Mr I wrote:
In simple terms, the oceans of the earth act to pass warm air around. The gulfstream for example is a warm wind that keeps the UK temperate. It's why our winters are much milder than Russia's despite us being on a similar lattitude.
If global warming causes the ice caps to completely melt thus pouring a huge amount of cold water into the ocean, a massive change in the air streams would occur. The heat will then disappear quickly causing a huge cooling of the northern hemisphere and a second ice age.
In the film 'The Day After Tommorrow' they took this theory and being hollywood they exaggerated it. Nevertheless, the basic facts were correct.
Good post Mr I, of course your Russia thing is a bit off, continentality is the main reason that Russia stays cold and not the Gulf Stream, if Russia was suddenly cut into 5000 small pieces and surrounded by water it would stay warmer too. This whole ice melting thing is a bit of a non starter as the main point here is the salinity and not the temperature, when you all go home tonight put some boiled water into a shallow cup and some tap water into a shallow cup and then add two spoonfuls of salt, give me your results next Monday? You must also make the clear distinction between upper level wind currents and the global oceanic water movement, the two are entirely seperate and one does not directly affect the other.
The 'Day after tomorrow' scenario you talk of is in fact very real, the NAD shutdown that would lead to huge change in the warm water 'tipping point' ; this is where the warm gulf water hits the cool polar waters and sinks, it is then sent back whence it came, but did you know that the NAD did in fact shut down for 10 days in 2004? we all lived through it, it would not happen over night, in fact it would take several years.
The recent Stern report on global warming is a crock of rubbish, it only goes to prove that nobody (and here I mean NOBODY) has enough information to make a decision. To further make my piont on this, have a read of this guys responce to the whole debate, you can watch all the hollywood films you want and you can read the Express and Mail all day every day, but your not getting the full story I'm afraid.
Scientific concerns over Stern report
Sir – I have seen Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, read the book, and read the Stern report. As a scientist, I am appalled. Both authors present myriad dangers as truth – no doubts, a 100 per cent consensus. Yet a glance at the professional literature on glaciers, hurricanes etc. confirms that this consensus is a myth. Besides, consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science.
I am reminded of Trophim Lysenko, who used pseudoscience and myth-making to establish "scientific proof" of Marxist genetics. Lysenko dominated Soviet science for more than two decades by propaganda and ruthless liquidation of his opponents. When he was finally discredited, the Soviet Nobel Laureate Nicolai Semyonov wrote: "There is nothing more dangerous than blind passion in science. Given support from someone in power, it can lead to suppression of true science, and… to inflicting great injury on the country".
Popular knowledge of scientific issues is again awash with misinformation. Alarmists use the language of science to manipulate public perceptions by judgmental warnings. Scientists who challenge them are branded as a tiny minority of "sceptics". One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote: "Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people's minds, despite all realities." To me, we have fallen into this trap. A genuine concern for mankind demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse."
Prof Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur, Paris
Login
Register
FAQ
