Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
El stovey said:
Interesting that on this thread one side of the debate quotes reputable scientific journals and the other links to youtubers.
I can’t believe it’s still happening, it’s not like these unscientific YouTube vids haven’t been shot down a thousand times before. The guy even tries to sell you stuff half way the video and again at the end...a 4 & 2 week food survival kit. He knows his audience.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
, I thought you would enjoy that,But in alongside all the rubbish was something that sparked my interest , Greenland ice, so I went over to here
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
And if you scroll down to the section surface mass balance you will see that things have returned to normal,
now if you google Greenland and ice there is no mention of it, surely if it was so bad the previous years this would be cause for celebration ?
The changes that are happening in the Arctic are interesting, but is it an indication of a long term trend or just natural variation, if multiple record breaking cold temperatures in America can be explained by natural events why not a small rise in temperatures in the Arctic?
Have a look at this analysis of temperatures in America,
https://youtu.be/Sf4gC9E_3iU
The raw date says a cooling trend, but the adjusted trend is warming, so you tell me which is correct.
Personal I believe that the science should be open and accepting of criticism, its far to an important subject not to be totally transparent.
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
, I thought you would enjoy that,But in alongside all the rubbish was something that sparked my interest , Greenland ice, so I went over to here
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
And if you scroll down to the section surface mass balance you will see that things have returned to normal,
now if you google Greenland and ice there is no mention of it, surely if it was so bad the previous years this would be cause for celebration ?
The changes that are happening in the Arctic are interesting, but is it an indication of a long term trend or just natural variation, if multiple record breaking cold temperatures in America can be explained by natural events why not a small rise in temperatures in the Arctic?
Have a look at this analysis of temperatures in America,
https://youtu.be/Sf4gC9E_3iU
The raw date says a cooling trend, but the adjusted trend is warming, so you tell me which is correct.
Personal I believe that the science should be open and accepting of criticism, its far to an important subject not to be totally transparent.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
, I thought you would enjoy that,But in alongside all the rubbish was something that sparked my interest , Greenland ice, so I went over to here
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
And if you scroll down to the section surface mass balance you will see that things have returned to normal,
now if you google Greenland and ice there is no mention of it, surely if it was so bad the previous years this would be cause for celebration ?
The changes that are happening in the Arctic are interesting, but is it an indication of a long term trend or just natural variation, if multiple record breaking cold temperatures in America can be explained by natural events why not a small rise in temperatures in the Arctic?
Have a look at this analysis of temperatures in America,
https://youtu.be/Sf4gC9E_3iU
The raw date says a cooling trend, but the adjusted trend is warming, so you tell me which is correct.
Personal I believe that the science should be open and accepting of criticism, its far to an important subject not to be totally transparent.
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
, I thought you would enjoy that,But in alongside all the rubbish was something that sparked my interest , Greenland ice, so I went over to here
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
And if you scroll down to the section surface mass balance you will see that things have returned to normal,
now if you google Greenland and ice there is no mention of it, surely if it was so bad the previous years this would be cause for celebration ?
The changes that are happening in the Arctic are interesting, but is it an indication of a long term trend or just natural variation, if multiple record breaking cold temperatures in America can be explained by natural events why not a small rise in temperatures in the Arctic?
Have a look at this analysis of temperatures in America,
https://youtu.be/Sf4gC9E_3iU
The raw date says a cooling trend, but the adjusted trend is warming, so you tell me which is correct.
Personal I believe that the science should be open and accepting of criticism, its far to an important subject not to be totally transparent.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
, I thought you would enjoy that,But in alongside all the rubbish was something that sparked my interest , Greenland ice, so I went over to here
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
And if you scroll down to the section surface mass balance you will see that things have returned to normal,
now if you google Greenland and ice there is no mention of it, surely if it was so bad the previous years this would be cause for celebration ?
The changes that are happening in the Arctic are interesting, but is it an indication of a long term trend or just natural variation, if multiple record breaking cold temperatures in America can be explained by natural events why not a small rise in temperatures in the Arctic?
