It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ocean heating has doubled in the past 18 years

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Phage

You wish. Put your glasses on 2000AD

The ice core data stopped at 1855. Where did the rest of it come from? Easterbrook? Anthony Watts?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The ice core data stopped at 1855. Where did the rest of it come from? Easterbrook? Anthony Watts?


Who cares. The temperature since 1855 still isn't going to be higher than long term variability.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: glend



Who cares. The temperature since 1855 still isn't going to be higher than long term variability.


He said, oh so confidently. With absolutely nothing to back his claim.
Define "long term."

Wait a minute, haven't I asked you to do that before? Didn't you dodge the question then? Just like you dodged the question I just asked.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You cited data from Greenland to show that global temperatures have not risen beyond "long term variability". Provide the data to support that. Define your "long term variability."
edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

First of all, I would like to note that El Nino is removing an awful lot of heat from the oceans. Maybe its a naturally occuring cycle?

Second of all, I would also like to note that there currently is no way of accurately measuring the acidity of seawater, so how exactly do scientists claim the ocean is acidifying.

hahana.soest.hawaii.edu...




Because of a variety of problems inherent in electrometric pH measurements, including electrode drift, electromagnetic interference and problems with the reference electrode, the precision of these pH measurements is relatively poor. On average, we obtain a precision of +0.02 pH units on replicate samples. The accuracy of our pH measurements are difficult to evaluate directly because we have no seawater standard for pH measurements. The accuracy is therefore dependent primarily on the accuracy of the seawater buffers that are used for electrode calibration. In order to improve the precision of our time-series pH measurement data, we are currently evaluating the spectrophotometric methods for pH measurements described by Byrne et al. (198_). Although these measurements are currently being made on a regular basis, the methodological details are not finalized and are not described here.



www.pmel.noaa.gov...




This period was characterized by the establishment of global ocean carbon hydrographic surveys and long-term time series stations that yielded high-quality measurements at highly-resolved temporal and spatial scales. As the greatly improved spectrophotometric pH methods were refined in the early 1990s, there was renewed interest in making high-quality pH measurements. The scientific community had greater trust in these measurements because the measurements could be compared to and validated against the independent measurements of total carbon, pCO2 and total alkalinity from these large community evaluated data sets compiled as previously described. Finally, starting with the WOCE-JGOFS era, we were able to collect high-quality data using standard protocols and validated with reference materials with enough temporal and spatial resolution that would allow us to determine scientifically defensible mean annual oceanic surface water trends. The resulting data from 1989 to the present have been published in many peer-reviewed scientific articles and assessments, culminating in the recent assessment published in the recent IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Report Chapter 3 (see Rhein et al., 2013).


Even at their best, the only "reliable" data available only started being collected in 1989 and that is too short a time to accurately pinpoint what the natural variability of the ocean acidity is supposed to be. Note that they keep the original data in a separate data base so that it can be corrected as necessary. Accuracy of pH analysis is also dependent on accuracy of temperature analysis. An that is not as easy as it sounds.

In fact, as has been pointed out, we are not talking about ocean acidity at al. Seawater has an alkaline pH. At worst, the most that can be said is that the ocean has gotten slightly less alkaline.

Third of all, there is another source of stress for coral reefs and it has nothing to do with global warming.

planetearth.nerc.ac.uk...




That is, an excessive supply of nutrients can paradoxically lead to nutrient starvation. It does this by over-fertilizing the symbiotic algae on which corals depend, making them grow more quickly than the more limited supply of phosphorus can support. This unbalanced growth makes them more susceptible to stress.


As usual, pollution is occuring and instead of spending money on stopping the discharge at source, problems are blamed on global warming. Everything is blamed on global warming. Syrian immigrants are not fleeing from a violent regime, they are immigrating because of global warming.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend



Who cares. The temperature since 1855 still isn't going to be higher than long term variability.


He said, oh so confidently. With absolutely nothing to back his claim.
Define "long term."

Wait a minute, haven't I asked you to do that before? Didn't you dodge the question then? Just like you dodged the question I just asked.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You cited data from Greenland to show that global temperatures have not risen beyond "long term variability". Provide the data to support that. Define your "long term variability."


How far back do you want him to go? Back to when the north pole was tropical?

That would make this warming fairly low wouldn't it?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks



First of all, I would like to note that El Nino is removing an awful lot of heat from the oceans.
And where do you suppose a good amount of that heat will end up?



At worst, the most that can be said is that the ocean has gotten slightly less alkaline.
Hehe. Ok. What's your point? Ever kept a saltwater aquarium?


Third of all, there is another source of stress for coral reefs and it has nothing to do with global warming.
Did someone claim that warming is the only thing that can harm coral? Your source:

It's generally agreed to be caused primarily by higher seawater temperatures, which put the corals under stress by disrupting their algae's ability to photosynthesise. In mild cases the corals can recover; in severe ones, whole reefs can bleach and die.




