Freezing future

There's now alarming evidence that Europe is facing an ice age

THE OCEAN CURRENTS that give Europe its mild climate are changing. Scientists have found evidence that global warming may cause a big freeze by switching off a current called the North Atlantic Drift.

Several teams have found signs that the current, which brings warm water to northwest Europe from the Gulf Stream, is being disrupted by a growing amount of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean. This increase is a result of changes attributed to global warming: melting ice, increased rainfall and changing wind patterns.

The North Atlantic Drift is part of a global conveyor belt that brings warm surface water from the Gulf of Mexico to northwest Europe and sends cold deep water back. The belt is driven by two "pumps", one in the Greenland Sea and one in the Labrador Sea, where the surface water cools, sinks and then returns south.

A computer model developed by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and his colleagues suggests that global warming could turn off the North Atlantic Drift, causing temperatures in northwest Europe to drop by 5 °C or more (New Scientist, 8 February 1997, p 26). However, there has been no evidence that this is really happening.

But now Bill Turrell, leader of the Ocean Climate Group at the Scottish Executive's Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, has found evidence that fits in with Rahmstorf's predictions. He analysed more than 17 000 measurements of seawater salinity between Shetland and the Faroe Islands since 1893.

Turrell found that in each of the past two decades the salinity of the deep water flowing south has dropped by 0.01 grams of salt per kilogram of seawater. So its density has probably also decreased by 0.01 kilograms per cubic metre per decade. "This is the largest change we have seen in the outflow in the last 100 years," says Turrell. "It is consistent with models showing the stopping of the pump and the conveyor belt." In the 1950s the salinity of the outflow was so stable it was used to calibrate equipment.

His findings are echoed by work at the Fisheries Laboratory of the Faroes. Monitoring there suggests the deep water outflow through the channel southwest of the islands is getting warmer. In a study yet to be published, Bogi Hansen of the lab says the level at which water is at ­0.5 °C dropped by 60 metres between 1988 and 1997.

Svein Østerhus of the University of Bergen in Norway has also discovered that a deep-sea current closer to the Arctic has gone into reverse. In 1982 and 1983, deep water flowed southwards from the Greenland Sea into the Norwegian Sea at 10 centimetres per second. But in 1992 and 1993, the water was flowing at 1 centimetre per second in the opposite direction. This indicates that the Greenland Sea pump "has been dramatically reduced in power", says Østerhus.

"Any evidence that changes in ocean currents are starting to occur is very important," says Rahmstorf. "The freshening and warming of the deep water flowing back into the Atlantic is consistent with global warming but could also have natural causes.

Sources: Deep-Sea Research (vol 46, p 1), Journal of Climate (vol 12, p 3297)

Rob Edwards

From New Scientist, 27 November 1999

http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991127/newsstory4.html

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), April 27, 2001

Answers

(Disclaimer: This research was funded by the Oil Industry Association)

-- (nice@disinformation.propaganda), April 27, 2001.

o Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Institute

o Ocean Climate Group at the Scottish Executive's Marine Laboratory

o Fisheries Laboratory of the Faroes

o University of Bergen in Norway

Yep, that sure sounds like big oil money.

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), April 27, 2001.

LOL!

Global Warming will cause an ice age?

Huh?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 27, 2001.

Corporations can create any kind of name for their front organizations, and everybody's got a price.

-- (total@spin.propaganda), April 27, 2001.

Much NEWER, and FACTUAL evidence...

Thursday April 5 5:24 PM ET

Warming Tropical Oceans Drive Climate Changes

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Major climate changes seen in the Northern Hemisphere over the past half century have been driven by a progressive warming of tropical oceans probably caused by the man-made buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, scientists said on Thursday.

An atmospheric pressure seesaw between Iceland at one end and Spain and Portugal at the other -- known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) -- is the key player, experts said in research published in the journal Science.

``Until recently, scientists believed the NAO was entirely chaotic, random and unpredictable,'' James Hurrell of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a Boulder, Colorado-based laboratory managed by a consortium of 66 universities, said in a statement. ``No one paid much attention to it.''

But Hurrell discovered that the North Atlantic Oscillation's variations from winter to winter actually were masking an underlying pattern unfolding over several decades.

The trend has been linked to changes in weather, agriculture and wildlife from Canada to Siberia and from the Arctic to northern Africa, the researchers said. The NAO controls winter weather in Europe and over much of the Northern Hemisphere, the experts said.

The researchers said they believe the link between tropical ocean warming and the Northern Hemisphere climate trend may be a symptom of human-induced climate change that has begun to emerge in the past five decades.

A Fresh Warning About Global Warming

The findings are the latest to focus attention on global climate changes apparently wrought by the man-made buildup of so-called greenhouse gases.

