you're not; you're relying on second-hand accounts from cr*ppy sources that can't even be bothered to give you the full journal ref; yet another hint that you're better off with RC. William M. Connolley 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Maybe you are 'the real thing', but how am I to know that? And as for popular sources of interpretation, I prefer to trust the BBC and NRC.
 * In that case, I strongly urge you to re-think. The BBC sometimes gets things right, sometimes not. Do not trust it uncorroborated when it comes to science.
 * You split thos two sentences. The first one was a bit strong, but the second one came to the point. How am I to know that you are a reliable source? The name realclimate already made me suspicious and the start of the article only strengthened that feeling for me, so I didn't read the rest. I tend not to trust people who say 'trust me'. I could also set up a website and claim to be a scientist. Who could stop me? And even scientists can be opinionated and group together to push a point. I'd rather trust a reliable institution, like a university (and even then only the more respectable ones). Or a magazine like Nature. Or Scientific American. Now I notice there is a claim of a SA award on your homepage, but when I follow that link there is no mention of 'realclimate', so how can I trust that? I know the BBC sometimes oversimplify. That is why I'd rather read NRC Handelsblad. If I can't trust that, then all newspapers are out the window because it's by far the best newspaper (science-wise at least) I've ever seen (and I've been around). And if I can't trust either the BBC nor NRC, then how on Earth can you expect me to trust some website I've ever heard of? DirkvdM 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. You haven't read the nature article, you didn't bother finishing the RC article, and you didn't trouble yourself to page on to page 2 at sci-am . William M. Connolley 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
 * After edit conflict:
 * Oops, it was on page 2. You might want to make that link a bit deeper. DirkvdM 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did indeed confuse GS with NAD. But that's a technicality and then why did you rephrase the whole thing to apparently ridicule it in stead of correcting that?` That sort of behaviour makes me suspicious about your motivations.
 * I have corrected it; it was no mere technicality. You said the GS was weakening. It isn't. The nature paper says its stable. The wiki article contained a good deal of confusion between GS and NAD, which I hope I've corrected.
 * I mean there was just a confusion of words, not content. DirkvdM 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The newspaper article states that the gulfstream is weakening (and ascribes that statement to Bryden), so those editors seemto have mixed the two things up as well. But it is confusing that there is no name for the phenomenon as a whole (GS+NAD). Or is there? Quadfasel is said to suport the findings in 'a comment' (doesn't say where). He's supposed to have said that the signalled trend is statistically significant (although the weakening being 30% is uncertain) and that a major drop in the GS (read NAD?) would "have devastating consequences for the social-economic situation in North-West Europe" (NRC's quote).
 * Right. And this is a problem: since 30% would be a major drop; Bryden says a 30% drop has occurred; but clearly no major cooling is observed.
 * I understood that a temperature effect was to be expected in a matter of decades. It seems plausible that the effect will not be instantaneous and on top of that such a thing can only be measured over time. So even if there already is an effect now, we can not know that yet because there are too many factors at play. After all we're talking climate here. DirkvdM
 * The Q stuff has now become so vague that I dont think it should be in there. Looking at RC (comments) Q seems to have been the author of a N&V piece in nature about the paper; not indep research.
 * The reason for this conclusion is that the current in the Strait of Florida (what they call the point of origin of the Gulf Stream and you call simply the Gulf Stream) has remained constant. Because the North Atlantic is an almost completely closed system, the water that goes North has to go South. Measuring points at 25 ° North however suggest that the surface circulation (the 'subtropical recirculation'?) has become stronger and that (therefore?) the deep current (and therefore the warm current that keeps Europe warm?) is weakening. (Not sure if I interpret this correctly.) This is supported by measurements of salinity and temperature (where?). These findings are the result of a mix of observation and calculation, but the article doesn't say which is which, alas. Other researchers had earlier already found changes around Iceland and Greenland, where the water sinks to the bottom. And then follows the well known story about how global warming causes more meltwater, which lowers the salinity of the water, thus preventing the water to sink (and potentially stopping the NAD - my addition). But the authors don't claim their findings are caused by global warming. Furthermore, their findings might be disturbed by abnormal meteorological situations and eddies. But these can not explain the changes in temperature and salinity at great depth.
 * In other words, what you say about the stability of the GS (by your definition) is true, but there was just a confusion about the terms and you appear to have misused that to turn the whole thing around. Not very nice. :( I'll first have to do some more reading on the subject to determine for myself what 'the Gulf Stream' really means. But let's not quibble over such technicalities for now and just get the story right, with whichever terminology.
 * OK, well I strongly suggest you find and read the Nature article, because then you'll know what Bryden actually said.
 * By the way, are you the William Connolley mentioned in the Nature article on Wikipedia? If so, I suppose you deserve some credit.
 * Yes. I confess I prefer Jimbos Connolley has done such amazing work... to your rather grudging concession. William M. Connolley 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
 * It's not a grudging concession. You read me all wrong. DirkvdM
 * But at the same time I seem to have now gotten a taste of the reason why you got sanctioned. Although I know from experience how trying it can be to have to deal with morons on Wikipedia.
 * Oh yes, I know what you mean.
 * Hope you're not referring to me. :) DirkvdM 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done some editing at the Cuba article and after a while just gave up, leaving it to the pitbulls, so to say. In comparison, this article is a very 'quiet backwater' (reverse pun? :) ). And even the global warming article (on average less than 10 edits per day). For a laugh, you might check out Talk:Cuba, especially the end, where a guy named 'El Jigüe' is talking to himself. Almost everyone else has given up talking to him since he entered mid december. And since has one opinion about everything (that's not a typo - I mean just one opinion), everyone has stopped using the talk page and they now just revert one another. DirkvdM 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to have gotten off at a wrong footing. Your best credential I've seen so far is your being mentioned in Nature. I'm willing to accept that you know what you're talking about. I didn't know that at first and got pissed off at the way you 'distorted' my edit without a motivation. And then things just got worse. Keep in mind that I am Dutch and therefore very straightforward. The Dutch are known to be rude, but it's just a matter of not beating about the bush with pleasantries (in other words, very un-English (not to mention the evasive fake-politeness of US'ers)). I'll get back to you when I've read the article. But you stil haven't told me which issue it is. Early december or late november I suppose. DirkvdM 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If a third party's allowed to join in here :-) . . . The Real Climate article links to this Nature Letter:, which is
 * Nature 438, 655-657 (1 December 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04385 : Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N by Harry L. Bryden, Hannah R. Longworth and Stuart A. Cunningham.

Could I respectfully request that William and Dirk sign all their contributions with four tildes? I'm sure you both know which of you is which but signing will make it easier for others to follow! I'd also like to observe that what seems to me important overall is not the GS/NAD distinction or naming, but whether lessening of some ocean current in the Atlantic is or is not likely to freeze Europe. I think Wikipedia should give the latest science on that, and I agree with Dirk that it's important enough to be near the top of the article. -- JimR 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome. Some replies: firstly, this is mostly covered over at effects of GW. It shouldn't get duplicated here. And of course it *is* at the top of the article. Secondly, I disagree that wiki should have all the latest science: the latest stuff often gets re-thought. Science should be allowed to settle - ideally for a year or two; in the case of stuff like this perhaps rather less. William M. Connolley 11:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Hello, welcome and some replies from me too. :) I've signed my later additions with 3 tildes not to get the dates wrong. Putting comments in other people's posts is something I also sometimes do (and maybe would have here too), but it is a bit confusing. The twice indented above (starting with "I'm sorry...") are one long text by me, and I don't want to confuse that by signing the split parts as well. Anyway, more to the point.
 * Jim, your link above only works for people who have a subscription to the online nature, so I can't use that, but I've already photographed the articles in the library and will read them when I find the time. Also, I suppose I'd better read the relevant Wikipedia articles first, too (and then some?). So I'll get back to you when I'm done with that.
 * William, I agree that, normally, scientific findings need at least some time to get reviewed, commented on and tweaked accordingly. But in this case the implications are hardly purely scientific. The survival of millions might depend on it (I don't think I exaggerate too much here). I suppose that's what you meant by "in this case perhaps rather less". Also, this is not the sort of thing that can be repeated by other scientists because it's not a lab experiment. So, scientifically we'd have to wait much longer than a few years, but politically we have 'no time to waste' (to borrow a phrase). So we should give this a fair bit of attention, provided that enough reservations are made. DirkvdM 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Two replies: firstly, if we wait a month or two then Nature may well publish comments by other scientists; or Science may; this is the sort of thing I meant rather than repeating the entire work. As it happens, Nature *has* published a sort-of reviewy thing: read all about it at... RC. Where else? Secondly, I find your scientifically we'd have to wait much longer than a few years, but politically we have 'no time to waste'. Wiki isn't your political soapbox. The Gulf Stream article isn't the place for politics in wiki either - its a science article. William M. Connolley 14:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the reference to the January Nature News feature by Schiermeier. I also located the Quadrasel News and Views article. I've summarised both of these at Effects-THC-shutdown. I've also tried to clarify the Gulf Stream article further on the THC GS-NAD distinction, and although it's redundant I've added a second link to Effects to emphasise that the details are over there. But I'm not sure I agree with the distinction you draw between science and "politics" in Wikipedia. Readers are quite likey to come to the GS article because they are interested in or concerned about the speculation. Not only the current science, but the range of views on likelihood and magnitude of possible consequences, are therefore very relevant. -- JimR 03:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Does this page mention why this phenonenon (spelling?) happen? It should do if someone can answer it.

