ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

which is miles off topic
denial was debunked on another thread
the earth cooling is some gag you pulled on your own thread as well
this thread is about the effects global warming is having on our ocean environment
if you cant make an intelligent on topic comment then making inane childish comments really isn't a very good option

I think its reasonable to ask you stop posting off topic remarks

 

getting back on track again for those who are actually reading the data provided

Buoy data, bar pilots point to increasing wave height along Pacific Northwest

also from
http://www.landforms.eu/shetland/wave environment.htm

and of course we can establish that the increase in intensity of the NOA is a direct result of Rapid Global Climate Shift http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...alE2kU0-Q&sig2=uwZmxos3ONlEUUL8DZFrCQ&cad=rja

 

I don't deny that climate change causes change in wave height. I deny that the afore-mentioned climate change is anthropogenic. The Earth has gone through change for eons with drastic differences from eon to another. That happened mostly in Man's absence. Why so quick to blame Mankind for what is happening now? Show proof-not theory.

 

O, and tanky fuh da neg rep, B. Koz doza numbas tu hi fo me count so less make mor ez.

 

twenty or thirty off topic posts in a row and I think you earned em
hell your still insisting on the off topic posts

climate denial was debunked on the climate change thread, feel free to refer yourself there if you have questions as to why 100% of the additional CO2 over the last hundred years or so is directly attributable to fossil fuels and a few other of mans activities

 

getting back on track again for those who are actually reading the data provided

Buoy data, bar pilots point to increasing wave height along Pacific Northwest

also from
http://www.landforms.eu/shetland/wave environment.htm

and of course we can establish that the increase in intensity of the NOA is a direct result of Rapid Global Climate Shift http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...alE2kU0-Q&sig2=uwZmxos3ONlEUUL8DZFrCQ&cad=rja

 

The real crime in all this is that some fools are still taking corporate money to inhibit meaningful change.

there is an excellent article in todays BBC

 

The real crime is that O'Bummer seized corporate money to institute meaningful unwanted and damaging change.

 

that would be inaccurate
Obummer was given corporate money specifically to allow those corporations to continue business as usual

but this is a thread concerning the effects of climate change so once again lets make an effort to stick to the subject

from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-waves-northwest

 

There is global climate shift.

Rapid is a relative term.
An asteroid strike would be one of the most rapid global climate shifting events possible.
Mt. St. Helens explosion is another.
When Yellowstone blows again you will see rapid global climate shift of Biblical proportions nearly as significant as the asteroid strike would be.

None of the afore-mentioned examples I gave are anthropogenic. We are little mites on the @$$ of a bison. We are insignificant to the bigger picture.

Stop trying to scare everybody into bowing to the fallacious green movement whose underlying motive is to crush the western economy.

 

actually in terms of extinction events there are no volcanic eruptions on the causation list until you go back a few billion years. Even the asteroid strike didn't result in instant death for worldwide populations. It was more of a long slow decline because of a number of factors which may or may not have been caused by an asteroid hit. Fact is that there is some controversy over the effects of the impact and why they are so varied.

the KT boundary extinction was initiated by a comet impact but various species died out at dramatically varied rates, amphibians for instance were completely unaffected and plants surprisingly enough in many areas were also relatively unaffected, but in others were totally wiped out. 100% of turtles and something like 80% of snakes and lizards survived just fine. Insects basically disappeared but fish survived as did all the mammal species. In any case there is far more evidence to suggest that the KT boundary extinction took place over a period of a few thousand years rather than all at once in one single impact event. The extinction event of today is taking place in less than 100 years.

Do your homework Hoyt and you might just find that the rate of species loss today is likely the highest ever found, more likely than not. That and 100% preventable.

cheers
B

ps
the underlying motive is to survive into the next century on a planet that doesn't resemble Mars, its only political paranoia and corporate propaganda that insists that efforts to save the environment must also hurt the economies, on the contrary several south american countries have significantly improved there economies by going green. What the corporate propaganda is really saying is

"hey, we made a lot of money destroying the ecology, and now you want us to stop"

 

Perhaps the greater awareness of species loss today reflects a greater knowledge of the number of species. No one really knows how many species were wiped out because the evidence of their existence is missing.

Boston, I guarantee you that very few of the people reading this tripe will survive into the next century. Don't try to collect on that guarantee because I will be long gone. You will too unless you have a very fine health plan.

How can you say insects basically disapperared and yet be in a world filled with them?

Oh, and by the way, nothing is 100% preventable.

 

thats referred to as the Signor Lipps Effect when our incomplete understanding of the fossil record is likely to be effecting our present ability to predict how dramatic some of these extinctions may have been. But when it goes from seeing many large and varied creatures to seeing significantly less and far smaller critters then I think its fair to say something significant happened.

Insects survived but there numbers dwindled to almost imperceptible quantities because most of the species that survived did so by eating insects which is why ( its thought ) that there numbers were so low for so long, there wasn't anything left to eat but bugs.

as for the "it doesn't mater cause I wont be alive anyway" logic
seems pretty selfish to me
I'd prefer what ancestors do manage to survive not look back on my time and curse us for being so stupid as to destroy the place.

 

Who said anything about destroying the place? You have a tendency to put words in my mouth which I didn't say but you may have wish I said.

What I said was: "Boston, I guarantee you that very few of the people reading this tripe will survive into the next century. Don't try to collect on that guarantee because I will be long gone. You will too unless you have a very fine health plan."

Where in there do you see anything about dirtying the place up like a bunch of filthy hippies at Woodstock?

 

you didn't need to say it
the fact that we are destroying the place is pretty clear

little things like increasing wave heights and more intense storms, stronger winds and rising seas.

things this thread is all about