|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 10:27:40 GMT -8
Great lakes rise a foot killing another AGW prediction bites the dust.Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior are at least a foot higher than they were a year ago, and are expected to rise three more inches over the next month. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are seven to nine inches higher than a year ago.
... Scientists say the reversal of fortunes for the lakes is partly a result of the most bone-chilling winter in memory for many Midwesterners. The thick and long-lasting ice cover on the lakes kept the water colder and slowed evaporation. Heavy snowfall and a rainy spring allowed the lakes to make even more gains.Cycles you silly liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 1, 2014 15:08:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 1, 2014 16:01:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 2, 2014 8:04:16 GMT -8
Mods -
Can we please replace the Bird Flu forum with the Global Warming forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Jul 2, 2014 8:11:22 GMT -8
You know the worst thing about all this global warming fighting bull$#!+? It's that people are now on teams trying to prove the other side wrong, instead of just saying, "hey, we can both pull up buttloads of data to prove out point, but how about we just say who cares who is right, and just use our combined energies to help curb rampant pollution. Maybe our carbon emissions are doing more damage than I say, or less damage than you say, but regardless, it is still a poison that is doing damage to part of the environment somewhere, and we should try to curb some of it"
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 2, 2014 9:45:57 GMT -8
You know the worst thing about all this global warming fighting bull$#!+? It's that people are now on teams trying to prove the other side wrong, instead of just saying, "hey, we can both pull up buttloads of data to prove out point, but how about we just say who cares who is right, and just use our combined energies to help curb rampant pollution. Maybe our carbon emissions are doing more damage than I say, or less damage than you say, but regardless, it is still a poison that is doing damage to part of the environment somewhere, and we should try to curb some of it" CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food that is greening the planet. The Earth has been in a CO2 drought and is finally coming out of it. If we cut CO2 50%, we would all die. That is not true of real pollutants. SO2, O3, CO, NOx, Particulate pollution, are all way way down. They are real pollution. The air is the cleanest it has been in many many decades. We added catalytic converters to our cars to change CO to CO2 (and water) because CO2 is not a pollutant.
We care who is right because trying to reduce CO2 is ruining our economy. It has killed Europe and Australia. Australia is moving away from economy killing regulations that did nothing. We need to wise up before it gets too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 2, 2014 10:06:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by hbaztec on Jul 2, 2014 15:03:35 GMT -8
You know the worst thing about all this global warming fighting bull$#!+? It's that people are now on teams trying to prove the other side wrong, instead of just saying, "hey, we can both pull up buttloads of data to prove out point, but how about we just say who cares who is right, and just use our combined energies to help curb rampant pollution. Maybe our carbon emissions are doing more damage than I say, or less damage than you say, but regardless, it is still a poison that is doing damage to part of the environment somewhere, and we should try to curb some of it" CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food that is greening the planet. The Earth has been in a CO2 drought and is finally coming out of it. If we cut CO2 50%, we would all die. That is not true of real pollutants. SO2, O3, CO, NOx, Particulate pollution, are all way way down. They are real pollution. The air is the cleanest it has been in many many decades. We added catalytic converters to our cars to change CO to CO2 (and water) because CO2 is not a pollutant.
We care who is right because trying to reduce CO2 is ruining our economy. It has killed Europe and Australia. Australia is moving away from economy killing regulations that did nothing. We need to wise up before it gets too bad. It is never a bad idea to reduce pollution. Co2 is killing the ocean and turning it acidic. Not all greens the earth. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 2, 2014 15:28:48 GMT -8
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food that is greening the planet. The Earth has been in a CO2 drought and is finally coming out of it. If we cut CO2 50%, we would all die. That is not true of real pollutants. SO2, O3, CO, NOx, Particulate pollution, are all way way down. They are real pollution. The air is the cleanest it has been in many many decades. We added catalytic converters to our cars to change CO to CO2 (and water) because CO2 is not a pollutant.