Many scientists believe emissions of certain pollutants from industry, power plants and vehicles threaten to disrupt global climate and ecosystems by causing the Earth's atmosphere to trap more of the sun's energy, triggering global warming.

Studies examining the likely early effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have pointed to a warming trend in the tropical oceans, and observations have demonstrated such a trend beginning around 1950, the researchers said.

Hurrell and Martin Hoerling of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department (news - web sites), analyzed the results of a number of experiments using global climate models. They found a correlation between the warmer sea-surface temperatures and climate changes in the Northern Hemisphere winter.

The researchers said warmer waters, especially in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, produce more equatorial rain, which heats the tropical atmosphere.

Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures have displayed a warming trend over the past several decades the likes of which have not been seen in the past thousand years, they added, noting that the NAO change has greatly influenced this.

The warmer waters exert a strong influence on the atmospheric pressure pattern and winds over the North Atlantic and North Pacific, Hoerling said. Resulting changes in circulation have warmed land surfaces and shifted storm tracks farther north.

Over the past two decades, the North Atlantic Oscillation has been characterized by stronger westerly winds across the middle latitudes of the Atlantic Ocean and into Europe, southerly flow over the eastern United States, and northerly flow across western Greenland, the Canadian Arctic and the Mediterranean. Hoerling and Hurrell said the warming tropical oceans have driven this phase.

-- (get.your@facts.straight), April 27, 2001.

Cave--you waste your efforts on those who have already been snookered by the Hot Air/New Age-Gaia semi-religious movement. You're fighting a Belief System (which has very deep roots in world class Communist 'theology' - Gorbachev being one of the head Priests).

They will always spout forth the latest, greatest piece of ecofreak tripe or anecdotal quasi-evidence to support their BELIEFS...none of which has been or will ever likely be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Only seldom will they take the time to engage in honest, open discussion - always preferring to hide behind the rhetoric of that very sad mixture of quasi-Earth.centric religion/politics/junk science which claims the Global Warming mantra as its theme song. A sad bunch of losers who are nothing more than dupes for their partially disguised Commie masters.

-- GlobaloneyAnd (Hot@Air.com), April 27, 2001.

The current issue Popular Science has an article that espouses the typical media bias towards all Leftist agendas - decrying the 'evidence' for Global Warming but ALSO noting that a significant number of highly respected climatologists (at M.I.T., et.al.) will not sign on to GW since the evidence is weak, inconsistent and perhaps indicative of NO overall climate change at all!

-- MightNeedToHeadFor (TheCaves@Soon.com), April 27, 2001.

One thing about which there is no debate is that even within human written history, much less our investigations into Deep Time, the global climate has not been stable at all. By most indications, human written history generally has fallen during a relatively warm interval in the middle of a very cold longer period (the ice age) which in turn followed a very warm period. And so on.

Ice cores and other evidence show that such climatic changes tend to be sudden rather than gradual, implying a delicate balance among many factors several of which can trigger massive chain reactions after only very tiny changes themselves -- as this article implies.

Now, is any human agency contributing to these normal large-scale fluctuations? I notice the 50-year time period mentioned here, as though changes had not happened before that. Yet by many indications, changes during the last 50 years are no greater in scope or different in direction than climatic of changes during the *previous* 50 years, during which man's effects could not have been contributory.

So there really is no clear or even likely evidence that human agencies are significant in the Great Climatic Dance. But if we have done nothing to cause such changes, than discouragingly enough, we can probably do nothing to reverse them either. Our behavior becomes irrelevant if we make no difference.

So any political agenda, any effort to get us to mend our ways and sin no more, MUST assume our sins are meaningful. Whether they actually ARE meaningful is another question, one many would prefer not to even recognize. And if we are NOT contributing much to these changes, Global Warming STILL presents a threat. But we cannot respond intelligently to this threat so long as we labor under the hubristic assumption that we can make it go away. The GW people may be trying to change our behavior in the wrong direction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 27, 2001.

I actually agree with Flint. Maybe i should see a dr and get some meds.

-- Mr. Pinochle (Oldtimes@tb2000.com), April 28, 2001.

Flint is skeptical to the point of being anal-retentive, and an eternal pessimist. He is a mundane thinker, incapable of perceiving the possibility that anything could be real unless it has already been proven by evidence. If all of our scientists and philosophers had such limited intellect, we would never have learned that the Earth is not flat, and it is not the center of the universe. Automobiles, machines, and computers would never have been invented, and we would probably still be living in caves. It is doubtful whether minds such as his would have even thought of using a wheel, or starting a fire to cook and stay warm. In fact, the human species would probably have never evolved, because neanderthal man would have been rendered extinct due to the lack of ingenuity they needed to survive.

He thinks that since there is no conclusive evidence that the activities of modern man are affecting our climate, it cannot be possible. Since it cannot be possible, we should not bother to change our behavior.

