Ocean News

ImaginaryNumber · Nov 4, 2015

Yobarnacle said: ↑

...But I expect we will see another medieval warm period. All natural causes, not man made...
Click to expand...

Why do you think we will see another medieval warm period?

Errors accumulate. They don't self cancel...
Click to expand...

Yours certainly haven't self-canceled

ImaginaryNumber · Nov 4, 2015

High-latitude volcanic eruptions affect ocean circulation for decades | PHYS.ORG

It's well known that tropical-latitude volcanos have dramatic, global effects on atmosphere and climate. In fact, a new and startling book, Tambora: The Eruption That Changed the World, by Gillen D'Arcy Wood, documents the catastrophic eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815, and the decade of climate change and global chaos that followed. Tamobora, a peninsula of the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia, is just such a tropical volcano.

By contrast, there has been less research into high-latitude volcanos, because their most obvious effects are perceived to be brief and hemispheric, rather than global. So questions remain about the long-term effects of these volcanos. A new study by an international collaborative of researchers, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examines the long-term, ocean-mediated responses of high-latitude volcanos...

The results show how large, summer high-latitude eruptions in the northern hemisphere trigger El Niño-like anomalies, relative to the no-volcano test case, in the first four to nine months after the event. These eruptions trigger hemispheric surface cooling which leads to a southward shift in the intertropical convergence zone, the zone near the equator where the northeast and southeast trade winds come together. In turn, this leads to a reduction in temperatures that favors the development of an El Niño-like anomaly.

But the volcanic event also brings long-term changes to two ocean circulation fronts: The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), and the El Niño–Southern oscillation (ENSO). In fact, the model demonstrated strong perturbations in these circulations for nearly a half-century following eruption. After a six-month weakening of AMOC, a progressive strengthening occurs, reaching its maximum around five to 10 years after the eruption, declining to a minimum at about 35 to 40 years after the eruption...
Click to expand...

Topographic map of the Nordic Seas and subpolar basins with schematic circulation of surface currents
(solid curves) and deep currents (dashed curves) that form a portion of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.
Colors of curves indicate approximate temperatures.
Source: R. Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Science/USGCRP.

This diagram shows a model of surface temperatures, winds, areas of rising air, and the thermocline (blue surface) in the tropical Pacific during El Niño, normal, and La Niña conditions. Source: NOAA/PMEL/TAO Project Office, Dr. Michael J. McPhaden, Director

Yobarnacle · Nov 4, 2015

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

Why do you think we will see another medieval warm period?

Yours (errors) certainly haven't self-canceled
Click to expand...

http://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age
"Little Ice Age (LIA),
medieval warm period: estimates of temperature variations for the Northern Hemisphere and central England from 1000 to 2000 CE [Credit: ]
climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 ce. The term Little Ice Age was introduced to the scientific literature by Dutch-born American geologist F.E. Matthes in 1939. Originally the phrase was used to refer to Earth’s most recent 4,000-year period of mountain-glacier expansion and retreat. Today some scientists use it to distinguish only the period 1500–1850, when mountain glaciers expanded to their greatest extent, but the phrase is more commonly applied to the broader period 1300–1850. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900–1300 ce) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Obviously we HAVE been warming since late 1800s. The Thames hasn't frozen recently that I've heard.
AGWers won't even speculate that the medieval warm period was global, an warmer than their estimates, because it would trash their Marxist agenda.
More and more areas of the world are found to have been warm during the MWP. Areas in northern china, example.
What goes up comes down an vice/versa.

EVERYTHING in nature, we observe is cyclic.
It was warm, then cold, now warm again, and appears to have plateaued, for recent 15 years or so.

But despite the AGWers estimates of past warming, we can be fairly certain it was warmer then than today, because the Vikings colonized Greenland during this MWP and agriculture was booming in northern Europe.

An of course none of the MWP is attributable to human co2 emissions.

Anyway, we ALL will wait and see.
I'm optimistic good times are coming.
If we can keep the da---ed Marxists from having their will over us.

As to your suggestion my errors don't self cancel, neither does anybody else's. And I, on occasion, make mistakes.

But I don't DELIBERATELY INTENTIONALLY err!

