During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The research group, currently consisting of Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund, has retrieved cores of lake sediments and peat along a north-south transect of Atlantic islands and adjacent land areas: Greenland, Iceland, Faroes, Azores, Tristan da Cunha, Isla de los Estados, and the Antarctic Peninsula. Based on detailed analyses of geochemistry, mineral magnetism and pollen content, hitherto unknown details of Atlantic climate dynamics have been resolved. Extensive radiocarbon dating and rapid sedimentation rates in the terrestrial deposits allow a much higher temporal resolution of the data than provided by marine sediment cores.
Our records reflect details of the climatic evolution in the Atlantic region since the end of the last Ice Age to the present day. We would have liked to compare our results to similar data sets from other parts of the South Atlantic, but no other records provide the same degree of resolution, says Professor Björck. After the end of the last Glacial both Hemispheres became warmer as a result of melting ice sheets, but during the last 9000 years we can identify a persistent \”seesaw\” pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa.
This is most certainly related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system – \”the Great Ocean Conveyor\” – is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck, and continues:
The deep-water formation in the north is dependent on cooling of surface water with a high salt content. If sufficiently large amounts of fresh water are supplied to the North Atlantic, such as from melting ice-sheets or major increases in precipitation, the deep-water formation, and hence the transport of warm surface water from the south, may cease or at least decrease substantially.
This is known to have happened repeatedly during the present Interglacial (the warm period since the last Ice Age). Minor disturbances have taken place in recent time, such as the Great Salt Anomaly in the 1970s, which seriously affected the cod population around the Faroe Islands. Our results from Nightingale Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research.
In agreement with most other climate researchers, the Lund group is not concerned about a complete shut-down of the Gulf Stream as envisioned in the apocalyptic film \”The day after tomorrow\”. However, future warming induced by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions may influence the system.
We don’t know with certainty what will happen. Some attempts at measuring ocean currents suggest a recent weakening of the Gulf Stream, and the transport of heat to the North Atlantic region may well decrease in the future as a result of increased precipitation. Such a scenario might lead to less warming in Europe than predicted by the IPCC, but we will probably not face an arctic climate, summarizes Svante Björck.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Swedish Research Council.
With all due respect, American Idol and Dance with the stars probably get good ratings but I don\’t watch. When it comes to 24 hour news channels, I\’m watching for any dissenting opinion before I run off the Gorebal Warming cliff with other lemmings. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. For the sake of our economy, I\’m hoping the news is about 10% as bad as the Gorebal Warming Zombies (GWZ\’s) will have me believe.
\’Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.\’
I read the ratings and only found network ratings, not individual ratings. CNN is ranked second to Fox. I cannot understand why liberals seem to take it personally when someone questions this \’crisis du jour\’ Gorebal warming. Don\’t you hope the new data about Gorebal warming is incorrect?
I just watched Glen Beck and feel a lot better. Why? Because, in spite of Al Gore I am reassured that we still have opportunity for healthy debate about something so critical as our economy and lifestyle. If, key word if, we at some future date (probably after the next presidential election) we reach a consensus, I am sure it will be that there are things we can improve. Never mind that that conversation would have occurred without the artificial FEAR that makes the media, which now includes lefty hero Al Gore, a ton of money. I am a conservative, not a republican, a conservative. That means I have the patience to allow those who are paid to analyze circumstances, in this case climatologists and scientists, to study and then reveal the latest greatest truth.
Remember when scientists thought the world was flat? Well, probably not. But there were some who did. The ones who didnt were thrown under the bus. Kind of like those of us patient enough to wait before shutting down our lifestyle at the suggestion of Laura David (wife of comedian, not one I\’ll take advice from unless I am trying to nail a punchline).
No wonder the world hates us.
What organization corrects liberal misinformation in the US? Here’s one: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp. They reveal the interlocking nature of such Democrat Party fronts as “Media Matters.” As you will see if you follow this link, it gets funding from George Soros, Theresa Heinz, former Clintonistas and so on. It is to honest discourse what graffiti is to art. Oh, and one of their higher ups defends terrorist apologist Sami Al-Arian.
His ratings stink because he\’s on a liberal network that no one watches. And since Media Matters is liberal, it means that it lies. Liberalism is a lie and can only seem plausible to fools if it lies. Not all liberals are fools. The one\’s that know that liberalism is a lie and promote it anyway are evil.
That\’s not what I\’m saying, smart guy. If Alan Combs had his own show on Fox, more people would watch it than watch Glenn simply because more people watch Fox than all of the other cable channels combined. You know, because they\’re fair and balanced.
It\’s really quite simple. Nuclear Winter, of course.
Seriously, read Michael Crichton\’s book \”State of Fear\” if you want a more balanced perspective on this global warming hoax. Extremely detailed bibliography in back and the afterword is a chilling read. It ain\’t no Jurrasic Park.
The reason the debate is so shrill is that there is mucho dinero at stake that goes to researchers vested in studying this \”problem\” to find a \”solution,\” and if they don\’t perpetuate the myth of andropogenic planetary warming the dinero does bye-bye.
The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.
Beck\’s show stinks, which is why his ratings stink. Chilly, you are right that network viewship spills over show after show. But talent has a lot to do with it too…which of course, is why Olbermans time slot is a shining light for MSNBC, but not much else is either before him or after him.
Oh, BTW David is a movie producer…I don\’t know about you people, but my wife likes to be known by her own job title, not mine.
What do you balance truth with, error? Does arsenic provide balance to a glass of water? I don\’t care one way or another about Glenn Beck\’s program and rarely watch it, but if he is right he\’s right.
The point is that there were no coal fired power plants or SUV\’s emitting \”greenhouse gases\” when the last Ice Age ended. The earth warms and cools based on several factors including ocean currents, cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor content, and the effects of other planets on earth\’s orbit around that big burning thing in the sky, which is itself the major factor regarding earth\’s climate.
These are truths which some people may ignore or contradict till the cows come home, but it won\’t change anything.
The truth doesn\’t need balance, it needs acceptance. The problem is that falsehoods are crafted to perceptions, while the truth is just it\’s ol\’ clumsy self. Al Gore et al are using people\’s ignorance to fleece and control them. It\’s a shame that most corporations are so gutless as to let the stalinists run roughshod over them in this matter.
So in short, relax. Man has zero effect on the climate except that it\’s normally 2 degrees hotter in town than on the farm.
\’The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.\’ Why is that laughable? I daresay they have done more research than anyone making a post here. After watching Glenn Beck I rented \’An Inconvenient Theory\’. I watched it and came away with a somewhat different opinion of Al Gore. I appreciate what appears to be a longtime effort to bring attention to climate change. I was disappointed that he doesn\’t want discussion, and makes it clear. Nor does Laura David, wife of comedian Larry. They want to stifle debate, and with all thats at risk it smacks of censorship. Al mentions the Kyoto treaty. He doesnt mention that the US voted to not participate in 1998 when Al and Bill ran the show. The senate voted 98 to 0 to not join. I think that is relevant.
Good news. Despite the rhetoric, there will be very little change for a long time since nobody in the US will make any real changes until gas costs $6 a gallon, and we\’ll ease into what would have happened anyway. We should look to the environmentalists for all the answers – because of them we are dependent on foreign oil since they wouldnt allow nuclear power or domestic oil harvesting.
Hey Gill, I\’m all for robust debate on global warming. I have been pointing out for a couple of days Glenn Beck ain\’t a reputible source…he is a conservative shock jock that not many people watch. That\’s all…
Ya know Chilly often pipes in with lots of supposed facts and figures. I like that except I could do without his condencending \’tude. There are many people smarter than all of us who would think Chilly\’s convictions are pretty ignorant too.
I want to see the new IPCC report. I am curious to see how it compares/contrasts with \’an inconvenient theory\’, and how the \’Al Gore for president\’ crowd embraces/dismisses it. I wont be looking for compromise from them.
Gill, please let us know how it contrasts. Given that Inconvenient Theory was produced to refute Gore and the human impact on global warming generally, the outcome of your analysis is not really in doubt. But I\’m interested nonetheless.
Thanks.
PS…After 7 years, us Gore fans have pretty much let go of that dream, so you can quite supposing we haven\’t.
I don\’t doubt that we are experiencing climate change. Unlike half the country, I am willing to wait a few months or years to conclude how to move forward.
And unlike half the country, I am unwilling to shrilly cry \’the sky is falling\’. Good news – its not.
and I too can accept that possibility. I just think that like most other problems that need solutions, careful deliberation should rule the day. Especially since change will take place slowly. Americans are not ready to stop driving cars and eating food grown and shipped from all over the world. Lets hope the IPCC report due in a few days helps us to logical resolution. Not shrill hyperbole meant to divide us.
for another perspective. I know, half will, half will not. For breakdown of who will and who won\’t check party affiliation.
During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The research group, currently consisting of Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund, has retrieved cores of lake sediments and peat along a north-south transect of Atlantic islands and adjacent land areas: Greenland, Iceland, Faroes, Azores, Tristan da Cunha, Isla de los Estados, and the Antarctic Peninsula. Based on detailed analyses of geochemistry, mineral magnetism and pollen content, hitherto unknown details of Atlantic climate dynamics have been resolved. Extensive radiocarbon dating and rapid sedimentation rates in the terrestrial deposits allow a much higher temporal resolution of the data than provided by marine sediment cores.
Our records reflect details of the climatic evolution in the Atlantic region since the end of the last Ice Age to the present day. We would have liked to compare our results to similar data sets from other parts of the South Atlantic, but no other records provide the same degree of resolution, says Professor Björck. After the end of the last Glacial both Hemispheres became warmer as a result of melting ice sheets, but during the last 9000 years we can identify a persistent \”seesaw\” pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa.
This is most certainly related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system – \”the Great Ocean Conveyor\” – is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck, and continues:
The deep-water formation in the north is dependent on cooling of surface water with a high salt content. If sufficiently large amounts of fresh water are supplied to the North Atlantic, such as from melting ice-sheets or major increases in precipitation, the deep-water formation, and hence the transport of warm surface water from the south, may cease or at least decrease substantially.
This is known to have happened repeatedly during the present Interglacial (the warm period since the last Ice Age). Minor disturbances have taken place in recent time, such as the Great Salt Anomaly in the 1970s, which seriously affected the cod population around the Faroe Islands. Our results from Nightingale Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research.
In agreement with most other climate researchers, the Lund group is not concerned about a complete shut-down of the Gulf Stream as envisioned in the apocalyptic film \”The day after tomorrow\”. However, future warming induced by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions may influence the system.
We don’t know with certainty what will happen. Some attempts at measuring ocean currents suggest a recent weakening of the Gulf Stream, and the transport of heat to the North Atlantic region may well decrease in the future as a result of increased precipitation. Such a scenario might lead to less warming in Europe than predicted by the IPCC, but we will probably not face an arctic climate, summarizes Svante Björck.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Swedish Research Council.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070428170229.htm
Glenn Beck has terrible ratings for a reason, and it\’s not because Democrats don\’t watch…but hey, don\’t take my word for it, here are the facts…
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
His different perspective, at least today, was to compare Gore & Hitler. How orginal and thought provoking…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705010003
With all due respect, American Idol and Dance with the stars probably get good ratings but I don\’t watch. When it comes to 24 hour news channels, I\’m watching for any dissenting opinion before I run off the Gorebal Warming cliff with other lemmings. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. For the sake of our economy, I\’m hoping the news is about 10% as bad as the Gorebal Warming Zombies (GWZ\’s) will have me believe.
\’Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.\’
I read the ratings and only found network ratings, not individual ratings. CNN is ranked second to Fox. I cannot understand why liberals seem to take it personally when someone questions this \’crisis du jour\’ Gorebal warming. Don\’t you hope the new data about Gorebal warming is incorrect?
I just watched Glen Beck and feel a lot better. Why? Because, in spite of Al Gore I am reassured that we still have opportunity for healthy debate about something so critical as our economy and lifestyle. If, key word if, we at some future date (probably after the next presidential election) we reach a consensus, I am sure it will be that there are things we can improve. Never mind that that conversation would have occurred without the artificial FEAR that makes the media, which now includes lefty hero Al Gore, a ton of money. I am a conservative, not a republican, a conservative. That means I have the patience to allow those who are paid to analyze circumstances, in this case climatologists and scientists, to study and then reveal the latest greatest truth.
Remember when scientists thought the world was flat? Well, probably not. But there were some who did. The ones who didnt were thrown under the bus. Kind of like those of us patient enough to wait before shutting down our lifestyle at the suggestion of Laura David (wife of comedian, not one I\’ll take advice from unless I am trying to nail a punchline).
No wonder the world hates us.
What organization corrects liberal misinformation in the US? Here’s one: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp. They reveal the interlocking nature of such Democrat Party fronts as “Media Matters.” As you will see if you follow this link, it gets funding from George Soros, Theresa Heinz, former Clintonistas and so on. It is to honest discourse what graffiti is to art. Oh, and one of their higher ups defends terrorist apologist Sami Al-Arian.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
Well, at least you didn\’t accuse Media Matters of lying…Beck did compare Gore to Hitler.
Which of course is another reason why his ratings stink.
His ratings stink because he\’s on a liberal network that no one watches. And since Media Matters is liberal, it means that it lies. Liberalism is a lie and can only seem plausible to fools if it lies. Not all liberals are fools. The one\’s that know that liberalism is a lie and promote it anyway are evil.
Well Chilly, I suppose that\’s one way to look at it.
Glenn Beck – A puppet of liberals. Your a very funny person Chilly, but in an endearing kind of way.
That\’s not what I\’m saying, smart guy. If Alan Combs had his own show on Fox, more people would watch it than watch Glenn simply because more people watch Fox than all of the other cable channels combined. You know, because they\’re fair and balanced.
