There lies a problem doesn't it - the bloke's letter is complaining about the mis-use of the term 'gulf stream'. Many people (including the Economist in this case) use 'gulf stream' to denote the whole circulation in the N. Atlantic whereas, as he says, it is only a part of it (that current from the Caribbean to norh-east coast of USA).
The problem then is that if you are discussing the *whole* circulation in any detail (how it works, what will happen to it in certain circumstances &c) then you have to use the *proper* names for all the components (Gulf Stream, THC, North Atlantic Drift &c &c). Is there any way of simplifying these? If a newspaper simplifies too much then (a) nobody really gets the full picture and (b) someone will come along and pick holes in it!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Earth Hart Yes, it's those Big words that are sooo Big that I can't get around. No way am I a climate scientist but have a keen interest in the subject & just wish I could read articles that I can understand. |