Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What Do Climate Scientists Really Know?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientistsdiscover the biggest seaweed bloom in the world:

From Phys.Org:(https://phys.org/news/2019-07-scientists-biggest-seaweed-bloom-world.html) [N.B. I find the newest version of WordPress almost impossible to work with. There is no correlation between the commands they tell you to use and what actually happens. This might be the last post I post here. There’s no way I can set up a link. Impossible. ]

Scientists led by the USF College of Marine Science used NASA satellite observations to discover the largest bloom of macroalgae in the world called the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt (GASB), as reported in Science.

They confirmed that the belt of brown macroalgae called Sargassum forms its shape in response to ocean currents, based on numerical simulations. It can grow so large that it blankets the surface of the tropical Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa to the Gulf of Mexico. This happened last year when more than 20 million tons of it—heavier than 200 fully loaded aircraft carriers—floated in surface waters and some of which wreaked havoc on shorelines lining the tropical Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and east coast of Florida.

Well, where did this come from? Was it the heat? No.

The team identified key factors that are critical to bloom formation: a large seed population in the winter left over from a previous bloom, nutrient input from West Africa upwelling in winter, and nutrient input in the spring or summer from the Amazon River. In addition, Sargassum only grows well when salinity is normal and surface temperatures are normal or cooler.

Did you say ‘cooler’ Oh, my! Those darn satellites. Not only do they point out algal blooms that no one’s noticed before, they also show that temperatures are staying steady, or are even declining, over the last twenty years so.

Well now that we’ve spotted them, what about these newly discovered algal blooms? How do they affect ‘global warming”?

This, from Ecology.com:

It is estimated that marine plants produce between 70 and 80 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Nearly all marine plants are single celled, photosynthetic algae. Yup, that’s right, good ol’ scum on the pond…green gak…..slip slimein’ away. Even marine seaweed is many times colonial algae. They are a bunch of single cells trying to look like a big plant, but they are really individuals.

We need marine algae a whole lot more than they need us. Think about it, 70 percent to 80 percent of all the oxygen we breathe comes from algae! Without them we would really be sucking wind, but not for long! At this point, you may be saying, “Yo! What about the trees and other land plants?” Trees and other land plants are very important, no doubt about it. But for pure survival, we couldn’t make it without algae.

Why does so much of our oxygen come from algae? First of all, remember that the oceans cover about 71 percent of this planet and land is only about 29 percent. If we assume that every square mile of the ocean produces as much oxygen as every square mile of land, then this makes sense. The oceans would produce about 71 percent and the land 29 percent of the oxygen we breathe. Looks like we are in the ballpark, don’t you think?

So, we’re told that humans add 4% to the total carbon cycle taking place. We’re also told that algal blooms amont to 70 to 80% of oxygen produced. This means that algal blooms might perhaps ‘absorb’ 70 to 80% of atmospheric carbon dioxide. But, actually, there are various kinds of ‘sinks’ other than these blooms when it comes to carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, algal blooms must represent a very high percentage of the planet’s overal uptake of carbon dioxide. This means that this discovery, by itself, has the potential of easily offsetting the 4% humans add to the normal carbon cycle.

If so, then there’s nothing to be alarmed about. Nor, is there reason to spend perhaps a 100 trillion dollars to ‘combat’ supposed ‘warming’—except, of course, to make rich people even richer as they sell the ‘world’ their newly constructed ‘lifesavers.’ “Buy our lifesavers or you will perish.”

The claims of climate alarmists now seem to border on buffoonery. There are so many unknowns that undercut the models they’ve set up. As they say, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous things.”

Comments
The following is a graph which is the result of study carried out by a team of Australian researchers. https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/post-glacial_sea_level-incl-3-mm-yr-1-trend.png “Dr Katharine Grant, from the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, who led the study, says: “The really fast rates of sea-level rise typically seem to have happened at the end of periods with exceptionally large ice sheets, when there was two or more times more ice on the Earth than today.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/26/study-finds-global-sea-levels-rose-up-to-5-meters-per-century-at-the-end-of-the-last-5-ice-ages/ "So boys and girls what do we see when we look at this graph? When were the sea levels rising the fastest? Long ago just after the end of the last ice age or more recently after mankind began polluting the environment with ugly, sooty smelly carbon-- C-O-2!" (The teacher, unfortunately, doesn’t tell her students the truth that CO2 is a tasteless, colorless and odorless naturally occurring gas but to be loyal her cause “to save the planet” she has to lie.) The point is that if you honestly and objectively look at the graph sea live rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution just a few hundred years ago you can see its been anything but catastrophic. Indeed, it has risen because the level has been rising for the last 20,000 years. The ice age was not caused by mankind. Its ending was not caused by mankind. Those are the FACTS, and you don’t need a Ph.D. to understand the facts.john_a_designer
July 10, 2019
July
07
Jul
10
10
2019
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Stole This Comment From Someone Else: "Treating hypothetical scenarios about the future as if they are real today is a clinical description of psychotic delusion. Lets not mince words. These people are mentally ill and could benefit from treatment." Andrewasauber
July 9, 2019
July
07
Jul
9
09
2019
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Here’s a key question: Are the rising levels of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere really bad? The following article argues NO.
In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States… There should have been no surprise about this news. Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food… Yet this never gets mentioned. In their desperation to keep the fearmongering on track the activists who make a living off the climate change scare do their best to ignore this inconvenient truth… (Emphasis added.)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/global-greening-is-happening-faster-than-climate-change-and-its-a-good-thing/ It never gets mentioned because the true motivation behind man-caused-climate-change narrative is political not scientific. PS It should be obvious to anyone who has studied the science that CO2 is not only natural but necessary for the existence of life on earth.john_a_designer
July 9, 2019
July
07
Jul
9
09
2019
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
This so-called debate over the climate really comes down to hard data vs. theoretical projections of future climatic trends based on faulty (garbage-in/ garbage-out) computer models. Here’s a graph that plots “real time” satellite and weather balloon data of actual global temperatures vs. the 102 of the U.N.’s IPCC CMIP-5 computer projection models. https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg Notice that the average of all the computer models show run away global warming while the real data does not. Has there been some warming? Yes. We’re still coming out of the last ice age. BTW that’s also why sea levels have continued to rise. However, if you look objectively at sea levels for the last 10,000 years it has slowed down dramatically. That means it’s not rising as dramatically as the “climatistas” want you to believe. Is the real data the basis for draconian changes in environmental policy and law? Hardly. Here is an article that goes along with the graph above: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/john_a_designer
July 8, 2019
July
07
Jul
8
08
2019
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
BB, Since you seem to believe anything and everything in the media about the climate crisis, I have few questions for you: 1. Has every claim seen in the media related to the climate crisis over the last decade or so been absolutely true? 2. Have you changed your lifestyle at all because of the climate crisis and do you think these changes have had any impact on the global climate? 3. Do you have any climate crisis skeptics in your group of friends? Andrewasauber
July 8, 2019
July
07
Jul
8
08
2019
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
1) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
And the earth is becoming greener because of it.
2) the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere attributed to fossil fuels is also increasing.
And the earth is becoming greener because of it.
3) therefore fossil fuels are largely responsible for the increased atmospheric CO2.
therefore fossil fuels are largely responsible for the increasing greenET
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
PaV
I think they calculate the amount of anthropogenic CO2 using formulas involving fossil fuels, and not much more.
It’s actually quite simple. 1) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. 2) the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere attributed to fossil fuels is also increasing. 3) therefore fossil fuels are largely responsible for the increased atmospheric CO2.Brother Brian
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
mimus:
So, if you have some hopeful scheme about undiscovered sinks soaking up our emissions you have to deal with the fact our emissions more than explain all of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
CO2 is such a minor GHG that we would have to worry about the inability to breathe the air rather than any alleged warming it causes.ET
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
It's pretty simple. Year-on-year two thing happen (a) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases (b) Humans release a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossiled carbon I'm saying 'b', the amount we release, is considerably greated than 'a'. That, as you link points out, is because the ocean absorbs a decent amount of our emissions, lowering the pH as it does so. So, if you have some hopeful scheme about undiscovered sinks soaking up our emissions you have to deal with the fact our emissions more than explain all of the increase in atmospheric CO2.Mimus
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Brother Brian: I think they calculate the amount of anthropogenic CO2 using formulas involving fossil fuels, and not much more. If the ocean absorbs, then the effect of this CO2 is mitigated--which is what I argue for here. So, I'm still not sure what is meant; and so, not in a position to respond.PaV
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Plant Moar Trees
The restoration of trees remains among the most effective strategies for climate change mitigation.
and Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study FindsET
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
PaV@22, I think that Mimus is saying that we put more into the atmosphere than actually stays there because some of it gets absorbed by the ocean.Brother Brian
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Mimus: I can't decipher this statement: "Human emissions are greater than the extra added to the atmosphere because ~40% of them are absorbed by the ocean instead." Can you elaborate?PaV
July 7, 2019
July
07
Jul
7
07
2019
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
The UAH satellite-based temps of the global lower atmosphere show only about a 0.5F increase over some arbitrary level. The hottest years correlate with el ninos.ET
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
LOL "One thing that climate scientists know",,, Well one thing climate scientists certainly don't know is how to model the climate accurately:
Climate models are fudged, says climatologist – Video Anthony Watts / 4 days ago July 2, 2019 Dr. Patrick Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist has some strong comments about climate models during an interview with Mark Levin: “It is nowhere near as warm as it’s ‘supposed’ to be,” says climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. “The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors.” There are 32 different computer models used to predict the climate, all of them run by government entities. And all of those models, except for the Russian model, are predicting far, far too much warming. The Russian model pretty much matches reality. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/02/climate-models-are-fudged-says-climatologist-video/
bornagain77
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
I mean... there's no contradiction at all. Human emissions are greater than the extra added to the atmosphere because ~40% of them are absorbed by the ocean instead.Mimus
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Groovamos @ 7
So please tell us, there must have been proof for you to believe that human activity is the cause of climate change. You know something more substantial than a propaganda website
I have no specialist knowledge in this field. I find the weight of evidence supports the contention that human activities are contributing to the current overall global warming trend. I cited just a few examples in my previous post. If you want to dismiss a NASA website as propaganda that's up to you but we can all play conspiracy theory games. For example, we can look at how many denialists have fossil fuel industry connections or how much money the fossil fuel industry is pouring into the coffers of denialist advocacy groups and individuals. We can ask if the fossil fuel industries are more likely to be concerned with catastrophic climate changes that may be decades away or with their corporate bottom lines in the here and now. We can look at the similarities between climate change denialism that is in the interests of the fossil fuel industries and the previous health effects denialism by the tobacco industry. I can understand that some people resent being told what to do by what they see as remote, unaccountable scientific and/or government elites - especially if some of them are foreign. What I don't understand is why they are not similarly outraged by the possibility of the heath and lives being put at risk by giant corporations who only care about what affects their profits.Seversky
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
mimus:
One thing that climate scientists know is that human CO2 emissions are greater than the total amount added to the atmosphere.
CO2 absorbs and emits in 3 different frequencies. Only two of those have any relevance to infrared and only one of those two is significant. 92% of the IR earth emits is invisible to CO2. GHG emission spectra- notice how little CO2 contributes.ET
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Mimus:
One thing that climate scientists know is that human CO2 emissions are greater than the total amount added to the atmosphere.
How about this?
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere
How do you square these two statements? Yours and the one from a website. BTW, 29 gigatons is 4% of 790 gigatons. So, this algal bloom won't touch human produced CO2? Does human produced CO2 have a marking on it so that the algal bloom won't 'inhale' it?PaV
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Mimus, don’t you just hate isotope ratios? :)Brother Brian
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
One thing that climate scientists know is that human CO2 emissions are greater than the total amount added to the atmosphere. So, whatever sinks are operating, they aren't mopping up our emissions.Mimus
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
I'm working my way through this right now: https://en.support.wordpress.com/editors/post-and-page-screen/PaV
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
KF: I just read through your post, and what you're describing doesn't come close to anything I get when I'm trying to compose. In one of the 'help' boxes, it says that to enter a link, press CTRL + K. When I do, I get a google search box. Based on what you've written, I'm going to try out a few options and see what happens. Thanks again.PaV
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Thanks to both News and KF for helping me out. The real problem is that I can't find a tutorial on how to post. Everything seems to surround those constructing blogs--which makes sense, but what about posting? Do either of you know if a tutorial strictly for those attempting to post exists? I suspect not, or you would have given me a link; but, I ask anyway. Again, thanks. And, yes, KF, the "blocks" part has me completely buffaloed. What I especially miss are those commands at the top of the entry box. Alas. I've certainly learned to be more careful with what I'm doing in the new post box.PaV
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
PaV, I hope you won't desert us on account of new WordPress. Just post the link and people can copy it. I bury my links using a system so old it hardly bears thinking of but always converts: But I'd need to send you the code. It always converts.News
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
P
Because the city sewer system was emitting parts per billion of phosphorus which might have helped to increase algae in a downstream lake. This is crazy by any standard, but doubly crazy because it specifically increases CO2.
You should really learn how treatment systems like wetlands work. They reduce nutrient loading to rivers, lakes and oceans, preventing algal blooms and eutrophication. They reduce CO2 by acting as a carbon sink (growth of algae and other water plants as well as trees along their borders). They reduce potential pathogens, which allows you to use that downstream lake for recreational purposes. They provide habitats for fish, birds, turtles, etc.Brother Brian
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Here are some middle-of-the-road thoughts on climate change; between the two extremes: https://www.ngtimes.ca/thoughts-and-balance-on-climate-change/Fasteddious
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Seversky: I’d say that sounds more like grasping at straws. So please tell us, there must have been proof for you to believe that human activity is the cause of climate change. You know something more substantial than a propaganda website. Can you share that (irrefutable?) proof, you know for that real personal conviction? And do you share the belief that a "thing" so to speak (this ultra-amorphous "thing" labelled "change") causes another, secondary "thing" (drought, wildfires) and at the same time causes a diametrically opposite "thing" (severe flooding) and that "science" can tell us when exactly that secondary "thing" will be which of the diametric opposites? Here in Texas we had a severe drought in 2011 and severe flooding in 2017 so it would be great if either theory, or scientific computer models can give us the scientific principle of opposites being caused by the same "thing" and when in the future this "thing" acts and which exactly of the opposite "things" it will trigger. Oh and sometime between days of my youth and now it has been discovered that severe cold in North America is caused by warm weather, as reported every cold snap by the media. Can you indicate the source of that discovery?groovamos
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
A useful climate perspective: https://wattsupwiththat.com/kairosfocus
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Hi PaV, I hear you on your frustrations with blocks-based WP. I don't like it too, though it seems it is imposed because of the dominance of smart phones etc. A lot is lost. To get a link, while typing, select the text. A bubble should appear, including a chain symbol. Click it and paste or type in the link. To get images, when you hit return and get a block, there will be some icons for quotes, images and YT vids. Click images and follow the pop up dialogue. Similarly, for vids from YT (a bit too restrictive, but what to say). The quotes will put a bar, paste in the quoted text. To get around this mess, I suggest composing in say Kompozer and copy-pasting in then using add blocks to get images and vids. Beware, quotes lock out a lot of features. We need MORE posts from you, not fewer! KF PS: Amazingly, Blogger is now more flexible than WP!kairosfocus
July 6, 2019
July
07
Jul
6
06
2019
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply