Off Topic Climate Change

He'll probably be right. Its grey as ****.

 

There are multiple reasons for coral bleaching.
Nutrient imbalance.
Extended periods of lower sea level (Great Barrier reef seen this in 2015 16, but the eco liars never mentioned it, El NIno caused low tide to be extended) The sudden temperatures increase also affected corals, especially SPS corals, it was the rate and duration of temperature change, NOT the maximum temperatures, if temperatures had changed slowly over the period of 100 years, the corals would adapt generationally. Also, coral bleaching is to coral reefs as forest fires is to forests. Renewal, I have built many reef aquariums, we use what looks like coral doom, to seed new reefs

please log in to view this image

We can also seed natural reefs, easily if we wanted to.

Sudden temperature changes, ie, sudden temperature increases AND decreases
Sediment pollution
Human pollution
Disruption of upwelling (Corals in waters that have upwelling suffer more in warming events, because this disrupts the upwelling circulation)
Light spectrum changes (often affected by water depth, again see El Nino effect on sea level in the Great Barrier Reef
Corals actually pass on temperature tolerances to the next generations.
Local conditions, there is no "global killer of corals", each regional area has it's own separate issues, it has nothing to do with CO2


Ocean O2 depletion is quite simple really generally.
1. Warming oceans hold less O2 and CO2, the warmer the water the less gas it can retain, but the more solids it can dissolve, and vice versa. Ocean circulation is also not well studied for obvious reasons and not so well understood, even USGS say themselves they dont even understant arctic tides and currents very well, which is why they dont know why some glaciers advance and some retreat. I was told this on twitter, by USGS themselves when I inquired.
2. I think almost all of the studies were done on coastal or near coastal waters, and well, look at the map below, it has nothing to do with CO2.
O2 depleted dead zones. Caused by biological and chemical pollution of coastal waters, agri runoff, and so on

please log in to view this image

people who blame coral bleaching on CO2, and ocean O2 depletion on CO2, have no evidence at all to support those claims

 

so you're saying there's no global warming, but the reason there's hypoxic water is because warm water holds less oxygen.

Make your mind up.

 

If you mean Factual Observational Scientifically Studied Examples then yes, if not then **** off

 

"So you're saying" who are you, cathy newman?

I really abhor snidy inaccuracy paraphrases

Quote where I said the planet has not warmed?

 

@Big Ern The world is warming, or cooling depending on how far back you go lad.

For those that claim CO2 is the dominant force that affects forcing via its effect on water vapor, this is rather inconvenient because CO2 cannot explain the warming and cooling here

please log in to view this image

 

I love nothing more than to stand outside every day and empty a couple of aerosol cans into the air.

 

The IPCC fraudsters like to use (STATISTICALLY derived NOT MEASURED!!) anomalies, and they stretch the graphs out to make any change look significant.

please log in to view this image

But when you compare actual temperatures to CO2...

please log in to view this image

well, where is the doom in that, what we see here is what your thermometer shows, and well.

 

TBH I saw IPCC in your post and didn;t bother reading any further as it's headed by an oil company executive, their reports are often co-authored by other oil company employees, and they refuse to accept independant scientific studies, so they are practically worthless to anyone objective.

 

I don;t get what you are at mate, honestly. I am saying the IPCC, the "authority" on "Climate change", are a political body of bureaucrats and politicians bent on controlling global energy policy, for their own ends, and they are corrupt as ****, they are also overtly socialist and hate capitalism
The renewable energy scam is worth anywhere between 80 and 160 trillion dollars, think about that for a sec.
There is about 2 trillion a year spend on this bullshit globally, which is 200 times yearly total oil profits 82.9 billion a year, of all oil companies combined.


meanwhile something like 3 billion people have no electricity on this planet, and wont if these retards keep pushing this fraud

 

Its OK they took the CFCs out of them. So, leave your fridge door open instead.

Strangely, they expect you to live in energy restricted ways, while they go fly private jet all over the world to big shindigs in places like Cancun. Climate scientists all fly around the world in biz class in 5 grand plane seats telling us we are evil

and Al Gore and Leo di Caprio own vast extensive properties, yachts, jets and so on, but you are evil, even though "they" create the same emissions as a small town with 10,000 people living in it.

Heck Di caprio flew his "eye brow" artist 6000 miles to the Oscars to do his eyebrows and he browbeats me (pun intended) about leaving my TV on standby overnight or getting a taxi to work
He also flew on a private jet to pick up his eco award in France

 

And so they should be, it's clear to anyone with a basic understanding of math there's a bit of a problem, no one will do what is really neccessary though (a moratorium on any and all life saving medicine). We can only grow so much food. We can also only extract so much fossil fuel, so, sooner or later, we are going to HAVE to rely on renewable energy, best to get it up and working as quickly as possible as the earlier we start to implement it, the longer our finite stocks of fossil fuel will last

 

Ah, open fridge door it is then.

 

OK so lets break this down
1. Nuclear and Hydro are the best we have right now
2. Solar, limited applications, wind = useless and vastly expensive
3. The lowest on the economic scale, spend the highest % of income on energy (wind and solar have driven people into energy poverty in every place they have been rolled out in large scale)
4 TPES Total Primary Energy Supply.
*Renewable = 13.4% of global energy use, sounds good doesn't it? Nope 75% of renewable is burning dung, garbage and wood. 0.8% is wind and solar combined. 2.1% is hydro, 4.5% is Nuclear.

You cannot run an energy grid on intermittent renewable either. It will collapse, either too little or too much energy makes grids fall over

The IPCC in their report only weeks ago, not only promoted pseudo science about Nuclear, but more or less condemned it, and their own climate scientists attacked them for it.

Oil is being created beneath the oceans as we speak, it doesn't come from plants and dinosaurs, that's ancient science, most of it comes from dead algae in the oceans which is compressed and heated to become kerosene eventually and the oil as we know it, its a process that is happening right now as we speak.

Yes cleaner tech, better energy efficient tech, renewable tech, am all for it, but until we actually invent this tech, what are we meant to do?

In every place on the planet oil and coal has saved lives, created better living conditions, in every example, yes there have been downsides, but the upsides are almost infinitely greater, yet we never heard that lol

There is no date for when we run out of FFs, we have at least hundreds of years of coal,and cleaner power plants than ever, and still working on even cleaner ones to capture CO2 and oil, the peak oil scares were nothing but nonsense. We wont run out of oil in my kids lifetimes, let alone mine. Human ingenuity will win, it always does, when there is need, we get it done, and always have done so

The disgusting policies that keep billions using in house cooking fires (wood and dung burning is toxic) is inhumane.
You do this, take a leap for the rest of us, let us know how you feel after a decade

please log in to view this image

This is what current IPCC and eco mut attacks on fossil fuels means for hundreds of millions of people, 3 billion according to Nat Geo, who will be deprived of cheap energy dense fuels that you and I owe our health, societies and educations to
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07/guatemala-cook-stoves/

 

Here again we have pseudo science reported by the media just yesterday


The same reason for "global cooling" in 1977 was used by Nat Geo and Science news. It is the exact same reason given for cooling, now it's "global warming"



History shows these liars for what they are. At least scientists in the late 70s and early 80s didn't blame CO2 for what is natural cyclical weather changes

 

Do you think science might have learnt more about the atmosphere since the 1970s?

What do you think causes variations in the jet stream?

 

No. I mean boring as ****.

 

Bravo, so contextual

 

So when do you accept a scientists word as fact, when he tells you what he knows now or when he has learnt more in 30 years?

Science is supposed to deal with provable facts not best guess at the time.

 

Scientist make best guesses based on the available evidence and then try to disprove them. A provable fact 50 years ago can be disproved by new methods and technology today and so the understanding and conclusions drawn improved.

The facts are the building blocks on which hypotheses and theories are made. That 50 years ago we worked out that a weak jet stream caused maritime Europe and Eastern US to have hot summers and cold winters has been built on by understanding that a warm Arctic reduces the temperature differential driving the jet stream.,this leads to blocking ridges that make the weather in temperate regions more extreme..

Arguing that scientists today are wrong because scientists drew different conclusions in the past when they had access to less information is foolish. You may as well claim the world is still flat.

please log in to view this image