Geological Influences

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

I will need to block you. I think you're nothing more than a troll. And if I can't then I will follow your advice and leave.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

I will need to block you. I think you're nothing more than a troll. And if I can't then I will follow your advice and leave.

If you make a comment that is either incorrect or is misunderstood or misrepresented I'm not going to let it go. If that bothers you, so long it's been good to know you.

I am not attacking you personally, only your ideas.

James_ wrote: You're a troll.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: You're a troll.

You're a little crybaby that can't stand it if someone points out the deficits in your education. If you actually learned something you'd find people less likely to criticize your postings. After you are talking about the conservation of momentum which is based on Newton's laws of motion you don't even know that Newton was famous for anything other than gravity.

At least TRY to learn something.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

I will need to block you. I think you're nothing more than a troll. And if I can't then I will follow your advice and leave.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: You're a troll.

You're a little crybaby that can't stand it if someone points out the deficits in your education. If you actually learned something you'd find people less likely to criticize your postings. After you are talking about the conservation of momentum which is based on Newton's laws of motion you don't even know that Newton was famous for anything other than gravity.

At least TRY to learn something.

@All,
Notice wade can't discuss when someone else tries to consider geology. Then when trying to discuss Arctic warming and soot then he wants to discuss geology when the source of the soot was industrialization.

@"Duh_Mann",
When considering Stefan-Boltzmann you need to apply it to the surface area of the Earth's atmosphere. That's beyond the thermosphere which exceeds 100 degrees Celsius.

When you use it in a lower part of the atmosphere that is the wrong application.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

You do not have the ability to predict the future temperature of the Eastern Pacific waters.

The El Nino/La Nina/neutral cycle is caused by a slight shift in position of equatorial currents during summer and fall in the Northern hemisphere.

These currents may or may not pinch off the equatorial counter-current that is the source of the El Nino/La Nina effect.

Wake wrote: These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

You do not have the ability to predict the future temperature of the Eastern Pacific waters.

The El Nino/La Nina/neutral cycle is caused by a slight shift in position of equatorial currents during summer and fall in the Northern hemisphere.

These currents may or may not pinch off the equatorial counter-current that is the source of the El Nino/La Nina effect.

Since the Eastern Pacific is also one side of the Ring of Fire it is always possible that deep faults control the release of hot water. And as you mentioned it only takes a small shift in currents. One thing to consider is that some places like Yellowstone have geysers that start and stop with precise timing.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

With the south Pacific it warms and cools above where the Pacific tectonic plate meets other tectonic plates. And with everywhere from Iceland to the Arctic is also above where 2 tectonic plates meet.

These are all nothing more than hypothesis that have been around for as many as 5 years since published and several years before they were published. These mean little since water temperature oscillations have been known for centuries.

For instance - El Nino and La Nina have been known about for 200 years. The results of the recent La Nina still are demonstrable along the Pacific coast with water temperatures 5 degrees below normal for this time of the year.

If this cooler water hangs around the rest of the year which seems likely we are probably going to get another cold rainy year in 2018.

You do not have the ability to predict the future temperature of the Eastern Pacific waters.

The El Nino/La Nina/neutral cycle is caused by a slight shift in position of equatorial currents during summer and fall in the Northern hemisphere.

These currents may or may not pinch off the equatorial counter-current that is the source of the El Nino/La Nina effect.

Since the Eastern Pacific is also one side of the Ring of Fire it is always possible that deep faults control the release of hot water. And as you mentioned it only takes a small shift in currents. One thing to consider is that some places like Yellowstone have geysers that start and stop with precise timing.

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-great-barrier-reef-is-dying/2017/03/19/a1e1277a-0b37-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.92ae6d348fd5

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

You don't know much, do you ?

James_ wrote:
Nobody calls the South Pacific the "Southwest Pacific Ocean.

James_ wrote:
It is strange a link I posted was deleted which disagrees with your statement that "It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years."

James_ wrote:
Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater.

James_ wrote:
More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef's most visited areas of color and life.

James_ wrote:
"We didn't expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years," said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature.

James_ wrote:
Large Sections of Australia's Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find
By DAMIEN CAVE and JUSTIN GILLISMARCH 15, 2017

this was in a New York + Times article.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

You don't know much, do you ?

I actually know a fair bit about corals. I live in the Seattle area and have built instrumentation for monitoring them.

James_ wrote:
Nobody calls the South Pacific the "Southwest Pacific Ocean.

That's because they are different areas of the Pacific ocean.

James_ wrote:
It is strange a link I posted was deleted which disagrees with your statement that "It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years."

I regularly discard stuff that comes from the Washington Post. Most of it is propaganda.

James_ wrote:
Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater.