Syrian immigrants are not fleeing from a violent regime, they are immigrating because of global warming.
Not so much.
edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
You need alkalinity to keep salt water corals. a plethora of trace elements, good steady PH. It isn't easy to maintain a good salt water aquarium.

So in short I agree phage. Lower aklinity and the coral won't be able to properly build its skeleton. Drop it to low you won't even get a skeleton to bleach.



a reply to: Phage



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend



Who cares. The temperature since 1855 still isn't going to be higher than long term variability.


He said, oh so confidently. With absolutely nothing to back his claim.
Define "long term."

Wait a minute, haven't I asked you to do that before? Didn't you dodge the question then? Just like you dodged the question I just asked.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You cited data from Greenland to show that global temperatures have not risen beyond "long term variability". Provide the data to support that. Define your "long term variability."


IPCC itself estimates warming for last 100 years at roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012 so the chart from 1855 doesn't show anything that IPCC doesn't push!!!!

Tree Ring data from Europe also supports that the Roman period was at least 1C warmer than todays weather so its not just ice core data that proves natural climate change.

So stop denying natural climate change exists. Anybody with a brain in their head can see for themselves that natural climate change is real. So what's your real agenda? You do realize that payments from carbon tax isn't going to save forests, they plan to re-categorize existing foreign aid, so they can pocket the tax.
edit on 19-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend



According to NASA deep ocean temperatures have not risen,

Demonstrating, once again, that you did not read the source material.


But we are getting a bit off subject, Wasn't we concerned about the corals.

Demonstrating, once again, that you did not read the source material.


Yes I did read it Phage. What don't you understand?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

IPCC itself estimates warming for last 100 years at roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012.
Yes. And there are three more years of data to consider as well.



Tree Ring data from Europe also supports that the Roman period was at least 1C warmer than todays weather.
Weather is not the right word. And believing that one location represents a global trend is fallacious.


So stop denying natural climate change exists.
Who has done so?


You do realize that payments from carbon tax isn't going to save forests, they plan to re-categorize existing foreign aid, so they can pocket the tax.
What carbon tax?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



believing that one location represents a global trend is fallacious.


Your needle is stuck, we have moved onto tree ring data which supports Greenlands Ice core data. 1 + 1 = 2 not one



What carbon tax?


Really!

edit on 19-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
If those of you who are doomsayers believe what you're spewing, why are you still posting on the internet? Shouldn't you be living a technology free life?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
If those of you who are doomsayers believe what you're spewing, why are you still posting on the internet? Shouldn't you be living a technology free life?


If our information is wrong, you're free to show how it is.

As for your remark. Wouldn't it not be a logical thing to spread the information to prevent the continuation of it on such a large scale, rather than to just seclude ourselves from everyone?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

That is what every missionary in the whole history of the world said! And how many populations are dead because of it?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Ghost147

That is what every missionary in the whole history of the world said! And how many populations are dead because of it?

Tired of Control Freaks


How am I trying to control anyone?

Did I say "we should all stop doing [this and this]" in the OP? No.

Have I preached a baseless concept? You say "yes", but so far you've dodged the challenge to validly refute the information in my OP.

So, are you here to have an intellectual discussion, or are you just going to puff up your chest, ignore the op, and declare you're the winner?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Its like we are on a run away horse and destroying our home and there is little that can be done about.. Thank you for OP spreading information and awareness of these things helps.

snf



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Really you like most people here have no real idea if what is happening to the corals is caused by global warming. We all have an opinion but we really don’t know.


These are beautiful habitats and they have been here a long time and they are disappearing fast. Regardless if we know for sure of not we should not be taking the chance.






posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Wouldn't it not be a logical thing to spread the information to prevent the continuation of it on such a large scale, rather than to just seclude ourselves from everyone?



We live in the information age and information is used to manipulate people and control mindsets. I think the spreading of information is a very important thing to do. An informed people can make informed decisions






posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
If those of you who are doomsayers believe what you're spewing, why are you still posting on the internet? Shouldn't you be living a technology free life?


Human beings have always used technology since we began. Stone aged man used technology.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Ghost147



The concern was of the water temperature rise. Don't worry, this is all on topic I was using the corals as an additive to the seriousness of the situation, and a visual depiction of the effects of a rise in water temperature


Fair enough. Personally I am not too worried because temperature isn't outside long term variability to say one way or another, if humans are really affecting the earth, temperature wise. But I don't see that as a reason to ignore the footprint we leave on our planet and that of nature.


Oh, this looks familiar... where have I seen something like that before?

e: in case you don't get the point, your chart is a lie.

edit on 20Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:18:20 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)







 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join