JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Climate change causes global suffocation — Life on Earth gone in only 1,500 years!*

And you thought we’d heard it all. Not so, get out the plastic bags.

Seventy percent of the oxygen on Earth is made by phytoplankton, so the little critters do matter. A new study suggests that the phytoplankton pretty much fall apart if the worlds oceans heat by just six degrees. They stop making the good O2. We all die. Puppies, kittens, kids, and krill — it’s all over.

There are a couple of caveats — the study involves only binary phytoplankton (the kind made of zero’s and ones and which lives in hard discs at the University of Leicester). And the other one is that six degrees is an Awful Lot of Warming.

As best as we can tell (which is not very well)  the oceans are warming at four hundreth of a degree per decade (give or take a lot). The all new Gee-Whizz Argo buoys are neat little robots, but the error bars are still a scandal, being somewhere from one tenth to one half a degree — ha-d-ha — too big to fit on the graph.( See all the white stuff — the errors are probably larger than that.)

Taking that single point of highly uncertain decadal data and extrapolating it absurdio apros (as befits this current study) — if that warming trend is real and continues, and phytoplankton remain identical despite massive selective pressure — at the current rate we only have 150 decades to wait before the oceans hit the 6C tipping point.

Trouble in 1500 years. Panic now. Panic Tomorrow. Send us your money!

I can’t believe they publish this stuff.

UK taxpayers should ask for their money back.

Ocean temperatures, phytoplankton, 6 degrees, 2015

..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151201094120.htm

Falling oxygen levels caused by global warming could be a greater threat to the survival of life on planet Earth than flooding, according to researchers from the University of Leicester.

A study led by Sergei Petrovskii, Professor in Applied Mathematics from the University of Leicester’s Department of Mathematics, has shown that an increase in the water temperature of the world’s oceans of around six degrees Celsius — which some scientists predict could occur as soon as 2100 — could stop oxygen production by phytoplankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis.

Professor Petrovskii explained: “Global warming has been a focus of attention of science and politics for about two decades now. A lot has been said about its expected disastrous consequences; perhaps the most notorious is the global flooding that may result from melting of Antarctic ice if the warming exceeds a few degrees compared to the pre-industrial level. However, it now appears that this is probably not the biggest danger that the warming can cause to the humanity.

“About two-thirds of the planet’s total atmospheric oxygen is produced by ocean phytoplankton — and therefore cessation would result in the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on a global scale. This would likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”

The team developed a new model of oxygen production in the ocean that takes into account basic interactions in the plankton community, such as oxygen production in photosynthesis, oxygen consumption because of plankton breathing and zooplankton feeding on phytoplankton.

While mainstream research often focuses on the CO2 cycle, as carbon dioxide is the agent mainly responsible for global warming, few researchers have explored the effects of global warming on oxygen production.

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Le Bourget, Paris, from November 30 to December 11. It will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.

REFERENCE

Yadigar Sekerci, Sergei Petrovskii. Mathematical Modelling of Plankton–Oxygen Dynamics Under the Climate Change. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s11538-015-0126-0

*Caveat emptor, caveat romping. Caveats on caveats. Will the phytoplankton make more aerosols and cool the world, will they grow faster with higher CO2 levels, and will they evolve and adapt to any of the minor warming that does occur, like they have done before. Who knows? (Not the computer models.)

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (58 votes cast)
Climate change causes global suffocation -- Life on Earth gone in only 1,500 years!*, 9.3 out of 10 based on 58 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pgt6kcp

78 comments to Climate change causes global suffocation — Life on Earth gone in only 1,500 years!*

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    That article doesn’t comment about the fact that many places in the oceans are already 6 degrees warmer than many other places. Why would they suppose the Globe’s phytoplankton would all be affected? Do they imagine Global Warming will bring everywhere to a temperature 6 degrees higher than plankton can tolerate? As Jo already mentioned, it doesn’t discuss the selective effect of such slow warming. Even if that somehow turned out not to be relevant, apparently 22nd Century technology will be unable to produce genetically engineered phytoplankton that could do the job.
    I’d really like to see the article itself. I’d prefer to discover that this is bad journalism rather than bad science.
    I wish, I wish… God I hope it’s just bad journalism.

    180

    • #
      Novarina

      Sorry, it’s bad science. The authors’ abstract (not pay-walled) includes the statement

      Our results indicate that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on global scale (which, if happens, obviously can kill most of life on Earth) is another possible catastrophic consequence of the global warming, a global ecological disaster that has been overlooked.

      That pretty much clarifies that this nonsense comes direct from the researchers.

      231

    • #
      Bulldust

      The science is worse than we thought …

      80

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    This model and its prediction is absurd on its face. Different species of phytoplankton provide the bottom of the ocean food chain everywhere from the equator to the poles. The water temperature variatoon is from about -2C (freeze point of seawater) to about 28C. That is a 30C diffefference already in the real world. Essay Good Bad News illustrated this point very graphically in rebuting an earlier permutation of this same nonsensical scare.

    281

  • #
    Robert O

    I would accept that most photosynthesis occurs in the oceans as 70% of the planet is ocean, further most photosynthetic activity occurs in the tropics, both in the tropical forests and seas, as it is a photochemical reaction. However, I cannot see a six degree rise in water temperature occurring, and if were to occur would this stop photosynthesis? Hotter water means more evapouration and cooling due to the latent heat of evapouration doesn’t it?

    Although most of the planets CO2 is in the oceans anyhow, has anyone given any thought to the effect of carbon (dioxide) abatement? I would assume that there is plenty for photosynthesis.

    120

  • #

    I suppose if the model is right, this means we’re all going to be dead in 1,500 years …

    Pointman

    120

  • #
    George Applegate

    Quite bizarre. Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere does not come from plants. Plants can only convert CO2 into O2, i.e. they only traffic in 0.04% of the atmosphere or 0.2% of the oxygen. If all plantlife went out of business, CO2 levels would rise as biomass decayed but 99% of the oxygen would still be left.

    130

  • #
    pattoh

    Has anybody ever tried to model political stupidity/mendacity as a function of Fiat/Debt Created Money?

    Imagine the fun you could have with postulating greed factors & media distraction variables!

    /sarc.

    160

  • #
    Novarina

    Always ask yourself, “Is that what happened last time?”. In this case, last time means the last time the earth was 6C above today’s temps.
    What happened when the Earth was that warm? In this context, nothing.

    Phytoplankton have been around for 200 million years.
    The Eocence Optimum, approx 50 million years ago, had temps in the vicinity of 12C warmer than today (polar estimated values) See this chart at this page.

    If phytoplankton and life on earth were adversely affected in the way these researchers have proposed, there would be a measurable and probably significant extinction event associated with the Eocene Optimum. There is not.

    There is an extinction event associated with the Eocene-Oligocene boundary approx 34 million years ago, a time of significant cooling.

    This brief analysis does not tell us exactly what was going on with phytoplankton at the Eocene Optimum. It does tell us that the biosphere did not collapse due to lack of oxygen or any other cause the last time temps were 6C higher than today. In fact it tells us that life on Earth is stable in a wide temperature range up to at least 12C higher than today, and that we should look for causes other than high temps for any extinction events we see.

    140

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      In the Mesozoic temperatures were higher than now. It used to be thought that they were up to 10℃ warmer because there were no polar ice caps etc. but lately the estimated levels have dropped a bit, as the enthusiasm for warming by CO2 dims. Nevertheless 6℃ is still within the range.
      The result? Lavish plant life, abundant marine organisms (the White Cliffs of Dover weren’t laid down in a marine desert) and lots of dinosaurs (which depended on lots of plant growth).

      This depends on
      Corrupt
      And
      Stupid
      Hysteria to survive.

      71

  • #
    Manfred

    Can we take it then that COP1521 is likely to be the last meeting?

