All I have to say is,

Somebody please tell Scrat to hang onto his acorn. I don't think I can handle him losing it again.

Random Yak, that laugh made my day a little brighter.

My tummy ached all day after I ate pizza late last night.
I blame global warming.

I question the timing...

Global warming - I'm sure it's nothing. Let's just wait another 50 years until the correct data rolls in. We'll just set up our research in places that aren't near the coastline, just to be sure.

-jp2

So, if I drive my gas-guzzling truck a little more I can plunge the French into bitter cold for decades?

I'm off to the nearest gas station and out for a little drive.

A few weeks ago: global warming causes snow.

Now: global warming causing mini ice age.

Earth to scientists: GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT..Is it getting WARMER or is it getting COLDER?

YOU'VE GOT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS TO DECIDE BEFORE ALL YOUR DAMN GRANT MONEY IS CUT...CUT....CUT....!

Thanksgiving is OVER, you stupid TURKEYS.

Why don't they use the infrared data collected from the weather satellites that have been passing over the Atlantic for nearly 30 years to show us how much things have changed? Surely they realize that if it's changed or changing they can use that data to prove it. Maybe they know it hasn't changed enough to make a difference and just want to keep that grant money coming in. They wouldn't do that, would they?

Did The Day After Tomorrow just open in England or something? This is the exact thing that pile of crap is based on. Looks like someone has been reading Art Bell's books again.

As entertaining as your post is(I mean that, you're an excellent writer), I don't think you're entirely fair to the article. The "dramatic finding" referred to in the second sentence is the temperature drop. The article doesn't claim or imply here that scientists have FOUND that an ice age will come--only that new data (the finding) may support that hypothesis (which I'll get back to in a second).

Since it wasn't a "finding" that the gulf stream will slow down and an ice age will ensue, but merely a hypothesis, Harry Bryden was right to say that he's not sure if the change is temporary or long-term. The article and Dr. Bryden are being honest about what this data means--they have credible theories and evidence supporting them, but they're not entirely sure.

The theory that temperatures in Europe will drop, perhaps severely, if the gulf stream shuts down has been a major concern in the scientific community for decades. Salinity (salt content) of cold surface water in the far northern Atlantic Ocean makes water heavier, causing it to sink into the depths and head south, driving warm water from the Gulf of Mexico on the ocean surface north to take its place. This is the Gulf Stream and it is well understood. It's also well established that IF the massive glaciers of Greenland were to melt (and they are melting, as established by satellite imagery and on-the-ground research), the fresh water from those glaciers would enter the north atlantic, lowering the salinity of the water that fuels the Gulf Stream. If global warming raises Earth's temperatures enough to melt a significant portion of Greenland's glaciers, researchers have long feared--with good reason--that the incoming fresh water would shut down the Gulf Stream over time, which could, in turn, cause an "Ice Age" in northern Europe.

The thing is, ocean currents take a long time. It takes years for the water sinking off of Greenland to reach the Gulf. In fact, water on the floor of the ocean can move just a few inches per hour. The water on the surface moves quickly (there's a lot less of it-- after all, the ocean is extremely deep). The threat of a Gulf Stream shutdown has been researched for a long time, but because ocean currents change slowly, scientists believed that it was a long way off. Other consequences of global warming, such as glaciers melting and global temperatures rising, are already well established. This finding is the first concrete evidence that the gulf stream shut down is already happening. And the thing about Atlantic ocean currents is that they are quite stable. There's no "El Nino" in the North Atlantic. A change of this magnitude is very meaningful, and should gives us cause for alarm even if we don't know all of its implications yet.

To the poster Maggie, you tell scientists to "get their damn story straight- is it getting warmer or colder?" If you'd read the article and actually paid attention to what scientists are saying about global warming, you would know that the answer is both. The planet as a whole will get warmer (in fact, it has been getting warmer over the past century) but if the warmer weather causes the gulf stream to shut down, western Europe will get colder while the rest of the planet keeps warming up.

To the poster Bullwinkle, infrared data only tells us the surface temperature of the ocean, but doesn't give meaningful information about ocean currents and flow rate. If indeed the Gulf Stream does shut down, infrared ocean surface temperature data will be one of the later indicators. I certainly understand your confusion here though.

