[kevlarman]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight. From the links above and some other articles am I to deduce that not only is the Ozone healing, Africa is getting wetter and subsequently experiancing a general loss of deserts? The Arctic ice is retreating and glaciers world wide are dissapearing? This sounds like a trend to me. Man made, nature made, who cares? It all sounds like a trend that we'll have to deal with and no amount of debating whether it's real or not is going to make it go away. You may be able to catalogue it or scientifically describe it better but you can't make the change stop.

That's not to say a few decades or even centuries from now everything can't be thrown in reverse and changed again since change seems to be the only constant. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, that seemingly foolish thing Harper did with those Arctic patrol vessels may just prove to be just what the doctor ordered...

[sasquatch2]

The jury is still out about the ozone. I am starting to suspect the CFC thing was bogus.

The Sahara does appear to be shrinking.

Glaciers have been retreating for over a century. However some are growing. Both Antarctica and Greenland are experiencing net growth. Evidence of summer is not evidence of melting or breakup.

However, for the next few centuries at least, nothing short of purpose built ice-breakers will be able to operate in the North. Currently our man, Ziggy, is engaged in crossing this non-existent ice to recover much needed fuel, from a barge frozen in earlier than usual non-existent ice. That is still far south of the Arctic Archipelago.

The USCG won "The Weather War" by finally building the worlds first ice breakers and arming them like light cruisers.

north of 70

[N_Fiddledog]

I can give you a really non-scientific (as in I don't pretend to understand it all) interpretation from a natural causes perspective if you like.

In the early 80s something began they're calling the Great Pacific Climate Shift. It has something to do with what they call PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). On the Atlantic side there's something called AMO. Basically we're talking warm water activity. It's all cyclical, and theoretically, likely solar powered.

As I understand it some scientists, (I have no idea how accepted all this is) believe this is the major factor in the arctic melt. Last year there was also some strange kind of wind activity that was blowing the ice south when it broke away.

So anyway you've got all this warm water activity. On top of that there's been an unusual amount of El Nino activity. All this has been causing some strange (to we who only live 80 years) climate occurences.

As I said before, it's cyclical. It's not the first time we've seen it. It comes and it goes. Some say there are indications it's winding down. Something to do with entering a period of less solar activity. A La Nina is moving in right now. They last 1 to 2 years, and are the opposite of El Nino. If we were to get the same amount of La Ninas in the coming years we got with the frequency and intensity of El ninos in the recent twenty to thirty year spurt there would be more strange climate, only different.

[kevlarman]

At least we can likely agree that something is happening, just what that something is is no completely understood?

[N_Fiddledog]

kevlarman kevlarman:

At least we can likely agree that something is happening, just what that something is is no completely understood?

Speaking for myself, "Oh, yeah, absolutely".

I don't know where the idea came from skeptics don't believe there are ever any changes in the climate. Believing that would be as crazy as believing some of the stuff I've heard Al Gore say. I know I've never said there's no such thing as change in climate, so it isn't coming from me. It's a misconception. The only people I've ever heard suggest that's what skeptics believe is the other side of the argument.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I can give you a really non-scientific (as in I don't pretend to understand it all) interpretation from a natural causes perspective if you like.

In the early 80s something began they're calling the Great Pacific Climate Shift. It has something to do with what they call PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). On the Atlantic side there's something called AMO. Basically we're talking warm water activity. It's all cyclical, and theoretically, likely solar powered.

As I understand it some scientists, (I have no idea how accepted all this is) believe this is the major factor in the arctic melt. Last year there was also some strange kind of wind activity that was blowing the ice south when it broke away.

So anyway you've got all this warm water activity. On top of that there's been an unusual amount of El Nino activity. All this has been causing some strange (to we who only live 80 years) climate occurences.

As I said before, it's cyclical. It's not the first time we've seen it. It comes and it goes. Some say there are indications it's winding down. Something to do with entering a period of less solar activity. A La Nina is moving in right now. They last 1 to 2 years, and are the opposite of El Nino. If we were to get the same amount of La Ninas in the coming years we got with the frequency and intensity of El ninos in the recent twenty to thirty year spurt there would be more strange climate, only different.

So would you agree that if the temperature continues to be warmer than normal over the next few years, then we can rule out the PDO as the cause since exaggerated El Ninas should result in average cooling?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So would you agree that if the temperature continues to be warmer than normal over the next few years, then we can rule out the PDO as the cause since exaggerated El Ninas should result in average cooling?

Jeez, you know, now that's a good question. I hadn't even considered the possibility. But yeah, what if that happened? What if things all of a sudden turned around again, and we had a succession of years warmer even than the 1998 maximum? You know at that point I think, I might have to rethink things.

As matter of fact I wonder if that might be a good benchmark for a circumstance under which freaking out might be advisable. Up to this point we haven't seen anything that can't be explained by natural cycles. If we start zooming past what we saw in 1998 though, yes, I think that might make me reconsider my position. If however we saw something like another surge in solar activity, or more proof of other natural explanations which would somehow explain the rise I might stand pat.

OK now here's one for you suppose this flattening out of temperatures we've been seeing in the last 10 years or so turns into a trend downwards. How far down will it have to go, for how many years before you rethink your position?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So would you agree that if the temperature continues to be warmer than normal over the next few years, then we can rule out the PDO as the cause since exaggerated El Ninas should result in average cooling?

Jeez, you know, now that's a good question. I hadn't even considered the possibility. But yeah, what if that happened. What if things all of a sudden turned around again, and we had a succession of years warmer even than the 1998 maximum. You know at that point I think, I might have to rethink things.

As matter of fact I wonder if that might be a good benchmark for a circumstance under which freaking out might be advisable. Up to this point we haven't seen anything that can't be explained by natural cycles. If we start zooming past what we saw in 1998 though, yes, I think that might make me reconsider my position.

OK now here's one for you suppose this flattening out of temperatures we've been seeing in the last 10 years or so turns into a trend downwards. How far down will it have to go, for how many years before you rethink your position?

Then we may have ourselves a testable hypothesis. Honestly, I'm not as up on the science as I like ot think I am, so I'll probably be more swayed by big-name scientists starting to hedge their bets towards climate change being natural. But, yes, if temperatures remain stable or cool off for another five years, then that'll certainly influence my thinking.

Either way, it's moot for me, as I've said before. I'd take all that money we're sinking into carbon offsets and put it into policing the high seas to protect from overfishing, as well as the development of a more resilient and diversified energy grid, including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, fission and fusion (and novel forms too). Oil is the only reason this planet can support six billion people right now. Without oil, we'll be lucky if it can support four billion. SO not using oil is not an option as far as I'm concerned.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

$1:

Either way, it's moot for me, as I've said before. I'd take all that money we're sinking into carbon offsets and put it into policing the high seas to protect from overfishing, as well as the development of a more resilient and diversified energy grid, including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, fission and fusion (and novel forms too). Oil is the only reason this planet can support six billion people right now. Without oil, we'll be lucky if it can support four billion. SO not using oil is not an option as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah! I'll drink to that.

My problem is the alarmism----the fraudulent "science"......and the inquisition like enforcement of that ideology.

It seems the solutions these freaks seek to impose---not encourage----impose, have one purpose.

The refusal to countenance forestation as a Carbon sink was soooo transparent. It was unacceptable because:

1. It did not involve paying extortion---Carbon credits...

2. It left the North american economy intact.

3. It didn't impose UN global government.