when they talk about the oceans becoming more acidic, the correct scientific term is becoming less base, until the oceans become neutral.
The rain is acidic so depending on where you take your measurements in the sea this could bias the result, up to now there has been no worldwide scientific peer reviewed paper on all the oceans and them becoming less base.
Martin et al. analyzed the effects of incredibly high CO2 levels (low ocean pH) on Mediterranean sea urchins. Other than a slower larval growth at ~3560 ppm, the sea urchins were unaffected by the ludicrously low pH levels imposed on the test subjects.
Phytoplankton will be on the increase with more co2 . Sounds good for the marine ecosystem to me. Spend more on Scientists? lol Another protection racket emerges from the deep.
The desription of this video is misleading. Human activities make up less than FIVE PERCENT of the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, meaning that if "the ocean absorbs almost half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities" as it claims then the ocean must also be absorbing half of the 95 percent that we are not responsible for!!! Get wise on this subject and you will realise how much of a scam it is - a scam to tax every human on the planet under a centralised control system!!
@CokeSupply CO2 levels for December 2010 - 389.69 ppm and STILL rising. Amount of oil the U.S. burns in a year - 4.5 billion barrels and STILL rising. its not rocket science to figure out that the more oil that is burned the higher the CO2 levels will rise.
Global Cooling according to the Warmist ReduceGHGs
v=bjYYz2Jv2QY
ReduceGHGs
10 minutes ago
As for global cooling, we ARE on a natural cooling trend. Remember the 70s ice age scam many deniers rage on about? What they failed to understand that most of the predictions were on the order of thousands of years.
the oceans are warming up. but if global warming was real, then the ocean temp would decrease because the ice chunks would break off and head south cooling the ocean. but the temp is increasing
@daboodeef179 Did you sit in your bedroom alone and calculate that one? Really? With all the water in the oceans, a comparatively tiny iceberg floating away and melting will affect the temperature of the ocean?
Please do not reproduce.
As a whole, the ice caps melting rapidly could reduce the salinity of the water locally, and affect the ocean cycle (thermohaline cycle - google it) but other than that, your argument that breaking chunks would float south and melt and is disturbingly retarded.
@TheRealArchAngel "Co2 mixing with calcium in the Oceans and turning to sandstone (sic) has a Alkalizing effect not a acidifying one in the Ocean(Rollseyes)"
Sorry, but Ca does not exist in elemental form in H2O, and if you are talking about creating LIMESTONE (marble chips) then you are indeed acidifying Ca(OH)2. This is ignoring the buffer of (-HCO3) but simply put increasing CO2 gas into ocean lowers (-CO3) dissolved, so it would precipitate out, allowing more gas to dissolve.
@TheRealArchAngel pH = -ln[H+] = [HCO3-] / [CO3-] so that increasing bicarbonate ion to carbonate ratio drops the pH, making it more acidic (less basic). At some point, solid limestone would precipitate out, "making room" for more CO2, but at that point we may have an ocean devoid of life as we have it now. That may assume too much about our ability to even exist in that world.
There are thousands of trillions of tons of Co2 in the oceans and the warming oceans are letting more of it come up with the Thermalsaline cycle (ocean Conver) which in turn puts more of it in the evaporation Cycle
Your Eggheads got it backwards as the CO2 is coming up from the deep oceans and joining the evaporation/precipitation cycle
But then again them first saying Co2 magically flies and stays in the air a long time,then condratict themselves by saying that it acidfies the Oceans is obvious
The sun is ower heat sorce temprituers fluctuate and its benn prooven when we have soler flaires the temrituer goes up and co2 lags behind temprituer change by a couple hundred years there are charts that show the temrituer rises then the co2 rises why is this? its because the oceans are realaceing more co2 like i said oceans realace co2 when its warm and then thay obsorb co2 when cold.
When plants,animals and people die c02 comes frome the orginisms c02 is a natural by product from once liveing orginisms we are maid up of cabon we can do cabon dating on trees bones and so on due to the fact we are maid of carbon and like i said oceans are the number one producer of c02 because the oceans are so massive and the once living sea creaturs and plants that died are producing co2.
CO2 is actually the most common form of CO2 in the universe and is found in meteorites,comets and on other planets devoid of life such as Venus,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,Neptune,and Uranus
Non-organic CO2 is also found as gas pockets in rocks,in hydrate form and in earth's Mantle and Core
Heat and Co2 vents out from the mantle and core through tectonic plate movement and sea trench,black smoker and sea volcano activity..more during Inter glaciation cycles,less during Ice ages cause of core flux/wane
Economic alarmists spout their lies that humans are not causing GW or that GW is not real merely to usurp power for their oligarchies, for the Demopublican dictatorship in America, and as a way to keep opposing political parties - Socialist, Communist, Libertarian, Green - illegally and unfairly off ballots and out of government participation.
Conservatives LOVE doing business with slave-holding polluting Chinese & Russian Communists. The Soviets didn't give a DAMN about the environment with their love of big nuclear power, coal & oil. True Marxists & Communists in the United States and South America are silenced in the media, on ballots. Marxists & Communists should be given equal airtime in media, gov't, schools.
@duck24x oceans are the number one co2 obsorber yes and realaser but it realeases whay more co2 than it absorbs just as it says in this video that most of the co2 stays up in the air. When its cold it takes in co2 when its worm it realeases c02 there is no big counter balance the oceans realace way more co2 than man. there is more co2 traped in the oceans floor that will eventulay realease than we can realase in ower life time or ower kids and thayer kids and so on
@gary77777778888888 Have you got any NUMBERS TO ADD ALL THIS UP WITH? Geophysicists & biologists & climatologists have, so I'm going to believe THEM. In contrast, you're just pulling out random trends from your ass without proving which forces - e.g. absorption by oceans vs how much methane & CO2 humans release - are stronger.
@duck24x I got to go to work in a munit. Oceans realace more co2 than humans thus oceans absorb more of the co2 it realeases its comon sence. You wont trust charts non belavers of global warming make and we wont trust bealeavers charts why because the people in volved with the scam makes numbers up. it snowed hire in arizona the day befor yester day it never snows this time of year so if its watrming why did it not rain?
@gary77777778888888 Ok. Thank you. At some time I want to force myself to do the calculations myself. However, until that time, for the same reason that people blindly accept whatever soldiers tell them about war, whatever law enforcement officers tell them about crime (and I do NOT believe that they SHOULD accept that), logic demands that I listen to the IPCC & climatologists about climate.
Seriously, I mean, are you going to take the word of a partially literate 20 year old over the climatologists and scientists? Check out the UCTV lecture on AMERICAN DENIAL OF GLOBAL WARMING...this 'gary777-ad nauseum" nutjob is just another brainwashed tard, thanks to the campaign of disinformation from some bogus Washington propaganda " think tank." Pffft. He can't even correctly SPELL anything over eight letter long, fer chrissake...
@TheMercilessEye And, his spelling errors ARE pretty hilarious! "sorcees"
"nukluer". Oh - and let's see if garytard gets back to me, like he promised, with his great disproof of AGW. Yes - I've seen that American Denial on UCTV. It's a great & disturbing video. That said - I DO force myself to do my own calculations - NOT in ANY ridiculous claim to be "better" than the scientists, but merely to CATCH UP to them a little.
Well, we can but hope...but given his retracted comment, there, I suspect we've heard the last of dweeb-kid on this one.
I just wish more people would check out UCTV and some of the other university channels. What IS it with Americans who think, once they're out of school, they "don't need to KNOW anymore?" Huh? wtF IS that, anyway? Post WWII, "Hey, we're KING of da WOILD" syndrome or something?
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content
See how Koch Industries spent $50 million supporting "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP)" and 40 other 'echo-chamber' organizations in the 'climate denial machine' as well as millions in Republican campaign contributions.
Jim Hoggan, author of 'Climate Cover-up", and Rachel discuss the oil & coal campaign, using 40 separate 'echo' organizations, to spew false & misleading propaganda about global warming.