    170

  • #
    Alan McIntire

    O2 is unstable, think rust and fire. Obviously the amount of O2 in the atmosphere would be just about zero without plant life. Plant life has managed to regulate the O2 balance in our atmosphere for at least 300 million years, I expect that plant regulation to continue for the next 1.5 billion years or so, when our brightening sun will cause severe problems

    100

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      For those who have not been following my thoughts as avidly as… well, me, I suppose (’cos who else would?)… I have developed a hypothesis that an atmosphere that is predominantly CO2 has to be on a planet on which life does not exist – and has never existed! By inference, of course, this means that it is only the presence of oxygen that could indicate the possible existence of life.

      It is a work in progress…

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Obviously we need to find a planet with NO CO2 in its atmosphere. Then we could build a big space ship and send all those carbon phobic hysterics there, under the care of a captain who likes baths.

        90

  • #
    Chris Hagan

    It is so annoying that everyone assumes we live in a pressure cooker called earth. Solid covered with liquid surrounded by a layer of gas. As the liquid expands to a gas, the gas envelope will increase slightly and give off heat to space (this is condensate we call water and ice crystals. The condensate falls to earth and high altitude ice crystals reduce sunlight to the earths surface. This is a self regulating system. If it was a positive re-enforcing system we would have all been dead long ago. Does anybody learn this in school anymore? I am 55 so i do not know the current school curriculum.

    181

  • #

    The ocean temperatures are clamped at about 300K since that is about where evaporative cooling is exactly offset by incident power and it seems that phytoplankton survive just fine in the warmest possible ocean waters.

    Not only is 6C a lot, where the temperatures are actually increasing, it must be even more to get such a high global average since as the planet warms or cools, the polar and equatorial average temperatures remain relatively constant.

    Of course given the nature of the debate, this kind of nonsense is expected since fear mongering is a tried and true method to propagate a lie.

    141

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    So lets take a look at the data, speculations, and unfounded, untrue. propaganda.
    First as the graph shows sea water temperature near the surface may be warming at about 0.04 deg C per decade. Now lets look at the uncertainty in this slope of the regression due to uncertainty of measuring the temperatures.
    Second, predicted slope is 1) 0.04 deg C/decade, 2) The least uncertainty in measuring the seawater temperature is about +/- 0.1 deg C or some 2.5 times the regression slope, and 3) the uncertainty in temperature measurements may be .5 deg C or more than a factor of 10 larger than the regression slope.

    The reported results are worse than useless, they are insanely or criminally deliberately huge and obviously indeterminate, and thus false.

    If a real scientists were allowed to make predictions with an uncertainty level of over 2 to over 12 times the slope of the linear prediction equation then they could claim that the earth had zero mass and it was floating in the ether of space, or the sun was only a few km in diameter and was made of yellow blanket lint. Hmm, so many possibilities to predict if uncertainty is ignored.

    121

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The world is warming and humans are the cause. We are all gonna die by 2030. Paris is the last chance to save the planet.

      Yea, it is easy :)

      41

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Again with the accusations of humans dramatically influencing the planets functioning, when we’ve had a good planktonic relationship with the oceans little creatures for years.

    120

  • #
    Lance Wallace

    The authors state: “Available data are meager, and it remains unclear what is the typical phytoplankton
    response to an increase in the water temperature, i.e., whether the rate of oxygen
    production by phytoplankton actually decreases or increases.”

    One would think this is a rather serious limitation in the model. However, not to worry–they show that the oxygen goes to zero in either case. In one case, it shoots right down–in the other case it oscillates with increasing amplitude until in the last oscillation it kisses the x-axis and the Earth dies.

    81

  • #
    Ruairi

    At the end of the Younger Dryas,
    All life should have smothered and die as,
    A ten degree hike,
    Was a one decade spike,
    With a caveat for modern bias.

