# Anyone connecting the dots......?? Hurricanes and Russia



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The North Atlantic current has dropped off by 30% off what it was a decade ago. This current ( the Gulf stream swinging east ) keeps Europe warm.



> Fears of big freeze as scientists detect slower Gulf Stream
> By Steve Connor, Science Editor
> Published: 01 December 2005
> The ocean "engine" that helps to drive the warm waters of the Gulf Stream and keeps Britain relatively mild in winter has begun to slow down, say scientists.
> ...


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article330454.ece


Here's the next dot........




> Deadly cold snap heads west from Russia
> Jan. 23, 2006. 06:55 PM
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

Now I think of major changes in terms of decades or centuries.......the swings in this are getting just a tad big..............and a tad fast. 

Given the sheer size of the Gulf stream and the North Atlantic current it spawns....


> *The Gulf Stream is bigger than the combined flow of the Mississippi, the Nile, the Congo, the Amazon, the Volga, the Yangtze and many other major rivers of the world. The best technical estimate is that one hundred thousand million tons of warm salt water flow between Florida and the Bahamas every hour. At 235 gallons per ton, we have 235 x 1010 gallons per hour flowing between two and five miles per hour northward. This flow has been estimated to be about twenty times greater than all the fresh water in the world flowing into the oceans of the world from rain, rivers, and melting ice.*
> 
> This great mass of flowing water, or energy, has no beginning or ending, for its waters flow continuously northward along our east coast then east across the North Atlantic to the coasts of Europe and the United Kingdom, where it turns south and flows along western Europe and Africa, before again turning westward across the South Atlantic to the Caribbean basin. Lake any large river, it has tributaries, counter currents and eddies.


A 30% drop in that immense circulating pump is astounding and it's not surprising we are seeing real impacts....not tenths of degrees as it is overall for the planet. Impacts that kill people and change habitats.

Hurricanes in the Caribbean getting stronger - the heat is not going north as fast.

Siberian high more intense -less warmth crossing Europe to combat the continental high.

Connect the dots indeed

Welcome to global climate change.....NOW. 

Nice to be sitting next to a big moderator ( Great Lakes ) but this is our ONLY planet 
And we appear to be skipping winter so far......

I've heard in some areas robins are overwintering instead of migrating.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

My first thought when I saw the story about the spread of the bitter cold across Europe was that overblown movie _The Day After Tomorrow_, in which fuel lines freeze solid in seconds and cities are iced over and ... uh ... :yikes: 

In all seriousness, the fact we're getting 50-degree weather in January makes me very worried about what July will be like.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Day after Tomorrow WAS loosely based on the same scenario collapsed into a very short time frame with a supercell which is also theoretically possible.

The hurricanes this year reminded me of the scenarios in Mother of All Storms written by a climatologist - excellent bit of sci-fi.

To see this stuff happening now instead of some distant future is unsettling.

I expected to see cooling starting in England which it has - I had not really considered that of course the larger impact would come from the Siberian high whcih i beleive has produced the coldest temperatures ever recorded outside the Antartic.

Verkhoyansk, Siberia -69.8 C (-93.6 F) on the 7th February, 1892

The flip side of the Siberian factor.....is tipping point issues



> Melting Siberia threat to climate
> Lots of methane in them thar bogs
> By Lucy Sherriff
> Published Thursday 11th August 2005 10:13 GMT
> ...


Maybe the slowing heat pump will keep this ruanaway in check. WE'RE the factor that hasn't been present before. Cue dice rolling.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Arctic chill shatters European records
> By WILLIAM J. KOLE
> Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Posted at 3:21 PM EST
> Associated Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060124.wcold0124/BNStory/International/


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

There is an interconectedness with all things.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I've heard in some areas robins are overwintering instead of migrating.


MacDoc, birds migrate based on the number of hours of daylight/darkness not weather.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice try but no cigar.



> We examined a 63-year data set of dates of first spring sightings for 96 species of migrant birds at Delta Marsh, Manitoba, and considered the influence of local climate change on those arrival dates. Mean monthly spring temperatures increased (0.6–3.8°C) for all four months considered; however, trends for February and March were stronger than those for April and May. Over the 63-year period, 27 species significantly altered their arrival dates. Most of those species arrived significantly earlier; whereas only two species, Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) and Lesser Yellowlegs (T. flavipes), arrived significantly later over time.* About half of the migrants showed significant relationships between arrival dates and mean temperature for their month of arrival. Fifteen species showed significantly earlier arrivals over time and a significant relationship between arrival date and temperature*


http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-document&issn=0004-8038&volume=122&issue=04&page=1130


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Gee, for a minute there I read the subject and thought that you were saying that Russia had caused earthquakes. Momentary return to the 70s paranoia there. Sorry about that .

