Your Fault: Oceans Being Fundamentally Changing The Structures Of Ocean Or Something

All because you decided to take a fossil fueled flight on vacation and have an evil burger

Global warming is ‘fundamentally’ changing the structure of oceans, study says

Scientists are sounding the alarm over the impact climate change is having on the world’s oceans.

Sounds more like they are activists than scientists

In a new study published in “Nature” on Thursday, researchers examined 50 years of data and observed the manner in which surface water “decouples” from the deeper ocean. They concluded that the structure of the oceans covering the globe are becoming less stable at a much quicker rate than previously thought.

Water on the ocean’s surface is significantly warmer — and therefore more dense — than the deeper waters. According to the study, climate change is ultimately disrupting the mixing process, which helps store away most of the world’s excess heat and a significant proportion of carbon dioxide.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, the oceans absorb more than 90% of heat generated by greenhouse gases.

Glacier and ice sheets melted by global warming are also pouring into the seas, lowering the salinity of the upper layer and further reducing its density.

Have they compared this to previous Holocene cool and warm periods to get an understanding of the processes, which would let them know if this is unusual or the standard? Because there always needs to be a comparison to other times in order to make a judgement call, right?

“Similar to a layer of water on top of oil, the surface waters in contact with the atmosphere mix less efficiently with the underlying ocean,” said lead author Jean-Baptiste Sallee of Sorbonne University and France’s CNRS national scientific research center.

He added that while researchers are aware of what is occurring, that the “change has occurred at a rate much quicker than previously thought: more than six times quicker.”

“Previously thought”? That’s politics, social studies, or some other type of soft discipline, not science. Was it happening as fast during the Global Climate Optimum? How about the Roman Warm Period? What happened during the Little Ice Ace and Dark Ages, for comparison to cool periods? Is this unusual or not? Thinking this quicker is not the same as proving it. But, this is not about science, it’s about fearmongering.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

27 Responses to “Your Fault: Oceans Being Fundamentally Changing The Structures Of Ocean Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    I didn’t have an evil burger last night, but cooked liver and onions, and potatoes on our fossil-fueled (propane) stove. And I took my shower using hot water from a propane-fueled water heater.

    I’m sure I should feel guilty!

  2. Dana says:

    In the floods, we lost, :Alas! our 48″ Husqvarna riding lawnmower. It might still be salvageable, but I haven’t worked on it yet. I did clean out and get running again the gasoline-powered push mower.

    Fortunately, my brother-in-law and sister gave me their zero-turn riding lawnmower, as they have decided to use a lawn service rather than do the work themselves. It has only 40 hours on it, and was serviced, including new blades, since the last time they used it.

    Back when I lived in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, I bought a battery-powered push mower, because I wasn’t particularly thrilled with the idea of having a can of gasoline in the shed underneath the house. In two years, the battery failed, would simply no longer take a charge.

    So, I bought another, different manufacturer, battery powered lawnmower, and it, too, failed within a couple of years. At that point, I said f(ornicate) it, and bought a more traditional, gasoline-powered lawnmower, and it has lasted for seven or eight years now.

    On the farm now, even the best battery-powered lawn machine would not last through the amount of grass I have to cut, and would never work here, but my lesson was learned back in my small-yarded home in the Keystone State: the battery-powered equipment was simply not reliable!

    Of course, here, if I did have battery-powered equipment, I’d be recharging it using sparktricity coming from a coal-burning power plant! https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

    • Zachriel says:

      Dana: So, I bought another, different manufacturer, battery powered lawnmower, and it, too, failed within a couple of years.

      Bought one of those newfangled mobile phones. It was as heavy as a brick, the audio was choppy making it hard to make out what the other person was saying, and the call was often dropped. Worse, the brick kept going bad and had to be replaced. These things will never catch on.

      • Kye says:

        Thanks for proving Dana’s point, Z. Battery powered equipment is not quite ready for prime time. Maybe someday, just not now. Kinda sounds like just about any technology, doesn’t it?

        His other point is if you don’t want to carry “the brick” don’t. If you don’t like the electric mower, don’t buy one. And if electric cars aren’t your thing feel free to buy gas powered. Hopefully someday we’ll have nuclear powered vehicles and it won’t matter.

        Hell, I’m still waiting for that flying car they promised me was “coming soon” in 1959.

        • Zachriel says:

          Kye: Battery powered equipment is not quite ready for prime time.

          Some battery technology is still 1.0 or 1.1 technology, though that is changing very rapidly. Much of it is 2.0 or better. Early adopters fuel innovation, and development can further be spurred by government investment.

          Kye: If you don’t like the electric mower, don’t buy one.

          People should pay the full cost of their energy use, which includes the cost of carbon mitigation.

          • Kye says:

            First off “carbon mitigation” is bull shit, secondly people should then also pay for the loss of tax revenue by not using taxed fuel OR tax electric at the same rate both state and federal we tax gas. Fair is fukin fair.

            Now I realize you guys never met a tax you didn’t like so this suggestion is wrought with danger. However, if we are going to switch to electric the tax loss from fossil fuels MUST be made up by electric consumers. After all they still use the same roads, get the same food from trucks etc. and use all the same infrastructure.

            BTW, there is no reason electric charging stations should be paid for with tax dollars. Are Gas stations paid for that way or are they privately owned? Why should we sacrifice an entire industry of fuel service providers and their employees to the electric car?

            “People should pay the full cost of their energy use,” I assume that means a fee of let’s say 50% of the new car cost to recycle the batteries and replenish the rare earth destroyed by that industry?

          • Zachriel says:

            Kye: First off “carbon mitigation” is bull shit

            If you mean atmospheric carbon is not an issue, then your opinion is certainly contrary to the vast amount of research on the subject. If you mean carbon mitigation schemes are ineffective at reducing carbon emissions, that would depend on the scheme.

            Kye: After all they still use the same roads, get the same food from trucks etc. and use all the same infrastructure.

            Certainly, in the U.S., gas taxes dedicated to roads have been inadequate long before the movement to green energy due to increasing motor efficiency. The switch to green energy means other mechanisms for funding infrastructure must be found. The U.S. seems to be in terminal decline, however. They are unwilling to invest in their own country’s future.

            Kye: there is no reason electric charging stations should be paid for with tax dollars.

            Because the atmosphere is a commons, there is a societal interest in speeding the changeover to green energy.

            Kye: I assume that means a fee of let’s say 50% of the new car cost to recycle the batteries and replenish the rare earth destroyed by that industry?

            Sure. Each energy source has its own long-term costs which must be accounted for.

  3. Kye says:

    There’s a reason very few professional landscapers or mowing services can be seen using electric equipment. Batteries don’t last for the job nor do they last economically.

    BTW, thanks for: “The Washington Post dances around the right question, but never actually asks it, because that would be too politically incorrect!” at e First Street Journal. Another concise post.

  4. Est1950 says:

    WhY AGW IS STUPID.

    WHY GOING AFTER FARMING AND RANCHING IS JUST PLAIN STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    FROM UC BERKLEY a very pro AGW college.

    Cattle and other ruminants emit methane into the atmosphere, but differs from CO2 as a pollutant because it is a flow gas. Current standards say one molecule of methane is equal to 28 molecules of CO2 over 100 years, but methane only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years before being destroyed.

    got that? 10-12 years before it disappears.

    In addition to being short-lived, methane from cattle is part of the biogenic carbon cycle. As part of photosynthesis, plants capture CO2 from the atmosphere, absorbing the carbon and releasing the oxygen. That carbon is converted into carbohydrates in the plant, which is then consumed by a cow where it’s digested and released from the cow as methane.

    This is pretty important you dumb sheet AGW Terrorists!!!!!!!!!!!

    TRY TO DIGEST THE FOLLOWING FACT YOU AGW WHACKOS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    After 12 years in the atmosphere, that methane is broken down and converted back into CO2. Those carbon molecules are the same carbon molecules that were in the plant the cow ate, which was pulled from the atmosphere by the plant and now back in the atmosphere. It is not additional carbon to the atmosphere.

    COWS and ANIMALS ARE HELPING YOU CONTROL GREENHOUSE GASES NOT ADDING TO YOUR CONTRIVED PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Destroying Animals, ranches and farms is sheer LUNACY!!!!!!!!!!

    • Professor Hale says:

      If it saves just one cow it will be worth it.

      But what it’s really about is saving paychecks for Democratic party activists.

      • Kye says:

        Every time a cow farts a commie gets a Red Star.

        • Est1950 says:

          Landfills emit about 60 percent of their gases as Methane.

          Methane in rice paddies is produced by microscopic organisms that respire CO2, like humans respire oxygen. More CO2 in the atmosphere makes rice plants grow faster, and the extra plant growth supplies soil microorganisms with extra energy, pumping up their metabolism.

          Rice agriculture is one of the most significant human-created sources of methane gas. In a world affected by climate change, growing rice is becoming less and less environmentally friendly.

          Nay to all that shout the AGW lunatics. We will be coming for your tractors, cows and sheep all the while cashing our CCP CHECKS!!!!

          • Zachriel says:

            Est1950: Rice agriculture is one of the most significant human-created sources of methane gas. In a world affected by climate change, growing rice is becoming less and less environmentally friendly.

            It’s possible to produce rice while also reducing methane emissions. Rice production in Sichuan, China produces about half the methane by planting without flooding the field, only flooding the furrow. Some methods have been shown to reduce methane by up to 90% — and it saves water too.

    • Zachriel says:

      Est1950: After 12 years in the atmosphere, that methane is broken down and converted back into CO2.

      Atmospheric methane levels have more than doubled over the century or so.

      • david7134 says:

        All matter is eventually broken down into is most basic elements, given time. Your observation contains an element of stupidity and misdirection.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: All matter is eventually broken down into is most basic elements, given time.

          Atmospheric methane is eventually broken down into CO2, but the rate of atmospheric emissions surpasses the rate of removal. That results in an increasing greenhouse effect over time. However, the good news is that, because methane breaks down rapidly, if emissions cease, then atmospheric methane concentrations will decrease over a period of a few years.

          • Est1950 says:

            So Your wiki greatness. Your plan is to kill off all the sheep, buffalo and Cattle and force people to stop eating hamburgers and forcing them all to eat CHEMICAL BURGERS. Sort of like VAPING.

            When it is proven that most of the methane increase is a result of LANDFILLS instead of farting cows. There is technology to fix that but that would be too difficult. It’s much easier to come after farmers and ranchers because they can’t defend themselves against a horde of woke walking bastards.

            So now you absolutely Evil AGW terrorists are now trying to convince your zombie army to destroy our food industry too.

            I wonder what your attitude is toward the people you woke walking zombies admire the most; Communist China and their rice paddies.

            or

            Plastic pollution off China’s coast soars after drive to stop dumping it in rivers
            More than 200 million cubic meters of waste found floating off Chinese shores last year.

            How the story reads…..Environmental groups have previously *&*&*&*&*&expressed concern*&*&*&*&*&* that China, desperate to clean up its own rivers, is dumping increasing amounts of trash in its seas instead.

            China is building 300 coal fired power plants around the world with its belt and road initiative and you are silent. China is the worlds worst polluter and you don’t care.

            And you wonder why every word from an AGW Woke Walking zombie is met with Toxicity. Now Kerry is saying uh…fellahs we can’t solve this problem. Ah fellahs we have to force the private sector to do it. Ah fellahs…new marching orders….Destroy capitalism.

          • Zachriel says:

            Est1950: Your plan is to kill off all the sheep, buffalo and Cattle and force people to stop eating hamburgers and forcing them all to eat CHEMICAL BURGERS.

            The problem with your argument is that we never proposed that plan. In other words, you are fighting a straw man.

            Est1950: When it is proven that most of the methane increase is a result of LANDFILLS instead of farting cows.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/MethaneInfographicGlobalCarbonProject2016ccBySa.png

            Est1950: China is building 300 coal fired power plants around the world with its belt and road initiative and you are silent.

            More straw.

            Environmental Defense Fund: Why China is at the center of our climate strategy

            Est1950: China is the worlds worst polluter and you don’t care.

            Have you considered addressing the actual argument, or do you prefer the feeling of power you get by beating up your straw man?
            https://ourworldindata.org/exports/cumulative-co2-emissions-region_v17_850x600.svg

            Est1950: Destroy capitalism.

            Addressing the problem of global warming will require the innovation and growth inherent in the market system.

  5. samoore says:

    “Water on the ocean’s surface is significantly warmer — and therefore more dense — than the deeper waters.”

    WHAT????

    In what universe is that true?

    • david7134 says:

      You must not have received the memo on altered physics and chemistry when dealing with CO2 and the warmest. It was in the next paragraph after the change in hand signs for us white supremacist. Considering that the only resolution for the climate is world communism and destruction of our economy with little if any pressure on the major polluters, China and India, CO2 concerns is clearly a hoax.

      • Zachriel says:

        david7134: You must not have received the memo on altered physics and chemistry when dealing with CO2 and the warmest.

        The study makes no such mistake. Not sure why you would think it would without checking the original source. Indeed, even in the Daily News article, it is contradicted by a later comment about salinity “further reducing its density”. In any case, the study found that the warming ocean has resulted in a reduced movement of gases to deep oceanic layers.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    It is estimated that Methane makes up about 0.00018 percent of the atmosphere or 1800 parts per billion.

    Scary stuff.

    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  7. Est1950 says:

    The article the OP quoted says this:

    Water on the ocean’s surface is significantly warmer — and therefore more dense — than the deeper waters. According to the study, climate change is ultimately disrupting the mixing process, which helps store away most of the world’s excess heat and a significant amount of carbon dioxide.

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, the oceans absorb more than 90% of heat generated by greenhouse gases.

    BUT THEN IT SAYS THIS:

    Glacier and ice sheets melted by global warming are also pouring into the seas, lowering the salinity of the upper layer and further reducing its density.

    Do its’ either more dense or less dense. Even AGW zombie bots can’t make up their mind or understand what a paper is trying to say….they just write shit to sensationalize stuff.

    But if the oceans are being fuked up 6x’s as fast then it is clear we only have about 6 months left to live before we all die of the AGW apocalypse instead of 9 years.

    No wonder John Kerry is jetting around the globe pouring co2 into the air to tell us Governments can’t fix AGW.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      In the future, alarmist commenters (Kiddiez, Rimjob, Michael Mann,
      Kerry… etc.) should be referred to as climate bedwetters.

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Zachriel says:

      Est1950: Do its’ either more dense or less dense.

      The lowering density in the upper “mixing” layer reduces the transfer of gases to deep oceanic layers.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10939 access attempts in the last 7 days.