Ocean News

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by ImaginaryNumber, Oct 8, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I have already proven to myself, rationally, logically, mathematically, historically, scientifically, and street wise psychology in detecting scams, that AGW is a fraud and not a valid hypothesis. Imaginary number says posting a logic truth table of AGW's validity is nonsense. Is there anybody who WOULD like to see the logical argument?

    The best non-classic but logical on it's face argument is, Oceans have been driving weather and climate for zillions of years. Until the Industrial Revolution. In the 1800s, the Oceans retired from, quit influencing, creating, and driving weather and climate, and now sits placidly on the bench, no longer an active player. The NEW star or the field, is upstart rookie human contributed CO2, who snatched the baton from exhausted, discrepant, ancient, and benched Ocean, and is merrily trotting, gaining strength with every footfall towards the extinction event finish line, leading the rest of the pack, by several laps!
    Yeah, Right! My *********!
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
  2. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    If you can't accurately repeat something I said just a day or two ago, what are the chances that you can accurately represent something as complex as climate?

    The problem with truth tables is that they are very black or white, yes or no. One little error in some obscure statement can completely change the outcome.

    Scientists prefer to use mathematical/computer models to sort out climate change -- lots of models, each with different assumptions. If a number of different models, each with their different assumptions, come to similar conclusions, then it is more likely that the congruent area of the models is correct.

    What the models all agree on (and what the empirical evidence also shows) is that AGW is happening. What is less certain is how far, how fast, when, and where and why. Even those questions are being answered as more empirical evidence is acquired, and better models are built using that information.
     
  3. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    climate change happening and humans causing climate change is as different as the moon rising from my birthdate

    one is a natural cycle, and the other is seventy two years of a human life.
    The moon rose every day of my 72 years but that is not evidenced I influenced the moon. it rose every day for a long time before I existed!

    Climate change has been going on along time before human CO2 and even before humans existed!

    climate changing does NOT support AGW theory. the only thing AGW theory is aimed at is blaming humans. Nothing to do with continuous ever ancient until today climate change. You can not use climate change as evidence humans are to blame. Ridiculous biased fraudulent claim!

    and the models don't agree until they intentionally fudge the models.

    Logic truth tables are not about black and white bipolar personality.
    A single statement has a one line truth table, T or F.
    How you construct the statement is what's important.
    When you have multiple statements, conditional statements, then you have a true table of data. Line after line with a column of T/F beneath each statement, indicating how it's value changed as other statements value changed.
    Five statements will probably generate a table twentfive lines deep, five columns twentfive lines tall.
    The inferences gathered from such a table, is, which are the driving statements and which are the subordinate statements.
    Example, you can make a statement

    P: At some time, some place, at least once, human contributed CO2 affected earth's climate, at least a little

    You then assemble all the other statements about water vapor, solar radiance, ocean currents, natural CO2, earth's sensitivity to influence minor or major, ect.
    Then, you test each statement, entering both a true and a false, to see how that affects the other statements.

    If statement P is consistently true regardless of condition of other statements, you can declare it true.
    If not in all cases, you can dtermine there are exceptions, or a percent of the time it's true, or even it's true in only one instance.

    Or never true, and you declare it false.

    If two statements are both true when one is true and both false when either is false, they have a relationship, maybe a dependency, and maybe one bullys the other!

    That's how truth tables work.

    You don't know logic.
     
  4. Dejay
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 721
    Likes: 138, Points: 43
    Location: Europe

    Dejay Senior Newbie

    I've clicked on Yobarnacle's username and clicked ignore. It works well to not see any of his posts - but it's clear that he successfully manages to troll this thread and derail the discussion. He's contributing a large amount of spam to blow up this thread - possibly to provoke enough problems to get it locked. One can't just ignore this misinformation.

    Since climate change is a really terrible thing so he's also actively grieving, mocking and gloating to cause emotional distress in others.

    Boat design is a very sophisticated science that just like climate science deals with fluid dynamics, turbulence and oceans. In my opinion the science denial and his anti-intellectualism has no place here (or anywhere).

    Similar to someone persistently promoting dangerous and unsafe methods or products for boat building, denying climate change and promoting it has dangerous global consequences. He is advocating violence, at least indirectly violence against those that won't be able to adapt. At some point the discussion has to be over and action against misinformation should be taken. I believe he should be banned from this thread.

    PS: And it's clear that climate change has an impact on boat design and marine architecture and vice versa, fossil fuel use of large ships has an influence on climate change. There is definitely a legitimate need to discuss this and not get derailed and sabotaged.
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    The control freaks want to shut up any other opinion.

    Climate Change is real. Always has been. It is not runaway catastrophic. At least no sign of it yet.

    My sincere heartfelt objection to blaming humans for causing climate change is exactly because the AGW movement is dangerous to society, economies, the future of developing nations, and the future of technologies. And, the notion a tiny percent of CO2 contributed by humans and only in recent century and decades, controls all of earths climate, is insane,a dangerous pathological insanity! A mass hysteria!
    Alarmists should be banned from all societies! Shunned, perhaps hospitalized, committed .
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
  6. Dejay
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 721
    Likes: 138, Points: 43
    Location: Europe

    Dejay Senior Newbie

    I've heard that the ice sheets will take thousands of years to melt. But what isn't mentioned in the article is that as the ice sheet melts the ice gets dirtier and darker, so accelerates warming. I wouldn't be surprised if such effects haven't been modelled and included in the predictions yet.
     
  7. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    An ice-free Arctic Ocean has happened before http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/arctic-sea-ice/

    Published on: Monday, 29 August, 2016
    When the Arctic loses all its sea ice one summer, will it matter?
    My Times column on how the Arctic sea ice has melted in late summer before, between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago:

    The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is approaching its annual nadir. By early September each year about two thirds of the ice cap has melted, then the sea begins to freeze again. This year looks unlikely to set a record for melting, with more than four million square kilometres of ice remaining, less than the average in the 1980s and 1990s, but more than in the record low years of 2007 and 2012. (The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing in recent years, contrary to predictions.)

    This will disappoint some. An expedition led by David Hempleman-Adams to circumnavigate the North Pole through the Northeast and Northwest passages, intending to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through”, was recently held up for weeks north of Siberia by, um, ice. They have only just reached halfway.

    Meanwhile, the habit of some scientists of predicting when the ice will disappear completely keeps getting them into trouble. A Nasa climate scientist, Jay Zwally, told the Associated Press in 2007: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012.” Two years later Al Gore quoted another scientist that “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years” — that is, by now.

    This year Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University has a new book out called Farewell to Ice, which gives a “greater than even chance” that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free next month. Not likely.

    He added: “Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer . . . You will be able to cross over the North Pole by ship.” The temptation to predict a total melt of the Arctic ice cap, and thereby get a headline, has been counterproductive, according to other scientists. Crying wolf does not help the cause of global warming; it only gives amusement to sceptics.

    Would it matter if it did all melt one year? Here’s the point everybody seems to be missing: the Arctic Ocean’s ice has indeed disappeared during summer in the past, routinely. The evidence comes from various sources, such as beach ridges in northern Greenland, never unfrozen today, which show evidence of wave action in the past. One Danish team concluded in 2012 that 8,500 years ago the ice extent was “less than half of the record low 2007 level”. A Swedish team, in a paper published in 2014, went further: between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the Arctic experienced a “regime dominated by seasonal ice, ie, ice-free summers”.

    [Here is the abstract of the latter paper:

    Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day
    (continues)
     
  8. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Polar Vortex Grows Arctic Sea Ice to 10-Year High, but There's a Catch | The Weather Channel https://weather.com/news/news/2020-02-13-polar-vortex-arctic-sea-ice-cover-highest

    Ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean is currently the highest it has been since 2010 with support from the strongest polar vortex on record.
    Ice covers 5.4 million square miles of the Arctic – roughly the size of the United States, Mexico and India combined. This coverage is still below the long-term climate average, but the uptick is at least a temporary stall in sea ice decline.

