It seems from this post to another newsgroup that the Pentagon is entering the
climate war too, but on a surprising side. They seem to agree with me!

"H. E. Taylor" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

2004/02/02: Tom Paine: Climate Change Alert

First Paul O'Neill, now Andrew Marshall. Marshall has just blown the lid off
another Bush administration can of worms-namely, its unwillingness to
acknowledge and address the massive threat posed by global climate change.
[Snip ...]
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9882

2004/02/02: CDreams: Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0202-02.htm

2004/01/26: Fortune: Climate Collapse - The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother
of all national security issues.
[...]
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print...582584,00.html


--
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

Global Warming: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...
It seems from this post to another newsgroup that the Pentagon is entering
the
climate war too, but on a surprising side. They seem to agree with me!

"H. E. Taylor" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

2004/02/02: Tom Paine: Climate Change Alert

First Paul O'Neill, now Andrew Marshall. Marshall has just blown the lid
off
another Bush administration can of worms-namely, its unwillingness to
acknowledge and address the massive threat posed by global climate
change.
[Snip ...]
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9882

2004/02/02: CDreams: Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0202-02.htm

2004/01/26: Fortune: Climate Collapse - The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother
of all national security issues.
[...]
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print...582584,00.html

One interesting point from the Fortune article:

"Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling - today it appears easier to warm
than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
"geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature
drop. "

Does that mean the western hemisphere might be tempted to increase emissions
of greenhouse gases to offset any radical cooling from conveyor effect
cut-off? It's certainly ammunition for those who think Kyoto is nonsensical.

- Michael

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote
in message ...
It seems from this post to another newsgroup that the Pentagon is
entering
the
climate war too, but on a surprising side. They seem to agree with
me!

"H. E. Taylor" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

2004/02/02: Tom Paine: Climate Change Alert

First Paul O'Neill, now Andrew Marshall. Marshall has just blown
the lid
off
another Bush administration can of worms-namely, its unwillingness
to
acknowledge and address the massive threat posed by global climate
change.
[Snip ...]
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9882

2004/02/02: CDreams: Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate
Change
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0202-02.htm

2004/01/26: Fortune: Climate Collapse - The Pentagon's Weather
Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the
mother
of all national security issues.
[...]
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print...582584,00.html

One interesting point from the Fortune article:

"Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling - today it appears easier to
warm
than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
"geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic
temperature
drop. "

Does that mean the western hemisphere might be tempted to increase
emissions
of greenhouse gases to offset any radical cooling from conveyor effect
cut-off? It's certainly ammunition for those who think Kyoto is
nonsensical.

- Michael

It is all pretty pitiful really. How grown men, far less eminent
scientists,
can think that a warming world is going to enter another ice age is
beyond
my comrehension. The biggest and most recent abrupt change was at the
end of the Younger Dryas, not at the start. Then tempertures rose
globally
by a about 10C. That is what will happen next, not a cooling.

The whole idea behing this cooling is based on the Gulf Stream/North
Atlantic Drift keeping western Europe (and north eastern America!?!)
warm. Philip Eden and Mike Tullet have pointed out that this is
known to be untrue. But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meterologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter devastation.

Cheers, Alastair.

One interesting point from the Fortune article:

"Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling - today it appears easier to
warm
than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
"geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic
temperature
drop. "

Does that mean the western hemisphere might be tempted to increase
emissions
of greenhouse gases to offset any radical cooling from conveyor effect
cut-off? It's certainly ammunition for those who think Kyoto is
nonsensical.

- Michael

It is all pretty pitiful really. How grown men, far less eminent
scientists,
can think that a warming world is going to enter another ice age is
beyond
my comrehension. The biggest and most recent abrupt change was at the
end of the Younger Dryas, not at the start. Then tempertures rose
globally
by a about 10C. That is what will happen next, not a cooling.

The whole idea behing this cooling is based on the Gulf Stream/North
Atlantic Drift keeping western Europe (and north eastern America!?!)
warm. Philip Eden and Mike Tullet have pointed out that this is
known to be untrue.

It does seem to be accepted wisdom though, I must have read countless news
articles based on this!

But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meterologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter devastation.

I don't think any drastic preventative action on global warming will be
taken until something drastic occurs, like widespread flooding or crop
failures, and of course by then it will be too late anyway.

- Michael

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...

One interesting point from the Fortune article:

"Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling - today it appears easier
to
warm
than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
"geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic
temperature
drop. "

Does that mean the western hemisphere might be tempted to increase
emissions
of greenhouse gases to offset any radical cooling from conveyor
effect
cut-off? It's certainly ammunition for those who think Kyoto is
nonsensical.

- Michael

It is all pretty pitiful really. How grown men, far less eminent
scientists,
can think that a warming world is going to enter another ice age is
beyond
my comrehension. The biggest and most recent abrupt change was at
the
end of the Younger Dryas, not at the start. Then tempertures rose
globally
by a about 10C. That is what will happen next, not a cooling.

The whole idea behing this cooling is based on the Gulf Stream/North
Atlantic Drift keeping western Europe (and north eastern America!?!)
warm. Philip Eden and Mike Tullet have pointed out that this is
known to be untrue.

It does seem to be accepted wisdom though, I must have read countless
news
articles based on this!

But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meterologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter
devastation.

I don't think any drastic preventative action on global warming will
be
taken until something drastic occurs, like widespread flooding or
crop
failures, and of course by then it will be too late anyway.