However, PHDs in science MUST of taken a statistics course at some point.
Squaring and summing errors in order to calculate the square root of the sum, a mean of errors, in an attempt to reduce the apparent magnitude of the errors, is unforgivable. They did it deliberately, otherwise their minute trends would be swallowed by the margin of error.
Junk statistics and junk science.
The correct way, is after calculating mean of the data, include a caveat of +/- range of all the data, the LARGEST variance in observed data is admitted as the margin for error.
You don't calculate the mean of the errors as the margin of error.
If a single rogue anomaly exists in the data, way out of line, so as to suspect it's a bad reading or measurement, it is permissible to toss it out, but include a footnote you did and why.

And if the your "scientists" don't know correct statistical analysis, don't use it.

Yobarnacle · Nov 4, 2015

Actually, the square root of the sum of the squares of the deviations (referred to above as errors) or differences in data points from the mean, is called "the standard deviation".
Inappropriate to use it as margin for error.
Correct terminology sometimes confuses the uninitiated.

ImaginaryNumber · Nov 5, 2015

Yobarnacle said: ↑

...As to your suggestion my errors don't self cancel, neither does anybody else's. And I, on occasion, make mistakes.

But I don't DELIBERATELY INTENTIONALLY err!

However, PHDs in science MUST of taken a statistics course at some point.
Squaring and summing errors in order to calculate the square root of the sum, a mean of errors, in an attempt to reduce the apparent magnitude of the errors, is unforgivable. They did it deliberately, otherwise their minute trends would be swallowed by the margin of error.
Junk statistics and junk science.
The correct way, is after calculating mean of the data, include a caveat of +/- range of all the data, the LARGEST variance in observed data is admitted as the margin for error.
You don't calculate the mean of the errors as the margin of error.
If a single rogue anomaly exists in the data, way out of line, so as to suspect it's a bad reading or measurement, it is permissible to toss it out, but include a footnote you did and why.

And if the your "scientists" don't know correct statistical analysis, don't use it.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if you were to extend to scientists the presumption of competence and integrity that you desire us to assume for yourself.

A few months ago on Cruisers Forum there was a now-closed thread (I wonder why?) on global warming. Lo and behold, one of the participants was a real, honest-to-goodness climate scientist. Below is one of his posts:

Post by LekiM

ReefMagnet, SV Third Day and others,

So, I live my life, when not on the water, in front of a computer. As such, it is generally a nice distraction to be involved with threads on CF because staring at Fortran and numbers all the time is a challenge. But threads like this are disruptive and I'd THOUGHT I'd learned to tune them out. But, hearing stuff like this from folks I'm likely to run into on the dock broke my will.

Here's the deal: Climate modelers and climate scientists (and NO. NOT AL GORE) are NOT in the business of conspiring to make BS smell like roses. How do I know this? Because I'm a researcher at an oft-named institution and spend 50% of my time working with climate models and the other 50% at sea measuring things to test the models.

In fact, right-this-minute, I'm able to write this message because a large statistics script I wrote is cramming thru model data and it gives me a few minutes of time to sit back and stretch.

What do I (we) NOT do? We don't spend all of our time scrambling to make bad work look good and create excuses for data or results. Ever. If something is tested and it doesn't look right, we ask "why", do the best job we can of answering that, and then ask our peers to assess if our work holds water and conforms to the scientific method. Making up excuses and hand waving and conspiring and politics and religion and all that? There's no damn time. Between work and sailing, and maintenance and yard work. There's no WAY I could do that and keep a straight face, nor could my colleagues.

Science is competitive: If I WERE to try to publish BS with perfume on it, and it got attention, what do you think would happen? Well, another scientist with similar credentials to mine would be MORE than happy to point it out in a most grandiose way with the result that MY credibility is knocked, as well as that of my co-authors. That is bad. And the one who caught it would be lauded as a true peer capable of holding us all to account.

So am I worried about people with political agendas finding faults? Nope.

"But you don't know how all the rest of the scientists do & behave". I am deeply involved in this at high levels. Not gloating. It is what it is.

What DO we do? We work to find out what is wrong with our models, why, what it means, and how to fix it. The models represent, to a large degree, our ability to take as much of what we understand about the Earth system and use a (-giant-) computer to help us (1) find gaps in the knowledge, and (2) test what the current state-of-the-science is able to say about how the parts respond to one another, and most importantly (3) try to constrain the uncertainty. The last one is likely the most important.

