Remember me
▼ Content

Geological Influences



Page 1 of 3123>
Geological Influences19-05-2017 21:35
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
Edited on 19-05-2017 22:13
19-05-2017 22:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
20-05-2017 01:10
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
Edited on 20-05-2017 01:36
20-05-2017 01:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
20-05-2017 01:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


You're a troll.
20-05-2017 02:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
23-05-2017 22:52
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
24-05-2017 01:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2017 01:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


Argument of the Stick. You have no authority to block anyone.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2017 01:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


By ALL means tell us what YOU know about "geology". The wind patterns in those references and water temperatures in present day have NOTHING to do with geology.

You don't even seem to know what the science is that you're discussing.
24-05-2017 01:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
24-05-2017 04:15
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
There are other things that can also effect currents of the ocean.

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/ring-of-fire-gigantic-zone-of-frequent-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions/
24-05-2017 15:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4208)
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.

These are theories, not hypotheses. You need a falsifiable model from which to derive hypotheses.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-05-2017 21:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 00:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


Looks like James suddenly got foot-in-mouth disease.
25-05-2017 16:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
Edited on 25-05-2017 16:25
25-05-2017 18:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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


Wrong again. Ice ages are not limited to hemisphere. Tectonic activity is slowing because it is related to the heat contained in the lower mantle which is cooling 3 times faster than thought. Tectonic activity is slowing all over the world as the lower mantle becomes more solid. The latest research suggests that plate tectonics is nothing more than a short increment in the life of a planet like Earth.

The Great Barrier Reef is not "dying off" - it is evolving. And it has been for a hundred years.

The warming of the waters referred to as "The Greenland Sea" is nothing more than a change in flow patterns and whatever is causing that can just as easily be temporary.
25-05-2017 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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 Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 20:05
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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 ? Nobody calls the South Pacific the "Southwest Pacific Ocean. 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."

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. 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.

"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.

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.
Edited on 25-05-2017 20:19
25-05-2017 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 20:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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. I did know one person there who is like you. 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. 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.
25-05-2017 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.

Seattle happens to be adjacent to Puget Sound, a saltwater body. There are corals in Puget Sound.
James_ wrote:
I did know one person there who is like you.
Could we have met?
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.
Guess not. While I voted to legalize pot, I don't smoke the stuff. I despise prohibition type laws and feel that if people are going to smoke it, they are going to smoke it; laws notwithstanding.

I suggest you study the effects of pot better than this.

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.

I know what reality is. Do you? This is a serious question. It comes down to philosophy, something that is almost never taught properly. The UW does not teach it at all well. I find most people horribly illiterate in the subject.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 21:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
25-05-2017 23:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 02:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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. The question wasn't if ALL coral in our oceans would be killed off. Can't post any Holy links to show where scientific research would suggest you've over looked something important.
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 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.
27-05-2017 03:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.
I like the way you completely discard what anybody says just because you don't agree with them.
James_ wrote:
The question wasn't if ALL coral in our oceans would be killed off.
I never said it was.
James_ wrote:
Can't post any Holy links to show where scientific research would suggest you've over looked something important.
I don't depend on someone elses argument as my own.
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

There are actually a fair number of divers around the Puget Sound area, despite the turbidity of the water.
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.

You might try educating yourself on the life cycle of coral.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 04:07
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night,
Namaste
There is quite a lot that you don't know. I think that is why you don't like links. Then things become a matter of your logic. You try shaping a discussion to your perspective.
With the Great Barrier Reef it's damage is coming from the ocean temperature rising. 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.
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
27-05-2017 05:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
27-05-2017 06:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4208)
James_ wrote: Into the Night, Namaste

James_, salaam aleikum.

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

There are vast expansses you don't know, conveniently measured in light years.

One is what others know and don't know.

Another is our physical universe and what science is.

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

Which of those doing your thinking for you told you to believe that?