There is, indeed, a connectedness to all things. And we are ****ing the system up rather large. What should scare us more, is that by many estimates we are seeing now the damage caused by what we put into the environment 50 years ago. Meaning that even if we suddenly stopped polluting today, it would continue to get worse for another 50 years or so. Will be a fun next couple of decades. Hope the people of Europe have good parkas.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's exactly the problem that even if we went to zero it will still continue 
It's one reason sequestering carbon looks to be absolutely needed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

When I saw the title to this post, I thought MacDoc had gone off the rocker again.

I figured he was going to post the conspiracy theory about Russian weather weapons. Some people were saying the recent Hurricanes were caused by weather weapons. :lmao: :lmao: 

The scary part is that global warming is more scary than weather weapons and it isn't a conspiracy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gee, the next thing you fear mongers will be telling me is that smoking is bad for your health...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Piss off Vandave, YOUR creds in tatters enough lately....I DON'T post "conspiracy stuff" so take your innuendos and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Your attempt at humour is puerile at best. With my apologies to intelligent six year olds.

••••

The US knows only too well the Arctic ocean is going to be ice free in a very short time frame - hence the issue. We'll need the same kind of agreement we have with the Great Lakes.

Good reason to be on good terms with other Arctic players.
The crazy thing is that the tipping points are unknown and under certain "fast melt" scenarios the warming can trigger an ice age.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Piss off Vandave, YOUR creds in tatters enough lately....I DON'T post "conspiracy stuff" so take your innuendos and shove it where the sun don't shine.
> 
> Your attempt at humour is puerile at best. With my apologies to intelligent six year olds.


Grouchy grouchy...

Still mad about monday night? :baby: :baby: 

Macspectrum said the same thing about my cred, but he won't step up to the plate and give me examples of why he thinks this. Nor do I think you will provide examples either. You still haven't answer my question about the Neocon label.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VanDave, if you're actually worried about your 'cred' (not just having a little fun  ), you'd be better served asking ehmacers who have more than yourself about it. :lmao:


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave, many of your posts I enjoy reading, but the prevalence of the soother sucking since the election has made you look like a gloating child. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would knock it off. Put it this way - I was seriously considering not visiting the forum for a few days, because I was dreading what the wingnutts posts would be like. But in his absence, you have filled that role.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More dots........ deep sloshy ones.......wanna calculate how high above sea level Manhattan is.......



> January 30, 2006
> Blair: Global Warming Is Advancing
> 
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-Climate-Change.html?pagewanted=print

It's about bloody time the serious wake up calls start happening


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good info on the BBC site and worthwhile to explore in detail - the mechanisms are visually well explained 
This one is down right scary 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Given the clear lack of any real resolution on the part of the major polluters and energy producers of the world, what are we to do? Cede the planet to a more watery future and move up the hill or realize that this is important and will hurt?
If the sea level rises by a few metres, there will be enormous knock-on effects on tides, loss of fresh water, loss of habitats etc. It's like New Orleans but on a global scale. At what point will be the economic cost be so great that action is finally taken (and way too late)?

For an excellent treatise on this and other critical topics facing society, take a read through Lord May's outgoing anniversary presidential address to the Royal Society (UK). It's one of the most erudite and effective pleas for sanity and action.

PDF is here
Podcast is here


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Cede the planet to a more watery future and move up the hill or realize that this is important and will hurt?


Both ?!

It's not a stoppable phenomena - it took since the dawn of the industrial age to build of a head of steam so to speak and will not be turned around in anything less than a similar time span.

It's really only how rapid the change is.


> February's weather: More of the same
> Record January weather just an Arctic cold air vortex
> Jan. 31, 2006. 10:12 AM
> PETER GORRIE
> ...


Poppy cock we aren't experiencing it yet and this kind of nonsense is not helping.

There are already permanent affects and the rate of change is accelerating as glaciers melt and the darker ground absorbs warmth. Hell some places in Europe are wrapping their glaciers in insulation 

I think scientists will be able to look back and see changes like the demise of the cod as having a water temperature factor and also other changes in the ocean ecosystems - many strata of ocean biodiversity off England have moved hundreds of miles north in the past 30 years and that clearly will have an impact on fishing stocks but those changes may have been obscured by the over fishing.

That shift along the California coast was very worrying as the degree of damage done to the food chain and they don't KNOW it's permanent but are very concerned that it could be.



> Sea life in peril -- plankton vanishing
> Usual seasonal influx of cold water isn't happening
> Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer
> Tuesday, July 12, 2005
> ...


