Extreme Marine Heatwave Underway in North Atlantic

[ActionJackson]

No, they have not.

Yup ... they have. Hot cycles and cold cycles have occurred for eons. Stop worrying about piddly things.

 

[Crick]

Yup ... they have. Hot cycles and cold cycles have occurred for eons. Stop worrying about piddly things.

The changes currently underway are being driven by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. That has never happened before.

 

[ActionJackson]

The changes currently underway are being driven by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. That has never happened before.

Bogus. Fearmongering. Raise taxes so the rich get richer and still enjoy their limos, planes, and heated mansions.

 

[Crick]

Bogus. Fearmongering. Raise taxes so the rich get richer and still enjoy their limos, planes, and heated mansions.

Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect?

Are you rejecting CO2 as a greenhouse gas?

Are you rejecting human CO2 emissions?

 

[ActionJackson]

Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect?

Are you rejecting CO2 as a greenhouse gas?

Are you rejecting human CO2 emissions?

Yes
Yes
and Yes

CO2 is necessary for plants to thrive. Plants take in CO2 and release Oxygen (O2). It's part of the cycle of life. And humans, by the way, are carbon based. Carbon Dioxide ain't bad and it plays its role.

 

[Crick]

Yes
Yes
and Yes

CO2 is necessary for plants to thrive. Plants take in CO2 and release Oxygen (O2). It's part of the cycle of life. And humans, by the way, are carbon based. Carbon Dioxide ain't bad and it plays its role.

Your comment doesn't bear on your responses.

Why do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Why do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Why do you reject human CO2 emissions having significantly raised its level in the atmosphere?

We can do these one at a time if you'd prefer.

 

[ActionJackson]

Your comment doesn't bear on your responses.

Why do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Why do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Why do you reject human CO2 emissions having significantly raised its level in the atmosphere?

The earth started out in a "greenhouse" (so to speak). It was surrounded by a canopy of mist or clouds, and the temps were fairly uniform globally. That's why Wooly Mammoths were found in the area known today as Siberia, and they still had buttercups in their mouths.

But according to Al Gore and Greta Thunberg and AOC, we're all supposed to be dead by now. They've been fearmongering for decades--to no avail. Life is good. Worrying about nothing will only cause your stress levels to increase. And believing the above fools will only lead to higher taxes.

 

[Crick]

The earth started out in a "greenhouse" (so to speak).

No, it didn't.

It was surrounded by a canopy of mist or clouds, and the temps were fairly uniform globally.

No, it didn't.

That's why Wooly Mammoths were found in the area known today as Siberia, and they still had buttercups in their mouths.

Wooly Mammoths were wooly - adapted to cold climates. From their Wikipedia article:

The woolly mammoth was well adapted to the cold environment during the last ice age. It was covered in fur, with an outer covering of long guard hairs and a shorter undercoat. The colour of the coat varied from dark to light. The ears and tail were short to minimise frostbite and heat loss. It had long, curved tusks and four molars, which were replaced six times during the lifetime of an individual. Its behaviour was similar to that of modern elephants, and it used its tusks and trunk for manipulating objects, fighting, and foraging. The diet of the woolly mammoth was mainly grasses and sedges. Individuals could probably reach the age of 60. Its habitat was the mammoth steppe, which stretched across northern Eurasia and North America.​

​

But according to Al Gore and Greta Thunberg and AOC, we're all supposed to be dead by now.

None of those three individuals are climate scientists and there is no reason to give their comments any more regard than that of any other politician or activist.

They've been fearmongering for decades--to no avail.

It has been to some avail. EVs have a growing share of the market and almost all new energy facilities worldwide are wind or solar.

Life is good.

That's nice.

Worrying about nothing will only cause your stress levels to increase.

Failing to respond to real threats will cause you and your descendants to suffer.

And believing the above fools will only lead to higher taxes.

The earlier a problem is dealt with, the less it will 'cost'. We should have started dealing with this seriously twenty years ago. Now we've put it off so long it may simply be too late and the cost of dealing with it has risen dramatically. An increase in your taxes is probably the least of your worries.

The greenhouse effect is caused by a few of the components of our atmosphere. If we were like the moon, with no atmosphere, the sun's light, which is predominantly the visible spectrum that we can see, would strike the surface unfiltered in any way. Some would be reflected back out to space and some would be absorbed. That absorbed light would raise the temperature of the surface. Everything above absolute zero - which is to say "everything" - radiates thermal energy, predominantly in the infrared spectrum (hereafter "IR". On the moon, the warmed surface radiates that energy and it simply zips away into outer space and is gone. On our planet with out atmosphere, almost all of the IR the surface radiates is absorbed by either water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) or ozone. The other components of the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen, are completely transparent to IR. All materials radiate in the same frequencies they absorb, so as they are warmed by absorbing this IR, the greenhouse gases re-emit it. Some of that radiation heads right back down to the surface where it is absorbed by rocks, soil and water. Some heads up towards space. Along the way upward it will likely be absorbed and re-emitted by other GHG molecules several times. Finally, it will get high enough that it will escape to space. Besides the IR that returns to the surface, a great deal of energy is transferred from the greenhouse gas molecules to the other molecules in the atmosphere and the surface by simple conduction - the molecules collide and transfer some of their thermal energy to other molecules.

The effect of this can be calculated. If we had no IR trapping gases, the temperature of the Earth would be 35C (63F) colder than it is. The Earth would be "an icy wasteland".

