'Warm blob' of water in Pacific Ocean could hurt salmon

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-in-pacific-ocean-could-hurt-salmon-1.3001677

'Warm blob' of water in Pacific Ocean could hurt salmon

Scientist Dick Beamish says it could take years to know the full impact of warm blob on fish

By The Early Edition, CBC News Posted: Mar 19, 2015 11:47 AM PT| Last Updated: Mar 19, 2015 11:55 AM PT

Spawning sockeye salmon are seen making their way up the Adams River in Roderick Haig-Brown Provincial Park near Chase, B.C. in 2014. Scientist Dick Beamish worries salmon could feel the impact of a warm blob of water travelling south down the Pacific Coast. (Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press)

Warm waters could hurt B.C. marine life 6:22 http://www.cbc.ca/news/warm-waters-could-hurt-b-c-marine-life-1.3001434

Related Stories

■Chinook salmon could be wiped out by 2100, new study claims
■Sea life relocating fast in response to climate change
■Last decade warmest on record, says UN report

A "warm blob" of water — which originated in the Gulf of Alaska — is moving south along the Pacific Coast, and scientists are warning it could hurt marine life in B.C.

"Probably I think is fair to say it's unprecedented in terms of the oceanography," Dick Beamish, a retired scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, told The Early Edition's Rick Cluff.

The blob is up to 3 C warmer than average temperatures, which Beamish said will be a significant increase to fish like salmon.

"It sure makes a difference to animals that don't regulate their body temperature, so this is major event."
■Chinook salmon could be wiped out by 2100, new study claims http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...-wiped-out-by-2100-new-study-claims-1.2881635
■Sea life relocating fast in response to climate change http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-life-relocating-fast-in-response-to-climate-change-1.1362068
■Last decade warmest on record, says UN report http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/last-decade-warmest-on-record-says-un-report-1.1330948

Beamish said there is no question it will have an impact on marine life, but said it will take a long time to know the full impact.

"The effect is through the food chain, and so because it's through the food chain, most likely you would see that through juvenile fish survival and then you don't see the consequences of the changes in juvenile survival for a few years," he said.

"It's not so much that you're going to see something instantly. We are seeing, according to the report, mortality of birds and certainly some effect on marine mammals, but in terms of fish — let's say particularly salmon — it's not so easy to forecast what is going to happen."

To hear the full interview with Dick Beamish, click the audio labelled: Warm waters could hurt B.C. marine life.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150409143041.htm

'Warm blob' in Pacific Ocean linked to weird weather across the US

Date: April 9, 2015

Source: University of Washington

Summary: An unusually warm patch of surface water, nicknamed 'the blob' when it emerged in early 2014, is part of a Pacific Ocean pattern that may be affecting everything from West Coast fisheries and water supplies to East Coast snowstorms. The blob is just one element of a broader pattern in the Pacific Ocean whose influence reaches much further -- possibly to include two bone-chilling winters in the Eastern U.S.

The warm blob earlier this week, now squished up against the West Coast. The scale bar is in degrees Celsius (each increment is 1.8 F).

Credit: NOAA; National Climate Data Center

The one common element in recent weather has been oddness. The West Coast has been warm and parched; the East Coast has been cold and snowed under. Fish are swimming into new waters, and hungry seals are washing up on California beaches.

A long-lived patch of warm water off the West Coast, about 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal, is part of what's wreaking much of this mayhem, according to two University of Washington papers to appear in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

"In the fall of 2013 and early 2014 we started to notice a big, almost circular mass of water that just didn't cool off as much as it usually did, so by spring of 2014 it was warmer than we had ever seen it for that time of year," said Nick Bond, a climate scientist at the UW-based Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, a joint research center of the UW and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Bond coined the term "the blob" last June in his monthly newsletter as Washington's state climatologist. He said the huge patch of water -- 1,000 miles in each direction and 300 feet deep -- had contributed to Washington's mild 2014 winter and might signal a warmer summer.

Ten months later, the blob is still off our shores, now squished up against the coast and extending about 1,000 miles offshore from Mexico up through Alaska, with water about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. Bond says all the models point to it continuing through the end of this year.

The new study explores the blob's origins. It finds that it relates to a persistent high-pressure ridge that caused a calmer ocean during the past two winters, so less heat was lost to cold air above. The warmer temperatures we see now aren't due to more heating, but less winter cooling.

Co-authors on the paper are Meghan Cronin at NOAA in Seattle and a UW affiliate professor of oceanography, Nate Mantua at NOAA in Santa Cruz and Howard Freeland at Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The authors look at how the blob is affecting West Coast marine life. They find fish sightings in unusual places, supporting recent reports that West Coast marine ecosystems are suffering and the food web is being disrupted by warm, less nutrient-rich Pacific Ocean water.

The blob's influence also extends inland. As air passes over warmer water and reaches the coast it brings more heat and less snow, which the paper shows helped cause current drought conditions in California, Oregon and Washington.

The blob is just one element of a broader pattern in the Pacific Ocean whose influence reaches much further -- possibly to include two bone-chilling winters in the Eastern U.S.

A study in the same journal by Dennis Hartmann, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences, looks at the Pacific Ocean's relationship to the cold 2013-14 winter in the central and eastern United States.

Despite all the talk about the "polar vortex," Hartmann argues we need to look south to understand why so much cold air went shooting down into Chicago and Boston.

His study shows a decadal-scale pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean linked with changes in the North Pacific, called the North Pacific mode, that sent atmospheric waves snaking along the globe to bring warm and dry air to the West Coast and very cold, wet air to the central and eastern states.

"Lately this mode seems to have emerged as second to the El Niño Southern Oscillation in terms of driving the long-term variability, especially over North America," Hartmann said.

In a blog post last month, Hartmann focused on the more recent winter of 2014-15 and argues that, once again, the root cause was surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific.

That pattern, which also causes the blob, seems to have become stronger since about 1980 and lately has elbowed out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to become second only to El Niño in its influence on global weather patterns.

"It's an interesting question if that's just natural variability happening or if there's something changing about how the Pacific Ocean decadal variability behaves," Hartmann said. "I don't think we know the answer. Maybe it will go away quickly and we won't talk about it anymore, but if it persists for a third year, then we'll know something really unusual is going on."

Bond says that although the blob does not seem to be caused by climate change, it has many of the same effects for West Coast weather.

"This is a taste of what the ocean will be like in future decades," Bond said. "It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Washington. The original article was written by Hannah Hickey. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: 1.Nicholas A. Bond, Meghan F. Cronin, Howard Freeland, Nathan Mantua. Causes and Impacts of the 2014 Warm Anomaly in the NE Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters, 2015; DOI: 10.1002/2015GL063306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063306

 

[OldBlackDog]

[h=1]Two new studies show that global warming is not behind California drought[/h]

According to yesterday's Washington Post, there is a gigantic warm blob in the Pacific Ocean that is fueling California's four-year-long drought, and it has nothing to do with global warming. Two new studies released this week in the journal "Geophysical Research Letters", explain how this large expanse of warm ocean water is affecting California's weather as well as the East Coast's past two brutal winters.
In the first study, Nick Bond, Washington's state climatologist, believes the blob, a.k.a. the "warm anomaly," is behind California's ongoing warm and dry winters. Discovered in the fall of 2013, the warm anomaly is roughly 1,000 miles wide and about 300 feet deep, and according to Bond, is about 3°C (5°F) warmer than is typical for that area of the Pacific ocean. When viewed on a map showing ocean water temperatures, "the great circular mass does indeed look like a blob."
Bond and his researchers believe the anomaly was created when a high-pressure air system got stuck over the circular blob's current location, allowing the ocean water to stay calmer and warmer. This in turn allowed the air above this system to carry heat instead of the typical rain and snow as it worked its way toward land, leading to California's multi-year drought.
"The West Coast’s high temperatures and dire drought, which has led to mandatory water restrictions in California, are likely attributable to this phenomenon," the researchers said. "These new studies also confirm the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) March report, which said "that West Coast waters are becoming less biologically productive as they become warmer. The report attributed the strandings of nearly 1,500 starving sea lion pups, the decline in copepods (tiny crustaceans that support the base of the food chain) and other environmental shifts to the expanding blob." NOAA also put most of the blame on California's drought on natural variables and not climate change.
In the second study, headed by Dennis Hartmann, they found that the "warming waters of the northeast Pacific are tied to an anomaly in water temperatures thousands of miles away, roughly where the International Date Line and the equator intersect in the Tropics." Surface waters in this location are much warmer than normal and are heating the air above them, which eventually reaches the West Coast. Hartmann likens it to "throwing a rock into a pond...the wave eventually makes its way to the other side."
And while the warm waters create a unyielding high pressure system off the West Coast, they cause "cold, wet, low-pressure air in the central and eastern U.S., leading to heavy snowfall and bitterly cold winters." According to the historical record, unusual ocean warming in the Tropics has occurred before, and Hartmann admits, "it could be just another natural variation in ocean and atmosphere temperatures, similar to the El Niño-La Niña cycle."
Harmann declined to say whether the warming of the Tropics is due to global warming, writing, “I don’t think we know the answer. Maybe it will go away quickly and we won’t talk about it anymore, but if it persists for a third year, then we’ll know something really unusual is going on." Bond also said in the same joint release that "although the blob does not seem to be caused by climate change, it has many of the same effects for West Coast weather."
The blob also has all the characteristics of another less-known phenomena termed megaplumes: massive underwater vents that spew out vast amounts of heat, which in turn warm the waters above. According to geologist James Kamis, “An ongoing very large megaplume is responsible for generating a cell of unusually warm seawater that extends across a vast region of the Pacific Ocean, including much of North America’s west coast. This sub-sea volcanically induced giant warmed cell is acting to alter normal California climate patterns and inducing a long term draught.
Even Discover Magazine noted the importance of a megaplume's influence on ocean waters, writing "Megaplumes stir up huge amounts of ocean, carrying minerals and gases and heat almost to the sea’s surface. Vertical mixing doesn’t happen easily in the ocean. Cool, dense water tends to stay near the bottom and warmer buoyant water near the top." David Butterfield, a chemist at the the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, told Discover Magazine that, "They could be doing things to the energy of the ocean that we don’t even know about."
Scientists first discovered megaplumes in 1986 when they identified a large cell of unusually hot and chemically charged seawater off the coast of Washington state. Baker et al discovered this phenomenon near the Juan de Fuca Ridge, and it was the first cataclysmic hydrothermal vent or megaplume."
NOAA even developed an entire group, the VENTS Program, to research hydrothermal vents. "As research by the VENTS and other groups progressed, even larger megaplumes were identified," writes Kamis. These include "megaplumes discovered in the Indian and Atlantic oceans," which were immense: 44 miles by 20 miles by 5,000 feet tall. "Calculations of total energy released per megaplume were so astounding, researchers concluded, that megaplumes could "'significantly effect ocean dynamics.'"
Kamis found that "scientists were beginning to get a handle on the effect that geological forces have on the ocean, and as a result, the climate. Then it happened: Atmospherically trained climate scientists proposed the theory of man-made global warming. Seemingly overnight, these scientists had waylaid further investigation into the megaplumes’ effect on the climate."
"Credible evidence increasingly supports the theory of plate climatology, which states that geological forces influence El Niños, Arctic sea ice melt patterns, hydrothermal methane and CO2 emission rates, deep-ocean currents, coral reef bleaching, plankton blooms, mega-droughts, and so on."
"The discovery of geologically induced megaplumes played an important historical role in the evolution of climate science." Kamis adds. "To the satisfaction of field geologists, that notion is currently experiencing a resurrection."

