Is the ocean broken?

ImaginaryNumber said:

. . . . If you are referring to volcanoes, then, yes, they have been extensively studied, and their effects on climate are well known.

Click to expand...

Among many other skipped influences I was referring to future volcanic eruptions that there for sure will be, but that by AGW alarmists studies are completely left out of all prognostication of future climate, hence they practice pseudo science.

A II said:

Among many other skipped influences I was referring to future volcanic eruptions that there for sure will be, but that by AGW alarmists studies are completely left out of all prognostication of future climate, hence they practice pseudo science.

Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read (or didn't understand) the many references I provided for you. Yes, volcanic activity is included in AGW analysis.

I've put this out many times, and I'm willing to do it again.For you Will, because I like you.
First I will: Define and make distinction between terms is necessary, because the AGW group like to blur the lines.
Climate change, Global warming, and .Anthropogenic Global Warming are three entirely different, non-interchangeable things.
Climate change has been happening since earth first acquired an atmosphere and oceans..Complex factors affect it. Forget it. It's as common as vacuum in outer space.
Global warming Currently and recent coupe hundred years, we are in a warming arc of the cycle. Don't know anyone who fails to understand this simple fact.
Anthropogenic Global Warming. Totally different critter. This idea is Man is screwing up nature. Blame. That is all it is. Not science, Accusation. Indictment. Blame.
Green house gasses. Important part of our atmosphere to maintain a livable temperature. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, yes but!
it's not the predominant one, or even a major greenhouse gas. Impossible for it to play the role AGW socialists want to assign it. Read..
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
The Sun is complicated. a many cycles of aspects. One is it's magnetic field is not constan but cycles up and down, affecting Earths magnetic field t cycle up and down.
Our magnetic field is a force field. A radiation filter. Aurora Borealis and Aurora Austrlis light up the polar sky with the radiation charged upper atmosphere demonstrating it's a radiation shield.
The suns magnetic field has been strong a long time and the bullies te Earths weaker field, but that is changing now. We are headed into a Solar DEEP minimum. One of the Suns cycles.

The oceans absorb heat and via currents move it to the coasts warming the land. And the atmosphere above the coasts. The Sun is the source of the heat, the oceans the conveyor.

CO2 isn't much of a player, and human contributed CO2 is a smidgen.

Are humans causing warming and climate change by emitting a relatively tiny bit of CO2? My ***.

What's the argument really about? Marxists, as usual, always. want to comquer the world. AGW is their plan to aquire political power over everything. CO2 is everywhere. They intend to tax it. They can Kiss my ***.

Those greenhouse gases also serve as a barrier to γ-radiation which would kill us if it could reach us. Be grateful for them.

ImaginaryNumber said:

Apparently you didn't read (or didn't understand) the many references I provided for you. Yes, volcanic activity is included in AGW analysis.

Click to expand...

I've read them all in full plus the there given links and grasped it all with looking up some details, most I already had read much earlier, none of them is about the effect of future volcanic eruptions on future climate, which makes studies about future climate that avoid to take these future influences into account are no more than just practicing pseudo science.

Thanks Yo, I appreciate your making the effort for my sake. I understand your position better, because of it.

I won't always agree with you, but I see where you're coming from.

I guess one point that we are all struggling with is what kind of effect CAN man have on the environment? Whether one wants to embrace the idea that the current problems with Earth's climate are caused by human activity or not, can human's affect a positive change in the negative trends?

This is not a simple question, because it must address the question of whether or not we should try to affect change. If, from the position that we are responsible for our degrading weather, then we must consider that our wisdom about what we know about how the Earth responds to our actions has proven to be badly lacking. From that point of view, we don't know enough to do the right thing. To consider ourselves suddenly wiser within the last few decades, when you compare it to the last few centuries, it seems unlikely that our knowledge of the matter has suddenly awoken to give us superior understanding to our past selves.

Of course, if we are responsible, we can not turn away from the problem, even if what we attempt to do to fix the problem might lead to greater problems. We can't not act.

But,
If you take the position that we are not responsible for the current negative weather trends, then we have to look even harder at whether we can and should affect change.

Humans will always look at their world in human terms. What is best for us, what makes us feel better. One can cry about the abuses humans are heaping upon the Earth, but those abuses, no matter the altruism, are always in Humanistic terms. It can't be any other way.

If a species is lost or a glacier disappears forever, it's loss is felt, for us, only to us. The physical phenomenal world doesn't care. Only we feel these losses because we can only know our feelings.

