Ocean News

Quoting the refutes of AGW from the last dozen pages.
since they keep repeating the same flunked assertions, I'll just repost this in reply.
They believe if they repeat a lie often if enough, people will believe it.
True, unless somebody exposes the lies.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...ing/105322d1453407901-ocean-news-co2temps.jpg

Temperature obviously not follow warming.

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

 

Quote
Crops to Stop Climate Change: A Global Wiki

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/crops-to-stop-climate-change-a-global-wiki--2#/

Help us develop a global wiki of perennial crops & polycultures to combat climate change!

Who We Are and Why We're Doing This?

Our goal is to transform agriculture and mitigate climate change. We believe we can do this while providing food and other products through the creation of agroecosystems that function at the highest level of biodiversity and ecosystem services - the “epitome of sustainability.”

The Apios Institute, the organization running this campaign, exists to share experience and information about perennial crop polyculture systems in all climates of the world. The Apios Institute works through a collaborative network of farmers, gardeners, and researchers, sharing inspiration and filling critical knowledge gaps regarding the design and management of these systems.

Our current Wiki has worked for thousands of people in cold climates -- but it is incomplete. Many people around the world have asked us to expand to include other climates.

Our all-volunteer team has been hard at work since 2007. We are all practitioners and “plant geeks”. None of our board have ever been paid, nor do we have paid staff. Apios revenues come through memberships and sponsorships, and 100% of these funds go to pay for web hosting and design.

 

Quote

And Then The Climate Changed
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1270548388/and-then-the-climate-changed/description

What do we do today to prepare our children for tomorrow on our climate-changed, resource-constrained, and crowded planet?

What do we do with our children today to prepare them psychologically for tomorrow?

Kids are growing up right now. Climate change is happening right now. Population is exploding, and the world continues to use up its natural resources. We are making the future right now, yet we don't fully understand what to do to prepare our kids for it.

Our film is the story of two women who fear the real and emotional impact of these rapid changes on their children. Jessica is an environmental leader who sees the slow pace of behavioral change despite her cutting edge knowledge of the technological and social solutions available to sustain our human community. Her friend, Beth, is a psychiatrist who understands the toll that social unrest, extreme weather, dislocation, and deprivation take on a human psyche. Together they have six children ranging in age from 2 to 22.

The powerful and often frustrating journey brings Jessica and Beth face to face with experts across a range of disciplines, from world leaders to scientists, mental health scholars and professionals, sociologists, religious and spiritual leaders, and experts in the technological advances that will help combat climate change.

Why we care

Beth Haase MD writes:

The amount of mental disorders including depression, violent behavior, post-traumatic stress, that could result from global warming is massive in scale. Up to forty percent of people exposed to significant climate hardship could be affected. That means, for example, that if sea levels rise as predicted, 280 million of 700 million coastal world residents could survive with a diagnosable mental condition. And of course, disadvantaged children and the elderly will bear the brunt of this hardship.

We know already that our children will face significant mental stress even if climate change is controlled. Reduced exposure to nature in itself undermines mental health. The expected impacts will cause profound deprivation, loss, and terror, difficult emotions for humans of all ages. To be secure and resilient leaders, children need to start in a world that builds self-esteem, secures attachment to family, home and habitat, and provides them with survival skills and moral abilities that preserve both themselves and a civil society. We cannot hide the risks they face, but we must not overwhelm them with fear.

Making the long-range plans needed for sustainable and resilient societies will conflict with personal and immediate self-interest. It will cut against human instincts and require advanced cognitive and psychological skills. We are guided by cognitive biases, mental short cuts that tell us we are more important and less vulnerable than we are, and skew our assessment of risk towards choices that make us happy in the moment and unhappy longer term.

Climate change will pose specific psychological challenges. Children will need more complex modes of problem-solving, more long-range planning, skills for more rapid adaptation to loss and change than are innate. We owe them these psychological skills as much as we owe them our beautiful planet.

The greatest threat to our planet and our kids is human behavior. Inability to feel, think, and act in new ways is what slows our response to global changes. Emotional and behavioral change is our only hope.

