Slashdot Mirror
Climatologists: By 2100, the Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean
merbs writes: The ocean is in the midst of radical, manmade change. It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals. But humans are indeed remaking the ocean, in almost every conceivable way. The ocean we know today—that billions swim, fish, float, and surf in—that vast planetary body of water will be of an entirely different character by the end of the century: hotter, higher, trashier, and more acidic.
I dunno if it's the summary or the article that's trash, but wow. Terrible.
...sounds like a personal problem, to me.
Wormwood ??
hotter, higher, trashier
Are we sure they're not making predictions about the next generation of Kardashians? They're definitely anthropogenic. Maybe we could bury them under millions of black plastic balls .
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships.
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Even Ted Danson predicted that the Oceans would be dead in the 1990's (dead before 2000). https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
Can the folks who predicted this latest disaster be held accountable?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
So what, climate change is systemic and natural. I say let man have a say. Man is a part of nature. Stop pretending we need to break business to steal land on behalf of a doomed species.
It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals.
Why? The oceans have radically changed before due to the actions of microbes. It may have taken them longer but the change were even more dramatic.
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us.
I'd like a hotter ocean. All the better to swim in. And a higher ocean? Well, I live near it but, on higher ground. So, I'm all set. Haaaaaaa haaaaaaaa. Trashier? I doubt we'll notice. And as far as the sea life goes, it will adapt and thrive. And more acidic??? Well, that just means I won't have to buy a stupid lemon to squeeze over my tasty fish exactly 1 inch under the size limit that I took without a fishing license. So, if you'll all excuse me, I have a fuckin TON of mercury thermometers I have to throw at a whale. I'm gonna get one in his fuckin blow hole THIS time. I JUST know it!
Microsoft or Google for the rise in ocean temperatures
or will claim that it was George Bush that caused the problem
Or worse still will look for some lame excuse for why the West Coast of North America is on fire and is going to experience El Nino from hell this year with floods and no snow in the mountians.
I was surprised that the right wing morons didn't jump all over Obama for this statement here on Slashdot, after all what does he know about climate science. Thank heavens he does not get his advice from some of the posters on /. especially about climate change issues or IT tech!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
The sun is the reason for seasons, and solar flares affect climate. But the IPCC had a vote and decided that solar cycles are not responsible so that they can collect billions in carbon taxes and exercise absolute control over every aspect of our lives.
Didn't Al Gore predict that there would be no ice in the Arctic at all by 2014 or something like that? Their models have never been right. They can't even get the weather right 2 weeks from now, so why should ANYONE believe their ridiculous models 50 - 100 years out from now?
Read the NIPCC reports for a real explanation of what the source material of the IPCC reports actually say.
i'm so tired of doom and gloom. Can't scientists ever say nice things?
Slashdot is normally science-aligned. But I am surprised at how Slashdotters suddenly seem to become something akin to flat-earthers when it comes to *scientific consensus* on climate change. I don't recall this community always being like this.
Here I was, enjoying my permafrost in the midwest 1.6 million years ago, and you damn humans warmed that thing up and destroyed my life with all your smoggy gas guzzling SUVs and coal fired power plants!
Oh wait...
Let's see those changes as percentages, and then whether that claim is valid.
what about all that accumalated fish poop?
Vaginal vagina, eh? Are there any other kinds?
Vagina is usually very vaginal. If it ever isn't -- run!
Atheists always believe in things scientifically proven to be wrong but reject the unproven.
I don't believe you. In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave. Is the data real or manipulated?
Face it we just do not have a friggin' clue as to what is actually going to happen as the climate swings wildly with an increased oscillation as the oceans heat up and the poles thaw out. Obviously the more energy you put into the ocean and atmosphere the more the currents will change in unpredictable ways. Like bad computer code with too many variables the possibilities are highly unpredictable.