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
Co2 levels have been much higher than today in the past yet there is still life in the oceans. How can that possibly be when there are these predictions of acid oceans due to Co2 rise?
@Rotpig, Oops!!! That's what humanity's going to say in 25 years when the ocean's food chain begins crashing. Of course, by then the oceans will be so over fished no one will even notice.
Oops!!!
If you want to see the charts and data watch the videos. I think you can also find it in wikipedia. Check "Ocean acidification."
125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.
For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:
FORA (dot) tv
Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.
It's always nice to see the intelligent, well-thought-out commentary from the big brains who are denying anthropogenic global warming. Frankly, I'm much more likely to trust a marine chemist from Scripps Institute than some random loudmouth on the net.
"Acidic Oceans" !!! The next Global Warming Hoax!!! OOOOOOOOOHHHH !!!! Let's tax and regulate everyone on the planet with that too.
I guess Al Gore will make even more millions off you gullible believers with this SCAM like he did with his Carbon Trading SCAM. Al Gore was set to become the world's first Carbon Billionaire before the leaked e-mails exposed the fraud and criminal activity of the Global Warming Promoters. They will be prosecuted, some day and made to pay !!
Actually you should take the time to read ryokoons comments on the white man as the great world oppressor, he goes so far as to say all inventions should go back to the black man and so on so forth, I gave up trying to talk to the asshole weeks ago, so yea, I put the negroe asshole where he belongs. But whatever. Power to the uhm white man? Is that what IM supposed to say? lol
11/23/09, (AP) Mauna Loa, Global warming gases have built up to record levels in the atmosphere, from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
Thats THE biggest lie in the anthropological global warming alarmist camp.
I wonder if this fat stooge in the video got memo? This entire video is corrupted with false data. And its a proven fact. I keep hearing the University of California is a radical left wing institution brainwashing my generation. Judging this video I can see that it is true. Its a marxist recruitment center. They should be stripped of their educational title.
I can point you to the study that shows Co2 makes 2.9% of all greenhouse gas, and man made Co2 is 3% of that, and Co2 makes up 3.62% of the greenhouse effect. You do the math.
Ice core charts show that Co2 FOLLOWS temp, it does NOT predede it.
LEAD AUTHOR of the IPCC states globalwarming NOT due to anthropogenic gas in "Global Warming or Global Governance".
You alarmists try to discredit the "deniers", but the science seems to disagree with you.
Yes - Please point me to that study that shows Co2 makes 2.9% of all greenhouse gas, and man made Co2 is 3% of that, and Co2 makes up 3.62% of the greenhouse effect.
Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America, sea ice in the North Atlantic expanded with detrimental effects for the colonies of Greenland and Iceland.
Beonda Pale - How does it feel when you see the IPCC crumbling like a childs sandcaslte?
When you look in the mirror and you see a face that was wrong for years and years, and spent hours a day spreading lies and propaganda, how does it feel to have the whole thing blow up in your face?
Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America, sea ice in the North Atlantic expanded with detrimental effects for the colonies of Greenland and Iceland.
Dont try to get technical with me... I never said it was or was not part of the European continent you crazy whore.
Youre trying to through out all kinds of ramdom shit because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
You focus on little things like Greenland being part of North America because you lost the argument a long time ago. You have nothing to say so you think you have to say anything and everthing but the truth.
Which is "I WAS WRONG"
There was a little ace age and the earth has been warming ever since we came out of it 300 years ago
Yes, but it's just a moniker. It got a little colder for a little while, then it warmed up again. It was not a real ice age -- REAL ice ages are subdivided into the following stages: Bramertonian Stage Pre-Pastonian Stage Pastonian Stage Beestonian Stage Cromerian Stage Anglian Stage Hoxnian Stage Wolstonian Stage Eemian Stage Last glacial period
Awe did you remove your wittle comment because you couldn't figure out anything cool to say except for nervous laughter?
The LITTLE ice age was a period of time when the TEMPERATURES were much lower.
The global temperature has been rising ever since.
See the global temperature graph from the IPCC circa 1990. lol I do enjoy laughing at you and watching you make a fool out of yourself though BeondaPale, it is very entertaining.
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
These GW restrictions are to make sure that no poor/middle class person ever again achieves a level of affluence that Al Gore or any of the other environmental elitist have. With these restrictions will keep everything stagnate with Al and his cronies on top flying their private jets and living the life styles of the rich and famous. The rest of us will have to live in homes of less than 1000 square feet, a diet of 1200 calories per day & a 1 child family restriction enforced with Chinese zeal
This is just made up data, during the Medieval Warming Period and the earlier Holocene warm period a full degree warmer than the MWP did not have the acid oceans. So if any one that believes this video I have a bridge to sell you.
The MWP was a local temperature anomaly, not a global one. Furthermore, it wasn't primarily caused by CO2 emissions. In current day climate change, CO2 is the primary driver, and so temperature lags behind it.
Both events the MWP and LIA were both global events and the evidence of their happening have been found from China to the Arizona deserts. The lack of records from other areas that did not have writing has given the false theory that the MWP is a local event. Only the great efforts of the warmers to erase records and destroy data that goes against their religion makes your statement possible.
Thank you for admitting that MWP was a global event.
The peer reviewed papers supporting man made global warming are ALL JUNK SCIENCE as shown by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, e-mails/data leak. All of these environmental scientists that were pushing the belief of AGW were heavy in to omission, data distortion, and manipulation. In a phrase, junk science. The documents released exposes them not as cool, rational scientists, but hack true believers in a religion of man made global warming.
In spite of what you might have heard, the northern hemisphere is not "global".
As for the emails, please get a clue. Not only has nothing been found in there that suggests any sort of nefarious data manipulation, you're talking about only one of dozens of groups of scientists that have all independently come to the same conclusion. If you want a conspiracy theory with some substance, start checking the funding and credentials of so-called skeptical scientists (28 years as a prof, Tim Ball?).
Youre relying on MADE UP STUFF. The whole AGW hockey stick rise was based on three cherry picked trees in one forest in Siberia. NASA is now being hit with Freedom of Information Acts lawsuits to look at what data is true and what was made up. In case you did not read the emails that talked about
Hiding the decline in temps over the last decade, or tricking the data to eliminate the LIA and MWP, or my favorite is the fudge factor in the computer code to get rid cooling data
There is a whole hockey team now that confirms the results of Mann's work, and pretty much every major scientific institution has endorsed his conclusions. They do not just rely only on tree rings, but on a wide variety of sources (boreholes, ice cores, corals, stalagmites, etc), and they all give roughly the same results.
Since Mann refused to put out the data the the hockey stick is based off of its hard to take his word for it. Later after the emails were put out there he admitted the the data was destroyed. All of the other supporting studies have the same problem of refusing to put out their base data for other scientist to duplicate the results.
The original data weren't destroyed, they're in the custody of the people who gathered them - this data wasn't the property of the CRU to begin with (they just analyzed it), and so it isn't theirs to make it available. Much of the data for the other studies actually is freely available, but some of it is provided by third parties. In those cases, the scientists simply aren't allowed to hand it out.
Also, as I understand it, about 90% of the CRU data is now available in response to the climategate emails. But it doesn't really matter anyway, because this is just a fraction of the entire body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
Think about it: What you're saying is that scientists in the climatological community are committing fraud en masse, and that the rest is completely oblivious to this, in spite of having worked in this area for decades. To me, that's simply absurd.
The Hockey Stick Graph was contrived because it does not show the Little Ice age or the Medieval Warming Period. Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. Latter the authors claimed that the data was lost., in the emails Mann wrote that he would destroy the data before releasing it.
McIntyre's critique has been thoroughly investigated, and most of his criticisms have been found to be unfounded. The few points on which he was correct have been corrected for. And again I repeat, Mann's hockey stick is just one of hundreds of studies that all lead to the same basic conclusions.
McIntyre's questions were never answered and the data is still hidden and no one has done an independent check of the data,. and the hundreds of other studies none of them have allowed there data to be checked either.
Like I said, the data is not owned by these researchers. It isn't theirs to give out. McIntyre's critique has been answered in detail here: w. realclimate. org/RuthetalJClim2004. pdf
The article that you referenced does not answer the questions of why the data is not allowed to be examined by others outside the cabal. the article was made with the help from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and they have been completely compromised by the leaked emails. The best question is why they are hiding the decline in temps for the past ten years that the pdf at realclimate
You seem to be stuck in repetition; I already explained to you numerous times why the data are not released. I also explained to you what "hiding the decline" means, and I referred you to the Nature article of the people who examined the emails and found NOTHING in there that disputes climate research. All the emails show is that scientists are human, and they too can get mighty frustrated when a band of frauds consistently accuses them of nefarious activities.
except for Hiding the decline really means HIDING THE DECLINE. The computer models that the hockey stick is based off of does not show Global Cooling the has happened over the last 10 years.
No, it DOESN'T mean that. You might not be aware of this, but large parts of the world have been hit with extreme heat waves in the past ten years. This year's cold is due to the arctic oscillation which now carries cold air downwards, and it's a temporary effect. See this graph:
w. realclimate. org/images/Hansen09_fig4. jpg
Note that the only way you can get a "cooling" trend is by measuring from 1998, which was anomalously hot, and thus not a good baseline.
stomping you feet and through a temper tantrum does not make the facts of the last 10 years of global cooling go away. The record growth of ice in the Arctic Ocean has replaced all losses for the previous 10 years. The reduction in global temperatures does correspond with the solar activity the occurred during the Maunder Minimum
As for solar forcing; nobody denies that the sun has an influence on climate, but natural influences alone cannot explain the trends we see today unless we also take into account GHGs. Climate models take these cyclical trends into account, which is why in 1981 it was predicted that we would see a temporary delay in the greenhouse effect that might skew public perception.
Hiding the decline refers to fixing the "divergence problem", a well known problem with tree ring data, which are known to diverge from actual temperature data after the 1960s (but are consistent with them before that time). Hiding the decline consists of replacing the faulty indicators with the correct, measured temperature data. It's a standard technique to correct for known faulty data.
Hiding the decline means HIDING THE DECLINE. the Global Cooling the has happened over the last 10 years can not be explained with their computer models no matter how much data manipulation and fudge factors that are added to the coding. By cherry picking the data to show AGW you can prove any wild theory even global cooling in the 90's
No, it freaking doesn't. It's the solution to the divergence problem, like I said. Look it up! If you're just going to parrot an unfounded claim after the explanation has been provided, then it's no use arguing.
and your just following a misguided religion. Open your eyes it is all fake read the emails.
do a google search on "no change in CO2 for 160 years" there is a science daily that has a linked article from
Geophysical Research Letters that there has a published study that shows that there has been no increase in CO2 over the last 150 years and change what so ever in CO2 for the last 50 years at all.
Calling climate change science a religion is asinine at best.
The paper you're referring to is Knorr 2009 (or it might be Le Quéré's paper). It doesn't mean what you -or Watts- think it does; he's discussing the "airborne fraction" of our CO2 emissions. This is the percentage of the CO2 we emit that stays in the air, which is roughly constant, not the absolute amount, which is growing.
Some climatologists have raised concerns about the percentage of CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans.(cont)
Most models assume that this percentage is constant, but the ocean is likely to reach a level of saturation at some point after which we'll see a decrease in its CO2 absorption rate and a corresponding increase in the percentage that remains in the atmosphere. The Knorr et al paper confirms that the percentage has not changed much since measurements began in 1959, essentially confirming the IPCC 2007 finding that: (cont)
"There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period."
However, this does not mean at all that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been constant, nor does it mean that emission rates have remained constant. In fact, both emission rates and absolute amount have been growing. All it means is that the PERCENTAGE of emitted CO2 that has remained in the air has remained the same, for now.
And btw, the cooling phase we're in now was predicted in 1981 by Schneider and Thompson. Specifically, they predicted that it'd be a source of confusion for the public.
Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASAs handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings. when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASAs rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list. From the UK Telegraph.
NASA has multiple Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for the temp data that they are refusing to be independently checked
"1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005."
The emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit show that all of these environmental scientists were pushing the belief of man made global warming. In case you did not read the emails that talked about
Hiding the decline in temperatures over the last decade, or tricking the data to eliminate the LIA and MWP, or my favorite is the fudge factor in the computer code to get rid of weather sites that do not support the theory/faith
The phrase "hide the decline" refers to the decline in the reliability of tree ring proxy data not temperatures. This is common knowledge for those not living under a rock.
The LIA and the WMP are of no significance when speaking of AGW.
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions."
Any evidence of a fudge factor in computer code hasn't been produced. You have been misled.
CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote in an email "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09"
NASA and NOAA have also gotten in the that data manipulation data by cherri picking the hot area reporting stations, 1500, from a total data base of 6000. And thats how you get 2009 as the hottest year on the planet.
Actually the quote you are using is attributed to Kevin Trenberth.
"Trenberth is not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. Rather, he is bemoaning scientists inability to effectively model and monitor the energy flows associated with this short-term variability."
While you are at the Yale Forum site you can read an article that will explain why claims of data manipulation by NASA and NOAA are complete bullshit.
tinyurl com / yd34aal
And also a brief explanation of NOAA procedures:
tinyurl com / ybjj2xl
Probably time for you to stop getting your information from the denialosphere. If you have anything approaching adequate intelligence you should be starting to notice you are getting disinformation from there.
As for the "fudge factor code", this code was never actually used in any published paper. It was used to see whether there was a statistically significant effect on the model calibration data, should the divergence problem be anthropogenic in origin. The only draft to use this was never published, and it was very clear on why and how this was done. It has nothing to do with the hockey sticks as we now know them.
Above 7 the solution is more alkaline and below 7 it is more acid. The oceans are considered to have a pH of 8.2 with a variance of 0.3, so it is an alkaline solution.
Actually, if you had paid attention in chemistry class, you would remember that a 0.1 drop in pH indicates a 30% increase in the activity of hydrogen ions (this because the scale is not linear but rather logarithmic). Acidity is in turn a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions. So "it is becoming less alkaline" or "it is becoming more acidic" are both correct. But what is important is the rapidity and scale of the change, which hasn't occurred in 55 million years.
Although pH in seawater has been measured for many decades, a reliable long- term trend of ocean water pH cannot be established due to data quality issues. seawater pH is very sensitive to temperature, and temperature is not always recorded or measured at sufficient accuracy to constrain the pH measurement. The claim of ocean acidification is based on estimates and computer models not on observed data. So 55 million is bogus.
This is the trial: men have loved darkness more that the light, because their deeds are evil-Gv 3,19
Now I want to meet you and all the good in a universal and permanent prayer all good for your heart and all that is good for the world every Monday of your life, from 20 to 21 I will be with you in spirit, with my love until the end of the world!
No matter your religion or your atheism I am still near you in your prayers! God bless all mankind, protect you and help you throughout AMEN ALLELUIA
One thing I never hear scientist and activist talk about is CO2 release into the oceans and atmosphere from worldwide volcanic activity. There is one volcano in the Antartic region that has been estimated to produce more heat retaining gases in one day than all of the human activity is puts out in a year's time. Some volcanos when they blow, have the force of hundreds of atomic bombs and put up mushroom cloud 20 plus miles above the earth' surface.
Nothing prevents you from looking it up. USGS, United States Geological Survey puts CO2 from volcanoes at less than 300 million tons per year.Manmade CO2 dwarfs that number.
most of these lectures, when i walk away from them leave me seeing a more relation to peoples industrialization to enviromental change, than any of your points.
what will happen I don't know
what has happened I do know a bit about like per say the ban of leads use in gasoline. core samples off california show a distinct change when that took effect.
we all can agree i think that was a wise choice to move on.
so is your recomendations to do buisness as usual in depleting fosil fuels or to look into it more?
no matter what. the rate of time it takes for oil/coal to form is by far longer than our use of them, so the resource is not infinite, and a replacement will be needed, so why wait for a different strategy for energy
speaking of orbits and milenium cycles, one research into the sediment layers shows a global extentction cycle every 50million years, which is leaving some theories that another orbiting mass may be influecing the gravity fields to swing more asteriods on each of its 50million year cycle to head towards us....
at least you didnt state the more co2 means more green growth fallacy 8)
first off, thanks on the work and effort by yourself and all researchers in this area and field. oceanography and marinebiology have always been a great intrest to me,
perhaps its because the first memories of being led down to the beach with my aunt holding my hand to the surf. then having a foot and half wave pumel me down to the ground because she kinda forgot the size differences between a toddler and a 5'6" woman, has kept me from persueing a career in it.
when they talk about the oceans becoming more acidic, the correct scientific term is becoming less base, until the oceans become neutral.
The rain is acidic so depending on where you take your measurements in the sea this could bias the result, up to now there has been no worldwide scientific peer reviewed paper on all the oceans and them becoming less base.
laurelbush 1 month ago
Martin et al. analyzed the effects of incredibly high CO2 levels (low ocean pH) on Mediterranean sea urchins. Other than a slower larval growth at ~3560 ppm, the sea urchins were unaffected by the ludicrously low pH levels imposed on the test subjects.
laurelbush 5 months ago
A good example of how to use the sophisms can prove everything.
I was just discussing with some delinquent.
Totaled my post and told me that I was not credible. Because I do not have sources.
arnaVck 8 months ago
Phytoplankton will be on the increase with more co2 . Sounds good for the marine ecosystem to me. Spend more on Scientists? lol Another protection racket emerges from the deep.
david222444 10 months ago
so lets build nuclear then we dont have to use coal powered cars like all the "green" mental midgets are propsing right now with electric vehicles
gonadcancervictim 1 year ago
@gonadcancervictim Nice user name, so what do you want to be when you grow up? What's will your contribution to society be?
TheEngineer801 6 months ago
More please
GMCAMUSICTV 1 year ago
More BULLSHIT.
keefmeister77 1 year ago
@keefmeister77
You're not illuminatus.
EliasO89 1 year ago
The desription of this video is misleading. Human activities make up less than FIVE PERCENT of the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, meaning that if "the ocean absorbs almost half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities" as it claims then the ocean must also be absorbing half of the 95 percent that we are not responsible for!!! Get wise on this subject and you will realise how much of a scam it is - a scam to tax every human on the planet under a centralised control system!!
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply CO2 levels for December 2010 - 389.69 ppm and STILL rising. Amount of oil the U.S. burns in a year - 4.5 billion barrels and STILL rising. its not rocket science to figure out that the more oil that is burned the higher the CO2 levels will rise.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@CokeSupply well said my friend
RancheroBFT 7 months ago
Coral reefs 'could disappear in our children's lifetime'
.
Unless we change the way we live, the Earth's coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children's lifetimes, says marine scientist JEN Veron
J.E.N. Veron for Yale Environment 360
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 December 2010 10.03 GMT
Nightversionn 1 year ago
Global Cooling according to the Warmist ReduceGHGs
v=bjYYz2Jv2QY
ReduceGHGs
10 minutes ago
As for global cooling, we ARE on a natural cooling trend. Remember the 70s ice age scam many deniers rage on about? What they failed to understand that most of the predictions were on the order of thousands of years.
DaveGibbagglers 1 year ago
the oceans are warming up. but if global warming was real, then the ocean temp would decrease because the ice chunks would break off and head south cooling the ocean. but the temp is increasing
daboodeef179 1 year ago
@daboodeef179 Did you sit in your bedroom alone and calculate that one? Really? With all the water in the oceans, a comparatively tiny iceberg floating away and melting will affect the temperature of the ocean?
Please do not reproduce.
As a whole, the ice caps melting rapidly could reduce the salinity of the water locally, and affect the ocean cycle (thermohaline cycle - google it) but other than that, your argument that breaking chunks would float south and melt and is disturbingly retarded.
gerald02121 1 year ago 4
The notion of Acidic oceans does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
ezeeskank 1 year ago
But then nothing does in YOUR version of science
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Of Course not, Co2 mixing with calcium in the Oceans and turning to sandstone
has a Alkalizing effect not a acidifying one in the Ocean(Rollseyes)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel
"Co2 mixing with calcium" to form sandstone"
So it does NOT form carbonic acid (H2CO3)?? as well??
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Co2 mixing with calcium in the Oceans and turning to sandstone (sic) has a Alkalizing effect not a acidifying one in the Ocean(Rollseyes)"
Sorry, but Ca does not exist in elemental form in H2O, and if you are talking about creating LIMESTONE (marble chips) then you are indeed acidifying Ca(OH)2. This is ignoring the buffer of (-HCO3) but simply put increasing CO2 gas into ocean lowers (-CO3) dissolved, so it would precipitate out, allowing more gas to dissolve.
prunar 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel pH = -ln[H+] = [HCO3-] / [CO3-] so that increasing bicarbonate ion to carbonate ratio drops the pH, making it more acidic (less basic). At some point, solid limestone would precipitate out, "making room" for more CO2, but at that point we may have an ocean devoid of life as we have it now. That may assume too much about our ability to even exist in that world.
prunar 1 year ago 4
There are thousands of trillions of tons of Co2 in the oceans and the warming oceans are letting more of it come up with the Thermalsaline cycle (ocean Conver) which in turn puts more of it in the evaporation Cycle
Your Eggheads got it backwards as the CO2 is coming up from the deep oceans and joining the evaporation/precipitation cycle
But then again them first saying Co2 magically flies and stays in the air a long time,then condratict themselves by saying that it acidfies the Oceans is obvious
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
TheRealArchAngel is a RealAsshole.
duck24x 1 year ago
Comment removed
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
The sun is ower heat sorce temprituers fluctuate and its benn prooven when we have soler flaires the temrituer goes up and co2 lags behind temprituer change by a couple hundred years there are charts that show the temrituer rises then the co2 rises why is this? its because the oceans are realaceing more co2 like i said oceans realace co2 when its warm and then thay obsorb co2 when cold.
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
When plants,animals and people die c02 comes frome the orginisms c02 is a natural by product from once liveing orginisms we are maid up of cabon we can do cabon dating on trees bones and so on due to the fact we are maid of carbon and like i said oceans are the number one producer of c02 because the oceans are so massive and the once living sea creaturs and plants that died are producing co2.
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
CO2 is actually the most common form of CO2 in the universe and is found in meteorites,comets and on other planets devoid of life such as Venus,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,Neptune,and Uranus
Non-organic CO2 is also found as gas pockets in rocks,in hydrate form and in earth's Mantle and Core
Heat and Co2 vents out from the mantle and core through tectonic plate movement and sea trench,black smoker and sea volcano activity..more during Inter glaciation cycles,less during Ice ages cause of core flux/wane
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Economic alarmists spout their lies that humans are not causing GW or that GW is not real merely to usurp power for their oligarchies, for the Demopublican dictatorship in America, and as a way to keep opposing political parties - Socialist, Communist, Libertarian, Green - illegally and unfairly off ballots and out of government participation.
duck24x 1 year ago
Conservatives LOVE doing business with slave-holding polluting Chinese & Russian Communists. The Soviets didn't give a DAMN about the environment with their love of big nuclear power, coal & oil. True Marxists & Communists in the United States and South America are silenced in the media, on ballots. Marxists & Communists should be given equal airtime in media, gov't, schools.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x Some people like you think that nukuler power was a alternitive to fossil fule and by the way oceans are the number one co2 creater.
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
@gary77777778888888 Can you at least TRY to spell? Bullshit about the oceans. But, even if true, balanced by oceans being #1 CO2 absorber.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x oceans are the number one co2 obsorber yes and realaser but it realeases whay more co2 than it absorbs just as it says in this video that most of the co2 stays up in the air. When its cold it takes in co2 when its worm it realeases c02 there is no big counter balance the oceans realace way more co2 than man. there is more co2 traped in the oceans floor that will eventulay realease than we can realase in ower life time or ower kids and thayer kids and so on
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
@gary77777778888888 Have you got any NUMBERS TO ADD ALL THIS UP WITH? Geophysicists & biologists & climatologists have, so I'm going to believe THEM. In contrast, you're just pulling out random trends from your ass without proving which forces - e.g. absorption by oceans vs how much methane & CO2 humans release - are stronger.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x I got to go to work in a munit. Oceans realace more co2 than humans thus oceans absorb more of the co2 it realeases its comon sence. You wont trust charts non belavers of global warming make and we wont trust bealeavers charts why because the people in volved with the scam makes numbers up. it snowed hire in arizona the day befor yester day it never snows this time of year so if its watrming why did it not rain?
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
@duck24x I will go find all my sorcees of information but i gotta go ill be getting back to you.
gary77777778888888 1 year ago
@gary77777778888888 Ok. Thank you. At some time I want to force myself to do the calculations myself. However, until that time, for the same reason that people blindly accept whatever soldiers tell them about war, whatever law enforcement officers tell them about crime (and I do NOT believe that they SHOULD accept that), logic demands that I listen to the IPCC & climatologists about climate.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
Seriously, I mean, are you going to take the word of a partially literate 20 year old over the climatologists and scientists? Check out the UCTV lecture on AMERICAN DENIAL OF GLOBAL WARMING...this 'gary777-ad nauseum" nutjob is just another brainwashed tard, thanks to the campaign of disinformation from some bogus Washington propaganda " think tank." Pffft. He can't even correctly SPELL anything over eight letter long, fer chrissake...
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye And, his spelling errors ARE pretty hilarious! "sorcees"
"nukluer". Oh - and let's see if garytard gets back to me, like he promised, with his great disproof of AGW. Yes - I've seen that American Denial on UCTV. It's a great & disturbing video. That said - I DO force myself to do my own calculations - NOT in ANY ridiculous claim to be "better" than the scientists, but merely to CATCH UP to them a little.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
Well, we can but hope...but given his retracted comment, there, I suspect we've heard the last of dweeb-kid on this one.
I just wish more people would check out UCTV and some of the other university channels. What IS it with Americans who think, once they're out of school, they "don't need to KNOW anymore?" Huh? wtF IS that, anyway? Post WWII, "Hey, we're KING of da WOILD" syndrome or something?
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
This is part of the larger human-induced extinction crisis...
6thExtinctionDoc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT COOLING? LOL!!!
March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.
Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
HOT OFF THE PRESS - 4/10/10
See the latest delightful YouTube from greenman3610
Debunking LORD MONCKTON Part 1
/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
goog2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
judomagyar 1 year ago
Comment removed
judomagyar 1 year ago
DHMO is the guilty chemical!
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content
judomagyar 1 year ago
See how Koch Industries spent $50 million supporting "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP)" and 40 other 'echo-chamber' organizations in the 'climate denial machine' as well as millions in Republican campaign contributions.
Jim Hoggan, author of 'Climate Cover-up", and Rachel discuss the oil & coal campaign, using 40 separate 'echo' organizations, to spew false & misleading propaganda about global warming.
Rachel Maddow: Oil & coal 'Climate Denial Machine' EXPOSED!
/watch?v=-ZFyH1BM9ec
goog2k 1 year ago
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
Oops!!!
For more info. on CO2 acidification check:
Dr. Richard Feely, NOAA
Ocean Acidification Part 1 of 3
/watch?v=0KgRpJxWQDw&NR=1
goog2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
kmesprtan 1 year ago
plz tell all the conservative asses this its like argueing with a wall
kmesprtan 1 year ago
@goog2k
Co2 levels have been much higher than today in the past yet there is still life in the oceans. How can that possibly be when there are these predictions of acid oceans due to Co2 rise?
Rotpig 1 year ago
@Rotpig Good question. different corals and planktons can survive in water of different pH's and different levels of dissolved carbonate ions.
Most of the current living corals and planktons have adapted over the last million years to CO2 levels of about 280ppm and ocean pH levels of 8.2.
Now those levels are massively changing in about 100 years. They don't have enough time to adapt and many will fail.
Of course, they will grow back in centuries. Unfortunately, that won't help us much.
Oops!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
Why did you say oops? Did you make some kind of mistake in your reply?
Just wondering, what data from 150 years ago do you have to be able to make the claim that the current PH of the oceans is unusual?
Rotpig 1 year ago
@Rotpig, Oops!!! That's what humanity's going to say in 25 years when the ocean's food chain begins crashing. Of course, by then the oceans will be so over fished no one will even notice.
Oops!!!
If you want to see the charts and data watch the videos. I think you can also find it in wikipedia. Check "Ocean acidification."
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k But basically, have you seen any PH ocean tests from 1850?
Rotpig 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.
For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:
FORA (dot) tv
Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.
goog2k 1 year ago
Very interesting, but the role of Phytoplankton to remedy the problem is not discussed in depth.
nualgi 1 year ago
It's always nice to see the intelligent, well-thought-out commentary from the big brains who are denying anthropogenic global warming. Frankly, I'm much more likely to trust a marine chemist from Scripps Institute than some random loudmouth on the net.
WillRutledge 1 year ago
Here we go again folks.
"Acidic Oceans" !!! The next Global Warming Hoax!!! OOOOOOOOOHHHH !!!! Let's tax and regulate everyone on the planet with that too.
I guess Al Gore will make even more millions off you gullible believers with this SCAM like he did with his Carbon Trading SCAM. Al Gore was set to become the world's first Carbon Billionaire before the leaked e-mails exposed the fraud and criminal activity of the Global Warming Promoters. They will be prosecuted, some day and made to pay !!
Tiberiusduck 1 year ago
All life on Earth is Carbon based. Carbon being good for life is of course a naturally occurring gas and is vital to all life systems.
If you want to do good for life and Earth then you should do more to produce more and more Carbon.
Plants love Carbon. They breathe it and exchange oxygen back into the air. Be good to Earth and produce as much Carbon as you can.
NBaimf 1 year ago
Actually you should take the time to read ryokoons comments on the white man as the great world oppressor, he goes so far as to say all inventions should go back to the black man and so on so forth, I gave up trying to talk to the asshole weeks ago, so yea, I put the negroe asshole where he belongs. But whatever. Power to the uhm white man? Is that what IM supposed to say? lol
mako7828 1 year ago
It's now been shown ocean acidification by atmospheric CO2 reduces the iron available for photosynthesis and reduces growth of phytoplankton.
Science, 2/5/10 - Effect of Ocean Acidification on Iron Availability to Marine Phytoplankton by Dalin Shi
Phytoplankton are the microscopic plants at the very base of the oceans food pyramid, providing food for all other ocean life.
Ocean thermal stratification is also reducing phytoplankton growth & uptake of CO2. Pedro Cermeño 12/23/08, Rutgers
goog2k 1 year ago
We make 90 million tons CO2 each DAY. That's 3.4% of the natural production.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.
CO2 levels are 35% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.
50% of CO2 is dissolved in oceans.
In 30 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming planktons and corals.
They make the base of the ocean's food chain.
Search:
NOAA, Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
11/23/09, (AP) Mauna Loa, Global warming gases have built up to record levels in the atmosphere, from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
goog2k 1 year ago
Did the Oceans acidify during the Medieval Climate Optimum?
Spitfiremacx 1 year ago
@ 5:46
Thats hockey stick graph alright!
O_O
Thats THE biggest lie in the anthropological global warming alarmist camp.
I wonder if this fat stooge in the video got memo? This entire video is corrupted with false data. And its a proven fact. I keep hearing the University of California is a radical left wing institution brainwashing my generation. Judging this video I can see that it is true. Its a marxist recruitment center. They should be stripped of their educational title.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
I can point you to the study that shows Co2 makes 2.9% of all greenhouse gas, and man made Co2 is 3% of that, and Co2 makes up 3.62% of the greenhouse effect. You do the math.
Ice core charts show that Co2 FOLLOWS temp, it does NOT predede it.
LEAD AUTHOR of the IPCC states globalwarming NOT due to anthropogenic gas in "Global Warming or Global Governance".
You alarmists try to discredit the "deniers", but the science seems to disagree with you.
Founder of Weather Chan - "IT IS A SCAM"
philonetic 1 year ago
Yes - Please point me to that study that shows Co2 makes 2.9% of all greenhouse gas, and man made Co2 is 3% of that, and Co2 makes up 3.62% of the greenhouse effect.
IF YOU CAN
BeondaPale 1 year ago
YAAAAHHAHAHAH. BeondaBrainwashed Whore.
CO2 Is gonna get ya! NOOOOooo....
AAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Its CO2 man.....carbon dioxide dude! NOOOOoo.......
Guess what BeondaBWW.... Its right in front of you now!
NOOOOOOooooo......
Ahahahah aaaahahahah!!! OMG you guys just dont know when to quit. Tell me why the oceans didnt acidify at times when the levels were way higher.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
Now THAT was a cogent, well reasoned argument.
Impressive... for a 2 year old
The oceans DID acidify at times when the levels were way higher. It would have been physically impossible for them not to. Who told you they didn't?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Why are you afriad it will happen again then?
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
Because humans have increased the amount of co2 in the atmosphere by close to 40%
Why is THAT important??
WATCH THE VIDEO
BeondaPale 1 year ago
No they havent.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
Oh really??
Ok then, YOU tell me why CO2 has increased by 37.7% since the start of the industrial revolution
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Because it got hotter.
Because we just came out of an ice age..
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
We "just" came out of an ice age 12000 years ago, moron.
Why has CO2 SUDDENLY spiked by 107 PPM in the last 180 years?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
No actually we cam out of a mini ice age 300 years ago.
Freak.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
LOL ...like that was ANYTHING like a REAL ice age.
AND
NOT an answer to my question. I'll ask again:
Why has CO2 SUDDENLY spiked by 107 PPM in the last 180 years?
If you picked up a book every once in a while you might know this
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Ice sheets came down into Europe bitch.
(Im all talking to you like you obey logic and reason)
and yes, I already answered you, you stupid fucking whore.
The CO2 rose because it got hotter, because of SUN activity. like it always does.
Why do you think its been rising for 180 years genious?
"DUURurururrr" - says Beondapale
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
it SPIKED dummy
if it rose because it got hotter it would have risen slowly. It didn't. it rose quickly 107 PPM in 180 years.
...and learn how to SPELL genius
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Oh no did you catch a spelling error?
Awe that is cute.
Too bad you didnt even know about the little ice age and I did.
It looks like you are my spell checker and I am your teacher.
I like this relationship.
btw, the hockey stick graph has been debunked. LOL!!!!! GENIUS. AHHHAHAHAH!!!!
I love watching as you bake in the heat of your red hot lies.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
lol
BeondaPale 1 year ago
in the REAL ice age the ice sheets went down to FLORIDA
BeondaPale 1 year ago
BTW, in the little ice age the ice sheets - Also known as GLACIERS - did NOT cover Europe
If they did, everyone in Europe wouldn't have been able to live in Europe
I know it hurts, but try to use your brain next time
BeondaPale 1 year ago
I never said they covered Europe you dumb whore.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
I see. So when you said that the ice sheets went into europe, you meant northern most Scandinavia... Right.
Typical of your kind
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America, sea ice in the North Atlantic expanded with detrimental effects for the colonies of Greenland and Iceland.
Beonda Pale - How does it feel when you see the IPCC crumbling like a childs sandcaslte?
When you look in the mirror and you see a face that was wrong for years and years, and spent hours a day spreading lies and propaganda, how does it feel to have the whole thing blow up in your face?
You cant even argue ONE point. LOL!!
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
LOL 1st you said ICE SHEET moving down into europe. NOW you back peddle and say "glaciers advanced" in greenland (NOT EUROPE) and iceland
lololol
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Same thing (yawn)
and Im not sure what ""glaciers advanced" in greenland (NOT EUROPE) and iceland" is supposed to mean.
I realize I am talking to a crazy idiot but I will refresh your memory.
I said "Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America,"
See where I said :"Glaciers advanced in Europe" now?
Why did you say "(NOT EUROPE)"?
I dont really dont even understand you now. Were you this crazy and stupid before you believed in AGW?
hmm Chicken or egg...?
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
Because Greenland is part of North American continent - NOT the European continent.
Read a frickin book, moron. You suck at geography too.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
What the fuck are you talking about?
Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America, sea ice in the North Atlantic expanded with detrimental effects for the colonies of Greenland and Iceland.
Dont try to get technical with me... I never said it was or was not part of the European continent you crazy whore.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
2 + 2 = 4 would be getting technical with YOU
Swwishhh!! ...Wha??
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Youre trying to through out all kinds of ramdom shit because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
You focus on little things like Greenland being part of North America because you lost the argument a long time ago. You have nothing to say so you think you have to say anything and everthing but the truth.
Which is "I WAS WRONG"
There was a little ace age and the earth has been warming ever since we came out of it 300 years ago
You keep falling farther from reality tho : D
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
OMG. We did NOT come out of an Ice Age 300 years ago
The "Little Ice Age" was not even close to a REAL ice age - it was merely an anomoly
We came out of a REAL ice age 12,000 years ago.
PLEASE read a book. Just pick one up. You might like it. Sometimes they have pictures.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Was there a little age age or not?
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
BeondaPale 1 year ago
"Yes"
Now fuck off you whore.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 1 year ago
LOL!! "Little Italy" is in New York City - But you understand it's not REALLY Italy, right??
Even though it's named Little Italy, That part of New York is still part of the United States, OK???
LOL!!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
You again?
Awe did you remove your wittle comment because you couldn't figure out anything cool to say except for nervous laughter?
The LITTLE ice age was a period of time when the TEMPERATURES were much lower.
The global temperature has been rising ever since.
See the global temperature graph from the IPCC circa 1990. lol I do enjoy laughing at you and watching you make a fool out of yourself though BeondaPale, it is very entertaining.
"The hockey stick graph" ah ah ah ah ah
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
YOURE ALL RASIST IF YOU DENY the message of the Gore.
I KNOW he is not a rasist because he is a democrat. the 2007 and 08 food crisis was ESSENTIAL to our goal of depopulation.
There is no other end to our means, lets face it, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Nightverssion 1 year ago
MOUNTAIN glaciers advanced in Europe - the ARCTIC ICE SHEET did not "come down" into europe as you said before.
You're a clown.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
JUST FOUND THIS YESTERDAY:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago
These GW restrictions are to make sure that no poor/middle class person ever again achieves a level of affluence that Al Gore or any of the other environmental elitist have. With these restrictions will keep everything stagnate with Al and his cronies on top flying their private jets and living the life styles of the rich and famous. The rest of us will have to live in homes of less than 1000 square feet, a diet of 1200 calories per day & a 1 child family restriction enforced with Chinese zeal
cupera1 2 years ago
Great talk.
shhteffen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9 Out of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record.
2009 2nd HOTTEST year on record.
