Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[MT LeConte]

The oceans are really really really big, eh?
I mean REALLY BIG!

http://www.zmescience.com/science/oceanography/fish-stocks-ocean-20012016/

..."The bad thing about it is that in the end everyone will lose. Fish stocks have already gone down massively, fleets will have lower and lower yields, fish will become more expensive and ultimately, the market will probably collapse with the fish stocks."...

And

Scientists Say Only 10%
Of All Big Ocean Fish Left

..."LONDON (Reuters) - Large predatory fish -- marlin, tuna and swordfish -- are disappearing from the world's oceans, [BOLD] with their numbers down by 90 percent in the past 50 years[/BOLD], Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.

"From giant blue marlin to mighty blue fin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean," said Ransom Myers, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Canada.

"There is no blue frontier left."...

but what they aren't accounting for is Fukishima's continuing radiation releases and its eventual effects of Pacific fisheries.

Monday May 29, 2017
Fukushima Radiation Makes Landfall On U.S. West Coast- And It is Only The Beginning

..."Seaborne Cesium 134, a radioactive isotope released by the 2011 Fukushima disaster, has been detected on the US’ Pacific coast for the first time by independent researchers

After the catastrophic triple meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011,"...

..."It is incredible that a nuclear disaster that has leaked 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean every day for the last five years could have no effect on the massive environmental crisis unfolding before our eyes."...

But then we have those who bury their head in the sand ..uh..erm..in this case...water, calling others "Chicken Little".

Its cumulative. Our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for ALL our excesses. I suspect there will be generations in the not too distant future who look back on these times with hatred.

They'll have few choices, if any, of fresh wild fish. There will be little if any rainforests left. The climate will be like hell.

But aint no seven mile deep hole gonna hurt thuh arth. Eh bubba?

Yes, the oceans are very very big. But most of the things that live in it actually live in very small portions of it. Fish and other wildlife are very scarce in most areas and are concentrated around reefs, shelfs, shallows and near land masses.

 

[MG1968]

Im sorry what is the relevance of this?

Bird deaths apparently only matter when it suits a particular agenda.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

The oceans are really really really big, eh?
I mean REALLY BIG!

http://www.zmescience.com/science/oceanography/fish-stocks-ocean-20012016/

..."The bad thing about it is that in the end everyone will lose. Fish stocks have already gone down massively, fleets will have lower and lower yields, fish will become more expensive and ultimately, the market will probably collapse with the fish stocks."...

And

Scientists Say Only 10%
Of All Big Ocean Fish Left

..."LONDON (Reuters) - Large predatory fish -- marlin, tuna and swordfish -- are disappearing from the world's oceans, [BOLD] with their numbers down by 90 percent in the past 50 years[/BOLD], Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.

"From giant blue marlin to mighty blue fin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean," said Ransom Myers, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Canada.

"There is no blue frontier left."...

but what they aren't accounting for is Fukishima's continuing radiation releases and its eventual effects of Pacific fisheries.

Monday May 29, 2017
Fukushima Radiation Makes Landfall On U.S. West Coast- And It is Only The Beginning

..."Seaborne Cesium 134, a radioactive isotope released by the 2011 Fukushima disaster, has been detected on the US’ Pacific coast for the first time by independent researchers

After the catastrophic triple meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011,"...

..."It is incredible that a nuclear disaster that has leaked 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean every day for the last five years could have no effect on the massive environmental crisis unfolding before our eyes."...

But then we have those who bury their head in the sand ..uh..erm..in this case...water, calling others "Chicken Little".

Its cumulative. Our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for ALL our excesses. I suspect there will be generations in the not too distant future who look back on these times with hatred.

They'll have few choices, if any, of fresh wild fish. There will be little if any rainforests left. The climate will be like hell.

But aint no seven mile deep hole gonna hurt thuh arth. Eh bubba?

My dad told me back in the 70's, we would run out of oil in 20 years. The world could not survive doing the same things. Every generation thinks the next is going to be screwed. Here we have the almighty scientists making their predictions. Which mean about as much as the finest outhouse wallpaper you can buy.

Nobody, and I mean nobody knows whats going to happen in the future. With the climate, the oceans or anything. If you believe otherwise, then you are a fool.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Bird deaths apparently only matter when it suits a particular agenda.

Well whatever the hell you're talking about I showed facts that wind energy's effect on bird deaths is minimal compared to other causes and cannot be used as an effective counter.

 

[Persian Vol]

My dad told me back in the 70's, we would run out of oil in 20 years. The world could not survive doing the same things. Every generation thinks the next is going to be screwed. Here we have the almighty scientists making their predictions. Which mean about as much as the finest outhouse wallpaper you can buy.

Nobody, and I mean nobody knows whats going to happen in the future. With the climate, the oceans or anything. If you believe otherwise, then you are a fool.

So you don't believe scientists? What exactly is the reason toward this skepticism?

 

[MG1968]

Well whatever the hell you're talking about I showed facts that wind energy's effect on bird deaths is minimal compared to other causes and cannot be used as an effective counter.

An oil spill kills a few hundred ducks and people lose their minds. Again, they only matter when the agenda is being served.

 

[NeverWe'llSever]

So you don't believe scientists? What exactly is the reason toward this skepticism?

What scientists and how many actually agree that:
1. The planet is warming.
2. It's due to anthropogenic activities.

 

[Persian Vol]

An oil spill kills a few hundred ducks and people lose their minds. Again, they only matter when the agenda is being served.

That oil spill did more than just kill ducks.

 

[Persian Vol]

What scientists and how many actually agree that:
1. The planet is warming.
2. It's due to anthropogenic activities.

The vast majority.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects scientific opinion on the topic, stated in the forward to its 2013 report, “the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” And, several analyses of scholarly publications suggest widespread consensus among climate scientists on this point.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93% of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87% of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly because of human behavior.

