Ocean circulation in North Atlantic is at its weakest for 1,500 years - and..........

[Riess]

At levels that previously triggered a mini Ice Age, study warns

• Study shows the levels are at their lowest for 1,500 years
• Currents have a 'profound effect' on both North American and European climate
• Researcher found a similar weak signal during a period called the Little Ice Age, a cold spell observed between about 1600 and 1850 AD

Researchers have discovered that water in the North Atlantic has 'dramatically weakened.'
The study shows the levels are at their lowest of for 1,500 years - and climate change is to blame.
Researchers warn the currents will have a 'profound effect' on both the North American and European climate.
Scroll down for video

 

[ROBERTSON]

A question, why was the Atlantic ocean's circulation weak 1500 years ago ?

So no more global warming, but now a mini ice age.

There is also another concept being proposed by more open minded, less selfish scientists, that a possible mini ice age is going to happen, but because of the suns output being reduced.

But of coarse all of the unemployable "climatologists", would then be out of a job if that was correct, wouldn't they, so lets just bury that real soon

Thought of the sun actually controlling the earth's temperature/weather, just will not fit their agenda.

 

[BadAss]

In my 60's so don't have to worry about saving the world anymore Funky & Music

 

[Curly]

More good news.

Most Canadian cities are unprepared for climate change disasters, says study | National Post

 

[God]

More good news.

Most Canadian cities are unprepared for climate change disasters, says study | National Post

A newspaper writing about good news Hmmmmmm

 

[ROBERTSON]

A newspaper writing about good news Hmmmmmm

Not likely, and that's the same reason the Sky Is Falling bigrade can't survive without bad news, stating that the globes climate will only get better, instant large scale firings.

 

[nntsci]

But of coarse all of the unemployable "climatologists", would then be out of a job if that was correct, wouldn't they, so lets just bury that real soon

Thought of the sun actually controlling the earth's temperature/weather, just will not fit their agenda.

There is no agenda... that's for politicians and other idiots... science is about reality... not belief.

 

[ROBERTSON]

There is no agenda... that's for politicians and other idiots... science is about reality... not belief.

A few of questions for ya, what caused the Atlantic ocean's circulation to be weak 1500 years ago.

How do scientists know what the Atlantic ocean's circulation was 1500 years ago.

Which scenario is your "belief" MIGHT cause a mini ice age, the Atlantic ocean's circulation reverting back to what it was 1500 years ago, or changes in the sun's output ?


Reality as viewed by "scientists" has been proven wrong many times over, and will continue to.


Are you stating that just because some one who calls themselves a scientist, guarantees that person will NOT look after their well being ?
I know two scientists, who both no longer are, unemployable, hence the real possibility of an agenda.

I recall a "scientist" at TO university been a give a grant for a five year study on how icicles form,... that is the reality of state funded "studies".

 

[Culioneros]

Not likely, and that's the same reason the Sky Is Falling bigrade can't survive without bad news, stating that the globes climate will only get better, instant large scale firings.

Sure sure.

 

[ROBERTSON]

Sure sure.

Sure sure.

 

[nntsci]

C'mon nntsci! No agenda in science? Haven't we discussed this before? You can't put 100% blind faith into something with this much power and money involved with it. If skeptics (including "big oil" and others) can be accused of trying to influence studies and publishing, how can you not think that there are those on the other side trying to do the same? Climate science has become something of a tool to be used by those who seek power over others and those who want big profits. Some scientists will be backed more than others based on their publicated results.....those who's results don't fit, might find themselves having trouble finding funding.

Science is the pursuit of the truth... you realize science is pursued by many of the smartest people in the world, who voluntarily have chosen a life with a mediocre income -- a fraction of what less intelligent people make as CEOs, lawyers etc.. because we're not interested in wealth. We could do anything... but we find the crass pursuit of money, boring. We need intellectual stimulation, not money. Its hard to describe why, but I can tell you that discovering something new and being the first person to find something is a very addicting experience. And faking data (like the oil industry does) isn't fun; no thrill in that. I personally know that I could draw in 3 to 4 times more income in industry. Not interested. So to believe that we're motived by money from "Big Green" is ridiculous.

 

[nntsci]

Reality as viewed by "scientists" has been proven wrong many times over, and will continue to.

Really? Completely wrong? Give examples?

I know that Newtonian physics turned out not to hold under conditions of extreme speed or gravity, but under all normal circumstances it works very well.

Cooperacus overturned all previous ideas, but they were not scientific ideas... his was the first scientific model.
Same with Darwin... His was the first scientific theory of evolution...

 

[ROBERTSON]

Really? Completely wrong? Give examples?

I know that Newtonian physics turned out not to hold under conditions of extreme speed or gravity, but under all normal circumstances it works very well.

Cooperacus overturned all previous ideas, but they were not scientific ideas... his was the first scientific model.
Same with Darwin... His was the first scientific theory of evolution...

That's cute nntsci, "extreme speed or gravity",... is NOT NORMAL,... ???

But you did get one thing correct,... "theory", which is simply that,... nothing more, nothing less.

Plus, how do you get to decide just how far back in history to declare that some scientist's "theory" was valid or not,... ???

Not very long ago, the "theory" was that electricity flowed from positive to negative,... COMPLETELY WRONG.

How an aircraft's wing provides lift, is still up for debate, but there are a couple of "theories".

 

[nntsci]

That's cute nntsci, "extreme speed or gravity",... is NOT NORMAL,... ???

But you did get one thing correct,... "theory", which is simply that,... nothing more, nothing less.

Plus, how do you get to decide just how far back in history to declare that some scientist's "theory" was valid or not,... ???

Not very long ago, the "theory" was that electricity flowed from positive to negative,... COMPLETELY WRONG.

How an aircraft's wing provides lift, is still up for debate, but there are a couple of "theories".

the theory of electrical flow not completely wrong, in fact it was mostly correct, but it took a while to determine the direction of flow because the all observation, the direction didn``t matter. but direction of flow was only one small part of a theory.

extreme gravity is not normal (e.g., a black hole).

Newtonian physics is correct in all other circumstances.

as to how the wing provides lift this is a minor quibble.

A theory is not just a theory...
A theory is not some armchair guess by someone with a opinion.
A theory is a explanation of a huge amount of data. it is the explanation that accounts for most if not all of the known data.
And here is the crucial part, its predicts further observations.
A theory is an amazing accomplishment that takes years to build.

 

[nntsci]

Do you not see your own elitism? You're part of the smartest, most altruistic, etc. I know a few "scientists" in academia myself. Many of them think they are the smartest gifts god ever gave humanity....yet at the same time, they cannot solve simple every day problems for themselves. Just because you have bored down into a specific area of science to places others didn't care to go does not mean that you are all knowing. Perhaps your are just fooling yourself...thinking that you could go out and earn in the private sector but knowing secretly that it's different there. As said in Ghostbusters...you don't know what it's like in the private sector...they expect you to produce. Maybe you've just had too many needed grad students blowing smoke up your ass because they need a spot in a lab or a letter of recommendation. Perhaps you're just insulated because you're surrounded by people that think exactly the way you do. Whatever it is...come down off of you high horse...the thin air is making you undeservedly arrogant.

LOL... got a chip on your shoulder don`t you... Your anti-intellectualism is showing... jealous much.

Who ever said we're all knowing.

"Perhaps you're just insulated because you're surrounded by people that think exactly the way you do."

Scientist don;t all agree with each other... in fact they disagree very much; rivals for funding; but generally in a friendly way.
And I think we are more keenly aware of how little we do know... so much that we do not understand.
Which is why you should take notice when they come to a consensus on something.

 

[ROBERTSON]

the theory of electrical flow not completely wrong, in fact it was mostly correct, but it took a while to determine the direction of flow because the all observation, the direction didn``t matter. but direction of flow was only one small part of a theory.

So that's your reply to my statement,..."Not very long ago, the "theory" was that electricity flowed from positive to negative,... COMPLETELY WRONG".

Your response,..."Mostly correct", but was in fact,...COMPLETELY WRONG, that's your idea of a philosophy to stake anything on,... ???

extreme gravity is not normal (e.g., a black hole).

That's like saying lesbianism is not normal.

as to how the wing provides lift this is a minor quibble

So two theories that do NOT agree,... but as per your take on theories, just a minor quibble.
The next time somebody presents apposite theories on the climate, that's just a "minor quibble".

A theory is not just a theory...

Well that's the theory,... anyway.

A theory is not some armchair guess by someone with a opinion.
A theory is a explanation of a huge amount of data. it is the explanation that accounts for most if not all of the known data.

A theory is an explanation for all known data, and just what theory is that,... ???
Or have you come up with the Theory Of Everything,... wow, I see the Nobel prize in your future.

And here is the crucial part, its predicts further observations.

Just what the hell is "ITs", a theory predicts "further observations", well we must just as well get rid of all of the worlds scientists now.

A theory is an amazing accomplishment that takes years to build.

Well in your opinion,... anyway.

 

[nntsci]

"So two theories that do NOT agree,... but as per your take on theories, just a minor quibble."

You have a very poor understanding of the concept of theory.
You are thinking at what would be called the hypothesis level, not the theory level.
A theory generates many hypothesis that are testable and can be correct or incorrect.
Electromagnetism is a theory, the direction of flow is a small part of that theory and it was tested as a hypothesis.

Aerodynamics is a theory, how the wing produces lift is a hypothesis derived from that theory. the issue may not be resolved (Bernouillis principle never made any sense to me anyway), but overall theory of aerodynamics doesn't change much either way which means that its a minor issue... If you to build planes differently depending on the results of the testing an hypothesis than it would be a major issue. They won't be completely rewriting the rules of flight based... which makes it a minor quibble and is in fact the reason its not resolved because of the lack of conseqences.

Unfortunately most people make this mistake because in public use of the word "theory" is often incorrect.
For example I not yet heard of a conspiracy theories that qualifies as a THEORY, they are not even hypotheses, but the word theory gets used over and over again so that most people don't understand what a scientist means when the use the word theory.

A theory is a comprehensive explanation for a phenomenon based on a huge amout of observations, that can be mathematically modeled, and from that model, hypotheses can be derived and tested. The results may change the theory.

An exert from Scientific American because I figured you wont believe me...

"2. Just a theory?
Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.
"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.
That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.
Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words - Scientific American

"The next time somebody presents apposite theories on the climate, that's just a "minor quibble"."

No because, there is a huge amount of converging evidence for human caused climate change including The Basic physics of CO2, the history of Fossil fuel consumption, the steady upward trend in temperatures (predictive validity), increasing acidity of oceans, the very high correlation between annual CO2 increases and the annual temperature changes (accounts for 24% of the variance in temperature changes), and all those other scientific fact that you refuse to believe in. The theory of human caused climate changes is the only theory currently available that explains the evidence... it order for it to be wrong. The physics of the atmosphere, in particular CO2, would have to be wrong.

As Ive noted there are lots of unanswered questions like how bad the results will be but the basic theory of human caused climate change are strongly supported.

So I repeat a theory is not JUST a theory, its a comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon under study.

 

[nntsci]

"Consensus isn't truth or accuracy. People have agreed on many things in the past that were entirely wrong."

A scientific consensus is about as close to reality is we'll ever get in this life. It means a lot more than people being able to agree with each other opinion, it means that are NOT able to refute each other point of view and are forced (often reluctantly) to agree with each other.

"youre still ignoring that on University campuses all over, there is a definite bias towards one political point of view....."

It the right wing of American that have chosen to be anti-science (rejecting evolution, rejecting climate change, rejecting many theories that don't fit with theory politics). Science is not political... its politicians that have become anti-scientific.

Any there is a growing anti-science view in the left... post-structuralists are as rabidly anti-scientific as you are. Socialist are also anti-scientific. They're over there in the humanities that you get those rabid anti-free speech types you seem to fear so much. Well, they're also anti-science.

Us poor realists are sitting in the middle, getting ignored.

"And if scientists like you do understand how little you do know, why are you arguing for sweeping changes that could affect people around the world in negative ways just because you suddenly think you know how something as complicated as Climate works? "

There is a lot of uncertainty about the results of climate change, but none of its good news. The uncertainty is how bad its going to get, and how fast it will happen, but the low end is major economic and social disruptions and the danger of catastrophic effects are non-trivial. Even economics (a very conservative field) is warning the world about the consequences. Here's a chart published in Lancet, worlds most prestigious medical journal outlining some of the consequences of global warming... many of which are already happening; and note these leave out all of the more extreme consequences (being very conservative doctors) and just focus on medical consequences.

the basic truth is this... we only have one planet to live on, and we're damaging it; we are changing the ecosystem of this planet at a very rapid speed; our very air supply is in danger; if we keep it up, we may cause our own extinction... but in the event that doesn't happen, it will still lead to huge disruptions such as global food shortages, that make be the 21st century the bloodiest ever.

 

[ROBERTSON]

Its just a theory,... but until another one comes along,...

Its just a theory,... but until another one comes along,...

nntsci

"the theory of electrical flow not completely wrong, in fact it was mostly correct"

Your statement, not mine, I guess reading is not a required skill in the sciences profession, what ever the hell that is.

Electromagnetism is a theory, the direction of flow is a small part of that theory and it was tested as a hypothesis.

And was proven wrong, but whos counting.

And I always get a kick out of this,...

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing

So your climatologists, are they scientists by the way, hard to keep track,... did they create a miniature solar system to run their "experiments" ?
Or decide to simply look at,... "

The physics of the atmosphere, in particular CO2,

,... hate to break this to YA, but there is this big very hot planet out there that provides ALL of the earths heat, to ignore that,... !!!

The theory of human caused climate changes is the only theory currently available that explains the evidence,... it order for it to be wrong. The physics of the atmosphere, in particular CO2, would have to be wrong.

And just why is "The theory of human caused climate changes is the only theory currently available",... THAT my friend is the bottom line, that some conveniently like to ignore.

Plus,... just were are all of the scientists creating solutions, NOTHING new in the way of energy production and storage has been created for 50 years,... but hey ,... that would be putting some out of work, wouldn't it.


And as far as food production, hasn't ever been higher, contrary to the theory that the globes population would not be able to feed itself decades ago.

 

[nntsci]

The end is near! Everyone run around with your hands waving in the air!

The Earth's climate has been much warmer in the past and at that time, there was much greater biomass and biodiversity. Assuming that warming is going to lead to catastrophe is part of the scare tactics used by the politicized scientists. And to go along with some of those points on the charts, you have to take into account possible positive outcomes. Increased plant production due to increased CO2 availability, warming oceans could lead to more cloud production that can lead to cooling through the reflection of radiation from the sun, increased food production as more arable land is "revealed".

Besides, how can you have consensus when all the models created so far haven't been all that accurate. By the predictions of Poster boy Al Gore, we should have lost a great deal of coastal land by now and we've seen none of that. The annual changes in "extreme weather" haven't been as predicted at all. Consensus on bad models possibly based on bad data or by a lack of understanding doesn't come together to make me believe what they are selling.

Perhaps another way to explain my skepticism.....Look at the US Supreme Court. All have the equivalent of PhDs in Law.....yet you clearly have people that look at the constitution and view it one way or another. All of them are intelligent and experienced people and yet, they look at the same information and see it very differently. No, it's not plain data and mathematics. Yet you have people looking at the same information and seeing very different (even opposite) ideas coming from it. You don't think that the PhDs in the sciences could be doing the same thing. Justices have their politics and biases....and so do "scientists". They are all human and they are all susceptible to the flaws of humanity. Just because you may agree with it, doesn't make it right....even if everyone agrees, it doesn't make it right.

Lets get something clear you are NOT a skeptic... a skeptic is someone who requires evidence in order to form an opinion (e.g., a scientist)... you sir are an idealistic denier of science... you put you own personal beliefs in front of the evidence and refuse to acknowledge the evidence what so ever... in short you ake a belief biased anti-science perspective.

As for the sky is falling, you have your head stuck in the sand...