Archaeologica.org

I watched a TV programme the other evening Beag about cosmic rays and there effect on the climate, the result of computer programmes exactly replicated the warming of the Poles ahead of the temperate regions.
AG may yet be looking for a new soap box.

Lots of back tracking and CYA on top of the original post,
And, of course, weather isn’t climate,
BUT the numbers are the numbers.

http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blog ... s_july.asp

kbs2244 wrote:Lots of back tracking and CYA on top of the original post,
And, of course, weather isn’t climate,
BUT the numbers are the numbers.

http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blog ... s_july.asp

I agree, but the misnomer that really gets me in this debate is "climate/carbon neutral". Starting from the position that humans ideally should have no impact on the planet is farcical. It will leave us forever debating semantics about what countries farm cattle but don't drive cars, or don't deplete fisheries but do smelt gold with cyanide.

There's not an environmental issue that humanity hasn't faced before on a local scale nor does one exist that nature can't absorb, there's just too many of us now and each population's mess is spilling over into the others making it one big problem.

Truth is though, we're the only species smart enough to limit its own population for its own good. Yet a global "one child" policy such as existed in China last century has never been seriously examined by the UN or any prominent scientist.

We have to accept that there is an inherent environmental cost in the life of every human consumer. When we can begin with a defined number of consumers then parameters can be set as to what is a reasonable footprint size per head, and progress will be made. For now, even if I reduce my footprint to zero, there are another 200,000 extra feet born by the end of the week.

Environmental legislation/Community concern can never swim uphill against current population growth levels

Global Warming

This is the abstract. You have to be a subscriber to get the full article.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07979.html

The basic discovery is that the cold water route from the Artic to the Equatorial Atlantic region is not along the outer continual shelf as has been believed for years, but through a mid-ocean deep water flow that was not known of before.

As much as 75% of the total flow is going through this newly discovered current.

This blows up all the current models of oceanic heat transfer.
And therefore all the global warming models.

And this is the resulting type of consensus shift that is becoming the result of this kind of discoveries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Note the numbers of the scientists signing off on the idea.

Wonder what hobby horse Al Bore will mount when his existing one dies under him?

Roy.

The trouble is....if Gore is wrong, so what.


If the WSJ (and their business buddies) are wrong, a lot of people drown.

Possibly so Min but what I was wondering was what does a do-gooder do when he's got nothing to campaign about?

Roy.

See I wonder about unemployed evil-doers much more.

I wonder what BUSH has been doing?

If you think Bush was bad you should try our mob! Just to clarify one point Min, the Lockerbie Bomber was not released in my name.
Our government has lied to everyone, we only got the truth from Libya, God help us!

Roy.

I wasn't blaming you for that one, Dig.

Didn't seem like your kind of move from the beginning.

Didn't seem like your kind of move from the beginning.

Damn right it's not Min. Releasing the guy on compassionate grounds I can accept, but to secure a F-----g trade deal just shows what a bunch of sh-ts we have in power!

Roy.

My point on posting the Wall Street story was that politics is starting to accept the new science discoveries.

This new current is big news.

It blows every computer model ever done on North Atlantic heat transfer "out of the water."

True of course KB ,but to be honest I doubt very much that it will have the slightest effect on many followers of the religion nor on our tax mad government. Not untill they find some other con to tax us on or protest about that is.
i wonder if Al Bore will have to hand the money back?

Roy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ought.html

The oceans are already rising. Global average sea level rose about 17 centimetres in the 20th century, and the rate of rise is increasing. The biggest uncertainty for those trying to predict future changes is how humanity will behave. Will we start to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases sometime soon, or will we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere?

I don't have to worry about this.....I'm quite far from the ocean....but I'd consider oceanfront property a risky investment at the moment.

According to an article I read a while back Min the rise in ocean levels is minute.
Here in the UK the official site is Newquay, in Cornwall, where the land is sinking due to isostatic rebound, in the north of Scotland the sea levels are falling for exactly the same reason. The most stable reference platform apparently is Hong Kong, where the seal level rise through out the 20C is about one millimeter!
According to my research the reason for the much quoted 'drowning' of Bangladesh is the shape of the Bay of Bengal, with the same result, and for the same reasons, as you experienced with the tidal surge in the Gulf of Mexico.

Roy.