So I read most of this article. Care to have a discussion about presumption and bias in interpreting the world?
Some "deniers"..... a term when used immediately reveals a deranged human whose intolerance has gone beyond the bounds of human decency.... just don't think the sea temps or air temps are in any kind of "climatic" shift from the "normal" we have known.... at least in view of the one or two hundred years of human measurements available.
People who use the hateful term "deniers" are denying the right of human belief, human opinion, human speech, and freedoms like religion and political action, equal treatment under the laws, and access to information. I mean, I see people whose advocacy has gone intolerant, really. People who will employ the force of government in their cause to put people in jail or kill them for having a differing belief. Such people, historically, have filled the ranks of various political regimes which have done great crimes against humanity. I'd include religious zealots who ever employed government force in their causes, but also modern idealists, morons really, like Nazis and Commies.
Global cartelism is not such a great cause you should support it with your credulity, bro.
Heathme wants to make this thread political. I'm willing to minimize the political aspects or uses of the subject, if others will help keep it more objective,
No doubt there is a lot of financial interest buying up space in this controversy, driving this issue. No doubt governments have politicized it and financed biased "research". But still, we are getting some data that is interesting to me, and relevant to eventually understanding this world and it's natural processes like heat balance and geology and all kinds of life dependent on the conditions and resources of the time.
What proponents of political causes like the publishers of your article fail to understand or consider relevant, is the probability that human activity may not be the only factor driving changes we see. From a thermodynamic or scientific point of view, carbon dioxide and other polyatomic molecules in our atmosphere will undeniably have different physical properties regarding radiation absorption, emission, and heat reservoir capacities. In terms of earth history, geologic scale changes..... we had an original atmosphere that was almost all CO2. What happened to that?
We have thousands of feet of "Precambrian" carbonate deposits around the world, in continental land masses. All of it was chemically deposited on ocean floors at some point in time. Every ocean floor is a currently accumulating carbonate deposit that is limited by concentrations of carbon dioxide and mineral ions like Calcium and Magnesium. If we pollute our air, almost all of that goes to the oceans. No one is measuring rates of carbonate deposition anywhere on planet earth. Without that measurement, we are all idiots waving our arms and screaming senselessly at the cosmos. We can calculate all our burning til the cows come home, but we know nothing about carbon dioxide.
If we emit acidic fumes like NOx or SO2, they will dissolve into rain water, erode some rock or soil minerals and carry the salts to the sea.
Photosynthesis has contributed to the removal of carbon dioxide from our primordial stmosphere. carbonate and plant residues are a huge "carbon sink" that is only slowly reversible. I think the "shelf life" of wood or grass on the earth surface is on average about ten years. More for forests. Carbonatge deposits are permanent, except for acid dissolution or volcanic actions. Carbonates lose CO2 at around 150 C, so if you heat up cement, cinder blocks, or rock it goes to oxide powders and gas CO2.
I find "scientists" expressing ignorant and false projections of climate based on simple equations that fail to accurately estimate the sequestration processes pretty embarassing, but our government loves them and pays them huge salaries to spread their ignorant gospel.
However, I was told fifty years ago that our atmosphere was 0.04% CO2, and I used that estimate in chemical calculations. I measured it, collecting CO2 in oxide filters and then precipitating and measuring the calcium carbonate. Now I'm told, it was only 0.03% then, but has now increased to 0.04%. 300 ppm ot 400 ppm in fifty years. Has the ocean carbonate concentration changed? How much CO2 is in the ocean?
In reading a recent scientific, peer-reviewed report, the authors found much more CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean than they expected, by a factor of 4, and the authors went so far as to state that more study needs to be done before we just assume our atmospheric carbon dioxide is even predominantly anthropogenic. Did this make the Seattle Times. or CNN? No. It's just being ignored. Nobody wants to talk about it.
So if our oceans are warming up for any reason, there's thousands of times more carbon dioxide in our oceans than in our air, and the outgassing could be nothing to do with us.
For some time, in this thread, I've talked about and dragged in links about internal earth heat processes that could be changing naturally, due to cyclical or linear models of nuclear reactions driven by movements of materials in the fluid phases of the inner earth, driven by releases of neutrons from fission and other nuclear reactions sometimes, loosely, termed "LENR", or "not so hot nuclear reactions".
It has long been known that the Earth emanates a certain amount of helium, particularly one isotope of helium, that is measured routinely as a tool for oil exploration. That Helium comes from LENR reactions..... fusion of hydrogen occuring in crystals of metal under great heat and pressure.
We now have an instrument that can track in real time subatomic particle emissions of a form that goes through mass, which can be correlated to the sum of Earth's fission reactions internally. LENR reactions are thought to require "loading" or accumulation over time of hydrogen within the crystal lattices of metals. I read one account in a peer-reviewed publication, that for some reason speculated that these reactions did not occur at all within the earth until the Earth core cooled to a certain point where under pressure, the iron crystals could form and begin to absorb the loose hydrogen.... Accordingly, it is possible that we will be getting significant increases in nuclear heat generation, to a point. While the supply of hydrogen lasts, while the conditions are right for the crystals to load the hydrogen. It could give a long-range.... million year or more.... cycle of heating that could raise our ocean temps a degree or two, heating from the ocean floor and volcanic vents....
In a hundred or more ways, we are moving forward in science towards actually being able to track changes in our situation and in our climate. I don't think we should be in any kind of panic. Whatever our point and direction of change, we should focus our resources on understanding and adapting, not on forcing our civilization on a particular social path. The issue of climate change is being used politically as tool for division, for pitting little people against one another and generating hate.
The employment of any kind of issue to divide the populace and stir up contention has been seen as a tool for "progressives", or any kind of Marxist-inspired political manipulation. Books have been written on how to exploit issues politically. Today, "Climate Change", while a real issue in "Science" so far as facts can be relevant, is the tool of choice for global cartelists who want to socialize the mass of humanity while exploiting the Earth's resources through government-controlled monopoly operations for themselves.
We will likely have real answers to the issues in a few years. Most likely, rather than stopping our fuel uses entirely, we will begin harvesting CO2 emissions and using them like fertizer in aquaponic farms or other modern farming designs, to double or triple crops.
So much for just being pigs with smokestacks.
But even released carbon will directly increase photosynthesis from algae not just on Bering ice shelfs. but throughout the whole of earth's oceans, if there is indeed an increase in oceanic CO2 for any reason. An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm, if real, should mean a proportional increase in timber growth, grass growth, and crop yields worldwide.
I'd say the changes in sea catches is likely from more than just temps. Bottom feeders, huh? because of more garbage going into the sea, as well as less ice. Drops in the catch? Likely over fishing the resource, too.
I'm really pretty bad at free-association creative imagination exercises, but the Seattle Times has probably out-done me on this one,
@Red