For one it is entirely possible that increases in global temperatures causing forest fires across the boreal forest zone of the northern hemisphere will put enough particulate into the air that a mini ice age similar to a nuclear winter might happen. We cannot be certain about the outcomes of global warming. BUT we have some evidence that major events that put large amounts of particulate into the atmosphere in a short period of time can and do cause mini ice ages. One occurred in the early 18th century and it lasted about 15 years, caused wars over farm lands and minor starvation in Europe and the Russian Steps. The climate did suddenly become colder in a hurry after a number of large volcanic events, one of which occurred in the Western Canada, basically blocked the suns uv rays for over a year. So it is entirely possible that there is a natural reaction to over heating of the earths atmosphere and crust that can cause high altitude dust that puts a damper on the warming. Call it a pressure relief valve system that we just don't quite understand yet.
Either way if global warming continues the bread basket of the US is in trouble big time because of global warming. The Colorado river is about to experience incredible flooding as El Nino dumps winter monsoons on the Rockies without snow. Flooding can be as bad for the farm economy as drought and what is about to occur is landslides on a monumental scale all over the West Coast of North America.
Either way we are about to pay a terrible price for out ecological greed and stupidity. In a way the coming disasters will finally wake people up but the irony is as people wake up to what fossil fuels have done they very well might be on the verge of having to turn to them even more to save themselves from a mini ice age! The swings in climate will occur in both directions. Here is another sobering thought, the dust from automobile tires and paved road ways will be more than just a problem for aquatic life in drainage systems. I predict that tire dust and road dust in dry climate large cities will become the number one cause of respiratory illness and surpass even smoking in cities like Los Angeles as the number one cause of lung illnesses. Within a few years the smart people will wear dust masks all the time and live in filter air buildings, the poor will just continue to suffer and die in the streets as always. Our combined greed and stupidity will make the black hole of Calcutta look like paradise on earth!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
On to the next article...
interesting
Who gives a shit? Didn't Geffin go on a tirade and a promotional thing telling everyone that it's *already too late* for any changes to stop us from being wiped out by 2030, because of global wa--er.. "climate change"?
"The incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us", is kind of important, don't you think?
I'm quite disappointed in Slashdots readers.
Many of the people who read Slashdot are IT sector workers which means that many of us lead data led lives. We support, manage, process and analyse data irrespective of whether or not it paints a pretty picture.
The information contained in this article is absolutely nothing new at all, most of it has been known since the 1970's. You can not pump carbon into the atmosphere and expect there to be no consequence, much of that carbon is absorbed by the sea converting it to carbonic acid. This isn't news its olds, the difference now is that we can put a date on the likely tipping point for significant change. The data can't be argued with you might as well shout at a brick wall. Science will report on both the data and findings and what it means working with current projections. you may argue about the destination, but the projections are accurate and in-line with expectations. What I would be interested un seeing is the data that projects either a deferment or reversal of change and what the requirements would be.
Be my guest however, complain about how negative it all is while doing nothing about it. Afterall its easy to believe in the la-la fairy its alright alternative than face a reality.
I don't believe you.
Then you're an idiot.
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age,
Nope, never happened. Oooh I see you're confusing journalists in the popular press floundering around with actual science. Do you do that with computer stuff too, or do you only level your skepticism on things you truly don't understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The stupid - it burns!
i wonder what will happen to this city
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Who needs a climate? I have air condition. Sea levels rising? Why should I care, my apartment is at over 1500 feet above sea level, even if all the ice on the planet melted this won't bother me. And I have a gun, so if any of those rich bastards try to escape their flooded beach houses and climb my mountain it's going to be an unpleasant wake up call.
I used to fight in this war. I used to try to convince people that it might be a good idea to at least ponder whether it could be right since, well, if it is, we're fucked 'cause we don't have a spare planet to go to when we screwed the pooch on this one. No longer. Screw this. Go ahead and drive your SUVs, I don't care anymore. Yes, we ruin this planet and maybe, hopefully actually, we make it uninhabitable for our own species.
It can only improve this planet in the long run.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you sick of this yet? Endless bullshit about 'catastrophic man-made global warming', renamed as 'climate change'.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
Actually, even back in the 1970s there were more scientists who were inclined to believe in global warming than in global cooling. It is just that cooling was more interesting to put in the news...
For instance, Global warming was one of the more important topics of the Stockholm Conference in 1972 (the biggest conference on the environment in the 70's) , while global cooling wasn't even hinted at.
Of course not all of the world is warming right now.
