Keith, What is interesting is that this is a discussion we had a while ago.
What caught my attention in the paper this morning was that dive companies on the Atlantic side of Florida [not too many waves in the Gulf] are complaining that usually 75 degree [Fahrenheit - about 24 degrees Celsius] water is down around 47 degrees which could produce the exact phenomenon that we were talking about. This would mean that the warm southern waters that keep Nordically-located Europe [that's all a you folk] more like the US in temperature would stop flowing. This would mean that you should be putting your money into land that could be used for ski slopes. Bill On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:36:17 +0100 Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I sit typing this -- even at 6.00am in the morning -- the > sweltering > heat is building up even now and my fingers are sweating. Yesterday, > > England recorded the highest temperature for 130 years -- ever since > > records began, in fact. We are certainly going through an extremely > warm > period, and it's a good precautionary principle that we should throw > a lot > more scientific investigation at the phenomenon just in case it's > the > beginning of something worse. To that end, two new environmental > satellites > have been launched in the last year, and the Americans are proposing > a > world-wide monitoring system -- something, strangely, we don't yet > have. > Most temperature measurements have only been taken in the civilised > parts > of the world, which is about one third of the total land mass, never > mind > the seas, and some large areas of the world are, in fact, becoming > cooler. > > However, what we don't need right now is hysteria, and this is what > some > people in politics and the media are trying to encourage. What > sparked it > off was an unfortunate conjunction of two events about 15 years ago. > > Firstly, In Engand, we happened to have a prime minister, Margaret > Thatcher, who was scientifically trained and was thus the first > prime > minister in over a century who was capable of communicating with > scientists > in a sensible way instead of regarding them as nerds who should be > kept in > the anteroom at all times. Quite rightly, she was impressed with the > > arguments of a minority of scientists who thought that something > serious > might be happening, and she called, very effectively, for more > investigation. > > Secondly, and most unfortunately, this was seen as a heaven-sent > opportunity by the bureaucrats of the European Commission to > increase their > visibility and power. They have been able to persuade other senior > career > civil servants in European countries, together with politicians who > have a > vested career interest in a larger, more powerful European > Commission, that > some sort of regulatory regime must be instituted as soon as > possible. > Thus, the Kyoto Protocol was launched > > Fortunately, the two countries (America and Russia) which, between > them, > have a majority of the most highly experienced climatologists and > oceanographers in the world in their universities and research > institutes, > have resisted the immediate introduction of enormously expensive > world-wide > taxation which will do more to impoverish the poor of the world than > if the > worst scenario that's contemplated turns out to be true. Besides, > even the > most punitive punishment of carbon dioxide emissions would only > delay a > rise in sea level by a few years -- if it were carried out, and if > the > worst happens. > > A rise in global temperatures would have all sorts of economic > consequences > and by all means we should throw as much scientific investigation at > the > problem as is possible. But the present hysteria is an extreme > example of > the sort of politically correct view that has overtaken much of > Europe in > the last half-century -- that, somehow, man is above the natural > order of > things, and that we are rational enough to be able to plan our way > through > any sort of situation in order to arrive at a sort of welfare > nirvana in > which we are able to evade the normal evolutionary processes that > affect > all other species. > > But, in physiological terms, we are no different from any other > animal. Our > DNA is almost identical to that of many other mammalian species. > Whether we > like it or not, we are still subject to external selective forces > which > bear down on matters of sexual partnership, fertility and survival. > What > the European Commission ought to be considering is that we don't > need > global warming in order to bring about the demise of man. We are > already > doing it much more effectively -- and quickly, too. It is in those > countries such as Russia and in Central Europe which have > experienced the > most highly regulated economies in the recent past, and in those > western > countries such as Germany, France, Italy and England which are > presently > increasingly their regulatory control, where family size is dropping > > precipitately with between one and two replacement children only per > pair > of adults. Within three or four generations, the indigenous > population of > central and western Europe will have decreased to only a small > fraction of > its present size. Two and three generations further on, and European > > populations will have gone forever. > > Leave global warming to the scientists for the time being. There's > controversy in their ranks at the moment, usually between the > second-grade > scientists, but as more data comes to hand a consensus will emerge. > > Meanwhile, the European Commission ought to be considering a much > more > serious problem: why are their populations committing suicide? The > EC ought > to be stimulating biological research into the matter instead of > busying > themselves devising more regulations -- such as, recently, insisting > on > visiting Russian trapeze artists wearing crash helmets when they > perform in > Europe. > > KH > > <<<< > LET'S TAKE A LONG, COOL LOOK AT THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARNING > The current heat wave is not necessarily a symptom of worse to come > > Bjorn Lomborg > > This time last year, the rains were so heavy in central Europe, > northern > Italy and southern France that not merely crops, but whole > buildings, > indeed whole streets, were washed away. The Danube and Po rivers > overflowed > and flooded many of the cities on their banks, causing irreperable > damage > to historic buildings, and destroying much of the year's > agriculture. > > This year, those same regions are experiencing drought. The Po is > nowso low > that in some regions it is possible to walk across it London, Milan > and a > number of cities in Switzerland and France have experienced their > hottest > days since records began. Forest fires are devastating Provence and > other > regions of southern Europe. The shortage of water is becoming > acute.Unsurprisingly, newspapers and television are packed with > stories of > climatic doom and disaster. The media's message is simple: the > climate is > changing, for the worse, and-it is all our fault. And it is not just > > newspapers in search of a summer story that claim this: so too do > politicians and scientists. Only last week for example, the > prominent > researcher Sir John Houghton compared extreme weather with weapons > of mass > destruction and called for political action. > > As one sits sweltering in an apparently unprecedented heatwave, that > > analysis seems completely persuasive. We are boiling, and it is all > down to > global warming. Something must be done. In this area, however, what > seems > obvious is not necessarily true. Climate change is notoriously > difficult to > identify, never mind accurately to explain. And one hot summer in > Europe > doesn't mean that the word's climate has permanently changed for the > worse. > > Perhaps surprisingly, the UN Climate Panel cannot find anything > significant > to suggest that weather has become more extreme over the past 100 > years. > Global warming is a certainly a statistically-proven phenomenon -- > but its > only well-attested effect is to produce slightly more rain. > Alarmists such > as Sir John Houghton readily cite the World Meteorological > Organisation > (WMO) to the effect that global warming has now shown itself to > produce > extreme weather such as the present heatwave. Unfortunately for Sir > John, > this much-cited newsflash from the WMO was only a press release. It > was not > based on any research. When questioned on that point, the WMO > acknowledged > that its results suggesting that there was more extreme weather > could be a > statistical artifact: they could be explained merely by -- as the > WMO put > it -- "improved monitoring and reporting". > > It is not something that the doom-mongers want to hear. It does not > fit in > with the claim that global warming is becoming a "weapon of mass > destruction". But it is simply not correct to claim that global > warming is > the primary explanation of the kind of heatwave we are now > experiencing. > The statistics show that global warming has not, in fact, increased > the > number of exceptionally hot periods. It has only decreased the > number of > exceptionally cold ones. The US, northern and central Europe, China, > > Australia, and New Zealand have all experienced fewer frost days, > whereas > only Australia and New Zealand have seen their maximum temperatures > > increase. For the US, there is no trend in the maximum temperatures > -- and > in China they have actually been declining. > > Having misidentified the primary cause of the heatwave as global > warming, > we then tend to make another mistake: we assume that as the weather > gets > warmer, we will get hotter and more people eventually will die in > heatwaves. But, in fact, a global temperature increase does not mean > that > everything just becomes warmer; it will generally raise minimum > temperatures much more than maximum temperatures. In both > hemispheres and > for all seasons, night temperatures have increased much more than > day > temperatures. Likewise, most warming has taken place in the winter > rather > than the summer. Finally, three quarters of the warming has taken > place > over the very cold areas of Siberia and Canada. All of these > phenomena are > -- within limits -- atually quite good for both agriculture and > people. > > The idea of comparing this with weapons of mass destruction is, to > put it > mildly, isleading. Yes, more people will die from heatwaves -- but > what is > forgotten is that many more people will not die from cold spells. In > the > US, it is estimated that twice as many people die from cold as from > heat, > and in the UK it is estimated that about 9,000 fewer people would > die each > winter with global warming. But don't expect headlines in the next > mild > winter reading "9,000 not dead". > > It is a typical example of the way that we ignore the fact that > climate > change has beneficial effects as well as damaging ones, allowing > ourselves > to be scared witless by every rise in temperature. All the same, you > may > say, isn't it true that the effects of the weather extremes we do > experience are getting more serious? Yes it is -- but the > explanation for > this is simply that there are more people in the world, they are > wealthier, > and many more prefer to live in dties and coastal areas. > Accordingly, > extreme weather will affect more people than before and because > people are > more affluent, more absolute wealth is likely to be lost. > > Florida is an example of this development When Florida was hit by a > > hurricane in September 1926 the economic loss was, in present day > dollars, > $100 million. In 1992 a very similar hurricane cost the economy $38 > > billion. Clearly it was a bigger disaster, but not due to > developments in > extreme weather. The explanation comes from economic growth and > urbanisation. We are becoming more vulnerable to extreme weather -- > but > this is only very weakly related to climate change. It is therefore > tenuous > to blame the damage currently unfolding on global warming. And it > does not > help to argue -- as Sir John does -- that the wise political > solution is a > massive collective action against global wanning. > > Although global warming has had little effect on extreme weather in > the > past, it might have a greater effect in the future -- although we > have > little idea how much, except that as we get richer, it will cost us > more to > repair the damage. Still, shouldn't we, for the sake of our > children, or > our children's children, start to tackle the greenhouse effect -- > the > heating up of the atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon > dioxide > emissions? Well -- no, actually. If the goal is to reduce our > vulnerability > to extreme weather, limiting carbon emissions is certainly not the > most > cost-effective way. In the Kyoto Protocol, industrialised countries > have > agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent by 2010. This > will be > very expensive and will only have a negligible effect Estimates from > all > macro-economic models show a global cost of $150 billion-$350 > billion every > year. At the same time, the effect on extreme weather will be > marginal: the > climate models show that Kyoto will merely postpone the temperature > rise by > six years from 2100 to 2106. > > The major problems of global warming will occur in the Third World. > Yet > these countries have many other and much more serious problems to > contend > with. For the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol in the single > year of > 2010, we could permanently satisfy the world's greatest need: we > could > provide clean drinking water and sanitation for everybody. It would > surely > be better to deal with those most pressing problems first. > > Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and a > > professor at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. > > Sunday Times 11 August 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
