Scientists uncover diversion of Gulf Stream path in late 2011

Oct 12, 2012
The figures show the maximum sea surface temperatures for the periods (a) October 12–21, 2011, and (b) December 1–15, 2011. The coastline and shelfbreak are indicated by the thin black contours. The dashed black lines in (a) and (b) denote the climatological mean location of the Gulf Stream North Wall in October and December. In (a), the blue line denotes the path of a surface drifter released off Cape Fear, NC,  on October 12, 2011, that was entrained in the Gulf Stream and reached Georges Bank 8 days later. The drifter's speed (blue) and course (red) are shown as functions of latitude in (c). In (a–b), the blue star indicates the location of the OOI test mooring, and the magenta squares denote the locations of the eMOLT observations. Credit: Robert Todd, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

(Phys.org)—At a meeting with New England commercial fishermen last December, physical oceanographers Glen Gawarkiewicz and Al Plueddemann from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) were alerted by three fishermen about unusually high surface water temperatures and strong currents on the outer continental shelf south of New England.

"I promised them I would look into why that was happening," Gawarkiewicz says.

The result of his investigation was a discovery that the Gulf Stream diverged well to the north of its normal path beginning in late October 2011, causing the warmer-than-usual along the New England .

The researchers' findings, "Direct interaction between the Gulf Stream and the shelfbreak south of New England," were published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Scientific Reports.

To begin to unravel the mystery, Gawarkiewicz and his colleagues assembled data from a variety of sources and recreated a record of the Gulf Stream path during the fall of 2011. First, they tapped into data collected by a program called eMOLT, a non-profit collaboration of , research, academic and government entities, run by James Manning of 's Center. For more than a decade the program has recorded near-bottom ocean temperatures by distributing to lobstermen.

Manning and scientists from WHOI, including Robert Todd and Magdalena Andres, analyzed a time series of temperatures from two eMOLT sites, OC01 and TA51, which were located over the outer continental shelf near the shelfbreak, and identified two events when temperatures suddenly increased by 6.2 and 6.7°C, respectively, to highs of more than 18°C.

"These are very dramatic events for the outer continental shelf, at least 2°C warmer than we've seen since 2001," says Gawarkiewicz. "Near-bottom temperatures of 18°C on the outer shelf are extremely high for late autumn." The maximum recorded temperature in December 2011 was the warmest bottom temperature recorded in 6 years of records at the OC01 site.

In typical years, the warm Gulf Stream waters only indirectly influence ocean currents and temperatures near the continental shelfbreak south of New England when eddies, called warm core rings, pinch off from the Gulf Stream and drift toward the outer continental shelf. Such rings normally drift past a site after a few weeks, and therefore cause only limited warming of the water on the outer shelf.

Gawarkiewicz and his colleagues collected additional data on water temperature and salinity from December 4, 2011 through January 4, 2012, from instruments on temporary test moorings placed 12 km south of the shelfbreak by the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). The researchers compared those salinity measurements to historical data, and discovered that high salinity levels – consistent with the salinity of waters carried by the Gulf Stream – coincided with the warming periods.

The extent and duration of the two 2011 warming events combined with the high salinity observed by the researchers suggested the cause was not a transient warm core ring, but the Gulf Stream itself that carried warm, salty water to the outer shelf.

To solidify that finding, Gawarkiewicz received serendipitous help from students in the Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) program at Cape Fear Community College in Wilmington, NC, who had deployed a surface drifter during the period coinciding with the two warming events. Drifters use satellites to transmit their positions roughly every six hours, key information for the WHOI scientists, who analyzed the drifter tracks and speeds.

"Drifters around the edges of warm core rings drift toward the continental shelf at about 1 knot," Gawarkiewicz says. "But we saw the drifter cut across the slope towards the shelf at about 2.5 knots. It only took it eight days to travel from Cape Fear, North Carolina, to a point 40 miles south of Georges Bank, a total distance of 580 miles."

The periods of high speeds for the drifters coincided with the records for high temperatures on the outer shelf, which told the scientists that the core of the Gulf Stream had diverted to 39.9°N at 68°W – 125 miles north of its mean position, further north than had ever been recorded by satellite altimeters at this particular longitude.

The temporary shift in Gulf Stream path observed last fall potentially has significant longer-term implications. Studies have shown that temperature increases of 2°C have caused major shifts in silver hake populations, for example, and in spring 2012, migratory bluefish and striped bass were observed off the coast of Cape Cod much earlier than in previous years. But, the scientists say, more research is needed to determine just how the Gulf Stream's behavior in 2011 affected the continental shelf ecosystem and marine organisms.

It is unclear what might have caused this shift in the Gulf Stream path. It occurred shortly after Hurricanes Irene and Katia drenched the east coast with rain, and this might have impacted the Gulf Stream separation from the continental shelf near Cape Hatteras. Another possibility is that a cold core ring, an eddy south of the Gulf Stream core, might have deflected the Gulf Stream. Further research will be necessary to determine exactly how and why this occurred, which will be helpful in the long term in predicting Gulf Stream motions.

In the meantime, Gawarkiewicz and his colleagues will be keeping an eye on what the does this fall, with the hope of someday being able to predict such a shift. "We're checking in from time to time to monitor it. We'll be talking to the fishermen, and academics, and keeping an eye on things," he says.

Fishermen David Spencer, Fred Mattera, and Norbert Stamps first alerted the researchers to the anomaly. Profile data were made available by the OOI, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and managed by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. Tim Shaw and David Calhoun at Cape Fear Community College provided drifter data. WHOI scientists on this project were supported by the NSF, the Cooperative Institute for the North Atlantic Region, the Penzance Endowed Fund in Support of Assistant Scientists, and the Postdoctoral Scholar Program at WHOI.

Explore further: TRMM Satellite calculates Hurricanes Fay and Gonzalo rainfall

Related Stories

Underwater robot launched from Bermuda to cross Gulf Stream

Mar 25, 2005

A small autonomous underwater vehicle, or AUV, named Spray was launched yesterday about 12 miles southeast of Bermuda. The two-meter-(6-foot)-long orange glider with a four-foot wingspan will slowly make its way northwest, ...

NASA Satellites Keep Watch on Gulf Current Near Spill

May 25, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists and agencies monitoring the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are keeping a wary eye on changes in the nearby Loop Current, a warm ocean current that is part of the Gulf Stream.

Cooler waters help diminish Isaac's punch

Aug 29, 2012

(Phys.org)—Seven years after the powerful Category 3 Hurricane Katrina caused widespread devastation along the Gulf Coast, a Category 1 Hurricane Isaac, with maximum sustained winds of 80 miles per hour ...

Lobster Traps Going High Tech

Mar 09, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- New England lobstermen have gone high tech by adding low-cost instruments to their lobster pots that record bottom temperature and provide data that could help improve ocean circulation models ...

NASA eyes warm sea surface temperatures for hurricanes

Aug 17, 2007

Sea surface temperatures are one of the key ingredients for tropical cyclone formation and they were warming up in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and eastern Atlantic Ocean by the middle of August. As a result, ...

Recommended for you

Tropical Depression 9 forms in Gulf of Mexico

16 hours ago

Tropical Depression Nine formed over the western Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico and is forecast to make a quick landfall on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. NOAA's GOES-East Satellite captured the birth of the ...

$58 million effort to study potential new energy source

21 hours ago

A research team led by The University of Texas at Austin has been awarded approximately $58 million to analyze deposits of frozen methane under the Gulf of Mexico that hold enormous potential to increase ...

And now, the volcano forecast

22 hours ago

Scientists are using volcanic gases to understand how volcanoes work, and as the basis of a hazard-warning forecast system.

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
Or, the electrical fields from those two hurricanes caused dielectric heating (joule heating) of the water currents. BTW, the water currents, just like wind currents, are evidence of the electric currents flowing around the Earth.
barakn
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
I don't know if cantdrive85 broke any phys.org rules or not, but his post was so stupid I reported it.
rubberman
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
Or, the electrical fields from those two hurricanes caused dielectric heating (joule heating) of the water currents. BTW, the water currents, just like wind currents, are evidence of the electric currents flowing around the Earth.


Your killing me with this stuff, and solidifying your label as a crank dude.

Plasma Cosmology/physics is a growing field of research and new uses for plasma in the industrial process are found every day. As well as playing a major role in star formation and solar phenomena. But when you make a claim like the one above it severely detracts from your credibility.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
You having a incomplete understanding how the electric currents that are formed in space interact with the Earth's systems does not qualify me as a crank. Electric circuits must flow in closed circuits, the Earth's magnetic field is an indication the there must be electric currents flowing around the Earth. All atmospheric phenomenon (i.e. high/low pressure systems, wind, storms, weather, etc..) is due to the electric currents flowing around the Earth. The Earth's systems are directly connected to the Sun's weather systems (space weather) as well.

"From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe".

- David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill, Thunderbolts of the Gods.
barakn
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
No, actually I've spent a great deal of time studying the Earth's magnetic field and have a pretty thorough understanding of it. 90% of it is a classic dipole. So go ahead - give me the mathematical formula of a current "around the Earth" (by which I assume you mean current ABOVE the Earth's surface) that mimics a classic dipole whether measured from the bottom of the deepest mine or the top of the atmosphere or anywhere in between, and I'll give you a thousand dollars. Oh, and a few more limits - it has to be stable over time and has to be realistic (no persistent currents heavy enough that the air would glow as bright as a light bulb in the middle of the night).
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
Something doesn't add up. AGW proponents claim we have accurate record of the ocean temperatures, but then three fishermen had to inform us of an ocean temperature anomaly???

Maybe our ocean intel is not as thorough as we would like it to be?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
No, actually I've spent a great deal of time studying the Earth's magnetic field and have a pretty thorough understanding of it. 90% of it is a classic dipole. So go ahead - give me the mathematical formula of a current "around the Earth" (by which I assume you mean current ABOVE the Earth's surface) that mimics a classic dipole whether measured from the bottom of the deepest mine or the top of the atmosphere or anywhere in between, and I'll give you a thousand dollars. Oh, and a few more limits - it has to be stable over time and has to be realistic (no persistent currents heavy enough that the air would glow as bright as a light bulb in the middle of the night).

Would the aurora qualify as "persistent currents heavy enough that the air would glow as bright as a light bulb in the middle of the night"?
barakn
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
The strength of the aurora varies by several orders of magnitude, but I've never seen it as bright as a light bulb. If you say you have, you're lying. I asked you to provide the mathematical formula of a current that would explain the steady dipole nature of the Earth's magnetic field, not some transient fringe phenomenon that's only strong enough to nip at the magnetic field's Achilles heels, the magnetic poles. My $1000 is feeling really safe.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2012
I just used the magnetic field as an example of electric currents, I could have said Van Allen belts, or Birkeland currents, lightning, sprites, elves, or any other number of electrical phenomenon that is happening throughout the day, the point I was making is that there are electric currents of varying charge densities and velocities in and around the Earth. Anyway, here is a paper that demonstrates you cannot have a magnetic field without considering electric currents; http://www.bentha...OAAJ.pdf

and a quick article that explains how the Sun's electric currents "leak" into the Earth's system;
http://www.thunde...itor.htm
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
Ummm... so where are the currents in my refrigerator magnets?
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
Here is a video of Hurricanes Fabian and Isabel leaving trails of COLD WATER in their wake. http://archive.or...SVS-2824 So exactly where is this alleged dielectric heating occurring if it's not occurring near the hurricanes, and why would it not be occurring near the hurricanes if they are the sources of the electric fields doing the heating? http://earthobser...?id=3789
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2012
They are there, carried by the particles that make up the matter. Magnetic fields can store energy, it may be minute, but there will be a current.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2012
The Earth is one big electric field, the hurricanes create their own fields within the larger. The cold water in their wake would make sense, the storms would be pulling a current off the Earth through the cold depth of the sea, while at the same time pulling an equal and opposite "hot" current from the Ionosphere. The twisting motion of the cyclone is where the two currents wrap around each other. Was there warming in front of the storms? The Gulf stream warmed, maybe just a coincidence.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
So now electric currents are carrying "cold" around? Is there anything they can't do?

You're still very confused. You've just described two currents coming together and meeting in the hurricane. This would lead to the accumulation of positive charge, unless the hurricane somehow started with a negative charge. Perhaps you should very carefully describe what the charge carriers are, what directions they're flowing, what they're flowing throw, and what is providing the electromotive force that is driving them.
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
Ok, never mind. The resistivity of seawater is 25 ohm*cm, or about 10 million times more resistive than an ideal conductor like gold. You are basically contending that somehow this current flowing through cold sea water is not only not heating the water up but somehow transferring cold from the lower ocean layers to the upper layer. This idea is not only dumb, but it's exactly opposite of what you stated in your very first post in this thread. Doesn't it bother you that you can't even agree with yourself? Did it ever occur to you that your devotion to EU theory has made you so blind that you try to apply it to situations where it obviously doesn't apply?
VendicarD
5 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
It is, of course, all a global conspiracy to keep denialist Tards such as yourself, stupid.

Seriously. We had a meeting, and everything. Michael Mann brought the doughnuts.

"Something doesn't add up. AGW proponents claim we have accurate record of the ocean temperatures, but then three fishermen had to inform us of an ocean temperature anomaly???" - ScooTard
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
The current is carrying cold water from the depths. The charge carriers are present, the clouds are the evidence. There are updrafts, downdrafts, charged sheath vortices, lightning (ball too), and any number of other phenomenon that can be seen as some sort of expression of electric currents/discharge. And of course, the "electromotive force" that is driving this action is a rotating charged body (Earth) orbiting within the Sun's radial electric field. The Earth actually behaves like a homopolar motor generating electromagnetic field and electric energy, just as Io does in Jupiter's plasmasphere. This is the source of the magnetic field, not a mythical "dynamo" effect.
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
"Scientists uncover diversion of Gulf Stream path in late 2011"

confirm not uncover
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
Ignoring for the moment that you are simply piling on more absurdities, let's stick with this cold current concept. I am not asking you to simply restate your assertion, as you have been doing. Please state for the record the mechanism of action. How is an electric current bringing up cold water from the deep?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2012
Charged ions/electrons that flow out of the Earth attach themselves to the dipole water molecules at the depths of the ocean, and as the flow of particles moves, it brings that water with it. Evaporation is another misnomer, it is the charged particles flowing off the surface that carries the water molecules into the atmosphere. The reason this water wouldn't be heated as much is due to the similar charge being they both originate in or near the Earth. The current that is being pulled from the ionosphere will have a current differential strong enough to cause the dielectric heating I speculated on. We know that an electric current creates wind, this can be readily verified in a lab. Being water is a dipole molecule, it too will react to an electric current flowing through it similarly, water currents is the result.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
So your explanation completely diverges from reality, just as I suspected. Here's an idea, since there's not a single legitimate scientist on the planet that would buy your idea on evaporation, you're going to have to do the experiment. Here's what you'll need: a metallic container holding seawater with a top open to the atmosphere (the water surface should have a large area). Above and parallel to the water's surface, a grid or mesh composed of an electrically conductive material attached all around to the rim of the metallic container. And voila, seawater inside a Faraday cage where you have ensured there are no large electrical fields. Now heat it up to 30 degrees C for several weeks and monitor the water level. After you've proven that no water evaporates, publish your results. Until then, STFU.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
Actually, a large number of experiments present themselves, especially if the grid is disconnected from the container. One could hold the water at a constant temperature and apply a voltage differential across the grid and container, then by rerunning the experiment at different voltages show that the rate of evaporation increases with increasing voltage. Or you could do it with a constant voltage but at different temperatures, and show that the rate of evaporation is largely independent of temperature. Since your claim is so novel and so nonsensical, proof is going to require all of these experiments, and really, until then, STFU.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
"These are very dramatic events for the outer continental shelf, at least 2°C warmer than we've seen since 2001,... Near-bottom temperatures of 18°C on the outer shelf are extremely high for late autumn."
Such a findings could serve as another evidence of my geothermal theory of global warming. The solar system is passing through the dense cloud of dark matter (essentially slow neutrinos), which do accelerate the decay of radioactive atoms (like the potassium) inside the Earth mantle, crust and marine water. The heating of Earth mantle has its impact into elevated level of volcanism, frequency of earth quakes and the shift of magnetic poles too. The evidence for this theory is actually overhelming, but because mainstram science is deterministic, it doesn't take the ten 10% indicia like the 100% evidence, but it has a tendency to ignore them all, because each of these indicia can be explained with another nine ways. The fact, all these indicia overlap mutually bothers anybody here
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
Mainstream science deals with evidence only at the moment, when the reliability of some indicia exceeds 50%, which means, it cannot be explained with anything else. The scientists simply wait for construction of some deterministic model, which could be expressed and published in form of math, because only mathematical reasoning is accepted in contemporary science. Such an ignorant approach indeed prolongs the research and safe jobs and salaries of mainstream scientists (they have nowhere to hurry, until their money are going) - but it slows down the understanding of important connections. Because the mainstream scientists have an informational monopoly for their conclusions, they're not threatened with any competition from outside and nothing forces them to consider ideas from outside, despite the internet is full of it. The neutrino based theory was actually a subject of famous "2012" movie, which has been labeled with NASA as the "worst unscientific movie" ever.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2012
Here is a paper that discusses the electric currents in ocean currents. I scanned it, the author made the immediate mistake of assuming the current is induced by the current, and ignoring the possibility that those currents are just part of the lager currents that encircle the planet. It also states in the article. "In many cases the electric field observations are the only
practical means for measuring the currents (ocean)."

http://www.mpimet...inal.pdf

The was also an article recently that discussed how high altitude winds (currents) at high latitudes affect oceans currents deep in the ocean.

http://www.ourama...ean.html

"So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the Creator, himself had electrically designed this planet..." Nikola Tesla
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2012
cantdrive85: From your explanation of the electric fields and particles that drive everything, I have to assume that you believe that all electromagnetic theory must be wrong. Am I correct in that assumption? You quote Tesla, but you must not believe what he wrote and discovered because it flies in the face of what you are claiming. Was Tesla also wrong in his application of conventional electromagnetic theory?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2012
cantdrive85: From your explanation of the electric fields and particles that drive everything, I have to assume that you believe that all electromagnetic theory must be wrong. Am I correct in that assumption? You quote Tesla, but you must not believe what he wrote and discovered because it flies in the face of what you are claiming. Was Tesla also wrong in his application of conventional electromagnetic theory?

I've made a number of generalizations and speculations, where specifically am I making claims that fly in the face of EM theory?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
Cantdrive85: Here are a few of your quotes that are not possible using standard electrical theory:

"Or, the electrical fields from those two hurricanes caused dielectric heating (joule heating) of the water currents. BTW, the water currents, just like wind currents, are evidence of the electric currents flowing around the Earth."

"system;"and a quick article that explains how the Sun's electric currents "leak" into the Earth's "

"The Earth is one big electric field, the hurricanes create their own fields within the larger. The cold water in their wake would make sense, the storms would be pulling a current off the Earth through the cold depth of the sea, while at the same time pulling an equal and opposite "hot" current from the Ionosphere. The twisting motion of the cyclone is where the two currents wrap around each other. Was there warming in front of the storms? The Gulf stream warmed, maybe just a coincidence."

Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
Contnued: And my personal favorite from the bunch:

"The current is carrying cold water from the depths. The charge carriers are present, the clouds are the evidence. There are updrafts, downdrafts, charged sheath vortices, lightning (ball too), and any number of other phenomenon that can be seen as some sort of expression of electric currents/discharge. And of course, the "electromotive force" that is driving this action is a rotating charged body (Earth) orbiting within the Sun's radial electric field. The Earth actually behaves like a homopolar motor generating electromagnetic field and electric energy, just as Io does in Jupiter's plasmasphere. This is the source of the magnetic field, not a mythical "dynamo" effect."

Can you please show me any application of Maxwell's equations that provide any of these phenomena? I hope you are not an electrical engineer working on aircraft wiring. :-)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
Here is a paper that describes how the Sun's electric current (solar wind) leaks in the the Earth's circuits.
http://www.utdall..._rev.pdf

I've already provided a paper that discusses how electric currents flowing through oceans transports the water.

If you don't understand the the mere mention of a magnetic field implies that an electric field must be present, there is little hope for your feeble mind to comprehend the complexities of dynamic electromagnetic field.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
I've already provided a paper that discusses how electric currents flowing through oceans transports the water.

No, you didn't. You provided a link to a paper, but it doesn't discuss what you purported. It discussed the difficulties in modeling the electric fields induced by ocean water flowing through magnetic fields. Nowhere did it suggest that electric currents or fields were causing water to flow. So either 1) you are a garden variety liar, 2) you were too lazy to read the paper, or 3) you are incapable of comprehending what was in the paper. And I'm not implying that 2 and 3 are incompatible. I can't help but wonder if part of your problem hangs on a grade-school comprehension of the word current, which, unlike you seem to think, does not always imply the movement of charged particles but sometimes just the bulk movement of a physical substance regardless of charge.
rubberman
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2012
You having a incomplete understanding how the electric currents that are formed in space interact with the Earth's systems does not qualify me as a crank. All atmospheric phenomenon (i.e. high/low pressure systems, wind, storms, weather, etc..) is due to the electric currents flowing around the Earth. The Earth's systems are directly connected to the Sun's weather systems (space weather) as well.


Weather on earth is thermally driven, not electrically. By making the statements you have, you are saying that thermo dynamics do not even figure into earth systems. I do not deny that the earth and sun are connected and that space weather in the form of EM disturbance and CME have a direct effect on earths weather, but they are not the daily driving forces behind it. Evaporation is a thermal effect, not electrical.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2012
barak, the missing value in the modeling of the electric fields of water currents is present in the paper I already included;
http://www.bentha...OAAJ.pdf
, once again as I stated before, you cannot consider the magnetic field without also considering the electric potential of said magnetic field.

Rub,
I'm not suggesting that the thermal properties don't have an effect, however the impetus and origin is provided by the electric currents. BTW, it's the electric potential that is creating the thermal component of the Sun in the first place.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
Something doesn't add up. AGW proponents claim we have accurate record of the ocean temperatures, but then three fishermen had to inform us of an ocean temperature anomaly???


That's really ignorant. Everyone here knows I don't fully buy into the alarmism, but that statement is totally typical of the type of person who has a strong opinon but can't tell you anything about why they have that opinion.

I'm going to be nice and treat your statement like a question. To answer it, you need to understand how satellites work. The ones in question go around north-south and measure a strip of area below them. Depending on the device the width of the stip will varry, but the width of the strip is the minimum longitudinal resolution of the measurement. In most cases, the width of those strips makes a feature like the gulf stream difficult to pinpoint. The variation of the exact location of each pass of the satellite causes small details to blurr in the final product.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
That's the first reason.

Another reason is that the people who look at that satellite data are not looking for shifts in the location of the gulf stream. The mapped products for climate records are usually displayed as monthly averages and compared to previous averages as an anomoly. Such a map of anomolies would not be a good way to depict the location of the gulf stream. You run into the same problem of smeared data as you did in my previous post, but magnified even farther because you are comparing one set of blurred data with another set of blurred data and subtracting them.

This process doesn't produce innacurate data, but it does eliminate distinct topographical features like the location of the gulf stream at any given time.
rubberman
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
Rub,
I'm not suggesting that the thermal properties don't have an effect, however the impetus and origin is provided by the electric currents. BTW, it's the electric potential that is creating the thermal component of the Sun in the first place.


The EM fields, plasma and coronal temperature are definitely related, I agree. I also agree that electricity is a precursor for pretty much every thing. But it is not the dominant force in a hurricane. Most systems have one dominant force which causes them to act the way they do, in a hurricane it is thermal differential.

@GS7 - He has yet to say one intelligent thing with regards to his opinions, despite being asked both politely and in an ad hoc manner. Typical troll.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
I'm not suggesting that the thermal properties don't have an effect, however the impetus and origin is provided by the electric currents.


Wow, arguing here too? Really?

You know when people say ocean currents, they aren't talking about the same thing as electrical currents? I know, it's the same word, so it gets confusing and makes you think of electricity, and then you get excited and you think up this really cool idea about how they are related. Then you come here and you post it. Thanks for that. Then you get to have a few hours of fun explaining the rest of your ideas and getting people to read all the really cool alternative psudo-science ideas you read about somewhere else. Thanks for that too.

Now puhleaze, lay off the paint huffing and pick up a book about some of the conventional thinking on these things. At least then you might be able to come up with more plausible alternatives.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
@GS7 - He has yet to say one intelligent thing with regards to his opinions, despite being asked both politely and in an ad hoc manner. Typical troll.


I'm done being polite to him. I tried that and he eventually called me a tool when I boxed him into a corner.

That journal he likes to reference is full of all kinds of nutjob conspiracy stuff. They'll publish anything. One guy sent in a computer auto-generated paper, just to test them. The grammar was right, but the content was complete techno-babble. Just big words strung together. They published it.

The last one of his references I read was some kind of paranoid rant, 20 pages long, about how mainstream science has been suppressing good ideas for the past couple centuries. You know the kind of stuff, like we'd have fusion power already if they would stop bogarting all the science. It was a real piece of work.
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2012
barak, the missing value in the modeling of the electric fields of water currents is present in the paper I already included;
http://www.bentha...OAAJ.pdf
, once again as I stated before, you cannot consider the magnetic field without also considering the electric potential of said magnetic field.

If you think there's something in this paper that explains cold water being pulled up from the deep or some sort of thermoelectric or thermomagnetic effect in seawater, you're wrong. But I invite you to point out what I've missed - show me the smoking formula, give a page and paragraph number that points me towards whatever you think is in that paper. And why have you rambled on about people forgetting about electric potential? The previous paper we were discussing, http://www.mpimet...inal.pdf was about induction of an electric field due to seawater moving through a magnetic field.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2012
If you think there's something in this paper that explains cold water being pulled up from the deep or some sort of thermoelectric or thermomagnetic effect in seawater, you're wrong


In fact he's got it backwards. The magnetic field doesn't move the water or the wind if there's a current being generated. If there's a current being generated, then the magnetic field would be causing physical resistance to the motion of the fluids. It takes one form of energy to produce another form of energy. I think cantdrive needs to understand the principles of conservation of energy. He seems to think magnetic fields magically create energy out of thin air.

If a steady magnetic field can cause the oceans to circulate, then we should be able to build a perpetual motion generator based on magnets and water. That sounds fun. Cantdrive is brilliant. Someone call the Nobel people!
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2012
Further, if the Earth interacted as strongly with the magnetic fields of the sun as cantdrive suggests, the orbit and rotation of the Earth would have stopped long ago. You can't do some 'work' on a system without changing the total energy of the system. Such a change would be observable.

In fact we can observe the interaction of the Earth and Sun electromagneticly, it's just such a tiny interaction that it doesn't result in much effect, thankfully.
barakn
not rated yet Oct 18, 2012
Oh, so in other words, the paper you pointed to has absolutely no proof so you've decided to hide fact with a crapflood of words. Thanks for nothing.
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2012
Cantread85: I have to admit that your new comment:

"We know for a fact that an electric current creates wind, this has been done in labs countless times. It is no leap of faith to understand that conductive sea water would behave the same way. We know for a fact that electric currents flow in, near, and above the surface of the planet. We know for a fact, from many different studies (such as the paper I included describing electric currents in water), there is a missing factor in the models of many of the natural processes of the Earth that cannot explain the observed phenomenon."

Has now become my new favorite stupid comment from you. There are a lot of them now, but you continue to outdo yourself. Keep up the entertainment.

I am glad you helped me understand that the "missing factors" (like the Lost Arc of the Covenant) are all based on your electric universe. I'm sure everyone just doesn't know about electricity.