 

[GLG]

OBD help us with the math here
From the 1999 Discovery Magazine article describing the megaplumes.

“We spent about four days towing around the area, and we started drawing a picture of this great big circle,” Baker continues. “We’d start moving through the circle and the readings would get higher and higher, then we’d get to the middle and move out the other side and the readings would drop off again. It was a perfectly symmetrical circle around this one spot on the ridge.”
So Baker began to visit other eruption sites at various segments of the Juan de Fuca Ridge and saw megaplumes at all of them. “The plumes are pretty distinctive,” he says. “They’ve got a definite top and bottom. Their temperature and salt content are different from the surrounding water. They’re warmer, and they’re more fresh. In part that explains why they rise so high: hot fluids are more buoyant than cooler ones.”
Eventually the megaplume cools down just enough to stop rising. At that point it is about 2 degrees warmer than the water at the seafloor and three-tenths of a degree warmer than the water surrounding the plume. That difference may not seem like much, but water has tremendous heat capacity. Raising water temperature by 1 degree requires 4,000 times more heat than raising the temperature of an equal volume of air.

and then this from the same article

Baker was particularly interested in learning more about megaplumes, observed only seven times before. Hot geysers of water, such as those on Axial’s flanks, rise only a few hundred feet above the seafloor, then diffuse like a pall of low-hanging smoke. Megaplumes, however, can soar more than several thousand feet off the ocean floor and spin like slow but gargantuan tornadoes. They can be 12 miles across and travel hundreds of miles.

Discovered in the fall of 2013, the warm anomaly is roughly 1,000 miles wide and about 300 feet deep, and according to Bond, is about 3°C (5°F) warmer than is typical for that area of the Pacific ocean. When viewed on a map showing ocean water temperatures, "the great circular mass does indeed look like a blob."

So for a megaplume to be 1,000 miles wide and the temp 100 times warmer you would need an eruption of an undersea volcano or vent in the order of 10s of thousands of times more then what has been documented in the Discovery article. You would think that someone would have noticed something like that. Or, perhaps you could just go with what the thousands of scientists are saying that climate change is real and it's caused by all the CO2 we are dumping into the air. The effect has science and observation backing it and some old guy that has the ability to create a PDF, with a theory called Plate Climatology, that get posted by a climate denial website might not make sense. You be the judge ... crazy bus or science.... pick one.

 

[OldBlackDog]

I see see that you are still playing at being a scientist. Still not good at it yet I notice.

OBD help us with the math here
From the 1999 Discovery Magazine article describing the megaplumes.



and then this from the same article





So for a megaplume to be 1,000 miles wide and the temp 100 times warmer you would need an eruption of an undersea volcano or vent in the order of 10s of thousands of times more then what has been documented in the Discovery article. You would think that someone would have noticed something like that. Or, perhaps you could just go with what the thousands of scientists are saying that climate change is real and it's caused by all the CO2 we are dumping into the air. The effect has science and observation backing it and some old guy that has the ability to create a PDF, with a theory called Plate Climatology, that get posted by a climate denial website might not make sense. You be the judge ... crazy bus or science.... pick one.

 

[agentaqua]

I see see that you are still playing at being a scientist. Still not good at it yet I notice.

OBD - this approach of yours is very tiring. Nobody needs to be a "scientist" in order to read and understand science anymore than someone needs a PhD in English Literature in order to read Zane Gray. I have not read GLG posting he was/wasn't a "scientist" - and even if he was/wasn't - so what?

Instead, I read your comments to GLG above as paternalistic and dismissive of yet again another person who disagrees with you (like 95% of scientists). It is a childish and immature approach.

If you actually have something to offer in this debate - then fine - let's hear it.

If not - well - you know the saying - "it's better to be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt"

 

[GLG]

I see see that you are still playing at being a scientist. Still not good at it yet I notice.

Well no I'm not a scientist and have never claimed to be one. I did pay attention in school and I'm not bad at math and critical thinking. I'm not easy to fool and can spot BS when I see it. My training is in geology and computers and I should have been a geophysicist but that's a long story...... Ended up in computers and management and it served me well. Oh you don't need much skill in math to see that the numbers don't add up with the theory you are trying to pass off on us. If you think I'm "still not good at it" perhaps you could grace us with your math skills and show us where I went wrong.

 

[Whole in the Water]

OBD - this approach of yours is very tiring. Nobody needs to be a "scientist" in order to read and understand science anymore than someone needs a PhD in English Literature in order to read Zane Gray. I have not read GLG posting he was/wasn't a "scientist" - and even if he was/wasn't - so what?

Instead, I read your comments to GLG above as paternalistic and dismissive of yet again another person who disagrees with you (like 95% of scientists). It is a childish and immature approach.

If you actually have something to offer in this debate - then fine - let's hear it.

If not - well - you know the saying - "it's better to be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt"

X 2 agree with you OBD's reply is weak.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, you are saying that disputing a peer reviewed paper is ok by someone who is not a scientist with this background?
This is from you who has,said that peer reviewed papers are the only truth?
i guess they would have to write a paper and have it peer reviewed?
bet that will not happen.

Did you actually read the paper you submitted? You did know it was peer reviewed?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063306/abstract

• [SUP]†[/SUP]​
  This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/2015GL063306
  

Saying that it is caused by global warming when the article said it was not?
i see you appear to not read what you actually put up?




QUOTE=agentaqua;402733]OBD - this approach of yours is very tiring. Nobody needs to be a "scientist" in order to read and understand science anymore than someone needs a PhD in English Literature in order to read Zane Gray. I have not read GLG posting he was/wasn't a "scientist" - and even if he was/wasn't - so what?

Instead, I read your comments to GLG above as paternalistic and dismissive of yet again another person who disagrees with you (like 95% of scientists). It is a childish and immature approach.

If you actually have something to offer in this debate - then fine - let's hear it.

If not - well - you know the saying - "it's better to be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt"[/QUOTE]

 

[OldBlackDog]

[h=1]Mystery 'blob' in the Pacific Ocean: Strange patch of warm water could be causing California's mega-drought[/h]

• A 'blob' of warm water 2,000 miles across is sitting in the Pacific Ocean
• It has been present since 2013 and causing fish to seek shelter elsewhere
• University of Washington study says it could be responsible for droughts
• But it is not clear where the blob has come from - or how long it will stay

By Jonathan O'Callaghan for MailOnline
Published: 12:10 GMT, 10 April 2015 | Updated: 14:19 GMT, 10 April 2015
A mysterious ‘warm blob’ of water off the West coast of the US could explain why states like California are experiencing their worst ever drought, while the East is battered by freezing weather.
The blob in the ocean was discovered last year, with temperatures one to four degrees Celsius (two to seven degrees Fahrenheit) above surrounding ‘normal’ water.
And the blob has now extended about 1,000 miles (1,600km) offshore, from Mexico up to Alaska, and could herald a warmer summer for some regions.
Scroll down for video

A 'blob' of warm water 2,000 miles across is sitting in the Pacific Ocean (shown in diagram). Since last June it has extended from Alaska to Mexico. It has been present since 2013 and causing fish to seek shelter elsewhere. And a new University of Washington study says it could be responsible for droughts