It is not dead. It is recovering even as we speak.

James_ wrote:
More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef's most visited areas of color and life.

There is no bleach on the reef. We can't make enough sodium hypochlorite.

James_ wrote:
"We didn't expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years," said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature.

This guy regularly puts out tripe. Discarded.

James_ wrote:
Large Sections of Australia's Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find
By DAMIEN CAVE and JUSTIN GILLISMARCH 15, 2017

this was in a New York + Times article.

I regularly discard propaganda from the New York Times also.

You will find that using links like they were some kind of Oracle of Truth doesn't work with me. Their use only indicates you can't think for yourself and must borrow the ideas of others to make your arguments.

Do not worship the Holy Link. It is a false god.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

You don't know much, do you ?

I actually know a fair bit about corals. I live in the Seattle area and have built instrumentation for monitoring them.

James_ wrote:
Nobody calls the South Pacific the "Southwest Pacific Ocean.

That's because they are different areas of the Pacific ocean.

James_ wrote:
It is strange a link I posted was deleted which disagrees with your statement that "It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years."

I regularly discard stuff that comes from the Washington Post. Most of it is propaganda.

James_ wrote:
Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater.

It is not dead. It is recovering even as we speak.

James_ wrote:
More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef's most visited areas of color and life.

There is no bleach on the reef. We can't make enough sodium hypochlorite.

James_ wrote:
"We didn't expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years," said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature.

This guy regularly puts out tripe. Discarded.

James_ wrote:
Large Sections of Australia's Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find
By DAMIEN CAVE and JUSTIN GILLISMARCH 15, 2017

this was in a New York + Times article.

I regularly discard propaganda from the New York Times also.

You will find that using links like they were some kind of Oracle of Truth doesn't work with me. Their use only indicates you can't think for yourself and must borrow the ideas of others to make your arguments.

Do not worship the Holy Link. It is a false god.

Not sure what Seattle has to do with anything. Have lived there long enough myself.

James_ wrote:
I did know one person there who is like you.

James_ wrote:
I don't think your that smart myself, just very high on your own opinion and for all I know you're stoned out of your mind right now. Marijuana is also legal in Seattle and your comments seem to be from the mind of someone who is under the influence.

James_ wrote:
You're desire to seek some kind of understanding about how a person should think is from someone trying to grasp reality but just can't get a hold of what reality is.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

The Great Barrier Reef is a living entity and has to continually evolve. Just like with man there are diseases evolving continually and the coral that makes up the majority of the reef they too must continually evolve. I suppose that some disease could evolve that the coral would be unable to get used to in time for it all to be killed off, but then something else would take over that area.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

The Great Barrier Reef is a living entity and has to continually evolve. Just like with man there are diseases evolving continually and the coral that makes up the majority of the reef they too must continually evolve. I suppose that some disease could evolve that the coral would be unable to get used to in time for it all to be killed off, but then something else would take over that area.

Doubtful since such a disease would have to wipe out all the coral drifting in the ocean as well.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is certainly possible. It is also possible the volcanic range under the Arctic sea is active, and THAT is what is melting the ice.

I think it is;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ice-ages-d6-e1414.php#post_19870

Quoting myself here;
These 3 links are about Ice Ages which are primarily a Northern hemisphere event. This is why the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is included. This is because it is next to the North Atlantic Ridge which becomes the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.

With the eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean, the warming of the waters around the Great Barrier Reef are killing it off;

...deleted propaganda link...

The Great Barrier reef is in the Southwest Pacific ocean, just off the coast of eastern Australia, not in the Indian Ocean, or the Eastern Pacific.

It is doing just fine. It completely recovers from a typical El Nino event within 1-2 years.

Coral, you see, is an animal that 'seeds' along the surface of existing coral skeletons. These animals drift in the seawater until they permanently attach to their base, where they spend their entire adult lives.

The Great Barrier Reef is a living entity and has to continually evolve. Just like with man there are diseases evolving continually and the coral that makes up the majority of the reef they too must continually evolve. I suppose that some disease could evolve that the coral would be unable to get used to in time for it all to be killed off, but then something else would take over that area.

Doubtful since such a disease would have to wipe out all the coral drifting in the ocean as well.

I like the way you think. An uneducated opinion based on nothing.

James_ wrote:
The question wasn't if ALL coral in our oceans would be killed off.

James_ wrote:
Can't post any Holy links to show where scientific research would suggest you've over looked something important.

James_ wrote:
Even though you're ignorant I can't bring myself to insult Seattle because of you. I mean you won't find many divers around the Puget Sound or in Lake Washington

James_ wrote:
and that's okay because it is still one of the most beautiful areas to live in if people don't ruin it by being apathetic like you are.