- Michael

Yup!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...
It seems from this post to another newsgroup that the Pentagon is entering
the
climate war too, but on a surprising side. They seem to agree with me!


Yes even the land of low taxation can see the scam!

In article , "Alastair McDonald" writes:

.....But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meterologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter devastation.


Completely untrue.


No Cheers,

keith


---
Iraq: 5 thousand million pounds, 50 lives, and counting...
The Politicians will now seek to blame the Spooks.

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Alastair McDonald"
writes:

.....But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meteorologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter devastation.


Completely untrue.

Then why is this myth of new European ice age triggered by ocean
currents still such a widespread belief?

Presently we are having new temperature records set every
day, but I am "Still Waiting" for anyone here to admit that this is
caused by global warming and is not part of "natural variation."

Cheers, Alastair.

In article , "Alastair McDonald" writes:

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Alastair McDonald"
writes:

.....But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meteorologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter devastation.


Completely untrue.

Then why is this myth of new European ice age triggered by ocean
currents still such a widespread belief?


Have you run any models, varied initial conditions and examined the
results? Have you tried validating the model runs against ground-truth?

When you have extensively researched your theory, published the results and
subjected them to peer-review, *then* you may start talking about what is a
myth and what isn't, in this regard.

As for such things as a "belief" being "widespread", I refer you to god
and the media:-)




Presently we are having new temperature records set every
day, but I am "Still Waiting" for anyone here to admit that this is
caused by global warming and is not part of "natural variation."

Then you will have to wait an awfull long time, because many contributors
to this newsgroup have acknowledged the scientific truth of global warming
but you are blind to them.

(I am beginning to sence a "martyr complex" on this issue... )


So, to return to your claim that "climatology is dominated by
oceanographers" you would need to demonstrate that research grants over,
say, the last ten years have favoured oceanography over atmospheric
science in regard to climate change, and that the code in, say, the
UGAMP model has some sort of unwarranted bias toward oceanography.

When I once was involved, the very opposite was the case. The ocean-
atmosphere boundary was one of the areas which needed more research.

And to support the thesis that "meteorologists" are "sitting on their
hands" or "swamped with detail" you might need to demonstate the lack
of relevant output from the Universities of Reading, East Anglia,
Edinburgh etc etc or the Hadley Centre or the IPCC or...

Alistair, this newsgroup is not the world. It is not even the scientific
world of "weather" (although I may wish it were). The conclusions you draw
from this newsgroup (and some you draw are quite false) do not necessarily
extrapolate to the scientific community.


Cheers,

keith



---
Iraq: 5 thousand million pounds, 50 lives, and counting...
The Politicians will now seek to blame the Spooks.

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Alastair McDonald"
writes:

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Alastair McDonald"
writes:

.....But so long as climatology is dominated by
oceanographers, and meteorologists sit on their hands swamped
by detail and unable to see the wood for the trees, then the human
(not geological) world will continue on its way to utter devastation.


Completely untrue.

Then why is this myth of new European ice age triggered by ocean
currents still such a widespread belief?


Have you run any models, varied initial conditions and examined the
results? Have you tried validating the model runs against ground-truth?

When you have extensively researched your theory, published the results and
subjected them to peer-review, *then* you may start talking about what is a
myth and what isn't, in this regard.

There is no need for me to do that research. It has already been done. See;

R. SEAGER, D. S. BATTISTI, J. YIN, N. GORDON, N. NAIK, A. C. CLEMENT and M. A.
CANE - Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe's mild winters?
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Vol. 128 OCTOBER 2002 Part B No. 586 p.2563
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf

and;

Thorpe, R.B., Gregory, J.M., Johns, T.C., Wood, R.A. and Mitchell, J.F.B.,
2001: Mechanisms determining the Atlantic thermohaline circulation response to
greenhouse gas forcing in a non-flux-adjusted coupled climate model. J. Clim.,
14, 3102-3116.

As for such things as a "belief" being "widespread", I refer you to god
and the media:-)

If you are going to resort to religous arguments all I can say is"God help
you!"

Presently we are having new temperature records set every
day, but I am "Still Waiting" for anyone here to admit that this is
caused by global warming and is not part of "natural variation."

Then you will have to wait an awfull long time, because many contributors
to this newsgroup have acknowledged the scientific truth of global warming
but you are blind to them.

(I am beginning to sence a "martyr complex" on this issue... )


So, to return to your claim that "climatology is dominated by
oceanographers" you would need to demonstrate that research grants over,
say, the last ten years have favoured oceanography over atmospheric
science in regard to climate change, and that the code in, say, the
UGAMP model has some sort of unwarranted bias toward oceanography.

When I once was involved, the very opposite was the case. The ocean-
atmosphere boundary was one of the areas which needed more research.

And to support the thesis that "meteorologists" are "sitting on their
hands" or "swamped with detail" you might need to demonstate the lack
of relevant output from the Universities of Reading, East Anglia,
Edinburgh etc etc or the Hadley Centre or the IPCC or...

Alistair, this newsgroup is not the world. It is not even the scientific
world of "weather" (although I may wish it were). The conclusions you draw
from this newsgroup (and some you draw are quite false) do not necessarily
extrapolate to the scientific community.

No, but the views expressed here do reflect the effect that the scientific
community is having on the educated layman who are vastly outnumbered
by the uneducated laymen and women. The scientists have failed to get
the message across that there is a major catastrophy just around the
corner etc etc etc.

Now back to writing my paper.

Cheers, Alastair.