We care who is right because trying to reduce CO2 is ruining our economy. It has killed Europe and Australia. Australia is moving away from economy killing regulations that did nothing. We need to wise up before it gets too bad. It is never a bad idea to reduce pollution. Co2 is killing the ocean and turning it acidic. Not all greens the earth. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards The ocean is not close to being acidic. It is alkaline. It will not become acidic. It may become a very slight bit less alkaline. This claim that oceans are hurt by it being very slightly less alkaline is another example of Global warming research grant hunting. Study after study are coming out showing it is a lot of hot air. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02583.x/abstractOcean acidity has increased by 30% since preindustrial times due to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and is projected to rise by another 120% before 2100 if CO2 emissions continue at current rates. Ocean acidification is expected to have wide-ranging impacts on marine life, including reduced growth and net erosion of coral reefs. Our present understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine life, however, relies heavily on results from short-term CO2 perturbation studies. Here, we present results from the first long-term CO2 perturbation study on the dominant reef-building cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa and relate them to results from a short-term study to compare the effect of exposure time on the coral's responses. Short-term (1 week) high CO2 exposure resulted in a decline of calcification by 26–29% for a pH decrease of 0.1 units and net dissolution of calcium carbonate. In contrast, L. pertusa was capable to acclimate to acidified conditions in long-term (6 months) incubations, leading to even slightly enhanced rates of calcification. Net growth is sustained even in waters sub-saturated with respect to aragonite. Acclimation to seawater acidification did not cause a measurable increase in metabolic rates. This is the first evidence of successful acclimation in a coral species to ocean acidification, emphasizing the general need for long-term incubations in ocean acidification research. To conclude on the sensitivity of cold-water coral reefs to future ocean acidification further ecophysiological studies are necessary which should also encompass the role of food availability and rising temperatures.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02520.x/abstractIt is essential to predict the impact of elevated Pco2 on marine organisms and habitats to anticipate the severity and consequences of future ocean chemistry change. Despite the importance of carry-over effects in the evolutionary history of marine organisms, few studies have considered links between life-history stages when determining how marine organisms will respond to elevated Pco2, and none have considered the link between adults and their offspring. Herein, we exposed adults of wild and selectively bred Sydney rock oysters, Saccostrea glomerata to elevated Pco2 during reproductive conditioning and measured the development, growth and survival response of their larvae. We found that elevated Pco2 had a negative impact on larvae of S. glomerata causing a reduction in growth, rate of development and survival. exposing adults to elevated Pco2 during reproductive conditioning, however, had positive carry-over effects on larvae. Larvae spawned from adults exposed to elevated Pco2 were larger and developed faster, but displayed similar survival compared with larvae spawned from adults exposed to ambient Pco2. Furthermore, selectively bred larvae of S. glomerata were more resilient to elevated Pco2 than wild larvae. Measurement of the standard metabolic rate (SMR) of adult S. glomerata showed that at ambient Pco2, SMR is increased in selectively bred compared with wild oysters and is further increased during exposure to elevated Pco2. This study suggests that sensitive marine organisms may have the capacity to acclimate or adapt to elevated Pco2 over the next century and a change in energy turnover indicated by SMR may be a key process involved.joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.
It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.
Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.Count on only getting the part of any story that falls in line with those that want the power associated with CO2 being evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Jul 3, 2014 9:59:31 GMT -8
You know the worst thing about all this global warming fighting bull$#!+? It's that people are now on teams trying to prove the other side wrong, instead of just saying, "hey, we can both pull up buttloads of data to prove out point, but how about we just say who cares who is right, and just use our combined energies to help curb rampant pollution. Maybe our carbon emissions are doing more damage than I say, or less damage than you say, but regardless, it is still a poison that is doing damage to part of the environment somewhere, and we should try to curb some of it" CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food that is greening the planet. The Earth has been in a CO2 drought and is finally coming out of it. If we cut CO2 50%, we would all die. That is not true of real pollutants. SO2, O3, CO, NOx, Particulate pollution, are all way way down. They are real pollution. The air is the cleanest it has been in many many decades. We added catalytic converters to our cars to change CO to CO2 (and water) because CO2 is not a pollutant.
We care who is right because trying to reduce CO2 is ruining our economy. It has killed Europe and Australia. Australia is moving away from economy killing regulations that did nothing. We need to wise up before it gets too bad. Bill, I stated carbon emmisions, not co2 pollution. Hooray for your stats! California has catalytic converters which are good for the environment because it makes water and co2! I by no means said "we" meaning you and me. I said "we" meaning humans. China's carbon emmisions (not co2) are helping, along with their other inability to not pollute the bejesus out of their environment, IS helping to spread poisons into the ocean. Where do those poisons float to? Our coast. Sure, it is basically diffused by the time it gets here, but who is to say, with any certainty of doubt (not you or me) that in the next number of decades, the concentration of $#!+ that china pollutes into the ocean won't start to effect our coast in a large way. I bet you are totally cool with large American companies paying Brazilians to tear down the rain forests and make large farm lands. I want to see where your belief system lies in how the Earth works compared to how humans affect it. What caused the great dust bowl? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 3, 2014 10:07:26 GMT -8
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food that is greening the planet. The Earth has been in a CO2 drought and is finally coming out of it. If we cut CO2 50%, we would all die. That is not true of real pollutants. SO2, O3, CO, NOx, Particulate pollution, are all way way down. They are real pollution. The air is the cleanest it has been in many many decades. We added catalytic converters to our cars to change CO to CO2 (and water) because CO2 is not a pollutant.
