Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (23514)	7/10/2006 12:05:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541425

So, in conclusion, contrary to your assertions, this piece strikes me as more substantiation for Gore's argument. I find it interesting that you would perceive that piece as an attack on Gore. Other than Alastair's segue, I found nothing at all in there that had anything to do with Gore other than that Gore along with the rest of the world believes something that might not be so.

To: JohnM who wrote (23514)	7/10/2006 11:07:58 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541425

Im not sure what you are referring to as "Gore's argument". Is it the overall argument that we have 10 years to do something about global warming or we are doomed? Or is it the specific argument that GW could cause a new ice age in Europe? These of course aren't "Gore's arguments" but the speculations of the more alarmist GW promoters as packaged and distributed by Gore. So, in conclusion, contrary to your assertions, this piece strikes me as more substantiation for Gore's argument. In any case, I haven't made any assertion about the effect of GW on European temperatures. What I did was refer to and partially copy an article that does have some views on the subject. I think that it is an oversimplification to talk about a consensus on what you describe as "the Gulf Stream argument" and I don't believe Seager says there is one. There is a general agreement (consensus?) that GW will slow the thermohaline circulation of the Gulf Stream. The author (Seager) of the American Scientist article agrees. What seems to be forgotten is that ocean currents result from winds and the Gulf Stream will continue to flow as long as the earth turns and the winds blow. The THC contributes only about 20% of the flow. There is a consensus on this among atmospheric scientists. In addition, Seager points out that researchers have previously shown that large-scale atmospheric waves are responsible for the most of the moderate European temperatures, not the Gulf Stream. For example, see: ucar.edu Based on a reanalysis of data gathered between February 1985 and April 1989, the study shows that the atmosphere handles 78% of the total heat transport in the Northern Hemisphere and 92% in the Southern Hemisphere at 35 degrees latitude -- where the total poleward transport in each hemisphere peaks. The ocean carries more heat than the atmosphere only in the tropics between 0 and 17 degrees north, according to the study... In the late 1970s the ocean and atmosphere were thought to be conveying about the same amount of heat globally. Scientists estimated that the atmosphere was hauling 57% of the heat load, with oceans bearing a hefty 43% at the 35-degree latitude. As analyses have improved, estimates have steadily increased the magnitude of poleward heat transport occurring in the atmospheres of both hemispheres. The atmosphere's role may have been slighted in the past because of a lack of data over the oceans, where substantial atmospheric heat transport occurs. Satellites have helped fill that gap. Trenberth and Caron focused on the 1985-1989 period because it offers reliable top- of-the-atmosphere radiation data from satellite measurements taken during the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. To summarize, THC contributes only 20% to the Gulf Stream current. The Gulf Stream is responsible for perhaps 20% of the heat transport from equatorial regions to Europe so the THC component is quite small. In addition, the probability of a THC shutdown is remote. I'm certainly no physical scientist, but it seems to me much of what is published on the effects of a slowdown in thermohaline circulation on European climate ignore the atmosphere and assume a much greater role for oceanic heat transport and for the THC contribution to heat transport than is actually the case. Your suggestion that there is a consensus on the effect that a shutdown of the THC would have on the climate of Europe, appears to be incorrect. A bit of googling will turn up different views by scientists. Very few take the position of Gore that GW could cause another ice age in Europe. I won't provide references now as it is late and I am tired. In my view, the article in no way substantiates any of Gore's arguments.