Heat waves in Europe and also in the US ...

Not sure about Original's opinions but got a serious pot calling kettle black issue going on .. you have shown no understanding of "Science" and no ability to learn .. unable to understand very basic mathematical equation .. inept at logic.

For example: your inability to figure out that Total Oxygen on the Earth - Oxygen consumed = Oxygen remaining.

Inability to figure out that 19.5% is considered dangerous to human health.

 

Show what I’ve posted that is incorrect. Use better data or more comprehensive studies. Try avoiding fallacy and show my errors.

Unless you do so, you have shown it is you who does not understand science. Science is based on evidence which I provide and you do not. You claimed if oceans stopped production of oxygen we would be ****d. You provide NO evidence for your claim. I provided evidence to the contrary which you can not refute.

If 19.5% oxygen was dangerous, people would not be able to live above 2000ft above sea level.

I had to tell you 20 times over multiple days an equation to find how long existing oxygen would last does not require an addition of oxygen produced by oceans. LOL.

I suggest changing your PF profile name if you are going to persist in posting only fallacious arguments. If you are going to bring up my conversation with other posters you better provide some evidence I’m incorrect. Science is not pots and kettles. It’s based on evidence. You provide none. Stop making a mockery of science.

You have claimed to have knowledge of science. Act like it by providing peer reviewed studies or data, not endless streams of fallacy. Why is there NEVER any actual evidence in your posts? That’s a question you need to ask yourself if you ever wish to be taken seriously on issues involving science.

 

Yes, "is not that strong" which means there is some strength which implies that it is more likely that there will be less biomass in warmer regions than the same or more biomass in warmer waters currently.

The 2009 article used in the calculation the weight of biomass, not chlorophyll measurements:
"The water surrounding Antarctica accounts for only five percent of the world’s sea water, but produces twenty percent of the world’s sea life (measured by weight). Antarctic waters yield six times more life per square meter of surface area than the average yield of the other oceans."

The animation in the NASA video shows that the bluest regions (very low chlorophyll density) occur in the warmer waters and the scale used is logarithmic (goes from 0 to 2000mg/m3) . So we would need to know how much difference is there in the chlorophyll density in phytoplankton living in warmer waters than colder waters to make an analysis

 

Very similar to the heat wave that created what we now call "The Dust Bowl" back in the 1930s.

 

The chart conveniently starts at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Also, cold weather kills more than hot, so thank goodness the LIA ended.

 

Cherry picked statistics? say it isn't so.

 

This chart compares climate to non-climate causes of death over 100 years. Seems to be a good trick to belittle the negative effects of global warming.

But what the hell do drug-abuse deaths have to do with climate-related deaths?
Think of yourself, bro.

 

Do you think this heat wave was an isolated incident? I don't think so. Summers are getting hotter while winters are getting warmer. This is proven by measurements.

 

From my perspective I'm missing the ice where I was climbing when a friend of mine took my Avatar's picture!
That ice is missing ...

Anyway, Southern Alps can know very hot summers and we are knowing a very hot summer [similar to 2003 summer].
But for us [the "locals"] this is not a really tremendous problem. Tourists from Northern Europe are suffering: I see them wandering around like zombies ... while we are enjoying summer .

 

The winners will ignore the losers.
Ask the American Indians.

 

That’s not what the researcher said. Here is the quote again.

If we don’t even know with certainty what biomass exists in one place or another, we can’t make predictions based on that uncertainty. The study the researcher is discussing removes some of the uncertainty. And when that uncertainty becomes more concrete, the data shows increasing phytoplankton in the future, not decreasing phytoplankton. As phytoplankton abundance is correlated with abundance of other higher life forms, we can’t assume populations of higher organisms will decrease since they are dependent on phytoplankton.

I stand corrected on the measurement methods. Good call.

I’m pretty sure the premise you are operating under is not correct though. Even the NASA source shows very pronounced blooms in very warm equatorial waters. And then there are these statistics. Continental shelves are less than 10% of ocean area but contain over 50% of sea life. And much of that continental shelf is much warmer than Antarctic temps. Antarctic water temps range from 28°F to 50°F whereas coastal waters on US coasts range from 50°F to even 80°F for the Atlantic coast in summer.

What both the Antarctic and continental shelf waters (even very warm ones) have in common that allows phytoplankton and higher life forms to thrive is lack of thermocline. There is no thermocline in consistently cold places like Antarctica. And the thermocline of shelf waters is disrupted by seasonal temp changes and tidal action. Even in tropical climates. This allows nutrients to move from the deep water up to the epipelagic zone where photosynthesis occurs. In permanent thermocline environments photosynthesis is limited by nutrient availability.