But, in the public eye, there is considerably less consensus. Just 27% of Americans say that “almost all” climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change. Another 35% say more than half of climate scientists agree about this, while an equal share says that about fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) scientific experts believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change."

 

[hog88]

The vast majority.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects scientific opinion on the topic, stated in the forward to its 2013 report, “the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” And, several analyses of scholarly publications suggest widespread consensus among climate scientists on this point.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93% of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87% of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly because of human behavior.

But, in the public eye, there is considerably less consensus. Just 27% of Americans say that “almost all” climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change. Another 35% say more than half of climate scientists agree about this, while an equal share says that about fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) scientific experts believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change."

Follow the money.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Follow the money.

This is just so stupid I can't wrap my head around it.

 

[hog88]

This is just so stupid I can't wrap my head around it.

I'm not surprised.

Just look at who is funding most of the research and what their agenda is.

 

[Volsfaninva917]

So you in the habit of making up what you think others' lives are like? I'm not "living in fear" at all, I've got a very full life.

Interesting

 

[hog88]

That oil spill did more than just kill ducks.

Yep, created jobs.

 

[ShowSomePride]

I'm not surprised.

Just look at who is funding most of the research and what their agenda is.

Care to shed some light? I would love to see some proof that this is all an agenda these scientists would not waste their time otherwise.

 

[hog88]

Care to shed some light? I would love to see some proof that this is all an agenda these scientists would not waste their time otherwise.

Waste their time? You think they work for free?

 

[Grand Vol]

Care to shed some light? I would love to see some proof that this is all an agenda these scientists would not waste their time otherwise.

It's called "job security."

Let me ask you a question. Since when should NASA be involved in earth sciences? Isn't their mandate Atmospheric and Space Administration? Wouldn't NOAA be far better suited for such a mission as earth sciences?

Yet, NASA is neck deep (or was until recently) in earth sciences and climate change. Sorry, not your lane, NASA. You want to be involved in climate change studies and the like? Find a job at a private institution and/or in a government agency suited to such research.

Anyway, said scientists, on the government dole at least, know their jobs depend on the alarmist screeching.

 

[McDad]

Waste their time? You think they work for free?

If there were equal grant amounts to fund both sides of issue, there would be no "consensus".

 

[Orangedogsrule]

My dad told me back in the 70's, we would run out of oil in 20 years. The world could not survive doing the same things. Every generation thinks the next is going to be screwed. Here we have the almighty scientists making their predictions. Which mean about as much as the finest outhouse wallpaper you can buy.

Nobody, and I mean nobody knows whats going to happen in the future. With the climate, the oceans or anything. If you believe otherwise, then you are a fool.

If you think table fish are just going to magically rebound from near extinction, you're the fool. And an ignorant one. Ignert an proud of it.

We didn't keep doing thuh same ol things now did we, huh? We made a buncha folk fix thar machins what wuz doin a lot o' bad stuff.

..."The picture above shows the comparison of the downtown LA in the year 1968 vs the year 2005"...

 

[tumscalcium]

If you think table fish are just going to magically rebound from near extinction, you're the fool. And an ignorant one. Ignert an proud of it.

We didn't keep doing thuh same ol things now did we, huh? We made a buncha folk fix thar machins what wuz doin a lot o' bad stuff.

..."The picture above shows the comparison of the downtown LA in the year 1968 vs the year 2005"...

Which agency is responsible for adding color to the world?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Which agency is responsive for adding color to the world?

Codak?

 

[ShowSomePride]

It's called "job security."

Isn't their mandate Atmospheric and Space Administration?

You just answered your own damn question. The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Ya'll must think we faked the moon landing as well.

NASA's EOS mission project is THE single most important tool we have for observation of Earth's land surface, oceans, biosphere, etc. NOAA uses this information but is not qualified to actually build and launch these satellites into space.

If you're going to discredit NASA you might as well discredit our National Labs, DARPA, ONR, etc as well. You rely and trust on these entities for our nuclear and weapons research yet not for climate research?

 

[Grand Vol]

You just answered your own damn question. The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Ya'll must think we faked the moon landing as well.

Now see, this is why you lose credibility in anything you post. If your first option is to resort to name calling and questioning of intelligence, I've obviously struck something you really don't want to talk about. Furthermore...

No, it's not NASA's job to concern itself with earth sciences. Nope. Here's their charter in case you didn't know:

https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;

(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.

(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and

(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

Find me where the words "climate change" occur in that Congressional approved charter, please.

Oh dear, Grand Vol does his homework? Don't you feel ****ing stupid at this point? If not, you should.

But wait! There's more!

NOAA uses this information but is not qualified to actually build and launch these satellites into space.

You really think NASA designs these satellites and launches them? Are you that ignorant? Can you please tell me exactly how many rockets NASA uses of their own design right now? Or better yet, how many launches they conduct to put satellites in orbit without using ULA or SpaceX launch platforms.

If you're going to discredit NASA you might as well discredit our National Labs, DARPA, ONR, etc as well. You rely and trust on these entities for our nuclear and weapons research yet not for climate research?

Strawman much?

For the record, nuclear weapons development and testing actually falls under the Department of Energy, an agency you failed to list.

Try better next time with your bad self.

 

[Biopsyman]

It's hotter today than yesterday… Global warming

 

[MG1968]

If you think table fish are just going to magically rebound from near extinction, you're the fool. And an ignorant one. Ignert an proud of it.

We didn't keep doing thuh same ol things now did we, huh? We made a buncha folk fix thar machins what wuz doin a lot o' bad stuff.

..."The picture above shows the comparison of the downtown LA in the year 1968 vs the year 2005"...

Thanks, George W. Bush!!