We care who is right because trying to reduce CO2 is ruining our economy. It has killed Europe and Australia. Australia is moving away from economy killing regulations that did nothing. We need to wise up before it gets too bad. Bill, I stated carbon emmisions, not co2 pollution. Hooray for your stats! California has catalytic converters which are good for the environment because it makes water and co2! I by no means said "we" meaning you and me. I said "we" meaning humans. China's carbon emmisions (not co2) are helping, along with their other inability to not pollute the bejesus out of their environment, IS helping to spread poisons into the ocean. Where do those poisons float to? Our coast. Sure, it is basically diffused by the time it gets here, but who is to say, with any certainty of doubt (not you or me) that in the next number of decades, the concentration of $#!+ that china pollutes into the ocean won't start to effect our coast in a large way. I bet you are totally cool with large American companies paying Brazilians to tear down the rain forests and make large farm lands. I want to see where your belief system lies in how the Earth works compared to how humans affect it. What caused the great dust bowl? We should reduce (real) pollution. The US has done this as far as air pollution goes. Any further requirement to reduce further may be too expensive for the benefits gained. We have done the 90+%. As with many things that last 10% is not worth the effort. The incredible effort to reduce a non-pollutant (CO2) has overshadowed and muscled out the changes that we should endevor to implement. |
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Jul 3, 2014 12:03:16 GMT -8
Thank you for the politically awesome swerve around my question. Good on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 3, 2014 18:52:36 GMT -8
What is the difference between Aztecbill and Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Neil deGrasse Tyson? Oh..I don't know, some are acknowledged as brilliant, and one, the "cut and paster", has zero credibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 4, 2014 22:47:31 GMT -8
What is the difference between Aztecbill and Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Neil deGrasse Tyson? Oh..I don't know, some are acknowledged as brilliant, and one, the "cut and paster", has zero credibility. I have heard Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about global warming. I would destroy him in a debate about it. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 5, 2014 8:03:38 GMT -8
What is the difference between Aztecbill and Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Neil deGrasse Tyson? Oh..I don't know, some are acknowledged as brilliant, and one, the "cut and paster", has zero credibility. I have heard Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about global warming. I would destroy him in a debate about it. Anticipating the pay per view!  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 7, 2014 14:32:54 GMT -8
New report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature: www.iucn.org/?16056/From-despair-to-repair-Dramatic-decline-of-Caribbean-corals-can-be-reversed=Climate change has long been thought to be the main culprit in coral degradation. While it does pose a serious threat by making oceans more acidic and causing coral bleaching, the report shows that the loss of parrotfish and sea urchin – the area’s two main grazers – has, in fact, been the key driver of coral decline in the region.Loss of Caribbean coral reefs not the result of climate change. Of course it is not, those that claim that are the same ones all too happy to blame anything that happens on climate change. It is often an excuse for doing nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 7, 2014 14:39:18 GMT -8
I have heard Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about global warming. I would destroy him in a debate about it. Anticipating the pay per view! I would also probably destory him in debate about space stuff too. Everytime I listen to him there is a cringe moment when he says something that is just so obviously wrong. Example: He said if we blow up an asteriod on a path toward Earth then all the pieces would hit the Earth. How stupid. When you blow something up, the pieces start moving away from each other. In space, they would continue to move away from each other and have a very wide array of matter when they pass the Earth. It would be doubtful that any would still hit the Earth, let alone all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 7, 2014 14:50:10 GMT -8
Thank you for the politically awesome swerve around my question. Good on you. There were two main issues regarding the "dust bowl". You can get that information via google. One was farming techniques but what brought that issue to bear was the great heat waves and droughts of the 1930s. It was far worse than anything we have seen since. voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/06/the_heat_waves_of_the_1930s.html 23 of the 50 all time highs for the states were recorded in the 1930s. 3 all time state highs have happened in the 15 years since 1999. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_high_and_low_temperatures_by_stateBelow are the all time highs by decade. 1880s 1 1890s 0 1900s 1 1910s 6 1920s 1 1930s 23 1940s 0 1950s 3 1960s 1 1970s 2 1980s 3 1990s 7 2000s 1 2010s 2 The 1930s were very hot in the US. All time state heat records by year: 1930 5 1931 2 1932 0 1933 3 1934 3 1935 0 1936 121937 1 1938 0 1939 0 The money farmers lost in the early heat waves sparked them to plant even more land in subsequent years to "make up for" the loses. This applified the problems when the heat and drought continued into the middle of the decade. All the changes to farming since then are generally credited with no reocurrance but since we have not seen heat and drought like that since, we don't really know. It is better but is it enough to offset that long a period of extreme heat and lack of rain? Having higher CO2 should help some if we ever see that again. Knowing how things happen in cycles, expect it. Although, I suspect, we are safe until 2050s, since I believe the over riding short term cycle is 60 years and the 1990s was the year it would happen if it were to reoccur (1930+60). You asked for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Jul 7, 2014 18:07:30 GMT -8
Interesting answer bill. Since you are adept at google, and I am on my phone, which makes attempting multiple search terms harder for me, maybe you can tell me the average summer temperatures for the dust bowl states from 1925-2013. Basically, I don't care about a one time high mark as proof, I would love to see a larger sample size of each summer season to see that we have not had other extended hot periods of time since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 7, 2014 22:42:06 GMT -8
Interesting answer bill. Since you are adept at google, and I am on my phone, which makes attempting multiple search terms harder for me, maybe you can tell me the average summer temperatures for the dust bowl states from 1925-2013. Basically, I don't care about a one time high mark as proof, I would love to see a larger sample size of each summer season to see that we have not had other extended hot periods of time since then. The 1930s were quite extreme and was the major cause of the dust bowl. I didn't have to Google that, I knew it from history. I might do as requested tomorrow when I have more assets at my disposal. The government did come in afterwards and implement changes and pretend they fixed everything. That is the nature of government. A cursory look into it would give the government position. Any in depth study shows the environment played the key role. |
|
