Harry, Here is where I like Native American and Greek concepts of balance and homestasis where slight changes can grossly upset what goes on in a large world.
People on the west coast of the US have seen large ice burgs floating their way recently and the glaciers are disappearing very quickly. Bill On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:41:59 -0800 Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian, > > The IPCC predicts in ranges. So, they might (say) give a range of > ocean > rising of from 10 centimeters to 10 meters. The anti-GW use the 10 > centimeters. The pro-GW use the 10 meters. > > Two IPCC leaders have been trying to get them to place "confidence > levels" > on their predictions, so the 10 centimeters might be given a 10% > confidence > level, whereas the 10 meters might be given a 95% confidence level > (virtual > certainty). > > The IPCC hasn't warmed to this at all. > > Thus, "the increased flow under the most extreme global warming > case" > might be given a confidence level of 5% - very unlikely. But, then > it would > not have the desired impact - which, perhaps is why the IPCC are > cool to > confidence levels. > > Peterson "emphasized that these potential impacts are still > speculative" (a > low confidence level) but once the caveat is stated, they can talk > as if > the cause and effects are pretty much certain. > > That's the way to grab the headlines. > > Yet, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. > > Our contribution of CO2 (a major plant food) to the atmosphere is > about 5.5 > Gigatonnes. Perhaps 3 Gt is the result of all our fossil fuel > burning. > Reducing that by a global 5% (Kyoto) would make our contribution of > CO2 to > the atmosphere 2.85 Gt. > > You can contrast this with the actual 750 Gt of CO2 in the > atmosphere. > Also, the annual transfer between atmosphere and the surface ocean > is 75 Gt > a year. (All this from memory which I hope is working well.) > > Carbon Dioxide in the detritus - the land muck - and the deeper > ocean is up > in the thousands of Gt. Transfers take place here as well. > > As I am skeptical about these things, I think it started with: "Cars > and > trucks are bad." Went on to: "Burning non-renewal resources are > bad." And, > inevitably: "This produces CO2, which is bad for it can cause > warming." > > In other words the objective was chosen. From thereon, evidence that > proved > the objective was accepted - evidence that showed doubt was > discarded. > > It seems to me that the link between increasing surface temperatures > and > our production of CO2 is very tenuous. I would think the enormous > ocean > sink would easily handle such small changes in CO2 as are produced > by Man. > > When I left Ontario in 1962, there were 80 out-of-control > conflagrations in > the Ontario forests. I'm not sure whether conflagration is a > description, > or a Forestry technical term. > > In any event - surely a lot of CO2 going into the atmosphere. > Haven't a > clue how it would compare with the rush hour in Toronto! > > So, while we may be warming on the surface (the troposphere isn't > warming - > don't think the stratosphere is either) connection of warmth with > our > activities seems somewhat slight. > > But then, we KNOW there is anthropocentric global warming, don't we? > > Harry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > Brian wrote: > > >Guess what Bill!!: > > > > > > > > > > Dec. 16, 2002. 06:50 AM > > > > Warning on Arctic mars Kyoto pact signing > > > > PETER CALAMAI > > SCIENCE WRITER > > > > OTTAWA-The strongest sign yet of a potential global climate > catastrophe > > has emerged just as > > Canada prepares to formally ratify the Kyoto Protocol on > greenhouse > > gases today. > > > > A just-published scientific study reports the first hard evidence > of > > changes in the Arctic that would > > trigger a collapse in major ocean circulation patterns by the end > of the > > century. > > > > The collapse would throw the east coast of Canada and west coast > of > > Europe into a deep chill and also > > probably send more and fiercer hurricanes and tropical storms > north into > > Canada, scientists forecast. > > > > "This study underlines why we need to take action now rather than > later > > on climate change," said > > climate expert Gordon McBean yesterday. > > > > A key step toward action comes today when Prime Minister Jean > Chrétien > > signs the documents > > formally ratifying the 1997 Kyoto agreement. Environment Minister > David > > Anderson is due to > > hand-deliver the ratification to U.N. headquarters in New York > tomorrow. > > > > Ratification commits Canada to reducing its projected annual > emissions > > of carbon dioxide and other > > greenhouse gases in the period from 2008 to 2012 by roughly 20 > per cent > > from today's levels. > > > > McBean said even the modest Kyoto reductions amounting to 5 per > cent > > globally would help avert > > catastrophic climate changes such as the collapse of the ocean > conveyer > > belt. > > > > This system of vast, slow-moving currents carries warmer water > north > > from the tropics with one part, > > the Gulf Stream, raising average temperatures by several degrees > along > > both coasts of the North > > Atlantic. > > > > "By mid-century, the levels of carbon dioxide will have risen > less than > > projected because we are taking > > these actions now," said McBean, a former chief of the national > weather > > service who now heads the > > Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. > > > > But the rise in carbon dioxide levels so far has triggered the > start of > > a climatic chain reaction that could > > slow or stop the vital ocean conveyer belt, researchers warn in > the > > current issue of the journal Science. > > > > A U.S.-Russian team reports some of the world's biggest rivers > are now > > dumping much more water > > into the Arctic Ocean because of increased precipitation linked > to > > global warming. > > > > Since the 1930s, flow into the Arctic from six Russian and > European > > rivers has jumped by 7 per cent > > - the same amount as six months' extra discharge from the > Mackenzie River. > > > > By the end of the century the increased flow under the most > extreme > > global warming case would equal > > adding five more Mackenzies, said lead researcher Bruce Peterson > yesterday. > > > > "That could produce a catastrophic collapse by pushing the ocean > > circulation system to a point where it can't bounce back easily," > said > > Peterson, an > > ecosystem scientist at Marine Biological Station in Woods Hole, > Ma. > > > > Peterson emphasized that these potential impacts are still > speculative > > because science needs to understand a lot more about exactly how > the conveyer > > belt works and how water moves through the Arctic basin. > > > > But specialists in past climate point to geological evidence that > > > something similar happened 11,000 years ago when an ice dam across > what is now > > Hudson Bay broke, sending a rush of fresh water into the > Atlantic. > > > > The ocean conveyer belt - scientifically called thermohaline > circulation > > - broke down then and took centuries to recover. > > > > Climate experts have long warned that history could repeat > because > > computer models project global warming would lead to increased > snow and rain in > > northern latitudes. Increased precipitation runs into rivers and > > eventually the Arctic, the ocean most affected by its surrounding > land. > > > > These Arctic waters exit into the North Atlantic and mix with the > > > cooling, salty currents like the Gulf Stream when they sink and > head > > south as the > > return part of the conveyer belt. > > > > But boost the flow of Arctic fresh water and the diluted > northward > > waters won't be heavy enough to sink quickly enough to keep the > conveyer > > rolling, > > say scientists. > > > > The researchers concentrated on six Eurasian Rivers with historic > flow > > records stretching back to 1936, providing a record long enough to > spot a > > gradual > > upward trend every decade despite annual variations > > > > Three of the six rivers studied - the Ob, Yenisey and Lena in > Siberia - > > are among the world's top 10 in terms of outflow. > > > > If the Gulf Stream and other northward warming currents broke > down, the > > climate impact would be severe. At present, tropical plants thrive > on the west > > coast of Ireland at latitudes that are north of Winnipeg. > > > > McBean said disrupting the ocean currents could also lead to an > increase > > in the number and severity of tropical storms as the Earth > compensates through > > the atmosphere for losing the ocean route of transferring heat > from the > > Equator to the polar regions. > > > > Additional articles by Peter Calamai > > > > > > > > > > > > FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Contact Us| > > > Subscribe| My Subscription > > > > > > Home| GTA| Business| > Waymoresports| > > A&E| Life > > > > > >Legal Notice:- Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers > Limited. All > >rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or > >republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly > prohibited > >without the prior written permission of Toronto Star > >Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our > webmaster > >form. > > > > > > > > > >>Harry and Keith, > >> > >>A somewhat scarier scenario is that the warm currents that flow > past > >>Europe from the south Atlantic exist because of the temperature > >>differential and a mere change in ambient water temperatures in > the north > >>could cause those currents to stop. Europe is farther north than > the US > >>and the result would be to drop temperatures in western Europe > >>significantly. > >> > >>Bill Ward > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
