Ocean acidification, the backup.
-
Well, as we know AGWers have lost the battle to prove the planet is warming, or that recent warming is unusual in any way, or in fact that even today it is warmer than it was 60 years ago, 800 years ago, 2000 years ago, and so on, and that CO2 is anything but plant food. But, they always had a back up to enforce global redistribution of wealth via carbon taxation, and its the good old ocean acidification. (Kind of sounds like the good old acid rain thing too, although after being fully investigated that was found to be utterly baselsss) And so the alarmist press are starting to switch over to this story now: Deterioration of oceans 'irreversible' due to global warming [^] This is such complete drivel, I am surprised it gets published, but given the total collapse in scientific standards over the last 10 years its not surprising. (Using wind as temperature to prove tropospheric warming) "Though the increase in acidity is slight, it represents a "major departure" from the geochemical conditions that have existed in the oceans for hundred of thousands if not millions of years." What? You mean those millions of years ago when CO2 was at 12,000 PPM! It was LESS acidic then! "Higher temperatures in polar regions and a decrease in the salinity of surface water due to melting ice sheets could interrupt such circulation, the report says. " Its amazing how often this gets dragged out, dusted down, and used as proof that warming can mean cooling, and general chaos. Its been disproved. Atlantic bouys since 2003 have measured temperaturee and flow rates at various depths and have found no weakening of the gulf stream even with the unusual melting of polar ice recently. All they measured was a very small drop in temeprature.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Well, as we know AGWers have lost the battle to prove the planet is warming, or that recent warming is unusual in any way, or in fact that even today it is warmer than it was 60 years ago, 800 years ago, 2000 years ago, and so on, and that CO2 is anything but plant food. But, they always had a back up to enforce global redistribution of wealth via carbon taxation, and its the good old ocean acidification. (Kind of sounds like the good old acid rain thing too, although after being fully investigated that was found to be utterly baselsss) And so the alarmist press are starting to switch over to this story now: Deterioration of oceans 'irreversible' due to global warming [^] This is such complete drivel, I am surprised it gets published, but given the total collapse in scientific standards over the last 10 years its not surprising. (Using wind as temperature to prove tropospheric warming) "Though the increase in acidity is slight, it represents a "major departure" from the geochemical conditions that have existed in the oceans for hundred of thousands if not millions of years." What? You mean those millions of years ago when CO2 was at 12,000 PPM! It was LESS acidic then! "Higher temperatures in polar regions and a decrease in the salinity of surface water due to melting ice sheets could interrupt such circulation, the report says. " Its amazing how often this gets dragged out, dusted down, and used as proof that warming can mean cooling, and general chaos. Its been disproved. Atlantic bouys since 2003 have measured temperaturee and flow rates at various depths and have found no weakening of the gulf stream even with the unusual melting of polar ice recently. All they measured was a very small drop in temeprature.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
See! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Well, as we know AGWers have lost the battle to prove the planet is warming, or that recent warming is unusual in any way, or in fact that even today it is warmer than it was 60 years ago, 800 years ago, 2000 years ago, and so on, and that CO2 is anything but plant food. But, they always had a back up to enforce global redistribution of wealth via carbon taxation, and its the good old ocean acidification. (Kind of sounds like the good old acid rain thing too, although after being fully investigated that was found to be utterly baselsss) And so the alarmist press are starting to switch over to this story now: Deterioration of oceans 'irreversible' due to global warming [^] This is such complete drivel, I am surprised it gets published, but given the total collapse in scientific standards over the last 10 years its not surprising. (Using wind as temperature to prove tropospheric warming) "Though the increase in acidity is slight, it represents a "major departure" from the geochemical conditions that have existed in the oceans for hundred of thousands if not millions of years." What? You mean those millions of years ago when CO2 was at 12,000 PPM! It was LESS acidic then! "Higher temperatures in polar regions and a decrease in the salinity of surface water due to melting ice sheets could interrupt such circulation, the report says. " Its amazing how often this gets dragged out, dusted down, and used as proof that warming can mean cooling, and general chaos. Its been disproved. Atlantic bouys since 2003 have measured temperaturee and flow rates at various depths and have found no weakening of the gulf stream even with the unusual melting of polar ice recently. All they measured was a very small drop in temeprature.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