Some parts of the world are indeed cooling (temporarily) because of warming having disrupting ocean currents that would otherwise warm those areas, or from warming having caused some areas to be cloudier and/or rainier.
That is why climatologists prefer to use the term "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming".
Beside the effects of carbon compounds in the atmosphere, there is also the effect of increased aerosols from human activity and those do cause a bit of climate change in form of more clouds, which cool. It has been theorized that this had contributed significantly to the Ethiopian famine in the mid-1980s - again, the effect in one part of the system causing a different effect in another. Ethiopia got a draught while another part of Africa got more rain. :-P ) and that is only because how they are artificial clouds - and clouds cool. Back in September 11, 2001, airplanes across the USA were grounded causing the airspace above USA to be clear from condensation trails for the first time in decades - which had a measurable effect on the weather that day. But it was back to "normal" a couple of days later.
But while carbon emissions take thirty or more years to make a measurable difference in the atmosphere, aerosol cooling is very temporary. The white condensation trails from airplanes do contribute to cooling (cue the tin foil hat people
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.
You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.
I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.
Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.
I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.
1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.
2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.
3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.
4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.
5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.
6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Did they factor in how evolution will develop things like plastic eating microbes? If not, then this is more evidence that climatology is nothing more than emotion driven pseudoscience.
I have to say, everytime I visit a beach somewhere it's nigh impossible not to see some garbage littered here and there. Either by visitors or by garbage washed ashore. Back in the 80ies I remember seeing nice beaches without garbage, but I'd bet money that they have become rare in the mean time.
We are fucking up our planet for no good reason - to me there is no doubt about it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It will all be better if Jeremy Corbyn is PM .... oh wait
How many times does climatologists have to predict a doomsday outcome that does not come true? Its almost as bad as the religious zealots who predict the end of the world, or the coming of Christ. The trouble is like the climate savior Al Gore who becomes so delusional and reliant on these predictions for sustainability. That they cannot possibly have a open mind to what might also happen. You see what you want to see, you believe what you want to believe. You skew the facts to justify your position. Its not science, its a religion to many climatologists.
Sounds like college.
~X~
I don't believe you.
Your beliefs make no difference to reality. Are you hoping to fairy wish climate change away? - "timmy you can do it! you just have to believe!"
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Is the data real or manipulated?
I once had a guy here claim that the measured rate of warming was insignificant and posted a link to woodfortrees to prove it. I went and looked. It turns out, he'd carefully selected a narrow band of measures along the equator (where the warming is the least) and excluded the temperate and polar zones to reduce the warming measures. In short he lied.
I pointed this out to him, and he disappeared. Yet I have seen, several times, the same link re-appear.
So: who is manipulating data?
I was afraid you'd forgotten my daily Climate Change (TM) FUD article! Thank God, I almost lost my indoctrination!
Dire predictions...but now?
It's been clear for many years that a new human-caused, non-falsifiable future environmental apocalypse hypothesis is needed.
"I don't believe you."
"Then you're an idiot."
=======
And there, folks, is the attitude that The True Believers have towards anyone who questions their religion/hypothesis/politics, despite the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They definitely don't have the latter, so responses are as above or 'shut up' or 'fuck off' or...
Renewables work NOW and build up faster and are cheaper than nukes.
But let me ask this: if we move balls-out for nuclear, does that include Iran and North Korea? If not, then we can't use nuclear: you admit it is too dangerous.
Nuclear only starts producing when 100% complete. Wind and solar can work as soon as you get the first generator hooked to the grid.
We don't have time to wait for nuclear to be built, never mind the "next generation, totally safe, honest, and not like we said about last generation, really" nuclear to be perfected.
I like you. You're one of the few reality-based posters here.
Looks like we have two idiots!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That is change we can believe in!
OK, so now I just need to know *which* unproven thing to believe in, right? Every culture, every period in history has had their version of unproven stuff. Oh which to believe?
Zeus? Thor? Jupiter? Loki?
Tell me, you seem to think you have insight here?
hotter, higher, trashier, and more acidic
The obsession with the belief that there are ideal environmental conditions is a Sisyphean task. And I'm convinced that the people behind it want it that way because it keeps the masses from rising above their current station in life. Case in point: why aren't the people opposed to the use of Golden Rice being called racists eight ways to Sunday?
