Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's that damn Bermuda Triangle. Dr No. is doing some evil climate change experiments out there. We need to send in Austin Powers and 007 before Dr No demands a ransom of...... ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
I wonder if the Yucatan Peninsula asteroid strike changed the Atlantic current flows?
It's all one in the same to the AGW crowd. Every single deviation from the "norm" that we know is somehow connected to global warming - could be, might be! This is just another "possibility" in a long line of possible disasters just waiting around the corner.
You are making several assumptions that are grossly inane, based upon your personal opinion and assertions with no evidence, and isn't even stated as premise of this thread. "It's all one in the same to the AGW crowd", this is not an argument, this is something a 12 year old child would spew forth when confronted with a subject they obviously know nothing about.
Quote:
Why would that be cause for concern? Just because man hasn't witnessed a natural phenomenon in the Earth's machinations, doesn't make it a disaster in the making. Besides, altering/changing/speeding up the current is beyond the ability of humans, just as preventing the Earth's temperature from rising a degree is also beyond our reach.
I don't know oh Sanrene you tell us, what would some of the effects be of a decline in flow and temperature variation in the North Atlantic gulf stream current. You are obvious a climatologist with I'm sure several advance degrees on the subject and maybe you can us. Why would the Defense Department and the Pentagon have cause for concern.
Answer this question with a Sanrene hypothesis based in something other than a Sesame Street retort about "It's all the same to AGW people".
Quote:
Oh Bingo!! But that WILL NOT stop the AGW lunatics from fretting and clucking while trying to pick our pockets with some kind of tax to speed the damn thing up!
You are spoken to in the manner you are because of statements like this. You are more likely to believe that the North Atlantic current is declining in flow because God hates homosexuals than you are anything science based. You have not offered one single piece of evidence to refute one single claim made in the OP or any of the alternative theories as to why this decline in flow and temp is occurring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
What new catastrophe are they predicting because this current has slowed, which I'm almost 100% positive has happened before?
A mini ice age? Yeah, they've been predicting that for a few years now.
I just don't understand those that think this is a static Earth. They think every little change in climate, or extremes of weather is unusual and fraught with all kinds of doomsday scenarios.
Why do people think the climate shouldn't change?
I just noticed something in your link - you realize that is an article from 2004?
Ok, so this is a perfect example. IF this is a six year old story......did their prediction, possibilities, dire consequences come to fruition?
Yes, Sanrene can't see the earth's crust move with her own eyes in real time, therefore it must not be true. A six year old story talking about a decadal changes in oceanic current flows. Well here is some more comprehensive data on this subject that I want you to analyze and offer an argument with evidence to this material in your own expert opinion.
Opposing decadal changes for the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n10/full/ngeo947.html - broken link)
Since you are obviously a climatologist, I'm not going to cite the specifics, but instead let you offer your own expert analysis, hopefully without "All AGW lunatics" and "neener neener" attached to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Oh let me help you out anthropomorphic means man made. Also use interchangeably with anthropogenic. Google either AWG terms and you will get about 10,000 hits.
I don't give a squat if I get a "million hits", the word anthropomorphic does not mean man made, it has never meant man made and you obviously don't have a clue. A big word that sounded good and someone else used it so you thought you would just throw it in there for effect not really having any idea what its definition is.
Quote:
LOL, all the hedging you allude to is in connection with the mechanism, not the cause, NASA has been totally up front about their devotion to AGW.
Ok, now perhaps you could point to any NASA theory about global warming that isn't attributed to man? Mmmm, I see you can't. So the poster you were hectoring is quite right to assume NASA was refering to AGW.
The statement is that the North Atlantic Oceanic current is slowing in flow and recently is showing signs of a decline in temperature as well. This flow is a measurable tangible thing and is currently taken as verifiable fact. Now as to the causes of this decline there are many theories and some of these are related to various things associated with global warming theories, but not explicitly. The article states it as such because the conclusions as to cause haven't been determined, only that a decline in flow and temperature has occurred in this current.