After all, he told you directly that he doesn't let others do his thinking for him ... but you instead defer to those doing your thinking for you and they are telling you to believe something else.

Got it.

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

You mean to tell me that he actually states his position according to his reasoning? Whoa, we can't have that now can we?

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

The Great Barrier Reef is fine. Your mythical Global Warming is only causing mythical damage.

Here's a recent video if you're interested.
https://youtu.be/fXaniNu8Bbc

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.

First, I'd like to meet the guy gullible enough to take your claims on face value that political activists are really "research scientists."

Second, I'd like to meet the guy gullible enough to accept your claims without asking for the valid dataset from which those unbelievable claims are derived, along with the instrumentation tolerances and the margins of error.

Third, I'd like to know why anyone should care about the WACKY beliefs of others who happen to agree with you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-05-2017 10:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
Namaste
There is quite a lot that you don't know.

That's a rather rash statement. You have no idea what I know.
James_ wrote:
I think that is why you don't like links.

I don't like people depending on links to make their arguments because it is not their own argument. It is the argument of another that is not here to discuss it with. It is an indication that you can't think for yourself to use someone elses argument that way.
James_ wrote:
Then things become a matter of your logic.

I present my own arguments. They come from theories of science. The only authoritative reference for a theory of science is the author(s) of that theory.
James_ wrote:
You try shaping a discussion to your perspective.

Don't we all?
James_ wrote:
With the Great Barrier Reef it's damage is coming from the ocean temperature rising.

Wrong. It occurred due to predatory activity. The reef is recovering even as we speak. It will be back to normal in a year or two. You really should study the life cycle of corals.
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.

True. You would also not be thinking. You would also be quoting manufactured data.
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

Depending on others to speak for you blinds you to what may be wrong with their arguments.

Depending on links is a bad habit and results in lazy to no thinking. Links do not prove an argument. They do not bless an argument. They do not legitimize an argument. The Holy Link is not an Oracle of Truth.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 10:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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:
What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists.

Scientists are not science. Science isn't even people. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.
James_ wrote:
I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
Personally I don't care. You happen to be Christian. I have no problem with that. Believe what you will.
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.

Not likely. Those oceans are nowhere near the Great Barrier reef.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 16:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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. 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.
27-05-2017 17:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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?
27-05-2017 18:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4208)
Wake wrote: There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Where is the equivalent resulting cooling? Or are you claiming that the 1st LoT is being violated?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-05-2017 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.

You should read that definition again. There is no spirituality in it at all. You are attempting to redefine 'phenomenology'.

It is the study of how observations are perceived differently by different people.

Let us take a simple example: The sunrise.

To one, the sunrise is a god hauling the Sun across the sky each day.

To another the sunrise is the result of the Earth spinning against a stationary Sun.

To another the sunrise is just an artistic thing of beauty, and the hand of a god blessing the world with it's light.

To another the sunrise is both the Sun revolving around the Earth AND the Earth spinning against the Sun.

All observe the same thing: a sunrise.

To each their interpretation of what the sunrise is becomes completely different. To each, that sunrise is their 'reality' and there is no other.

Now cut to observation in science:

To one, the presence of a tornado is an indication of 'global warming'.

To another, the presence of a tornado is just another summer day in the midwest.

To another, the presence of a tornado is an example of vector math and the conservation of angular momentum in action.

To another, the presence of a tornado is a monster to be feared, as if it were a demon.

All of these interpretations are the 'reality' of that individual. Some conflict with others. Yet it is the same observation.

This is why supporting evidence is never used in science. Observation is open to different interpretations by each individual. What they see as the result of an experiment or observation is interpreted by their own personal view of the universe, which is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

The only evidence used in science is conflicting evidence. Science is always trying to destroy theories. No theory of science is ever proven.

The old way (which we haven't used in hundreds of years) of the method of science WAS to use supporting evidence. That method 'proved' that things float because of their shape. It 'proved' that the Earth was not moving and must be the center of the universe.

What changed these views is finding a piece of CONFLICTING evidence.

Some things that are flat do NOT float. A flat piece of steel can float, but you can sink it. You can't sink ice. It will rise again. The old theory was falsified.

Observing heavenly bodies orbiting something OTHER than the Earth (Jupiter's moons) showed that Earth was NOT the center of the universe. The old theory was falsified.

Observations can inspire a new theory, but they are not part of the theory. Once the theory exists, it stands on it's own as an argument to be tested. The observation that inspired it means nothing anymore.

Now cut to 'global warming':

To some, they observe things like storms are 'increasing'. They hear about more and more of them. Is that the result of a press media covering them more than they have before due to better communications? More common coverage due to bias? Or are storms really increasing in number?

Fortunately, we have accurate records of hurricane activity in the Atlantic since the 40's when we first started flying planes into them. When compared against the smoothly increasing CO2 measurements made at Mauna Loa, there is NO correlation to the intensity and number of storms vs the CO2 data.

Theories of science, such as the laws of thermodynamics, work in all places and all times and are simple and direct things that can be applied to 'global warming'. They have already survived the tests of falsifiability and continue to do so. These theories have not yet been destroyed.

A theory of science must be internally consistent (no theory, not even non-scientific one), may consist of a logical fallacy).

A theory of science must be externally consistent. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. If a conflict is found, one or both theories must be destroyed.

The mechanisms typically described for the 'greenhouse gas' theory are not externally consistent. They conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This theory does not describe a way to justify destroying either of those laws. It therefore cannot be a theory of science.

To give a theory of science predictability, it must be formalize into a closed system, for only a closed system has the power of prediction. That system typically used for a theory of science is mathematics. Science itself is an open system, and does not have the power of prediction inherent within it.

There is no mathematical formula for 'greenhouse effect', so it cannot predict anything.

Applying logic to 'global warming' also creates a void argument. What exactly IS 'global warming'? Is it the surface warming only? If so, the atmosphere means nothing. Is the atmosphere also? If so, how high? Do you include the oceans? If so, how deep? What about under the ground? If so, how deep?

'Warming' means a change of temperature. That means two temperatures must have been taken of the Earth for a comparison. Why are these two moments significant? Why are any other moments NOT significant?

How is the temperature being measured? What instrumentation (thermometers) were used? What are the sources of inaccuracies of that instrumentation any why? What time were these measurements taken? How are they being summarized into a statistical average? What is the margin of error (a required calculation in statistics)? How can the margin of error be reduced to something acceptable over the whole Earth, considering the number and placement of our current instrumentation?

Remember, science does not accept supporting evidence. It only accepts conflicting evidence.
A theory becomes a theory of science only when it survives a test of falsifiability.

See? No spirituality.

You see, I have a much higher standard for accepting data than you do. If you want details, read the first article in the Data Mine thread, where I explain what those standards are and why I use them.

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.

I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming. I am an Outsider. The only 'real' discussion on climate change to you is that which supports your belief.

Why do I consider the Church of Global Warming a religion? Like any other religion, it is based on an initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Want to see what I mean? Define 'global warming' without using any circular argument, link, or quote. What exactly IS it?


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 21:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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 ?
27-05-2017 22:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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 ?


He believes that there is fission occurring in Earth's core. What else do you need to know about him?

Despite knowing that the waters below 31 south latitude have been cooling more than normal he thinks that redirection of the currents in the coral sea break the laws of thermodynamics.

The level of ignorance suggests to me that IB and into the night are the same person signing on under two different names. I cannot believe that two people would have such odd ideas about science in the same place at the same time.
27-05-2017 22:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4208)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-05-2017 23:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
.


Yes, we have seen your science. Well, I actually spent my life working in science and you are a high school student or a gravedigger that uses "science" to dig with.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Geological Influences:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New research combats the poor reasoning that influences climate-change denial1007-03-2018 19:57
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact