Are you new to the whole issue of anthropenic global warming (man-caused GW) or not. I ask because the information/advice you will be given will depend on you answer. If you are a newbie then its best to start by researching on Google and following the links from one web site to another. That way you can read what you see and make up your own mind. After a bit of that go and read the IPCC 2001 Third Aassessment Report (TAR) and you’ll then be able to relate what you’ve previous read against what’s in the TAR. One word of warning, don’t just read press articles in the mainstream media, dig deeper than that.

Happy AGW researching!

KevinUK

“No matter what one might conclude about causitive factors, on the West Coast, where I have spent my 40 plus year life, indeed, La Nina like conditions have seemed to increase. Winters have brought increases in low elevation snow events and increases in the wide and wild swings typical of “less droughty” La Ninas (well, less droughty for the coast north of about San Luis Obispo, that is …). Springs have become limited to non existent. Summers tend to have more onshore push, deeper marine layers and more “unseasonal” cold fronts and insider slider lows. We see more cold core systems earlier in fall. So, depending on which GCM you subscribe to, and depending on the extent to which you elevate arthropogenic modification of the atmospheric gas mixture as a causitive factor of specific long term dynamics, yes, La Nina may be a proxy, of sorts, of the AGW theory assuming it is true. Frightening thought – if and only if the AGW centric prediction of future climate is either not completely correct, or out right wrong, consider extreme scenarios which would result in a drastically (and painfully) different outcome than the prophecied sea level rise / climatic tropical expansion / northerly movement of species model. Flip that on its head and imagine it. Pretty rough stuff, and in my mind, even worse than the outcome of the global warming tipping point scenario. Colder may not be better! “

Dardie: are you one of those who like this kind of post? Note, Steve’s response in the top part…maybe I’m not so out to sea…

George, Ive read that. “Marine” does not mean “fish.” We know the Norse ate marine mammals, mostly hunted during summer expeditions to calving grounds north of the settlements. There is also evidence that as local farm productivity declined, perhaps tbecaue of temps, but certainly inlarge aprt because of soil and browse degradation from erosion afer overgrazing, that they depended more on that source for meat; this is one part of that evidence.

The mammal populations on those grounds would not be limited by the described upwelling, at least without good evidence that the upwellign area was a major feeding ground for those mammals.

Not to mention that I dont see good evidence for a good link between alterations in the upwellign and local temperatures.

If that ither stuff is there, it may be telling us something about depth of thaw for one season, whic is also no evidence in absense of info regardign current depths of thaw,a nd year to year variability in that depth.