Comment by Richard Bruce
If the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift should weaken then the areas of Europe near the coast will begin to be like the areas of Canada near the Pacific Coast, that means British Columbia, and in the north Alaska. A major factor that keeps Europe relatively warm in winter is the winds coming off the Atlantic. This produces a marine climite, which is mild, with relatively little change between the winter and summer. The loss of the Gulf Stream will not change the direction of the wind.

I have seen an estimate by a scientist that London will get one degree Celsius cooler if the Gulf Stream is lost. I noted that Vancover which is at about the same latitude as London is one degree degree cooler both summer and winter.

By the way the Pacific has the same general pattern of currents as the Atlantic, but the heating effect is lost because the Pacific is wider and by the time the current gets close to west coast of North America it has cooled. This means that the west coast of North America is likely to be a fairly good model of what Europe without the Gulf Stream will be like. This is the end of Richard's comment. 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Northeastern versus Northwester?
"When this current interacts with the northwestern coast of South America, " Shouldn't this be the northeastern coast of South America, how would it get round to the other side? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.13.249 (talk • contribs) 18 July 2006.

Contradiction?
Hello,

I think there is a contradiction in the article.

At present, the Gulf Stream itself shows stability over the past 40 years[6], although there is evidence that the deep return flow is weakening, [...] Gulf Stream has slowed about 30% since 1957.[8] --CutterX 10:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the section to solve the contradiction. The Bryden et al. 2005 paper showing 30% decrease results is still controversial so we cannot write that the Gulf Stream is really decreasing but "some researchers claim a but most believe b". Friendly Neighbour 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there was indeed a perfectly good contradiction there. Probably the second source is confusing the GS with the North Atlantic Drift... anyway, I've removed it: there is a seemain, and there should not be much detail here William M. Connolley 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored the text minus the misleading Time article. My source (Baringer and Larsen 2001) connects the decadal changes in the Florida Current with North Atlantic Oscillation. Anyway, a weakening of the Gulf Stream (or even the Florida Current) must imply a decrease in the North Atlantic Drift and even North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) production. There are papers which try to assess NADW production during the last glacial by estimating the strength of the Florida Current at the time (e.g. Jean Lynch-Stieglitz, William B. Curry & Niall Slowey, 1999, Weaker Gulf Stream in the Florida Straits during the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature, 402, 644-648). Friendly Neighbour 13:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