What else do we do? We work to make BEST use of observations, and feed back to those who design experiments and take observations on what we can use, and what their data mean within a Global context.

That paper that SV Third Day pointed to? It was using observations to help constrain the validity of model output by addressing what is one of the two most important remaining parts of Earth system models that STILL NEED WORK: The heat exchange between the different parts of the Earth. Namely, the ocean and atmosphere. THIS IS WHY THAT PAPER WAS IN A HIGH PROFILE JOURNAL. Because it dinged an important nail on the head. And not in ANY way because it invalidates models or undermines the integrity of the science. THAT interpretation is 199% the work of media intermediates who want clicks and attention and they're really good at that.

That the authors of the original paper (which I'm sure was NOT read by Mr. Day) found that observations of heat transfer are able to explain recent 'wiggles' in the global mean temperature and that this transfer is not currently well accounted for in climate models. WE KNOW THIS. WE NEED FOLKS LIKE THESE GUYS TO HELP US SORT IT OUT (yes I'm raising my voice, just a little). I'm glad they did.

If what they found is reproduced (which is an important step in the scientific method), then folks like me can go into the Fortran in these models and figure out how to better represent the observations in a way that will reduce the uncertainty (See? Uncertainty. It matters.)

Now, the thing about our work getting attention outside of science is the presence of a single absolute certainty:
People will always interpret it almost exactly the way they want to and will spout it out like gospel as soon as they can form a complete sentence.

Why does this happen? I'm not totally sure, but I think there are two reasons:
1) Non-scientists are not able to extract proper context from a research article so there's no way to truly evaluate the meaning of snippets of text. This is a problem. It is recognized.
2) The folks who transmit this into to the public NEED the agenda to maintain the attention of their intended audience.

Posting figures and links and posts to things on forums like this does little more than indicate where you get your information. That's all. This thread has not been a debate.

Lastly, I hold my colleagues at NOAA and NASA and similar institutions in the highest regard; and am continually stop-in-tracks impressed with their integrity and how talented and capable they are as scientists and engineers. To project your agendas or politics onto them in such a way that calls this into question (as has been done here) is so thoroughly misguided that I instantly lose the ability to take you seriously and have an instant sense (only for an instant) of wanting to grab your hair and rub your face in all the parts of your lives that rely so heavily on how good they really are just to humiliate you.

... but then I come to my senses and realize that all of this is hard to understand. And ultimately we can only fall back on what we believe. And if you've let your beliefs be preyed upon by characters with ill intent, then I feel sorry for you. And beyond that, I'd still rather be on the water. And I still love being around boats and people who like boats, so I make a point of NEVER discussing what I do lest it take away from any of that.

QED.
Click to expand...

ImaginaryNumber · Nov 5, 2015

Abrupt changes in food chains predicted as Southern Ocean acidifies fast | Sydney Morning Herald

The Southern Ocean is acidifying at such a rate because of rising carbon dioxide emissions that large regions may be inhospitable for key organisms in the food chain to survive as soon as 2030, new US research has found.

Tiny pteropods, snail-like creatures that play an important role in the food web, will lose their ability to form shells as oceans absorb more of the CO2 from the atmosphere, a process already observed over short periods in areas close to the Antarctic coast.

Ocean acidification is often dubbed the "evil twin" of climate change. As CO2 levels rise, more of it is absorbed by seawater, resulting in a lower pH level and reduced carbonate ion concentration. Marine organisms with skeletons and shells then struggle to develop and maintain their structures...

Since the Southern Ocean is already close to the threshold for shell-formation, relatively small changes in acidity levels will likely show up there first, Professor Timmermann said: "The background state is already very close to corrosiveness."

Below a certain pH level, shells of such creatures become more brittle, with implications for fisheries that feed off them since pteropods appear unable to evolve fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing conditions...

Given the sheer scale of the marine creatures involved, "take away this biomass, [and] you have avalanche effects for the rest of the food web", he said...

Rapidly acidifying waters pose major threat for Southern Ocean ecosystem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p9fMBrXlA
Click to expand...

hoytedow · Nov 5, 2015

Yobarnacle said: ↑

Actually, the square root of the sum of the squares of the deviations (referred to above as errors) or differences in data points from the mean, is called "the standard deviation".
Inappropriate to use it as margin for error.
Correct terminology sometimes confuses the uninitiated.
Click to expand...

The problem with the AGW fanatics is that they are trying to make us believe in imaginary numbers.

brian eiland · Nov 5, 2015

Scientists Warn Of Massive Tidal Wave From Canary Island Volcano

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

It's very strange. In the five weeks since the thread Our Oceans Are Under Attack has been closed, there have been over 6,000 views. Doesn't make any sense to me. Hard to believe that anyone is that passionate about reading old news and stale discussions.

Since the moderator suggested that the general topic of ocean news was a valid topic on this forum, and because I'm curious as to whether the traffic reading the closed thread will be interested in current ocean news, I'm opening another thread on this topic.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you restarted a similar named subject thread, and I do agree with the moderator that the old one had turned into a mud-slinging affair. Hopefully that will not occur again.

I just found this tread while looking to post some new science news, and I'm just starting to read thru it, so excuse me if I repeat some news that has long been out there, and might affect the east coast of the USA in a significant manner:

Scientists Warn Of Massive Tidal Wave From Canary Island Volcano
http://rense.com/general13/tidal.htm

A computer model has been designed to show the way the tsunami will build after the volcano, called Cumbre Vieja, erupts on La Palma, at the western end of the Spanish island chain. It describes the almost unimaginable scale of an event that the scientists say could happen at any time within the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

This is only one of many postings about this possibility, and likely someone else has brough it up again in these discussions.

And I think a good number of 'experts' have tried to down-grade this threat by claiming such a massive landslide would be highly unlikely. Personal from the research I've seen, I do not agree. I think it's an entire possibility, and I keep my eyes and hears open for such news as I now live very near the ocean on the east coast of Florida in St Augustine.

brian eiland · Nov 5, 2015

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

Megatsunami: Evidence of 800-Foot Wave Worries Experts | Nature World News
Click to expand...

Interesting !

brian eiland · Nov 5, 2015

Yobarnacle said: ↑

This forum is excellent for what it's purpose is, to share information and ideas about boat design.
I appreciate it and enjoy it and benefit from it.

On earlier threads, I exposed the who, the why, and the how, of anthropogenic global warming is a deliberate socialist plot to conquer the world by subversion, and exposed the blatant propaganda as double talk and spin and pseudo science.

I don't want to go round and round.

Topical posts and socialist propaganda pretending to be innocent topical posts ain't the same thing.

There are plenty of forums to argue politics on.

May I suggest where you can put your co2?
Click to expand...

I believe it is you that is making a political argument out of this climate change science that you wish to ignore, and I would ask that you eliminate the political portion out and contribute science based arguments to the contrary.

I personal find the Imaginary Number brings lots of interesting SCIENCE discussions to the forum. And yes this is a 'boating forum', and certainly us boaters MUST be concerned with the Oceans. And this subject thread is located under a heading that invites 'open discussions' of boat related subjects, not just the design and maintenance aspects.
Brian Eiland

brian eiland · Nov 5, 2015

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

....

The skills needed to survive a saber-tooth tiger attack are different from those needed to survive an earthquake, which are different from those needed to survive a cyber attack, which are different from those needed to survive AGW. However, one commonality to all these scenarios is that we are more likely to be successful if we pool our resources and work together than if we try and go it alone. Hence the need to discuss in public forums both the threat of Global Warming as well as possible solutions.

*
Click to expand...

GREAT PHOTO,....LMAO

brian eiland · Nov 5, 2015

NASA found a way to track ocean currents from space

NASA found a way to track ocean currents from space. What they saw is troubling....

There has been growing concern, of late, that one predicted consequence of a changing climate — the slowing of the great “overturning” circulation in the Atlantic Ocean — is already starting to happen.

Some scientists have already suggested that the odd cold “blob” pattern on the map above, featuring record cold North Atlantic temperatures on an otherwise quite hot planet, may be attributable to this development. The gigantic circulation, technically termed the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation or AMOC, carries warm water northward even as it also sends cold salty water back south at depth. Thus, changes here can reverberate around the globe — one recent study even found that a full AMOC shutdown could trigger a temporary period of global cooling.

Now, in a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin use a new and sophisticated tool — the “Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment” satellites, or GRACE — to confirm some pretty odd behavior in the circulation in 2009 and 2010 that has also been linked to a sudden and extreme 4-inch sea-level rise on the East Coast.

The new satellite technique, the researchers say, holds great promise to determine if — as feared — the circulation is indeed slowing down. “A lot of the evidence that has been amassed is indirect, and what we’re trying to do is provide a way to really observe the AMOC across all latitudes,” says Felix Landerer, a researcher with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who is lead author of the study.

To understand how the researchers achieved this, it’s first important to describe — and profusely praise — the GRACE satellites that made it all possible. These satellites are not only a fascinating tool but, frankly, a testament to the stunning power of science — and they’re already responsible for a huge number of new insights into the workings of our planet.

The GRACE satellites are a pair of twin observing devices that orbit the Earth 137 miles from one another. The Earth’s gravitational pull on the satellites varies depending upon the mass of what is below them at a particular time — a mountain, an ocean — and so by measuring slight perturbations in the distance between the two satellites, scientists detect these mass changes.
Click to expand...

...more here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/04/nasa-can-now-detect-worrying-ocean-circulation-changes-from-space/

Yobarnacle · Nov 5, 2015

ImaginaryNumber said: ↑

"The same with sea level measurements. Any single measurement is likely to be inaccurate, but collectively all the measurements taken together are quite accurate."

A brief article explaining how sea level is determined:

Measuring sea level on a dynamic Earth | EarthSky
Click to expand...

from above url
"These geographic variations were resolved in 1993 when two satellites were launched that use radar to measure the level of the ocean very precisely from space. This high-tech approach eliminates the problems of land motion on Earth and has given us a new global sea-level rise rate over the past 22 years of 3.2 millimeters per year, the equivalent of 12 inches per century."

If you doubt imaginarynumbers ability to exaggerate, the photo-shopped flooded statue of liberty was his post. What is he implying with such a visual statement?
But from the url he posted and I quote above, sealevel is rising at one foot per century, which I doubt the precision of.
I'm posting dimensioned statue of libertys.
Water level on IN's post at least 50 ft higher than the Nat Geo cover.
Keep in mind, Wright bros 1st flight 1903 to Armstrong steeping on moon 1969 was 65 years.
At a foot per century, it will take more than 2,500 years for sea-level to reach in's picture.

With such a gross exaggeration of a "danger", what is YOUR estimate of his agenda?
I see this warped manipulative effort in ALL AGW propaganda!
You decide for yourself if it's political.
Remember, they demand to tax carbon (thus every aspect of life) as the "solution!
It's people control, ie politics

Mr Efficiency · Nov 5, 2015

I think I'd take more notice of how the corporate world is positioning itself in regard to business risks attaching to possible climate change, before worrying about wacky Marxist conspiracies that have thousands of climate scientist dupes harnessed to their evil cause ! If they are really that clever to have fooled all those people, plus all us plebs as well, I can only deduce we are their rightful prey !

Yobarnacle · Nov 5, 2015

Climate change is real. The CAUSE of climate change will determine options to adjust.
If man is causing climate change, then unless man changes his ways, the climate COULD become inhospitable. No natural limits.
Everybody sees the world colored by their philosophy and beliefs. Political and religious beliefs being most influential.
Nobody is objective. Nobody.
Marxism, socialism, collectivism, view man as inherently selfish, ignorant, foolish, and irresponsible and needs strong and total government.
Administered by supermen elite. No idea where they'll find them.
They think man causes climate change.
I don't, and consider them and their world view enemies of freedom.

Log in or Sign up

Ocean News

ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

brian eiland Senior Member

brian eiland Senior Member

brian eiland Senior Member

brian eiland Senior Member

brian eiland Senior Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Attached Files:

statue_of_liberty_under_water.jpg

natgeo_statue_liberty_sea_level.jpg

statue_of_liberty_above_sea_level1.jpg

Mr Efficiency Senior Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Real Ocean News

Design of an Autonomous Surface Craft for Oceanographic Survey

"live in the ocean" meme suffers setback

Volvo Ocean Race - John Fisher

Man rescued from floating bubble (tries to go across ocean to Bermuda 1000 miles)

Cement/Concrete Saves Vessel Mid Ocean

Is the ocean broken?

Kids facing the Oceans Plastic Cleanup Problem

Free ride across the pacific ocean

Books for ocean passages etc..