Have a look at this analysis of temperatures in America,
https://youtu.be/Sf4gC9E_3iU
The raw date says a cooling trend, but the adjusted trend is warming, so you tell me which is correct.
Personal I believe that the science should be open and accepting of criticism, its far to an important subject not to be totally transparent.
Do you believe data can be manipulated to push an agenda ( not just climate change ) ?
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
Interesting that on this thread one side of the debate quotes reputable scientific journals and the other links to youtubers.
I assume the word reputable is a joke then?Edited by robinessex on Saturday 31st October 11:45
I had to explain it to you. You actually thought the name was evidence it used to be warmer.
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
, I thought you would enjoy that,But in alongside all the rubbish was something that sparked my interest , Greenland ice, so I went over to here
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
And if you scroll down to the section surface mass balance you will see that things have returned to normal,
now if you google Greenland and ice there is no mention of it, surely if it was so bad the previous years this would be cause for celebration ?
The changes that are happening in the Arctic are interesting, but is it an indication of a long term trend or just natural variation, if multiple record breaking cold temperatures in America can be explained by natural events why not a small rise in temperatures in the Arctic?
Have a look at this analysis of temperatures in America,
https://youtu.be/Sf4gC9E_3iU
The raw date says a cooling trend, but the adjusted trend is warming, so you tell me which is correct.
Personal I believe that the science should be open and accepting of criticism, its far to an important subject not to be totally transparent.
Do you believe data can be manipulated to push an agenda ( not just climate change ) ?
Zero climate science credentials. You may as well listen to a you tube video I've made.
"I’m climate change denier Tony Heller. You might know me better by my pen name, “Steven Goddard,” or Twitter handle, @SteveSGoddard. This is my story.
First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate."
On your other point, yes I do believe data can be manipulated to push an agenda. Do I believe climate scientists and scientific organisations all around the globe are doing it, in unison, No. The evidence is simply overwhelming.
If you want to supply evidence that North America is not warming up please use bona fide resources.
This is the science thread, those matters need posting on the politics thread.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
Interesting that on this thread one side of the debate quotes reputable scientific journals and the other links to youtubers.
I assume the word reputable is a joke then?Edited by robinessex on Saturday 31st October 11:45
I had to explain it to you. You actually thought the name was evidence it used to be warmer.
https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
Climate change begets climate change:
Warming of 2 C would release billions of tons of soil carbon
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-billions-tons-soil-c...
Extract:
Global warming of 2°C would lead to about 230 billion tons of carbon being released from the world's soil, new research suggests.
Global soils contain two to three times more carbon than the atmosphere, and higher temperatures speed up decomposition—reducing the amount of time carbon spends in the soil (known as "soil carbon turnover").
The new international research study, led by the University of Exeter, reveals the sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to global warming and subsequently halves uncertainty about this in future climate change projections.
The estimated 230 billion tons of carbon released at 2°C warming (above pre-industrial levels) is more than four times the total emissions from China, and more than double the emissions from the U.S., over the last 100 years.
"Our study rules out the most extreme projections—but nonetheless suggests substantial soil carbon losses due to climate change at only 2°C warming, and this doesn't even include losses of deeper permafrost carbon," said co-author Dr. Sarah Chadburn, of the University of Exeter.
This effect is a so-called "positive feedback"—when climate change causes knock-on effects that contribute to further climate change.
The response of soil carbon to climate change is the greatest area of uncertainty in understanding the carbon cycle in climate change projections.
To address this, the researchers used a new combination of observational data and Earth System Models—which simulate the climate and carbon cycle and subsequently make climate change predictions.
"We investigated how soil carbon is related to temperature in different locations on Earth to work out its sensitivity to global warming," said lead author Rebecca Varney, of the University of Exeter.
Warming of 2 C would release billions of tons of soil carbon
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-billions-tons-soil-c...
Extract:
Global warming of 2°C would lead to about 230 billion tons of carbon being released from the world's soil, new research suggests.