See: Graphs & Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years)
Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
See also the latest on YouTube:
It's Cold, so there is no Global Warming
/watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub
goog2k 2 years ago
This is just made up data, during the Medieval Warming Period and the earlier Holocene warm period a full degree warmer than the MWP did not have the acid oceans. So if any one that believes this video I have a bridge to sell you.
cupera1 2 years ago
The MWP was a local temperature anomaly, not a global one. Furthermore, it wasn't primarily caused by CO2 emissions. In current day climate change, CO2 is the primary driver, and so temperature lags behind it.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Both events the MWP and LIA were both global events and the evidence of their happening have been found from China to the Arizona deserts. The lack of records from other areas that did not have writing has given the false theory that the MWP is a local event. Only the great efforts of the warmers to erase records and destroy data that goes against their religion makes your statement possible.
cupera1 2 years ago
Blah blah science conspiracy blah. They were confined primarily to the northern hemisphere.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Thank you for admitting that MWP was a global event.
The peer reviewed papers supporting man made global warming are ALL JUNK SCIENCE as shown by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, e-mails/data leak. All of these environmental scientists that were pushing the belief of AGW were heavy in to omission, data distortion, and manipulation. In a phrase, junk science. The documents released exposes them not as cool, rational scientists, but hack true believers in a religion of man made global warming.
cupera1 2 years ago
In spite of what you might have heard, the northern hemisphere is not "global".
As for the emails, please get a clue. Not only has nothing been found in there that suggests any sort of nefarious data manipulation, you're talking about only one of dozens of groups of scientists that have all independently come to the same conclusion. If you want a conspiracy theory with some substance, start checking the funding and credentials of so-called skeptical scientists (28 years as a prof, Tim Ball?).
werecow2003 2 years ago
@werecow
Youre relying on MADE UP STUFF. The whole AGW hockey stick rise was based on three cherry picked trees in one forest in Siberia. NASA is now being hit with Freedom of Information Acts lawsuits to look at what data is true and what was made up. In case you did not read the emails that talked about
Hiding the decline in temps over the last decade, or tricking the data to eliminate the LIA and MWP, or my favorite is the fudge factor in the computer code to get rid cooling data
cupera1 2 years ago
There is a whole hockey team now that confirms the results of Mann's work, and pretty much every major scientific institution has endorsed his conclusions. They do not just rely only on tree rings, but on a wide variety of sources (boreholes, ice cores, corals, stalagmites, etc), and they all give roughly the same results.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Since Mann refused to put out the data the the hockey stick is based off of its hard to take his word for it. Later after the emails were put out there he admitted the the data was destroyed. All of the other supporting studies have the same problem of refusing to put out their base data for other scientist to duplicate the results.
cupera1 2 years ago
The original data weren't destroyed, they're in the custody of the people who gathered them - this data wasn't the property of the CRU to begin with (they just analyzed it), and so it isn't theirs to make it available. Much of the data for the other studies actually is freely available, but some of it is provided by third parties. In those cases, the scientists simply aren't allowed to hand it out.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Also, as I understand it, about 90% of the CRU data is now available in response to the climategate emails. But it doesn't really matter anyway, because this is just a fraction of the entire body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
Think about it: What you're saying is that scientists in the climatological community are committing fraud en masse, and that the rest is completely oblivious to this, in spite of having worked in this area for decades. To me, that's simply absurd.
werecow2003 2 years ago
The Hockey Stick Graph was contrived because it does not show the Little Ice age or the Medieval Warming Period. Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. Latter the authors claimed that the data was lost., in the emails Mann wrote that he would destroy the data before releasing it.
cupera1 2 years ago
McIntyre's critique has been thoroughly investigated, and most of his criticisms have been found to be unfounded. The few points on which he was correct have been corrected for. And again I repeat, Mann's hockey stick is just one of hundreds of studies that all lead to the same basic conclusions.
werecow2003 2 years ago
McIntyre's questions were never answered and the data is still hidden and no one has done an independent check of the data,. and the hundreds of other studies none of them have allowed there data to be checked either.
cupera1 2 years ago
Like I said, the data is not owned by these researchers. It isn't theirs to give out. McIntyre's critique has been answered in detail here: w. realclimate. org/RuthetalJClim2004. pdf
werecow2003 2 years ago
The article that you referenced does not answer the questions of why the data is not allowed to be examined by others outside the cabal. the article was made with the help from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and they have been completely compromised by the leaked emails. The best question is why they are hiding the decline in temps for the past ten years that the pdf at realclimate
cupera1 2 years ago
You seem to be stuck in repetition; I already explained to you numerous times why the data are not released. I also explained to you what "hiding the decline" means, and I referred you to the Nature article of the people who examined the emails and found NOTHING in there that disputes climate research. All the emails show is that scientists are human, and they too can get mighty frustrated when a band of frauds consistently accuses them of nefarious activities.
werecow2003 2 years ago
...And on top of that I also pointed you to the fact that many independent studies lead to the same conclusions.
werecow2003 2 years ago
and none of those independent studies show the LIA or the MWP and are based off of fraudulent or manipulated data
cupera1 2 years ago
Repeating your accusations doesn't make them true.
werecow2003 2 years ago
except for Hiding the decline really means HIDING THE DECLINE. The computer models that the hockey stick is based off of does not show Global Cooling the has happened over the last 10 years.
cupera1 2 years ago
No, it DOESN'T mean that. You might not be aware of this, but large parts of the world have been hit with extreme heat waves in the past ten years. This year's cold is due to the arctic oscillation which now carries cold air downwards, and it's a temporary effect. See this graph:
w. realclimate. org/images/Hansen09_fig4. jpg
Note that the only way you can get a "cooling" trend is by measuring from 1998, which was anomalously hot, and thus not a good baseline.
werecow2003 2 years ago
stomping you feet and through a temper tantrum does not make the facts of the last 10 years of global cooling go away. The record growth of ice in the Arctic Ocean has replaced all losses for the previous 10 years. The reduction in global temperatures does correspond with the solar activity the occurred during the Maunder Minimum
cupera1 2 years ago
w2. sunysuffolk. edu/mandias/global_warming/images/sea_ice_mean_anomaly_1953-2009. png
There's a reason why climate change is typically measured over a number of decades.
werecow2003 2 years ago
As for solar forcing; nobody denies that the sun has an influence on climate, but natural influences alone cannot explain the trends we see today unless we also take into account GHGs. Climate models take these cyclical trends into account, which is why in 1981 it was predicted that we would see a temporary delay in the greenhouse effect that might skew public perception.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Hiding the decline refers to fixing the "divergence problem", a well known problem with tree ring data, which are known to diverge from actual temperature data after the 1960s (but are consistent with them before that time). Hiding the decline consists of replacing the faulty indicators with the correct, measured temperature data. It's a standard technique to correct for known faulty data.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Hiding the decline means HIDING THE DECLINE. the Global Cooling the has happened over the last 10 years can not be explained with their computer models no matter how much data manipulation and fudge factors that are added to the coding. By cherry picking the data to show AGW you can prove any wild theory even global cooling in the 90's
cupera1 2 years ago
No, it freaking doesn't. It's the solution to the divergence problem, like I said. Look it up! If you're just going to parrot an unfounded claim after the explanation has been provided, then it's no use arguing.
werecow2003 2 years ago
and your just following a misguided religion. Open your eyes it is all fake read the emails.
do a google search on "no change in CO2 for 160 years" there is a science daily that has a linked article from
Geophysical Research Letters that there has a published study that shows that there has been no increase in CO2 over the last 150 years and change what so ever in CO2 for the last 50 years at all.
cupera1 2 years ago
Calling climate change science a religion is asinine at best.
The paper you're referring to is Knorr 2009 (or it might be Le Quéré's paper). It doesn't mean what you -or Watts- think it does; he's discussing the "airborne fraction" of our CO2 emissions. This is the percentage of the CO2 we emit that stays in the air, which is roughly constant, not the absolute amount, which is growing.
Some climatologists have raised concerns about the percentage of CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans.(cont)
werecow2003 2 years ago
Most models assume that this percentage is constant, but the ocean is likely to reach a level of saturation at some point after which we'll see a decrease in its CO2 absorption rate and a corresponding increase in the percentage that remains in the atmosphere. The Knorr et al paper confirms that the percentage has not changed much since measurements began in 1959, essentially confirming the IPCC 2007 finding that: (cont)
werecow2003 2 years ago
"There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period."
However, this does not mean at all that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been constant, nor does it mean that emission rates have remained constant. In fact, both emission rates and absolute amount have been growing. All it means is that the PERCENTAGE of emitted CO2 that has remained in the air has remained the same, for now.
werecow2003 2 years ago
And btw, the cooling phase we're in now was predicted in 1981 by Schneider and Thompson. Specifically, they predicted that it'd be a source of confusion for the public.
werecow2003 2 years ago 3
or blows up the whole theory of AGW
cupera1 2 years ago
"2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years."
"2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows.'
What cooling are you referring to?
acidgawd999 2 years ago
Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASAs handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings. when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASAs rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list. From the UK Telegraph.
NASA has multiple Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for the temp data that they are refusing to be independently checked
cupera1 2 years ago
That is right.
"1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005."
So again, what cooling are you referring to?
acidgawd999 2 years ago 3
The emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit show that all of these environmental scientists were pushing the belief of man made global warming. In case you did not read the emails that talked about
Hiding the decline in temperatures over the last decade, or tricking the data to eliminate the LIA and MWP, or my favorite is the fudge factor in the computer code to get rid of weather sites that do not support the theory/faith
cupera1 2 years ago
The phrase "hide the decline" refers to the decline in the reliability of tree ring proxy data not temperatures. This is common knowledge for those not living under a rock.
The LIA and the WMP are of no significance when speaking of AGW.
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions."
Any evidence of a fudge factor in computer code hasn't been produced. You have been misled.
tinyurl com / yd34aal
acidgawd999 2 years ago
So for the third time now, what cooling are you referring to?
acidgawd999 2 years ago
CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote in an email "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09"
NASA and NOAA have also gotten in the that data manipulation data by cherri picking the hot area reporting stations, 1500, from a total data base of 6000. And thats how you get 2009 as the hottest year on the planet.
cupera1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cupera1
Actually the quote you are using is attributed to Kevin Trenberth.
"Trenberth is not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. Rather, he is bemoaning scientists inability to effectively model and monitor the energy flows associated with this short-term variability."
tinyurl com / yjo874j
acidgawd999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cupera1
While you are at the Yale Forum site you can read an article that will explain why claims of data manipulation by NASA and NOAA are complete bullshit.
tinyurl com / yd34aal
And also a brief explanation of NOAA procedures:
tinyurl com / ybjj2xl
Probably time for you to stop getting your information from the denialosphere. If you have anything approaching adequate intelligence you should be starting to notice you are getting disinformation from there.
acidgawd999 2 years ago
As for the "fudge factor code", this code was never actually used in any published paper. It was used to see whether there was a statistically significant effect on the model calibration data, should the divergence problem be anthropogenic in origin. The only draft to use this was never published, and it was very clear on why and how this was done. It has nothing to do with the hockey sticks as we now know them.
werecow2003 2 years ago 2
omfg been looking for a vid like this!!!
curingaging00 2 years ago
well. obviously we should care, and most people do
Nightversionn 2 years ago 2
Oh shit another theory about how we are killing the planet. Sooner or later one of these catastraophies is gonna fuck us all up the bomb!
Rotpig 2 years ago
Above 7 the solution is more alkaline and below 7 it is more acid. The oceans are considered to have a pH of 8.2 with a variance of 0.3, so it is an alkaline solution.
wilbert1755 2 years ago
wilbert1775,
You're being silly.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
he is an Expert and does not know that if the water PH is 8 and use to be PH 8.1... it means it is less alkaline not more acidic. Some expert!
My guess is using the word acid is soooo much more scarier.
wilbert1755 2 years ago
Actually, if you had paid attention in chemistry class, you would remember that a 0.1 drop in pH indicates a 30% increase in the activity of hydrogen ions (this because the scale is not linear but rather logarithmic). Acidity is in turn a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions. So "it is becoming less alkaline" or "it is becoming more acidic" are both correct. But what is important is the rapidity and scale of the change, which hasn't occurred in 55 million years.
arjuna808 2 years ago 3
Although pH in seawater has been measured for many decades, a reliable long- term trend of ocean water pH cannot be established due to data quality issues. seawater pH is very sensitive to temperature, and temperature is not always recorded or measured at sufficient accuracy to constrain the pH measurement. The claim of ocean acidification is based on estimates and computer models not on observed data. So 55 million is bogus.
wilbert1755 2 years ago
Looks like the model is getting more complicated , because it seems like weather patterns also influence ocean carbon uptake (up to 50%)
(10.1029/2007GB003167)
Singul4r1ty 2 years ago
Andrew Dickson learn how to make an speech please!!!! Looks like he is running out of air every second.
thursgun 2 years ago
lol! XD
JessewilliamRintoul 2 years ago
Place this code &fmt=18 at the end of the web address of the video so we can see it with better quality
carlosdent 2 years ago
where can you find that chart like illustration that shows the acid levels in the oceans but does not provide any numbers or scales.
St37One 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the trial: men have loved darkness more that the light, because their deeds are evil-Gv 3,19
Now I want to meet you and all the good in a universal and permanent prayer all good for your heart and all that is good for the world every Monday of your life, from 20 to 21 I will be with you in spirit, with my love until the end of the world!
No matter your religion or your atheism I am still near you in your prayers! God bless all mankind, protect you and help you throughout AMEN ALLELUIA
lorenzojhwh 2 years ago
One thing I never hear scientist and activist talk about is CO2 release into the oceans and atmosphere from worldwide volcanic activity. There is one volcano in the Antartic region that has been estimated to produce more heat retaining gases in one day than all of the human activity is puts out in a year's time. Some volcanos when they blow, have the force of hundreds of atomic bombs and put up mushroom cloud 20 plus miles above the earth' surface.
brose1994 2 years ago
Nothing prevents you from looking it up. USGS, United States Geological Survey puts CO2 from volcanoes at less than 300 million tons per year.Manmade CO2 dwarfs that number.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
most of the points you mention TRAA, i'm vaguely familiar with, been some time since i browsed the information your relating here.
wouldnt mind debating some of your points, but i lack confidence in what i know of these issues you bring up.
i kinda recall one report of grizzly polar bear hybrid taken place, but its not a solid confirmed report, like most of the points of yours.
which have reminded me of the oil bearing scientists council debunking fossil fuel use is doing any damage
horny4bears 2 years ago
most of these lectures, when i walk away from them leave me seeing a more relation to peoples industrialization to enviromental change, than any of your points.
what will happen I don't know
what has happened I do know a bit about like per say the ban of leads use in gasoline. core samples off california show a distinct change when that took effect.
we all can agree i think that was a wise choice to move on.
horny4bears 2 years ago
Comment removed
horny4bears 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so is your recomendations to do buisness as usual in depleting fosil fuels or to look into it more?
no matter what. the rate of time it takes for oil/coal to form is by far longer than our use of them, so the resource is not infinite, and a replacement will be needed, so why wait for a different strategy for energy
other than the it works so why fix it, mentality
horny4bears 2 years ago
speaking of orbits and milenium cycles, one research into the sediment layers shows a global extentction cycle every 50million years, which is leaving some theories that another orbiting mass may be influecing the gravity fields to swing more asteriods on each of its 50million year cycle to head towards us....
at least you didnt state the more co2 means more green growth fallacy 8)
which i heard of more than i could ever care for
horny4bears 2 years ago
first off, thanks on the work and effort by yourself and all researchers in this area and field. oceanography and marinebiology have always been a great intrest to me,
perhaps its because the first memories of being led down to the beach with my aunt holding my hand to the surf. then having a foot and half wave pumel me down to the ground because she kinda forgot the size differences between a toddler and a 5'6" woman, has kept me from persueing a career in it.
horny4bears 2 years ago