Is the ocean broken?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by daiquiri, Oct 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Experiment evaluates the effect of human decisions on climate reconstructions
    • The first double-blind experiment analyzing the role of human decision-making in climate reconstructions has found that it can lead to substantially different results
    • 15 research groups used the same raw tree-ring data to reconstruct temperature changes over the past 2,000 years
    • Each of the reconstructions clearly showed that recent warming due to anthropogenic climate change is unprecedented in the past two thousand years
    • However, there were notable differences in variance, amplitude and sensitivity, as a result of decisions made by the different groups
    • In the future researchers suggest that teams make multiple reconstructions at once so that they can be seen as an ensemble
    The results are reported in the journal Nature Communications
     
  2. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    The interpretation of data depends on the bias of the interpreter. Science is supposed to be objective without bias influence. Politicized science is highly biased to the point it hardly resembles science any more.
     
  3. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    The same could be said about the politicization of religion in the US. Whatever used to be good about religion has become rotten to the core due to religious people's desire for power. As you've demonstrated time and again, the cardinal virtues of Christian humility and love have been abandoned for "boil them in oil" if they don't agree with you. Furthermore, the huge variety of opinions on how to interpret scripture is a strong suggestion that none of them know what they are talking about.

    I appreciate that scientists recognize their own shortcomings and continually try to improve. And I find it noteworthy that in the study mentioned above the different groups agreed on the main conclusions -- which is "that recent warming due to anthropogenic climate change is unprecedented in the past two thousand years." What they didn't agree on is the relatively minor issues like "exactly how warm was the Medieval warming period, or how much cooler a particular summer was after a large volcanic eruption."

    Büntgen stresses that each of the reconstructions showed the same overall trends: there were periods of warming in the 3rd century, as well as between the 10th and 12th century; they all showed abrupt summer cooling following clusters of large volcanic eruptions in the 6th, 15th and 19th century; and they all showed that the recent warming since the 20th and 21st century is unprecedented in the past 2000 years.

    "You think if you have the start with the same data, you will end up with the same result, but climate reconstruction doesn't work like that," said Büntgen. "All the reconstructions point in the same direction, and none of the results oppose one another, but there are differences, which must be attributed to decision-making."

    So for all of their failings, I still trust scientists long before I would trust either disingenuous priests or Internet mountebanks.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2021
  4. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    I have never heard anyone in a church that I attended say "Boil them in oil.", except at the fish fry. >=,`=,>
     
  5. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    This is an interesting and optimistic article about the efforts to collaborate on ocean health.
    New Hope for the Oceans: Engaging Faith-Based Communities in Marine Conservation https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2017.00062/full

    -Will
     
  6. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    Like with climate, weather, the economy, and a multitude of science and Math-based disciplines. They each are wrestling with their collection of models to choose from. There are traditional models struggling to compete with newer models based on the latest theories. It is no surprise that the same collection of data fed into each of these different models yield minor differences, and in many cases, some major differences.

    If you feed data into the Ptolimaic model of the solar system, you will get small discrepancies from the same data fed into the Copernican model. They both yield similar overall predictions of relative planetary movement, but have fundamentally different views of the underlying structure. It is the same in every branch of science.

    -Will
     
  7. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Carbon Dioxide Levels Hit 50% Higher Than Preindustrial Age
    • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the average carbon dioxide level for May was 419.13 parts per million.
    • That's 1.82 parts per million higher than May 2020 and 50% higher than the stable pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million.
    • The 10-year average rate of increase also set a record, now up to 2.4 parts per million per year
    • When the Earth climbed out of the last ice age, carbon dioxide increased by about 80 parts per million, and it took the Earth system, the natural system, 6,000 years.
    • By comparison, it has taken only 42 years, from 1979 to 2021, to increase carbon dioxide by that same amount
    Carbon dioxide peaks near 420 parts per million at Mauna Loa observatory - Welcome to NOAA Research https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2764/Coronavirus-response-barely-slows-rising-carbon-dioxide
     
  8. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    So it's true. A hotter Sun leads to higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hoodah thotit?
     
  9. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    I am curious to know what the Anthropogenic CO2 output has historically been from year to year. It is one thing to assume we are producing more CO2 by an amount that matches the measured changes, but is there an accurate accounting that correlates an independent measure? 1979, I remember as a period of heightened consciousness about the environment that has persisted to this day. Yet, we are apparently doing more harm than ever, and not just by a little, but by so much more than our increase in world population would suggest.