Global soils contain two to three times more carbon than the atmosphere, and higher temperatures speed up decomposition—reducing the amount of time carbon spends in the soil (known as "soil carbon turnover").
The new international research study, led by the University of Exeter, reveals the sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to global warming and subsequently halves uncertainty about this in future climate change projections.
The estimated 230 billion tons of carbon released at 2°C warming (above pre-industrial levels) is more than four times the total emissions from China, and more than double the emissions from the U.S., over the last 100 years.
"Our study rules out the most extreme projections—but nonetheless suggests substantial soil carbon losses due to climate change at only 2°C warming, and this doesn't even include losses of deeper permafrost carbon," said co-author Dr. Sarah Chadburn, of the University of Exeter.
This effect is a so-called "positive feedback"—when climate change causes knock-on effects that contribute to further climate change.
The response of soil carbon to climate change is the greatest area of uncertainty in understanding the carbon cycle in climate change projections.
To address this, the researchers used a new combination of observational data and Earth System Models—which simulate the climate and carbon cycle and subsequently make climate change predictions.
"We investigated how soil carbon is related to temperature in different locations on Earth to work out its sensitivity to global warming," said lead author Rebecca Varney, of the University of Exeter.
robinessex said:
Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
It was actually green - half a million years ago! That's not why it was named Greenland as you tried to imply.https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
It was actually green - half a million years ago! That's not why it was named Greenland as you tried to imply.https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
I point out HE was the one that thought it was called Greenland due to it being green when he was trying to disprove global warming
He then says yeah but it WAS green 450,000 years ago.
El stovey said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
It was actually green - half a million years ago! That's not why it was named Greenland as you tried to imply.https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland...
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen......continues
I point out HE was the one that thought it was called Greenland due to it being green when he was trying to disprove global warming
He then says yeah but it WAS green 450,000 years ago.
Gadgetmac said:
Please don't provide links to political advocacy videos. I won't be watching them as they are themselves tainted so prove nothing. It's Tony Heller/Steven Goddard but you know that.
Zero climate science credentials. You may as well listen to a you tube video I've made.
"I’m climate change denier Tony Heller. You might know me better by my pen name, “Steven Goddard,” or Twitter handle, @SteveSGoddard. This is my story.
First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate."
On your other point, yes I do believe data can be manipulated to push an agenda. Do I believe climate scientists and scientific organisations all around the globe are doing it, in unison, No. The evidence is simply overwhelming.
If you want to supply evidence that North America is not warming up please use bona fide resources.
This is the science thread, those matters need posting on the politics thread.
And yet again who are you to dictate what is posted?Zero climate science credentials. You may as well listen to a you tube video I've made.
"I’m climate change denier Tony Heller. You might know me better by my pen name, “Steven Goddard,” or Twitter handle, @SteveSGoddard. This is my story.
First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate."
On your other point, yes I do believe data can be manipulated to push an agenda. Do I believe climate scientists and scientific organisations all around the globe are doing it, in unison, No. The evidence is simply overwhelming.
If you want to supply evidence that North America is not warming up please use bona fide resources.
This is the science thread, those matters need posting on the politics thread.
Why do you keep asking for something you know is unavailable?
Who would pay for the researchers, the only research grant in town has a climate change tag.
Climate scientists are human, they will protect there status,
Take the global warming Hiatus where the heat went into the deep oceans, use google scholar to read all the peer reviewed papers that explain how the heat went missing...
Until the ocean temperatures were "adjusted " and the Hiatus disappeared.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/30/pause-buste...
WUWT? Bob Tisdale? Seriously?
"Bob Tisdale is one of the pseudo-scientists who frequently writes articles for Anthony Watts' climate conspiracy blog, WUWT. His articles are often overly long, overly tedious and overly wrong. He is also a greenhouse effect denier. He thinks that it's the sun that's causing global warming through El Ninos and blobs. He's wrong.