A new study by the University of Washington found that a high-pressure ridge could be causing the blob, by trapping heat in the water.
In June of last year, the huge patch of water stretched 1,000 miles (1,600km) in each direction, and was 300ft (90 metres) deep.
Dr Nick Bond, a climate scientist at the University of Washington, coined the term ‘the blob’ in June.
[h=3]THE WESTERN US MEGA-DROUGHT[/h]Since the year 2000, seven western states in the US has seen their driest periods in centuries: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
And scientists in California have warned that the region may be experiencing a century-long 'mega-drought'.
The warnings came after sediment studies showed California is currently experiencing the driest spell since 1580, and that the regular rainfall seen during the last century is likely to have been a temporary deviation in a cycle of droughts and very occasional rainfall over the last 3,000 years.
In 2013, California received less rain than in any year since its formation as a state in 1850.
However droughts lasting more than 100 years are far from unheard of in the state.
Looking back over several thousand years, droughts have been known to last over a decade, and in some cases they can last a century.
And the patterns tend to repeat, meaning another drought of this length will probably happen again in the future.


Ten months later, the blob is now squashed up against the coast, and Dr Bond says all models point to it continuing through the end of this year.
‘In the fall of 2013 and early 2014 we started to notice a big, almost circular mass of water that just didn't cool off as much as it usually did, so by spring of 2014 it was warmer than we had ever seen it for that time of year,’ said Dr Bond.
Researchers said it may have contributed to the state of Washington's mild 2014 winter and might signal a warmer summer.
But exactly how this area of warmer water has formed, or how long it will stay, remains a mystery.
One thing that can be studied, though, is its effects.
As air passes over warmer water and reaches the coast it brings more heat and less snow, which the scientists say helped cause current drought conditions in California, Oregon and Washington.
The researchers said that it might not only be causing warmer temperatures on the West coast, but also cooler temperatures on the East coast.
It could also be playing a part in circulating cold and wet air to the central and eastern states of the US.

California's drought (stock image shown left) is one of the worst on record, while the East coast of the US (Central Park in New York shown right) has seen unusually cold temperatures

It is also having an effect on marine life.
Fish have been spotted in unusual places, supporting recent reports that West coast marine ecosystems are suffering and the food web is being disrupted by warm, less nutrient-rich Pacific Ocean water.
Dr Bond noted that, while this phenomenon likely wasn’t caused by global warming, it could be a sign of similar weather to come.
‘This is a taste of what the ocean will be like in future decades,’ Dr Bond said.
‘It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming.’
How Californians are adapting to drought water restrictions
<center style="max-width: 100%;">

</center>

The 'blob' is also having an effect on marine life. Fish, like the Thresher Shark (shown), have been spotted in unusual places, supporting recent reports that West Coast marine ecosystems are suffering and the food web is being disrupted by warm, less nutrient-rich Pacific Ocean water

[h=3]Share or comment on this article[/h]

 

[GLG]

So, you are saying that disputing a peer reviewed paper is ok by someone who is not a scientist with this background?
This is from you who has,said that peer reviewed papers are the only truth?
i guess they would have to write a paper and have it peer reviewed?
bet that will not happen.

Did you actually read the paper you submitted? You did know it was peer reviewed?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063306/abstract

• [SUP]†[/SUP]​
  This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/2015GL063306

Saying that it is caused by global warming when the article said it was not?
i see you appear to not read what you actually put up?

Again you are misrepresenting what this is about. Typical.
You lead with a story about the "blob", fine. It's a mystery and I suspect it will be studied and we will get to the bottom of it using the peer reviewed process. Where data, observation and logic will carry the day. Where you went off the rails was to add the "theory called Plate Climatology" to explain the blob. I pointed out how totally wrong that dumb idea was. Anyone with basic math skills can see right through your explanation and your attempt to point to natural caused climate change. Why is it you are so desperate to hold onto this idea when the rest of the world is moving on. What makes you tick to a different clock? What are you afraid of?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Once again, just for you because you cannot accept new science that refutes your theory.
by the way,the earth has not warmed up in the last 18 years and 4 months.


