Article: Is the Atlantic Overturning Circulation Approaching a Tipping Point? — Oceanography

Click the link to read the article on the Oceanography website (Stefan Rahmstorf). Here’s an excerpt:

DRASTIC PAST AMOC CHANGES

Based on this understanding of AMOC instability mechanisms, we can examine some dramatic climate changes that have happened in the recent past—“recent,” that is, from a paleoclimate perspective, namely in the last 100,000 years.

In 1987, Wally Broecker published a now famous article in the journal Nature titled “Unpleasant surprises in the green- house?” (Broecker, 1987). In it, he dis- cusses data from deep-sea sediment cores and holes drilled into the Greenland ice cap, noting that these data reveal that “climate changed frequently and in great leaps” rather than smoothly and gradu- ally. Given the regional patterns of these changes, he identified the AMOC (at the time referred to as the “Atlantic conveyor belt”) as the culprit. He warned that by releasing greenhouse gases, “we play Russian roulette with climate [and] no one knows what lies in the active cham- ber of the gun.”

In the decades since then, we have come to distinguish two types of abrupt climate events that repeatedly occurred during the last Ice Age, centered around the northern Atlantic but with global repercussions (Rahmstorf, 2002).

The first type is Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events, named for Danish ice core researcher Willy Dansgaard and his Swiss colleague Hans Oeschger. More than 20 events prominently show as abrupt warming spikes of 10°–15°C within a decade or two in Greenland ice core data (Dansgaard et al., 1982). They can be explained as sudden start-ups of ocean convection in the Nordic Seas when Ice Age convection was mostly only occur- ring in the open Atlantic to the south of Iceland (Figure 5). The warm ocean cir- culation configuration that reached far north was apparently not stable under Ice Age conditions: it gradually weakened, until after some hundreds of years, the convection and warm event ended again. It is thus an example of a convective flip- flop as discussed above, with the Nordic Seas convection turning on and off.

The second type is Heinrich events, named for the German scientist Hartmut Heinrich (Heinrich, 1988). It involves huge masses of ice that episodically slid into the sea from the thousands of meters thick Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered northern America at that time. These iceberg armadas drifted out across the Atlantic, leaving behind telltale layers of ice-rafted debris on the ocean floor and adding fresh meltwater to the ocean sur- face. This led to even more dramatic cli- mate changes, linked to a complete break- down of the AMOC. So much ice entered the ocean that sea levels rose by several meters (Hemming, 2004). Evidence that this amount of freshwater entering the northern Atlantic shut down the AMOC is found in the fact that Antarctica warmed while the Northern Hemisphere cooled (Blunier et al., 1998), indicating that the AMOC’s huge heat transport from the far south across the equator to the high north had essentially stopped.

Both the Dansgaard-Oeschger events and the Heinrich events, although strongest around the northern Atlantic, had major global climate repercussions even far from the Atlantic as they affected the tropical rainfall belts that result from the rising motion of warm air above the “thermal equator.” During the warm Dansgaard-Oeschger events, these rain- fall belts shifted north, leading to warm and humid conditions in the north- ern tropics as far as Asia. But during Heinrich events, the rainfall belts shifted south, leading to catastrophic drought in the Afro-Asian monsoon region (Stager, 2011). Could similar shifts in tropical rainfall belts be in store for us in future?

THE “COLD BLOB”: AN OMINOUS SIGN OF A SLOWING AMOC?

Let us look how the AMOC is already responding to ongoing global warm- ing, which has already pushed Earth’s cli- mate outside the envelope of the stable Holocene (Osman et al., 2021) in which Homo sapiens developed agriculture and started to build cities.

Unfortunately, AMOC data only go back a few decades, drawn from just a handful of cross-Atlantic cruises since the 1950s and the RAPID-AMOC array of stations that has collected continuous measurements of salinity and current velocities from the near surface to the seafloor across the Atlantic at 26°N since 2004 (Smeed et al., 2020). Therefore, we must turn to indirect evidence. Exhibit No. 1 is the “warming hole” or “cold blob” found on maps of observed global tem- perature change (Figure 6). While the entire globe has warmed, the subpolar North Atlantic has resisted and even cooled. This is exactly the region where the AMOC delivers much of its heat, and exactly the region where climate models have long predicted cooling as a result of the AMOC slowing down.

A seminal study by Dima and Lohmann (2010) analyzed global pat- terns of sea surface temperature changes since the nineteenth century and con- cluded “that the global conveyor has been weakening since the late 1930s and that change (Caesar et al., 2018). This result confirms that on longer timescales, the AMOC is the dominant factor, allowing the conclusion that the cold blob so far corresponds to about 15% weakening of the AMOC.

The cold blob is not just a surface phenomenon; it is also clearly vis- ible (Figure 8) in the trend of ocean heat content of the upper 2,000 m (Cheng et al., 2022).

But apart from the cold blob, AMOC slowing has another telltale effect.

A SHIFTING GULF STREAM

Fluid dynamics on a rotating globe like Earth has some peculiar effects that are not intuitive. They result from the fact that the Coriolis force changes with latitude. In 2007 and 2008, two studies conducted by AMOC researcher Rong Zhang demonstrated how a basic law of physics, angu- lar momentum conservation, acting at the point where the deep south- ward AMOC flow crosses under the Gulf Stream, makes the Stream shift closer to shore when the AMOC weakens (Zhang and Vallis, 2007; Zhang, 2008). Her studies describe a “fingerprint” of a weakening AMOC that not only includes the cold blob but also a sea surface temperature anomaly of opposite sign off the American Atlantic coast north of Cape Hatteras.

Caesar et al. (2018) compared this fingerprint to observed sea surface temperature changes since the late nineteenth century and found strong agreement (see Figure 9). The observational data are much less detailed because they rely on relatively sparse ship measurements, but more detail is in the satellite data. Although the time periods for the observed and the satellite data are different, the trends are divided by the global

mean temperature change to make them roughly comparable in magnitude. Thus, for the relatively short satellite period there is much stronger random variabil- ity relative to the signal (“noise”), and the signal-to-noise ratio declines from top to bottom in the three images. Despite the differences in other variability, the finger- print of AMOC decline is very clear in all three Figure 9 plots.

As a side note, all three diagrams show a warming patch in the Arctic off Norway; in the model, this is due to increasing ocean heat transport from the Atlantic into the Arctic Ocean (Fiedler, 2020). This flow may be unrelated to the AMOC, or possibly anti-correlated to the AMOC and thus a third part of its fingerprint.

The strong warming off the North American Atlantic coast is again not caused by surface heat fluxes, as the reanalysis data show the surface heat flux has changed in the opposite direction, toward increasing heat loss (Figure 7). Also, the current generation of climate models (CMIP6) indicate a clear correla- tion of AMOC strength with this finger- print pattern of sea surface temperatures, including both the cold blob and the warming part (Latif et al., 2022).

Furthermore, a recent study using the three-dimensional observational ocean data collected by Argo profil- ing floats (https://argo.ucsd.edu/) shows that the Gulf Stream has shifted about 10 km closer to shore since the beginning of this century (Todd and Ren, 2023). From the RAPID array we know that the AMOC has indeed weakened during this time span. In addition, there has been a “robust weakening of the Gulf Stream during the past four decades observed in the Florida Straits” (Piecuch and Beal, 2023), which, although not necessarily linked to an AMOC weakening, is at least consistent with it.

Additional evidence consistent with AMOC slowing also comes from salin- ity changes. The northeastern subpolar Atlantic is freshening (Figure 10), likely through a combination of increased as well as the melting of sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, plus the effect of ocean circulation changes bringing less salty subtropical waters to the north. The Iceland Basin registers the lowest salinity in 120 years of measurements (Holliday et al., 2020).

At the same time, salinity is increasing in the subtropical South Atlantic, which is considered an AMOC fingerprint less affected by short-term variations than the northern Atlantic temperature fingerprint; this suggests an accelera- tion of AMOC slowdown since the 1980s (Zhu et al., 2023).

Yet more evidence comes from analysis of seawater density in the upper 1,000 m in the subpolar gyre region, which cor- relates closely with the AMOC and shows a decline over the past 70 years. This decline implies an AMOC weakening of ~13% over this period (Chafik et al., 2022), consistent with the 15% weaken- ing suggested by the cold blob data.

This map shows the pattern of thermohaline circulation also known as “meridional overturning circulation”. This collection of currents is responsible for the large-scale exchange of water masses in the ocean, including providing oxygen to the deep ocean. The entire circulation pattern takes ~2000 years. By Robert Simmon, NASA. Minor modifications by Robert A. Rohde also released to the public domain – NASA Earth Observatory, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3794372

PFAS ‘forever chemicals’: Why EPA set federal drinking water limits for these health-harming contaminants

Scientists test drinking water for PFAS at an EPA lab in Cincinnati. AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel

Kathryn Crawford, Middlebury

The more scientists learn about the health risks of PFAS, found in everything from nonstick cookware to carpets to ski wax, the more concerning these “forever chemicals” become.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now believes there is no safe level for two common PFAS – PFOA and PFOS – in drinking water, and it acknowledges that very low concentrations of other PFAS present human health risks. The agency issued the first legally enforceable national drinking water standards for five common types of PFAS chemicals, as well as PFAS mixtures, on April 10, 2024.

I study PFAS as an environmental health scientist. Here’s a quick look at the risks these chemicals pose and efforts to regulate them.

What exactly are PFAS?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. This is a large group of human-made chemicals – currently estimated to be nearly 15,000 individual chemical compounds – that are used widely in consumer products and industry. They can make products resistant to water, grease and stains and protect against fire.

Waterproof outdoor apparel and cosmetics, stain-resistant upholstery and carpets, food packaging that is designed to prevent liquid or grease from leaking through, and certain firefighting equipment often contain PFAS.

In fact, studies have found that most products labeled stain- or water-resistant contain PFAS, and another study found that this is even true among products labeled as “nontoxic” or “green.” PFAS are also found in unexpected places such as high-performance ski and snowboard waxes, floor waxes and medical devices.

A firefighter walks past a row of firefighter gear.
Firefighters are concerned that PFAS in firefighting foams and protective gear could be a reason cancer rates are rising. AP Photo/Steven Senne

At first glance, PFAS sound pretty useful, so you might be wondering what’s the big deal?

The short answer is that PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.

Some of the very same chemical properties that make PFAS attractive in products also mean these chemicals will persist in the environment for generations. Because of the widespread use of PFAS, these chemicals are now present in water, soil and living organisms and can be found across almost every part of the planet, including Arctic glaciers, marine mammals, remote communities living on subsistence diets and in 98% of the American public.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates common types of PFAS are now in at least 45% of the country’s tap water. PFAS maker 3M, facing lawsuits, announced a settlement worth at least US$10.3 billion in June 2023, with public water systems to pay for PFAS testing and treatment.

What are the health risks from PFAS exposure?

Once people are exposed to PFAS, the chemicals remain in their bodies for a long time – months to years, depending on the specific compound – and they can accumulate over time.

Research consistently demonstrates that PFAS are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. A review by a panel of experts looking at research on PFAS toxicity concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage, and kidney and testicular cancer.

A woman lying on her back on white carpet holds up a little girl who is pretending to fly. A white couch is behind them.
Stain-resistant fabrics and carpets often contain PFAS. Deagreez via Getty Images

Further, they concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS also affect babies exposed in utero by increasing their likelihood of being born at a lower birth weight and responding less effectively to vaccines, while impairing women’s mammary gland development, which may adversely affect a mom’s ability to breastfeed.

The review also found evidence that PFAS may contribute to a number of other disorders, though further research is needed to confirm existing findings: inflammatory bowel disease, reduced fertility, breast cancer, and an increased likelihood of miscarriage and developing high blood pressure and preeclampsia during pregnancy. Additionally, current research suggests that babies exposed prenatally are at higher risk of experiencing obesity, early-onset puberty and reduced fertility later in life.

Collectively, this is a formidable list of diseases and disorders.

Who’s regulating PFAS?

PFAS chemicals have been around since the late 1930s, when a DuPont scientist created one by accident during a lab experiment. DuPont called it Teflon, which eventually became a household name for its use on nonstick pans.

Decades later, in 1998, Scotchgard maker 3M notified the Environmental Protection Agency that a PFAS chemical was showing up in human blood samples. At the time, 3M said low levels of the manufactured chemical had been detected in people’s blood as early as the 1970s.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has a toxicological profile for PFAS. And the EPA had issued advisories and health-based guidelines. But despite the lengthy list of serious health risks linked to PFAS and a tremendous amount of federal investment in PFAS-related research in recent years, PFAS hadn’t been regulated at the federal level in the United States until now.

The new drinking water standards set limits for five individual PFAS – PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS and HFPO-DA – as well as mixtures of these chemicals. The standards are part of the EPA’s road map for PFAS regulations.

The EPA has also proposed listing nine PFAS as hazardous substances under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a move that worries utilities and businesses that use PFAS-containing products or processes because of the expense of cleanup.

Memo reveals damage to pipes inside #GlenCanyon Dam, a threat to #ColoradoRiver water supply — 8NewsNow.com #COriver #aridification

The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotation credit: Jonathan P. Thompson

Click the link to read the article on the 8NewsNow.com website (Greg Haas). Here’s an excerpt:

 April 12, 2024

Nearly a year ago, the Colorado River was raging through the Grand Canyon, carrying enough water to raise Lake Mead by an astonishing 2½ feet in just five days. The surge that began on April 25, 2023, was part of a “High Flow Experiment” release from Glen Canyon Dam, churning up sediment to rebuild beaches and sandbars through the canyon. But the pipes used to send that gush of water from Lake Powell through Glen Canyon Dam are in trouble, a memo produced by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reveals.

“In summary, at reservoir levels below the minimum power pool (elevation 3,490 ft), there are concerns with relying on the river outlet works as the sole means of sustained water releases from Glen Canyon Dam,” the memo said.

The “river outlet works” is a backup system at Glen Canyon, used infrequently because Reclamation needs to generate as much electricity as possible by sending water through the hydropower penstocks, a much larger set of tubes higher up…A special inspection that happened around last year’s High Flow Experiment found erosion within the four 8-foot pipes of the river outlet works. The evidence of “cavitation” is being described by conservation groups as a new part of the “spectacular water crisis” that demonstrates the magnitude of problems with the dam. Cavitation produces shock waves that are powerful enough to damage steel, according to David Wegner, who worked 20 years as an engineer for Reclamation. He was lead scientist for environmental impact studies of Glen Canyon Dam, and a founding member of the Glen Canyon Institute. Wegner is now a senior staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences Water Science and Technology Board.

Glen Canyon Dam high flow release photo 2018.