I ran across a post by @clumsysilverdad that was just a link to this article. I read the article, and then I read it again. There are some key points made by the researchers that are probative of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) being a psyop, and disproving claims of catastrophic climate warming. The booming blooming of sargassum PROVES that climate IS NOT warming as the enemedia report, and this means that NONE of the dire predictions AGW shills make are correct.
For critical and informed folks, AGW being a hoax is not news, but for many that are restricted to mainstream enemedia broadcasts for their environmental information, this will be both a radical change in their understanding, and something easily understood, unlike graphs, eldritch calculations, and disputes of scientists.
"The team identified key factors that are critical to bloom formation: a large seed population in the winter left over from a previous bloom, nutrient input from West Africa upwelling in winter, and nutrient input in the spring or summer from the Amazon River."
"They think that discharged nutrients may have increased in recent years due to increased deforestation and fertilizer use... Sargassum only grows well when salinity is normal and surface temperatures are normal or cooler."
"Earth’s ocean biogeochemistry is changing in response to natural and human forcings. The Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt suggests that we may be witnessing ecosystem shifts in our ocean that could have important implications for marine organisms and ecosystem services, which humans depend on,” said Dr. Paula Bontempi, who manages NASA’s Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program and serves as acting deputy director of NASA’s Earth Science Division at NASA Headquarters."
"This is all ultimately related to climate change, as climate affects precipitation and ocean circulation and even human activities [that can lead to Sargassum blooms], but what we’ve shown is that these blooms do not occur because of increased water temperature,” Hu (Chuanmin Hu of the USF College of Marine Science) said. “They are probably here to stay.”
The key points: Sargassum will not grow well at higher than normal temperatures, and it is booming. The researchers expect the enormous increase in Sargassum to continue. This means that they know that temperatures will not increase. These are not amateurs, nor fringe conspiracy theorists, but highly credentialed scientists from NASA and leading research institutions.
AGW is a scam, intended to tax your breath and institute a global government to do it.
Interesting info ...signed up for steem pal and upvoted with that ..guess I need some pal before it does anything
Curious as to why you flagged me? I'd appreciate an explanation, since you didn't upvote me at all, and instead downvoted me at 10%.
oops hit the wrong button sorry meant to give u an upvote corrected that !!
It happens. Thanks for getting it right!
That's not what they said at all. What they said was that these blooms are not happening because of increased water temperatures...so they do believe that the water is warmer, that warmer water is not hindering the ability of the blooms, which they would expect but rather it is caused by increased run off of fertilizers and deforestation though this is hypothesis and more study is needed, a crucial point you left out.
So in essence the warmer water is not hindering the growth like it should be nor is it contributing to the growth so something else is attributing to it therefore these blooms are here to stay regardless of warmer water temperatures.
You see they even emphasized the fact that they have proven the blooms are not caused by warmer water but by human activities [that can lead to Sargassum blooms], something they could not prove unless the water was warmer.
I am not a climate change believer but this was a rather Duh moment for you.
This does not mean that ocean temperatures are warmer, nor that Sargassum now grows when it's warmer. It means that ocean temperatures are not warmer, and it states exactly that Sargassum grows today at normal or lower temperatures. What did they say that leads you to claim Sargassum now grows at warmer temperatures? They didn't say that anywhere. When they state the boom in blooming Sargassum will continue, they mean that the necessary temperature conditions will continue. The ocean will not grow warmer is exactly what they are saying.
The human activities specifically referenced in the report are deforestation and nutrient increases as a result of fertilizer use. Not once does the report claim ocean temperature is increasing, and across the literature there are consistent reports of ocean temperature not increasing as AGW predicts, which substantiates their point that Sargassum blooming is happening due to ocean temperature remaining normal and nutrients increasing.
Read the words, because they mean what they say, and they do not say ocean temperature is increasing, nor that Sargassum is changing the conditions under which it blooms.
Silly Rabbit tricks are for kids. The ocean surface temperature changes according to several variables, one contributing factor is the climate temperature at the surface which the oceans absorbs. In years where there are hotter temperatures (regardless if one wants to attribute those hotter surface climates to global warming or not) these scientist wouldn't expect to see such large Sargassum blooms as the (upper portion) water temperatures are a hindrance to their growth....SO scientist went looking for an answer as to why in years when surface water temperatures are not favorable or should not be favorable to boom blooms then why are they happening, once again, in parenthesis: and even human activities [that can lead to Sargassum blooms], is the hypothesis they're assuming until further research.
**as a side note, it is the bottom layer of the ocean whose temperatures stay consistent and that scientist (NASA) has concluded has shown no warming trend that would be consistent with any global warming effect.
**another side note: don't argue with someone who lives surrounded by great lakes. Surface climate warms water, the hotter it gets outside the more the surface waters of the lakes warm up. The surface waters of the ocean are the same way. So yes this enabled scientist to view the data over the years as to what the surface water temperatures were to determine that warm water was not a hindrance in this growth pattern. You can argue all day long why some years the surface temperatures were hotter and why but the point being, as far as this discussion goes, is that they can be, this is what set the little alarm bell off in the scientist heads that something just wasn't right here....as in "we're experiencing something that isn't normal"...why?