Many things can be inferred from this and the article itself states they are speculative, including the cause. You've already come to a conclusion based upon at best an assumption that wasn't even explicit. The fact you can't even use a simple definition correctly suggest to me you don't have a clue as to what you are even talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Yup, I don't think we really understand how the ocean currents operate. Remember the abrupt cooling we experienced from the“Great Pacific Climate Shift” in the late '70s.
This planet's climate rides like a roller coaster.
Well I think we have a pretty solid understanding of its basic functioning, however I get the feeling we don't understand it well enough to say definitively what exactly the cause is. While reading through some material on this, there are a wide variety of variables, such as salinity levels, temperature differentials, influx of freshwater from rain, the polar ice caps, etc... etc... I could explain basically how a Mercedes car works with an internal combustion engine, but I could not tell you with any specifics how its fuel injection systems functions in relation to ignition computations and timings, valve timing adjustments, and so forth.
I view the climate change debate a bit like modern global economics, we know how it works over all, but we cannot accurately state what the stock market numbers will be in three days time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
This is completely natural. It has to do with the Earth's orbit when it oblongs like it is about to start doing. The whole 2012 debate revolves around this orbit change. The magnetic poles are supposed to flip also. Every many thousands of years or so this happens (I Forget the actual estimated number). Man is not in any way causing this to happen.
Wouldn't this also be another hypothesis to be included with others, even those that state man plays a role or contributing factor? It very well may be natural, as it has certainly happened before and data is now beginning to show it can happen quite rapidly once it reaches a tipping point. Getting to this tipping point may occur over hundreds and even thousands of years but once you reach a precipice of sorts the changes can become quite abrupt.
You are making several assumptions that are grossly inane, based upon your personal opinion and assertions with no evidence, and isn't even stated as premise of this thread. "It's all one in the same to the AGW crowd", this is not an argument, this is something a 12 year old child would spew forth when confronted with a subject they obviously know nothing about.
I don't know oh Sanrene you tell us, what would some of the effects be of a decline in flow and temperature variation in the North Atlantic gulf stream current. You are obvious a climatologist with I'm sure several advance degrees on the subject and maybe you can us. Why would the Defense Department and the Pentagon have cause for concern.
Answer this question with a Sanrene hypothesis based in something other than a Sesame Street retort about "It's all the same to AGW people".
You are spoken to in the manner you are because of statements like this. You are more likely to believe that the North Atlantic current is declining in flow because God hates homosexuals than you are anything science based. You have not offered one single piece of evidence to refute one single claim made in the OP or any of the alternative theories as to why this decline in flow and temp is occurring.
Yes, Sanrene can't see the earth's crust move with her own eyes in real time, therefore it must not be true. A six year old story talking about a decadal changes in oceanic current flows. Well here is some more comprehensive data on this subject that I want you to analyze and offer an argument with evidence to this material in your own expert opinion.
Opposing decadal changes for the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n10/full/ngeo947.html - broken link)
Since you are obviously a climatologist, I'm not going to cite the specifics, but instead let you offer your own expert analysis, hopefully without "All AGW lunatics" and "neener neener" attached to it.
I don't give a squat if I get a "million hits", the word anthropomorphic does not mean man made, it has never meant man made and you obviously don't have a clue. A big word that sounded good and someone else used it so you thought you would just throw it in there for effect not really having any idea what its definition is.
The statement is that the North Atlantic Oceanic current is slowing in flow and recently is showing signs of a decline in temperature as well. This flow is a measurable tangible thing and is currently taken as verifiable fact. Now as to the causes of this decline there are many theories and some of these are related to various things associated with global warming theories, but not explicitly. The article states it as such because the conclusions as to cause haven't been determined, only that a decline in flow and temperature has occurred in this current.
Many things can be inferred from this and the article itself states they are speculative, including the cause. You've already come to a conclusion based upon at best an assumption that wasn't even explicit. The fact you can't even use a simple definition correctly suggest to me you don't have a clue as to what you are even talking about.