Just think, we are along for the ride since we now know the real data, that noaa, nasa and amos have been falsifying and tampering data, and so any and all climate change is overwhelmingly natural and not man caused.
What a ride, indeed. Who would've thunk we'd be subjected to the greatest, most infamous corruption scandal in the history of man.
>In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
>
>They were wrong.
There's been 18 years with no warming. That's well over half of the satellite record.
"there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide increases and adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature record. And these adjustments to the surface data in turn result in large divergences between surface data sets and satellite data sets."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
The more CO2, the more they fudge the temp data upwards!
Truly it's anthropogenic warming.
I'm scared of the 18-year Pause.
What if the climate doesn't ever start changing again??
Ah Wikipedia... the best place to get yer climate science hue hue hue
The divergence between the Sat data and the various temp station sets is steadily growing. Sat temps continue to show a flat temp trend.
Land based temp sets contain a not insignificant amount of interpolated temps and unexplained "adjustments".
Since Land Based temps are continually meddled with for reasons which are never really made clear, it is safe to say that they are unreliable at best, fraudulent at worst.
Just like decreasing ice-caps, sea-level rises, and increasingly chaotic weather. And threatening changes in major ocean currents .. like the atlantic conveyor belt (see e.g. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo...).
And they could be mand-made to ... and in all probability are. Except in the US of course. There they're just "God hugging us closer".
here we go again with the dire climate change proclamations. This is nothing more than an excuse to gin up more research money. The only "evidence" they have comes from highly suspect computer models that can be twisted this way or that to reach whatever conclusion furthers your agenda.
I also believe that there is an underlying anti-capitalism thread that blames all of this supposed climate change on human progress.
Are there things we can do to cause less pollution? Of course and we should be that where it is practical. I want to live in a clean world as much as the next person does.
Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and relax. The world is not going to end tomorrow, despite predictions to the contrary.
And there, folks, is the attitude that The True Believers have towards anyone who questions their religion/hypothesis/politics, despite the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They definitely don't have the latter, so responses are as above or 'shut up' or 'fuck off' or...
You are confusing "extraordinary claims" with "extraordinary impacts". One is a scientific term, the other an economic term. The fact that CO2 will acidify the ocean is elementary school chemistry (my kid did a science fair project to demonstrate it in 5th grade). It really isn't rocket science. The impact on the ocean food chain is also very well documented (which is what the article is about), but it is not an extreme claim - it was predicted back in the mid 1800s and wasn't particularly controversial then.
To give a completely different example, an asteroid impact destroying civilisation is not a extraordinary claim if you have any familiarity with the fossil record and basic mechanics, but it would certainly have an extraordinary um impact.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/apocalypse_then.html
You really do want Albedo Modification, don't you? Heathen trash.
If science is correct and climate change is real and is being caused by humans, then doing something about it means everybody gets to live. If the climate change deniers are wrong, then everything dies.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
What none of these dire predictions seem to take into account is that climate change should open up new areas where plants, coral reefs etc. can grow. 10,000 years ago the planet was in the grip of an ice age. Much of northern Europe and North America was underneath a giant ice sheet which melted. As the climate warmed the regions favourable for plants moved and species started growing in different areas as the climate changed. The problem with man-made climate change is that it might happen a lot faster than most natural change (except for volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes etc. which are even faster). Life has survived all of these disasters and it will survive man-made climate change as will we (unless we do something really stupid like start a nuclear war) but it might be very unpleasant.
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
The Permian-Triassic extinction event didn't just kill of 90% of all life. It killed of 90% of all species - that is, it killed off 100% of 90% of species. Of the remaining 10%, it killed off 99% of some species, 98% of others, and so on. It was frighteningly close to sterilizing the planet.
Humans do have the capability to actually do that - sterilize the planet. It's highly unlikely, but possible if the entire world economy were dedicated to that - and it could be, as a side effect, because of two important effects:
This means there will be a steadily growing number of people who are willing and able to do an increasing amount of damage in pursuit of their own goals, and if those goals result in hugely profitable corporations that can influence (or ignore) government policy throughout the world, extinction of all life could then become the main product of nearly all human activity. And humans are pretty good at accomplishing their goals.
To be fair, at some point the consequences will be obvious and the number of people willing to continue will fall. But that's as likely to be too late as not - see Rapa Nui (Easter Island) for what tends to happen then. And see Venus for how bad it could get.
This is disingenuous and you know it. It's like pointing back at that one oddly warm day back in February and saying "it hasn't gotten any warmer since then!".
Especially When fucktards like BP intentionally poison our ocean with oil, and the US government uses HAARP against japan to cause earthquakes on nuclear reactors.
We will have our new world order.
Hogwash, "the polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson.
The the leading "authority" on "man made global warming" was the IPCC. The IPCC's hockey stick graph was totally discredited as junk science and the data Was completely manipulated to push the Rothchild Agenda
It's funny how repeat what CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC tells you like a good little parrot. Except all of your evidence has been discredited as junk science.
So: who is manipulating the data now?
Enjoy your hockey stick graph shill :)
By 2100, Earth will have entirely different climatologists.
And yet you copy-paste the same strawman of lies and deceptions.
The fact is that most of what 'climate science' predicted hasn't come to pass. The models they created are terrible at prediction, and have failed to match reality. Some individuals have taken to making absurd claims, promoting extreme theories, or suing everyone that dares to disagree.
Mann's Hockeystick is false, and even other climate scientists are embarrassed by his continued attempts to justify it.
Cook's '97%' falsehood has been thoroughly debunked.
Lewandowsky's multiple papers attacking skeptics as crazy are flat out fraud, so bad that they had to be withdrawn.
Science works when it is just science - numbers, testing, and objective verification. When you allow politicians and activists to run your movement, it's going to turn into garbage.
Assuming this 'apocalypse de jour' actually comes to pass, we will slam into it with eyes wide open. The tragedy of the commons has been a well-understood and ignored concept for hundreds of years. Until mankind intellectually outgrows its collectivist, communal evolutionary past and the legacy infatuation with community ownership we will continue to individually pollute that which is unowned.
Here is a global mean for you then......
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
Bullshit.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
These fake scientists continue to produce these warnings. This summer of 2015 was set to have NYC under water, prediction made in 2008. Enjoy: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example). Guess what the most dominant species is today? Humans.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Silence, piece of heathen buffoon!
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/apocalypse_then.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
The Republicans hate the Earth and want to see it destroyed.
Yeah, yeah, and the Democrats all have wings and play harps, we get it.
Get lost, you partisan fool.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Her we go again:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/apocalypse_then.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
(You shall have your physically unjustified Albedo Annihilation Gehenna, thankfully it is morally justified, you filthy porn sucker).
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Yes but my point is that there is no evidence provided that this will happen. If you look at one region of the ocean, throw in your climate change model and come up with a prediction that none of the species living there now will survive then you do not have enough evidence to conclude that all life in the oceans will die.
To conclude that all life in the ocean will die you need to also check to make sure that the new conditions are not favourable to other species which might not be present in that region at the moment but which might move there if the conditions changed. Hence my point: conditions have changed in the past and life has adapted to them, not by evolution but by relocating, if you do not factor this in then you cannot conclude that the oceans will die.
Gonna spread this:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/apocalypse_then.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
Atheists are human trash. They are the stubble of the brazen altar. The fire must burn, it won't ever be quenched.
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example).
Only there are two flaws with that. First the dinosaurs did not go extinct and are still around today only smaller and with a different name: birds. Secondly we have one evolutionary advantage: intelligence. This lets us adapt far, far more rapidly to change than evolution and may even help reverse climate change: either by reducing our environmental impact or by geo-engineering.
Climate change is a concern but one that stops far short of the end of life on earth. It may cause massive disruption, a drop in the standard of living etc. but the extinction of all humans? That's an extraordinary claim without anything approaching extraordinary evidence to support it.
By 2100, the Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Climatologists.
The Club of Rome, founded in 1968, is an “environmental” group of, by and for the elitists who want control of earth, its peoples and resources. Indeed, elitism at its height was expressed through the Club of Rome when it published in 1991 that “mankind itself” was the enemy, and man’s usage of resources its destructive weapon against the planet
Of course their "predictions" 30 years ago have the planet coastlines flooded, world starvation, "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! "
Who would get "rich" on carbon credits?!?!