Is Air America still in the toilet?
It\’s really quite simple. Nuclear Winter, of course.
Seriously, read Michael Crichton\’s book \”State of Fear\” if you want a more balanced perspective on this global warming hoax. Extremely detailed bibliography in back and the afterword is a chilling read. It ain\’t no Jurrasic Park.
Also, here\’s an interesting link from his website – http://www.crichton-official.com/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf
Why\’s the world hate us? Who\’re \”us\”?
The reason the debate is so shrill is that there is mucho dinero at stake that goes to researchers vested in studying this \”problem\” to find a \”solution,\” and if they don\’t perpetuate the myth of andropogenic planetary warming the dinero does bye-bye.
The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.
Beck\’s show stinks, which is why his ratings stink. Chilly, you are right that network viewship spills over show after show. But talent has a lot to do with it too…which of course, is why Olbermans time slot is a shining light for MSNBC, but not much else is either before him or after him.
Oh, BTW David is a movie producer…I don\’t know about you people, but my wife likes to be known by her own job title, not mine.
What do you balance truth with, error? Does arsenic provide balance to a glass of water? I don\’t care one way or another about Glenn Beck\’s program and rarely watch it, but if he is right he\’s right.
The point is that there were no coal fired power plants or SUV\’s emitting \”greenhouse gases\” when the last Ice Age ended. The earth warms and cools based on several factors including ocean currents, cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor content, and the effects of other planets on earth\’s orbit around that big burning thing in the sky, which is itself the major factor regarding earth\’s climate.
These are truths which some people may ignore or contradict till the cows come home, but it won\’t change anything.
The truth doesn\’t need balance, it needs acceptance. The problem is that falsehoods are crafted to perceptions, while the truth is just it\’s ol\’ clumsy self. Al Gore et al are using people\’s ignorance to fleece and control them. It\’s a shame that most corporations are so gutless as to let the stalinists run roughshod over them in this matter.
So in short, relax. Man has zero effect on the climate except that it\’s normally 2 degrees hotter in town than on the farm.
\’The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.\’ Why is that laughable? I daresay they have done more research than anyone making a post here. After watching Glenn Beck I rented \’An Inconvenient Theory\’. I watched it and came away with a somewhat different opinion of Al Gore. I appreciate what appears to be a longtime effort to bring attention to climate change. I was disappointed that he doesn\’t want discussion, and makes it clear. Nor does Laura David, wife of comedian Larry. They want to stifle debate, and with all thats at risk it smacks of censorship. Al mentions the Kyoto treaty. He doesnt mention that the US voted to not participate in 1998 when Al and Bill ran the show. The senate voted 98 to 0 to not join. I think that is relevant.
Good news. Despite the rhetoric, there will be very little change for a long time since nobody in the US will make any real changes until gas costs $6 a gallon, and we\’ll ease into what would have happened anyway. We should look to the environmentalists for all the answers – because of them we are dependent on foreign oil since they wouldnt allow nuclear power or domestic oil harvesting.
Hey Gill, I\’m all for robust debate on global warming. I have been pointing out for a couple of days Glenn Beck ain\’t a reputible source…he is a conservative shock jock that not many people watch. That\’s all…
Ya know Chilly often pipes in with lots of supposed facts and figures. I like that except I could do without his condencending \’tude. There are many people smarter than all of us who would think Chilly\’s convictions are pretty ignorant too.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html
I want to see the new IPCC report. I am curious to see how it compares/contrasts with \’an inconvenient theory\’, and how the \’Al Gore for president\’ crowd embraces/dismisses it. I wont be looking for compromise from them.
Gill, please let us know how it contrasts. Given that Inconvenient Theory was produced to refute Gore and the human impact on global warming generally, the outcome of your analysis is not really in doubt. But I\’m interested nonetheless.
Thanks.
PS…After 7 years, us Gore fans have pretty much let go of that dream, so you can quite supposing we haven\’t.
I don\’t doubt that we are experiencing climate change. Unlike half the country, I am willing to wait a few months or years to conclude how to move forward.
And unlike half the country, I am unwilling to shrilly cry \’the sky is falling\’. Good news – its not.
Gill, I hear you. But it\’s quite a bit more than half the country that your not joining with.
Here is a great analysis and link to one of the most recent opinion polls for your consumption.
Enjoy.
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/05/polling_global_warming.php
and I too can accept that possibility. I just think that like most other problems that need solutions, careful deliberation should rule the day. Especially since change will take place slowly. Americans are not ready to stop driving cars and eating food grown and shipped from all over the world. Lets hope the IPCC report due in a few days helps us to logical resolution. Not shrill hyperbole meant to divide us.