Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

SHEER DESPERATION! AGAIN! Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES.

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Markle

Markle

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues

Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Claiming 2014 is the 'hottest year' on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming 'pause' is continuing.'

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: 'The NASA press release is highly misleading...talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

2seaoat



I looked at your links. Not one of the shills for the coal companies said the rise in temps was wrong. They simply said it was such a small increase to be statistically insignificant. However, the trend continues where The Earth's average surface temperature has risen 0.7 C (1.3 F) since humans accelerated emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the Industrial Revolution. It is the continued trend where the concern is not insignificant and easily ignored unless you are being paid off by special interests who have seen their commodity prices almost cut in half. Carbon pollution must be limited. Period.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

can't trust Goddard Spaceflight Center......but I can trust ALgore...LOL

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

SHEER DESPERATION!  AGAIN!  Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES. 93620main_sun5m

Cycles  simply Cycles......but there's money to be made in panic......

see my signature...The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed

2seaoat



The trend of carbon pollution since the industrial revolution is clear. Science has consensus. The only legitimate discussion are alternatives to deal with the pollution. The science argument was over almost a decade ago.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

If mankind didn't burn the planet to hell and back with all the shit pumped into the oceans and air in all of WW2 then I don't think they can.

SHEER DESPERATION!  AGAIN!  Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES. W18_20-1407M

SHEER DESPERATION!  AGAIN!  Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES. Atomic_Bomb

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

SHEER DESPERATION!  AGAIN!  Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES. Atomic_explosion_collage_by_nelvanadzian-d3gt19w

2seaoat



All contribute to pollution. I was thinking as a kid how many tadpoles and frogs there were in wetlands. I just do not see the same number of frogs......not even close. There are a great many articles about the decline of frogs, and sadly there is not one clear cause....they seem to be getting whacked from all kinds of things. I remember going to bed camping with a beautiful chorus of frogs at night......now I hear one or two who have a rather lonely croak.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/where-have-all-frogs-gone-new-study-illuminates-killer-fungus

Sal

Sal

Oceans ....

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:Oceans ....

The oceans are excellent carbon sinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

PETM is probably the only example within the Cenozoic Era (approximately the last 65 million years) wherein a mass of carbon comparable to projected anthropogenic emissions (>2000 Gt or Pg) rapidly entered these reservoirs. The source of the CO 2 , and whether it was oxidized CH 4 , remain open issues; nonetheless, abundant evidence indicates nearly coeval changes in global warming and global carbon cycling, strongly suggesting a link between the two.

Numerous other changes can be observed in stratigraphic sections containing the PETM. [5]

Fossil records for many organisms show major turnovers. For example, in the marine realm, a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera, a global expansion of subtropical dinoflagellates, and an appearance of excursion planktic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils all occurred during the beginning stages of PETM. On land, there was a sudden appearance of modern mammal orders (including primates) in Europe and North America. Sediment deposition changed significantly at many outcrops and in many drill cores spanning this time interval.

Although now widely accepted that the PETM represents a “case study” for global warming and massive carbon input to Earth’s surface, the cause, details and overall significance of the event remain perplexing.

Life [edit]

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents, [18] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO 2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals. [27] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton. [28] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO 2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters. [29] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM. [29] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae [30] and weakly calcified forams. [31]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO 2 levels may have promoted dwarfing [32][33] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders –including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM. [32]

Orbital forcing [edit]

The presence of later (smaller) warming events of a global scale, such as the Elmo horizon (aka ETM2), has led to the hypothesis that the events repeat on a regular basis, driven by maxima in the 400,000 and 100,000 year eccentricity cycles in the Earth's orbit. The current warming period is believed to last another 50,000 years due to a minimum in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Orbital increase in insolation (and thus temperature) would force the system over a threshold and unleash positive feedbacks.

Recovery [edit]

The δ 13 C record records a duration of around 120,000 [22] to 170,000 [1][53] years, slightly faster than the residence time of carbon in the modern atmosphere (100,000 to 200,000 years). A feedback system [54] would explain this slightly more rapid recovery time.

The most likely method of recovery involves an increase in biological productivity, transporting carbon to the deep ocean. This would be assisted by higher global temperatures and CO 2 levels, as well as an increased nutrient supply (which would result from higher continental weathering due to higher temperatures and rainfall; volcanics may have provided further nutrients). Evidence for higher biological productivity comes in the form of bio-concentrated barium. [54] However, this proxy may instead reflect the addition of barium dissolved in methane. [55] Diversifications suggest that productivity increased in near-shore environments, which would have been warm and fertilized by run-off, outweighing the reduction in productivity in the deep oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_rock

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:
Sal wrote:Oceans ....

The oceans are excellent carbon sinks.


Yah ...

... great sink/toilet ...


Rolling Eyes

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html?_r=0

2seaoat



Such a none responsive cut and paste......you would think we were talking about baseball, because it has the equivalent relevancy.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:The trend of carbon pollution since the industrial revolution is clear.  Science has consensus.  The only legitimate discussion are alternatives to deal with the pollution.  The science argument was over almost a decade ago.

SHEER DESPERATION!  AGAIN!  Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES. AnimatedLaughterPink

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Such a none responsive cut and paste......you would think we were talking about baseball, because it has the equivalent relevancy.

Why wouldn't you do a very small amount of your own thinking?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability 3, 4, 6, 7 , external cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors 12, 13 . Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions 1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

2seaoat



Science is settled. Volcanic activity contributes, but the input from man is significant and a variable which can be adjusted. I would create doubt in the fact that cigarettes are bad to a person's health, and I too would have spent Tobacco's money creating false science to deny heath danger......it has been done before, and it is being done now.....and certainly there are still people who believe that cigarettes are not bad for one's health......but the science was settled in the fifties.....and the twenty year false science debate where people like PK would tell them can't they think for themselves......ignorance can be fixed.....stupid is permanent.

Guest


Guest

The science you're so married to is one minute equated to 180,000 years of earths history.

It's hard to imagine you playing those poker odds. Find me a scientist that thinks there will not be another ice age.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Science is settled.  Volcanic activity contributes, but the input from man is significant and a variable which can be adjusted.  I would create doubt in the fact that cigarettes are bad to a person's health, and I too would have spent Tobacco's money creating false science to deny heath danger......it has been done before, and it is being done now.....and certainly there are still people who believe that cigarettes are not bad for one's health......but the science was settled in the fifties.....and the twenty year false science debate where people like PK would tell them can't they think for themselves......ignorance can be fixed.....stupid is permanent.

SHEER DESPERATION!  AGAIN!  Sorry Greenies, the PAUSE CONTINUES. Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQWGRR3TlZCO9iE6pYh-QekhGEhLm6RmyWNYwZc78nYH7O7zD31A

Science is never settled.

However your pathetic attempts at calling people ignorant and stupid are wearing thin as you, Boards, Vikinggirl, and a few others around here continue to prove you're nothing but a bunch of losers who have run out of arguments and only have inane insults and other bullying tactics left.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzlgJ-SfKYE

Smile

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum