For there to be a connection between CO2 and the gulf stream, the only possible way is for there to be a temperature rise, which we don't have.
Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports that ice is accumulating on different parts of earth 11/28/2012. Mike
Hello Luke,
I’m not really sure how you could break such a project into four parts as all the aspects are so closely inter-related. If you were to split it into four parts, or any number of parts, then it’s likely there will be inconsistencies between the parts; not least because each member of the group will likely adapt a different approach to the task in hand.
One suggestion as to how you could split this into four would be:
? Factors that could cause disruption to the Gulf Stream, namely changes to salinity, density and temperature of ocean waters occasioned by Atlantic oscillations, the introduction of Polar meltwater, changes in ocean dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean etc.
? Potential consequences of the above, current sensitivities, dynamics and influential factors; and the possible scenarios of any disruption such as truncation, divergence, overturning, drifting, stalling, cessation etc.
? The further consequences of a disrupted Gulf Stream to the global Thermohaline Circulation and the worldwide consequences of this with a focus on feedback mechanism that would both amplify and attenuate cooling of the UK, such as flows out of Arctic gateways increased Arctic reflectance and the effects on insolation.
? The effects that such disruption would have on the UK including the extent and magnitude of cooling, impacts on biospheres and humanity, alleviation and consequences etc.
What may assist, once the four of you have completed your separate research, is to circulate the work between you with each person editing as deemed appropriate, this way each person has input into all parts of the work and the final document has greater homogeneity and consistency.
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO JIM (1)
It seems you didn’t read my answer. The first of my suggestions related to “Factors that could cause disruption to the Gulf Stream”. Factors that COULD cause disruption, not factors that will, not that can, but ones which could. By definition that means these same factors may not cause any disruption.
A good scientist considers all options when testing a hypothesis; and if you’d read my response you’d have actually seen that I mentioned three things that could disrupt the Gulf Stream, only one of which is related to climate change. As for questioning whether it is even remotely possible, we know, and I guess you don’t, that it is possible as it’s happened before. Once again, don’t assume that because you don’t know something then nobody does.
Please enlighten me, what political agenda am I pushing? Please base your response on reality, not your imagination.
EDIT: TO JIM (2)
The question isn’t whether disruption to the Gulf Stream is possible, Luke is asking how to split a research group into four. If he chooses to split the group as per my suggestion then the first person will determine for themselves how likely any disruption is. Please try reading the question.
You could also try answering the question. You have made no attempt to answer the question, just seized an opportunity to vocalise your opinion and then quite hypocritically you accuse other people of pushing an agenda.
It also seems that for you climate change is a political issue rather than a scientific one. Repeatedly you accuse anyone who has a different opinion to you of being a leftist, a liberal, an anti-capitalist or a Marxist, when in reality you have no idea where they stand politically.
Maybe you need to get together and define what needs to be done.
Maybe look at how the gulf stream can vary.
Maybe look at how prevailing wind can vary.
Maybe look at how Ireland protects Britain from prevailing wind.
Maybe look at how warming or cooling will change prevailing wind.
If you knew what you were doing, one would think it would be easier to define the tasks.
I think what Trevor fails to mention, and you would think a climate "scientist" might think of this, is to question whether it is even remotely possible. When your goal is use AGW as a mechanism to push a political agenda, it appears that some aren't really interested in looking for the facts, just looking for opportunities to push the cause.
Trevor, as I stated, you didn't mention that it isn't even remotely likely did you?
Why?
The only answer that makes sense is because you are a political hack who isn't interested in the science except when he can cherry pick it to push his far left anti-capitalist agenda.
A good scientists doesn't feed into the fear of young students just because the state has a vested interest in pushing for redistribution.
I was recently set a Group project at university entitled "Global Warming, The gulf stream and a colder Britain"
There are 4 members in my group and we must share the workload as evenly as possible.
my problem is that so far we've struggled to break up this project into 4 parts in order for all of us to go away and work on it separatley
Any suggestions as to how we could do this would be greatly appreciated
Thanks
