Marine Heatwaves Are Spawning Unprecedented Climate Chaos

New Doom Porn, ATS. This article discusses the newly coined "Marine Heatwave" phenomenom. Marine Heatwaves are areas of intense heat in the ocean(s), namely, in the Pacific Ocean we had the Blob in 2014-2015 but now other areas of the Earth are showing signs also; namely Australia. So now we have something new to worry about.

FIRST SEABIRDS STARTED falling out of the sky, washing up on beaches from California to Canada. Then emaciated and dehydrated sea lion pups began showing up, stranded and on the brink of death. A surge in dead whales was reported in the same region, and that was followed by the largest toxic algal bloom in history seen along the Californian coast. Mixed among all that there were population booms of several marine species that normally aren’t seen surging in the same year. Plague, famine, pestilence and death was sweeping the northern Pacific Ocean between 2014 and 2015. This chaos was caused by a single massive heatwave, unlike anything ever seen before. But it was not the sort of heatwave we are used to thinking about, where the air gets thick with warmth. This occurred in the ocean, where the effects are normally hidden from view. Nicknamed “the blob”, it was arguably the biggest marine heatwave ever seen. It may have been the worst but wide-scale disruption from marine heatwaves is increasingly being seen all around the globe, with regions such as Australia seemingly being hit with more than their fair share.

We need to figure this out but maybe the answer is: there are NO answers. The environment is changing in a big way and there may be nothing we can do about it. Heat waves, freezing, flooding, sink holes, etc..... What says ATS?

www.wired.com...

Trump says climate change is bonkers. I'm with him.
at least the next 10 generations don't have to worry just yet.

originally posted by: lostbookWe need to figure this out but maybe the answer is: there are NO answers. The environment is changing in a big way and there may be nothing we can do about it. Heat waves, freezing, flooding, sink holes, etc..... What says ATS?

Bingo.

Not everything needs a fix, although it would still be nice to know the catalyst to such changes. But even then, all that would do is allow certain groups to try and devise ways to stop the changes, thinking that everything should always remain the same.

It's something to marvel at...I say that we blame either Trump, Obama, or Fukushima.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

definitely Obama.

you nailed it on the head there at the end . . . tere ain't nothing we or anyone else can do about it. And to argue otherwise gves you an ego the size of Jupiter (god or planet take your pick). Thus why people like Quayle and Obama think they can fix the Earth, their Egos are that big. Mother Nature will take care of herself in the end. Probably by using some sort of natural disaster to wipe out all of us pesky lifeforms. That is unless the sun decides to erase the entire planet first.

Hahaha, everybody saying that there isn't anything we can do about it...

Nobody likes to feel guilty for being part of the cause of mass extinctions and global animal population decimation, but the facts (yes yes "show the facts!") are that we are the root cause for the acceleration of the Earth's natural climate change, and arguably its increased magnitude.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Trump says climate change is bonkers. I'm with him.
at least the next 10 generations don't have to worry just yet.

Don't worry, hillary will fix the environment....
Bbwwwaahahaha!
Sorry, I could say that without laughing.

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
Hahaha, everybody saying that there isn't anything we can do about it...

Nobody likes to feel guilty for being part of the cause of mass extinctions and global animal population decimation, but the facts (yes yes "show the facts!") are that we are the root cause for the acceleration of the Earth's natural climate change, and arguably its increased magnitude.

There's no such a thing as a scientific fact...last time I heard. Mind you scientists do like to consider robust ideas, as...well, robust, but it doesn't mean those ideas are right or robust enough. Tree rings come to mind.

BTW, the OP should be applauded for a balanced opening.

The ONLY known fact in science is that paradigms shift.

NOAA expects an above average hurricane season.NOAA predicts worst hurricane season since 2012

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
Hahaha, everybody saying that there isn't anything we can do about it...

Nobody likes to feel guilty for being part of the cause of mass extinctions and global animal population decimation, but the facts (yes yes "show the facts!") are that we are the root cause for the acceleration of the Earth's natural climate change, and arguably its increased magnitude.

Right.

Because there have never been unexpected, dramatic increases in both the rise and fall of global temperature or CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the rise of permanent civilizations, and especially not since the rise of the industrial age.

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
Hahaha, everybody saying that there isn't anything we can do about it...

Nobody likes to feel guilty for being part of the cause of mass extinctions and global animal population decimation, but the facts (yes yes "show the facts!") are that we are the root cause for the acceleration of the Earth's natural climate change, and arguably its increased magnitude.

Right.

Because there have never been unexpected, dramatic increases in both the rise and fall of global temperature or CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the rise of permanent civilizations, and especially not since the rise of the industrial age.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Are we looking at the same graph?? Do you see that red line on the very end that is higher than all of the other levels of CO2 ever? It is easy to view the graph from your standpoint, but it shows that currently the levels of CO2 are higher than ever recorded before.



Edit: would you mind sourcing that graph of yours? Seems like you just have it saved as a file on your computer and readily toss it at anybody who believes on man made climate change.

a reply to: FightingBuddha

Yeah, this was a graph that I used probably two years ago on this site--I don't recall from where I got it, but the data is that that was obtained from ice-core samples.

The most recent data that you cite could be different because it is much, much more recent, and some was probably supplemented with data from direct measurement of contemporary levels. But, I would hope it wasn't supplemented in any way by any other data from any other instruments.

But my point concerns the reality that even ice-core samples show that, contained within the more broad cycles of ice ages and global warm-ups, there are smaller cycles that have high and low extremes contained within, and all without the "help" of mankind. That's the main point here, and if you really want to use that recent data to make a point, it would appear that there was an unnatural leveling off compared to the previous trends, and that maybe we're finally caught up to where we naturally might have been, even if it is higher than the previous four high points on the graph (which, in themselves, aren't constant). But with an earth that is billions of years old, a graph that charts less than 0.000099% of the earth's age is hardly something that should be used to show that our current age of temperature and CO2 is unprecedented.

But I must stress that you probably should disregard the most recent data on the graph, because I'm willing to bet that it was measured with different instruments, and/or that the age of the measured components makes a huge difference on how accurately it appears on the graph, basically rendering it useless compared to the rest of it.

I'll see if I can't track down the graph's origin, and if I can't, I should probably quit using it, I guess.

ETA: Here is a blog that cites the graph as being from the Vostok Ice Core samples. The same graph is located about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down the page.

Also, from this site, here is a detail from the graph of the last 50,000 years of the data to better note the leveling off of both temperature and CO2 that I mentioned. Note the dramatic rise of CO2 from between about 18,000 and 10,000 years ago...was that our fault, too?



Please note that, as always, context is everything. If I had just posted that detail from the overall graph, it would be super easy to argue that we are destroying the planet by causing CO2/Temp rises way beyond historical norms. This is why it's always good to consider the big picture, and not just, say, data that has been considered since the 1880s and not even really perfected (in sensitivity of the instruments) until the last few decades (basically, since the proliferation of satellite data).

a reply to: SlapMonkey





Great response! And not the usual jumping down throats, so I applaud you for that too! And hey I am on your side for the most part, it is undeniable that the Earth's climate has a cyclical nature, and there is also emperical evidence that shows it.

Firat, if the graph (first) is from the Vostok core samplings, wouldn't the equipment used to analyze it be the same for whichever part of the core they were sampling, or to say, whichever time of the core? If so, then I wager that the recent carbon dioxide levels represented are relatively accurate

The second graph posted is very informative, I am just curious as to why the title is from 50,000-2,500 years ago, while the scaling goes from 50,000, in increments of 10,000 years, to zero on the end? Is that representing 2,500 years ago or the present? Could be misinterpreted.

Correct me of I am wrong, but doesn't the leveling off that you mention, between 18,000 amd 10,000 years ago, seem to be an outlier from the rest of the data presented. Sure there were relatively steady periods in the sampling results from the ice cores, but in particular that seems to stand out. (Sounds like I am arguing against myself, but it is something I found intriguing)

And just for the sake of argument, would you agree that roughly 10,000 years ago was the rise, or dawn, of civilization as we interpret it? Or at least the first noticeble point of exponential growth of mankind?

