Yep, Im a sicko

[jmac00]

Read it myself.



In other words, the tempering effect of being by a big heat absorber-radiator tempers the temperature of Europe, not the Gulf Stream. Fair enough. So what is your point in relation to Global Warming?

that the gulf stream has more to do with GW than CO²

[printer2]

that the gulf stream has more to do with GW than CO²

How so? I missed that in the paper.

[jmac00]

How so? I missed that in the paper.

Im just saying, It seems logical TO ME (and no one else) that the gulf stream has more to do with CC than atmospheric conditions

[Gib's Son]

that the gulf stream has more to do with GW than CO²

When my wife was attending College, oh, about ten years ago now, this was what they were teaching. Is it still taught? Don't know.

[jmac00]

I don't have a clue. BUT it seems to me if you take 300 gazillion gallons of water from the Equator, heat it up and send it north to a colder climate......something is going to change.

Is it a bad thing? or a good thing.

Personally, I like being warm.......for once?

[WebCTRL]

Those things were not resolved using science or theories. At least in a direct sense. Just as science is not out to make any kind of determination about God, it just so happens that some of the things that science says make some believers uncomfortable.

It was observation that showed the world was not flat. Not scientific testing.

The existence of superstitions also have nothing to do with science. Some still exist today despite scientific discovery. I agree that myths can be shown as such in many ways but the intent of science is simply to explain what we observe.

Like Newton who made an observation that anyone can make; apples fall to the ground. Since we can all see that that's why it's a fact. Science had nothing to do with us determining that apples falling to the ground is a fact.

Facts are established by their status of being mutually observable or mutually experienced. After we've established fact then science gets involved and wants to explain it.

That global warming exists is a fact. The debate is how and why? What will its long-term effect be and what will we do about it if anything?

Again, science explains facts it doesn't create them.

So if GW is happening, or for that matter if Global Cooling "was" happening and these were normal cylcles of nature, should we interfere? Are we arrogant in the assumption that we can interfere or stop the warming/cooling?

I understand that we should do our best to be mindful of nature and to be considerate in our usage of natural resouces as best we can. I don't think we should be on the fringes of either extreme (the tree huggers or the don't give a crap about the environment crowd, if there is one). But if global warming is happening, and we see that in the distant past it has been much warmer on earth, might we be best to just buckle up for the ride and adapt to what comes of it?

[scrogdog]

So if GW is happening, or for that matter if Global Cooling "was" happening and these were normal cylcles of nature, should we interfere? Are we arrogant in the assumption that we can interfere or stop the warming/cooling?

I understand that we should do our best to be mindful of nature and to be considerate in our usage of natural resouces as best we can. I don't think we should be on the fringes of either extreme (the tree huggers or the don't give a crap about the environment crowd, if there is one). But if global warming is happening, and we see that in the distant past it has been much warmer on earth, might we be best to just buckle up for the ride and adapt to what comes of it?

I haven't seen a proposal that could be considered an "active" response that I thought was worth a crap. Certainly our record with regards to attempting to control nature have a historically dismal record as well. In fact, a couple of these proposals have been downright scary looking to me.

Passive response I'm ok with since there is a lot more than C02 happening at the end of a smokestack or tailpipe.

Speaking practically, the debate isn't going to mean much when it gets right down to it. Kyoto was pretty abysmal in achievment and with the world economy tanking, there are more important things to worry about than GW at the moment.

Global warming will require a global response if any. In my opinion we've got better odds of me seeing God.

[printer2]

I don't have a clue. BUT it seems to me if you take 300 gazillion gallons of water from the Equator, heat it up and send it north to a colder climate......something is going to change.

Is it a bad thing? or a good thing.

Personally, I like being warm.......for once?

Not sure if you caught it, but the author of the article is saying that the Gulf Stream is not the cause of a warm Europe. You may want to re-read the paper.

And since the Gulf Stream has been doing its thing for a long while, even before the industrial era, what does this have to do with Global warming? I have no clue what you are thinking.

[jmac00]

Not sure if you caught it, but the author of the article is saying that the Gulf Stream is not the cause of a warm Europe. You may want to re-read the paper.

And since the Gulf Stream has been doing its thing for a long while, even before the industrial era, what does this have to do with Global warming? I have no clue what you are thinking.

I don't care.

[Slatts]

I don't care.

Then...
Why post the link?