North Atlantic Drift not driven by wind?
According to the article, the Gulf Stream is driven by mostly wind while the extension is driven mostly by Thermohaline circulation. Is this correct? According to the new article "The Gulf Stream Myth" this is not correct, only the most northern part of the Norwegian coast is mostly dependent upon the warming from the circulation. The prevailing westerlies is very evident near Europe. Orcaborealis 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review
The Gulf stream has a good introductory sentence. The map in the picture is good, but the aticle needs more images. Such as for the North America section and the sentence "There is some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation and therefore reduce the North Atlantic Drift." Thre are three images in the picture all put in the right place. The refrences, the ones I saw were reliabe, but some more information from source 2 could be incorpoated. Footnotes are reliable statistics, and unless I'm wrong I did not find any of them to back up important statements. And if I'm wrong, please corect me. The article itself is well written and covers most of the aspects of the topic. Words such as salinity and brine are linked to help readers. And words such as influences and effective are good words for a geography Article.

Criteria review


 * 1. It is well written? Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate and verifiable? OK
 * 3. Broad in its coverage? OK
 * 4. Neutral point of view ? Pass (a little bit of wording could be changed)
 * 5. Stable? Pass (edits were booming in September)
 * 6. Images? Pass (three is enough for an article of that size)

Court Decision of article

This is what I call what should be kept, removed, etc.


 * Support. Add an image to the North america subsection that goes with the sentence "''
 * There is some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation and therefore reduce the North Atlantic Drift.''"
 * Add sources or the source you have to back statements A) "It is weaker, however, than the Antarctic Circumpolar Current."; B) "The North Atlantic Drift is one of the reasons why certain parts of the west of Ireland, Great Britain and France are an average of several degrees warmer than most other parts of those countries." C) "The chances of this occurring are unclear."
 * Support. Great job on using links that are relevant to the text/are unknown to the reader.
 * Remove. Any statements that are unverifiable. Please verify this user's request. "The Gulf Stream Myth" this is not correct, only the most northern part of the Norwegian coast is mostly dependent upon the warming from the circulation. The prevailing westerlies is very evident near Europe."
 * Add External links. Hence the article is very short. and external information can build the context of the article or can give the reader extra reserch details.
 * Support/Expand. the sections North America and The effect of global warming. This is a very important aspect and needs lots of information.
 * Support you could use footnotes more than once.
 * Add You could add a little bit more references
 * Support Answer any questions on the talk page as of late. Will discuss below.
 * Oppose/Needs attention. A translated reference in german is not bad it is cool. However, a reference with that much content mat have readers wanting english version. Please find one.

That''s all. These are questions that needed to be answered to passs as a good article.


 * "Gulf stream may not warm Europe, says Columbia U."
 * "The effect of salinity on freezing point.?"
 * ""When this current interacts with the northwestern coast of South America, " Shouldn't this be the northeastern coast of South America, how would it get round to the other side?"
 * Has the Gulf Stream weakened/is weakening?
 * "According to the new article "The Gulf Stream Myth" this is not correct, only the most northern part of the Norwegian coast is mostly dependent upon the warming from the circulation. The prevailing westerlies is very evident near Europe."
 * "Make sure the article doesn't contradict itself."

I bought these up from the talk page

Hope you consider my advice and good luck Showmanship is the key 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA
I gave you my comments a week ago on how to improve the article? Yet, I still haven't found improvements. Thus, I should not pass the article. However, since the article is well-written I'll pass it. Showmanship is the key 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, I never really went on them, having so many things to do; I am surprised no one else took another look. CrazyC83 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this is GA...but I won't lower the grade. I have added a See Also section to conform to the other meteorology articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr (talk • contribs).

Cultural references
Re: the last edit/revert, the current in Finding Nemo was the East Australian Current not the Gulf Stream. And that page already mentions the movie anyway. Not saying, just saying.. Pfly 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This Page was vandalised,reverted back to original form,using previous page.219.88.179.253 10:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Effects on Trade
I am no expert on this, but I think that someone should talk about the effects on trade that the Gulf Stream had.

Benjamin Franklin discovered and named the Gulf Stream
Benjamin Franklin discovered and named the Gulf Stream. The history of the discovery of the Gulf Stream is either lacking from this article or negligent for not discussing Benjamin Franklin. Someone please look into this and improve the article accordingly. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Franklin discovered the Gulf Stream. He apparently gave it the name "Gulf Stream" and mapped it, but its existence was known at least since the 1513 expedition of Juan Ponce de León. I'll clarify.. Pfly (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with these references?
None of the references in the section “Localized effects” seem to bear out the statements made. Reference 6 doesn’t say anything about the Gulf Stream at all, reference 7 doesn’t say anything about Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod or anything about the climatic effects of the Gulf stream. Reference 8 doesn’t say anything about Scotland, and reference 9 doesn’t mention the Gulf Stream at all or say anything about climate, or that Moscow is one degree south of this part of Ireland. Reference 10 doesn’t say anything about the effect of the Gulf Stream on the coastal climate of Norway. Am I missing something here? Richerman (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Little edit war
Re etc. Please take this to Shutdown_of_thermohaline circulation where it belongs. And distinguish (which the newspapers will never manage to do, which is one reason for not using them) the Gulf Stream from the THC William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no edit war - I reverted an edit that you made without giving your reasons, other than an edit summary that said "no it didn't (of course)" I then edited the information as it didn't seem to match what was said in the newspaper article. You don't just remove something that's properly referenced because in your opinion it's wrong. I'm aware that newspapers often get the science wrong but if you're going to remove something, please give a proper explanation of why you're doing it and then others will be able to decide whether your edit was justified or not. Richerman (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Unit confusion?
The phrase "The Gulf Stream transports about 1.4 petawatts of heat, equivalent to 100 times the world energy demand" confuses me awfully can someone clarify the units?


 * It implies that the world energy energy demand is 14 terawatts. However the 'watt' is a measurement of power, not energy
 * It explicitly says the Gulf Stream 'transports 1.4[PW] of heat'. This is so unclear to me! Is it saying that the Gulf Stream transfers 1.4PJ of energy past any arbitrary point per second? That the entire gulf stream transfers heat energy to it's surroundings at a rate of 1.4PW? That if all the warn water currently in the gulf stream were cooled to the temperature of it's surroundings then 1.4PJ of energy would have been released? Maybe it's just late!

If anyone feels my queries can't be answered, and the phrase should be changed, it presents a problem: the phrase is copied verbatim from the referenced document so (copyright issues aside) I'm not sure what the best course would be. 81.97.210.186 (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Formation?
I have to say how disappointed I am with the lack of 'formation' section in this article. There is not one mention of Western Boundary Intensification, the main driving force behind the Gyres which create it...key words might be coriolis effect, geostrophic flow around north atlantic ocean, asymmetry around circulation gyres. Unfortunately i dont have time to add this so i hope someone kindly takes my suggestion and adds some more information. im surprised that this article was even considered for GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.164 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There, the content is added. I'll more fully reference the section later this week.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the article didn't come up to your exacting standards. maybe if you could use some of your precious time to make a contribution, instead of expecting others to do it, you might find the articles more to your liking. I see you did manage to find the time to read and make (unsigned) comments about the Pacific ocean article as well. Wikipedia is a collective enterprise carried forward by unpaid volunteers. The mantra is "if it's not right - fix it yourself." Lucky for you that Thegreatdr is such an obliging person, or you'd be doomed to a life of disappointment. Richerman (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it was brought up. I'd never heard of it before his comment.  The changes have been made, including all the appropriate referencing, to maintain GA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Myth?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/ interested to know more about the truth behind the theory that the gulf stream affects the milder temperatures in Europe.-NeF (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * W Europe is mostly warmer in winter than E America because it is downwind of the ocean is correct. I think people have subsequently argued that ocean heat transport matters more than Seager et al think, but not that it is dominant William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncited text
I don't understand the relevance of the banner at the top added with this edit. Any text added to this article needs its own citations. You can't use another wikipedia article as a citation (which is what the banner suggests) as wikipedia is not a reliable source. Richerman (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, having read the page for the template used I can now see the rationale for it - it's to give attribution to the editor who contributed it to the first article. However copying uncited text from one article to another is not a good idea; the text still needs to be cited so I've added a fact tag to it. Richerman (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the fact tag has been removed with the edit summary "rv fact tag: the cite is in the very next para (though I've no idea if it is accurate)". If that is the case the first use of reference needs moving forward into the previous paragraph; you can't have an uncited paragraph in a GA article. I'm not going to do it myself as I don't have access to the book cited so I don't know if it's accurate either. Richerman (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Twas I. It looks to me quite clear from context that the cite applies to both paras. I can see no reason why a cite can't span two paras. However, if that is a GA rule, then remove the GA status William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not a "GA rule" - the GA criteria is that it is well written and properly referenced. It's just not logical to have two paragraphs supported by one reference source, with no instances of it in the first paragraph and two instances in the second paragraph - one of which is in the middle of a sentence. Richerman (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the snippet view of the source book in Google books I've now managed to work through the text and reference it myself. Richerman (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, you can use the and " to simply duplicate the citation. NW ( Talk ) 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - isn't that exactly what I did in this edit and in this edit? Richerman (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Although there has been recent debate"
What is exactly the meaning of subject in this period: "Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream." Thank you and greetings from Italy. --188.153.38.223 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The middle clause is the one you're looking for. I'm not sure the emphasis is right William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither I. Thank you, William and excuse me, I intended to write sentence, not period! Ciao. --188.153.38.223 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I just found this sentence: "However, the extent of its contribution to the actual temperature differential between North America and Europe is a matter of dispute as there is a recent minority opinion... et cetera". This is the matter. Maybe better to explain the sense in the previous sentence, or to link at that point. Bye.--188.153.38.223 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are need for —131.165.160.138 (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC) sdf


 * Not changed - Uncertain of what it is you feel is wrong, please feel free to re-tag with an explanation. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction
The statement follows the eastern coastlines of the United States and Newfoundland seems at odds with the map as regards Newfoundland. JH (talk page) 21:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which map? The Gulf Stream travels parallel to the coastlines, but is at more of an angle as it approaches the northern regions and stops gaining latitude for a while. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gulf Stream has (temporarily, presumably) moved

 * An unprecedented extreme in the northern hemisphere atmospheric circulation has driven a strong direct connecting current between the Gulf Stream and the West Greenland current.


 * http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/bugger-a-breif-introduction-to-climate-contradictions/
 * http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/6/822520/-Freak-Current-Takes-Gulf-Stream-to-Greenland

Also (Possibly) related:
 * Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/01/science.climatechange

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The grauniad was wrong so lets not make the same mistake of jumping too early William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One would hope that wikipedians would be steering away from blogs as references, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The direct current could very well be a glitch, though there looks to be more of a connection between the two currents than previously seen. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Localised effects
As interesting as it might be that Plockton on the Isle of Skye has a warmer climate than Moscow, it is not correct. Plockton is on mainland Scotland (according to Google Maps) northeast of Kyle of Lochalsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

All of "Localised Effects" needs some help. I made some changes to water temperatures off the Florida coast using local weather sources. The idea that it never went below 75F/25C is bizarre, I changed it to the more accurate 55F/13C as a low. Miami's low is more like 70F, but you can hardly use that as an average for the state. I am no meteorologist, but having spent a lot of time in Florida and being from the SE of the U.S., I find this whole section suspect. Florida has milder winter weather than the SE of the U.S. because it is at a different latitude. The distance between Atlanta, Georgia and Miami, Florida is greater than the distance between Paris and Nice; Aberdeen, Scotland and Southampton, England; Boston and Washington; San Francisco and San Diego. Basically, Florida is a the same latitude and gets the same sun as Northern Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Southern China and Northern India. Could someone with weather expertise rewrite this section?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.81.68 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Template of Benjamin Franklin
Does it really belong in this page? Aisteco (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The description in the 12-th century document quoted in the "history" section above does describe the current correctly, in contrast to Franklins drawing.88.89.126.92 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

history
A useful book, not cited here, is James Delbourgo and Nicholas Dew 'Science and empire in the Atlantic world' Routledge, 2008 .The first chart, according to Joyce Chaplin' s article in this volume, was published in London in 1768. Pamour (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gulf Stream is referred to in this 12th century text:

http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Text%20Series/Historia%26Passio.pdf

"Bounded by the stream of ocean to the west and north", page 50, line 21. "almost touching the African islands where the waters of ocean flood in", page 51, lines 5-6.