 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/12/MNG8SDMMR01.DTL

Over fishing? Climate change? Natural cycle? .....why am I most suspecting Door #2.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An honest Brit scientist 



> Earth is too crowded for Utopia
> 
> 
> VIEWPOINT
> ...


 http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4584572.stm

There are times that "eat, drink, and be merry......" seems the only "sane" method of coping....maybe Waterworld WILL be prescient.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

An interesting thing I heard about world population was that there are about as many people alive today as there are dead humans in all of history!


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

A remedy for the 'over-population' problem is well under way. See Avian Flu.

There is only one solution to the problem of global climate issues and problems. The complete and total removal of *us*. Every single person on this forum is an indirect contributor to the problem.  Do you think your computer grew on a vine somewhere? Do you drive to work? Take a bus? It doesn't really matter, both forms of transportion pollute. Ride a bike? Who cares, they're made of metal and rubber you're not off the hook there. 

I'm not on a high horse here, I'm one of the 'bad' humans as well. I'm just saying that all the talks and summits won't make any difference what so ever, we have dug a hole so deep there is no technological solution. Wind power isn't the solution. People generally don't want to hear the truth in it's blunt no BS form. We broke it and we will never fix it.

The problem, as I see it, is rooted in the fact that we humans have this misguided notion that we are somehow superior to all other living things on the planet. I am still searching for one single shred of evidence of this superiority. Nothing yet.

Okay.....I have to take the truck in for an oil change, where are my smokes? :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An honest Brit and an honest Geek........end of times


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

W3 callz '3m likz w3 s33z '3m :heybaby:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:011001110110111101101111011001000010000001101111011011100010000001111001011000010010000001101101011000010111010001100101


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One thing I'd like to see...and I've been saying this for a dog's age around here...is a REAL global plan to reduce polloution. One that would require EVERY country to adhere to basic standards. Or the rest won't trade with them. Simple as that.

Kyoto is just a silly dead end. It makes a few people in countries like Canada imagine that "something is being done". Meanwhile half the countries on this planet can blast out whatever crap they want to because they aren't a part of Kyoto. Or are simply "studying it".

I have no idea if adopting clear polloution guidelines that all countries would have to adhere to would actually have any kind of an effect on the (sometimes very rapid) heating and cooling cycles that this planet has been experiencing since the dawn of time. Likely not. 

But we must have some sort of consensus amongst ALL countries about what is acceptable and what is not. We need rules and we need to stick to them. ALL of us. We all live here, and we can't let it turn into a grabage heap.

That's just common sense.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It will be extremely difficult. Any long-term solution needs a per capita basis (with possible adjustments for temperature, industry and population density), but that means accepting that most developing nations can pretty much do anything they want for a bit, while developed nations must start reducing emissions. Any agreement will be highly flawed (politics is not built to handle this), but we should go with what we can (directionally right, if inadequate and not fair in the long-term) and work to slowly develop the 'right' solution. 

Mitigation does not need to be immediate, but we need to start compounding success as soon as possible. Adaptation, which is a local thing, may have more immediate needs but, thankfully, doesn't require international cooperation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> Published: February 8, 2006
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?incamp=article_popular

Remarkable ............reality sinks in despite best denial efforts........of some.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You know, MacNutt has it right. Limit pollution because it's POLLUTION...not because it ties into unproven global warming theories. While you folks do a great job copying (copyrighted) AP wire stories about climate, the notion that humans have changed the climate has not been well supported here. 

And any of you folks who believe that humans have caused global warming had better not have procreated...never mind riding bicycles or eating farmed salmon. "Ye have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Okay - 

*a) are you denying climate change is occurring??

b) if you don't deny climate change - what IS the cause?

c) if you DON'T deny it is occurring - what is your plan for dealing with it.???*

If you deny it is occurring at all - I have some fellow travellers for you

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe the world's climate changes in ways we don't understand, and in ways that are not consistent--sometimes in ways we do not like. Asking me what I'm going to do about it is--for me--like asking someone what they're going to do about a volcanic eruption or the sun coming up. Pollution controls are important, but not because people have severely altered the climate. 

We are awfully bad at predicting tomorrow's weather, worse at predicting next week's, next month's, next year's. We can't even agree on what the climate was like a thousand years ago, 10,000 years ago or a million years ago. When we do agree, we can't agree on why the climate was the way we think it was. 

Now we're supposed to believe that this inability to predict, combined with an inability to agree on the climate of the past--somehow results in accurate computer modeling of our near-future climate? I respectfully decline to accept these predictions on the grounds that most weather predictions are woefully inaccurate.

