| |
A major current system in the Atlantic, which has kept
Europe warm
during the past 10,000 years, may be quite unstable.
That Europe's lands are so green and pleasant
is largely due to the warmth of the Gulf Stream; we have been told
that in school. Recently, however, the Gulf Stream made negative
headlines: it was blamed for abrupt, drastic changes in Europe's
climate throughout the last ice age. And the latest report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in May
this year raises concern that the ocean currents of the Atlantic
might become unstable again, if humanity continues to meddle with
the climate. A sudden shift in the currents could cool Europe by
several degrees. How stable is the Gulf Stream, and is there really
a risk that it might flip us into the cooler?
To look for answers to these questions, we have to
head north to the cold and stormy waters off Greenland. Invisible
to the few intrepid mariners who venture there, a crucial pump in
the global climate machine is silently operating. This pump is deep
convection. It rejuvenates the deep waters of the world ocean by
driving a slow but massive overturning motion, popularly dubbed
the "Ocean Conveyor Belt". Warm surface waters are drawn
north throughout the Atlantic at a flow rate which exceeds a hundred
Amazon rivers, sink to the deep in the Greenland and Labrador Seas,
and return to the Southern Ocean as what oceanographers call "North
Atlantic Deep Water" at 2-3 km depth.
Before starting their journey back south, the waters
release a trillion kilowatts (10^15 W) of heat to the atmosphere,
equivalent to a hundred times the world's energy consumption. The
air that will blow over the Old Continent is warmed by about 5 C.
This free heater has operated reliably during the past 10,000 years
or so, but earlier, erratic and sudden shifts in the currents appear
to have been common, rocking the climate of the region. Average
temperatures could swing by 5 C or more within a few years, leading
to icy spells that lasted for centuries. Climatologists have come
to view the present stable times as an exception in climate history,
and some are voicing concern that human interference with the climate
system might trigger a new period of instability.
There are two reasons for the scientists' concern.
The first is the mounting evidence for past sudden flips in the
Atlantic conveyor belt. The second cause for concern is a growing
understanding of the dynamical instabilities inherent in the Atlantic
ocean circulation, which has recently been gained with the help
of computer simulations.
The conveyor belt flow is driven by differences in
salt content and temperature (which together determine the sea water
density) along the Atlantic - this is why oceanographers refer to
it as 'thermohaline circulation' ('haline' comes from the Greek
word for salt). To push the deep water southward out of the Atlantic
basin, density in the North Atlantic needs to be higher than near
the latitude of Cape Hope in the South Atlantic, where the North
Atlantic Deep Water joins the Antarctic Circumpolar Current which
circles the planet from west to east. This deep water then partly
rises back to the surface near Antarctica and partly it shoves into
the other ocean basins at depth, finally reaching the North Pacific
after a journey of a thousand years. The path by which it returns
to the Atlantic is still hotly debated amongst oceanographers. There
are two possible routes: a westward 'warm water route' via the passages
of Indonesia and around South Africa, and an eastward 'cold water
route' around the southern tip of South America through Drake Passage.
The thermohaline conveyor belt should not be equated
with the Gulf Stream. Only the smaller part of the Gulf Stream is
made up of thermohaline flow, the majority is driven by winds. An
equivalent wind-driven current, the Kuroshio, also exists in the
North Pacific off Japan. But it is the thermohaline flow, which
is unique to the Atlantic, that really does the heating. A simple
calculation shows this. Multiply the conveyor belt's flow rate of
about 17 million cubic meters per second by the heat capacity of
sea water (4 million Joules per cubic meter and degree celsius)
and the temperature difference between the northward flowing Gulf
Stream water (at 18 C) and the deep water returning southward (at
2.5 C), and you get the heating rate of about 10^15 W. The wind-driven
part of the Gulf Stream, on the other hand, reaches up to a hundred
million cubic meters per second in places, but this water returns
south near the surface barely cooler than the Gulf Stream. Therefore,
it hardly contributes to the Atlantic's northward heat transport.
It is the thermohaline conveyor belt, not the Gulf Stream as such,
which warms Europe and which oceanographers now believe to be unstable.
The cause for the instability of the conveyor belt
lies in the delicate balance of the competing effects of cooling
and freshwater input (in form of rain, snow or river runoff) on
the density of the northern Atlantic. The massive heat transfer
to the atmosphere cools the water and enhances its density. On the
other hand, the northward flowing surface waters are diluted by
freshwater input. In spite of this, the northern Atlantic is relatively
salty, because the conveyor belt brings salty water from the south
towards the high latitudes of the north. This salt helps to drive
the flow by enhancing the seawater density. Explaining the existence
of the Atlantic conveyor belt thus resembles the classical 'chicken
and egg' problem: the conveyor belt works because the Atlantic is
salty, and the Atlantic is salty because of the conveyor belt.
One consequence of this self-maintaining positive
feedback is that once the cycle is interrupted and the conveyor
belt grinds to a halt, it will remain shut down. This situation
arose quite unexpectedly in one of the first climate model experiments
which coupled ocean and atmosphere together, performed in the late
eighties by Suki Manabe and Ron Stouffer of the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton. They found that their climate
model, and probably also the real climate system, has two very different,
more or less stable states: one with a conveyor belt circulation
in the Atlantic and a comfortable European climate, and one without
this conveyor belt and with icy conditions (up to 10 C colder than
today) especially in the northwestern parts of Europe. The existence
of these two states has since been confirmed by many experiments
with different models. Simulations performed last year by Andreas
Schiller and his colleagues at Hamburg's Max Planck Institute predict
an even more drastic regional cooling of over 20 C if the Atlantic
conveyor belt comes to a complete halt. With more than twice the
cooling found in the Princeton study, this result also highlights
the range of uncertainty still inherent in these simulations. While
already running on the fastest supercomputers available, climate
models are still severely limited by lack of computing power, allowing
only a rough portrayal of the world's major ocean currents.
The possible existence of two or more fundamentally
different states of the climate system is a fascinating proposition
with many implications. Could the climate switch between different
modes of operation? Has it perhaps done so in the past? What might
trigger such a switch?
Luckily the Earth has kept several archives of past
climatic conditions which, with a bit of detective work, yield many
clues to answer these vexing questions. Amongst the most useful
of these are the snow layers that have piled up on the Greenland
Ice Sheet and the sediment layers that have accumulated at the bottom
of the Atlantic. These records show rapid and severe climate jumps
that occurred every thousand years or so during the last ice age,
quite unlike the stable climatic conditions which we have experienced
in the past 10,000 years. The last of these jumps is the Younger
Dryas event (named after Dryas octopetala, a flower typical of polar
climates) at the end of the last ice age: the climate had already
warmed and the huge continental ice sheets were disintegrating,
when within a decade glacial conditions suddenly returned. An ocean
model experiment performed in Hamburg by Ernst Maier-Reimer and
Uwe Mikolajewicz offered a neat explanation: it showed that a massive
inflow of meltwater from the melting Laurentide Ice Sheet could
lead to a sudden collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt, throwing
the Atlantic region back into the freezer.
Ocean sediments indeed show that during the rapid
climate swings recorded in the Greenland ice, the ocean circulation
changed at the same time. But during the past few years, as more
sediment cores were drilled and analysed, the picture has been getting
more complex. The new evidence shows that at least during some cold
spells, the conveyor belt was not switched off but may have just
shifted south. Two years ago, geochemist Michel Sarnthein from the
University of Kiel with colleagues from France and Holland published
reconstructions of deep water flow in the Atlantic during different
time periods, based on a large number of sediment cores. They found
three circulation modes. The first is the warm conveyor belt mode
that operated throughout the past 10,000 years or so. The second
mode is a 'glacial' conveyor belt, which was shallower and did not
extend north into the Greenland Sea, but ended somewhere south of
Iceland. Finally, they also found periods of a very weak conveyor
belt during times when large amounts of meltwater had entered the
Atlantic, capping off oceanic convection with a freshwater lens
floating at the surface.
At that time at the Institut für Meereskunde
in Kiel we were performing a series of model experiments investigating
how the conveyor belt responds to the sudden inflow of a lot of
freshwater into the Atlantic, and how this affects surface temperatures.
Surprisingly, we not only found the by then familiar climatic modes
of operation with the conveyor belt switched either 'on' or 'off',
but a third possibility of a cold conveyor belt, extending not nearly
as far north as at present. Although this conveyor belt was almost
as vigorous, it hardly warmed the northern Atlantic region, as its
waters sank and returned south before releasing much heat to the
atmosphere. This demonstrated how a shift in the ocean currents
could have thrown the region into a cold spell without the conveyor
belt collapsing altogether.
This type of sudden climatic swing works again through
a positive feedback, this time not associated with the salt transport
in the conveyor belt, but with the convective mixing in the high-latitude
ocean. If convection is interrupted for some years, the freshwater
input which is normally continually mixed down by convection starts
to accumulate at the surface, making the surface waters so buoyant
that convective mixing cannot occur any more. The models suggest
that in this way convection can shut down in one area, and the conveyor
then changes its route within a few years. Also in 1994, Andrew
Weaver and Tertia Hughes from the University of Victoria in Canada
presented model simulations which showed that the conveyor belt
could start to 'flicker' between different states, if the delicate
balance between cooling and freshwater input in the northern Atlantic
was shifted slightly towards more freshwater input.
Manmade greenhouse warming caused by CO2 pollution
is feared to shift the balance in just this way: high latitudes
are expected to warm strongly, weakening the conveyor's driving
force, and the hydrological cycle and therefore the freshwater input
into the northern Atlantic is likely to be enhanced. Could the ocean
circulation 'flip' again in the future? In a global warming experiment
with a coupled ocean-atmosphere-sea ice model performed in 1993
by Princeton's Manabe and Stouffer, the ocean's deep circulation
came to a complete stand-still after the atmospheric CO2 concentration
was slowly increased to four times its pre-industrial value. These
changes occurred very slowly over centuries, however, not triggering
any abrupt climate shifts similar to the ones found in the Greenland
ice core record.
However, if such abrupt shifts occur through a local
shutdown of ocean convection, for example in the Greenland sea,
then their prediction is still beyond the capacity of present climate
models. These use such a coarse mesh in their calculations that
the regional details that determine the stability of convection
cannot be properly represented. Furthermore, they still work with
so-called 'flux adjustments' at the ocean-atmosphere interface,
ad-hoc fixes designed to keep the ocean circulation stable in the
coupled models. It is thus not clear why the current greenhouse
warming scenarios tend to show a smooth gradual warming during the
next century - is our present climate just much more stable than
the climate of the past, or is it because present models don't yet
capture the physics of abrupt climate change?
Scientist are currently attacking this issue on three
fronts. First, they are looking for evidence whether past swings
in ocean circulation occurred only during the last ice age or whether
the ocean was also unstable in the Eemian warm period (between 113,000
and 125,000 years ago) that preceded it. In the former case we might
be safe today, if flips in the conveyor belt arose only as a result
of meltwater inflow or surging 'iceberg flottillas', ultimately
caused by the presence of large amounts of land ice in the glacial
period. On the other hand, climatic swings in the Eemian could be
a model for a future, warmer planet. Two recent Greenland ice cores,
the European GRIP core taken in 1992 and the American GISP2 core
taken in 1993, provided conflicting views of the Eemian climate.
Drilling has just started for a new core, known as North GRIP, which
is hoped to settle the issue (New Scientist, 6 July 96, "Greenland's
ice holds key to climate puzzle"). Second, a series of oceanographic
expeditions will study the convection processes and their link to
climatic conditions in the northern Atlantic. These measurements
will provide important data needed to validate and improve model
simulations, which are the third line of attack. More measurements
will also help to decide whether convection in the Greenland Sea
has already weakened since the early 1980's, as some oceanographers
have suggested (see New Scientist, 19 March 1994, 'Is broken ocean
pump a global warning?').
While the jury is out, the possibility that we may
unwittingly trigger an instability in the ocean conveyor belt must
be considered an as yet unquantifiable risk. The possible consequences
for ecosystems, agriculture and human society of such a major reshuffling
of the planet's climate system are largely unexplored.
Stefan Rahmstorf, August 1996
Figure: Aview of the Atlantic Ocean with the 'conveyor belt'
flow, with accurate position of currents and convection regions.
Box: A critical climate threshold: Stommel's
bifurcation
|