These people are twats. What about This.[^] Do you know how severe an effect this had on the planet! All that massive atmosphere change killed nearly all life! Damn, those scientists and politicians have a lot to answer for. Imagine what that tiniest of tiny changes thay predict could do to an atmosphere that has changed by so much so many times!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Well, as we know AGWers have lost the battle to prove the planet is warming, or that recent warming is unusual in any way, or in fact that even today it is warmer than it was 60 years ago, 800 years ago, 2000 years ago, and so on, and that CO2 is anything but plant food. But, they always had a back up to enforce global redistribution of wealth via carbon taxation, and its the good old ocean acidification. (Kind of sounds like the good old acid rain thing too, although after being fully investigated that was found to be utterly baselsss) And so the alarmist press are starting to switch over to this story now: Deterioration of oceans 'irreversible' due to global warming [^] This is such complete drivel, I am surprised it gets published, but given the total collapse in scientific standards over the last 10 years its not surprising. (Using wind as temperature to prove tropospheric warming) "Though the increase in acidity is slight, it represents a "major departure" from the geochemical conditions that have existed in the oceans for hundred of thousands if not millions of years." What? You mean those millions of years ago when CO2 was at 12,000 PPM! It was LESS acidic then! "Higher temperatures in polar regions and a decrease in the salinity of surface water due to melting ice sheets could interrupt such circulation, the report says. " Its amazing how often this gets dragged out, dusted down, and used as proof that warming can mean cooling, and general chaos. Its been disproved. Atlantic bouys since 2003 have measured temperaturee and flow rates at various depths and have found no weakening of the gulf stream even with the unusual melting of polar ice recently. All they measured was a very small drop in temeprature.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Well, as we know AGWers have lost the battle to prove the planet is warming
That argument has yet to be settled one way or the other. And it is now far too political to get a reasoned debate. And you know it! Regarding the perma-frost captured methane, if it were to be released, it is a much more potent greenhouse gas. I would argue that if CO2 does cause a modest rise in global temperatures, then melting of such perma-frost captured methane could be expected. Do you, Fat_Boy, have an argument to counter that?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Well, as we know AGWers have lost the battle to prove the planet is warming
That argument has yet to be settled one way or the other. And it is now far too political to get a reasoned debate. And you know it! Regarding the perma-frost captured methane, if it were to be released, it is a much more potent greenhouse gas. I would argue that if CO2 does cause a modest rise in global temperatures, then melting of such perma-frost captured methane could be expected. Do you, Fat_Boy, have an argument to counter that?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would argue that if CO2 does cause a modest rise in global temperatures, then melting of such perma-frost captured methane could be expected. Do you, Fat_Boy, have an argument to counter that?
Its a nice simplistic theory I am sure you read in some AGW wank mag but what proof do YOU have to suport THEIR theory? It was the same with the ocean currents. Melting ice turns off the gulf stream, but this was found to be a load of crap after some propper science was done (propper as in actually measuring stuff rather than postulating).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would argue that if CO2 does cause a modest rise in global temperatures, then melting of such perma-frost captured methane could be expected. Do you, Fat_Boy, have an argument to counter that?
Its a nice simplistic theory I am sure you read in some AGW wank mag but what proof do YOU have to suport THEIR theory? It was the same with the ocean currents. Melting ice turns off the gulf stream, but this was found to be a load of crap after some propper science was done (propper as in actually measuring stuff rather than postulating).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Irrespective if the theory is simple or complex, it is an issue within the sphere of Global Warming (or Climate Change if you would prefer).
fat_boy wrote:
what proof do YOU have to suport THEIR theory?
