British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

@parados,

All of these systems are interconnected. I don't think anyone is implying that they are not. But the relative effects between them are not clear and combinations of multiple factors affecting things in coincidence need to be weighed.

As ice caps (fresh water) melt it decreases salinity within the oceans, which in turn alters the turnover of cold deep water to warm surface water which drives the currents.

But ocean salinity has also been greatly affected in the past by the isolation and evaporation of large bodies of water like the mediterranean. At many times it was disconnected from the ocean, and dried out, leaving enormous salt flats and deposits no longer accessible to ocean water (reducing salinity).

0 Replies

ros, so far what you have is a hypothetical switch and a hypothetical effect, versus a known effect (CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which WILL raise temperature) and the non-presence and the non-presence for a likely 10,000 years at a minimun of THE known necessary trigger for ice ages--the confluence of Milankovitch cycles. As everybody says, there's a complex interraction between temps, the NAO and thermohaline circulation, solar effects, wind patterns, and on and on and it can vary greatly depending on when they happen with respect to each other and their intensity. But what we do know of the gross patterns now, we'd better take action now.

1 Reply

@parados,

A simple-minded set of claims which are not supported either by the link i provided nor the second link which you provided.

1 Reply

@parados,

Well, you're a sarcastic S.O.B. Other articles at that link don't come to the same conclusion. That's been my point all along--there is not consensus. By all means, though, cherry-pick to your heart's content.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

The first article at the Woods Hole link says that "the pump" suddenly turned on to the surprise of climatologists.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Yes, the ocean currents affect local climates but do they change the overall heat that the globe is retaining.

Somehow the oceans have to change the amount of heat the earth retains for an ice age to occur. Otherwise we are just looking at moving the temperature increases around the globe.

If a change in the halocline cycle causes northern Europe to go into an ice age then it might change the earth's albedo. But we are dealing with less Arctic ice for this to occur which has the opposite effect on the Earth's albedo. Meanwhile when the halocline cycle shuts down it no longer allows the tropical water to move to the arctic to lose heat. This creates a new normal in the tropics which would most likely be warmer.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

A simple-minded set of claims which are not supported either by the link i provided nor the second link which you provided.

That would be as opposed to your simple minded claim that wasn't supported by your link.

I am curious how you read the entire IPCC report in less than an hour.

1 Reply

@parados,

My link shows that there is not consensus, that there is not agreement. That was my claim, and i see that your second link shows that this is the case. Think what you like, it's becoming clear to me that you are dogmatist who is not interested in a dispassionate view of the evidence, but only in supporting the conclusion to which you have jumped.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

ros, so far what you have is a hypothetical switch and a hypothetical effect, versus a known effect (CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which WILL raise temperature) and the non-presence and the non-presence for a likely 10,000 years at a minimun of THE known necessary trigger for ice ages--the confluence of Milankovitch cycles. As everybody says, there's a complex interraction between temps, the NAO and thermohaline circulation, solar effects, wind patterns, and on and on and it can vary greatly depending on when they happen with respect to each other and their intensity. But what we do know of the gross patterns now, we'd better take action now.

Ok, I hear what you're saying, but I don't think my scenarios are as hypothetical as you want to believe. Those historic cycles are impossible to ignore.

But let's say that I ignore all that and just react to the idea that human CO2 activity is "bad" in some undefined way. The goal then would be to figure out the quickest way to lead humanity away from CO2 producing activities.

But in doing so, we can't ignore the economic reasons why we do what we do already. At present it's economically more productive to burn fossil fuels than it is to produce energy through renewable resources. I'm a strong advocate of moving to a renewable energy paradigm (and that's for real), but I know from understanding economics that we will never move in that direction until it becomes economically preferential to do so. In my opinion, the quickest way to move us away from fossil fuels is to allow our economies to run at full steam alloying the economic engine to fund technological research and development of renewable resources (wind and solar being my two favorites). It's my bet that at the present rate of development, renewable resources will become more cost effective than fossil fuels within 200 years and all economies will convert to them naturally by virtue of economic imperatives within that timeframe.

However, if you throttle economic development in its present stages by hindering energy production through political and governmental control, then I believe the conversion to renewable resources will actually take much longer to achieve, and ultimately hinder the end result you want to achieve.

As you can see, there are many layers to this debate Smile

Ok. Let me play devils advocate to this line of reasoning as well...

0 Replies

Parados has a good point. The ice ages were coincident and caused by a decrease in the amount of solar irradiance the earth received, which led to less heat in the system, irrespective of what was happening with with thermohaline circulation. But we are not now, and won't be for some millenia in a situartion were we're receiving lass radiation at ice age levels, with consequent lowered heat in the earth system. Instead we're getting increasing heat in the system, and nothing on earth is altering that fact.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Yes, the ocean currents affect local climates but do they change the overall heat that the globe is retaining.

Yes, I believe they do. I believe they are the single most important factor in global temperature.

Much deeper historic periods show much larger swings in global climate and those can probably be correlated to the distribution of land masses and oceanic flow.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The first article at the Woods Hole link says that "the pump" suddenly turned on to the surprise of climatologists.

Yes, I saw that. It's interesting.

Do you know what they are taking about when they say, "The Pump"?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

One of the “pumps” that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on.

The “pump” in question is in the western North Atlantic Ocean, where pools of cold, dense water form in winter and sink beneath less-dense warmer waters. The sinking water feeds into the lower limb of a global system of currents often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor. To replace the down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.

I realize that all of us have limited reading time. However, it's an interesting set of articles, and it would be worth your while, i think, to at least scan them. I used that link because, over time, i've been reading there, and have been struck by the strong contradictions between the language used and the conclusions reached in several of the articles.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Yes, I believe they do. I believe they are the single most important factor in global temperature.

But there has to be a way they can do that which doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Which is why I posted a link to black body radiation for Set.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Yes, I believe they do. I believe they are the single most important factor in global temperature.

But there has to be a way they can do that which doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Of course. That kind of goes without saying (since none of us are willing to entertain the idea of Magic as a factor in global warming). Smile

Why would you NOT think that the oceans effect the atmosphere?

Here's one link which explains the relationship.
http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_oceans.php#conveyor

Confirmation of this subject are abundantly available through Google searches.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I'll try to read it if I get a chance, it does look interesting. But you're right that I've got limited time to devote to this. I've already lost time in my day that I should have been using to figure out a way to pay my bills rather than trying to save the world from a deadline it may have in a few hundred years. Smile

0 Replies

re /Ros,
all true, BUT, they don't affect the overall heat in the system, they affect where it is and what it's doing, but not how much it is. That's determined by solar irradiance and how much of it is retained, and for the next century or so at least that's going to be determined in large part by changes in greenhouse gases.

Since increased heat in the system has the potential, depending on what melts when, for shutting down the NAO and seriously screwing Europe at least, it's just another reason for us to minimize mucking about with the atmosphere.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Then on the flip side, there's the huge economic impact of altering global energy production just "in case" what we're doing might cause something bad to happen.

Which should we worry about more, a definite economic disruption next year or a possible environmental disruption in a hundred years, or a thousand years?

In a fairly short amount of time (in human terms) the economic/energy situation will evolve into something completely different (renewable energy sources). And that transition will probably happen most rapidly by allowing business and technology to move forward without hindrance.

0 Replies

try economic disruptions this year. Increased severity of tropical storms, rising sea levels (coastal states and countries are in a continual battle against the sea. It's not called global warming most of the time, but it's an artifact of rising sea levels, and a storm that starts out on a sea that's a foot higher has a far more devestating impact inland), changing dates of snow melt and runoff screw up water needs for agriculture which needs the water when it originally came, e.g.). We're already seeing costs (plant and animal diseases spreading northwards, to plants and animals that had never had to develop resistance to them before and so hadn't).
Look, the effects are ongoing and will get worse. And you might have noticed the "drill, baby, drill" conservative robots are doing their damnedest to kill any development of alternative and renewable energy, which you and I, and I might add anybody who is trying to reduce American reliance on foreign oil, all advocate, and should be common ground for everybody

1 Reply

Just for the record, once again, i have no question at all about climate change. I see no reason not to reduce our production of greenhouse gases. What i have doubts about is that the warming trend is anthropogenic, and prating dogmatically about it doesn't change my mind. Certainly atmospheric conditions can and do affect the oceans. But the oceans affect the atmosphere, as well. Sneering about the "simple" physics of the relationship not only ignores the complexity of the relationship, it begs the question involved. It assumes that warming is anthropogenic without botherring to demonstrate it.

1 Reply

British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know