Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you are talking about Azolla you are dead wrong on both counts. It's how hydrocarbons got into the Arctic Circle. Which is how I know about it."Hypothesized" for one. Second, it was not a sink of atmospheric carbon, but of plant material. Plants sinking into water does not make water a "carbon sink". No more than throwing a few thousand logs into a cave makes the cave a carbon sink.
Do you have a link for that?Ahhh, but much of that was never "atmospheric carbon". It was always either deep subsurface or geological carbon dioxide, and never part of the free atmosphere.
Seriously, bro, google is your friend.Also, show me a reference showing it is "94% of global CO2", because I have never seen a reference give it anywhere even close to that figure. At most, I think I have seen 25%.
Dude, you thought the ocean contained 25% of the planet's CO2. Are you sure you want to be arguing about most who actually read research?And even then, most who actually read the research recognize that is not all and never has been "atmospheric CO2", but that the oceans have their own O2-CO2 cycle that is largely independent of what happens on the surface.
You are the person alleging the CO2 in the ocean did not come from the atmosphere, right?So here we have something interesting, in that you are asking me to confirm something that I myself do not even believe, and have never heard from a reputable source before.
What are you yammering about now?It's so bizarre to watch the armchair nonscientest denier goobers cite the work of the same scientists they then imply or outright state are frauds or incompetent. It's like the deniers have trouble with the concept of a coherent body of thought. Or maybe they all had traumatic brain injuries that cause them memory and reasoning problems.
It's so bizarre to watch the armchair nonscientest denier goobers cite the work of the same scientists they then imply or outright state are frauds or incompetent. It's like the deniers have trouble with the concept of a coherent body of thought. Or maybe they all had traumatic brain injuries that cause them memory and reasoning problems.
Currently in California ... where there isn't a blizzard warning, there's a flood warning ...
Them people there just invent things to complain about ... what next, the sky isn't blue enough anymore?
California has descended deep into one of the worst droughts in its recorded history. And perhaps no single location shows more starkly how deep that really is than Lake Oroville, the state's second-largest reservoir and a crucial source of water supply for the state's farm and city water users alike.
San Francisco-based Getty Images photographer Justin Sullivan has been visiting the lake off and on since the driest days of our last severe drought, in 2014.
A little more than a year ago, I went car camping to the very nice Loafer Creek Campground at Lake Oroville State Recreation Area. The lake, the main reservoir for the State Water Project and the second-largest California reservoir after Lake Shasta, was about 85 percent full at the time. If you were following the vagaries of the state's 2012-13 water season, you might have been a little troubled by the fact the rains had virtually ceased after the turn of the new year. What wasn't apparent during that March 27, 2013, visit to Lake Oroville was that the rains wouldn't return in the fall either, and that the lake would fall to just one-third full by January — low in any season, but especially alarming in that the reservoir levels here and virtually everywhere else across the state continued to decline at a time when they'd usually be filling up with runoff from fall and early-winter storms.
Yep, to the one that has had a 3 page fit after misunderstanding what I meant.From the one that tried to talk about the oxygen on Venus?
Yep, to the one that has had a 3 page fit after misunderstanding what I meant.
Whatever you need to tell yourself after your embarrassing fit. Note that I told you exactly what I meant, and the fit continued anyway. Still happening, really.You mean because I tried to pin down any facts to what you claimed, before I realized you are just a massive troll and are not to be taken seriously.
That is not "misunderstanding", and why you are no longer to be taken seriously.
Yep, pretty much.
Hell, want a good laugh? Look up what they always report about Lake Oroville.
Lake Oroville Shows the Shocking Face of California's Drought | KQED
A Northern California photographer documents how rapidly the state's second-largest reservoir has dwindled toward a record low.www.kqed.org
Of course, they also happen to report this over and over again every single year.
California Drought Snapshot: Lake Oroville Revisited | KQED
Following the ups and downs of a key state reservoir and what they mean for the drought water supply.
I actually lived in Oroville, this happened every damned year.
Oroville Dam was designed to capture snow melt and was primarily a flood control dam. And each year, from around May until October it would dump out around 90% of its water. Especially in the spring and fall as that was the times of the salmon runs and they needed greater flows to migrate. And by October, the lake would be right back down to the original river.
And then from October when the rains start until early June when the spring runoff finishes, it would refill. Often to the point where they were doing some huge releases so the dam will not overtop. That is exactly the condition that caused it to almost collapse in 2017. It had gone from the original river in October, to the water running over the top of the dam and eroding it away in February. That is how damned fast the dam can go from empty to over 100% capacity. And it is a balancing act between releasing enough water to keep the fish population downstream thriving and migrating, releasing enough water for irrigation and for people to drink, and not releasing it so fast that it floods.
The largest single cause of "drought" in California is simply that there are too damned many people in the state, that are taking all of the water and leaving damned little for farmers and everything else. This literally is a "man made drought".
Yet, every single year like clockwork the press will scream about it being "drought" and "global warming", even though it has happened the exact same way every single year since the dam was built. And all of us that live in the area laugh our asses off over that, because the stupid "big city" people do not have a freaking clue.
I am wondering how long it took for you determine that?You mean because I tried to pin down any facts to what you claimed, before I realized you are just a massive troll and are not to be taken seriously.
That is not "misunderstanding", and why you are no longer to be taken seriously.
Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.excalibur
Yeah. Such "junk science" that about 98% of scientists from different fields of science say that global warming is a reality.
This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming.
In 2009, Al Gore loosely cited researchers and said there was a “75% chance” the ice could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years because of man-made global warming.
In 1970 Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
This won't make your new friends happy.Which to me is a guaranteed fail from the start. And this is the kind of "scientific failure" that drives people like me crazy. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stop "cheating" and let the data and facts speak for themselves. The constant fudging and claims that never happen have made most of them lose all credibility with me.
Oh, and several of those were from Kenneth Watt. Who for the last two decades has been a huge global warming screamer.
This is the thing, I do not trust screamers. Especially when the screams over and over again are proven to be completely false. Like the IPCC saying in 1990 that sea levels rise would increase to over 7mm per year by 2030. Which amazingly has not happened, it is still at the same plodding increase that has been seen for the last century (2-3mm). So it had better hurry up, it only has 9 years to more than double.
And yes, I am old enough to remember the screamers going "Global Ice Age!", a few decades before they changed to "Global Warming!", now "Climate Change!" And claiming everything from increased rain and drought to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and even earthquakes on it.
Yes, apparently earthquakes are caused by global warming also.
So yes, I largely dismiss them all now, as they are grasping at straws and almost none of their "predictions" from even 30 years ago panned out, and are almost the reverse of their predictions 50 years ago. With that track record, they have no credibility in my eyes.