James_ wrote: Into the Night, Namaste

James_ wrote: There is quite a lot that you don't know.

James_ wrote: I think that is why you don't like links.

James_ wrote: Then things become a matter of your logic. You try shaping a discussion to your perspective.

James_ wrote: With the Great Barrier Reef it's damage is coming from the ocean temperature rising.

James_ wrote: And if I posted a link showing where research scientists state that both the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans are warming then I would be letting someone else speak for me.

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
Namaste
There is quite a lot that you don't know.

James_ wrote:
I think that is why you don't like links.

James_ wrote:
Then things become a matter of your logic.

James_ wrote:
You try shaping a discussion to your perspective.

James_ wrote:
With the Great Barrier Reef it's damage is coming from the ocean temperature rising.

James_ wrote:
And if I posted a link showing where research scientists state that both the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans are warming then I would be letting someone else speak for me.

James_ wrote:
Am not sure where they would be speaking for me if I think what they have made known needs to be considered.

Love and Light

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself.

James_ wrote:
What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists.

James_ wrote:
I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.

James_ wrote:
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself.

Wrong. I have specifically said otherwise. Apparently you aren't paying attention.

I only point out that science does not use supporting evidence. Your experiment does not bless, sanctify, confirm, or make any more legitimate any theory of science.

The results of your experiment is an observation. You should be aware that observations are not science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.

Wake wrote: There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself.

Wrong. I have specifically said otherwise. Apparently you aren't paying attention.

I only point out that science does not use supporting evidence. Your experiment does not bless, sanctify, confirm, or make any more legitimate any theory of science.

The results of your experiment is an observation. You should be aware that observations are not science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

phenomenology

the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience.

And as I said you are wishing this to be a discussion of and about spirituality.

You said
>> Your experiment does not make any more legitimate any theory of science. <<

It would. This means that you reject science because as your argument goes

>> an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness <<

Who would think ?

A forum where science is to be discussed in a spiritual context as we need to understand the essence of being and not to think with our rational minds.

James_ wrote:
Into the Night I think you need to understand you are the problem. Your personal views are counter productive to any real discussion on climate change.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.

There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Question - what would make anyone think that corals are not just as accepting of increasing temperatures (which in any case are FAR less than increases in air temperatures) as land animals are?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.

There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Question - what would make anyone think that corals are not just as accepting of increasing temperatures (which in any case are FAR less than increases in air temperatures) as land animals are?

The movement of ocean currents does not cause the Earth to warm or cool. They are not sources of energy. They are the results of uneven heating of the oceans by the Sun.

It requires energy to warm the Earth. The only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun, our only source of energy (other than fission inside the Earth itself, which is pretty insignificant compared to the output of the Sun).

The Great Barrier reef water temperature changes daily. The coral is sturdier than you are led to believe by certain eco-types posing as 'scientists', and by the media willing to lap it up (the media DOES have an agenda).

The problem in this country is that people don't know that Pravda is lying to them. They live behind what I call the Plastic Curtain.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.

There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Question - what would make anyone think that corals are not just as accepting of increasing temperatures (which in any case are FAR less than increases in air temperatures) as land animals are?

The movement of ocean currents does not cause the Earth to warm or cool. They are not sources of energy. They are the results of uneven heating of the oceans by the Sun.

It requires energy to warm the Earth. The only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun, our only source of energy (other than fission inside the Earth itself, which is pretty insignificant compared to the output of the Sun).

The Great Barrier reef water temperature changes daily. The coral is sturdier than you are led to believe by certain eco-types posing as 'scientists', and by the media willing to lap it up (the media DOES have an agenda).

The problem in this country is that people don't know that Pravda is lying to them. They live behind what I call the Plastic Curtain.

You really don't know much, do you ?

Wake wrote: The level of ignorance suggests to me that IB and into the night are the same person signing on under two different names.

Wake wrote: I cannot believe that two people would have such odd ideas about science in the same place at the same time.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: The level of ignorance suggests to me that IB and into the night are the same person signing on under two different names.

This is the final resort of the stupid. Those who embarrass the crap out of you and who reveal you for the scientifically illiterate moron that you are must all be lumped together as the same person.

Too funny.

I'll take this as confirmation that you are unable to pick up on our differences, thus confirming your inability to grasp the obvious.

Wake wrote: I cannot believe that two people would have such odd ideas about science in the same place at the same time.

Priceless!

First, you refer to science as "such odd ideas."

Second, you don't realize that science does not differ between people. If two people who understand science, such as Into the Night and myself, present it for consideration, it will necessarily be the same. The science we present is not our suddenly coincidental "ideas."

Third, your inability to believe that two people who understand science can post to the same site dumbfounding.
.