Reply With Quote
Get a clue Parker. know how to read this:
as for the salmon I am wrong.
as for your data, is that number local to the oregon coast?
the theory Im citing comes from the rising temp of fresh waters at spawning sites, which have not been limited to .8 C. but otherwise, it looks like you are right about the recent runs, of which I hadnt followed
Get a clue Parker. know how to read this:
To change the oxygen content enough,there has to be a dramatic temperature increase. Even a 5C change only decrease the oxygen by maybe 7%.as for the salmon I am wrong.
as for your data, is that number local to the oregon coast?
the theory Im citing comes from the rising temp of fresh waters at spawning sites, which have not been limited to .8 C. but otherwise, it looks like you are right about the recent runs, of which I hadnt followed
Im not inferring a correlation between temp and oxygen decrease in fresh water. if fresh water increases in temp enough the fish cant spawn.
this does not have a damn thing to do with ocean circulation, which is how water is oxygenated in the first place. this has to with capacity to oxygenate.Get a clue Parker. know how to read this:
Do some reading here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1008...l/466812a.html
The changes in Oregon may be related to a broader pattern around the globe, in which subsurface patches of permanent hypoxia seem to be growing in size and losing yet more oxygen, for unknown reasons. And whether or not global warming is responsible for the changes to date, ocean models forecast that in the coming decades increasing water temperatures and changes in circulation will drive oxygen concentrations down even further.
“We have been experiencing a perfect storm — where weather, climate and currents come together to crash an ecosystem.”
The freshwater change is the same percentage wise.
There are dramatic stream and river temperature changes year to year. It's natural, and global warming doesn't have anything to do. It has to do with the rate and percentage of snow melt and rain. The faster the snow melts, the faster the stream/river system, and the colder the water. Slower melts or more rain, causes warmer water.
Blame Global Warming if you must, but this is the same routine fluctuation for past millenniums. Not just recent years.
Are you attempting to claim that the minor air temperature increases over the last hundred or so years affects the ocean that much? No ing way! Water is so much more massive than air, and energy differences between air and water... The concept is so laughable. Any measurable average surface water increases are because of solar activity. Not greenhouse gasses. Now to change water circulation... Same answer. Air temperature is a weak energy compares to the energy water holds, and needs to make a measurable difference.
---edit-add---
Changes in algae, diatoms, etc. in the surface water also changes the distribution of water heat. This too, has nothing to do with a warmer atmosphere being able to influence the water.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-29-2010 at 12:49 AM.
nobody said anything about greenhouse effect. solar activity is fine by me. its still climate change.
and if you dont agree with my take on temp and ocean circ, you dont agree with the scientists in that article cited above either. read it and give me your criticisms. ill check it out tomorrow.
This is no way claims global warming is the cause. I see it as a natural cycle.
Why do you liberals think every change in the earth is caused by man?
He's not a liberal and you apparently can't read because he said it wasn't necessarily caused by man.
In any event, the total heat contained in the ocean has gone up dramatically, which is why I wonder why when discussing global warming people like you are so caught up in the air temperature.
Usually when someone doesn't define "global warming," they speak of AGW, and dismiss natural. Maybe I jumped to that conclusion with you, unwarranted?
The article is not what I question. It's how a person is set up to read the facts. "Global warming" is almost exclusively used for "anthropogenic global warning" by Nature. If they wanted to be more credible, they would differentiate the global warming type assumed. I see the way they write articles as a bias to AGW.
I would say this trend is caused by natural global warming, rather than the AWG dogma, if it is either. Something to note is that the shows the wind pattern as an easterly wind, pulling the surface water away, and pulling up the deep water. A westerly wind would do the opposite. Force surface water deep. This is just another natural weather cycle, the winds prevailing one way more than another. Why should we expect that to be the same year after year, decade after decade?
The sun has increased by notable intensity from the 1700's to about 1950. A 0.18% increase over a 200 year period. The oceans take hundreds of years to circulate, therefor, we see effects from the past as they flow. CO2, I can show, has less than half the effect of the solar changes. Probable less an affect than the Asian soot has on the arctic as well.
Wait, I just want to be sure you actually mean this. You think that the warming in the oceans today is from an increase in solar activity hundreds of years ago?
You missed my point. The ocean has magnitudes greater mass than the atmosphere. Air temperature changes have almost no power to change a water temperate. However, a water temperature change can dramatically change the atmosphere's temperature with hardly changing temperature. Solar changes have a proportional change to sea water temperatures. In this case, solar is the changing force. not greenhouse gasses. The only way the "heat contained in the ocean has gone up dramatically" would be by solar changes, otherwise, atmospheric temperature changes would be dramatic to the Nth degree, if the had the energy to influence the ocean.
Except that anthropogenic global warming theory doesn't say that the atmosphere is warming up the oceans. Whether or not its true you're making such a stupid argument here its mind blowing after all the you talk about "understanding the science".
You do realize that the heat in a greenhouse is not provided by the actually greenhouse, correct? No one says that the glass structure in a greenhouse is what is warming the air inside of it so why are you making a counter argument that the atmosphere not warming the oceans? No one is making that argument.
Sure it does. It must, and does. If the creators of AGW fiction are to be believed, they cannot have the water warming Independent of what caused the greenhouse effect. It would disprove their own dogma.
Only that my last posing needed to be written better before posting it.
Yes...
I understand the similarities and differences between a greenhouse and the greenhouse effect.
