Interesting article I thought yall might enjoy. http://www.whoi.edu/home/about/whatsnew_abruptclimate.html
In the 70s the big scare was the next Ice Age. The Milankovich (not sure about spelling) Cycle predicts an Ice Age every so many years based on our occillation around the sun, and we are about 10,000 years overdue. There does seem to be a lot of data going both ways on the warm = cooling vs. warming stops cooling debate. Interesting article though. Europe is really going to be in trouble if the North Atlantic current shuts down. In the US I think the changing rainfall patterns/severe droughts, and super hurricanes as a result of global warming should be more of a concern though. We're ALREADY seeing a lot of that.
An interesting article. I've actually heard this theory from a few other sources as well. Either way, we appear to be shooting ourselves in the foot. As the author stated: "We are walking toward the edge of a cliff—blindfolded. Our ability to understand the potential for future abrupt changes in climate is limited by our lack of understanding of the processes that control them."
I've been reading about this for a while too. Few people realize that the latitude of Rome is actually about the same as Boston.
The current may shut down due to the action of the fresh water which is melting from the Arctic due to global warming....shooting ourselves in the foot.
assuming we have an appreciable effect on global warming...if it's happening at a certain rate given natural cyclical changes and our "contribution" is next to meaningless given the vast impact of those natural effects, then we're not shooting ourselves in the foot really. reminds me of a malpractice case...in order to show damages against an attorney for malpractice you have to show that you would have won the underlying case...otherwise, what are you really damaged...in the same way...if nature is going full-force towards these climate changes such that we'd feel the effects of global warming even if we contributed nothing to it, then how are we really the cause in fact of the damages?? the real superseding cause would be nature and the cycles themselves.
Considering the last ice age came to an end a little over 10,000 years ago (coinciding with the earlier Clovis migration into the Americas over the Bering Ice Bridge), I don't see how we can possibly be 10,000 years overdue??
Good read Pole, it is scary how connected everything is. Makes me think of the "Butterfly Effect". and I do think we are shooting ourselves in the foot. But most politicians heads are so far up their asses they don't feel it.
Hmmm, its been awhile since I read the stuff so I must have just got that part mixed up. Thanks for the correction. Milankovitch is the correct spelling on the cyclical theory. Aside from the salination stuff, there are also some who say the warming induces glaciation (?) by bringing the temperature up enough to increase snowfall on the poles, causing them to expand outward with the same effects on the N Atlantic current etc.
A meteorologist I know told me once that there is just as much evidence of global cooling as global warming. The heads of the various weather related agencies went with global warming because it tends to garner more research dollars. The fact is it has been hot in Houston (over 100 degrees a lot) this summer. But guess what? It's ALWAYS that hot in Houston. Maybe it's a few degrees warmer I don't really know. Every time I hear about global warming I can't help but think of Chicken Little.
i heard one of the local weathermen say the other night that the average high for this summer was cooler than normal. not to say it was cool...just cooler than normal!
When folks telling me the average temperature this year is higher than normal, I usually ask them "over what time period"? If you're talking over the past 50 years... big whoop. Give me the average temperature over the past 1000 years in Houston and then let's look for variations - whether they be cyclical or not. "The average temperature for June 15, 2002 was higher than the average temperature for June 15, 2001... duuurrrr". ... ok, so I tend to exaggerate. None of this stuff matters anyway since we're all going to be obliterated by an asteroid in about 15 years...
I think we're at a similar place with global warming now as we were with cigarette smoking in the 1950's. Back then, most scientists who seriously looked at the problem believed there was a link between smoking and cancer, they just couldn't find the direct mechanism and were not yet sophisticated enough to adjust for all the environmental and cultural factors. Same today with global warming. Is there uncertainty? Yes. Do predictions vary? Yes. Does it look like some effects may result in positive outcomes? Yes. Will some places have cooler temps? Yes. But the vast majority of independent scientists recognize global warming is happening and the consequences are far greater than smoking. As an aside, I work in a Federal agency that fights wildfires. I have yet to talk to a oldtimer with 35 years or more of experience in fighting fires who doesn't think that something has changed in the past ten years or so that goes beyond a drought or other seasonal variation. Simply, weather does not behave the way it did in the 1950's and 1960's. The assumptions about weather that these guys used to fight fires for years do not hold anymore. What kind of change, if there is a change, has yet to be determined and whether this is attributable to global warming I cannot say, but I have not met a wildland firefighter who completely disagrees with the global warming thesis.
i agree...i heard Neil Frank say at once that the concept behind global warming was human arrogance...arrogance that with the extremely limited information we have on temperatures thousands of years ago, we can make assumptions as to whether or not we've increased even 5 degrees in the past 500. he went on to say, "hey...we have a hard time telling you what's gonna happen next week with any certainty!" we've all see how accurate these computer models can be with hurricanes/tropical storms...and we criticize them like crazy...yet we're ready to make wholesale changes to our economy and our way of life on their estimates of how things will be 100 years from now.
I'm not sure that accelerating the switch to alternative forms of energy could be considered a "wholesale change" to our economy and way of life. We already have access to a lot of this technology (solar, hydropower, cleaner fuels, etc...) it's now a matter of creating incentives for business to begin the process of change. Since our supply of fossil fuels is dwindling, we know its something we're going to have to do anyway. You may not be around in 100 years to enjoy the benefits of our labors, but your grandchildren might be.
i have no problems with attempts to move to cleaner fuels...i think those are great, for a lot of different reasons!
Bingo. We have a winner. Most meteorologists not in it solely for the money will tell you that global warming is pretty much a contrived notion by so-called "experts" looking to explain a short-term effect when the answer lies in the long term climatic cycles - more years than we have accurate data for. Yes, our pollution and emission of greenhouse gases is raising the temperature. But, it's nowhere near as pronounced as many climatic workers would like to have you believe, and the global cooling trend is something to be more concerned about, to tell the truth.