    210

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    …suggests that the phytoplankton pretty much fall apart if the worlds oceans heat by just six degrees

    Only 6 degrees ? …those fussy phytoplanktons

    50

  • #
    johnbuk

    Do we have a photo of a phytoplankton – big blue eyes, furry coat, all warm and cuddly?
    We should all adopt a couple each before they go extinct.

    60

  • #
    Timboss

    Can you publish your Argo analysis showing calculations for your error bar estimates? I think not. More crap science from this crappy website.

    [And yet here you are....]ED

    216

    • #

      Already did – In the post I linked to the Hadfield 2007 analysis which found 0.5C errors across the North Atlantic.

      More crappy comments from the anonymous troll with the fake email? Looks like…

      132

      • #
        Timboss

        That’s not the same scale as your Y axis.

        More crappy science from Jo “I can’t get any science publish – it’s a conspiracy” Nova.

        25

        • #

          Well duh Timmy. Congrats. You have just figured out that the error bars are wider than the entire graph. (That’s what I said).

          One day you might read the posts before you comment. But then what will you say?

          52

          • #
            Timboss

            One day you might compare apples with apples. But then what would your graph say.

            The simple fact that you can discern a trend in both the 700m and the 2000m sets of data suggests your claims of wild errors are misguided.

            24

            • #

              Timboss, still in denial of the peer reviewed literature? Take it up with Hadfield. I am comparing apples with apples. I use the same scale for the errors and for the data — it’s all in degrees C. Too complicated for you eh?

              As for the trend you think you see, remember the outliers are filtered out in Argo…

              33

              • #
                Timboss

                Hadfield’s measurement is the root-mean-square of the sample data, this shows how varied the data is, not how much error. Yours Y values are a conversion of OHC – a completely different thing dear Jo.

                And it’s very amusing how you no longer think Argo data is accurate.

                Recall the early days when David Evans said “Ocean temperatures can only be adequately measured by the Argo buoy network … The Argos buoys have only been operational since the end of 2003. Since then they show a slight cooling”.

                Oh how times change when the data gets in the way.
                [I am getting bored with this - the mouthparts are moving, but they make no sense] Fly

                12

              • #

                RMS is an averaging mechanism and commonly used to estimate errors. OHC is heat content.

                Argo measures degrees C. The RMS gives a number in C. C is comparable to C.

                You are putting out FUD fog to avoid the obvious. You use fancy words to pretend you understand, but your content is weak to non-existent. Dishonest and boring.

                21

              • #
                Timboss

                “but they make no sense”

                No kidding. You confuse a RMS measurement with OHC. It’s the reason you won’t/can’t publish this dribble on anything but a blog website.

                [Projection. You confuse RMS with OHC. I'm talking C and C. -- Jo]

                22

              • #
                Timboss

                And yet this made it http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/climate-change-causes-global-suffocation-life-on-earth-gone-in-only-1500-years/#comment-1768407

                LOL

                You’re gutless. If you had a decent reply then you could justify, but I’ve embarrassed you by showing what I found to be an obvious flaw.

                You are weak and incapable of self-critical thinking.

                22

              • #

                …or maybe I had something else to do on a Saturday night but you didn’t? (See how I’ve published and explained your mistakes now?)

                Perhaps if you had a life you wouldn’t waste your time projecting your own intellectual flaws onto others for entertainment?

                22

              • #
                Timboss

                “Argo measures degrees C. The RMS gives a number in C. C is comparable to C.”

                You’ve repeated your mistake – just because something is in the same units does not mean it can be compared. You are still making the mistake of comparing your OHC (the whole ocean) against their small sub-sample.

                Perhaps you should read the paper you cite.

                “Errors of this magnitude suggest that the Argo dataset is of use for investigating variability in mixed layer heat storage on interannual timescales.”

                It’s also ironic that you have such confidence in climate models now. You do realise that is what they are comparing the Argo dataset to right?

                00

              • #

                The errors in the whole ocean are not smaller than the parts.
                You make the mistake of thinking 3000 buoys are measuring the
                same single temperature 3000 times, but they are not all in
                one swimming pool.