I am on the side of, hey, maybe humans upset the natural balance of the climate cycle, and in doing so, added magnitude to it, creating a sort of chain reaction that leads us to where we are today. Not too terrible in terms of the Earth, but terrible for every niche-adapted species.

I hate to even ask, but do you agree with evolution or ID/creationism? (Just curious as to what a seemingly smart cookie like yourself believes, will not be ad hominem later)

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
Firat, if the graph (first) is from the Vostok core samplings, wouldn't the equipment used to analyze it be the same for whichever part of the core they were sampling, or to say, whichever time of the core? If so, then I wager that the recent carbon dioxide levels represented are relatively accurate

I am assuming that as well, but the fact that there is such a deviation from the "norm" of the previous cycles starting at about 11,000 years ago really makes me wonder if either the measured elements aren't measurable by the method chosen for samples older than that, or some other anomaly occurred. I'm not sure, but as things generally go, I would think that more recent samplings would give more accurate results, too, so maybe everything prior to about 11,000 years is just a general idea and not as accurate as we may presume it to be. Who knows, maybe the lows were much lower and the highs were much higher, or the opposite. It's tough to call, but all I know is that is deviates from the rest of the graph, so I know that SOMETHING is different about that portion of data.

The second graph posted is very informative, I am just curious as to why the title is from 50,000-2,500 years ago, while the scaling goes from 50,000, in increments of 10,000 years, to zero on the end? Is that representing 2,500 years ago or the present? Could be misinterpreted.

I'm unsure, but it looks like it doesn't include the part where the CO2 level spikes up at the end of the large, overall graph, so maybe they stopped the data in that graph at 2,500 years but didn't change the "0" to "2,500." Who knows. I don't make the graphs for this, I just discuss them.

Correct me of I am wrong, but doesn't the leveling off that you mention, between 18,000 amd 10,000 years ago, seem to be an outlier from the rest of the data presented. Sure there were relatively steady periods in the sampling results from the ice cores, but in particular that seems to stand out. (Sounds like I am arguing against myself, but it is something I found intriguing)

And just for the sake of argument, would you agree that roughly 10,000 years ago was the rise, or dawn, of civilization as we interpret it? Or at least the first noticeble point of exponential growth of mankind?

I would agree that this is the generally accepted age, give or take, for civilization, but when it comes to things like the deforestation for mass agriculture and that type of stuff, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't done on such a global scale as to cause such a hiccup in the natural cycle of things. Yes, slash-and-burn techniques have been going on generally for the duration of totality of the ice core samples on the graph, but in order to have such a dramatic effect, there would have to have been a TON of deforestation happening all at once to cause such an abrupt disruption in the cycle.

I'm thinking that, if this data is correct, there was something that happened naturally that affected the entire globe for thousands of years before the natural cycle restarted, but I just don't think that the data is accurate during that time period, to be honest. Plus, you have to remember Vostok samples only show what the composition and temperature in that area were during those times. If we had ice core samples at the equator, I bet that they would show a bit of a different story.

I am on the side of, hey, maybe humans upset the natural balance of the climate cycle, and in doing so, added magnitude to it, creating a sort of chain reaction that leads us to where we are today. Not too terrible in terms of the Earth, but terrible for every niche-adapted species.

I kind of agree, but I really do not put much emphasis on the "maybe" part of your comment. If we have had much of a hand in affecting the global atmosphere, it hasn't been by much, and certainly not enough to account for everything that AGW alarmists attribute to us terrible human beings.

I hate to even ask, but do you agree with evolution or ID/creationism? (Just curious as to what a seemingly smart cookie like yourself believes, will not be ad hominem later)

I'm not sure that either is correct, but I'm absolutely certain that Creationism is far less correct. I think that the theory of evolution is the best explanation that we have going right now, so I tend to lock step with it, but I'm always open to challenging its assumptions if there is enough evidence.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Also, from this site, here is a detail from the graph of the last 50,000 years of the data to better note the leveling off of both temperature and CO2 that I mentioned. Note the dramatic rise of CO2 from between about 18,000 and 10,000 years ago...was that our fault, too?

No, and no scientist ever said that it was.

What is the point? If something happened naturally before (for different reasons), then somehow humans can't be responsible for a similar effect?

If lightning starts a forest fire naturally in the past, does this mean that all suspected arson is actually natural? Even if you find a gas can, matches, and a note?

Please note that, as always, context is everything. If I had just posted that detail from the overall graph, it would be super easy to argue that we are destroying the planet by causing CO2/Temp rises way beyond historical norms.

If you post a longer graph then it will show that we are causing CO2/Temp rises far far beyond geophysical norms under which humans have evolved.

This is why it's always good to consider the big picture, and not just, say, data that has been considered since the 1880s and not even really perfected (in sensitivity of the instruments) until the last few decades (basically, since the proliferation of satellite data).

True, but what's the point?

During those Ice Ages, there were glaciers two miles thick in New York. Human population was miniscule, primitive hunter gatherers. Agriculture, and writing was non-existent. That was about 4-5C of global temperature difference.

Yeah, climate change can be really really bad for human civilization. Let's not make a Heat Age in the other direction.

All of human civilization evolved in that flat portion with a very stable 280 ppm, and a very flat temperature. Why # that up?

a reply to: SlapMonkey



Now I'll have to sift through the actual ice core papers and see what I can dig up/back up, but you have given me a lot to think about.

And I think one reason I am so negative towards climate change, especially at (even the slightest) the hands of humans, is the impact on wildlife, it hurts my heart to see animals die, and to consider entire populations decimated or even driven to extinction is something that drives me to determine what, if anything I can do, and how to go about it.

What is the effect of the so far uncounted undersea volcanoes, vents etc spewing hot gases and heat into surrounding waters 24x7x365? The answer seems to be, they don't know and discount this from ALL of their climate research and models!
All, or at least most of that heat and gas, rises through the water into the atmosphere yet isn't factored in at all.

It seems rather shortsighted for so called scientists to ignore a potential major part of the equation because they simply don't know the numbers, and instead still push the human caused version. At least they are bright enough to know they can't tax volcanoes and undersea vents for their CO2 output, unlike the rest of us!

originally posted by: Britguy
What is the effect of the so far uncounted undersea volcanoes, vents etc spewing hot gases and heat into surrounding waters 24x7x365?

Fairly small on total global heat content important for diagnosing current and predicting future climate change, but potentially important in circulation?

The answer seems to be, they don't know and discount this from ALL of their climate research and models!
All, or at least most of that heat and gas, rises through the water into the atmosphere yet isn't factored in at all.

That's not true, but it is studied in different context than global climate change, except indirectly.

The total amount of energy from sun and atmospheric flux is far larger than that from geological inputs. That's the real reason. Heatflux from the Sun is 400 W/m^2. Heat flux from Earth's interior (which is what drives volcanoes). 0.08 W/m^2. Therefore changes in the 1st one are far more important than changes in the 2nd one. Increased greenhouse effect from humans is about 2.9 W/m^2, with human induced aerosol cooling a negative counter to part of that.

www.geol.ucsb.edu...

Also, there is no reason to suppose and no evidence to believe that there is any significant trend upwards in this geological effect. And if there were, we would see evidence thereof, like heat anomalies coming up in significant amount from deep to surface, except that in fact we see warming spreading from the top down, just as what you expect from increased (over years) heating from increased greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which is what the scientists are saying.

It seems rather shortsighted for so called scientists to ignore a potential major part of the equation because they simply don't know the numbers, and instead still push the human caused version. At least they are bright enough to know they can't tax volcanoes and undersea vents for their CO2 output, unlike the rest of us!

That's false---they push the human caused version because of the extremely solid empirical evidence and observations which back it up.

It's also even more shortsighted to accuse scientists who work on geophysics problems for a living, that they are missing something really big. The chance that every scientist has been missing something big, and not telling about it, but you figured it out is virtually zero.