Here are some references, take them or leave them, choice is yours whichever you take ... 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5321046.stm[^] 2. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/03/04/globe-warning-methane-is-gushing-from-a-russian-ice-shelf/[^] 3. http://tcktcktck.org/stories/climate-news/methane-release-looks-stronger[^] 4. http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/01/arctic-seabed-leaking-methane-fast[^] 5. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100028633/methane-from-fozen-seabeds-could-accelerate-global-warming-new-research-suggests/[^] 6. http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/05/explosions_of_methane_in_north.html[^] Want any more references? Just say so ...
-
Irrespective if the theory is simple or complex, it is an issue within the sphere of Global Warming (or Climate Change if you would prefer).
fat_boy wrote:
what proof do YOU have to suport THEIR theory?
Here are some references, take them or leave them, choice is yours whichever you take ... 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5321046.stm[^] 2. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/03/04/globe-warning-methane-is-gushing-from-a-russian-ice-shelf/[^] 3. http://tcktcktck.org/stories/climate-news/methane-release-looks-stronger[^] 4. http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/01/arctic-seabed-leaking-methane-fast[^] 5. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100028633/methane-from-fozen-seabeds-could-accelerate-global-warming-new-research-suggests/[^] 6. http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/05/explosions_of_methane_in_north.html[^] Want any more references? Just say so ...
You call this proof do you? "they suggest the methane release is hastened by warmer temperatures" "may be five times greater " "It is possible that climate change could be contributing to the release" "Scientists have uncovered what appears to be" " it looks stronger than it was" " It could turn out to be one more piece of evidence" This isnt scintific proof, this is guesswork and opinion. If you want facts take a gander at this: Variability of the intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years[^] So, the recent temperature rise is not unusual, and in fact the air temperature isnt even as warm as it was in the 1940, being almost .3 `C colder. (A trend also true for the US and Greenland dont forget). We have seen all this before and the world didnt come to an end so stop running round lilke a hysterical chicken trying to convince the world the sky is falling when it isnt.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You call this proof do you? "they suggest the methane release is hastened by warmer temperatures" "may be five times greater " "It is possible that climate change could be contributing to the release" "Scientists have uncovered what appears to be" " it looks stronger than it was" " It could turn out to be one more piece of evidence" This isnt scintific proof, this is guesswork and opinion. If you want facts take a gander at this: Variability of the intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years[^] So, the recent temperature rise is not unusual, and in fact the air temperature isnt even as warm as it was in the 1940, being almost .3 `C colder. (A trend also true for the US and Greenland dont forget). We have seen all this before and the world didnt come to an end so stop running round lilke a hysterical chicken trying to convince the world the sky is falling when it isnt.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You have obviously made your mind up and no matter what any other evidence, or suspicions, that might reasonably exist, or be subsequently found, that might pose questions, or doubts, for your made-up mind, it is, thus, not for persuasion that any other answer is probable. That, alas, puts you into the same closed-mind category where Henize lives. Sorry if that offends!
-
You have obviously made your mind up and no matter what any other evidence, or suspicions, that might reasonably exist, or be subsequently found, that might pose questions, or doubts, for your made-up mind, it is, thus, not for persuasion that any other answer is probable. That, alas, puts you into the same closed-mind category where Henize lives. Sorry if that offends!
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You have obviously made your mind up and no matter what any other evidence, or suspicions, that might reasonably exist,
Look, once the AGW crowd come up with some facts, some hard science, I will start to listen. But while its all, maybees, and coulds, and possibles, ie opinion, and NOT empiracle evidence I will not. Especially when faced with propper science that shows undeniably that the recent warming trend is not unusual in either magnitude or rate. Given those FACTS I have nothing to fear if we gain a few more degrees in the north (because dont forget the south pole is cooling, and has been for 60 years, gaining ice steadilly. And for gods sake dont come back with that study headed by Mann that shows its warming. That was pure moddeling and NOT raw data)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You have obviously made your mind up and no matter what any other evidence, or suspicions, that might reasonably exist,
Look, once the AGW crowd come up with some facts, some hard science, I will start to listen. But while its all, maybees, and coulds, and possibles, ie opinion, and NOT empiracle evidence I will not. Especially when faced with propper science that shows undeniably that the recent warming trend is not unusual in either magnitude or rate. Given those FACTS I have nothing to fear if we gain a few more degrees in the north (because dont forget the south pole is cooling, and has been for 60 years, gaining ice steadilly. And for gods sake dont come back with that study headed by Mann that shows its warming. That was pure moddeling and NOT raw data)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I will start to listen
Good, then you might like to open your ear holes to these articles from renowned sources ... 1. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1856/1657.full[^] [quote] The aim of this paper is to examine one particular source of atmospheric CH4 that may be significantly larger than previously recognized: ebullition (bubbling) from northern lakes. Careful measurements of the spatial and temporal patchiness of ebullition in Siberian thermokarst lakes revealed that total emissions from lakes were five times greater than earlier estimates that did not account for the patchiness of ebullition (Zimov et al. 1997; Walter et al. 2006). Furthermore, thaw of permafrost along lake margins releases labile organic matter previously sequestered in permafrost for centuries to millennia into anaerobic lake sediments, enhancing CH4 production and ebullition emission and serving as a positive feedback to climate warming. [/quote] 2. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_2_00/methane.htm[^] [quote] An enormous natural gas resource locked in ice lies untapped in ocean sediments and the Arctic permafrost. If this resource could be harvested safely and economically by the United States, we could possibly enjoy long-term energy security. Known as methane hydrates, this resource also may have important implications for climate change. When released to the air, methane is a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas). When burned, methane releases up to 25% less carbon dioxide than the combustion of the same mass of coal and does not emit the nitrogen and sulfur oxides known to damage the environment. [/quote] 3. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext[^] [quote] Permafrost underlies about 25% of land in the northern hemisphere (Zhang et al 2000) and there is growing evidence that its distribution and properties will be changed i
-
fat_boy wrote:
I will start to listen
Good, then you might like to open your ear holes to these articles from renowned sources ... 1. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1856/1657.full[^] [quote] The aim of this paper is to examine one particular source of atmospheric CH4 that may be significantly larger than previously recognized: ebullition (bubbling) from northern lakes. Careful measurements of the spatial and temporal patchiness of ebullition in Siberian thermokarst lakes revealed that total emissions from lakes were five times greater than earlier estimates that did not account for the patchiness of ebullition (Zimov et al. 1997; Walter et al. 2006). Furthermore, thaw of permafrost along lake margins releases labile organic matter previously sequestered in permafrost for centuries to millennia into anaerobic lake sediments, enhancing CH4 production and ebullition emission and serving as a positive feedback to climate warming. [/quote] 2. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_2_00/methane.htm[^] [quote] An enormous natural gas resource locked in ice lies untapped in ocean sediments and the Arctic permafrost. If this resource could be harvested safely and economically by the United States, we could possibly enjoy long-term energy security. Known as methane hydrates, this resource also may have important implications for climate change. When released to the air, methane is a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas). When burned, methane releases up to 25% less carbon dioxide than the combustion of the same mass of coal and does not emit the nitrogen and sulfur oxides known to damage the environment. [/quote] 3. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext[^] [quote] Permafrost underlies about 25% of land in the northern hemisphere (Zhang et al 2000) and there is growing evidence that its distribution and properties will be changed i
Oh, I believe there is CH4 there, trapped in ice, and that it is a usable gas (for burning), and that it is a GH gas. Which all of the links you provide state. However, that it is serious is refuted by the fact that the temperatures in the arctic were warmer in the 1940s than today. As evinced by my previous post. Dont forget too that CH4 is unstable, it oxidises rapidly, in fact explosively. It life cycle is relatively short. Dont forget too that cows produce many times in order of magnitude the CH4 that might be released from melting tundra. But sI suppose you think this source of CH4 is 'natural' and thus OK?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription