Question:

Will the Gulf Stream "slowly fade" or will it just stop?

(Any climate scientists reading feel free to speak up now .... )

The first time I read about the possibility of the Gulf Stream shutting down, the hypothesis would be that a very warm northern summer would release a pulse of melted glacier water (fresh water) that would flow into the North Atlantic and shut down the thermohaline circulation. This to me sounds like a catastrophe that unfolds pretty much all at once rather than over a number of years or decades.

Looking forward to any thoughts on this ...

Excellent Blog...I'm linking it...I've been going on for years now how North America is drunk on oil...how when China becomes the materialists we are now, the earth will radically be altered...thanx for being a conscientious canary in the proverbial coal mine.

There is an ice shelf that would melt every summer and drive cold water down to the bottom of the Atlantic and help power the Gulf Stream - for the last few years the ice shelf has not formed in the winter, and thus this part of "the engine" has already shut down. J has also posted that the Gulf Stream is moving.
(see
http://theoildrum.blogspot.com/2005/05/living-in-interesting-times.html)

Interesting article from Ferdinand E. Banks "Economic Theory and Some Oil Market Realities" http://321energy.com/editorials/banks/banks052905.html

Quote:
"Professor Douglas Reynolds has examined the realities of Canadian tar sands in the latest issue of the OPEC Review (2005). As he makes clear, “Physics, economics and engineering management all point to one thing – oil sand is not the same as crude oil. By defining oil sand bitumen as proven reserved of crude oil, we are setting up the oil and energy markets for a large price spike – a shock.” A version of this comment could probably be applied to the heavy oil of Venezuela, along with a reminder that from a thermodynamic point of view, both heavy oil and oil from tar sands do not have a great deal to offer.

Another important issue in these matters concerns attracting investment dollars to non-profitable undertakings, which is something that I touched on in my energy economics textbook (2000) and several recent papers, but which apparently was not appreciated by a number of influential readers. However Professor Maureen S. Crandall of the United States National Defense University, in a discussion of the huge resources that ostensibly will be made available by extensive exploitation of the Caspian region (2005), makes the following unwelcome observation: “But this producing region as a whole, while accounting for billions of dollars in investments, is unlikely to be a large and sustained future producer and contributor to the world’s energy supplies, and cannot be considered of strategic energy importance to the US.”

The same judgement applies to other ‘oil producing regions of great promise’, but it is best at this time to sum up the situation introduced above with a quote from Craig Bond Hatfield (1997). “The coming era of permanent decline in oil-production rate and the economic and social implications of this phenomenon demand serious planning by the world’s governments.” This decline is not certain, but it might be useful to remember that the major part of today’s oil production – at least 70% – comes from deposits discovered before 1970. This is hardly worth pondering, given that global oil discovery peaked about 1965. Similarly, rumors have started making the rounds that the relatively new discoveries in Russia and West Africa may not live up to expectations."

For a really deep view of the whole gulf stream/thermohaline conveyor thing, see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=159

(The copius comments after the article are especially interesting.)

To say that it's not a cut-and-dried situation would be a distinct understatement; when you get out onto the bleeding edge of science, as this topic is, there's enough guessing and qualification of views to make even an economist nervous.

"there's enough guessing and qualification of views to make even an economist nervous."

Is reaching that point possible? :)

Where I live in Oregon, all of our utilities are publicly owned--a public (common) good--as are our emergency services and ODOT. (Imagine that, socialism!) We even have an educational system that teaches the skills needed to perform their array of jobs. It is this system of local reliance that the neoliberals want to overturn and privatize for their sole profit. Yet it is this system that forms the basis for vibrant localism. Even people who voted for Bush here acknowledge that. (Of course, most Democrats aren't much better.) This foundation makes it easier to talk about and plan for the coming paradigm shift. If your community doesn't have local control over its local resource base and support services, then that's the very first thing to strive for. There are too many examples of private companies letting the infrastructure they "bought" rot while raising rates, milking the public until service deteriorated, then "demanding" higher rates to somewhat restore the previous level of service, and walking away if the new rates weren't "agreed" upon.

I don't know if you guys followed it, but I linked to 123energy yesterday in a comment. What I was also intrigued by on that site is what is happening with uranium - we have a resource problem there too. If the US does try to build it's way out of this using uranium as the base nuclear resource, we are looking at the same 'Hubbert Curve" scenario, are we not?

karlof -

I agree with you. So, what has to happen to return the commons to the people in the rest of the US? Because no business that is making money shuts down voluntarily...

Here's an interesting site:

http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/

If the Gulf Stream ever shuts down you'll be the first on your block to know it.

As far as engineering talent goes, unless there are jobs going begging in the petrochemical and mining industries right now I don't think major increases in enrollments are going to happen. Most students know that engineering is no longer a way into management in most corporations and you're more likely to be laid off than if you get into sales or marketing. If multinational companies are short of talent you know they will first look to cheaper nations for their engineers.

Another interesting article on "The Financial Endgame" at http://www.safehaven.com/article-3134.htm

Quote:

"In the scheme of the world to come, society is utterly atomised and totally malleable. Every aspect of normal home and social life is now under attack, and people are so preoccupied with debt repayment and just keeping their heads above water, that they are not able to focus on, let alone comprehend, the society they will bequeath to their own children. To keep the ordinary citizens happy, they are plied with constant mindless entertainments, similar to those staged by the Roman Emperors with their endless Games held in grand stadiums such as the Coliseum in Rome"

Tim -

It's not that the other nations are producing "cheaper" talent, but that the US is producing mediochre talent and graduates in easy subjects.

All you need to do is look at international math and science rankings to see why US graduates are not in high demand. Thus fewer enter into math and science, and thus colleges allocate money to more profitable areas - like social services.

Because the biggest employer in the US is government.

See my rant under "Another Diminishing Resource" for some specifics vis-a-vis my kids.