Ocean oxygen levels are on the decline

[Scrubber_steve]

I watch one (don't remember the title) on the 2016 coral bleaching on the GBR last weekend and have been very depressed all week. First time I was moved to tears in years.

This is another example of more tripe. Reports from the media in regards to that event were that 30 to 90% of the reef had died. A true figure is closer to less than 8% of coral bleached, and strong recovery has already begun.
Moreover; the event was blamed, of course, on man made global warming. It was in fact caused by recorded extreme low tide events that were the result of local sea level fall, exacerbated further by a record equalling El nino event.

 

[Ardeus]

These issues are beyond sad and will soon pose a serious mental health issue, as more people begin to realise that the effects that were being forecasted for 2100 will be affecting their own lives, not just their grandchildren.

The IPCC in 2007 made some projections for the arctic sea ice for 2100. A few months later, still in 2007, their projections for 2100 had already been reached.

Changes in climate are not always slow. If you look up information on Greenland icecores, they show that quite often in the past it happened suddenly.

If you look at arctic ice volume charts and look at IPCC projections for this century, you have to ask yourself how do they reach those incredibly optimistic forecasts. My hope is that the central arctic ice being over deep water will protect it much longer than what those charts suggest.

Humans and cattle represent 96% of the mammal biomass on the planet. There are now more chicken than free birds in the world. We have a deep impact on the planet in many ways. Yet these numbers have little impact on our lives.

 

[Righteous]

The Holocene was global, & warmer than today. The Roman & Medieval warming were also global & warmer than the present. There are numerous studies that prove this.
This argument, that these periods were just regional changes, & global temps were on average no different, or cooler than today is propaganda pushed because co2 levels at these times were not fluctuating, & only at 280ppm & the alarmists want people to believe that climate cannot change unless co2 is changing.

I think calling the scientific community alarmist is a gross mischaracterization. I truly applaud skepticism, but when one actually pursues the data, the effect of human induced climate change becomes obvious.

Just to be clear, consensus on global climate change is clear that it is human induced, and is having measurable effects.

For anyone on the fence about what to believe, I highly recommend the following article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

And if you really want to dig in, data is publicly available

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data

 

[Scrubber_steve]

These issues are beyond sad and will soon pose a serious mental health issue

Well, the evidence suggests that this is already occurring, & this is one phenomenon that I believe can be attributed to human caused global warming, or at least the theory of human caused global warming.:D

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I think calling the scientific community alarmist is a gross mischaracterization. I truly applaud skepticism, but when one actually pursues the data, the effect of human induced climate change becomes obvious.

Just to be clear, consensus on global climate change is clear that it is human induced, and is having measurable effects.

No, the mainstream science/physics shows that the warming since the 1950's isn't caused by greenhouse forcing.
A consensus has nothing to with science. A consensus is an opinion. There was a consensus that the Earth was going into an ice age in the 1970s. That was wrong and the science didn't back it up with data. It was natural variability.

The physics, & the climate models dictate that a fundamental effect of greenhouse gas forced global warming is negative lapse rate feedback in the troposphere, & only greenhouse gas forced warming causes this. The actual measurements, taken by radiosonde & satellite show that tropospheric lapse rate is the opposite; its positive, proving that the warming since the 1950's is a continuation of the natural warming trend that started around 300 years ago.

 

[Ardeus]

This happens with an issue that doesn't threaten fossile fuel industry and doesn't conjure politicians to take sides.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

This happens with an issue that doesn't threaten fossile fuel industry and doesn't conjure politicians to take sides.

That's not science, that's political activist propaganda.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I think calling the scientific community alarmist is a gross mischaracterization. I truly applaud skepticism, but when one actually pursues the data, the effect of human induced climate change becomes obvious.

Just to be clear, consensus on global climate change is clear that it is human induced, and is having measurable effects.

For anyone on the fence about what to believe, I highly recommend the following article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

And if you really want to dig in, data is publicly available

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data

Here's the ice core data

 

[Righteous]

Here's the ice core data

Hope you don’t mind if I produce refutting information.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

Not sure at what point this thread is simply rehashing old arguments that have probably been made elsewhere, but it’s hard to leave misinformation unrefuted for future readers.

Seems like if this thread is going to start running into climate change denial rather than talk about the original article, it should probably be locked.

 

[Ardeus]

Here's the ice core data

I have not been replying directly to your posts and I hope you forgive me about that, it's nothing personal, of course.

This is an issue that is as much worth debating as is the boiling point of water from my perspective.