    I'm very skeptical of the conclusions around the causes for this unprecedented increase.

    There are certainly enough variations in the natural cycles of the Universe that records can still be broken and one time events can still happen without human involvement. Measuring outcomes alone isn't enough to conclude cause.

    That said, I have, as I've said in the past, no doubt that we are having an effect.

    -Will
     
  10. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Every animal on earth is having an effect.
     
  11. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Will, you've expressed your skepticism in the past. If what I've posted since you've joined this thread doesn't convince you I doubt anything else I can add will do so. You will just have to read the literature and make up your own mind. That being said, here are a few charts that demonstrate the scientific consensus in a simple format. The links for the charts give more information, especially the last chart.

    [​IMG]
    Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years. The peaks and valleys track ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2). During these cycles, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm. On the geologic time scale, the increase (orange dashed line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi et al., 2008, provided by the NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.

    Doesn't carbon dioxide in the atmosphere come from natural sources?

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    upload_2021-6-8_13-27-22.jpeg
    Annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry by major country and rest of world from 1959-2020, in billions of tonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2). Note that 2020 numbers are preliminary estimates. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
    Carbon Brief
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    [​IMG]

    Total Emissions in 2019 = 6,558 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to independent rounding.

    * Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry in the United States is a net sink and removes approximately 12 percent of these greenhouse gas emissions, this net sink is not shown in the above diagram. All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2019.


    Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    [​IMG]
    The Carbon Age: 150 Years of CO2 Emissions

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    (There is a large amount of information in this article)
    [​IMG]









     

    Attached Files:

  12. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Preaching your AGW religion?
     
  13. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    This logic does not follow. If we are observing an increase in ocean carbon and an increase in atmospheric carbon and we know they have a natural interchange, why would we assume that the ocean would get its extra carbon from somewhere else? I don't get their logic here.

    However, if the ocean is gaining carbon from somewhere else and it has a natural exchange of carbon with the atmosphere, why would we not consider the ocean as the source of carbon in the atmosphere?
    upload_2021-6-9_6-3-10.png
    Yet, that is not the observation either in the oceans or in the atmosphere. The assumption then is that humans are adding mass to the system, but that also assumes we have accounted for everything. There are no unknowns. There is not release of carbon from the seafloor beyond the norm, there is no possibility that land-based trapped subterranean carbon could have been uncovered and released into the atmosphere that we haven't discovered. We aren't being fed carbon from space. I can get there with the last two, but the conservation of mass means, without the ability to create carbon atoms, we aren't adding anything that isn't already there, either. We take trapped carbon and release it.

    Of course, that's what we're doing. I'm just noticing the trend lines for the water carbon exactly match the trend lines for atmospheric carbon, suggesting the same source for both. Maybe human, maybe natural.

    Shake the ground, as our newly discovered wobbling core goes through a much larger cycle of movement, and you get released carbon dioxide into both the oceans and the atmosphere. I am not saying this is what's happening, just that that very interesting article hasn't settled the question.

    -Will
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Logical thinking, Will.
    The notion the relatively minute human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is dramatically affecting climate is totally illogical.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2021

  15. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    My understanding is that the ocean does, in fact, absorb most of its CO2 from the atmosphere (There is also some absorbtion from underwater volcanoes, etc). It's just that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is also increasing, then the "other source" must be neither the ocean or the atmosphere, i.e., the burning of fossil fuels. Does that make sense?
    As the last chart in my post above shows, there is a huge amount of CO2 exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere, and the rate of exchange has significantly increased since pre-industrial times. But where the pre-industrial exchange rate was roughly equal between the atmosphere and the oceans, now that there is so much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there use to be, more CO2 is now being absorbed by the oceans than given off by the oceans. That is why the oceans are acidifying.

    If my memory serves me, my understanding is that at some point in the not too distant future much of the oceans could become saturated with CO2 and will not be able to absorb any more. This will be partly due to the warming waters not being able to absorb as much CO2 as colder waters.
    I doubt that scientists would say that there are "no unknowns," but they have certainly have tried to track down every unknown they can think of.
    No maybes about it. The isotopic signature of million-year-old carbon from fossil fuels is very different from the isotopic signature of carbon in the pre-industrial atmosphere. Read the section entitled "Isotope fingerprints point to human sources" in the last link I gave in my previous post.
    Apparently it isn't a settled the question for you, but I've not read any scientific studies on that topic that suggests it is a reasonable possibility. Maybe there is a Noble Prize in it for you :)
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.