Because I am apolitical to the point that I think about things
because they interest me and not because my party's oil consumption
subsidies demand it, sometimes I ponder uncommon abstractions.
Most of last night this is what I have been thinking about:
Why is the climate given us many conditions like the peak of the
Little Climatic Optimum and yet the Gulf Stream hasn't moved as far
north as it did in the past peaks. For instance, during the last
peak 1,200 years ago, while it was warm around the world, in the
interior of Antarctica, just like Dr. Doran is reporting, it is
showing up very cold. From an electrical standpoint, or an induction
standpoint, that meant the Southern Oceans, in my view, were just
about as warm then as it is now.
At the same time paleo evidence of the Gulf Stream, for instance,
shows that during the Little Climatic Optimum tropical mullusks were
found off the coast of Canadian Islands. The waters today there are
downright freezing and from my observations of SST anomalies this
winter, where covered with an ice sheet.
So what gives? I think I might now know.
The Little Ice Age cycle is the Keeling Whorf cycle. During periods
of extreme orbital movements between the earth and the moon, there is
a cold period called the Little Ice Age. During low tidal activity,
the Climatic Optimum. Keeling himself thinks that this is caused by
the overturning of waters which releases heat from the oceans. I
disagree--strongly. However, while I have correctly associated the
cycle with hydrate field stability, I may have failed with my
explaination of a pressure based stability, although I still won't
rule it out as a factor. I also think that sand movements and
hydrate field stability play with tidal actions. That said, there is
another obvious thing I missed. That is, tides with thier ebb and
flow will move currents to and fro. As the recent book on climate
extremes from NAS on page 84 describes, only a few degrees of change
simply from movements of currents have destabilized hydrate fields in
the past. Hence, tidal changes on the major currents, such as the
Gulf Stream or the its counter current could widen or narrow its
potential meandering path over the hydrate fields and act to
destabilized a greater area.
This differs WILDLY from what we seem to be seeing today. If ocean
temperatures are warming as they appear to be, then hydrates will
melt uniformly starting from the tops of the gyres where warm water
is brought from the tropics and sinks down to the counter currents.
That is the problem with NE and the NE Pacific right now. This
results in colder temperatures and the Gulf Stream certainly does not
bring tropical mullusk like conditions to the Canadian Maritimes.
If, OTOH, the ocean temperatures were modulated consistant with Gaia
would occur from tidal changes is the Gulf Stream and its counters
would not meander over the hydrate fields. Hence, feedbacks of
cirrus clouds over west moving currents, warmed over the tropics,
would provide precip and warming along the NE coast. This would
further build hydrate insulation and the Maritimes could have some
tropical like waters. During times of greater tidal movements of
currents, the Gulf Stream would meander over the hydrate fields more
and melt them. This impact would be particularly harsh on Europe,
which relies on the Gulf Stream for down flow warmth. But the Gulf
Stream wouldn't shut down. To the contrary, if it did, the very warm
currents that were melting the hydrate fields would allow them to
The relationship is much more delicate then you might think. Because
the Gulf Stream, for instance, is warm and west moving, it is the
most conductive and enhancing aspect of local climate. If the
"swath" of its current caused more loss of insulation proximate to
it, it is going to be a less effective electrically . . .