                And why talk about OHC at all when the ARGO thermometers
                measure C, the graph is in C, and the errors are in C?

                Likewise, “models” — irrelevant here. You are desperately
                seeking any point to distract from your false exaggerated
                statements above.

                As for the Hadfield quote, is that all you’ve got? It’s the
                usual weak vague “please publish me” caveat which means
                nothing. I quoted numbers, and there are other studies like
                Hadfield too. You have nothing.

                01

              • #
                Timboss

                “The errors in the whole ocean are not smaller than the parts.”

                Gosh you not very good at math.

                Here’s 4 random numbers 7, 6, 5, 8. Each of them is out randomly by +/- 1. What’s the average error?

                Now do the same for 40 numbers, what’s the average error?

                The error get’s smaller with sample size.

                “And why talk about OHC at all when the ARGO thermometers measure C”

                Because heat and temperature are NOT the same thing.

                “Likewise, “models” — irrelevant here.”

                And you’re way of avoiding your inconvenient earlier statement.

                “I quoted numbers”

                And compared them to the whole ocean. Plain stupid, which is why you can’t get any climate science published.

                10

              • #

                Errors get smaller when they *measure the same thing. *But the
                Argo buoys are not measuring the same single temperature. If
                you had 3000 buoys in a swimming pool, the errors would
                shrink. Though I am getting very bored with repeating the
                obvious to you.

                “Heat and OHC are not the same”. So? I never said they were. I
                didn’t talk about OHC at all. You just keep bringing it up
                because you are a/ confused, or b/ trying to be deceptive.

                On models: I didn’t take your bait on an irrelevant topic?
                Bummer eh. Your transparent ploys to change the subject are
                tedious.

                On comparing numbers “across the whole ocean”. Here’s an idea
                — I compared errors across the whole ocean… but if you had
                a real criticism (any evidence) you’d provide peer reviewed
                evidence of lower errors elsewhere in the ocean. Go on… Look
                up Wang et al, Pacific. The errors are dismal there too. And
                in one zone of the Hadfield North Atlantic study the errors
                were 2C! I’m being conservative.

                You are being inane. No wonder you won’t put your real name to
                your comments.

                11

              • #
                Timboss

                I’m kinda bored of you repeating the same mistake.

                Here’s the problem with your latest “Nova logic” attempt. Let’s say you slowly increase the size of your swimming pool. At what size do the Argo buoys suddenly go from narrowing the error to increasing it. It’s little wonder you can’t get ANYTHING published.

                So let me know when you find peer-reviewed science that presents the data in the same way you do.

                Oh that’s right, it’s a conspiracy. “They” are all against you. LOL!

                13

              • #

                Timboss,

                Who said anything about “increasing” the error? Not me. As usual you have to make things up just to have something to say.

                As for swimming pools — a pool is not like the ocean, do I have to list the ways? For one, at 16L each, you can’t fit 3000 Argo buoys in a backyard pool. ;-) But the errors in sampling pools will probably stop decreasing when the pools get big enough to have seasonal currents, enso and amo cycles, major ice formations, not to mention 2km of average depth that Argo doesn’t even sample, stuff like that. It’s a long way to go from one thermometer every 10L to one thermometer every 200,000 cubic kilometers.

                The idea that 3000 buoys reduce the error margins depends on them doing random sampling, which is obviously is not. The buoys float with the currents.

                The bottom line (which you keep ignoring) is that if ARGO did a reasonable approximation Hadfield and Wang would’ve found smaller errors eh? So reality hurts. You still cannot find a single study that supports you.

                And in a bizarre form of psychological projection you ignore that when it comes to citation of peer review support the tally stands at Jo 2: Timbo 0.

                11

              • #

                Who said anything about “increasing” the error? Not me. As usual you have to make things up just to have something to say.