Okay Ralph lets put this in layman's terms: Normal bloom growth happens when conditions are right. Sometime after 2011 these blooms started growing enormous regardless if the conditions were right so scientist went looking for answers because even in the years were the "surface" temperature of the water was warmer they wouldn't expect these "boom" blooms, let alone normal blooms to be normal. Remember when the conditions are not right blooms do not produce to the same extent as in years when conditions are right. These scientist wanted to know why these "boom" blooms were "bucking" everything they knew about bloom formation. After looking at all the data available to them they're hypothesis is these "boom" blooms are caused by an increase in nutrients released into the waters via deforestation and fertilization. The conclusion is that if deforestation and over fertilization continue so will these boom blooms.
All of your ranting about Sargassum blooming despite AGW is directly contradicted by this statement:
What Hu said was that increased water temperature was NOT happening, and WOULD NOT happen in his opinion.
You are really reeking on my nerves tonight. What he is saying is that they have proved it is not happening because of increased water temperatures because in the years that water temperatures are their highest it is still happening.
Each year water temperatures fluctuate, some years they are cooler, some years they are warmer.
In the years that water temperatures are warmer they would not expect the blooms to do so well as to become boom blooms.
So at this EXACT point they can determine that INCREASED WATER TEMPERATURES IN SOME YEARS are not a contributing cause. Those years have nothing to do with any global warming, it has everything to do with what the temperatures above surface are. Just like here, last year the lake waters were cooler because we had less days with temperatures in the nineties, if we had more temperatures in the nineties than the eighties we'd had warmer lake temperatures.
Just as they can say WHEN WATER TEMPERATURES ARE COOLER is not producing the boom bloom effect.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THEY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT AS THE CAUSE BECAUSE REGARDLESS, okay lets say that again, REGARDLESS, that's
R- E- G- A- R- D- L- E- S- S
of the water temperature the boom blooms persist.
So this entire article is based on the elimination of water temperatures as ANY means of a cause, the search for a different cause, hence increase deforestation and fertilization......why? because deforestation effects climate change and ocean circulations that happen to be carrying the seeds and the extra fertilization that are producing the boom blooms to spread far and wide past their normal boundaries. That is why they are probably here to stay....because it's man made and man doesn't seem to want to correct his behavior.
You're completely making up your thesis that water temperatures have increased. This report is significant because it is proof that water temperature has not increased.
Your incapacity to grasp that, and your insistence that the direct statements to that effect in the report mean the opposite of what they do renders this conversation of null purpose.
See the lines?...they go up they go down, they go up they go down, they go up, they go down...
I can't believe you don't get it. It doesn't have anything to do with the argument of global warming of the waters, as this chart illustrates water temperatures have swung high and low for decades. The argument is that in the years where water temperatures are warmer (not because of climate change but because those years were warmer on record) it allowed them to look at the blooms and see they don't fair well during those years, just as they look at the years that are cooler and can tell the blooms exceed expectations....BUT...all of a sudden it didn't matter if it was cooler or warmer the bloom activity increased massively so they went looking for the cause. This article has nothing to do with arguing if the ocean level is warming due to global warming, this article is telling you that bloom booms are caused by man who keep cutting down rain forrest, which
coincidental has been well documented for decades to change the precipitation levels...(which by the way everyone knew way before "climate change" cliche's happened) this change in participation with increased fertilization run off is their hypothesis of the cause.
There are no words to describe your inability to comprehend what the whole article was about. This article was NOT a climate change article. Not, not, not, not, not....you just want to change it up that way. This whole article IS about how Sargassum has changed.....INTO MASSIVE BLOOMS AND WHY, if everything was honky dory like you claim THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT. Your comprehension is severely lacking.
I am sorry that are incapable of grasping these facts. When you say 'Sargassum has changed', you are incorrect, and that is directly refuted in the article. What has changed is the flow of nutrients to the Sargassum, and pointedly, not the temperature of the ocean. That is what is relevant to climate change. Whether you like or not, whether you realize it or not, those are the facts.
The article proves that AGW is not happening, and the scientists reporting the circumstances surrounding the massive blooms have looked at why this has happened. Amongst the things they found are that AGW is not happening. The statement of Hu is that 'This is ultimately related to climate change.'
You have managed to contradict Hu, and claim it is I failing to comprehend.
If you read the article carefully and compare my statements about it to the actual statements in the article, your claim I have not understood will become clearly false, and you will gain understanding, if you are capable of it. While I wish you could, and would, do so, what I wish doesn't matter, because you will do you. That's not on my shoulders, and you might reflect on that as you consider your insults. If you care whether what you say is the truth, you will.
Doesn't matter where the chart came from, most charts are consistent with the fact that water temperatures change from year to year.
I am not trying to pick on you, I am stating fact. What is relevant about this article is the hypothesis that the blooms and how well they do in any particular year that the number one driving force...water temperature...is no longer a leading indicator.
Now that you seem to understand that this article didn't set out to disprove anything other than things have changed regarding what drives the success of these blooms, I do though find it ironic that you totally miss the point that the reasons for the boom blooms the article attributes to man made climate change, just not in the way of increasing ocean water temperatures significantly.
That statement is completely false. You are making it up out of nothing. The article states the opposite, and I have already quoted it. Were you willing and able to grasp it, you would. If you care to, read it again, and perhaps you will grasp the actual fact that the scientists state that Sargassum continues to NOT BLOOM at elevated temperature, and that the bloom is due to continued normal temperature and the addition of more nutrients.
Regardless, have a nice day.
Yes true, but you are talking elevated as in way above normal to have an effect, that doesn't mean if the temperature spikes a bit it will slow it down or it will be lesser...that's what I am trying to say.