They are becoming acidic. Not they ARE acidic. If you don't know what that means, the problem isn't in the science, it's between your ears.
I have twenty years working in databases and I can't think what could possibly qualify me to understand climatology.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
What is the fucking point of it all? Let the world burn, because none of this, including you, me, the ice caps, our children, our civilization, none of it means anything. There is no god, no afterlife, no FTL travel, no way to get off Earth, no way to avoid the sun going red giant let alone the inevitable heat death of the universe. When we die, that is it--just non-existence. It is all the same, regardless of what we do. None of our efforts mean anything in the medium to long term, so fuck climate change. I'm going to live how I want to live, because ultimately, that's all that matters. And when we're all dead, then nothing matters.
It's unnecessary to pedantically interpret "the oceans will die" as "100.000% of all life in the oceans will die" although I appreciate it does grant you licence to rattle off on a pointless tangent.
We couldn't exterminate all life in Earth's oceans if we tried. That doesn't mean that the ocean can't "die" for all intents and purposes; imagine if plankton began dying out. Naturally something else will step straight into its place.. unless it doesn't.
Earth's oceans are under a range of increasing anthropomorphic pressures. Some of these pressures are suppressing organisms whilst others flourish to the detriment of the oceans' biodiversity.
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Simple answer: MONEY!
BS. There screaming was loud from the usual crowd back then, just about everywhere, not just in a couple of magazines.
But that global mean shows nearly 1 degree of warming over a century...
There's been 18 years with no warming.
Stop lying. Do you think we don't have the temperature records?
The Cuyahoga River was polluted enough it caught fire at least twice.
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
True, it is possible to conceive of such a possibility. What is lacking is evidence that such a possibility is at all likely. If you want to make an extraordinary claim like that then you need extraordinary evidence to back it up. Previous climate changes have not caused the oceans to die so why is the recent climate change is so much different to past events some of which, like volcanic eruptions, have happened on very short time scales.
OK, fine. Unlike religion, science is open to being questioned. Go learn all you can learn, and prove your point through experimentation, or prove to yourself that you're wrong in the process. Speculation is just pissing in the wind.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
You are absolutely right. As the earth warms up, the zones where different plants and animals can live will shift. Would you prefer to live in a world where you can show your children the trees you grew up with? How about the food you grew up with? Growing zones for arable farmland move too. Do you really want to see the midwest or Californian crops fail? Or rather, given that Californian farmers are screaming for water that isn't coming, do you really want to see food riots in the first world? Do you love oil more than life itself?
And yet you copy-paste the same strawman of lies and deceptions.
Yep, I've standardised a response to climate denier liespew questioning the reliability of climate science. Suck it up.
The fact is that most of what 'climate science' predicted hasn't come to pass. The models they created are terrible at prediction, and have failed to match reality
You're lying again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Lying again.
Where were "the usual crowd" and your evidence that "the screaming was loud" and it was "just about everywhere"?
Because that claim is bollocks. The only usual crowd screaming loudly just about everywhere are you morons screaming about how everyone was screaming about an ice age in the 70's. Screaming it out everywhere is not proof it happened, dearie.
Because, you know, all those critters that managed to survive those more acidic seas are all dead, right? So the current critters will have to evolve back to the previous point within a handful of generations of shrimp to withstand the changes.
Hell, why not evolve ourselves? Mankind in the past used to be just fine out in the winter snow with only their pelt to keep them warm. So why worry about cutting coal power stations leading to freezing people dying in winter, just evolve back to be able to survive!
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Yes but my point is that there is no evidence provided that this will happen. If you look at one region of the ocean, throw in your climate change model and come up with a prediction that none of the species living there now will survive then you do not have enough evidence to conclude that all life in the oceans will die. Of course not all life in the ocean will die. The question is will it change enough that we wll die?
That being said, I have no doubt t all that humanity will destroy itself one way or another, Whether it be through some of us agitating and wishing for it, like the "rapture me and to hell with the rest of y'all " types, or the inability of most of us to see 6 inches beyond our noses, or mankind's intense desire to kill other humans ends up taking us out. Maybe a combination of all three.
But unless we manage to completely sterilize the entire planet, life of some sort will survive. Perhaps eventually thrive, and at some point it will wonder about that thin global radioactive layer in the ground,
Now eat, drink, and be merry folks.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Kind of shows how unappreciative you are for what you've been given. That you would just say 'fuck it, people suck.' So, if people suck, stop sucking. There is no universe where you will prove that green house gases are a good thing. You're in denial. At least the Christians appreciate the earth, in theory anyway.
I thank climate change. It melted all those big unsightly glaciers.
Yes you're right - denialists are swindlers. Thanks for sharing.
Kind of shows how unappreciative you are for what you've been given.
You gotta clue me in there AC - what exactly have I been given?
That you would just say 'fuck it, people suck.' So, if people suck, stop sucking.
This is getting weird. There is no way, shape or form that I can eliminate the human nature in humans. Maybe you shouold ask them to stop sucking. Regardless, My comments were on the inherent properties of humans, not an any suckle they may have.
There is no universe where you will prove that green house gases are a good thing.
The heat retention nature of the so called greenhouse gases are critical to life. They are necessary to help regulate the insolation we receive, keep the earth warm enough to support life, and are an important factor in making life as we know it possible.
Now too much of greenhouse gas percentage in the atmosphere is a different story. Esspecially at the rate we're pumping it into it. We're taking a lot of carbon that was sequester over aeons, and releasing it as CO2 very rapidly. A lot of life forms on earth today may not survive. One of them might be homo sapiens sapiens.
You're in denial. At least the Christians appreciate the earth, in theory anyway.
Quite the theory. Most I know, and the ones I was raised with were more in line with this fine fellow:
http://kevincraig.us/dominion....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In the 1960's the scientists were talking of the coming man-made Ice Age. In the 2000's to now, we hear of Global Warming, turning PC to be "Climate Change". Check the records and we surprisingly find "CHANGE HAPPENS". Ice melts. Ice forms. Oceans go UP and DOWN more than just tidal changes. Continents move and oceans change in it all. Some life adapts. Some doesn't and goes away. Few living today will see 2100, but we all need to have a health, but not alarmed concern. ... If you need to go to the store and get groceries, or go to work, DO IT. Make local decisions that effect global systems. That includes electing 'reasonable individuals' to political office. Be a good consumer (buy what you need, but don't over do it ... insist on sustainable packaging, agriculture, etc, etc). Be a good steward of what God gives you (no matter what name, if any, you give to Him).
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
you assholes can't even "stop at the red light"
you think you're going to clever your way out of a mass extinction?
Unfortunately this is not the case. As the ocean acidifies it becomes harder and harder for coral and shellfish and many plankton to grow. This affects everything in the ocean. It's not just the ocean temperature that's changing.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
http://www.newser.com/story/18...
What utter crap.
Birds may or may not have evolved from dinosaurs, but that does not make them dinosaurs for any reasonable definition of bird or dinosaur. Perhaps you also think that whales are land mammals.
If there was not some significant event in the past there would be no reason for these small feathered derivatives to survive while the actual dinos died out. I get that it's fun for misinformed science teachers to throw in the erroneous "birds are dinosaurs" factoid along with "centrifugal force doesn't exist" and "glass is liquid" for wide-eyed students but let's leave it there. To state that a particular class of life has survived by pointing to a far-removed derivative is a cop out and adds nothing useful to discussions about extinction.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Secondly we have one evolutionary advantage: intelligence.
I see you've never worked at a helpdesk ...
> The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes
That's great. And where do all the species or civilisations that didn't survive the changes, and are therefore not now on the planet fit in to your worldview?
If science is correct and climate change is real and is being caused by humans, then doing something about it means everybody gets to live. If the climate change deniers are wrong, then everything dies.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
Yeah, but those species that died during each of those changes are no longer on this planet. Even those that survived all but one.
The balanced, objective look at climate change exists and has for years. You not finding it or even looking for it (as it's not difficult to find) seems to indicate you're not honestly interested in reading it. Or you are inept at using the internet. You choose.
What none of these dire predictions seem to take into account is that climate change should open up new areas where plants, coral reefs etc. can grow.
Yeah, no one has looked into that at all. Maybe you can help out on the next set of IPCC reports.