Now, do you have some reason to reject that?

 

[JGalt]

Since the majority of their carbon footprint consists of their car and their electricity usage, there isn't much to be done till EVs of some sort are widely available and their residential electricity ALL comes from renewable sources.

In case you missed it on the image you posted, the warmest parts are along the coasts of those countries who use the most "green energy" and electric vehicles. Primarily Europe.

While the water temperature is much cooler along the US coast. It's a moronic assumption that American automobile and electricity usage would cause warming along the European coast.

 

[Crick]

In case you missed it on the image you posted, the warmest parts are along the coasts of those countries who use the most "green energy" and electric vehicles. Primarily Europe.

While the water temperature is much cooler along the US coast. It's a moronic assumption that American automobile and electricity usage would cause warming along the European coast.

Who do you believe has made such an assumption? The OP's linked article certainly did no such thing.

 

[Crick]

In case you missed it on the image you posted, the warmest parts are along the coasts of those countries who use the most "green energy" and electric vehicles. Primarily Europe.

While the water temperature is much cooler along the US coast. It's a moronic assumption that American automobile and electricity usage would cause warming along the European coast.

So, you believe this unprecedented ocean warming is due to EVs and windmills? Is that right?

 

[JGalt]

So, you believe this unprecedented ocean warming is due to EVs and windmills? Is that right?

Naturally-occurring changes in temperature that have been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Even if the entire world switched over to EV's, solar, and wind, there wouldn't be a measurable difference in anything, so you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Water temperatures off the UK are up to 9F higher than average in some locations. Fish dead of anoxia (hot water holds less oxygen) are washing up in the Gulf. In 2021 a marine heatwave in the Canadian west killed a billion shellfish.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/europe/marine-heatwave-north-atlantic-climate-scn-intl/index.html

This is amazing!!!

1. What caused the CO2 to concentrate in these precise areas?
2. Was there a corresponding lethal heat increase in the atmosphere or was this an underwater surgical strike by CO2?

 

[justoffal]

Water temperatures off the UK are up to 9F higher than average in some locations. Fish dead of anoxia (hot water holds less oxygen) are washing up in the Gulf. In 2021 a marine heatwave in the Canadian west killed a billion shellfish.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/europe/marine-heatwave-north-atlantic-climate-scn-intl/index.html

The BTU value needed to do that is nearly incalculable. That is a huge amount of heat energy. Having said that I wonder what organisms will now flourish?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Water temperatures off the UK are up to 9F higher than average in some locations. Fish dead of anoxia (hot water holds less oxygen) are washing up in the Gulf. In 2021 a marine heatwave in the Canadian west killed a billion shellfish.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/europe/marine-heatwave-north-atlantic-climate-scn-intl/index.html

 

[Crick]

Naturally-occurring changes in temperature that have been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

That's true, but what I was asking about was your suggestion that the dramatic recent warming in the North Atlantic was somehow caused by green technologies. You said " the warmest parts are along the coasts of those countries who use the most "green energy" and electric vehicles.".

Even if the entire world switched over to EV's, solar, and wind, there wouldn't be a measurable difference in anything, so you're just pissing in the wind.

There will be an easily measurable difference in GHG emissions.

So, we have above two uncredited sea level diagrams; one covering 150,000 years and the other 550,000 years. No one has ever suggested that sea level was constant prior to the Industrial Revolution. So what bearing does this have to do with contemporary sea level rise?

Yes? This plot and longer ones clearly show that atmospheric CO2 has not been at its current levels at any point in the last 3-1/2 million years. And CO2 and temperature rates of increase are 7 to 10 times as great as any increase in that same span of time. Does any of that mean anything to you?

 

[Woodznutz]

That goes without saying.

 

[Woodznutz]

Man can preserve the earth and himself,
or
The earth can rid itself of man.
In either case the earth will win.

 

[Esdraelon]

No, they have not.

For the sake of discussion - and to save your sanity - let's say all of your data and predictions are correct. All of the effects from Western Europe and the US do not come close to the carbon footprint of China or India and, last I checked, they aren't doing a damned thing to lower it. So why should we allow our economies to crater while leaving theirs alone? Maybe because the whole situation is being used for a redistribution of wealth and as an excuse for more control by governments? Thankee, no...

 

[Crick]

For the sake of discussion - and to save your sanity - let's say all of your data and predictions are correct. All of the effects from Western Europe and the US do not come close to the carbon footprint of China or India

That is incorrect.

Note that while not by much, China's emissions ARE decreasing. Note also that the US has a much higher per capita rate of emissions than do China or India and we are, in fact, 16th out of the 209 countries on this full chart by that measure. If you go to the website, you can sort it on any column.

CO2 Emissions by Country - Worldometer

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by Country in the world with Global share of CO2 greenhouse emissions by country

www.worldometers.info

and, last I checked, they aren't doing a damned thing to lower it.

You should check again, because they are. China has more wind and solar capacity installed than any other nation on the planet.

So why should we allow our economies to crater while leaving theirs alone?

While leaving theirs alone? What are you suggesting? Tariffs? War?

Maybe because the whole situation is being used for a redistribution of wealth and as an excuse for more control by governments?

You have been listening to a disingenuous source if you think that's what this is all about. Go to Another record! June was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth for an accurate translation of what the man actually said.

Thankee, no...

Get your facts straight before you make up your mind.