 

At the end of the Ice Age, it took 7,000 years for carbon dioxide levels to rise by 80 parts per million

Because of the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide levels have gone up by the same amount in just 55 years.

What we see today is 100 percent due to human activity

The last time the worldwide carbon level was probably this high was about 2 million years ago

Other scientists say it may have been 10 million years since Earth last encountered this level of carbon dioxide. The first modern humans only appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago

When measurements were first taken in 1958, carbon dioxide was measured at 315 parts per million. Levels are now growing about 2 parts per million per year. That's 100 times faster than at the end of the Ice Age.

The world pumps on average 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the air every second

Carbon dioxide traps heat just like in a greenhouse and most of it stays in the air for about a century.

There are others, such as methane, which has a shorter life span but traps heat more effectively.

 

Millennial warming has elevated the CO2, from outgassing of oceans and thawing tundra.

Wrong! Not even most of it.

"about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant decay.”

This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf "

So what? The temperature isn't following!

Co2 doesn't trap heat. It's a radiating gas. It absorbs 3 very narrow frequencies of infrared radiation, about 3% of the 100 freqs wide IR band, and then re=radiates the heat, both up towards space and down toward the planet and sideways into more atmosphere. It does NOT absorb and hold the heat. The ability to absorb is the same ability to radiate. A two way street! {edited: Absorb (not trapped) is correctly defined as 'extinction' in a post below}.

And the greatest greenhouse gas by magnitudes, water vapor. AGWers thought and preached for years, that CO2 was a skinny little fuse mechanism that would set off the huge water vapor greenhouse gas into run away greenhouse effect. The climate models ALL give water vapor a warming factor of 3X.

Wrong. Water vapor turned out NOT to be a feedback increasing warming, but the opposite. A dampening feedback, of .5. That means it reduces the warming by half! The AGWers keep preaching their busted old hypothesis, inspite of the data that proves them all wrong!

 

No sealevel rise detected on USA west coast, one and half millimeter rise in Germany (6/100s of an inch). Maybe. Did they measure it with a micrometer?

If the sea IS actually rising, and averaged everywhere 6/100s of an inch per year, in a 100 years a 6 inch rise. 5 ft in a thousand years! If the current warm period doesn't chill down in the next 50 year, as it did in previous warm periods.
Scare tactics to convince the gullible to join the socialist crusade!
In a thousand years, there will be another millennial warm period. Roman warm period 2000 years ago, medieval warm period 1000 years ago, current warm period now, .....

 

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org...made-co2-emissions-are-causing-global-warming

"Are rising man-made CO2 emissions causing global warming?

Both sides of the global warming debate agree that there is a close correlation, over the last 800,000 years, of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with global temperatures. Furthermore it is generally agreed that hitherto, the rise in temperatures preceded the rise in CO2 levels by an average of around 800 years.

Inevitably the relationships are complex and this referenced article gives a much more detailed account of the evidence: CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata by David Middleton

However, the IPCC and the pro-global warming lobby insist that it is now CO2 which is driving the rise in temperature with no hard evidence to support this illogical premise. On the contrary, temperatures rose fairly rapidly from about 1900 to 1940 but then declined until the late 1970s during a period when CO2 emissions were rising in the post-war industrial boom. According to satellite data,

following peak temperatures in 1998 there has been no warming of statistical significance in spite of a further increase in CO2 emissions.

95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour, CO2 is a relatively minor constituent making a marginal contribution to the greenhouse system.

Studies acknowledge that rises in CO2 concentrations have a warming influence but that it is logarithmic, ie. the first 20 parts per million have the most effect but thereafter the influence wanes to negligible by the time the current 393 parts per million are reached. CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past.

CO2 is beneficial for promoting plant growth which is important if we are to feed the growing global human population without destroying our environment. Below 150ppm nothing would grow and we'd all die. Dutch growers buy CO2 to increase concentrations in their greenhouses to increase crop yields. So it seems perverse to describe a basic building block of life on earth as a pollutant.