Bob's what you'd might regard as a plodder. Not a quick-witted chap. He's not a research scientist and has never boasted of any educational qualifications. Where his expertise lies, if you can call it that, is in regurgitating the same mix of pseudo-science tinged now and again with real science - over and over and over again.
Bob's usual subject is ENSO, with occasional forays into sea surface temperature in general. Hunched over his keyboard, he relies on the years of difficult and arduous field work, clear thinking and clever, complicated analysis from scientists, but he despises their efforts in true denier fashion. He doesn't understand most of it so he cranks out his sunlight fueled nonsense and some deniers lap it up.
At one stage Bob even claimed to have made a new discovery. No-one bothered to set him straight - that he was several years and a vast body of science too late and, as well as that, he missed the point by a Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That's what happens when you don't read the literature."
The man doesn't subject himself to peer review...can't think why
The rest of your post about climate change research is just more conspiracy nonsense that's been dealt with before.
"Bob Tisdale is one of the pseudo-scientists who frequently writes articles for Anthony Watts' climate conspiracy blog, WUWT. His articles are often overly long, overly tedious and overly wrong. He is also a greenhouse effect denier. He thinks that it's the sun that's causing global warming through El Ninos and blobs. He's wrong.
Bob's what you'd might regard as a plodder. Not a quick-witted chap. He's not a research scientist and has never boasted of any educational qualifications. Where his expertise lies, if you can call it that, is in regurgitating the same mix of pseudo-science tinged now and again with real science - over and over and over again.
Bob's usual subject is ENSO, with occasional forays into sea surface temperature in general. Hunched over his keyboard, he relies on the years of difficult and arduous field work, clear thinking and clever, complicated analysis from scientists, but he despises their efforts in true denier fashion. He doesn't understand most of it so he cranks out his sunlight fueled nonsense and some deniers lap it up.
At one stage Bob even claimed to have made a new discovery. No-one bothered to set him straight - that he was several years and a vast body of science too late and, as well as that, he missed the point by a Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That's what happens when you don't read the literature."
The man doesn't subject himself to peer review...can't think why
The rest of your post about climate change research is just more conspiracy nonsense that's been dealt with before.
Gadgetmac said:
WUWT? Bob Tisdale? Seriously?
"Bob Tisdale is one of the pseudo-scientists who frequently writes articles for Anthony Watts' climate conspiracy blog, WUWT. His articles are often overly long, overly tedious and overly wrong. He is also a greenhouse effect denier. He thinks that it's the sun that's causing global warming through El Ninos and blobs. He's wrong.
Bob's what you'd might regard as a plodder. Not a quick-witted chap. He's not a research scientist and has never boasted of any educational qualifications. Where his expertise lies, if you can call it that, is in regurgitating the same mix of pseudo-science tinged now and again with real science - over and over and over again.
Bob's usual subject is ENSO, with occasional forays into sea surface temperature in general. Hunched over his keyboard, he relies on the years of difficult and arduous field work, clear thinking and clever, complicated analysis from scientists, but he despises their efforts in true denier fashion. He doesn't understand most of it so he cranks out his sunlight fueled nonsense and some deniers lap it up.
At one stage Bob even claimed to have made a new discovery. No-one bothered to set him straight - that he was several years and a vast body of science too late and, as well as that, he missed the point by a Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That's what happens when you don't read the literature."
The man doesn't subject himself to peer review...can't think why
The rest of your post about climate change research is just more conspiracy nonsense that's been dealt with before.
HotWhopper? Miriam O'Brien? Seriously?"Bob Tisdale is one of the pseudo-scientists who frequently writes articles for Anthony Watts' climate conspiracy blog, WUWT. His articles are often overly long, overly tedious and overly wrong. He is also a greenhouse effect denier. He thinks that it's the sun that's causing global warming through El Ninos and blobs. He's wrong.
Bob's what you'd might regard as a plodder. Not a quick-witted chap. He's not a research scientist and has never boasted of any educational qualifications. Where his expertise lies, if you can call it that, is in regurgitating the same mix of pseudo-science tinged now and again with real science - over and over and over again.
