Ocean News

Minnesota and the District of Columbia Allege Climate Change Deception by Big Oil

"This action seeks to hold Defendants accountable for deliberately undermining the science of climate change, purposefully downplaying the role that the purchase and consumption of their products played in causing climate change and the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change, and for failing to fully inform the consumers and the public of their understanding that without swift action, it would be too late to ward off the devastation," the complaint said.

In the lawsuit, Ellison said the companies' advertising was aimed at ensuring that consumers continued to purchase fossil-fuel products, and failed to warn of the contrary findings by the industry's own scientists, according to the lawsuit. Further, Exxon and Koch contributed millions to climate-change denial organizations that obfuscated climate science.

Minnesota and the District of Columbia Allege Climate Change Deception by Big Oil https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24062020/minnesota-climate-change-lawsuit-exxon-mobil-api-koch-industries

.

 

we'll see how those work out.

 

Seeding oceans with iron may not impact climate change

.....To help stem escalating carbon dioxide emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels, some scientists have proposed seeding the oceans with iron — an essential ingredient that can stimulate phytoplankton growth. Such “iron fertilization” would cultivate vast new fields of phytoplankton, particularly in areas normally bereft of marine life.....

The researchers studied the interactions between phytoplankton, iron, and other nutrients in the ocean that help phytoplankton grow. Their simulations suggest that on a global scale, marine life has tuned ocean chemistry through these interactions, evolving to maintain a level of ocean iron that supports a delicate balance of nutrients in various regions of the world.

“According to our framework, iron fertilization cannot have a significant overall effect on the amount of carbon in the ocean because the total amount of iron that microbes need is already just right,’’ says lead author Jonathan Lauderdale, a research scientist in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences......

 

There are lots of iron mines, be glad to sell you the raw ore. Don't need smelted iron.

 

I imagine "farming" phytoplankton on the oceans is basically the only chance for large scale carbon sequestration. You'd need a forest the size of two times India to make an impact on land, but the oceans are vast and unused. And forest like the amazon don't actually take out CO2, they only sequester the amount stored in the wood that continually decays and releases it again.

Only marine snow really deposits and sequesters carbon to the ocean floor.

So a gigantic fleet of autonomous robot ships with a cargo of iron, macronutrients, nitrogen and phosphate and these ligands would seem to be needed. They would monitor local concentrations and continually spread the needed nutrients to have a sustained growth. The large amount of nutrients needed would have to be manufactured using sustainable energy like solar or nuclear. Maybe we'll need to genetically engineer phytoplankton to be especially efficient in sequestering carbon as marine snow.

 

Don't you think, first scientifically proving CO2 causes climate warming, is the necessary prerequisite before investing billions or trillions of dollars in a mistaken and futile effort?
If you claim it's already proven, produce that proof, if you can.
Bet you can't!
CO2 is such a puny greenhouse gas, both in effect and in quantity, only a religious like faith in the AGW doctrine, could support it.

 

The mass of the atmosphere is equivalent to only about the top 10 meters of the oceans, while the effective mass of the oceans subject to warming is in the order of 200 times the mass of the atmosphere. Clearly, the oceans drive the Earth’s climate.

 

Maybe proof will show up in those lawsuits.
The litigant has to prove their case against the respondent. The respondent doesn't have to prove the litigant is wrong. Just raise the issue of doubt! Or legal standing.

 

Global Warming Suit Against Oil Industry Goes to Appeals Court https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/global-warming-suit-against-oil-industry-goes-to-appeals-court

In July 2018, a federal judge in Manhattan agreed with the industry’s argument, throwing out New York’s suit.

“The immense and complicated problem of global warming requires a comprehensive solution that weighs the global benefits of fossil fuel use with the gravity of the impending harms,” U.S. District Judge John Keenan wrote.

Keenan ruled that the federal Clean Air Act exclusively controls carbon dioxide emissions, barring New York’s suit and similar state-law claims.

Well, there is the precedent! Courts like to follow precedents.

 

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

The stomata record offers important evidence to challenge the notion that variations in CO2 levels of 20-50 ppm over timespans of less than 1000-years are "unprecedented" or that Pre-Industrial CO2 concentrations never went above 300 ppm-- both may, in fact, have been normal.

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image354.gif


The theory that human additions to atmospheric CO2 are the principle driver of Earth's temperature changes, has not been proven. For example:

The notion that CO2 drives temperature is disproved by the ice core record,which shows that temperatures rise first, then CO2 follows later.

While CO2 has risen steadily over the last decade, global surface temperatures have not increased.

Temperatures in the mid troposphere (5 km up), where signals of greenhouse warming should be strongest, have actually declined since 2000. According to greenhouse theory, this should not be happening if CO2 increases are the primary cause of global warming.

 

The previous post opines the temperature has not dramatically changed in many years. here is a chart.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/W...ration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature




but according to alarmists, CO2 levels have climbed an alarming amount, and CO2 causes warming. more specifically, the tiny amount of CO2 humans contribute causess massive warming!

Duh, something smells fishy!
Maybe you have to have "massive" intellect like the alarmists. Like the observed "massive" rise in temperature. I believe there is a corollary between the two massives!

 

↑ post #3465 - No, the oceans drive the Earth’s weather.

In post #3407 you've claimed to know the difference between weather and climate, but here you switch them again.

So since you've claimed to know the difference between weather and climate, but switch them every time, please explain to me what you think the difference is.

As far as I know this definition (quoted below) with given sources is correct, which explains why there are now commercial wineries possible in Norway (post #3421 and #3433) due to climate change and not due to a weather system, while 20 years ago such wineries were not possible at all.

‘‘ Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time, whereas climate refers to the weather pattern, using statistical data, of a place over a long enough period to yield meaningful averages. [1] - [2] ’’

About the many links you spread, better read them first yourself as a whole, because when others do it has turned out many times they can point out that the info you have linked tells the contrary of what you claim. Like eg. as with your Dutch dikes links and claims, which I've refuted from your own sources in post #3418.

 

The primary author and view of a blog or site often differs from a quote I select from among the comments, refuting the authors opinion. Should I not post the address where I found it?. Is the authors view only to be quoted?
The Dutch history I quoted, had several eras, i recall three. I quoted from the middle era, 1200 to 1500, I think. I quoted it directly. Intentionally. as it was the earliest massive construction of dikes. Said subsidence and rising sea became a problem in 14th century. thats 1300s. The dikes I referred to were built prior to 1500. Certainly, bigger and more ambitious projects occurred in later centuries, 1600s, funded by VOC's human victims.

For Bangladesh to help themselves, which is more inspirational? Poor farmers using hand tools, and four footed beasts, to build dikes 500 years or longer ago? Or modern engineers with heavy earth moving equipment, and million dollar budgets, today? We don't ever need to offer VOC depredations as an option.
I didn't!

AGW alarmists want only one point of view posted.
I understand that.
i don't agree with permitting only solitary points of view, or very little else they spout.
I speak truth. They disagree with me! See? I'm not the only disagreeable poster!

i agree with your definitions of weather and climate. The oceans drive the weather, consistantly, unfailingly for millions of years. Climates! Over time, weather becomes climate. Changing climates! Climate Change driven by oceans!

 

With cherry picking you twist what the source actually says.

 

We've discussed this topic numerous times in the past, both with you and with others. Either you have a very short memory, or are a very slow learner --- or both.

Here is a previous discussion on the topic specifically with you. I don't have a huge desire to rehash it again with you.