Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: Phage

I would certainly not have the skills to predict the severity of El Nino. It will depend on how much heat accumulates in the ocean between now and then.

Its a cycle that has been ongoing for a very long time.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Its a cycle that has been ongoing for a very long time.

Yes. And the ocean is accumulating more and more heat.

a reply to: Phage

Funny that

According to the National Disaster Management Authority, heat waves at this time of the year are quite normal

www.ndma.gov.in...

Hitting 51 degrees may simply be a 1 in 50 year event (and from my previous link, the 51 degrees is extremely questionable.

Do you not believe in natural variability. Some heat waves worse than others?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Phage

And now that the heat has been discharge, the oceans go into a cooling phase and we get La Nina

Funny how that works

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't see a big drop in 1998. Do you?
I don't see a return to much of anything but an ongoing increase in heat content. Do you?

Do you not believe in natural variability. Some heat waves worse than others?

Yes. And there will be more of the former variety as the planet heats up.

a reply to: Phage

yes I actually do. The oceans are now confirmed to be in a cooling phase.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Phage

Well the current "extreme" is still well within the normal 1 in 50 year variability. And I don't believe in anyone's ability to predict the future.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
You know this, how? Please provide the data.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And I don't believe in anyone's ability to predict the future.

Interesting:

And now that the heat has been discharge, the oceans go into a cooling phase and we get La Nina

You have to look at a larger time scale, its just a cycle, most likely caused by the sun.


Also, higher CO2 levels does not mean a stronger greanhouse effect, its a logoritmic increase. Almost topped out before the industrial revolution.


That being said, we are destroying our planet, but we are not causing any climate change.

a reply to: Sebb9

You are just repeating myths the denier think tanks push.

We are indeed changing the climate of this planet.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Sebb9

You are just repeating myths the denier think tanks push.

We are indeed changing the climate of this planet.

Good counterargument, Jrod. One of your finest to date.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Its a cycle that has been ongoing for a very long time.

Yes. And the ocean is accumulating more and more heat.

Another spectacular propaganda piece. Whenever will we get some balanced views ?

I looked at this chart and asked myself what is it saying. At first glance the line is going up up up, so it must mean we are screwed.

But wait, what is 'Global Ocean Heat Content' ? what does it mean ? Let's google it and see what comes up.

Oh my look lots and lots of charts and they all only go back to 1960's, so once again completely meaningless in climate change terms.

This chart is for 200m depth of water, why 200m the ocean is 4000m deep. Oh look theres lots and lots of charts for different depths. Take your pick. The upward trend line changes depending which depth you look at. Why would anyone pick the depth chart that just happens to have the most upward curve and pass it off as though it means anything.

I could pick one that shows the global heat goes down over the same period. HERE IT IS

Honestly these agenda pushers must think we all button up the back.

a reply to: bigyin

Science has no agenda.

Many have been fooled by those who profit on their oil/coal/natural gas sales. Those are the ones who want the American idiot to ignore the science.

Ps,
You linked a site full of disinformation.

I do not deny it, this whole Climate Change Crap aka CCC is a farce. Mother nature doesn't make deals with anyone. If she wants to rock the earth she doesnt need permission from BP or Shell.

Great Barrier Reef: Bleaching 'kills 35% of area's coral'

The experts from James Cook University (JCU) say it is the most extreme case of mass bleaching they have ever measured at the World Heritage Site.

It has been linked to climate change.

a reply to: Astyanax

The bleaching of the Great Barriaer Reef has also been proven to be caused by pesticide contaminated run-off.


www.aims.gov.au...

The team says that both state and federal governments have recognised the pesticide threat to the Great Barrier Reef where up to 80 per cent of the catchment contains some form of agriculture. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, with other government agencies, is currently overseeing the implementation of the "Reef Water Quality Protection Plan", a ten-year $40 million program to halt and reverse the declining quality of water entering the GBR Marine Park by improving land management practices. However such measures do not necessarily apply elsewhere in the world. Dr Negri says that the latest IPCC climate change report provides a particular context and reasons for concern about the impact of pesticides on corals: "Corals are already under pressure from rising sea temperatures and pesticides in runoff may be causing additional critical stresses on corals especially during the early life histories such as the larval phase," he says. *This story was jointly released by AIMS and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Related links:

The words "linked to" and "associated with" are weasel words. Its a marketing ploy. A way to make a statement without having to actually prove anything.

This is a study PROVING that pesticides are affecting the Great Barrier Reef. Pesticides are not 'linked to' or "associated with" coral bleaching and damage.

Now the pesticide problem is actually one that can be solved. Pesticides are particularly vulnerable to sunlight and pH changes. The contaminated run-off can be diverted for treatment before discharge. The best treatment for any kind of pesticide is to run it through a compost pile. Every farm can be subsidized to capture run-off (with regulatory changes that will prevent most of the run-off) and then treatment of the rest in a compost pile.

But hey - its so much more romantic to fool yourself into thinking if you put biofuel in your car, you are saving the environment.

of course the water is warmer - its be affect by El Nino !

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: bigyin

Bigyin

No matter how you slice it or dice it, we need to understand that the ocean comprises about 78 % of the earth's crust. Heat from the sun penetrates the water to a much greater extent than land. Ocean's accumulate heat over period of time. Then the heat is discharged through the Pacific Decadal Oscilliation of which El Nino and La Nino are to cyclic normal occurrences.

Tired of Control Freaks

not a good week for our planet

record temps

The last 13 months, including May, have all been record warm, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an unprecedented streak in the record book. The May record came despite an easing in global temperatures from their El Niño-fueled peak, and it increases the likelihood that 2016 will surpass 2015 as the hottest year in the books.

record CO2 levels

Passing the 400 ppm milestone in is a symbolic but nonetheless important reminder that human activities continue to reshape our planet in profound ways. We’ve seen sea levels rise about a foot in the past 120 years and temperatures go up about 1.8°F (1°C) globally. Arctic sea ice has dwindled 13.4 percent per decade since the 1970s, extreme heat has become more common and oceans are headed for their most acidic levels in millions of years. Recently heat has cooked corals and global warming has contributed in various ways to extreme events around the world

originally posted by: Sebb9
You have to look at a larger time scale, its just a cycle, most likely caused by the sun.


Also, higher CO2 levels does not mean a stronger greanhouse effect, its a logoritmic increase. Almost topped out before the industrial revolution.

In other words, higher CO2 levels actually do mean a stronger greenhouse effect. The modeling of how much more greenhouse gases will cause how much more radiative driving is by now quite advanced and solid, and confirmed by extensive experimental and observational evidence. In an nutshell, simplistic "armchair arguments" are naive and should be dismissed in favor of the serious quantitative work that people have been doing for 50 years or more.

This link is somewhat related to this point: www.realclimate.org...

That being said, we are destroying our planet, but we are not causing any climate change.

We are doing both.