So, we need to recognize that it is our interests we are ultimately discussing. Should we adjust our behavior? It is ourselves we are, in the end, trying to save. This is important because, by looking at this question more closely, we can better determine what outcome we really want to achieve.

A static Earth is easier for us to understand and to deal with, but it may not lead to a better future for us. Why do we want to avoid a changing sealevel? Would it really be so horrible that we are willing to spend ten times the money to avoid it than it would cost to live with it? (I don't really know if this scenario is reasonable, I'm just posing a question of values for the purpose of exploration of ideas).

Maybe, if we can be honest about what goals we are really trying to achieve, the politics would become less than secondary.

I, for one, am not convinced we are doing the right thing by arresting climate change. I agree that it is happening and that we are likely part of that change, the problem is, we inadvertently planted scotch pines all over the Florida Keys. Then, in an altruistic effort to fix our mistake, a project to remove all non-native plants from the area resulted in the washing away of spoil islands and shoals that had, over decades, become home to wildlife reliant upon the invader species. After the removal of the scotch pine, wild preservation land was lost. But, we returned it to its pre invasion state. We all feel better now, right?

-Will (Dragonfly)

Negative weather trends? Storms and hurricanes are NOT more powerful r more frequent.
Temperatures higher? A tenth of a degree F for the entire world averaged for a year. They claim. Where's the confidence factor? This generalized data always requires a plus/minus % confidence factor. They never do for these spurious "One of the decades warmest years, by a tenth of a degree.

It's BULL.
Propaganda

Old saying, fool me once, shame onya. Fool me twice, shame on me.
AGW crowd has been caught redhanded so many times in so many proven frauds, I wouldn't belive them if they claimed the Sun was up, without checking for myself.

It will take some time, but the sun will burn out once, what then ?

A II said:

I've read them all in full plus the there given links and grasped it all with looking up some details, most I already had read much earlier, none of them is about the effect of future volcanic eruptions on future climate, which makes studies about future climate that avoid to take these future influences into account are no more than just practicing pseudo science.

Click to expand...

Maybe the reason that future volcanic events have not been taken into what you would consider sufficient consideration is because those events that are most likely to happen over the next few thousand years are not apt to be climate changers. The few VEI 7 volcanoes we've had in historic times (Tambora, 1815; Changbaishan, 1000; Mt Thera, 1610) have been weather-changers, but not climate-changers. The most recent VEI 8 volcano (also known as supervolcanoes) was Taupo in New Zealand, which happened 25,600 years ago. I suspect that supervolcanoes would be very disruptive to modern civilization, and likely would cause a significant change to the climate. But they don't happen very often. Looking at the Wikipedia chart I see the previous supervolcano (Lake Toba) erupted about 50,000 years before Taupo, and the one previous to Lake Toba (again, Taupo in NZ) was almost 300,000 years earlier.

FWIW, here is a piece of volcanic pumice that was floating on Lake Taupo that I collect a few years ago.

Re post #355:

Just some ‘‘maybe’’ and ‘‘most likely’’ talk, that's not science, it's just filling in the gaps of knowledge about future natural phenomena with pseudo science, and plain ignoring their effects in the prognostication of future climate, which makes that kind of pseudo science ridiculous.

Louisiana’s population is already moving to escape climate catastrophe

Some of these migrants will choose lower-risk places like St. Tammany as their destination, as a combination of sea level rise and land subsidence cause the Mississippi Delta region to lose about a football field’s worth of land every hour and a half.

Click to expand...

Louisiana’s population is already moving to escape climate catastrophe https://qz.com/1895269/louisianas-population-is-moving-to-escape-climate-catastrophe/

Re post #355:

ImaginaryNumber said:

FWIW, here is a piece of volcanic pumice that was floating on Lake Taupo that I collect a few years ago.

Click to expand...

1 - Were you allowed to take that part of NZ with you, or did you steal it ?

2 - What was your contribution to AGW as you call it by going there and also going home ?

3 - What was the necessity of such an AGW action as you preach it here ?

4 - Should everyone do something against the by you preached AGW, but are such big contributions by yourself allowed in your opinion ?

If you were to practice for yourself all the way what you preach here you would be a bit more credible, and you would also contribute less yourself to the AGW as you call it, and which you preach against here.

It's a typical progressive maneuver to impose rules that are "rules for thee but none for me". "Do as I say, not as I do." They see themselves as the masterminds and us as their subjects to kneel and show subservience. The less they know the more they try to project upon us their own ignorance.

I want statistics on how many yes checkmarks that questioned received. Sneaky of the Feds to sneak in a Zombie census in a benefits application.