Ocean News

Good for you Laurel

 

Believing that climate changes, is and has, is NOT the same as believing in Man causes it.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) blames man as the cause.
I believe in GW (global warming) and in climate change (always changing).
But not in AGW.
AGWers claim manmade carbon is driving climate change, right?
Claim Man is the MAJOR cause of climate change?
That is only 27% of USA pops, the red sector.
As I said before, the 73% aren't in agreement on exactly what is happening, but the 73% REJECT the hypothesis man is the MAJOR cause of climate change.
Which means they don't agree to, and won't vote for, draconian measures to correct for man's NOT driving the climate.
I'll admit man affects his environment, polluting in some devastating ways, but it's not with CO2 emissions. CO2 isn't a pollutant!
Because, earth doesn't look like Venus.
If warming elevates CO2 and CO2 elevates warming, in absence of some greater moderating force keeping it all relatively level, you would have exponentially increasing warming runaway greenhouse effect.
And it would already have happened long ago, and our atmosphere would already be like Venus.

Since we live on a pleasant planet, obviously runaway greenhouse has never occurred. Because it couldn't.
Means it can't.
Means either there is a major dampening moderating force yet to be discovered, OR

Carbon (CO2) doesn't cause warming.

We know warming elevates atmospheric CO2.
And you can't have both and be living here.
So, the AGWers don't KNOW enough to preach how to fix the world.

You've either overlooked and missed a major dampening factor/force or... you are wrong in your hypothesis and CO2 doesn't cause warming.

So which area do you need to study?
Seek the elusive protective force that prevents runaway greenhouse?
Or rethink carbon causes climate change?

But, that's not really your agenda, is it.
What you want is a system of cap and trade and carbon taxes, so the poor countries aren't beneficiaries of rich countries generosity (foreign aid), but have a RIGHT to demand money.
A right to steal!
My hand is out toward you.
I fold three fingers and my thumb.

 

As I said I do not bother wasting my time to read your motivations and causes of denialism include your religion and greedy self-interest which are Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".

.Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research.

Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.

Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

 

I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just sweeping up your garbage and depositing it at your door.
Appropriately labeled for passersby to recognize it for what it is.

 

quote
A study detailing the findings is published online in a recent edition of the journal Reviews of Geophysics, published by the American Geophysical Union.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160119141756.htm

"Early farming helped keep the planet warm," said William Ruddiman, a University of Virginia climate scientist and lead author of the study, who specializes in investigating ocean sediment and ice-core records for evidence of climate fluctuations.

A dozen years ago, Ruddiman hypothesized that early humans altered the climate by burning massive areas of forests to clear the way for crops and livestock grazing. The resulting carbon dioxide and methane released into the atmosphere had a warming effect that "cancelled most or all of a natural cooling that should have occurred," he said.

That idea, which came to be known as the "early anthropogenic hypothesis" was hotly debated for years by climate scientists, and is still considered debatable by some of these scientists. But in the new paper, Ruddiman and his 11 co-authors from institutions in the United States and Europe say that accumulating evidence in the past few years, particularly from ice-core records dating back to 800,000 years ago, show that an expected cooling period was halted after the advent of large-scale agriculture. Otherwise, they say, Earth would have entered the early stages of a natural ice age, or glaciation period.

Earth naturally cycles between cool glacial periods and warmer interglacial periods because of variations in its orbit around the sun. We currently are in an interglacial period, called the Holocene epoch, which began nearly 12,000 years ago.

He attributed the rise in carbon dioxide emissions to the slash and burn techniques widely used by early farmers to make available large areas of land for crops. Ruddiman found that carbon dioxide levels rose beginning 7,000 years ago, and that methane began rising 5,000 years ago. He said this explains why a cooling trend didn't happen that likely otherwise would have led to a new glacial period.

They cite a recent study that also summarized archaeological studies and found that early rice irrigation, which releases methane gas to the atmosphere, explains most of the anomalously high rise in atmospheric methane beginning about 5,000 years ago. A proliferation of livestock farming during that time period also may explain part of the methane increase.

 

Quote
Global ocean warming has doubled in recent decades, scientists find
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160119151246.htm

Half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades, researchers have concluded. Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming.

"In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean," said LLNL scientist Peter Gleckler, lead author of a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming. The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. Quantifying how much heat is accumulating in Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast Earth will warm and seas rise in the future.

Increases in upper ocean temperatures since the 1970s are well documented and associated with greenhouse gas emissions. By including measurements from a 19th century oceanographic expedition and recent changes in the deeper ocean, the study indicates that half of the accumulated heat during the industrial era has occurred in recent decades, with about a third residing in the deeper oceans.

Accurate modern instruments used on a global array of robotic profiling floats (called Argo) that "phone home" the data using satellites, starting around 1999.

This study found that estimates of ocean warming over a range of times and depths agree well with results from the latest generation of climate models, building confidence that the climate models are providing useful information. "The year-round, global distribution of ocean temperature data collected by Argo has been key in improving our estimates of ocean warming and assessing climate models," notes LLNL oceanographer Paul Durack.

While Argo only samples the upper half of the ocean volume, pilot arrays of new "Deep Argo" floats that sample to the ocean floor are being deployed. This vast ocean volume in the deeper half is only measured infrequently by research vessels. Those deep data also show warming, even in the bottom layers of the ocean in recent decades.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/st...y-was-up-to-100-times-larger-than-advertised/

So you and AGWer scientists are so desperate to eplain the hiatus in the warming, the ocean gets the blame?
Well, let's look at the data and how it's collected.


"
Study shows ARGO ocean robots uncertainty was up to 100 times larger than advertised


The oceans contain 90% of the heat energy on the surface of the Earth, which makes it “kinda important”. There are claims that the missing heat went into ocean temperatures, which are allegedly warming by five thousandths of a degree per year (which is still a lot less than the models predicted). The ARGO array of 3,000 ocean buoys deployed from mid-2003 is a vast improvement on the occasional sampling from ships that preceded it, but each single thermometer measures a vast 200,000 cubic kilometers of ocean.

The original Argo Science Report had an expected temperature sensor uncertainty of 0.005C. But it’s just not possible to measure the ocean temperature that accurately."


Curios!
They found ,005 rise in temperature when the uncertainty of the instrument is .005!
What ethical scientist would draw a conclusion, and then ASSURE the world it's happening, when he knows the instrument can't accurately detect such a small difference.
Well, you know my opinion of AGWer ethics!

 

As I said I do not bother wasting my time to read your motivations and causes of denialism include your religion and greedy self-interest

 

I know you claim not to read my posts.
As I've said before I don't post them for you.
I'm correcting the misinformation you spew!

 

Whole civilizations have collapsed because they soiled their nest. God didn't prevent that from happening to them. Not sure why you think you are somehow immune from a similar fate, if you/we similarly soil your/our undies?

 

Hoyt can defend himself with aplomb.
But you seem to misread his post AND misread history.
Empires fall because of centralization of power, which is always corrupt, abusive, inefficient, and inured to local problems of citizens.
Hoyt was saying, as I read it, the planet is well designed, self moderating, and it's automatic cycles and compensating systems NOT easily disrupted.
Man is NOT an alien plague, but native to this planet and compensated for by nature.
Earth seems perfect for the life forms living on it, or the life forms designed perfect for the earth.
Or Did I misread also? Hoyt?

 

Question: Do insurance companies, with their statistics, calamity data, and actuarial tables, claim some disasters are 'Acts Of God"?
Is this a reflection of Faith or greedy ducking a payout? Or is there actual evidence extraordinaire?

 

Sodom and Gomorrah soiled their nests and were destroyed as a warning to us all. Rome sunk into decadence, another example among many of evil control freaks bringing disaster upon the populace. It ain't no coincidence. Sooner or later everyone has to answer to God. There no dead atheists.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...-of-paranoia-e28093-an-emerging-field/3723202
"Paranoia is the unfounded idea that other people are deliberately trying to harm an individual. Studies reveal paranoia is widespread in the general population. There is a distribution for paranoia just as there is for anxiety and depression. Evidence shows societies that are more unequal, and have less social cohesion, have higher rates of suspicion and paranoia. It is related to mistrust and is linked to living in cities in higher densities. Insomnia is also now seen as a factor for paranoia. "

Obviously AGWers and doomsters are paranoid.
Is it because most of AGW disciples, or all, live in or were raised in large cities?
Us country boys, raised close to nature, hunting, fishing, gardening, ranching, seem to have more faith in natures resilience than armchair green-nuts.

 

No dead atheists? Are you sure, Hoyt?
How about the epitaph on the atheist's tombstone that reads, "All dressed up and no place to go".