Bob's usual subject is ENSO, with occasional forays into sea surface temperature in general. Hunched over his keyboard, he relies on the years of difficult and arduous field work, clear thinking and clever, complicated analysis from scientists, but he despises their efforts in true denier fashion. He doesn't understand most of it so he cranks out his sunlight fueled nonsense and some deniers lap it up.
At one stage Bob even claimed to have made a new discovery. No-one bothered to set him straight - that he was several years and a vast body of science too late and, as well as that, he missed the point by a Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That's what happens when you don't read the literature."
The man doesn't subject himself to peer review...can't think why
The rest of your post about climate change research is just more conspiracy nonsense that's been dealt with before.
jet_noise said:
HotWhopper? Miriam O'Brien? Seriously?
She articulated perfectly what I wanted to say - so cut 'n pasting was a lazy way of making the point about Tisdale.What I didn't and wouldn't link to is anything she might have to say about the science. Unlike deniers I try to use only acknowledged/respected scientific sources for that.
Gadgetmac said:
jet_noise said:
HotWhopper? Miriam O'Brien? Seriously?
She articulated perfectly what I wanted to say - so cut 'n pasting was a lazy way of making the point about Tisdale.What I didn't and wouldn't link to is anything she might have to say about the science. Unlike deniers I try to use only acknowledged/respected scientific sources for that.
What is the name of the advocacy website you use ? , it will save us having to deal with the monkey ,we can go straight to the organ grinder.
I will ask again who put you in charge of what is deemed acceptable to post in this forum, I know it will be difficult for you as you will not be able to copy and paste but give it a go.
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
jet_noise said:
HotWhopper? Miriam O'Brien? Seriously?
She articulated perfectly what I wanted to say - so cut 'n pasting was a lazy way of making the point about Tisdale.What I didn't and wouldn't link to is anything she might have to say about the science. Unlike deniers I try to use only acknowledged/respected scientific sources for that.
What is the name of the advocacy website you use ? , it will save us having to deal with the monkey ,we can go straight to the organ grinder.
I will ask again who put you in charge of what is deemed acceptable to post in this forum, I know it will be difficult for you as you will not be able to copy and paste but give it a go.
You quote YouTube videos and WUWT articles from people with no credentials in climate science and seem to think that is actually science. You also like to spread your conspiratorial "no warming, it's all a con" nonsense in threads set up precisely to keep away from it.
By all means carry on...although I won't be watching them it gives me a good
Real science in a published paper.
Ninety years of data shows global warming impacts on foundation of marine ecosystems
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-years-global-impacts...
Extract
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) led research, published in Frontiers in Marine Science, provides insights into the potential traits that may determine the adaptive capacity or survivability of species under climate change.
Lead author, Dr. Penelope Ajani, said environmental data showed ocean temperature had risen 1.8°C over 90 years in south eastern Australia, one of the greatest warming regions in the world.
"We examined the phytoplankton community response to this long-term ocean warming using the Community Temperature Index (CTI), "Dr. Ajani said.
The CTI is an index of the preferred temperature of a phytoplankton community.
"We found a significant increase in the CTI overtime which suggests that the relative proportion of warm-water to cold-water species has increased," Dr. Ajani said.
Ninety years of data shows global warming impacts on foundation of marine ecosystems
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-years-global-impacts...
Extract
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) led research, published in Frontiers in Marine Science, provides insights into the potential traits that may determine the adaptive capacity or survivability of species under climate change.
Lead author, Dr. Penelope Ajani, said environmental data showed ocean temperature had risen 1.8°C over 90 years in south eastern Australia, one of the greatest warming regions in the world.
"We examined the phytoplankton community response to this long-term ocean warming using the Community Temperature Index (CTI), "Dr. Ajani said.
The CTI is an index of the preferred temperature of a phytoplankton community.
"We found a significant increase in the CTI overtime which suggests that the relative proportion of warm-water to cold-water species has increased," Dr. Ajani said.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff