McTag wrote:McTag wrote:Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.
We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.
The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%
If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.
Manatee spotted in Hudson River
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/nyregion/07manatee.html?ex=1155182400&en=311d64b12f897ae1&ei=5087%0A
What's happening to the Hudson River manatee? Does anybody know?
It is typical of the Mounted Policeman to try( weakly) to make a joke out of a serious discussion on Global Warming when he finds that he has nothing substantive to add( as usual). So, we must re-direct the discussion to the title of the thread--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McTag wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.
We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.
The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%
If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.
************************************************************
You are certainly correct that if the current has been reduced in volume by 25% there is a problem, but you do not mind I hope if I ask you to provide evidence that such a thing is true?
I would also respectfully inquire if you are able to provide evidence that "global warming" caused by CO2 emissions is responsible for such a warming effect.
*******************************************************
You do realize, I hope, Mr. McTag, that England did at one time prosper from a rise in the temperature and then later suffer from a decline in the temperature.
Around 800 AD, the Vikings were able to farm Iceland and Greenland because the earth had warmed. In England, grapes were grown rivaling the French wine growers.
But, by 1200AD, a "Little Ice Age" set in and then it is said that England's crops suffered and the THAMES FROZE IN WINTER.
And,just think, Mr. McTag, all of this BEFORE the invention of the Steam Engine.
Climate Changes--Climate Changes--Climate Changes----
McTag wrote:
Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.
We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.
The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%
If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.
**********************************************************
I do hope that Mr. McTag is familiar with the Medieval Warm Period.
During the years 800 to 1200 AD, the temperatures in Greenland and Iceland were high enough so that the Vikings farmed those islands intensively. There were, obviously, no steam engines or other man made devices to spew Co2 into the air. But it warmed nevertheless.
When 1200 came along, the earth slid slowly into a "Little Ice Age". Temperatures dropped. Indeed it is recorded that the Thames was frozen in the winter so that sleighs ran on that river.
Climate changes. It changed in 800 and 1200. We may just now be coming out of the last vestiges of the Little Ice Age that began in 1200!
A thoughtful piece from Sunstein. The one point he doesn't address directly is the political turmoil that surely will occur with worldwide ramifications as a consequence of African and Indian population displacements, starvations, floods, etc. "Why do they hate us?" will have some new answers.
Quote:Limiting Climate Change: The Neglected Obstacle
By Cass R. Sunstein
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A21
Sensible people now agree that climate change creates major risks and that the world should be taking significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But there is a neglected obstacle to achieving such reductions, and it is the biggest source of the stalemate in international negotiations.
The obstacle stems from the unusual incentives of the United States and China. As the world's leading contributors to climate change, these are the two countries that would have to bear the lion's share of the cost of greenhouse gas reductions. At the same time, they are both expected to suffer less than many other nations from climate change -- and thus are less motivated to do something about it. And while the international spotlight has rightly been on the behavior of the United States, China will soon present the more serious problem.
Save & Share
Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article
In recent years the United States has accounted for about 21 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. China comes in second at about 15 percent. While many countries have stabilized their greenhouse gas levels, emissions from both nations, but especially China, are growing rapidly. Current projections suggest that by 2025 total emissions from the United States will increase by about one-third.
By that year, China's emissions are expected roughly to double, making China the planet's leading source of such gases. (Emissions from the United States will, of course, continue to be far higher on a per-capita basis.) Within 20 years China will account for nearly one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It follows that if an international agreement requires reductions, China and the United States will have to bear the brunt of the expense.
By contrast, the biggest losers from greenhouse gas pollution are likely to be India and Africa. Some of the most detailed, careful and influential projections have been made by Yale University's William Nordhaus and Joseph Boyer. Nordhaus and Boyer show that in terms of human health and agricultural loss, India and Africa are by far the most vulnerable regions on Earth. Because of an anticipated increase in malaria, Africa will probably be hit especially hard, and India is expected to suffer a large increase in premature deaths as well.
If climate change occurs at the rate expected by many scientists, it will have a much less serious effect on the United States, and even less than that on China. In the United States, agricultural production is expected to suffer relatively little. In China, agriculture is actually projected to benefit from a warmer climate.
Both nations are expected to suffer some losses in terms of human health, but compared with projections for other countries those losses will be disproportionately small. A key reason is that the United States and China are not expected to be highly vulnerable to increases in malaria and other climate-related diseases.
In terms of percentage reductions in gross domestic product, India and Africa together are expected to lose about 10 times more from climate change than the United States -- and about 20 times more than China.
We should now be able to see why China has refused to participate in any international agreement to control climate change. Chinese officials know that their nation will soon be the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and they believe that because of their economy and their location, they have relatively little to gain from reducing those emissions.
We should also be able to see why most U.S. officials, whether Democratic or Republican, have been so reluctant to favor stringent limits on greenhouse gases. Such limits would be more costly for the United States than for most other nations, because the United States is and will continue to be the largest per-capita source of greenhouse gases. And on the current projections, Americans face comparatively lower risks from climate change.
Of course, any such projections involve a lot of guesswork, and reasonable people can differ. If global warming turns out to be either abrupt or greater than anticipated, it might well inflict catastrophic losses, leading to extremely serious problems for the United States and China alike. And even under current projections, the risks faced by the world's leading emitters can hardly be dismissed as trivial. National economies are interdependent, and if the world as a whole suffers from climate change, the United States and China will pay a large price.
But the troubling fact remains: The two nations now most responsible for the problem have comparatively little incentive to do anything about it. That is why, if the nations of the world really mean to take substantial steps to reduce greenhouse gases, they have two options.
First, they might find a way to convince the United States and China that they have a moral obligation to protect the planet's most vulnerable people. The United States has long benefited from technologies that, while promoting its economic growth, are imposing serious risks on disadvantaged people in India, Africa and elsewhere.
Second, the world's nations might try to convince these two countries that emissions reductions are less expensive, and more beneficial for their own citizens, than the recent projections suggest. Environmentally friendly innovations have often turned out to be far less costly than anticipated. (And if persuasive evidence is found that indicates greater losses for both nations from global warming, there will be a stronger incentive to try to innovate.)
It is only with such an incentive, or a sense of moral duty, that the United States and China are likely to participate in serious international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. And without the participation of the two countries, no such efforts are likely to have a substantial effect on the problem.
The writer teaches at the University of Chicago and is the author of "Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701188.html
If McTag knows about the Medieval Warm Period ( see below)
During the years 800 to 1200 AD, the temperatures in Greenland and Iceland were high enough so that the Vikings farmed those islands intensively. There were, obviously, no steam engines or other man made devices to spew Co2 into the air. But it warmed nevertheless.
When 1200 came along, the earth slid slowly into a "Little Ice Age". Temperatures dropped. Indeed it is recorded that the Thames was frozen in the winter so that sleighs ran on that river.
Climate changes. It changed in 800 and 1200. We may just now be coming out of the last vestiges of the Little Ice Age that began in 1200!
He must also think of what happened in England when it was warmer--It was said that the English grew grapes and thereby rivaled the French in wine making.The growing season was also lengthened causing more food to be available to the people.
Do you think I should buy shares in English Wine Bernard?
A rosé by any other name ...
The weather's really grim here today, very wet and miserable.
I blame this on BernardR, a source of much hot air.
not too bad here, I blame it on Bernards delusional false optimism.
Steve 4100 and McTag--Sirs--Your laconic responses in the face of overwhelming evidence reminds me of a scene in one of my favorite plays- Cyrano DeBergerac- by Edmond Rostand.
When a hapless person says something dergatory about Cyrano's substantial nose, Cyrano puts him in his place. Then a fop appears and says that -"Your nose, sir, is rather LARGE"
Cyrano replies- Is that all? You are too simple, sir. Do not lose your opportunity. For example--I sir, if that nose were mine, I'd have it amputated on the spot....or...how do you drink with such a nose?You ought to have a cup made specially..and Cyrano ends after making fourteen or fifteen more wonderful allusions by saying to the dolt who responded with "Your nose, sir, is rather LARGE"
with
AND THESE DEAR SIR, ARE THE THINGS YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID IF YOU HAD SOME TINGE OF LETTERS, OR OF WIT TO COLOR YOUR DISCOURCE. BUT WIT, NOT SO, YOU NEVER HAD AN ATOM,--AND OF LETTERS, YOU NEED BUT THREE TO SET YOU DOWN--AN ASS!
end of Cyrano's wonderful reply to the laconic man!!!
well after that put down I feel quite deflated
How about you McT?
Well, it does raise the question of whether Bernard followed similar advice and had his brain amputated.
Bernard fails to understand the most basic part of wit. It must be original to be witty. Copying and pasting what others have said is not witty at all. It shows a pedantic prediliction for perseveration.
Lest my attempt at wit go completely over the head of the witless a little help here....
perseveration - Uncontrollable repetition ..., usually caused by brain injury
wit requires abstract thinking, and more than wee bit of it.
kuvasz wrote:patiodog wrote:It's a horribly abusive relationship. Sometimes I masturbate against my will.
how does Will feel about that?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49385&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=110
Gulf stream stop
McTag wrote:Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.
We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.
The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%
If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.
In fact, the study below says NW Europe's climate is not very different than NW America's and the Gulf Stream is just part responsible for England mild winters. The major driver seems to be west to east winds and the ocean heat.
Source, Richard Seager
Quote:Countless magazine and newspaper stories have asserted that the the flow of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico north and east across the Atlantic accounts for why winters in, say, London, are so much more pleasant than those in Labrador, which lies at the same latitude. Despite what seem to be supporting statements from many oceanographers, it turns out that this description is highly misleading. In fact, England and France enjoy milder winters than eastern Canada in large part because prevailing winds at these latitudes blow from west to east over the comparatively warm ocean, thus allowing much of Europe to have a mild "maritime" climate.
Yes of course. Surely it's the "comparatively warm ocean" which is the factor....it's not the water which reaches inland, but the air, after all. Is this not just a different way of saying the same thing?
The article is quite interesting.
But - I'm sure the more scientifically educated persons like BernhardR and Foxfyre will soon point to this fact - it's just the opinion of two scientists got from obeservations at a computer animated climate model.
Walter Hinteler wrote:The article is quite interesting.
But - I'm sure the more scientifically educated persons like BernhardR and Foxfyre will soon point to this fact - it's just the opinion of two scientists got from obeservations at a computer animated climate model.
And you thought it pertinent to mention me in this context how?