Well I think we have a pretty solid understanding of its basic functioning, however I get the feeling we don't understand it well enough to say definitively what exactly the cause is. While reading through some material on this, there are a wide variety of variables, such as salinity levels, temperature differentials, influx of freshwater from rain, the polar ice caps, etc... etc... I could explain basically how a Mercedes car works with an internal combustion engine, but I could not tell you with any specifics how its fuel injection systems functions in relation to ignition computations and timings, valve timing adjustments, and so forth.
I view the climate change debate a bit like modern global economics, we know how it works over all, but we cannot accurately state what the stock market numbers will be in three days time.
Wouldn't this also be another hypothesis to be included with others, even those that state man plays a role or contributing factor? It very well may be natural, as it has certainly happened before and data is now beginning to show it can happen quite rapidly once it reaches a tipping point. Getting to this tipping point may occur over hundreds and even thousands of years but once you reach a precipice of sorts the changes can become quite abrupt.
Yep.
Regardless of whether or not what we are seeing is man-made or not, the fact remains that the changes can and will have an impact on human life on this planet, a point that seems to be willfully missed by the deniers.
Why anyone would chose not to take action to prevent possible cataclysm is totally beyond me.
Yep.
Regardless of whether or not what we are seeing is man-made or not, the fact remains that the changes can and will have an impact on human life on this planet, a point that seems to be willfully missed by the deniers.
Why anyone would chose not to take action to prevent possible cataclysm is totally beyond me.
First of all you cannot prevent anything from happening, second of all it will not have this massive fear mongering impact on human life. There is this thing called adaptation that enables life forms to, wait for it...ADAPT to the their environment. Humans have done this before and they will have to do it again.
First of all you cannot prevent anything from happening, second of all it will not have this massive fear mongering impact on human life. There is this thing called adaptation that enables life forms to, wait for it...ADAPT to the their environment. Humans have done this before and they will have to do it again.
And you don't consider responding to these changes a form of 'adaptation?'
I thought Dennis Quaid did an excellent job in this movie. My favorite part was when the wolves were trying to eat Jake Gyllenhaal (humpback mountain fame) and his buddies on the tanker parked outside the New York Public Libraries main branch where Bill Murry and Dan Aykroyd stumbled upon an apparition in Ghost Busters. I loved those movies.
First of all you cannot prevent anything from happening, second of all it will not have this massive fear mongering impact on human life. There is this thing called adaptation that enables life forms to, wait for it...ADAPT to the their environment. Humans have done this before and they will have to do it again.
We cannot prevent anything from happening? So you just wait for things to happen then react, life must be a fun ride for you, no thanks I believe in being Pro-active. The only ones who are reacting with fear seems to be the deniers, why are you so against doing things right for the planet we live on, do you not care what sort of home we leave our children? Oh life Will adapt but if we rush it along by our own inaction then fewer people will be around to adapt, maybe not such a bad thing, I guess you assume that you and yours will be the ones adapting, better hope you do not live anywhere near sea level or one of the new dust bowls, those in other areas might not let you move and adapt. The point is GW is a FACT, or will you attempt to argue that also? Since we do not know all the cause for the change but do know that certain things we do as a species could speed up the change why not begin making the required changes now, especially since it will be a long time before we adapt as you call it. To even believe we cannot impact the environment is ludicrous, all one has to do is look at the damage we have already done to other areas of our planet and the answer becomes evident.
Casper
The statement is that the North Atlantic Oceanic current is slowing in flow and recently is showing signs of a decline in temperature as well. This flow is a measurable tangible thing and is currently taken as verifiable fact.
Well now, I'll just skip by all the fluff and get down to the meat. The article is 6 1/2 years old. Did the current return to normal? Do we have any updated news on this potential disaster? Did the issue "disappear", as so many of the AGW theories do when they don't pan out as predicted? Is the Pentagon still troubled by this phenomenon (or since they have no idea whether it IS a phenomenon or not, i.e., natural occurrence)?
On a side note if Russia has to import wheat I hope they turn to the US.
They probably respect Canada more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