When I was 3 years old, I didn't believe in the existence of number 3 and no one could persuade me otherwise. In a way, this very old memory helps me to be more tolerant towards believers in flat earth theory and similar thought processes.

 

[WVNed]

Religions require consensus of belief.

Facts exist even if no one knows them.

 

[CubsFan]

Here's the ice core data

I think David Lappi climate and joanne nova.com.au are worth a google for the gang here. This graph is pretty easy to spot.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

This is an issue that is as much worth debating as is the boiling point of water from my perspective.

When I was 3 years old, I didn't believe in the existence of number 3 and no one could persuade me otherwise.

When I was three I could count to 10!

I can now understand the simple physics put forward by the mainstream science to explain the theorised atmospheric changes greenhouse forcing should cause. One of the main, & most important fundamentals of greenhouse gas forced warming theory, & what all the climate models produce, is negative lapse rate feedback in the troposphere. The opposite is what is actually happening in reality, positive lapse rate feedback, & this is proof that the warming since the 1950's is natural, not greenhouse gas forced, & a continuation of the warming trend that began about 300 years ago.

To deny the basic physics shows that the truth is beside the point.

 

[CubsFan]

Religions require consensus of belief.

Facts exist even if no one knows them.

Is this to imply that feelings on climate science is like a religion on both sides, or is it just a one sided argument? Of course science and religion contradict one another, but I think I could see where you're going with that. One way is profound and definitely worth examining. The other way puts you in the same shoes as the people you condemn. My mind is blown. Totally tubular.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Newly published macrofossil discoveries from 4 papers strongly suggest that modern warmth may still be about 3°C colder than nearly all of the last 10,000 years.

and

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America
SebastianLüning
Abstract
The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a climatic perturbation with a core period of 1000-1200 AD that is well-recognized in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Its existence in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) and the level of synchronicity with the NH is still a matter of debate. Here we present a palaeotemperature synthesis for South America encompassing the past 1500 years based on multiproxy data from 76 published land and marine sites. The data sets have been thoroughly graphically correlated and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped. The vast majority of all South American land sites suggest a warm MCA. Andean vegetation zones moved upslope, glaciers retreated, biological productivity in high altitude lakes increased, the duration of cold season ice cover on Andean lakes shortened, and trees produced thicker annual rings. Similar MCA warming occurred in coastal seas, except in the year-round upwelling zones of Peru, northern Chile and Cabo Frio (Brazil) where upwelling processes intensified during the MCA due to changes in winds and ocean currents. MCA warming in South America and the NH appears to have occurred largely synchronous, probably reaching comparable intensities. Future studies will have to address major MCA data gaps that still exist outside the Andes in the central and eastern parts of the continent. The most likely key drivers for the medieval climate change are multi-centennial Pacific and Atlantic oceancycles, probably linked to solar forcing.

honestly,there's so much of this evidence its beyond debate, unless pseudo-science is your thing?

 

[jabberwock]

Wow. We are citing Wikipedia now...

The bold misrepresentation about what science "says" is only surpassed by the misconception of what science is able to say. These so called scientific citations are anything but. Science is a method that produces experimental results that either support a theory, or does not support a theory. This theologicalization of the scientific method to describe an opinion about a perceived phenomenon is absurd. Stop being mean to science, please.

 

[Opus]

Wow. We are citing Wikipedia now...

The bold misrepresentation about what science "says" is only surpassed by the misconception of what science is able to say. These so called scientific citations are anything but. Science is a method that produces experimental results that either support a theory, or does not support a theory. This theologicalization of the scientific method to describe an opinion about a perceived phenomenon is absurd. Stop being mean to science, please.

I agree. I was shocked when I learned you could use Wikipedia as your sole source of information for research papers in school.

 

[Opus]

Religions require consensus of belief.

Facts exist even if no one knows them.

And the Fact is, we can't really do anything about it but maybe slow it down a little.

 

[WVNed]

In the 70s I marveled at the things humans could do. So many awesome things to learn about.

Now I am pretty sure we are going to die from terminal stupidity while we scream at each other.

almost like it was planned

people with slide rules put men on the moon

now people with supercomputers cant figure out if it will rain in 3 days or much if anything else for that matter.

 

[CubsFan]

In the 70s I marveled at the things humans could do. So many awesome things to learn about.

Now I am pretty sure we are going to die from terminal stupidity while we scream at each other.

almost like it was planned

people with slide rules put men on the moon

now people with supercomputers cant figure out if it will rain in 3 days or much if anything else for that matter.