http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1898178,00.html Britain will have the same climate as Canada. Cheerio, eh.
Which part of Canada? It's a big place, with several different climates. If Britain ends up with a climate like Vancouver's, I'd consider it a good thing. If you prefer a place with only two seasons (mosquitos and too cold for mosquitos) try Winterpeg. (Apologies to Jayman)
You'll have to take that question up with the London Times. They didn't differentiate. Sorry about that, old bean. Maybe London can come up with a hockey team, eh?
Erm, I thought a symptom of GW [ooh, that has too many meanings] was the gulf stream getting *stronger*, or at least warmer?? . Then again I haven't really studied this yet.. . _H*
its too bad that all we seem to concentrate on is the global warming aspects when the higher levels of CO2 will kill us off waaay before the weather does. i watched a show that detailed the effects of increased CO2 concentrations. in a test greenhouse with CO2 concentration increased 50% (a level that we could reach in 10-20 years if we dont slow down) noticed that the increase in plant growth rates was more than negated by bacteria that scientists propose has always existed but did not flourish because of the lower CO2 content. in the higher concentrations the bacteria completely destroyed the plants. whats worse, several of the typical methods use to control bacteria did not work effectively. some scientists draw some parallels with the bacteria causing the current bird flu scare. no one knows for sure, but many are afraid that a whole host of currently weaken bugs may emerge and start several problems we had not anticipated and are not ready for. on the bird flu. if we started today, it would take as much as 20 years to develop enough vaccine to protect less than 5 % of the worlds population. problem is, no one even knows if the standard flu vaccine we have will work effectively with the bird flu strain because of the swiftness and the severity of the onset of the bacteria.
First, don't believe the study on it's face. In case you don't know already, there is way too much junk science where the environment is concerned. Anyway, the Gulf Stream is created by the temperature difference between the equator and the north pole. The bigger that temperature difference, the stronger to Gulf current. Cold water sinks and flows toward the warmth. To replace that sinking cold water, the stream brings warm water north. If the northern latitudes warm up, the temperature difference is reduced. Ergo, the GS weakens. jrohland
Did these eggheads explain how bacteria causes a virus? We should be much more worried about the stuff that really can kill us, like, poorly maintained trucks. jrohland
I am no scientist, but his has happened before. I read somewhere the river Thames use to freeze every year, but hasn't since the 1940's.
I think this is an incomplete explanation. Where ocean water sinks, it does so because of its density. Density is affected both by temperature and salinity. The melting rate of ice in Greenland and N. Canada (etc.) has increased in recent decades, thus more freshwater is entering the oceans there. The resulting not-so-increased density is thought to be slowing the North Atlantic Conveyor, AKA the Gulf Stream. Furthermore, even with increased temperatures over land at high latitudes, I can assure you that polar oceans will remain much cooler than their tropical counterparts. IMHO the science is rather convincing on the oceanography side. It could be improved with tracer studies but those are expensive. More speculative perhaps are the climatological consequences. As those rely on historical reconstructions and extremely complicated models, they are readily assailable who perceive their economic interests to be threatened. Of course there are other reasons not to reach hasty conclusions about future climates, but those ought to be balanced against the potential risks of "business as usual".
This whole global warming thing was hijacked a few decades ago by the fanatical green wing and now, everytime someone hears "global warming" they roll their eyes. For a long time I was in that camp..saying "you guys are nuts", but it took a presenter at a gardening conference to do it right. He simply showed photos of several glaciers, time lapse like 100 or so years, to show that, yep, it's melting. So, now I agree there is a warming going on. However, I am not yet convinced of the following....Humans are responsible and if we don't change things in 20 or 100 yrs, we will all be dead. This presenter said nothing will be done until it is "in our face" because that is the way humans are. I think the "green fanatics" have made the solution take longer because they used scare tactics and now we can't even get the majority of people to admit that "warming" exists, let alone what is causing it? My Prius (and other minor things) is my contribution to the problem thus far.
From what I have heard of the study, its major flaw is that it has only FIVE data points. (Bad signal to noise ratio). However, taken in the context of other evidence of Global Warming, it should not be discounted either.
It's been my experience that people tend not to deal with reality very well. There are lots of big ugly truths - death, taxes, and global warming among them - that we'd rather not admit. Our brightest minds - the scientists - have told us we are doing significant, possibly permanent damage to our planet's ability to support life. You'd think facts and logic would be enough for us to see the errors of our ways, but no, we're far too comfortable with our fantasies.
Your point is well taken, jrohland. There's a lot of junk science out there period, not just in the environmental arena. No level-headed environmentalist ignores the possibility that a lot of what we attribute to CO2 emissions might just be another trend in the weather, considering that we've only been keeping track of it for, what, a several decades or so? Still, the issue isn't one study but the trend in the findings of many studies. Of course, how long and how many studies did it take before it was taken for granted that smoking was harmful to your health? Decades. The turning point came when the tobacco companies actually started losing in court. The difference is that smoking affects individual people (ignoring second-hand smoke for a moment) whereas if human produced CO2 really is causing global warming, by the time that we take it for granted that it's a fact, it will be killing the environment that everyone lives in, instead of just a few, relatively speaking. My contention for a long time is that if tree huggers are wrong then no big deal, we'll all just be living a little simpler and cleaner, but if we're right, it'll be too late to do anything once the tree killers are willing to admit that MAYBE they could be MISTAKEN. Perhaps it's more pragmatic to presume that tree huggers are right because even though assuming that we're right is too difficult for those who live in a fantasy world to contemplate, it'll be even more difficult to undo all of the damage that will have been done once the sleepwalking public has been shocked out of its stupor.
I had already seen a few other articles about this. The problem I have with the study is that it's based on 5 (yes five) measurements over about 50 years. Additionally, it discounts the possibility of natural cycles in the Atlantic. It is well known that the Atlantic goes through multi-decade cycles where among other things, the surface temperature in the equatorial parts of the Atlantic rise and fall. This is what causes the multi-decade cycle of hurricane season intensity. Right now we are in the above average intensity portion of that cycle, in the 70's we were in the below portion, and in the 40's to 60's, we were in the above average portion again. The other articles that I've read say that the Gulf Splits after it leaves North America. Part of it goes north to Europe and part of it recirculates back in the South Atlantic. What they've measured is the south flowing cold water current, which is weaker than previous measurements, implying that the north going split of the Gulf Stream has weakened and more of the Gulf Stream is recirculating back into the South Atlantic. Now maybe the reality is that they discovered the reason that the surface temperatures in the equatorial Atlantic fluctuates in 30 to 60 year cycles. It would seem to me that when more of the Gulf Stream recirculates back into the equatorial Atlantic, the water would warm up, and when more of the Gulf Stream travels up to Europe, the equatorial Atlantic water would cool. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be considering natural cycles and instead are jumping on the Global Warming band wagon with a study that consists of only five measurements over a short (relatively speaking) time period. There is much evidence that the Earth's climate fluctuates in multi-decade cycles, particularly in localized areas such as the Atlantic. Studies that use measurements over periods shorter than those cycles aren't very conclusive.
It is also believed that the North Atlantic Gulf Stream current shut down completely for about 1000 years during the Younger Dryas Period, which was about 10,000 years ago.
No apology needed, it's the truth. I actually PREFER bitter cold winter just for that reason! If most of the UK began to experience bitter cold winters (-20 C or even -40), at the very least their infrastructure would be destroyed. They don't build for the cold because there is no reason to do so. If your "normal" winter frost level is say 2 metres down, all the water and sewer pipes are at least 2 metres down, preferably deeper. When that depth isn't needed, gradual frostline encroachment will cause "heaves" or frost "jacking" that will bend/break the waterworks. The same thing will happen to building foundations, natural gas lines, underground power lines, etc. Just as special design considerations are needed for very hot climates, you must also make allowances for very cold climates. If it gets cold enough to where Permafrost develops, then you have an entirely new set of problems to deal with. Not the least of which is the fact you can no longer build directly on the ground, or the heat from the building will melt the Permafrost and the building will slowly sink.
You're probably thinking of the "Little Ice Age" which typically is thought to have run from 1565-1665, perhaps as late as the 1850's. The Thames regularly froze during the winter, and some years had temperature rebound while other years did not. There is a lot of debate over whether it was just climate, or influenced by a combination of climate, solar, and extrasolar events.
