Ocean News

It will be colder.
People will need more BTUs to heat their homes in colder weather.
Burning more natural gas, propane, heating oil, will emit more CO2.
This increased parts per million human produced CO2 won't cause any warming.
Doesn't now!
It will be obvious when it keeps getting colder inspite of skyrocketing CO2
It will be obvious, the mighty oceans drive climate, not puny CO2!

Can you understand now with simpler sentences?

 

An image comes to mind.
Practically everyone agrees humans are headed eventually for the grave, from the moment they are born. Everyone is dying, slowly for most.
A natural cycle, life and death, just like climate change, which is currently warming and will cool again..

AGW alarmists point the finger and accuse skeptics and noncompliance of CO2 restriction goals, of murdering climate, and the proof is, people are dying, rather climate is warming..

No cause and effect in either case there.

The fact it is natural warming is not proof humans cause it! Any more than everybody naturally dying is proof they are being murdered.

Global warming and climate change have zero to do with AGW accusations humans cause it.
You can not extrapolate one from the other!
i says there is no natural cause for current temperatures, he calls an alarming "spike". There definitely isn't any rational argument for a human cause of warming!
Atmospheric CO2 is 95%+ natural. Less than 5% human contributed.And it's totally irrational to claim less than 5% of CO2 causes global warming!

2030 and cold will settle the confusion.

 

Natural cycles ARE indicative of elegant brilliant design!

i's speculation, there is no natural cause of current temperatures... needs a couple extra words to make sense.
"there is no natural cause of current temperatures, understood yet!

What humans don't yet know, dwarfs and eclipses what we currently think we know!
And climate is one of the most misunderstood, least studied, phenomenon on earth! And "climate scientist" the most recent to emerge profession, Computer science predates climate science!
Computers arrived before computer models, Aye?

 

Exact same arguments used by literal Creationists when they try to explain why an Earth that looks like it is 4.5 billion years old is actually only 6,000 years old.

"understood yet!" This is the closest I recall you ever coming to admit you might be wrong. God, in His great mercy and infinite patience, hasn't given up on you yet. <laugh>

 

Climate change turning US mountain lakes green with algae

Global warming is turning clear mountain lakes green in the western United States because of an increase in algae blooms "without historical precedent."

"Rapid warming of high elevation environments has resulted in the rapid acceleration and dominance of green algae, which until recently were found in low abundance in these lakes."

The amounts of algae documented in the study would more typically be found in highly polluted areas, such as those prone to agricultural run-off, and not in unsullied mountain environments.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[FWIW, I've been to the two lakes studied a number of times. Stunningly beautiful area.]

 

Chlorophyta - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyta
"Chlorophyta or Prasinophyta is a taxon of green algae informally called chlorophytes.[6] The name is used in two very different senses, so care is needed to determine the use by a particular author. In older classification systems, it refers to a highly paraphyletic group of all the green algae within the green plants (Viridiplantae) and thus includes about 7,000 species. "

" Two common species of the heterotrophic green alga Prototheca are pathogenic and can cause the disease protothecosis in humans and animals.[23]"

Two of 7000 species are pathogenic. The author of your post didn't specify these were found. Just mentioned green algae CAN be toxic to animals.

Is this another lame polar bear used to falsely claim starving from lack of ice, type propaganda?
I have to wonder, because "without historical precedent." type hyperbole is ALWAYS a strong clue of propagandizing.


Many people think green slime colored pools are algae, and I'm certain the scientists in your article aren't ignorant. For those who might be offended by green slime like in this picture


It is neither slimey nor algae, but Duckweed. Makes a nutritious soup, if you are foraging for wild foods. Up close, it looks better.



It is a beneficial and valuable plant.
Common Myths about Duckweed https://duckweedgardening.com/2012/09/14/common-myths-about-duckweed/

 

In my post I provided a link to the original scientific article. Had you actually been interested in educating yourself, rather than satisfying your apparently unquenchable urge to hear your own voice by making false analogies to polar bears, you could have answered your own questions simply by reading the study.

 

You and I have privately corresponded and you know I am NOT a believer in a young 6000 year old earth.
The Seventh day is still going on, since Adam and will continue until the last and Eighth day.
The first Six days were also epochs, not any shorter! That is my belief! You know it, we discussed it!

Appalled but not surprised at your lack of ethics, to insinuate publicly, what you know privately, is a false accusation!

 

I DID READ IT!

"In lakes and oceans, algae blooms sicken wildlife if ingested and destabilise aquatic environments by blocking out sunlight, the United States Environmental Protection Agency says on its website."

Is quoted from the site you posted. No mention of TOXIC algae found in those lakes! And the EPA misleadingly varnished their post by not admitting MOST, the vast number of species of algae do NOT sicken wildlife. Only two of 7000 species of algae are toxic!

Neither did your posted article mention finding any phytoplankton that commonly cause HABs and are cyanobacteria, not algae.


Freshwater Environments | Harmful Algal Blooms | CDC https://www.cdc.gov/habs/illness-symptoms-freshwater.html

 

And! Even if global warming causes additional algae blooms, that in no way suggests humans cause global warming or climate change.

If we don't cause it, I doubt we can intervene or modify global warming. We are only human, you know. We don't possess supernatural powers.

The oceans are mightier than the seamen who sail upon them. This I know personally!

Oceans drive climate. I understand you would rather battle puny CO2! It is far less daunting of an opponent! Winning a fight over CO2 won't matter in halting climate change, because. The oceans drive climate. You could succeed only at disrupting economies. Not a good idea!

 

I didn't actually say what your beliefs were regarding the age of the earth. I was making an analogy between your arguments and the arguments of certain Creationists. I had forgotten that you had told me what your religious beliefs are regarding the age of Earth. My apologies if I misled anyone as to your specific religious beliefs.

However, my larger point still remains. You, and many of your fellow religionists (whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever), feel that whatever religious beliefs you hold regarding how the Universe functions, trumps any empirical observations that anyone else makes. It doesn't matter that some other person has spent their whole professional life studying a particular subject and may be considered the world's preeminent expert in the topic. If you, in your infinite wisdom and superior judgement, disagree with them, then they are wrong and you are right. Period. Full stop. End of story.

I wonder how you and one of your fellow religionists handle such questions when you disagree with each other? Say, one of you thinks the world is about 6,000 years old, and the other of you thinks that the Earth is seven epochs old? Since you each are heaven-blessed with unyielding certitude, which one of you is wrong? Are you automatically both wrong? Or do you each go to a different heaven (a lonely heaven of one, perhaps?) in which each of you is correct in that particular heaven? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

On the Boat Jokes thread in response to an off topic remark in post #6653 it was for real revealed and proved what US Army Colonel Physician Researcher Richard Patrick Mason thought about that, and I believe he's right about it.

But best further stay out of religion, as this forum isn't about that.

 

I don't argue with other people about what they believe. I only refute what they attempt to teach! If it is erroneous. Like you attempting to proselytize humans cause climate change and global warming. I see you are quite religious in your support of that idea. You are welcome to your beliefs.

I make no attempt to persuade you, only point out the fallacy of AGW so hopefully, other people won't get suckered in. At least they get an option, more than a one-sided sales pitch!

The old story about for want of a horseshoe nail a war was lost, is what your side is expert in. It's called spin!
No post analysis of a war could narrow down a cause of losing it to a nail. Too many other factors, command decisions, logistics, troop morale, would divert the analysts attention.

When you take a small seemingly inconsequential item, and spin it up to appear important, you can ignore those other obvious factors.

That is exactly what you have done with human contributed CO2. Spun it up, ignoring oceans, water vapor, natural CO2, cyclic warm periods, nothing matters to you but your horseshoe nail CO2.
Experts at spin ya'll are! And you are wrong!

 

That is from the article I posted, not from the scientific study itself. You apparently didn't read the scientific report, which I also provided a link to.

Once again your vaunted logic skills have let you down. Just because "two ... species of ... green alga ... can cause the disease protothecosis in humans and animals" DOES NOT MEAN THAT:

1) There are ONLY two species of green alga that can cause protothecosis in humans and animals.

2) That protothecosis is the ONLY disease that green alga can cause in humans or animals.

3) That disease is the only way that green alga blooms can be disruptive to the ecosystems they become a part of.

Because of your poor reading skills, and because of your selective copy and paste skills, you didn't actually repeat what your above link said. Let me CORRECTLY copy what the CDC site said.

From the above we read that:
1) Harmful algal blooms are also called HAB
2) HAB's are commonly caused by small organisms called phytoplankton
3) Therefore, phytoplankton ARE algae.
4) The phytoplankton that commonly cause HABs are cyanobacteria.
5) Some cyanobacteria produce toxins called cyanotoxins.
6) Therefore some algae produce cyanotoxins.
7) Cyanotoxins can be neurotoxins, hepatotoxins or dermatoxins.
8) Some common cyanotoxins that are known to cause illnesses in humans and animals are microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxins, saxitoxins, nodularins, and lyngbyatoxins.
9) The use of the word COMMON suggests that UNCOMMON cyanotoxins may produce other types of illness or disease.
10) This strongly suggests that there are significantly more than TWO types of algae that cause disease.
11) Finally, we can conclude that your logic skills are exceptionally rusty and not to be trusted.

 

) Therefore, phytoplankton ARE algae.???
4) The phytoplankton that commonly cause HABs are cyanobacteria.
algae are plants, members of plant family
bacteria are not animals, not plants, members of neither family
The phytoplankton that commonly cause HABs are cyanobacteria, not animals, not plants, and not algae!

Are bacteria animals or plants? - Quora https://www.quora.com/Are-bacteria-animals-or-plants#:~:text=Bacteria%20are%20neither%20plants%2C%20nor%20animals.%20Every%20plant,bacteria%20are%20not%20plants%2C%20and%20are%20not%20animals.
Bacteria are neither plants, nor animals. Every plant or animal cell has a nucleus, where it manufactures DNA, the genetic material. However, bacteria don 't have a nucleus, their DNA floats around inside the cell. So no, bacteria are not plants, and are not animals. Bacteria are just bacteria.