Ocean News

myark · Feb 16, 2016

hoytedow said: ↑

Are you illiterate or do you have a visual impairment?
Click to expand...

Yobs rants on saying WE all the time, I suppose he means "hoytetow" or should I say Laurel and Hardy

Yobarnacle · Feb 16, 2016

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

When I read the SkepticalScience explanation for #6 I think I understand what they are saying, though I have to assume that their data and analysis is correct. When I read your explanation I have a very hard time understanding what you are saying, and I a very low level of confidence in its accuracy, because you don't give any scientific references to back your assertions.
Click to expand...

You've ALREADY made up your mind and don't want to be confused with facts.
Because you try to use scientific sounding arguments to convince others but your OWN convictions are politically based.

No amount of demonstrating the illogic, error, and obtuseness of the "science" you claim supports your belief. will never, ever dissuade you.
It's your FAITH sustains your position, not knowledge or logic or data.

A simple chart, many posted here, shows DATA of recent 20 years of annual average temperatures nearly flat, while the CO2 looks like it's headed for the moon.
Who cares about CO2? It's NOT driving climate, not today, and never in the past!

Yobarnacle · Feb 16, 2016

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

No, correlate does not mean equal. Look it up
Click to expand...

"Synonyms for correlate
verb equate, compare

interact
correspond
coordinate

parallel
connect
associate

tie in
be on same wavelength
have good vibes

relate mutually
tune in on

Antonyms for correlate

disconnect
disassociate

separate
differ

imbalance

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.
Cite This Source"

Since you object to 'equal".
An antonym of correlate is "differ" so correlate does NOT differ.
Less than is a difference, does differ.

Contradiction in those two statements from skeptical science. You MUST be an immigrant. You DON'T understand English very well.
I'm glad to help explain meanings of words to you.

Yobarnacle · Feb 16, 2016

Myark can't debate effectively, so he resorts to name calling.
Relegates himself to status of merely a heckler.

Always at least one in every crowd.

Somebody please pour a hot chocolate on his head? Cocoa myark the heckler!

ImaginaryNumber · Feb 16, 2016

Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System | RealClimate

Blizzard Jonas on the US east coast has just shattered snowfall records. Both weather forecasters and climate experts have linked the high snowfall amounts to the exceptionally warm sea surface temperatures off the east coast. In this post I will examine a related question: why are sea surface temperatures so high there?[...]

I will argue that this warmth (as well as the cold blob in the subpolar Atlantic) is partly due to a slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), sometimes referred to as the Gulf Stream System, in response to global warming. There are two points to this argument:

(1) The warm sea surface temperatures are not just some short-term anomaly but are part of a long-term observed warming trend, in which ocean temperatures off the US east coast are warming faster than global average temperatures.

(2) Climate models show a “cold blob” in the subpolar Atlantic as well as enhanced warming off the US east coast as a characteristic response pattern to a slowdown of the AMOC.[...]

Bottom Line

There is a strong case that the warm SST off the US coast and the cold blob in the subpolar gyre are linked, both being caused by an AMOC slowdown. This AMOC slowdown thus may have consequences for extreme weather in the US that I did not foresee in the past and only started to think about in the last year.

When Jake Gyllenhaal was snowed in in the New York public library in the film The Day After Tomorrow after an AMOC collapse, the physics may have been wrong, but perhaps there was a grain of truth in that snow storm after all.
Click to expand...

hoytedow · Feb 16, 2016

Yobarnacle said: ↑

Myark can't debate effectively, so he resorts to name calling.
Relegates himself to status of merely a heckler.

Always at least one in every crowd.

Somebody please pour a hot chocolate on his head? Cocoa myark the heckler!
Click to expand...

wing nuts

myark · Feb 16, 2016

myark said: ↑

Paleoclimatic records such as ice cores and ocean sediments indicate that the cycling of ice ages over the past several million years has been controlled by changes in the intensity of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere summer due to variations over tens of thousands of years in the orbit of the Earth around the sun (the so-called Milankovitch cycles).

Positive feedback mechanisms related to the release of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane amplify the effect of the orbital cycles and lead to large changes in Earth's climate. CO2 increased during interglacials because a warmer ocean doesn't hold as much carbon dioxide as a cold ocean and so oceans released some back into the atmosphere as the planet warmed. This increase in atmospheric CO2 then further warmed the planet leading to the release of even more carbon dioxide. Given this understanding of the ice ages, we would expect increases in greenhouse gasses to lag increases in temperature at the end of a glacial period, which is just what we see in the geologic record.

Just because carbon dioxide was not the factor driving climate change during the ice ages, does not mean that it is not today. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are initiating the cycle of warming through a different mechanism then what happened previously during inter-glacials, but the warming effect of CO2 is the same in both cases.

There is also plenty of evidence in the longer geological record that greenhouse gases have had a major influence on planetary temperature in the past. Examples are the Palecoene-Eocene boundary (55 million years ago) and the late Cretaceous (around 80 million years ago).
Click to expand...

myark · Feb 16, 2016

Yobarnacle said: ↑

Myark can't debate effectively, so he resorts to name calling.
Relegates himself to status of merely a heckler.

Always at least one in every crowd.

Somebody please pour a hot chocolate on his head? Cocoa myark the heckler!
Click to expand...

The only hecklers are Laurel and Hardy who are deliberately trying to derail this thread.

Yobarnacle · Feb 16, 2016

myark said: ↑

The only hecklers are Laurel and Hardy who are deliberately trying to derail this thread.
Click to expand...

Nope! I'm pulling your fangs so your socialist propaganda doesn't poison any vulnerable minds.

myark · Feb 16, 2016

See what I mean

myark · Feb 16, 2016

myark said: ↑

Quote
Climate Denial's Ugly Side: Hate Mail to Scientists

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...al-ugly-side-scientists-hate-mail-hayhoe-mann

With their work in the crosshairs of a political ideology, climate scientists find themselves under attack via the Internet.

As delegates from 195 countries work diligently in Paris to hash out an international deal to tackle climate change, their work relies on the huge consensus of climate science that shows the world is headed for a dangerous future if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. But back home in the United States, historically the biggest carbon emitter of all, climate science gets a much rockier reception. In fact, climate scientists find themselves and their work regularly under attack.

Not only are there organized efforts like Lamar Smith's House science committee issuing subpoenas and striving to discredit scientists, but harassment and hate mail arrives every day via the Internet. Their work has found itself in the crosshairs of a political ideology that has an ugly side.

InsideClimate News spoke to nearly a dozen climate scientists and communicators about the harassment they face. For them, death threats, sexist remarks, claims of fraud, bomb threats, letters laced with powdery substances, references to **** and Nazis have become almost standard. According to emails shared with ICN, messages range from derisive ("I hope your mental illness gets better") to downright threatening (“YOU ARE GOING TO HANG SOON!”).

"There are people who become dedicated to following you, who have Google alerts set up on your name, who stalk your Twitter and Facebook accounts, who essentially make a career out of ridiculing and vilifying you," Hayhoe said.

Hate mail and harassment takes a toll on scientists—and science. Researchers spend time and resources addressing denialists' debunked claims in a way the scientific community has never done before, according to a study published in May in the peer-reviewed journal Global Environmental Change. They also often downplay future climate risks to avoid being labeled an "alarmist" by climate contrarians, concluded the same study.

It can also take a toll on personal lives and relationships. And for some, the fear of being attacked, ridiculed or investigated remains years after the hate mail stops.

Hayhoe has found herself snapping at her son during particularly intense periods of attack. "That shouldn't be happening, it shouldn't be affecting my personal life," Hayhoe said. "As scientists we need to take a step back and ask, what toll is this having on me, on my professional work and on my personal life?"

Many of the researchers InsideClimate News spoke with said they have taken steps to protect themselves and their families from hate mail and harassment. Some have unlisted home addresses and phone numbers. Others have arranged that any mail or visitors get filtered through a central office at work, such as the headquarters of their university department.

"Some things are worth fighting for," said Santer, who has been the target of harassment since the mid-1990s. "A clear public understanding of the nature and causes of climate change is worth fighting for.

"If you are doing science that people care about, that is relevant, there will be pushback," he added. "You will receive not only justified or unjustified scientific criticism, but you will encounter attacks on your integrity, your character and your motives. You need to be prepared for them. They are the price of doing what we do. But it is important to remember they are just background noise."

The world needs more researchers talking about global warming right now, not less, climate scientists and communicators said.
Click to expand...

Climate Denial's Ugly Side

Yobarnacle · Feb 17, 2016

As long as you stick to Ocean news, I have evn remarked "good article" at times.
Whenever the political AGW propaganda pops up, I shoot it down.

IN should start a private blog somewhere to preach AGW.

And YOU belong on a vegan forum.

Stick to the thread topic, ocean news, and I won't point out your Achilles heel..

ImaginaryNumber · Feb 17, 2016

More sizzling news: January 2016 hottest ever recorded | International Business Times

Things keep heating up. Right after 2015 claimed the dubious title of being the hottest year ever, January 2016 is now officially ranked as the hottest January ever recorded.

Not only was January the hottest ever, the new temperature was the biggest increase over the previous record in more than a century of records, according to figures released by NASA. NASA's climate records go back to 1880.[...]

January also chalked up the hottest anomaly — or departure from the long-term norm — for any month on record.[...]

"The record is helped along a bit by El Nino, but most of it — more than 80% — is due to human-caused global warming," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics at Potsdam University. "A strong El Nino event can elevate the monthly global temperature by up to 0.2 degrees, but this January is a whopping 1.1 degrees warmer than the average January during the baseline period of 1951-1980."[...]

Click to expand...

Yobarnacle · Feb 17, 2016

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/more-sizzling-news-january-2016-hottest-ever-recorded-1544043

"The global average temperature at Earth's surface for January 2016 was 1.13 degrees C above the 1951-1980 average (the benchmark NASA uses to measure warming trends). That's a full 2 degrees F warmer than pre-1980 levels. The previous record for January, set in 2007, was .95 C, or 1.71 degrees F above average."

OK! So 1.13 degrees above the 51 to 80 average Jan 2016
Subtract .95 degrees above the 51 to 80 average Jan 2007
equals 0.18 degrees higher than the previous record!

18/100ths of one degree increase is headline news?
Must be a slow news day.

Seriously, AGWers obsession with minutia is alarming. They have NO perspective of scale! Hey! Get a LIFE!
(You have between 3 trillion and 5 trillion cells in your body. Are you CERTAIN a few aren't missing? Better inventory! )

And how come the graph and the professors figures are so different?

the graph is 100ths of a degree C, so 100 =1 degree c.
All of the graphed temperatures are below one degree C, above the baseline, 0.
Yet the article claims "1.13 degrees C above the 1951-1980 average"

Contradiction!

One or the other is in error!

myark · Feb 17, 2016

myark said: ↑

Again you have openly stated humans are the cause of climate change by claiming to be in the polls 34% which is both equally environmental and human caused climate change, meaning 50/50 not the twisted majority environmental you claim if you can understand what equal means.

How ever you claim to be in the "not happening" 22% meaning climate change is not happening at all when you contradict your self by stating 50% humans and 50% environment is causing climate change.

Even more confusing you also claim to be the 1% that do not know what is causing climate change, but on the other hand you give endless contradicting rantings that you do know.

You also claim climate change are natural changes in the environment which is not human caused that is just a 8%.

Then you claim you are not sure if happening that is the 8% poll answer and maybe the best poll answer for you as you as you are not sure of anything including how to read a simple drawing poll chart that you have contradicted your self over and over and can understand why you wish to avoid the subject that in reality are the 1% in the poll "don't know."

61% state humans cause climate change as well as smaller % of the 61% also agree environment is combined equally with human cause climate change, meaning you are now insisting you are part of the human and environment that are equally causing climate change
Click to expand...

Here is a fine example about Yobs rantings who is unable to answer a simple picture poll he produced after a possible manic episode stating he is the majority when in its easily found by far a major minority yob is the 1% " DO NOT KNOW"

As I said Yob is deliberately derailing this thread with his paranoid conspiracy theory's, radicle religion and over the top red neck politics and so called scams.
He cannot give and honest answer and produces nothing but smoke screening rants even admitting he is derailing this thread.

Log in or Sign up

Ocean News

myark Senior Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

hoytedow Fly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

Attached Files:

wing nuts.jpg

myark Senior Member

myark Senior Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

myark Senior Member

myark Senior Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Attached Files:

giss_12-month_moving_average1-16-638x478.jpg

myark Senior Member

Real Ocean News

Volvo Ocean Race - John Fisher

Man rescued from floating bubble (tries to go across ocean to Bermuda 1000 miles)

Cement/Concrete Saves Vessel Mid Ocean

Is the ocean broken?

Kids facing the Oceans Plastic Cleanup Problem

Free ride across the pacific ocean

Books for ocean passages etc..

Ocean Currents Visualization

100`s of motorships - first ocean going motor ship