                As for swimming pools — a pool is not like the ocean, do I have to list the ways? For one, at 1m long each, you can’t fit 3000 Argo buoys in a backyard pool. But the errors in sampling pools will probably stop decreasing when the pools get big enough to have seasonal currents, enso and amo cycles, major ice formations, not to mention 2km of average depth that Argo doesn’t even sample, stuff like that. It’s a long way to go from one thermometer every 10L to one thermometer every 200,000 cubic kilometers.

                The idea that 3000 buoys reduce the error margins depends on them doing random sampling, which it is obviously is not. The buoys float with the currents.

                The bottom line (which you keep ignoring) is that if ARGO did a reasonable approximation Hadfield and Wang would’ve found smaller errors eh? So reality hurts. You still cannot find a single study that supports you.

                And in a bizarre form of psychological projection you ignore that when it comes to citation of peer review support the tally stands at Jo 2: Timbo 0.

                00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Timboss obviously doesn’t understand what RMS means, and he/she/it hopes like hell that nobody else does either.

                30

              • #
                Timboss

                Tally for peer reviewed papers on ARGO superimposed on Jo “I can’t publish” Nova’s interpretation: 0

                BTW: It’s not me putting a theory forward, I’ll go with the scientific consensus which happens to not use your weird methods.

                So you have no reply to Hadfield and Wang, or you have trouble counting to two. — Jo

                00

              • #
                Timboss

                I have looked at them both thoroughly and neither show your graph comparing global OHC with that of the Argo RMS.

                Perhaps they realise to do so would be extremely silly.

                Tally for peer reviewed papers on ARGO superimposed on Jo “I can’t publish” Nova’s interpretation: 0

                [Headed off into The Land of Delusions? The graph here isn't "comparing OHC with ARGO RMS". Timewasting by Mr Timmy-too-scared-to-use-his-name. Try not to be boring and in-denial as well as anonymous with a fake email if you want to keep posting here. I doubt you've read either paper at all. -- Jo]

                00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “That’s not the same scale as your Y axis.”

          roflmao.. TimBozo has really underdone himself this time.

          TimBozo, the error bars won’t fit on the chart.

          If it was drawn at a scale that could fit the error bars, the lines would be essentially horizontal.

          DO….. YOU….. UNDER….. STAND !!!!!!

          22

    • #
      AndyG55

      You spelt your name incorrectly, Tim.

      Its TimBozo. !!

      42

  • #
    handjive

    I, for one, welcome our new Global Warming phytoplankton overlords …

    ABC: Lab tests predict growth of microscopic Antarctic phytoplankton ‘will double due to [Global Warming]‘

    50

  • #
    Rod Ross

    Look at it the other way. In the last ice age CO2 dropped to 180ppm. At 140ppm photosynthesis stops and everything dies. Man may have saved life on Earth by returning some CO2 to the atmosphere before the next ice age.

    50

    • #

      Yes. Sometime in the future the biggest problem facing mankind will be how to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to keep agriculture viable through the next ice ace, not that whatever we could do would put a dent in the temperature. Does this mean when the science is finally settled they will still be against using fossil fuels so we can save them for when we need the CO2 in the future?

      50

      • #
        Annie

        We’d better find new ways to use the limestone and chalk hanging around the planet in vast quantities…

        30

  • #
    PeterS

    Science has reached a new high in nonsense through the scientific journals of hoaxes. Well done. I wonder if I would be able to publish a paper in some scientific journal that proposes some time in the future pink elephants will fly faster and higher than any jet of today. While I’m at it perhaps I can ask for a few million dollars to do the research to support such a hypothesis. No? Dam it, it’s not fair!

    41

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    As it happens, Allister Heath has a piece in the UK Daily Telegraph about the disastrous state of Britain’s universities:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12030100/A-refusal-to-think-freely-is-making-universities-increasingly-irrelevant.html {probably pay-walled}.

    He mainly piles in to the humanities, but this codswallop from the University of Leicester shows (as if we ever needed convincing) that the “science” faculties are at least as politicized as the “safe space” idiots – and they are splurging taxpayers’ money on a vast scale.

    I have no idea how much money was wasted specifically on this Leicester “research” (apart from every last penny), but it is pretty obviously angling for more politically correct subsidies to come.

    60

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    “… temperature of the world’s oceans of around six degrees Celsius — which some scientists predict could occur as soon as 2100 …

    Oceans? Okay, I’ll bite: Which some predict such?

    60

  • #
    RoHa

    See? I told you we were doomed.

    30

  • #
    AndyG55

    Went for a bodysurf in a 4ft swell the other day.

    One thing I can say for certain is that there is one heck of a lot less oxygen out the back that when I was younger. !!! :-)

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    So, if six degrees is such a killer? Then that means that all the phytoplankton are already dead in all the tropical seas of the world, because they are six degrees higher than the temperate seas…. and all the phytoplankton are are dead in temperate seas of the world because the marine temperature is over six degrees warmer than the Arctic and Antarctic seas.

    These freaking people are morons.

    Speaking of which. If these morons go and check the Baltic sea sediment cores, they will find that a specific phytoplankton lives in both the Atlantic Ocean and the Western Baltic sea during the Medieval warming period, because its little carcass’s show up in the sediment cores. But it is now no longer found in the Baltic because it is too cold for them, and that it’s range shifted from the Baltic about the same time the Medieval warming stopped and cooling began according to the sediment record……It’s diatom of some sort, it was in Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven and Earth.

    There are plenty of other diatoms living in the cold Baltic while there plenty more other types living in the “warmer” Atlantic…. and I guess other types again living in warmer seas, etc.

    ….. and of course if the Western Baltic supported Atlantic Diatoms back in the 1300′s and it’s now too cold for them to exist there anymore, then one would guess that it was a lot warmer back then then it is now.

    Sometimes you wish these people would just go read some of the existing science, before they run off at the mouth.

    41

  • #
    johnbuk

    Jo, I think you’ve been very mean to Timbo, I mean, “Error Bars” when Climate Science is settled, he’ll not have come across those. Give the man a break.;-)

    11

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Climate change causes global suffocation — Life on Earth gone in only 1,500 years!*

    Really? In only 1,500 years? Quick, everyone panic!

    Or maybe not. Call me in about 1,499 years so I can worry about it. That should leave enough time to figure out that it’s not a problem.

    Where do they come from?

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      * Caveats don’t help. The thing is too far gone at the start to worry about what might be if only…

      I wouldn’t try to predict that the Rock of Gibraltar would still be around in another 1,500 years. Too many things can happen, notwithstanding the many thousands of years we’re sure it’s already been there. You have: earthquakes, space alien invasions, sun goes nova, climate change is recognized for the joke that it is, and, and, and and… …ad ridiculousium.

      It’s become a game of, “I can outdo your prediction with an even worse (and more ridiculous) one.” They play it like it was life or death, publish or perish.

      Sometimes I think perish would be the better outcome.

      00

  • #
    Mr. Ed

    Warmer oceans and warmer air evaporates more ocean water resulting in more precipitation. That is why most rain forests are located in warmer areas near the equator between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. CO2 enhances global agriculture and forest growth just as it does in green houses; the planet is becoming greener.

    Photosynthesis is the process of converting CO2 and water into oxygen and living plant tissue as indicated by the below equation.
    6 x CO2 + 6 x H2O + Light + Heat => C6H12O6 +6 x O2
    Note that if more CO2, water, light and heat are available, then more oxygen and living plants can be produced.

    Photosynthesis functions as well at 14 C or 57.2F as it does at 53 C or 126 F and photosynthesis is more efficient at all temperatures between. (See Doc Brown’s graph referenced below as well as many similar graphs.)

    The present average atmospheric temperature of earth is approximately 14C or 57.2F and the current atmospheric oxygen content is 21%. 100 million years ago, the average atmospheric temperature of earth was approximately 25C or 77F and the atmospheric oxygen content was 31% at that time. Ergo, at an 11C higher temperature, Earth had more vegetation producing 10% more oxygen.

    Googles:
    “The Chemical Equation of Photosynthesis”
    “What is the average global temperature now? | UCAR”
    “Climate and the Carboniferous Period”, Plant Fossils of West Virginia
    “Decades of deforestation yet Earth is becoming greener” Yi Liu, Albert van Dijk and Pep Canadell03 April 2015

    Google Images:
    PhotosynthesisGraph3.gif Doc Brown
    Sauerstoffgehalt-1000mj2.png

    10

  • #
    Mr. Ed

    ARGO UNFEASIBLE TO MEASURE GLOBAL-AVERAGE-OCEAN-TEMPERATURE-CHANGE
    The Argo autonomous buoy is used to make ocean temperature measurements. Argo’s specified accuracy is 0.005C The Argo accuracy is inadequate to measure a global-average-ocean-temperature change of 0.0002C corresponding to the heat-energy required to make a 0.2C change in global-average-atmospheric-temperature as the following argument explains.

    There is approximately 280 times more mass of seawater on earth than mass of air on earth. If the ideal specific heat constants are used, the seawater stores approximately 3.85 times as much heat as the same mass of air with the same temperature change. The ratio of heat storage is then 280 x 3.85 = 1078; It takes approximately one thousand times more energy to raise the oceans one degree than it does to raise the atmosphere one degree. With the limited flow of energy coming from the sun, it would not be surprising for the oceans to take much longer to rise or fall in temperature than the atmospheric surface temperature of Earth. Pre-industrial CO2 levels in the Vostok graphs are an analogy for average global ocean temperature changes because CO2 solubility in water is inversely proportional to water temperature. The Vostok ice core data indicates an 800 year lag in the rise or fall of CO2 levels with respect to surface temperature. The surface temperature changes quickly and can be thought of as an instantaneous measure of energy flow from the sun while the ocean can be thought of as a slow 800 year lagging average of the surface temperature variations. This means that events of the past three or four decades will not produce a measurable change in global-average-ocean-temperature because significant global-average-temperature changes occur over many centuries. Yet, it was falsely claimed that ocean temperature measurements from autonomous buoys and satellites proved that the “Hockey Stick” failed because missing heat was warming the oceans. For example:

    To measure the average ocean heat storage required to make a 0.2C change in average atmospheric temperature requires measuring an average ocean temperature change of 0.2C / 1078 = 0.0002C. The temperature sensor should be accurate to within 0.00002C. Argo is inadequate at 0.005C. Correlation and calibration of such drifting multiple instrument measurements of earth’s vast dynamic oceans would be impractical.
    Consider that ocean temperature extremes range from below 0C in arctic regions to above 460C near hydrothermal vents. Local average ocean surface temperatures can vary from below 0C to above 30C. A surface temperature of 22C can drop to 4C with a depth of 1000m. Significant ocean volumes reside near the full ocean depth of 11,000m and constitute significant heat storage.

    It is the relocation or mixing of existing cool and warm seawaters and transient surface water temperature variations that are measureable and not the heating or cooling of the average ocean temperature. In addition heat is always transferring from higher to lower temperature regions. Changes in ocean currents are usually responsible for such regionally measurable temperature changes.

    The cost of Argo is $15,000.00 per buoy x 3,500 buoys = $52.5 million plus cost of maintenance and monitoring. What is burden of propaganda on the economy?

    Googles:
    1) “Mass of the Atmosphere”, The Physics Factbook
    2) “Mass of the Oceans”, The Physics Factbook
    3) “SIO 210 Talley Topic 2: Properties of seawater”
    4) “Specific Heat Formula”‘ TutorVista
    5) “Accuracy and Stability of Argo SBE 41 and SBE 41CP CTD Conductivity and Temperature Sensors”, Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.
    6) “Argo and Ocean Heat Content: Progress and Issues”, Dean Roemmich

    10