You wrote in part:
“H.R.
Reflecting on the general population and noting the number of citizens who are willing to mind your business as well as their own, there should be no shortage of volunteers for the monitoring ass-ignments. I am curious about the job description and the name for the agents. I am sure the EPA can come up with a catchy acronym.”

I think they might form the Fetid Air Recovery Team whose job it would be to capture and quantify exhaust from the human tailpipe for the purpose of determining the appropriate tax rate to charge the emmiter.

(Scary. I’m not sure whether I wrote a wee bit of humor or a glimpse of the future.)

The Flat-Earth-Society “argument” straight out of the AGW-crowd’s handbook – and seems like it fits anything these days, eh?

Now, guess who wrote this in a reply to someone else:

“[X] not only seems to think his is the only valid viewpoint, but goes out of his way to belittle the views of others.”

Answer: you did – and in case you “forgot” all about it already.

But ok – now I’m outta here – I promise!… ;)

The Younger Dryas (GS1) is also a Blytt-Sernander climate period detected from layers in north European bog peat. It is dated approximately 12,900-11,500 BP calibrated, or 11,000-10,000 BP uncalibrated. An Older Dryas stadial had preceded the Allerød, approximately 1,000 years before the Younger Dryas; it lasted 300 years.[4] “”"

I can’t say I have read so many gobbledegook buzzwords in such a small space before; courtesy of Wicked peedya. No wonder the general public glazes over when encountering science articles.

The above is more convoluted than the family histories of “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, and “Quiet Flows the Don” all rolled into one book.

As for the “Thermohaline Circulation” I believe that stopping it involves a certain operation called “Stopping the Planetary Rotation”.

I always wanted to reverse the planetary rotation, so we could have a warm gulf stream, and tropical pelagic fishes along the California Coast, and you all Easterners could have your Atlantic Salmon back.

I’ll let you know before I apply the brakes !

You are correct in stating that seawater density, rather than just salinity, is the governing factor in thermohaline circulation. But, notwithstanding efforts by the Gore School of Oceanography to elevate it to overarching significance, THC constitutes merely a minor, sluggish, sub-surface adjustment to the wind-driven anti-cyclonic circulation that transports heat poleward (e.g., Gulf Stream, the Kuroisho, Brazil, and Agulhas Currents) and returns cool water to temperate latitudes (e.g., Benguella, Peru, California Currents). The wind-driven circulation is orders of magnitude more important. And the whole point of my discussion is the global heat content and its variability, not just the mechanics of oceanic transport.

Pointing to marginal, virtually land-locked, seas doesn’t alter the fact that for well over 95% of the oceans, the salinity is within 34.3-35.1 parts per thousand. Even in the marginal seas, the thermodynamic properties of sea water are scarcely affected by much more drastic salinity variations.

Notwithstanding the highly speculative claim that the release of glaciai freshwater lakes altered the oceanic circulation–thus climate–I remain mystified by your seeking explanations of climate variations in terms of factors of little significance, insofar as global average temperatures are concerned. The significant (sigma ~1/4K) year-to-year variability of those averages was the point of my question. Surely, as a physicist, you recognize that oceanic circulation can merely redistribute the globally absorbed heat, rather than change its average value. By contrast, cloud albedo, which can reduce the thermalized insolation by up to 100 w/sq.m locally, affects the heat content itself.

But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.”

Well, I’m convinced. Now, excuse me while I go stock up on tinfoil.

Can’t you read? The “tribe” has spoken already – remember:

- “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”

- ““Bingo, count me in.”

- “All in favor? (Raises hand…)”

- “I would also like to nix the chemtrails nonsense.”

So, keep up the “good fight” guys!

‘Cause although the people behind the AGW-hoax are just too “simple” to understand most of your arguments, the “best” arguments – based on “good science”, naturally – will ultimately prevail, eh?

Well, dream on, folks – the AGW-tribe is a lot bigger than yours and they already have all the power they need to get what they’re after.

Cheers,

The Lazy Finn

Ps. ever cared to check out what the UN’s “Agenda-21″ is all about? Oh well, I guess you’re busy enough as it is…

Leif Svalgaard (22:38:43) :
There are good indications that the melting of ice barriers at the end of the last ice age would have allowed large glacial freshwater lakes [the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada are still such remaining bodies of water] to enter the oceans and temporarily change the salinity enough to upset the normal circulation and cause dramatic climate change. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

I dunno, I think they’re really stretching that theory there.

From the Wikipedia article [emphasis mine]:

In western Europe and Greenland, the Younger Dryas is a well-defined synchronous cool period.[9] But cooling in the tropical North Atlantic may have preceded this by a few hundred years; South America shows a less well defined initiation but a sharp termination. The Antarctic Cold Reversal appears to have started a thousand years before the Younger Dryas, and has no clearly defined start or end;

The prevailing theory holds that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.[12] The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water “lid” from the north Atlantic Ocean. This theory does not explain why South America cooled first.

Previous glacial terminations probably did not have Younger Dryas-like events, suggesting that whatever the mechanism is, it has a random component.

However there is evidence that termination II had a post glacial cooling period similar to the younger Dryas but lasting longer and being more severe.

There is evidence that the so-called Younger Dryas impact event, 12,900 years ago in North America could have initiated the Younger Dryas cooling.[13]

So they’ve got multiple data points which conflict with the theory. It also seems to me that all interglacials would have such a problem. Also, with wind patterns then being roughly the same as today, the cold should have swept all across the northern hemisphere, but it seems only Western Europe, Greenland, and North America are mentioned (unless I missed something), as happening in conjunction with the Younger Dryas.

Dr. Svalgaard:

Because seawater salinity varies little, and the effect upon the oceans’ heat capacity is consequently negligible, I’m mystified by your placement of it at the head of the list of possible “drivers” of oceanic circulation that “may account” for the variations in climate that we are experiencing.

It varies enough. Probably the most important case is the Gulf Stream. It’s high salinity is due to evaporation, but the warm temperature keeps it buoyant until it reaches the Arctic whereupon it sinks. If there is a flood of fresh water from Canada or Greenland, that can float on top of the Gulf Stream cutting down on the Gulf Stream warming in Europe.

Search for “Thermohaline Circulation”. My http://wermenh.com/2016.html may have some useful references. Basically, it’s density, not heat capacity, that’s important.

There are good indications that the melting of ice barriers at the end of the last ice age would have allowed large glacial freshwater lakes [the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada are still such remaining bodies of water] to enter the oceans and temporarily change the salinity enough to upset the normal circulation and cause dramatic climate change. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Because seawater salinity varies little, and the effect upon the oceans’ heat capacity is consequently negligible, I’m mystified by your placement of it at the head of the list of possible “drivers” of oceanic circulation that “may account” for the variations in climate that we are experiencing. My understanding is that the global anticyclonic circulation is wind-driven. Also, it would seem that something more variable than heat capacity (perhaps cloud albedo) is required to explain the considerable year-to-year variations of global temperature that are observed. Please explain.