But I do support your right to curtail the excesses of your own lifestyles.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well that's a fine speech except it does not address your denial of clear scientific findings of the alterations in climate the planet is undergoing now.

Lets just take the Gulf Stream alone......you are content with a shrug.
"....things happen - the world is mysterious" and leave it at that????

You made a blanket statement about "unproven" but offer no basis for that statement.......hardly a way to be convincing.

Are you denying the rise in CO loading??

Are you denying the physics involved.??

The NASA measurements of the rise in temperature globally??

The increased melting observed in all glacial areas most notably the poles??

The drop in the Gulf Stream volume??

All these are OBSERVABLE physical phenomena that have been measured.

Do you have an alternative explanation?........or are "mysterious causes" sufficient??

By all means BELIEVE the earth dragons are restless.........just don't confuse that with science.

BTW weather forecasting is NOT climatology. Different time scales for starters.

Science cannot accurately predict earthquakes or tornadoes or where lightning will strike but the underlying physics ARE understood. 

NOT Thor's hammer......IS understood.

Of course better understanding of the phenomena comes with hard work and ongoing funding, not denial of the situation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never deny real data--I do question grand theories lacking in convincing proof. I don't deny physics--I do question leaps of faith that attempt to use sketchy physics to establish grand theories. Please do not confuse your faith with science. Please do not ask me to adhere to the tenets of your faith.

Again, I don't deny a "situation"--I deny the conclusions being drawn here. I am not ascribing weather patterns to dragons. I'm merely suggesting that there's no reason to ascribe climate change to human activity, merely because we don't fully understand our climate.

And no, climatology isn't weather forecasting. As I said, we are equally bad at predicting climate as we are at predicting weather--two sciences in which we fail miserably. Though climate is, in effect, an accumulation of all weather.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury, if you insist on 100% certainty, there is damn little that we actually know. It is that same way of thinking that leads to the rejection of evolution, for example. It's not 100% certain, after all. Just mostly.

This cartoon nicely sums up another aspect of the problem. The title says it all: "All in the name of convenience".

In another thread somewhere, Beej issues a challenge, to which there was a deafening non-response. Now it may well have been missed, I suppose, but there were lots of posts after that. He said, roughly, until we are willing to say "Please establish and enforce environmental standards, even if it costs me more", we will never get anywhere. There is a second part to that, of course. So, let's try this again. Who is willing to say: "Please establish and enforce strict environmental standards, even if it costs me more and means changes to my lifestyle!"?
If, on an anonymous internet forum we can't even find people to make that declaration, we might as well resign ourselves.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for the reminder RevMatt. For the record, please establish and enforce strict environmental standards, even if it costs me more and means changes to my lifestyle. 

In another forum, I've described a way to do this (at least the heavy lifting) while simultaneously boosting our economy. If you want a stronger economy: tax shift. Cleaner enviornment: tax shift. Lower income taxes: tax shift. Cheap energy: sorry, we're all sold out.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Thanks for the reminder RevMatt. For the record, please establish and enforce strict environmental standards, even if it costs me more and means changes to my lifestyle.


OK, we've got as many votes as last time now 



Beej said:


> In another forum,


There are other fora? And who said you were allowed to share wisdom with them that you don't share here? You want to win the election, or not? 



Beej said:


> I've described a way to do this (at least the heavy lifting) while simultaneously boosting our economy. If you want a stronger economy: tax shift. Cleaner enviornment: tax shift. Lower income taxes: tax shift. Cheap energy: sorry, we're all sold out.


I would love to hear the fuller version of that. But there has to be a way to ensure that those with clever accountants don't find ways around it. Which means the pols have to not create those loopholes. Still, lets hear your idea in more detail, and we'll worry about finding honest politicians to enact it later .

edit - fixed my broken code.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The fancy loopholes are actually more of a relic of the current tax system. With consumption taxes, short of outright fraud, the best way to avoid them is to consume less. So, for example, you'd have a gasoline tax, power tax, natural gas tax, coal tax, etc. All operating like sales taxes as close to point of consumption (burning) as possible. Sales taxes are very successful in raising reliable revenues; avoidance and under-the-table stuff, while it exists, doesn't seem dominant.

The complexity comes if companies want to locate production in countries without the taxes, and export into Canada. Sort of like the Nevada-Utah border. So, for energy intense products (e.g. fertilizer) you put the tax at the retail end AND the energy used by the producer. You then reimburse the producer for the tax that is collected at the retail end in Canada (no double taxing), but they still have to pay the enviro tax for what they want to export. This will make them less competitive than their peers in other country's markets so there'd be some balance between local votes and national environmental policy. Canada can't force the world to change, but we can push it a little. 

Then, if our major markets follow our lead, the tax structure simplifies by moving all the taxes closer to the point of emissions. If not, we'd be moderately competitive for high-energy use industries, and super-competitive for low-energy use industries (the tax shift drops corporate and personal income taxes quite significantly).

Clear as mud?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heh--MacFury doesn't insist on 100% certainty. Even 25% would have me thinking--but you haven't gotten there. 

>>"Please establish and enforce strict environmental standards, even if it costs >> me more and means changes to my lifestyle!"? 

I'd go for stricte-er, if it cost me a tiny little bit more.

Beej's tax ideas are at least thoughtful. 

I would prefer to take the outrageous taxes off energy (like gasoline) use up most our non-renewable resources extremely quickly, then let the market raise the price of energy to obscenity. That's the kick in the ass that will initiate a market-driven search for alternative energy sources.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Climate 'warmest for millennium'
> By Paul Rincon
> BBC News science reporter
> 
> ...


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4698652.stm

Well we have 100% certainty it's the warmest it's been in 1000 years at least.



> n November, Science published a paper showing atmospheric levels of *the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.*


'Course there are those that won't accept the measurements....

From the results of the Livermore study and the undercurrent in the science and earth studies community reversing the greenhouse situation looks pretty unlikely....sequestering perhaps but damn the scale is so huge.

Ideas like seeding the Southern Ocean with iron to promote plankton blooms ( it works big time ) to pull carbon out risk making things worse tho at this point......we've messed our nest quite thoroughly. 

Still looks pretty..








....for now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That thousand years is a drop in Earth's bucket. 

Interesting, though that we have more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than any time in 650,000 years but temperatures during the same period have been much hotter than they are today. That would suggest a non-relationship betwen the two.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> 650,000 years but *temperatures during the same period have been much hotter than they are today*


?????? based on????

There have been other warm periods due to solar and volcanic activity - this is not one of those and where is your backup for hotter during that period?

1,000 years "Drop in the bucket" is correct and that is the problem - a significant climate change in that short period of time does not allow ecosystems to adjust - including us. Tropical reefs that were millennia old got hammered in just one year 1997. Lower Manhattan is just a few feet above sea level.
The Brits spent a billion dollars on the Thames barrier.







and many feel it will be inadequate long before 2030..

This represents an excellent if very long tour through the science of climate change as consensus grew.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

It explores both sides of the question and is very representative of the scientific method at work globally.

*"editor of Science magazine announced in 2001, a "consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in the history of science."(106*)*
Of course with additional NASA measurements and 5 years later the science is tht much stronger - the Gulf Stream data and much much more. 



> For overall global warming, however, the ocean-atmosphere GCMs at various centers were converging on similar predictions. The decades of work by teams of specialists, backed up by immense improvements in computers and data, had gradually built up confidence. It was largely thanks to their work that, as the editor of Science magazine announced in 2001, _a "consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in the history of science."(106*)_ Nearly every expert now agreed that the old predictions were solid — raising the CO2 level was all but certain to warm the globe. Doubling the level would most likely raise the average temperature around 3°C, give or take a degree or two. The consequences of such a warming were also predictable. Sea levels would certainly rise. And the weather would certainly change, probably toward an intensified cycle of storms, floods, and droughts.(107) The greatest uncertainty now was no longer in how to calculate the effects of the greenhouse gases and aerosols that humanity poured into the atmosphere. The greatest unknown for the coming century was how much of this pollution we would decide to emit.


The scary part is we may have been in a long trend cooling and some of the effects were being masked by pollution particulate reflecting sunlight.
As the air get cleaner that masking has disappeared - notably in the 90s and then continuing.



> [As of this writing, the warmest year on record since 1861 was still 1998. The next four warmest in descending order were 2005 (tied with 1998), 2002, 2003, 2001 and 2004.]


There ARE other factors in warming and cooling long trends but none with such impact in such a short time and the danger is the compounding of factors leading to rapid change as with the north Atlantic current slowing.

That's a tipping point with dire consequences if it stops or even now with the 30% drop that already has occurred and most of that change in the 90s. The University of Calgary has an engineering study on to reverse the slowdown......for $800 billion dollars. 

No question climate change can be chaotic and rapid - and we're feeding the engine of chaos right now. Not likely much chance of reversing this in the near term but to deny the reality???? .......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh hell--If there isn't any chance of reversing it MacDoc, I'll just deny it all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Very Neroesque of you. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Please, bring a vial to capture my tears, so future generations will know that MacFury wept....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here ya go 









Never know might cure cancer too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not Catholic, MacDoc--what is that thing?


----------