88.89.126.92 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is just a supposition on your part that the text you quote is referring to the Gulf stream and thus adding it to the article constitutes original research. Please don't remove cited information from the article to accommodate your ideas and don't add them unless you can find a reliable source to support them. Richerman ''   (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Meteorology??
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia", says the banner. Meanwhile, Meteorology identifies itself as "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere" .... So what does Oceanography have to say about this blatant theft?! ;o) 78.147.60.116 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Map copyright
Hello, I am a researcher for the BBC and we are making an item about the Faroe Islands where we will be mentioning the Gulf Stream. I see that the author of this page has doctored a map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golfstream.jpg

I am very interested to know if we can use it in our edit. Please can you get in touch with me as soon as possible amy.ford@bbc.co.uk.

Thankyou 132.185.160.98 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've replied to this post by email Richerman    (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolute babbling duhmerican tripe
Some retard scribbled some incoherent dross about how muricans tried to help the dumb english to sail the sea. The whole paragraph shows an incompetent failure to understand anything about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.159.72 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbers
The flow numbers mentioned here do not agree with those in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current article66.19.94.142 (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulf Stream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503013457/http://www.science-house.org/nesdis/gulf/background.html to http://www.science-house.org/nesdis/gulf/background.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gulf Stream Changing because of Climate Change doesn't need a cite?
I was just reading the intro, and I saw that one statement said needs citation, where the statement that the Gulf Stream may be slowing because of Climate Change doesn't supposedly need a citation. Why is this, and why can't people edit the intro?

(2601:184:4780:6B0:2D38:7DE3:FD5:8F3E (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gulf Stream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218185445/http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/library/readings/gulf/gulf.html to http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/library/readings/gulf/gulf.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211050708/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=trade-winds1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=trade-winds1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622073904/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=westerlies1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=westerlies1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011040501/http://www.iere.org/documents/tidal.pdf to http://www.iere.org/documents/tidal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041014034757/http://www.corona-magazine.de/archiv/corona124.html to http://www.corona-magazine.de/archiv/corona124.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Franklin's first chart of the Gulf Stream
I recommend that the 1786 Gulf Stream chart presently shown in the Gulf Stream piece (in history) be replaced by Franklin's first chart of the Gulf Stream printed in London 1n 1769. The 1769 version is the first good chart of the Gulf Stream and was a very significant advance in showing the average structure of the Stream based on Nantucket ship captains' knowledge. It is still a good portrayal of the mean Gulf Stream today. The present (1786) chart in the Gulf Stream piece is a copy of a copy of the first chart (as mentioned by Franklin), was published later, and has been corrupted--the chart projection is different and the location and size of the Stream has been modified. In addition there an inset in the upper left part of the present (1786) chart shows the migration of herring, not an ocean current. People (including some oceanographers) often mistake the herring migration pattern as being an ocean current and sometimes as being the large scale circulation of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic. The person who added the present (1786) chart to the piece misidentified it as being the first chart of the Gulf Stream (implying it was the 1769 London version). Therefore, I recommend that the 1769 London version should be added to the piece and the 1786 (presently included) version should be deleted. It makes sense to use the original chart as sketched by Folger and printed by Franklin, not the later corrupted version (corrupted by the engraver of the 1786 figure not by Franklin). Reference 6 discusses the history of the chart in detail. A copy of the 1769 version is in the Commons--"Franklin-Folger Gulf Stream chart, London, 1769 version, LOC.jpg". I tried editing the Gulf Stream piece by adding the 1769 version without deleting the 1786 version (to be inclusive), but comments were that it would be better to use only one of the two charts not both. That is I why I am now suggesting switching the two charts and described why the 1769 version is the best one to include. Please let me know if there is any agreement about this, and if so I will try to do the switch and modify the relevant text. Plrichardson7212 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)