NOAA even developed an entire group, the VENTS Program, to research hydrothermal vents. "As research by the VENTS and other groups progressed, even larger megaplumes were identified," writes Kamis. These include "megaplumes discovered in the Indian and Atlantic oceans," which were immense: 44 miles by 20 miles by 5,000 feet tall. "Calculations of total energy released per megaplume were so astounding, researchers concluded, that megaplumes could "'significantly effect ocean dynamics.

Again you are misrepresenting what this is about. Typical.
You lead with a story about the "blob", fine. It's a mystery and I suspect it will be studied and we will get to the bottom of it using the peer reviewed process. Where data, observation and logic will carry the day. Where you went off the rails was to add the "theory called Plate Climatology" to explain the blob. I pointed out how totally wrong that dumb idea was. Anyone with basic math skills can see right through your explanation and your attempt to point to natural caused climate change. Why is it you are so desperate to hold onto this idea when the rest of the world is moving on. What makes you tick to a different clock? What are you afraid of?

 

[agentaqua]

So, you are saying that disputing a peer reviewed paper is ok by someone who is not a scientist with this background?
This is from you who has,said that peer reviewed papers are the only truth?

OBD - it is difficult to understand if you:
1/ Are incapable of understanding,
2/ Are unwilling to understand, or
3/ Understand very well - but are purposely misrepresenting things.

No - if you go back on the rather large set of postings in the climate change debate thread (which I am leery of getting back into a never-ending debate over propaganda) - I have been consistent in saying:

Anyone can bring anything they want into a debate - news, the cut and paste from climate-deniers as you have, etc.

However, if you want to have a debate on the climate science (which is what it is OBD) - then you have a science-based debate - using science.

The most appropriate place for that to happen among scientists - is in the peer-reviewed literature - where the deniers have never been yet able to do that because their BS arguments fall apart when examined critically using a skill set of science literacy verses propaganda.

That's why some 95% of scientists support the evidence that climate change is largely caused and exasperated by human activities including the burning of fossil fuels - is serious - and is something we can affect especially if we get on with developing alternative energy sources where they exist and make sense - if for nothing else - we will run out of fossil fuels at some time - a debate that climate deniers avoid because they loose their argument right there.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So for this post that YOU posted, it states that it is NOT caused by global warming.This is also a peer reviewed paper.
GLG said it was caused by global warming and any one could see that according to him.
You defended this.
I see you have not defended your position.
So, where do you stand?
Are you saying this is caused by global warming as GLG did?

OBD - it is difficult to understand if you:
1/ Are incapable of understanding,
2/ Are unwilling to understand, or
3/ Understand very well - but are purposely misrepresenting things.

No - if you go back on the rather large set of postings in the climate change debate thread (which I am leery of getting back into a never-ending debate over propaganda) - I have been consistent in saying:

Anyone can bring anything they want into a debate - news, the cut and paste from climate-deniers as you have, etc.

However, if you want to have a debate on the climate science (which is what it is OBD) - then you have a science-based debate - using science.

The most appropriate place for that to happen among scientists - is in the peer-reviewed literature - where the deniers have never been yet able to do that because their BS arguments fall apart when examined critically using a skill set of science literacy verses propaganda.

That's why some 95% of scientists support the evidence that climate change is largely caused and exasperated by human activities including the burning of fossil fuels - is serious - and is something we can affect especially if we get on with developing alternative energy sources where they exist and make sense - if for nothing else - we will run out of fossil fuels at some time - a debate that climate deniers avoid because they loose their argument right there.

 

[agentaqua]

So for this post that YOU posted, it states that it is NOT caused by global warming.This is also a peer reviewed paper.
GLG said it was caused by global warming and any one could see that according to him.
You defended this.
I see you have not defended your position.

I'm starting to believe it is door #3: Understand very well - but are purposely misrepresenting things.

Actually, OBD - as everyone can follow on this thread - I took issue with your rather paternalistic and demeaning post to GLG:

I see that you are still playing at being a scientist. Still not good at it yet I notice.

I had not yet commented on the post you are referring to - inspite of your incorrect and misleading assertion.

