That is where there is the one issue of ocean acidification. That may be an issue that does need addressing.

Also, concepts, language, and even models cannot be reified, i.e., are not any more than mental existents and not physical existents. They are ways of describing objective reality and nothing more. Models are nothing more than hypotheses about some aspects of objective reality and reality must be observed to see whether the models might describe reality correctly.

Glad this administration is now using the phrase “extreme weather” instead of climate change.

dutchmanii, I spent 20 years in submarines under water patrols, and I had an oceanographic installation specifically for gathering boatloads of data like temp, salinity, conductivity, etc. We never saw any specific changes to any ocean areas broadly, that we could relate to any volcanic activity, although we had several in the North Pacific. We are talking here about huge global bands of differentiated seawater, taking warm water from the south at the equator, and going north to the sub arctic. The issue is that if you melt a bunch of freshwater, it will make the water lighter and less likely to sink, this sinking pushes water along the deep ocean bottom to the south where it will upwell and warm, creating a conveyor belt like affair. This is what the Gulfstream does, and it warms Europe a lot, the theory is, break it, and Europe goes cold. (along with Alaska, Canada and Oregon/Washington. The manipulators would have us believe it is ALL because of CO2 and so they will apply their rules and laws and restrictions which will, of course, "fix it". There are other possibilities like increased solar output, changes in sunspot activity, even magnetic field changes, none of which anyone seems to want to discuss in the climate world (except a few "radicals"), because the money is all in CO2.

Yes, that's only part of the equation but it's mostly the sun and it's cycles.

The problem I have with the carbon scam, is the peddlers of it. All of the published sources seem to be connected in some way (or outright owning) alternative energy companies or producers. While I do have (made in America) solar panels on my house, I did it for economic reasons - the greenies made utility power stupidly-expensive in California, even though hydro is the largest single source.

Bill Nye (the Science Guy) would have been living out of a cardboard box by now if he wasn't on the greenie speaking tour. Al Gore can't be that concerned, because his mansion is consuming like 40 times what his neighbors do. Have you ever seen one of the celebrities telling you to ride a bicycle in anything other than a Mercedes limousine or a private jet?

Their argument omits that manmade emissions are practically table crumbs compared to the geologic output of volcanoes. They ignore the fact that if the North Slope and the Middle East hadn't once been a tropical savannah, there wouldn't be a lot of fossil fuels in either one.

Remember the predictions of "peak oil" in the 70's and we were running out of it - dead dry by the 1990s? We pretty much fought the Persian Gulf War on that theory. Then we became the world's largest producer of oil (and now an exporter again) after discovering that the reservoirs replenish themselves within a couple of decades.

I do agree that there is impact, and I've observed that winters in my hometown in northern Minnesota seem to be milder than when I was a kid 40 years ago, but in all honesty - that's an improvement.

We were supposed to be underwater by now, and that didn't happen.. so the skepticism is also there.

I am still searching for the original program I saw, the Japanese scientist spent a lot of time explaining in a very easy to understand way, the interactions and just how this cycle occurs, and what it takes to "kickstart" it back, which is what does happen. I think his time frame was a little shorter for seeing impacts from it, so we have to see, we also have to see what the CO2 gang comes up with to counter the position.

I do believe that the Ocean conveyor will break, given the current circumstances, and I also believe that it will result in a huge shift in climate over time that will make the northern and southern latitudes colder, the resulting snow and ice will increase albedo and cool the planet, until they start up again and the cycle resets. The physics make sense, the logic is sound and there is some evidence to say it has happened before several times. It seems to be the natural thermostat for the planet, but there is no money in it for the politicos who bought into it. CO2 may add to some of it, may change some of it, but I don't see how much. I also believe if they were so damn serious, they would be planting trees everywhere, and stopping destruction of the Amazon basin. For "ecologically sensitive" people they sure do ignore what doesn't pay money. That always makes me suspicious.

So you don't believe there is any change in climate due to carbon emissions? Has there been no effect from adding billions of tons of carbon to our atmosphere?

I am sure that is in the Plan, somewheres....

Move number 3 up to 1 and solve most problems, including ending the CO2 controversy...