Gulf Stream weakened in 'Little Ice Age'
Freezing medieval weather linked to diminished ocean current.
The Gulf Stream — the ocean current that helps to bring warm weather to much of the North Atlantic region — was significantly weakened during the period known to historians as the Little Ice Age, new research reveals.
Read more here
Comments
When and where do we reach the "flip-over" point, when the current total focus on the undeniable need to reduce CO2 and other emissions by actions both individual, national and regional, shifts over into the realisation that it is probably far too late to affect the process in any meaningful way, and that at least half of our efforts must now be turned to the problem of how we structure a strategy of ADJUSTMENT TO RADICAL NEW CONDITIONS, with all that that means in terms both of individual and collective psychology, as well as economic and social re-structuring, and especially, local, national and international politics, without which no real survival policy is possible?
For example, it can well be asked (if the possibility of a cooling of Northern Europe within a matter of decades cannot any longer be dismissed as a doomsday fantasy, on which we must surely be all agreed), why is it that the research efforts of the unit concerned with future climate conditions in Scandinavia within SMHI (the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institution) is at present only working with one scenario: warmer and wetter? This omission - the blank refusal to study alternative scenarios, including colder and drier - is not only unscientific; it suggests that the psychological factors steering choice of research area in such institutions is something that needs closer scrutiny. Or is it a question of political pressure from those who fear a general panic? The community is not well served by such self-censorship. It would be instructive were SMHI to receive queries from many different international experts on this matter.
Posted by: Peter Tucker | December 1, 2006 11:37 PM
Readers will likely find the following web site informative for a detailed understanding of CO2 's relative unimportance, and the role of British pro nuclear politics:
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm Global Warming: How it all Began.
For general global warming information from a scientific standpoint please see http://www.nexialinstitute.com/global_flooding.htm ( containing the webs first world maps showing flooding results if ALL the ice and permafrost were to melt.)
Happy reading!
Larry Stiers
Director
The Nexial Institute of Texas ( Europe )
Posted by: Larry Stiers | December 2, 2006 04:40 PM
Oceans and Global Warming
Number of science reviews in this field have linked solar activity to the climate change. Rise in global temperature is always accompanied by the rise in CO2 concentration. Human contribution may be significant but it is not critical. By far the greatest amount of CO2 is released by the world’s oceans; they are also the largest absorbers. The release of CO2 is not, but its absorption is affected by the Sun. The culprits are UV and gamma radiations reaching the oceans’ surface during periods of high sunspot activity.
Some 2 years ago I wrote:
Increased solar activity results in an increase of the harmful radiation, reducing bio-mass of the oceans’ surface plankton trough process of sterilisation by irradiation. Result of this is reduced uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere and rising in the ‘green-house’ effect. Reverse process takes place during reductions in the solar activity.
Posted by: m. vukcevic | December 4, 2006 06:15 PM
It looks like core samples show no correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
Here's a link with an interesting graphic showing CO2 levels and global temperature.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Why do the global alarmists not look at all the evidence. I guess if the world looks flat and everybody agrees then, why notice facts that dispute your belief?
Posted by: Jeff Honeyager | February 8, 2007 02:40 PM