# Is the ocean broken?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by daiquiri, Oct 24, 2013.

1. Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,784
Likes: 359, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

### hoytedowFly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

2. Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,784
Likes: 359, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

### hoytedowFly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

3. Joined: May 2009
Posts: 435
Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
Location: USA

### ImaginaryNumberImaginary Member

Please supply a link to a scientific study which says that "2.9 billion bird deaths are linked to Solar and Wind power generation." Not really interested in your crackpot article.

4. Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
Location: Mexico, Florida

### YobarnacleSenior Member holding true course

Imaginary posted "The claim “95 percent from natural sources” and the “0.0016 percent” are simply wrong (neither does the arithmetic add up – how would 5% of 0.04 be 0.0016?)."
.0016 divided by .04 is 4 %. The article I quoted did not say 95% is natural and the remainder is human. It gave a 95percentage for natural, and a ..0016 decimal for human. contribution.
Probably the 95% was rounded down. Maybe the missing one percent is from the ocean or somewhere else. It's a quibble, a storm in a bucket. My point is and was, humans are responsible for very little of CO2 in atmosphere. Your argument the decomposition of plants are just recycling CO2 and don't contribute is silly. Worse, it's BS! If it goes into the atmosphere, it's contributed to the atmosphere.

5. Joined: May 2009
Posts: 435
Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
Location: USA

### ImaginaryNumberImaginary Member

No, it's not silly, it's essential. And it's yet another example of your poor understanding of the natural world.

In a stable environment the amount of CO2 that dead plants give off when the decay is equal to the amount of CO2 that plants take in when they grow. As such, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays roughly constant. However, in the last hundred years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has skyrocketed, which indicates that the natural world is no longer in equilibrium. To date, no natural (non-human) source for this excess CO2 has been identified. But, as we've recently discussed, the burning of fossil fuels has been shown to be the cause.

Concentration of atmospheric CO2 over the last 40,000 years,
from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present day. The current
rate of increase is much higher than at any point during the last deglaciation.​

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

6. Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
Location: Mexico, Florida

### YobarnacleSenior Member holding true course

Arrogant R's, you don't understand me at all! BS! I recognize BS. It's easy. Consider the source's agenda first. Any source contributing to the atmosphere contributes. The percent they contribute is the percent in the atmosphere contributed. If putrefaction and volcanos contribute 95% then 95% of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to those sources. You don't get to cancel it for any excuse. Not even with purchased carbon credits like medieval catholic licenses to sin, indulgences once sold to royalty by priests If the amount nature contributes is 19 times what humans contribute, then the ratio is 95 to 5. Human carbon footprint is negligible compared to natural CO2. Besides, humans are indigenous to earth, just as natural as all the other plants and creatures. We have a right to be here. We have a right to emit CO2. We have a right to breathe.Nobody has a right to force their views on others.

Last edited: May 18, 2021
7. Joined: May 2009
Posts: 435
Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
Location: USA

### ImaginaryNumberImaginary Member

As has been often said before, you have a right to your own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts.

The facts are that atmospheric CO2 levels are spiking compared to what they've been over the last 10,000 years, and the isotopic signature of the excess carbon matches that of fossil fuels.

What is your opinion as to where that carbon, with its unique isotopic signature, is coming from? Note that before the industrial revolution CO2 sources were matched with CO2 sinks. Now they are not.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

Last edited: May 19, 2021
8. Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,784
Likes: 359, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

### hoytedowFly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

You won't be happy until humanity is enslaved or pushing up lilies.
And that won't make you happy.
You are doomed to be miserable.

9. Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
Location: Mexico, Florida

### YobarnacleSenior Member holding true course

I'm not going to ask where your thousands of years old data comes from. Antaartic ice showed increased CO2 levels followed warming not caused it and promptly AGW erstwhile "scientists" decided the air bubbles migrated through the ice confusing the proxy reading. I accept nothing AGWers say as reliable because it's not reliable. AGWers are extremely dysfunctional biased. You can't do science that way and claim credibility. They seek evidence to back up THEIR TRUTH not THE TRUTH. Those two TRUTHS are at odds,
The take away is this. Increased CO2 levels are because of warming, not the cause of warming.

10. Joined: May 2009
Posts: 435
Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
Location: USA

### ImaginaryNumberImaginary Member

11. Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,784
Likes: 359, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

### hoytedowFly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

The Sun, but don't tell anyone. It's a secret.

12. Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
Location: Mexico, Florida

### YobarnacleSenior Member holding true course

I wasn't stating just my opinion, I was stating what I thought was common knowledge. Warming precedes CO2 in antarctic ice cores.
Asynchrony between Antarctic temperature and CO2 associated with obliquity over the past 720,000 years https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5840396/

Pretzel logic doesn't explain how this magically supports the AGW narrative, but AGW science butchers try very hard to rearrange the pieces and spin the data to suit themselves and their political agenda

Ice core basics http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

Last edited: May 19, 2021
13. Joined: May 2009
Posts: 435
Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
Location: USA

### ImaginaryNumberImaginary Member

I have no quarrel with the information you have provided, but it is only obliquely relevant to what has been happening in the last few hundred years. The study in your first link appears to be exploring relationships between Antarctic temperatures, CO2 concentrations, Southern Ocean effects, and orbital obliquity. These effects take place over the course of a hundred thousand years, and thus are only marginally relevant to the extreme rise in temperatures and CO2 that we are now experiencing, which is happening many times faster than anytime in the past tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from many disciplines have explored every natural phenomena they can think of to offer a natural explanation for Earth's temperature rise. The only explanation that checks all the boxes is our burning of fossil fuels, which has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about 50% in the last 200 years.

14. Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
Location: Mexico, Florida

### YobarnacleSenior Member holding true course

250 TO 400 isn't fifty percent, if the 250 parts per million is accurate a couple centuries past, which I don't believe.I also don't believe your generous credit that climate scientists sought natural cycles to explain climate changing because those cycles are obvious and they would not have needed to look hard. Instead, they looked in every cranny for excuses to blame it on humans. Climate science seems to attract people of one viewpoint, or perhaps the professors discourage or fail to pass anyone with contrary viewpoints. Fanatic adherence th AGW dogma is obvious with every utterance of "the science is settled." The stupidest most unscientific phrase ever invented. Science is never settled, always open to question. Bullying the opposition and attempting to censor them is your sides tactics in everything. Unfortunately, those you attempt to label deniers, are actually defiers. We defy you and you can't win. Our will is indomitable. We will never give in or give up, but you will when your narrative collapses under the weight of observable fact. Your predictions failing to come true, will destroy your movement. Already happening. Time is on our side.

Last edited: May 20, 2021

15. Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,784
Likes: 359, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

### hoytedowFly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

Tick tock.

Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.