Could 'The Day After Tomorrow' happen?

A researcher from the University of Southampton has produced a scientific study of the climate scenario featured in the disaster movie 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

In the 2004 film, caused an abrupt collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), leading to catastrophic events such as tornados destroying Los Angeles, New York being flooded and the northern hemisphere freezing.

Although the scientific credibility of the film drew criticism from climate scientists, the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state-of-the-art climate model.

Using the German climate model ECHAM at the Max-Planck Institute in Hamburg, Professor Sybren Drijfhout from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton found that, for a period of 20 years, the earth will cool instead of warm if global warming and a collapse of the AMOC occur simultaneously. Thereafter, global warming continues as if the AMOC never collapsed, but with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C.

Professor Drijfhout said: "The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal."

Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years.

Professor Drijfhout added: "When a similar cooling or reduced heating is caused by or decreasing greenhouse emissions the heat flow is reversed, from the ocean into the atmosphere. A similar reversal of energy flow is also visible at the top of the atmosphere. These very different fingerprints in energy flow between atmospheric radiative forcing and internal ocean circulation processes make it possible to attribute the cause of a hiatus period."

However, the study, which appears in Nature Scientific Reports, says that the recent period of very weak warming cannot be attributed to one single cause. Most probably El Niño plays a role and possibly also changes in the Southern Ocean due to shifting and increasing westerlies.

Professor Sybren said: "It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced . Changes in circulation must have played an important role. Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now."


Explore further

Study finds early warning signals of abrupt climate change

More information: Sybren Drijfhout. Competition between global warming and an abrupt collapse of the AMOC in Earth's energy imbalance, Scientific Reports (2015). DOI: 10.1038/srep14877
Journal information: Scientific Reports

Citation: Could 'The Day After Tomorrow' happen? (2015, October 9) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-10-day-tomorrow.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
46 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 09, 2015
Conclusion: We are in real trouble.

Oct 09, 2015
Conclusion: We are in real trouble.

Yet, you haven't installed those solar panels.
You pathological liar and hypocrite.

Oct 09, 2015
Changes in ocean circulation must have played an important role.

Precisely what I have been saying for years. The evidence points to the Sun's cycles being the force behind these changes.

Oct 09, 2015
The up-coming Maunder Minimum will erase whatever contribution man has made to GW.

Oct 09, 2015
The up-coming Maunder Minimum will erase whatever contribution man has made to GW.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't come anywhere near to erasing man's contribution to GW. According to measurements, a Maunder Minimum would reduce the climate forcing by ~0.1W/m2 (remember, the little ice age wasn't caused by the Maunder Minimum alone, there were other forcings - volcanoes, the plague - that contributed, possibly more than the reduction in the output from the sun). Anthropogenic forcing is an order of magnitude greater than that, even at the lowest end of the margin of error (http://www.realcl..._ar5.jpg ). Basically, a Maunder Minimum means we go back ~3 years in the current warming (https://mobile.tw...50101760 ).

Oct 09, 2015
According to measurements, a Maunder Minimum would reduce the climate forcing by ~0.1W/m2

Except, of course, you're speaking out of your ass. Don't you recall the latest study on the topic from Prof Zharkova:
http://computing....2015.pdf

The restoration of the solar irradiance during the last 400 year shows its strong decrease
during the period of the Maunder Minimum by a magnitude of about 3 W/m^2


Not ~.1W/m^2 as you so ignorantly state. Good try though...

Oct 09, 2015
Good citation, Scroofinator.

These other noobs don't know what they're talking about.

I'll wager in the heart of this coming minimum, they'll be THANKING us for putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere.

Oct 09, 2015
The up-coming Maunder Minimum will erase whatever contribution man has made to GW.

And, not enough fossil fuels to burn to ward off the cold.

Oct 09, 2015
they'll be THANKING us for putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere.

I don't know that I'd go that far, as we don't know how the oceans will react to all of the excess energy we have put into the system. It could just as well be the case that instead of adding more heat, we have accelerated and amplified whatever natural process is going to take place.

As is the case with most feedback systems, the more energy there is the faster things tend to go.

Oct 09, 2015
"Of course [climate] concerns me, but of course, we don't know much about the causes of those things. We don't even know for sure whether it is more variable than it used to be. I mean the worst disasters were the Ice Ages, and nobody really understands for sure the causes of Ice Ages, so I'm not saying the climate disasters aren't real, I'm merely saying we don't know how to prevent them." - Freeman Dyson

Never trust your government in matters of the purse.