Mundane thinkers view the human species simply as helpless victims, at the mercy of the natural world, rather than active participants in it. It is inconceivable to such limited thinkers that creatures so small could have any influence on something so large, thus rationalizing their total lack of responsibility for their destructive behavior.

Thank God, most of us are far more intelligent. We see the possibility that human beings may have much more power over our own reality than we ever been aware of in the past. Intelligent minds have foresight, always asking "what if?". It may be true that we will be destroyed by climactic changes, even after exhausting ever possible preventive measure. But "what if?", what if it turns out to be true that we are disrupting a very delicate balance of nature, and that we may have the power to avoid disaster, by becoming a harmonious asset instead of a disruptive liability? Should this just be ignored, because we consider ourselves too weak and helpless?

What is wrong with taking the best course of action based on our observations of the natural world? In the end it may turn out to be a fruitless exercise, but intelligent, conscious humans feel obligated to do the right thing, if not for ourselves, at least for all other forms of life on this planet. The potential benefits to be gained by taking the right course of action far outweigh the sacrifices made if it turns out to have been unnecessary.

-- (stupidity should @ be. a crime), April 28, 2001.

Link

While climate science can be dizzyingly complex, the underlying facts are simple. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. For the last 10,000 years, we enjoyed a constant level of CO2--about 280 parts per million (ppm)--until about 100 years ago, when we began to burn more coal and oil. That 280 has already risen to 360 ppm--a concentration that has not been seen for 400,000 years. It is projected to double to 560 ppm later in this new century, correlating with an increase in the average global temperature of three to seven degrees F. (For perspective, the last Ice Age was only five to nine degrees colder than the current climate.)

Evidence for the build-up of heat-trapping carbon dioxide abounds: The 11 hottest years on record have occurred since 1983; the five hottest consecutive years were 1991 to 1995; 1998 was the hottest year on record; the decade of the 1990s was the hottest at least in this past millennium; and the planet is heating more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

-- (the@basic.facts), April 28, 2001.

the hottest years on record. I wonder how hot it was when the Vikings landed on Greenland and started their farms. Hot hot ws it when T-rex walked around.

Things change, even the climate. If the evidence was so strong why isn't there agreement in the scientific community?

-- Mr. Pinochle (oldtimes@TB2000.com), April 28, 2001.

Well it snowed today in Western Ireland & like a fool I was out replanting primroses along the road.

-- Chris (enquiries@griffenmill.com), April 28, 2001.

(the@basic.facts) thinks that CO2 concentration has been constant for the last 10,000 years? He may be right, but why would he take such a time line out of its true context?

Link.

Temperature-to-CO2 Proved (19 April 2001)

Some studies get the full media treatment because they support global warming claims. The others just get ignored.

A recent paper titled `Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al. appeared without fanfare in Science (Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001), and addressed a long-standing point of contention between promoters and sceptics of global warming.

During the transition from the last Ice Age to our present Interglacial (or warm period), did rising CO2 cause temperatures to rise, or did rising temperatures cause CO2 to rise? Global warming promoters frequently claimed or implied the former as a means to `prove' that CO2 really can warm the planet.

Although it has been known for a long time that CO2 changes were correlated with temperature changes, the question as to which causes which has been a controversial issue. No more. We now know for sure.

The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica (75°06'S 123°24'E) in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores. According to the authors, "We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the dD (temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account." Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO2 sequence was quite clear.

The above graph (colour indicators added for clarity) shows the relationship between temperature, CO2 and methane during the Glacial-Interglacial transition, the temperature clearly leading CO2 (three matched transitions shown by blue arrows). The `YD' refers to the `Younger Dryas' cooling episode and `BA' refers to the `Bølling/Allerød' warming episode, both in the North Atlantic and mainly affecting methane. Since temperature clearly leads CO2, that means the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2. Notice also that at the start point of the Holocene period 10,600 years ago, CO2 had risen sharply during the immediate previous centuries, with no apparent effect on temperature which had already levelled out a thousand years earlier. That suggests that CO2 has only a very weak effect on climate.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 28, 2001.

Research can be designed to show whatever information is desired, depending on who is funding it.

The fact of the matter is that when the world's scientists are questioned regarding their objective opinion on global warming, over 80% of them agree, it is being accelerated by anthropogenic activity, and we are headed for disaster unless we can reverse this phenomenon.

-- (studies @ are. biased), April 28, 2001.

So sad to have closed minds on such an important 'issue'. The closed in this case meaning those who have fixated on so-called Global Warming as a mantra, a cause around which to rally, a belief system which is highly questionable, at best.

The 'warmers' show this in their notes above. They have not the slightest interest in true, honest debate about the scientific (or lack thereof) methodology involved or the true undisputed facts. Nor do they like to talk about the almost universal agreement - even among "Pro-warmers" that the jury is truly still 'out' on this matter and is unlikely to come in with a verdict before 20 years from now.