Again, I am saying that the greenhouse effect changes are not large enough energy changes to influence the water.
No, what you said was that the atmosphere could not warm the oceans which is something AGW has never claimed. What they have claimed, is that CO2 has caused enough heat to be trapped on the earth to warm the oceans and the source of that heat is of course the sun - not the atmosphere.
You say that the only way the oceans can be warmed is through an increase in solar output as if somehow reducing the amount of solar energy we radiate out wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
Its not even about whether or not AGW is true or false but in the ridiculous manner you try to frame your side of a non existent argument to seem as if what others are saying cannot possibly be correct. Its one of a strawman.
Mississippi Sound Tests Positive for Oil
Lots of pictures for you right wingers who don't like to read, but prefer sounds bite lies and from Fox and other VRWC/oilco-financed sources.
http://www.truth-out.org/mississippi...oil62735?print
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-29-2010 at 06:49 PM.
for the purposes of this argument, I dont care what causes global warming, you and I both have conceded that the earth is warming. Dosnt matter why.
Im saying that the global warming, no matter the cause, is causing ocean currents and circulation to shut down, meaning the water is not getting oxygen for fish, and the fish are dying as a result.
Split hairs, why don't you.
That is exactly what I meant. the claim that CO2 warms the air, and in turn, the air warms the ocean cannot be, for the reasons I stated.
It's called the IR window. When we decrease a given percentage if IR that passes out to space, the heat increases until the smaller percentage is high enough, multiplied by the increased heat in the greenhouse effect, to be in balance with the incoming energy.
Infrared does not penetrate far into water. Other solar spectra does.
If you say so. Thing with the AGW theory, is how they leave out relevant factors to make the claims.
No one makes that claim. No one. STRAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMAN.
It's called the IR window. When we decrease a given percentage if IR that passes out to space, the heat increases until the smaller percentage is high enough, multiplied by the increased heat in the greenhouse effect, to be in balance with the incoming energy.
Infrared does not penetrate far into water. Other solar spectra does.And yet the ocean is warming. The sun can't warm the oceans but the sun can warm the oceans.
Yeah, your method of making up false claims that you can counteract is clean.If you say so. Thing with the AGW theory, is how they leave out relevant factors to make the claims.
I wouldn't be going swimming near the oil spill anytime soon..
LinkEXCLUSIVE: Tests find sickened family has 50.3 ppm of Corexit’s 2-butoxyethanol in swimming pool — JUST ONE HOUR NORTH OF TAMPA (lab report included)
August 30th, 2010 at 09:13 AM Print Post Email Post
....................
“Warren collected a water sample from the pool filter on August 17th… packed the sample according to Mr. Naman’s instructions, and overnighted it to his Mobile, Ala. lab that same day,” she noted.
The results were delivered by Naman over the phone on August 27 at 11:00 a.m. EDT. A copy of the findings were then e-mailed to the Scheblers. To view the do ent, click here.
“Naman said our pool water sample we sent him contained 50.3 ppm
(parts per million) 2-butoxyethanol marker for Corexit,” according to Mrs. Schebler. Tests for arsenic came back at less than .02 ppm.
A July letter http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_R... from four top scientists noted, “Corexit 9527A contains 2-BTE (2-butoxyethanol), a toxic solvent that ruptures red blood cells, causing hemolysis (bleeding) and liver and kidney damage (Johanson and Bowman, 1991, Nalco, 2010).”
Geez..what bull . did you actually read the whole article? They are just trying to stir up a class action lawsuit.
Then, on “July [23], my husband Warren mowed the lawn. It was hot so he got in the pool to cool off afterward. That afternoon he had severe diarrhea and very dark urine. This lasted about 2 days,” she revealed.
Exactly the symptoms of mild heat stroke. Happens to me a couple times a year.
Wanna bet they are underwater on their home mortgage?“Some of the neighbors we spoke to were more worried about home values than pollution.”
“We are hoping for someone to come and do more samplings, we were told we shouldn’t eat anything from outside as it probably will all be tainted. It seems that we are the first to check on this, we’re sure all our neighbors on this coast will have the same outcome.”
“We are lost. We would like more testing. We’ve reached out to a few people we thought could tell us where we go from here, but haven’t as of yet received any direction. We are not completely able to grasp what this means.”
“We feel it is a horrible environment to live in and frankly, would like to leave the area. We believe that if this substance is in our pool, it could very well be in the air, especially because of the rashes we continue to apply medication to. We’re not sure if this will enter the groundwater, or even already has. We feel other people need to know that if it’s in our backyard, it is most definitely in other backyards.”
Warren collected a water sample from the pool filter on August 17th…
Yeah, buddy. If you want to skew the numbers take the sample at the filter. I could do an air quality test at my house by scraping the air filter and the tests would prove conclusively that I am living in lint. If you want to know the real ppm of the sample take it from the pool itself.
What a crock of . I ing hate people like this.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 08-31-2010 at 09:05 AM.
Dan, are you running for the "Chicken Little" le?2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent in paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Other products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, bowling pin and lane degreaser, and photographic strip solutions. Other products containing 2-butoxyethanol as a primary ingredient include some whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, and latex paints.
2-Butoxyethanol is frequently found in popular cleaning products.[1][2] It provides cleaning power and the characteristic odor of Windex and other glass cleaners. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions, such as Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner.
Dan, you might be onto something. Look what I found.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