Oct 09, 2015
I am sure if the alarmists 'tweak' their computer models in just the right way they can make it happen!

Oct 09, 2015
Vietvet, the reason for the downvote on a cited rebuttal of an ignorant post was what again?

Oct 09, 2015
Talk about troll bait! This really tips PO's hand. The question is totally inappropriate. Says who? The director. Duh. How can you debate something when the director says that he's not trying to even be logical???

Reviewers often criticize Emmerich's films for relying too heavily on visual effects and suffering from clichéd dialogue, flimsy and formulaic narratives, numerous scientific and historical inaccuracies, illogical plot developments, and lack of character depth. Emmerich contends that he is not discouraged by such criticism and that he aims to provide enjoyable "popcorn" entertainment to movie-going audiences. Stating that he is "a filmmaker, not a scientist", he creates his own fiction based on actual science or history to make the messages he sends "more exciting".

Oct 09, 2015

The restoration of the solar irradiance during the last 400 year shows its strong decrease
during the period of the Maunder Minimum by a magnitude of about 3 W/m^2

Not ~.1W/m^2 as you so ignorantly state. Good try though...


Scroof: I note that your article publishes a graph of TSI variance quoting Lean(2000)
http://onlinelibr...043/epdf

Who says: "Ultimate validation of the calculated spectral irradiance changes, both historically and during the solar cycle, awaits a new generation of observations. These are planned to be made by the University of Colorado's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) commencing in 2002"

Here is said SORCE data:
http://lasp.color...ion1.jpg

This indicates a TSI vaiance of ~0.1% or ~ 1.3W/m^2
Then to get a solar forcing x0.7 (albedo) and divide by 4 (sphere).
Gives ~0.23W/m^2 of forcing.

Oct 09, 2015
One shouldn't dismiss "as-if" models. I just took a big crap and using that output it *perfectly* modeled everything returners/benni and antigoracle had to say on this one.

Oct 09, 2015
Vietvet, the reason for the downvote on a cited rebuttal of an ignorant post was what again?

@Scroofinator
There are trolls and then there is Vietvet. Please refrain from feeding the desperate cry for attention from that degenerate.

Oct 09, 2015
Vietvet, the reason for the downvote on a cited rebuttal of an ignorant post was what again?


"It's complete garbage," said Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "(The research is) not uninteresting, but it's like people worrying about the cost of their latte when they can't pay their mortgage payments."

"Jason Funk, a senior climate scientist for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the ice age premise flies in the face of a much more compelling body of scientific evidence: global warming."
http://www.usatod...0257409/

Oct 09, 2015
Vietvet, the reason for the downvote on a cited rebuttal of an ignorant post was what again?


"However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. "The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions," Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."
http://www.iflsci...-warming

Oct 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2015
Vietvet, the reason for the downvote on a cited rebuttal of an ignorant post was what again?


"It's complete garbage," said Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "(The research is) not uninteresting, but it's like people worrying about the cost of their latte when they can't pay their mortgage payments."

"Jason Funk, a senior climate scientist for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the ice age premise flies in the face of a much more compelling body of scientific evidence: global warming."
http://www.usatod...0257409/

Wow!! Vietvet the degenerate whose existence is to troll this forum and down vote the heretics, actually post something. And, what a surprise he considers the UNSUBSTANTIATED opinions above a peer reviewed study. You should stick to just down voting you degenerate.

Oct 09, 2015
Vietvet,
NASA and NOAA spox (spooks) get paid to say whatever the ultra-liberal president tells them to say. We're talking about a president who regularly cans or otherwise forces the resignation of cabinet members who oppose him for not knowing a damn thing about being president.

So if they want their jobs, they will parrot the President.

You can't trust them to do good science. They're obeying their Chief Commander, an inexperienced lawyer who probably can't even spell "sublimation".

This clown apologizes to muslim terror states and lifts sanctions on iranian exports.

Why do you believe cronies who just parrot what he says?

Oct 09, 2015
runrig, the article you linked (on page 3) shows a graph that corroborates the 3W/m^2 claim. So thanks for that. The part of the study I like the most though was this:
Since direct irradiance observations exist for only two decades and in limited spectral regions, estimating historical solar spectral irradiance involves speculations and assumptions. Most secure are the assumputions, based on analyses of contemporary solar activity cycles, that faculae and sunsports are dominant causes of spectral irradiance changes

Basically these reconstructions are all just a guess into the past, but the one sure conclusion is that the sunspot number is a good indication of TSI. So either way, we know empirically that the output will be diminished. Only observation will be able to truly tell what that number will be.

vietvet, while I agree that our pollution has exacerbated the climate cycles, and needs to be stopped, it's wildly sheepish to pin it all on humans: the Sun is the cause

Oct 09, 2015
VietVet is the atheist version of Pope Francis

Oct 10, 2015

runrig, the article you linked (on page 3) shows a graph that corroborates the 3W/m^2 claim. So thanks for that. The part of the study I like the most though was this:

Except it doesn't.
Goes from a (flat) 1360W/m^2 during the MM to a (important) mean of ~ 1361.3 in the early part of the 1900's.
You do know why the mean is what we should be considering for the 11yr cycle?
OK from trough trough to peak it's ~2.1 W/m^2.
Read my quote from that article and reconsider my posted SORCE graph - it's more up to date - (2010.2012 and 2014)

"Your" graph ...."Fig. 5. Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean
(2000). "

Oct 10, 2015
The atmospheric circulation is quantized into a http://www.ux1.ei...006.jpg, If the temperature of atmosphere would increase substantially, a new number would have establish and we would definitely notify it. The Rossby waves which manifest itself with climatic extremes and instabilities of circumpolar jet stream indicate, that such an event could really happen.

Hadley cells are an consequence of the Earth's rotation (ie Coriolis) and nothing else.
Yes, Rossby waves are a function of PJS strength, which due to Arctic amplification in AGW is weakening.
AGW will cause more "stuck" weather patterns with "cur-off" lows and blocking highs .... in other words more extreme weather.

Oct 10, 2015
AGW will cause more "stuck" weather patterns with "cur-off" lows and blocking highs .... in other words more extreme weather.


No, it won't. GW would theoretically cause the temperature difference between equator and poles to decrease, since poles warm about 6 times faster than the planetary average. This will reduce the potential difference between the equator and temperate zones, and between poles and temperate zones, so that weather systems have less energy to work with.

Adding more energy to the system (via a true greenhouse effect) does not make weather more extreme, because it causes temperatures to get closer to isothermal equilibrium. Of course the Earth would never reach isothermal equilibrium, however, just do some thermodynamics.

Temperature difference between warm sink(equator) and cold sink(pole) is reduced by ~5.5 degrees if global average temperature raises by 1 degree; temperate zones +1, tropics +0.5, Pole +6. then 6-0.5 = 5.5

Oct 10, 2015
cont...

We all know how the efficiency of the "heat engine" that drives weather and climate will work, it is a simple equation.

Whenever you reduce the difference between the hot sink and cold sink, the efficiency with which energy can be transferred is reduced, therefore the north/south winds will be weaker.

Conservation of angular momentum is a bit tricky, because larger amount of water vapor would happen, and this water vapor doesn't have the same angular momentum as the existing atmosphere, so when it mixes with the atmosphere there would be a slight change in prevailing patterns, but this is like less than 0.1% by mass. Anyway, as a general rule troughs and other weather systems will behave the same in terms of how fast they move from west to east, but they will be less potent in terms of the ability to transport heat from south to north.

IN addition to all of this, Stratospheric cooling, on the other hand, may make the most powerful hurricanes stronger.

Oct 10, 2015
So your non-tropical systems get weaker, especially frontal systems.

Your typical tropical system gets destroyed by wind shear.

Your strongest hurricanes, which manage to find a safe zone from wind shear or dry air, begin to tap the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere boundary; here, stratospheric cooling causes the max potential difference from SST to cloud tops to increase dramatically, and the hurricane continues to strengthen even more. Every 1C increase in SST increases the maximum wind speed by about 22mph. In addition (though you won't find an exact citation of this) every ~10C decrease in cloud top temperature, given the same water temperature, likewise increases winds by about 20mph.

So basically for every 1C of warming of SST, a fast moving hurricane gains about 22mph to it's wind speed. If the warm water is shallow the slow moving hurricane upwells and then weakens again. If the warm water is deep the hurricane maintains intensity.

Oct 10, 2015
So the most powerful hurricanes would be about 1 category equivalent stronger, but the total number of hurricanes will go down.

This is going to be off-set by the fact frontal systems won't be as powerful and you will not have as many tornadic outbreaks.

A heavy rain event, such as the torrential rains in S. Carolina, while disasterous is not as bad as a super-outbreak of tornadoes, which have happened once every several decades for hundreds of years.