It is utterly shocking how many scientists do not understand even the most basic principles regarding measurement statistics. I guess they were bored and failed to pay attention to the parts of their Freshman year Chem or Physics labs that dealt with measurement errors and repeatibility. What is the innate variability, noise, drift and other error producing factors of the measurement device? What is the innate variability in the thing being measured? Without an extensive gage R & R study such questions cannot be answered and as a result, the significance of the measurements cannot be addressed responsibly.

i love how you guys are making fun of scientists for being so stupid, but the original poster was too retarded to even grasp what the findings were, and refers to them several times as "temperatures" that were being measured.

they were measuring flowrates of the gulf stream current, not temperatures einstein. maybe you want to learn how to read english?

Hmmm.

What I find amusing is that they define the *year* that the temperature readings were taken, but not the *month*. By not telling us the month they avoid having to tell us if the temperature readings that they're basing this nonsense on were taken during the summer months or the winter.

The Gulf Stream is based off the ocean water heated by the tropical sun. As winter sets in the northern hemisphere it's frankly logical to consider that the ocean water is not getting as much energy as it did during the summer.

Now if they're comparing winter temperatures to winter temperatures, then that might be something. But they very carefully avoid actually stating that. And my previous experience with such bullshit climate data tells me that this is a complete farce that'll be used as a bludgeon in the New Kyoto talks in Canada.

ed- are you delusional? do you actually believe that a major scientific study would engage in such gross misrepresentation? do you know what peer review is? a scientist who did what you suggest would immediately fall into disrepute.

and as ian pointed out, they were measuring flow rates, not temperatures... did you even read it? do you know anything about deep ocean circulation routes and their relationship with climate? (aside from your brilliant, "frankly logical" deduction that the north Atlantic is colder in the winter)

QUOTE:
[i]do you actually believe that a major scientific study would engage in such gross misrepresentation? [/i]

Please, do us all a favor and look at past events. Peer review is often pathetic or overly strigent depending on what events you're looking at. I personally know of five different claims of Cold Fusion that passed into 'peer reviewed' papers and quickly were discovered to be completely and totally bogus. The last one, involving sonic waves and acetone, wasn't even supposed to be physically possible - but got published anyway.

Look at the Drake equation. Look at the Swedish Academy of Sciene's (and, later, Carl Saigan's) papers on nuclear winter.

Hell, there were - and are still - many peer-reviewed papers saying that nothing will grow at the site of a nuclear bomb detonation. Nevermind that melons did (and still are) growing at the site of the Nagasaki detonation after just one year.

Greenland's ice sheets are thickening as are Antartica's. Although throughout the world some glaciers are receding, others are advancing. There's also evidence that the warming of our globe is a solar system-wide event caused by our sun.

I don't think any reasonable person will argue that there are climatic cycles. It's clear that there are. What's not clear is whether scientists fully understand them and can, therefore, predict them with any accuracy. It's also questionable as to whether human activity is fully or even partially to blame, and whether we can do anything about it. From Reason Magazine:

"The Kyoto Protocol would, by 2100, avoid only 0.14 degrees C of temperature rise."

How pathetic it would be to sacrifice our economy for that.

If their is a coming catastrophe (and that's a big if), whether it be baking or freezing to death, we might as well be rearranging chairs on the Titanic, cuz' there ain't a helluva lot we can do to stop it. We can only try to prepare for it.

Must be fun to a grade school student today. One day you get a lecture about how the Earth should be a static non-changing place without the intervention of man. Then in your next class you learn about the last ice age and its thaw and how it affected the spread of early man.

There are not more hurricanes. We simply identify more rainstorms in the sea early as a precaution. It is not global warming, it is safety

Catfish and Ian--

There's a really interesting book you might want to read. This famous author put it out a while back. His name is Michael Crichton. The book is called State of Fear.

Ironic, I just finished it a day before this post went up. Crichton managed to wrap a whole lot of legitimate references into a fantastically-paced fictional story. And my already high skepticism of the so-called "scientists" that scream about Global Warming has shot up several more notches, and continues to do so with every junk "report" that comes out.

--TwoDragons

blue -- Sorry, there are no peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion. (Unless you count very small-scale fusion events which couldn't possibly be harnessed for energy.) If you "peronally know" of uch claims, please enlighten us and include the citation. (I know, it's hard to do when you just make stuff up.)

SheriJo -- did you really just cite a 7-year old study? The work on sun variability was important work when it came out -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. Variability of sun activity is now incorporated into all global models. And it turns out to be a relatively minor effect. I hate to tell you this, but the earth's climate system is complex. The concept of global warming is a net warming, and may not be uniform across the globe. But, in total, glacier coverage is shrinking. The thickening of the ice sheets may very well be a result of increased precipitation, which is caused not by colder temperatures, but by more humid conditions.

jpm100 -- who's ever claimed the earth is a "static non-changing place without the intervention of man"? I know this is what skeptics like to think scientists say, but it's just not true.

And TwoDragons -- Hate to tell you, but State of Fear is a novel. As in: fiction. Just because it has a bibliography doesn't mean it's true. Numerous scientists whose work was cited in the book have come forth saying he grossly misrepresented their research.

Sure Earl! Just fiction. You're probably one of them moveon moonbats who thinks that the bible is just fiction and that dinosaurs really exist because "science" says so!

Right on Seamus, everyone that reads this blog knows "dinosaurs" are just a lie perpetrated by science to make it seem like the Earth is older than 5,000 years. Good Republicans like jpm, SheriJo, and blue know that the Bible is the word of god. GOD BLESS AMERICA! Go away heathens!!!

Amen! Preach on brother, Preach on!

What a daft punk you are, may your armpits be infested with the lice of 1,000 camels and may your scrotum become part of the permafrost on the cliffs of Dover.

August 2005. 50% chance that results of scientific papers and reports are wrong.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

August 2005. 50% chance that results of scientific papers and reports are wrong.

That was for epidemiological studies only. Not exactly relevant to study of the earth's climate. Sorry.

If global warming causes cooling, doesn't it just fix itself then? Why do we need to be worried? There was warming, it caused an ice age - bammo - problem solved. And if we are in an ice age, we just keep doing what we are doing and we warm the planet up again - since we can!

Earl,

there is no uniform agreement by scientist on whether there is global warming and even less that it is caused by man. There is very little disagreement over the fact the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles naturally.

Damn straight! Just like there's no scientific consensus on evolution or the advantages of stem cell research. You whacky moonbats with your sicence and fancy pants book learnin' will believe any fairy tale any one tries to tell you, as long as it's Bush's fault!

Novs- the "Ice Age" from a Gulf Stream shutdown would make western Europe, a tiny fraction of the planet, cooler, while global warming warms the planet as a whole.

jpm100- virtually the entire scientific community is in agreement that global warming is happening and that its causes are anthropogenic (by man). the scientists that disagree are mostly hacks in the pockets of corporations and governments that are facing the expensive prospect of cutting emissions. can you refute this? when a hurricane is heading for land, meteorologists are exactly sure where it's going to make landfall, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions..

SheriJo- "The Kyoto Protocol would, by 2100, avoid only 0.14 degrees C of temperature rise." That's because the Kyoto Protocol is insufficient to address the problem, but it's a first step. The economic costs to future generations of rising ocean levels and climate change will be immense if the problem isn't properly addressed. Also, a 0.14 C rise on a global scale IS significant.

edit:
I meant to say:
when a hurricane is heading for land, meteorologists AREN'T exactly sure where it's going to make landfall, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions..

Mann et al. published the extensively referenced and
quoted study that gave us the global warming
temperature "hockey stick." Years later, when
scientists attempted to reproduce the results with
they original data, they couldn't. They found
major problems with the original study (missing
data, duplicated data, etc.) and they found using
totally transparent and reproducible methods that
the earth was actually warmer hundreds of years ago.
Mann has been less than cooperative in helping
reconcile the discrepancies in his results.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Sorry, but I don't buy it. How are we getting reliable data from 1000 years ago? The sample size is so small that no scientist in their right mind could make the assumption that any kind of global warming is caused by man. 100 years ago virtually the entire scientific community was in agreement that man couldn't fly. How did that work out? The presence of a plurality does not prove a postulation.

Can we do better things to decrease what small effect humanity might have on the environment? Absolutely yes. Are we consuming too many resources? Probably. Anything that can be done to cut down on them should be, but let's at least be honest about the problem.