Whenever politics (particularly "world governance" type socialists are concerned) and science are mixed together - science always suffers.

Beware the Gorbachev type Greenies who would pick your pockets empty in the name of highly doubtful junk science.

-- BewareTheGorbachev (Type@Socialists.com), April 29, 2001.

To the contrary, it is the overwhelming majority of objective independent studies around the world that have conclusively proven that global warming is rapidly accelerating, and this is because of human-produced greenhouse gases.

The disinformation which refutes global warming is coming from doctored research funded by corporations in the energy industry who have an intense motivation and an agenda to conceal the truth. They've got plenty of money to buy large amounts of spin research, but in the long run their corrupt tactics will be exposed. Eventually the evidence will become painfully obvious, even to the majority of non-scientific people.

-- (the truth @ will. prevail), April 29, 2001.

The truth:

To the contrary, it is the overwhelming majority of objective independent studies around the world that have conclusively proven that global warming is rapidly accelerating, and this is because of human-produced greenhouse gases.

This is interesting. You clearly know some studies that must be published in a secret press and not in professional journals. I am unaware of this work which "conclusively proves, etc". I was invited to an international meeting on the subject last year and have been invited to another one in Belgium which starts in the next few weeks. None of the people at these meetings or in the field know of these studies. If you give me the references, I will pass them along.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 29, 2001.

Z,

Time and time again you have illustrated that you aren't interested in real science, only the doctored junk science produced by the corporate culture which pays for your travels.

The real research has been reported extensively throughout the news for many years now. I would suggest you do a simple search to find thousands of reports, but you are in denial and too lazy to read it.

-- (mister disinformation Z continues @ his. ignorant babbling), April 29, 2001.

The truth:

I will take that to mean you are making this up from whole cloth and there aren't any references in the peer reviewed literature.

Just Checking. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 29, 2001.

Yes, that's right Z. Because you are in denial and too stupid to read the news.

-- (ignorance is @ no. excuse), April 29, 2001.

"studies" is quite correct that these studies find what they are funded to find. But then he turns around and cites a statistic from another study which he regards as the truth. Apparently the irony of falling victim to the very point he is trying to make has escaped him.

Nobody conducts studies for free. Tell me who funded it, and I'll tell you what it concluded. We don't even know how to properly measure global temperatures. We know that global temperatures have not been historically stable according to all of the various measurements we've taken anyway. The article opening this thread is interesting in that it covers the bases -- man is the cause, whatever the result.

This is a political position, not a scientific position. If man is the cause, then by changing our ways man can be the cure. Getting people to change their ways is political.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 2001.

The truth,

Z's question is perfectly valid. If "80% of the world's scientists agree," as you claim, there should be at least a few scientific papers which provide some real link between human behavior and global climate.

What I fear has actually happened here is, this bromide has been repeated so often that it's simply taken as a given by Global Warming advocates. The thinking goes, of course mankind is destroying the planet; we accept this premise implicitly, then look (when we get time) (when we're not appearing on Oprah or before Congress begging for more grant money) for hard data to back up that which is a self-evidence fact.

Just for the record, Science is considered a peer-reviewed journal -- one of the top, in fact. Getting a paper published in Science is about like a regular journalist winning some front page budget with the New York Times or the Times of London. :)

So, thus far, in this thread at least, we see one peer-reviewed article in a very well-respected journal which seems to say the exact bass-ackwards opposite of what you're claiming. In layman's terms, then, thus far, the score is You 0, Them 1.

:)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 29, 2001.

Are you saying that the research mentioned in the article posted above by "(get.your@facts.straight)" is just a greenie hoax? What would be the motivation for government and educational researchers to lie about their studies? The government has in the past always tried to conceal as much as possible issues which would be detrimental to the interests of big business, or which they would need to take action on.

-- (too @ much. disinformation), April 29, 2001.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010426/wl/environment_europe_usa_dc_ 1.html

Thursday April 26 5:43 AM ET

Council of Europe Slams U.S. Decision on Kyoto

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly Thursday slammed the U.S. decision to ditch the Kyoto protocol on global warming, saying it cast doubt on Washington's reliability as a global partner.

The United States decision ``casts doubt on the credibility of the U.S. as a reliable partner prepared to shoulder its share of responsibility in the face of the global challenges facing humanity,'' the assembly said in a statement.

Parliamentarians from the council's 43 member states on Wednesday adopted a resolution saying the U.S. decision ''undermined the whole Kyoto program'' on climate change.

They called on President Bush (news - web sites)'s administration to reconsider its decision.

U.S. officials last week said the Bush administration saw little chance of agreement on the Kyoto treaty at international talks in July and expected to offer its own alternatives within weeks.

The United States has held observer status at the Council of Europe since 1996.

-- (the@European.view), April 30, 2001.