However, Dr. Bond is quoted in your post as saying about this particular blob of water: "It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming."

I think a big "DUH"! is in order - especially to those climate deniers you appear to like to post from.

 

[OldBlackDog]

GLG said, for a megaplume to be 1,000 miles wide and the temp 100 times warmer you would need an eruption of an undersea volcano or vent in the order of 10s of thousands of times more then what has been documented in the Discovery article. You would think that someone would have noticed something like that. Or, perhaps you could just go with what the thousands of scientists are saying that climate change is real and it's caused by all the CO2 we are dumping into the air. The effect has science and observation backing it and some old guy that has the ability to create a PDF, with a theory called Plate Climatology, that get posted by a climate denial website might not make sense. You be the judge ... crazy




So. As I said GLG is not a scientist and he agrees with that.

i see you cannot get over the fact that this article says this is not due to global warming.

GLG and it appears you agree with him that it is?

Not even peer reviewed papers can change your minds.
That says a lot.

Even better that YOU posted this article.

I'm starting to believe it is door #3: Understand very well - but are purposely misrepresenting things.

Actually, OBD - as everyone can follow on this thread - I took issue with your rather paternalistic and demeaning post to GLG:

I had not yet commented on the post you are referring to - inspite of your incorrect and misleading assertion.

However, Dr. Bond is quoted in your post as saying about this particular blob of water: "It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming."

I think a big "DUH"! is in order - especially to those climate deniers you appear to like to post from.

 

[agentaqua]

i see you cannot get over the fact that this article says this is not due to global warming.

It's gotta be door #3 - for sure. No - this particular "blob" is not directly "caused" by climate change any more than our daily weather is. I am guessing you understand the difference between short-term weather verses long-term climate change, OBD. You said you did in past posts.

Maybe try reading your own posts, for a change

'Dr Bond noted that, while this phenomenon likely wasn’t caused by global warming, it could be a sign of similar weather to come.
‘This is a taste of what the ocean will be like in future decades,’ Dr Bond said.
‘It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming'

Now look in the mirror and repeat what you said about "cannot get over the fact".

 

[GLG]

OBD what the heck are you on about....
I never said I disagree with anything about the "BLOB" Reread post # 12. I only posted about your lame idea of "theory called Plate Climatology" to explain the "blob". Is math not your strong suit? Can't you see how vasts amounts of energy are needed to create a "blob"? Trying to explain that with a process "plate tectonics" that has been going on for billions of years just makes no sense. You would need a brand new rift and thousands of new volcanoes that just happened to appear in the last few years to get that amount of energy needed to create the "blob".

What you are trying to do is prove Climate Change is natural and it's caused by the "theory called Plate Climatology" and that is beyond what anyone can take seriously. We already know why the planet is heating up. It's because we have added billions of tons of CO2 into the air and the energy balance is out of whack.

This has been calculated and currently it is equivalent to the energy of 4 nukes per second. Day in and day out, 24/7.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/full

So until you can show us a peer reviewed study that shows us some new rift and 1,000's of new volcanoes that have suddenly appeared without anyone noticing ..... well I think you are blowing smoke. But then again... isn't that your trying to do.

Go ahead and try to make me look bad.... it's not working and it only reflects onto yourself.

 

[GLG]

Something from NASA and sorry no new riffs or volcanoes just what has changed in the last 100 years.
Spoiler alert ... it's CO2.

[mrnBdcdM4UM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnBdcdM4UM

 

[OldBlackDog]

Again, having a hard time are you with the term, not caused by global warming.
Are you saying that you disagree with NOAA on this?

It's gotta be door #3 - for sure. No - this particular "blob" is not directly "caused" by climate change any more than our daily weather is. I am guessing you understand the difference between short-term weather verses long-term climate change, OBD. You said you did in past posts.

Maybe try reading your own posts, for a change Now look in the mirror and repeat what you said about "cannot get over the fact".