Currents and cyclones in the open ocean out past continental shelves can also disrupt thermoclines as well, allowing more phytoplankton bloom.

Another reason coastal waters are productive is the nutrient sources from terrestrial sources but that’s a different subject I suppose.


What is actually responsible for abundance of sea life is lack of or disrupted thermocline, not temperature. There is no thermocline near the poles because the water does not warm much seasonally. This allows nutrient to move unimpeded to the epipelagic zone whereas in warmer regions there must be disruption to the thermocline by seasonal temp change upheaval or tidal action etc.

Are we in agreement on this?

I have no idea of the actual difference except it’s substantial. The full text of the study in play is not available so I can’t look there. I’ve found one study but am not going to read it tonight.

 

Yet you been making such predictions .. How do "Dead Zones" figure into the phytoplankton equation

 

No. I’ve not made predictions. I’ve posted machine learning models based on better measurements of low latitude phytoplankton that have made “predictions”. A supercomputer running unbiased modeling on huge volumes of data. If you disagree with the modeling you are welcome to critique the publication I referenced. But you won’t because you have no understanding of the subject and you are here to post streams of fallacy instead of discuss science.

Phytoplankton contribute to dead zones when excess nutrient scenarios occur. That’s why I spend so much of my life doing all I can to ensure nutrient doesn’t leave my farm’s productive soil layers unless it’s on a truck headed to an elevator or sale barn.

 

Here are a couple interesting studies.

https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/5/3869/2008/bgd-5-3869-2008.pdf

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/37720j82c

Because of the uneven distribution of autotrophic phytoplankton (photosynthesis only) and mixotrophic plankton (use various forms of endosymbiosis with algae to get energy from light and zoonotic sources) I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a set in stone figure of chlorophyll concentrations differences by region. Also, non-light nutrient affects chlorophyll levels as well so all we can say for sure is satellite and other measurements of opacity are generally inaccurate, especially at certain times of the year. Until there is a way to measure actual plankton carbon to chlorophyll ratios in real time in situ we aren’t going to have accurate estimates of plankton population/concentrations. All we know for sure is opacity measures are going to underestimate a lot of the time.

Love to hear your thoughts.

 

Yes you did .. but no idea why you are rambling on about stuff I have not touched on .. as if I disagreed with something ..lost in some conversation with yourself.

Then you pretend you have an understanding of Science .. but fail to understand the most basic of mass balance equations followed by projecting your failings onto others.

Still waiting for you to come up with annual non human oxygen consumption. You claiming it was in your link .. but you have yet to find it

 

More fallacy. I’m shocked.


Read post #239 in that thread. It’s there. Everyone has found it except you. I have posted the link and the full pull quotes.

 

"More Fallacy - Everyone has found it Except you" Priceless generalization fallacy

If every one has found the total annual oxygen consumption of the Earth in your link .. then why are you having so much trouble finding it ?

 

I’ve provided you with the figures used for respiration and oxidation. If you disagree with the provided numbers, provide better ones.

 

You have never provided the total annual consumption of oxygen by the earth... Yet keep running around crying that you have.

Its not complicated mate ... just post the number you keep claiming to have posted or shut up about it.

 

It’s in the pull quotes I provided. I’ve also referred you to the post number multiple times. If you don’t like them provide better calculations.

Over and out until you provide better numbers.

 

No its not . .. you have not provided the Total Oxygen consumption of the Earth per year --- now put up or shut up.

 

Read the link.

 

Since I am not à scientists involved in climate or meteorology I have to listen with respect to what they say.
I also look at my lived expérience and watch the results of changes in the earth's patterns such as océan currents glacial collapsing, houses falling into eroded coastlines, changes in fish migration, corruption of coral and the increasingly extrême weather.
I cant help but be concerned and figure even if it is all some fantastic coincidence, the earth could do with cleaning up anyway.
I don't understand climate change deniers. I don't get what benefits they think they get from not taking it seriously.
So I work on the assumption that if i can do my minuscule part to ensure that the status quo remains, why not?

 

You read the link .... as obviously you don't understand what the links you post say .. and cite from that link the "Total annual Oxygen consumption of the Earth " rather than sending folks on these moronic wild goose hunts - looking for things that do not exist.

 

You are the only person who can not find the information. If you don’t like the conclusions, provide better data.