The past several years, excluding the one super-outbreak, the tornadoes have been below average in number.

If the climate continues to warm, I would expect the total number of tornadoes to decrease. however, like the hurricanes, the very strongest tornadoes would probably increase in intensity by about 5mph more given a 1C increase; hot air and water vapor at the surface on land has less energy than hot water per unit temperature. A 5mph increase in an EF5 tornado is not even going to be statistically noticeable...

Oct 10, 2015
However, the warming the planet currently experienes does not appear to be caused by a greenhouse effect. If CO2 and Methane were the culprits, the global average temperature should have been increasing faster over the past 17 years, during which our average production of CO2 increased dramatically in spite of kyoto protocols. Instead temperature mostly leveled off. If the gases were the culprit the temperature should continue rising, although the relationship between them is not linear I believe the formula works out so that when comparing any two changes in GHG you need twice as much additional GHG to make the same temperature change happen.

So for example, if we went from 280 to 400ppm in the industrial period and that increased temperature about 1C, this is 120ppm change. Then in order to go up another 1C we would need to make another 240ppm CO2 increase*plus methane....assuming GHG is even really responsible for the change in the first place.

Oct 10, 2015
When such "improved" models of climate "scientism" are observed there invariably ensues incomprehensible gobbledygook. Perhaps this is the key to the much ballyhooed quantum consciousness...

Oct 10, 2015
At least 8 of the 10 strongest landfalling US hurricanes happened before half of the man-made CO2 was produced.

https://en.wikipe...urricane

This is also biased by poor weather records prior to this time and the fact that there were apparent several other category 4 landfalls in the 1700s and 1800s, there just isn't room for them in the top 10. For example, during the war of 1812, A category 4 hurricane struck New Orleans, killing several thousand people with the insane storm surge, apparently greater or equal to Betsy,) and this is catalogued in the British captain's journal.

This is long before anything remotely resembling modern CO2 production existed.

The only reason it's not in the top 10 is because there's no way to verify it's exact strength.

Considering they would never have been able to measure storms like Wilma while at sea...there's no way to say how powerful some of these storms were over water...

Oct 10, 2015
So Atlantic hurricanes are probably not getting any stronger than they ever have been. They may even be getting weaker than the average since the colonial period. Seven of the top 10 landfalls are mid-1800s to early 1900s, even though 50% to nearly 100% of all man-made CO2 was released after some of them.

If you go by pressure instead of wind, then 6 made landfall before 50% of man-made CO2 was released.

If man-made CO2 was actually warming the planet, you would expect the number of powerful hurricane landfalls in US to increase as CO2 increases.

In reality, there hasn't been a major hurricane hit the US since 2005, although there have been a few Category 1 and Category 2 storms which had higher than average Integrated Kinetic Energy, examples being Ike, Isaac, and Sandy, but Sandy had hybridized and was being effected by baroclynic effects which amplified it for non-tropical reasons.

Moreover, data is not detailed enough on past storms to calculate IKE value.

Oct 10, 2015
I took the source of the super cooled air to be Liquid Argon rain. This was generated, as I understood it, by the cooling and shrinkage/collapse of the upper atmosphere.

The liquid Argon rain allowed the ultra cold, which was high in the atmosphere, to be rapidly carried to the troposphere.

Oct 10, 2015
@Returners

You are a prime example of America-centric thinking. Hurricanes , typhoons, and cyclones are the same phenomena just with different names in different areas. The Pacific has had a record breaking year for number and intensity of storms. Get a clue asshole.

Oct 11, 2015
@Scroofinator - vietvet, while I agree that our pollution has exacerbated the climate cycles, and needs to be stopped, it's wildly sheepish to pin it all on humans: the Sun is the cause

There is stupid and then there is stupid. Oil and coal are remnants of a previous era of atmospheric chemical composition, this is perfectly factual, by burning the carbon and attaching the oxygen we are firstly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and secondly, reducing the volume of free O2. The sun has little to do with this, it does not increase atmospheric CO2 nor O2, the only impact it has would be on the life cycles and abilities of natural carbon sinks but thats about it.

Oct 11, 2015
@Returners - However, the warming the planet currently experienes does not appear to be caused by a greenhouse effect. If CO2 and Methane were the culprits, the global average temperature should have been increasing faster over the past 17 years. - Calculation of carbon sinks is not there yet, the uptake mechanisms are only been clarified now.

So for example, if we went from 280 to 400ppm in the industrial period and that increased temperature about 1C, this is 120ppm change. Then in order to go up another 1C we would need to make another 240ppm CO2 increase*plus methane - this is not a linear relationship, that sort of logic does not apply.

Oct 11, 2015
@Returners "No, it won't. GW would theoretically cause the temperature difference between equator and poles to decrease, since poles warm about 6 times faster than the planetary average."

And this is why we have ICE still at the poles? I believe you meant in the tropics.....

Oct 11, 2015
@Returners "No, it won't. GW would theoretically cause the temperature difference between equator and poles to decrease, since poles warm about 6 times faster than the planetary average."

And this is why we have ICE still at the poles? I believe you meant in the tropics.....


No,I did not.

An enhanced greenhouse effect distributes heat more evenly over the globe, therefore the temperature of the poles and mid-latitudes warms much faster than the tropics in an enhanced greenhouse effect scenario.

Oct 11, 2015
@Returners

You are a prime example of America-centric thinking. Hurricanes , typhoons, and cyclones are the same phenomena just with different names in different areas. The Pacific has had a record breaking year for number and intensity of storms. Get a clue asshole.


Very poor records of both number and intensity before modern instrumentation. Nothing to compare to.

The reliable "record" is only a few decades old.

Besides that you're wrong anyway. Most of the top 30 deadliest tropical cyclones in world history happened a couple hundred years ago, mostly in the Indian Ocean, before CO2 could have had any bearing on the scenario...and even the AGW fearmongers admit that.

People died by the hundreds of thousands...half million maybe...during a time when world population was less than 10% of what it is now.

http://www.wunder...orld.asp

Some of these numbers have actually been edited down recently...an attempt to hide this fact?

Oct 11, 2015
Argument 1: we have poor records of number and intensity before modern instrumentation and therefore don't know what happened before that time period

Argument 2: "Most of the top 30 deadliest tropical cyclones in world history happened a couple hundred years ago"

I'll wait for everyone to work out exactly where your logic falls down here. I hold out no hopes for you.

Oct 11, 2015

Besides that you're wrong anyway. Most of the top 30 deadliest tropical cyclones in world history happened a couple hundred years ago, mostly in the Indian Ocean, before CO2 could have had any bearing on the scenario...and even the AGW fearmongers admit that.

People died by the hundreds of thousands...half million maybe...during a time when world population was less than 10% of what it is now.

http://www.wunder...orld.asp

@Returners

You need to take a second look at your link, it in no way supports your argument.


Oct 11, 2015
Man, the denier goon squad seems to be going ape over this latest news that an abrupt collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation from AGW could lead to a chain of weather events that could be devastating. So all of the sudden the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" isn't just a scifi action adventure disaster movie but a realistic scenario! A result of AGW.

One images of the AMOC in the north Atlantic;

http://www.skepti...oday.jpg

If the northern polar icecap melts because of AGW, then the two northern points where warm water currents over turn into the cold water currents would move away from the polar regions and to the south of the arctic ocean. As that over turn meets even warmer waters and is pushed even further from the poles. Eventually that ribbon would break and you would have the collapse of the AMOC. Since weather patterns are influenced by the ocean currents, it could devastate any normalcy in weather.

Oct 11, 2015
@jayded;
while I agree that our pollution has exacerbated the climate cycles, and needs to be stopped, it's wildly sheepish to pin it all on humans: the Sun is the cause
Your kind of correct on many points but for one concept. The blame for all of this global warming mess lays clearly with the energy industries; coal oil, natural gas and the individual's desire to better his situation by consumption of fossil fuels for, heating, cooling, transportation, product creation for trade. The amount of carbon in the earth doesn't change, but by fossil fuel combustion, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere does. The EXCESS CO2 created by human activity doing combustion of fossil fuels is ~26 GIGATONS of CO2 per year! When spread across the globe, it was 403ppm this past summer.

The methane released as the Earth warms form man-made global warming will certainly compound the problems we will experience short term. Accelerating the melt of the polar icecaps for example.


Oct 12, 2015
Man, the denier goon squad seems to be going ape over this latest news that an abrupt collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation from AGW....

I see Howshat is still snorting at the anus of his man crush Al and lapping up all prophesies of doom and gloom his False "Profit" can fart on him.

Oct 12, 2015
VietVet is the atheist version of Pope Francis

I cannot blame Vietvet for his degenerate behaviour, as he's the unfortunate result of his government/military's abuse of Agent Orange. It's too bad for him and us that they did not apply enough to put him out of his misery.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more