Finally, while acknowledging that the earth’s climate is a complex system with millions of variables, the correlation between solar activity and temperature appears much more compelling:"

 

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings

Zika virus: GMO mosquitoes? Vaccines?

Published on Friday, 29 January 2016 12:07
"Do you remember the 2014 Ebola scare? Millions were going to die and mass vaccination was the only viable solution. Deeper analysis revealed that the offending strain of Ebola had been been patented (and possibly weaponised) by the CDC - the very body in charge of containing the promised pandemic. The panic was at best over-hyped and at worst completely fabricated.

Now we are told that the Zika virus is responsible for deformation of foetuses; consequently an alarming number of babies are being born with deformed heads/brains in Brazil and across the Americas. However, it has now emerged that "Brazilians [are] not buying [the] Zika excuse for babies with shrunken brains" but what seems to link the deaths of affected babies is a mass vaccination program.

Zika Virus. Are we being told the truth?
"Now I will translate this: There was a zika outbreak in Brazil. There was a huge surge in shrunken baby brains in Brazil. ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF BABIES WHO DIED HAD THE VIRUS IN THEIR BRAIN. This means A LARGE NUMBER OF THE BABIES WHO DIED HAD NO ZIKA IN THEIR BRAIN. OUTPUT: The zika cases were coincidental, with the real problem completely unknown."
"..... which coincides with perfect timing with a whole bunch of newborns being born with defects. That’s right, in late 2014 the Brazilian minister of health announced a new TDAP shot to become mandatory for all expectant mothers..."


Another factor which has thus far been overlooked is genetically modified mosquitoes, introduced into the region to combat dengue fever. Could this be yet another tragic incidence of (un)intended consequences?"

 

At the current rate CO2 will increase one hundred ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change — the most recent one occurring approximately 50 million years ago — it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by one hundred ppm.
Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than in known geologic history.

 

And the only thing certain an extra 100 ppm of CO2 will do, is encourage plants to grow!
That is scientific fact.
All the AGW baloney is pure speculation.
If it never happened before, then there's no known consequences, none occurring before.
The climate models have failed miserably in their predictions.
Ergo, the hypothesis designed into the models, failed miserably.
In simple words, AGWers DON'T know what they're talking about.

Physicists say CO2, while a very minor greenhouse gas, does absorb/re-radiate a narrow 3% portion of heat rays, that more CO2 does not absorb more heat. Once ALL the sun's heat rays in that 3% of IR frequencies is absorbed, the doubling, tripling, 100X more CO2 has no addition warming capability. Physicists say, it already absorbs all there is available to absorb.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

"There are 3 main CO2 bands of IR absorption at wavelengths 1388, 667, 2349 cm-1 (HITRAN) and these are already saturated at current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Infra Red measurements from space show that the atmosphere is opaque at these wavelengths. However at high levels in the atmosphere this is not no longer true and this is the only argument for the enhanced greenhouse warming by CO2 warming which makes sense to me (see below).

Spectral distribution of incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing Infrared radiation from the Earth to space. Taken from Atmosphere, Weather and Climate Barry & Chorley.
Spectra of solar radiation and outgoing Infrared radiation. Note CO2 absorption bands ref: Barry & Chorley.



There is a very interesting paper here : http://brneurosci.org/co2.html which describes the basic physics. The absorption length for the existing concentration of CO2 is around 25 meters i.e. the distance to reduce the intensity by 1/e. All agree that direct IR radiation in the main CO2 bands is absorbed well below 1 km above the earth. Increasing levels of CO2 merely cause the absorption length to move closer to the surface. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the amount of global warming. Any increase could be at most logarithmic, and this is also generally agreed by all sides."

"

The IPCC predictions of future warming are based on model assumptions of positive feedback effects which are supposed to result from the initial warming caused by CO2 emissions. The main feedback effect is that of increased evaporation of the oceans leading to an increased greenhouse effect of water vapour (already 80 – 90% of greenhouse effect). However it is known that cloud cover in general leads to a net cooling effect on the Earth by blocking incident solar radiation. An increase in cloud cover of 10% would be enough to cancel out global warming effcets of increased CO2 ( Barry & Chorley).

Radiative Forcing Update: I have now found this reference to the equations used to derive the 4 watts/sq m radiative forcing by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

rf = f * ln([CO2]/[CO2]prein)/ln(2) in watts/m ** 2

It would appear that in order to derive the factor f the IPCC assume that all of the 0.6 degrees warming apparently seen since the industrial revoluton is due to CO2 and thereby derive the constant

AF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Then we get simply 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 watts/sq m for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 !

If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument ! Many skeptics argue that the recent rises in temperature is dominated by a natural recovery from the little Ice Age. In order to be convinced that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming then I would prefer that this formula could be derived from basic physical arguments rather than introducing a fudge factor preset to prove a theory."

Circular reasoning is flawed.
The CO2 warming formulae is FLAWED, because it makes an unwarranted assumption, and becomes circular reasoning.
AGW as a hypothesis is FLAWED!
CO2 does NOT drive temperature or climate!

 

There are AGWers who claim CO2 can't get saturated.

"An example of extinction length is that, since water absorbs/scatters sunlight, it gets really dark if you go 1km down. (The illumination is extinguished.) It wouldn't seem much darker if you went 5 or 10km deep, since practically all of the sunlight which the ocean was ever capable of absorbing has already been absorbed in the first 1km. (Since adding more depth will not significantly increase the total absorption, we can describe it as saturated after 1km.) "

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...the-atmosphere-on-the-molecular-level.410522/

Same holds for CO2.

Light travels from the farthest galaxies. Distance doesn't matter.
water becomes opaque after a certain depth, not for the distance, but for the quantity of water sufficient to absorb all the available light.
Increasing depth, adding more water, matters not. all available light was already absorbed.


Whether you have a deeper atmosphere with lesser or same ppm CO2, or a higher concentration of ppm CO2, the distance doesn't matter.
Once you have sufficient quantity of CO2 to absorb all it's IR spectrum, it's saturated.

Increasing CO2 by increasing the atmosphere depth, or increasing concentration of CO2, it can't absorb more IR than already arrives on earth.
When you absorb all available, you got it all, and there isn't any more to get!


Photos of the ocean floor more than a kilometer down, have been made by ROVs. Remote controlled submarines.
The ROV is equipped with floodlights which light the area being photographed. They added more light with lightbulbs.

CO2 isn't a heat bulb. It can't add more heat.


"CO2 emits the same energy as it absorbs and there is no net energy transfer between the vibrational modes of CO2 and the translational modes of N2 and O2. This applies where local thermodynamic equilibrium (L.T.E.) exist. i.e., You can't take a temperature measurement without L.T.E. This is met in the bulk of the atmosphere but not at the edges of space nor at the Earth's surface. So, CO2 can't heat the atmosphere in the bulk. In cavity heating experiments with CO2 involved, the results show the same 15 micron energy is adsorbed as is emitted. So, CO2 does not heat the atmosphere "in the bulk", does not trap energy, nor does it store energy from the so called greenhouse effect gases. So, the real story of CO2's role lies at the ground with the lapse rate whose variations are dependent not only on convection, latent heat changes and conduction, but also on radiative transfer.. Graphite heating panels, 8-15 micron IR, do not heat the bulk of the air in a room. At the ground interface, the floor does warm up, warms the air which slowly rises."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...mosphere-on-the-molecular-level.410522/page-2

 

I've been refuting one crucial bit of propaganda in all my recent posts.
This:

It is crucial to ALL of the AGW hypothesis, formulae, spin arguments, that they FIRST convince you to accept THIS fallacy. All of their propaganda and so called "science", is predicated on this unwarranted assumption.
It allows a circular argument, that they hope will befuddle you, literally have you spinning in circles, and make refutation impossible.

Without the axiom, "all warming in recent history is the result of heightened CO2, and man caused it", then they HAVE no argument for man causes warming. They spend billions of dollars searching, not for a cleaner energy cure, but a PROOF this axiom is correct!
See the circle?
It's a FAITH with them!
A faith the primary axiom (fallacy) is true.
A religion (faith based), you are forced to fund with your taxes!

I have shown the fallacy in my above posts. You are free to choose what you will believe.
The other side (AGWers) doesn't want you to have that option.
That's why they use arguments like emotional blackmail, "You don't love your children if you don't join our cause!".
And it's why I present the opposing data and arguments. My cause is freedom, including freedom to choose.

 

I like this;

"The theory of AGW says that extra CO2 causes a minor warming (less than 0.5degree) which then causes the atmosphere to absorb more water vapour. H2O content of the atmosphere is dependant on temperature – if you warm the air by 0.5C it can hold a little more H2O. This small increase in H2O then increases atmospheric temperature since H20 is a strong GHG which then allows more H2O to be absorbed etc (positive feedback loop).

The problem that the AGW’ers ignore is that when that first stage of extra H2O absorption happens, the H2O comes from evaporation from the oceans/surface water. Evaporation is a Endothermic process which causes a COOLING effect, so the first stage of H2O absorption MUST causes a slight cooling of the oceans which will offset the slight warming of the initial CO2. They have ignored this.

Not only that, but the slight cooling of the oceans from step1, results in the oceans being able to absorb more CO2, since CO2 absorption in the oceans is dependant on ocean temperature (when temperatures go up, oceans release CO2, when temps go down, oceans absorb CO2). So the slight cooling from the evaporated H2O will actually cause the oceans to absorb some of the CO2 back.

ie. Nature ballances itself out."

An elegant design!

 

AGW argument that CO2 doesn't get saturated.:

"So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further."


Where did they get
So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space.
from?
Co2 is a heavier than air gas. One of the aspects that allows the ocean to absorb CO2. Co2 is thickest low to the surface. CO2 is sinking into the ocean. I doubt the ocean is sucking it in!
Water vapor rises. Makes clouds. When the cloud exchanges it's heat to the upper air and through radiation upward, the water condenses and falls as cold rain. Water vapor is the MAIN greenhouse gas, 90 to 95% of GHG.
Never gets very high in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric Science


How high can clouds go?


Bernard Lipat, PhD student at Columbia University


Convection can occur up to levels where there there is enough CAPE or convective available potential energy for to feed it; that is, where the atmosphere is unstable to moist convection. This means that the equivalent potential temperature decreases with height.

Equivalent potential temperature measures temperature but also takes into account changes in temperature due to latent heat and pressure work.

At the tropopause and into the stratosphere almost by definition, the atmosphere is stably stratified. Here, equivalent potential temperature increases with height.

This is all to say, clouds can reach up to the stratosphere but no further.

There are exceptions, of course, like noctilucent clouds of the mesosphere."
https://www.quora.com/How-high-can-clouds-go

Since heat rises, all the air in higher altitudes gets the convection heat from the stratosphere, and lower clouds.
The ERBE satellite (in red box) measured increased radiation from earth to space, while all the climate models predicted reduced radiation to space. They were proved wrong!
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...8d1452608249-ocean-news-reality-vs-models.jpg

"
Never had a hot shower from a cloud!

 

Its great to see the next generation growing concern and taking action to cut CO2 emissions by stop killing animals which also makes better conscience and consideration, such as how we treat animals is said how we treat society.

Quote
The Herbivorous Butcher: sausage and steak – but hold the slaughter

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/all-things-boats-and-boating/ocean-news-54343-36.html#post764816

At this newly opened vegan butcher shop in Minneapolis, you can find barbecue ribs, pastrami and numerous cheeses that taste like the real deal, as brother and sister Aubry and Kale Walch aim to repurpose the word butcher

In a newly opened butcher shop in north-east Minneapolis, customers can find hand-cut salami, Sriracha-flavored bratwursts, meatballs, and nearly any other cut of meat that comes to mind.

The only catch? Nothing in the store is made from an animal product. Everything at the Herbivorous Butcher is 100% vegan.

Five years ago, after learning about the environmental impact of eating meat from books and documentaries such as Forks Over Knives and Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret, brother-sister duo Kale and Aubry Walch started making vegan meats and cheeses themselves.