Ocean News

The opposite of life is death! The opposite of eternal anything is eternal nothing. Hell was a Greek word meaning the grave.
I suspect people will get what they want. Those who believe in nothing, expect nothing, will get exactly that!

 

You need to distinguish between bacteria and cyanobacteria, and between the many forms of algae.

What Are Algae?

So once again you are half right and all wrong.

If I might be so bold, you could consider taking up a different hobby than criticizing science. You really do a poor job at it. In fact, you are the poster child for the

Dunning–Kruger effect

 

When you attack your opponent personally after failing to refute their arguments, you lose the debate!

 

A 'regime shift' is happening in the Arctic Ocean, scientists say

A surprising shift in the Arctic Ocean has resulted in exploding blooms of phytoplankton, the tiny algae at the base of a food web.

[ahem...algae..ahem...phytoplankton....ahem...cyanobacteria...]

Net primary production (NPP) in the Arctic increased 57 percent between 1998 and 2018. More surprising is the discovery that while NPP increases were initially linked to retreating sea ice, productivity continued to climb even after melting slowed down around 2009.

Researchers hypothesize that a new influx of nutrients is flowing in from other oceans and sweeping up from the Arctic's depths. Phytoplankton are absorbing more carbon year after year as new nutrients come into this ocean. That was unexpected, and it has big ecological impacts.

The Arctic Ocean is simply too small to take much of a bite out of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. "It's taking in a lot more carbon than it used to take in," Arrigo said, "but it's not something we're going to be able to rely on to help us out of our climate problem.

The research appears in Science.

 

Watching 'Pacific Heat' on Netflix, they're fighting al-Qaeda in a village in the Middle East, using drone missiles and sniper fire. Afterwards, there was an exchange back at headquarters that made me think of this thread...

Chief; Listen to this message we recently intercepted...

Message; Hear this. The unbelievers will burn in the hellfire of Armageddon.

Maddie; Sounds like a jihadist group.

Todd; Or climate change activists.

.

 

That seems like a vague cliche saying with not much basis in reality, kind of a lame fallback position. How does it work when the arguments are refuted and you also attack your opponent personally?

I don't see where it's a debate really. The facts are in and the conclusions are inescapable. I see it more as obfuscation on your part.

 

The research appears in Science.? So what?
Periodicals are inspired infallible truths and deserve to be revered. T/F

Every auto mechanic in the world is an expert and is honest. T/F

Every doctor in the world is perfect in diagnosis. Getting a second opinion is useless and insulting to your doctor. T/F

Every scientist in the world is unbiased and objective. And never uses wrong terminology or wrongly classifies or endorses erroneous hypothesis . T/F

We are all only human. Human frailties abound in all groups. T/F

There are just as large a percent of inept, lazy, dishonest, mediocre performers among people in highly trained professions as in every other walk of life.T/F

Some ideas, programs, seem to attract the mediocrities, because of less rigorous standards and abundant government subsidies. Rewards are not performance based. More often academic credentials based. A talent for bureaucratic maneuvers, and office politics, is the greatest asset. T/F

Government bureaus and offices are filled by the best, and brightest citizens. T/F

All lawyers are ethical, law respecters, and inspiring orators. T/F

Blaming the less than 5% of CO2 contributed by humans for global warming, while ignoring the much greater influences of natural factors, is logical, rational, and ethical. T/F

Common sense and good judgement are universal. Easily observable in the majority of people. Credit card debt is indicative of wise financial management. T/F

All politicians are ethical, modest, self effacing, gracious public servants, and statesmen. T/F

"By the turn of the 20th century, most astronomers believed that the observable universe consisted of one galaxy, our Milky Way Galaxy, an oasis of stars, dust, and gas in the vastness of space. However, in 1924, American astronomer Edwin Hubble used the 100-inch Hooker Telescope (see image below) on Mount Wilson near Los Angeles, California, to observe billions of other galaxies besides our own Milky Way, almost all moving away from each other. This suggested that the universe is expanding, unleashing a Pandora's box of seminal inquiries—such as the Big Bang theory—about the possible beginning and end of the universe—issues which are still being debated to this day."
NASA - The Hubble Story https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/story/the_story.html#:~:text=In%20the%20Beginning.%20Since%20the%20dawn%20of%20civilization%2C,center%20of%20the%20universe%2C%20spearheading%20the%20Scientific%20Revolution.

Prior to Hubble, and death of the long dominant consensus, the static universe hypothesis, a beginning to time and matter was an unprecedented idea. Nobody earlier believed or taught the universe and time had a "In the beginning'". T/F

Human beings are perfectly positioned in time, centered between the past and the future, and perfectly centered in the physical matter, between the microscopic, sub-atomic and the macroscopic expanse of outer space. Able to develop instruments to peer into both.
Humans hold an enviable position in the universe! T/F

 

https://www.space.com/13219-photos-big-bang-early-universe-history.html




Static universe - Conservapedia https://www.conservapedia.com/Static_universe
"The static universe model is the obsolete theory, held during the 19th and early 20th centuries, that the universe is static, neither expanding nor contracting. It is now known that the universe is expanding, due to the Big Bang creation. There is scientific controversy over when the big bang creation occurred, whether it was billions of years ago or much more recent, but there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning and the static universe theory is false.[1][2][3]

The static universe model was disproven in 1916, with the publication of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which proved that the universe is inherently unstable, and must therefore either be expanding or contracting. The discovery of the redshift proved that the universe is expanding, and must have had a beginning. Despite all of this proof, there are still atheists who cling to the obsolete static universe model, because the big bang implies divine creation."

If you prefer different sources, look them up and discover they agree.

 

The "facts" and conclusions of your philosophical comrades are acceptable to you. Well, if it makes you happy, good for you. Does it?

Exempting opinions I have heard or read as not things observed. My philosophy is not at odds with anything I have observed, and harmonizes with nature, cycles, human exceptionalism as well as human frailties. I am happy, healthy, loved, respected, successful, and don't need to be rich.
I have what I need.. Optimistic about the future, including eternity.
Other philosophies, like yours, are irrational, worrisome, conflicted and cause stress and conflicts. Every AGW alarmist seems sickened with worry! Not a happy philosophy, I think!
I can't preach my beliefs here, but apparently your AGW group can. I can refute your arguments,and I do.

I was on my high school debate team, and I assure you, attacking the person instead of the resolution, loses debate points and the debates.
You aren't the referee or the official you realize? You try Samsam but you can't dictate rules! Judgement rests with third parties reading this thread.

Now for IN's or i retort I am half right (and all wrong)!
If I'm half right, I'm doing better than or on par with meteorologists and way much better than climatologists!

Whatever climate change or warming you read about or post here, none of it infers humans cause it.
If the author claims it's human caused, that is just their opinion and IMHO detracts from their credibility. They should test that AGW koolaid for toxicity!

 

As I've long contended, you appear to be anti-Science!

Another question to add to your list:

The utterances of every Internet Troll should be printed, bound into a book, and memorized. T/F

 

Climate change may cause extreme waves in Arctic

Extreme ocean surface waves with a devastating impact on coastal communities and infrastructure in the Arctic may become larger due to climate change, according to a new study.

The new research projects the annual maximum wave height will get up to two to three times higher than it is now along coastlines in areas of the Arctic such as along the Beaufort Sea. The new study in AGU's Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans suggests waves could get up to 2 meters (6.6 feet) higher than current wave heights by the end of the century.

In addition, extreme wave events that used to occur once every 20 years might increase to occur once every two to five years on average, according to the study. In other words, the frequency of such extreme coastal flooding might increase by a factor of 4 to 10 by the end of this century.

"As more and more ice melts and more of the Arctic ocean surface becomes exposed to the wind, waves will increase in height because wave height is dependent on the distance the wind blows over open waters," Cohen said.

"Sea ice retreat plays an important role, not just by increasing the distance over which wind can blow and generate waves but also by increasing the chance of strong winds to occur over widening ice-free waters," Casas-Prat said.

 

You're asking for what I've already answered, because you only want to believe what you already believe, for that kind of behaviour you spread around on these forums you should be named IT = Internet Troll.

In the first line of the post #3688 you quoted there I've linked a natural event that proven has caused climate change on earth, there's no reason to believe such a thing couldn't happen again, and there's no reason to cut it out of the quote and then ask for it again.

The current state of science is so poor that it can't even predict a major earthquake a month ahead, yet you profess science as your religion, without wanting to face its shortcomings, you're just a poor religionist that doesn't want to believe science isn't even at the beginning of what there is to know, yet the current state of science is all we have, but you even deny info I've linked from the past, now that's sick and unscientific, that's why you're an Internet Troll.

And besides all that, as I've pointed out in post #3613 and #3644, you made yourself implausible several times by keeping on defending a clear fraud after it was revealed, so there's no reason to believe or disbelieve anything you post, because you've proved to support proven unscientific lies when they suit what you already believe.

 

That I have also already answered several times in the posts #3677 and #3683, and thus now again in this post #3726, in the current times besides natural causes I believe there's also AGW because of that spike. But besides that, history has also learned us there's far more natural things going on science doesn't know about than that it does know about, like for example earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and then the things we don't even know about at all, to deny that is unscientific. If science knew then they would tell us about when and where the next earthquake and volcanic eruption will be and what their effects on the climate on earth will be, but the current state of science is to poor to know about these kind of things, but therefore deny them is unscientific and childish and practicing ostrich politics. The current science doesn't even know what volcanic eruptions of the past still do with the current climate, now if you think to know that with proof then you have the option to link it here. And since you've proven several times to be implausible, only posts from you with 100% proof from various sources will draw my attention.

 

I am not anti-science or anti-scientist but neither do I worship and grovel at someones feet because they scribble Phd in from of or after their name.
I believe in merit. Show me meritorious work, I'll applaud.
I don't think much of climatologists in general, because the whole thing, field, is relatively recent, contemporary with, and enraptured with AGW from the beginning.
Seems a field only AGW believers go study for, trained by AGW professors.

Old computer term, GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. If you begin with a bias, your results will be biased.
That isn't anti-science, it's anti-BS-AGW..

 

By now it's clear since long that you're an IT = Internet Troll by twisting what has been said, in the first line of post #3688 you quoted there I've linked proven climate change by natural causes, and not just temperature changes as you now claim I talked about. As for your latin usages, who do you think you can fool here by hanging out the smartie by using a dead language ?