    That was Feb 13, 2020, this year.
    We are now in the northern hemisphere summer.
    Ice melts in the summertime?
    Oh NO! It's a catastrophe!
     
  9. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    This will disappoint some, but David Hempleman-Adams was successful in his attempt to circumnavigate the North Pole through the Northeast and Northwest passages in one season in a sailboat.

    The Polar Ocean Challenge – History in the Making
    BTW, Sir David Hempleman-Adams is one of the most accomplished explorer-adventurers of our time.

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

    This is now so little multiyear pack ice in the Arctic Ocean that for the last few years there are cruise ships taking guests through the Northwest Passage each summer.

    Northwest Passage – Follow the footsteps of legendary explorers
    [It looks like they are only booking for 2021, presumably because of COVID-19]
     
  10. Dejay
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 721
    Likes: 138, Points: 43
    Location: Europe

    Dejay Senior Newbie

    Since I'm actually planning or hoping to spend the next 20-30 years in the mediterranean area - from what I gather this means higher temperature and less rain. But also less cloud cover and more solar gain from solar panels?

    It's also interesting how careful scientists phrase their predictions and conclusions. For example that the drought in Syria contributed to the civil war there. This is the real problem with climate change, if you understand humans you know that this will mean more and more conflicts and wars all around the world. If Turkey, Greek, Spain and Italy will be impacted and the European union crumbles that could become a real hotspot for conflict.
     
  11. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    http://www.projectbluesphere.com/2013/01/18/Building-a-watermaker/

    The Mediterranean has always had drinking water shortages. Expensive to buy.

    Cruising the Med, living onboard ... Is it all it's cracked up to be ? Is it for you ? : by Bryant [Living on board] - VisitMyHarbour articles https://www.visitmyharbour.com/articles/1532/cruising-the-med-living-onboard-is-it-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-is-it-for-you-

    A combination of rose tinted glasses, wrong assumptions, and lack of experience, can lead to big problems manifesting themselves after significant amounts of capital have been deployed. Any venture that involves living on a boat (especially if it involves buying a boat for this purpose) really needs to be thought through thoroughly in the first instance.

    Living on board a boat in the Mediterranean is NOT the same as a chartering holiday or a good coastal cruise. Holiday cruises and charters come to an end, and the happy event can be mulled over in the comfort of your own home later.

    Living on board your boat is a tough option (even in the Mediterranean climate), in practice far removed from the image most people have of it. It truly can be a very satisfying and healthy way of life, but requires commitment and dedication.... and not a little money.

    The purpose of this article is not to dash your dreams, but gently take you, dear reader, and explain to you how it really is. Once the false assumptions have been brushed aside you can make your decisions based on reality rather than expectation. If you do decide to try living on your boat and cruising the Mediterranean you'll have a much better chance of enjoying it rather regretting it (and often losing large sums of money in the process).
     
  12. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    When it come to selecting information sources that are incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant, Yob never fails to deliver.

    The extent of arctic sea ice mid-winter is not a good predictor of minimum arctic sea ice extent in September.

    [​IMG]
    Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    This chart shows arctic sea ice extent for 2012 (red dashed line), which holds the record for minimum sea ice extent for the last 40 years (when satellite coverage began). Also shown is the extent for the years 2014, 2018, and 2020. As you can see during the winter of the record minimum year of 2012, maximum sea ice extent was greater than for all the other subsequent years (that I've shown). Also note that between July 1 and August 1 that there isn't too much difference between any of the years. It's not until August and September that the difference in years starts to become apparent.

    What is more useful to watch than sea ice extent is sea ice volume -- roughly ice extent * ice thickness.

    [​IMG]
    Sea Ice Thickness and Volume: Polar Portal http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/#c23717

    As you see, 2020 has the lowest mid-winter volume of any year since 2016, and considerably lower than the 2004-2013 average. Almost every year the sea ice is getting thinner, even on those years when extent may be greater. That is the real story of what's happening to arctic sea ice. Each year there is less and less of the thick, multi-year ice. Mostly now the ice is just a few years old, and therefore not as thick, and therefore easier to melt each summer.

    So once again, Yob, you are half right and all wrong.
     
  13. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I was curious how they could measure the thickness of thousands of square miles of polar ice. The EXTENT of ice can be accurately determined from satellite photographs, but THICKNESS?
    Must be a technological miracle!

    Then, I read this.

    Sea Ice Thickness and Volume: Polar Portal http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
    "Differences may occur in terms of the position of the edge of the ice in the two maps, “Extent of the sea ice” and “Thickness and volume of the sea ice”, as the model calculations do not always correspond exactly to the satellite sensors’ registration of the extent of the ice.

    Ice concentrations are based on satellite data and are from the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility project (OSISAF).
    The thickness of the ice shown is calculated by means of the HYCOM-CICE model of sea ice at DMI. "

    Here is the rub.
    I created this sentence below from excepts in the above quote. Does not change the meaning. Makes it more obvious.


    The HYCOM-CICE model calculated thickness of the ice does not always correspond exactly to the satellite sensors observed data.

    SHAME!

    And the "modeled" curve doesn't differ by much from other years. just needed a little nudging here and there to be a tad worse. I don't trust AGW models or ethics. Ya'll been caught manipulating the reported data many many times. Credibility ZERO.

    You can't empirically observe it, so you manufacture data in a computer model? Tsk! Tsk!
    Amazingly, modeled results are nearly always reported as a tad worse, some new record low!
    Why would they do that? An agenda by the model creators?

    Do they think ALL of us are stupid and naive? Or enough of a mob sufficient for a consensus?

    When mobs eventually learn they've been hoodwinked, it ain't pretty!

    Doesn't mob refer to a flock of sheep in some parts?

    "What is more useful to watch than sea ice extent is sea ice volume -- roughly ice extent * ice thickness." said i
    Your contention the modeled volume of ice is more telling than the observed extent of ice, depends upon two things, Imaginary number. What kind of story you are telling, and the presumed bias and gullibility of the, your, intended audience.

    Another point, you opined you wouldn't choose February to show minimum ice. Why not? If winter ice were less than normal, that might make your case better than no ice at all in mid summer!
    On the other hand, if it did all melt in the summer? As long as the ice returned huge, thick and strong in the winter, who cares. Short term weather events are just weather, not climate!
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Home >> Trending Topics >> In The News >> Environmentalist Issues Climate Scare Apology, Forbes Removes Article
    Environmentalist Issues Climate Scare Apology, Forbes Removes Article

    Posted by: Thomas Catenacci in In The News, US News June 30, 2020 0

    Topics in this post: climate change media bias Michael Shellenberger
    ShareTweetSubscribe: CDN Daily Briefing

    [​IMG]

    Forbes unpublished an article Monday in which an environmental activist apologized for scaring people about climate change.

    Michael Shellenberger’s article was originally published by Forbes Sunday, but was taken down one day later. Shellenberger, who is the founder and president of Environmental Progress, decried “climate alarmism” in the article, which he posted on his website after Forbes took it down.

    “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years,” he wrote.

    Shellenberger added: “Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”

    2030 is coming and with it comeuppance.
     

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

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Shellenberger makes some interesting arguments. You can read his article here:

    On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

    An older piece he wrote for Forbes can be found here:

    Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

    I'm very curious why Forbes pulled the article? They use to be quite pro-Denialism, but more recently cleaned up their act a bit. In the next few weeks I hope to find reviews of Shellenberger's arguments.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. hoytedow
    Replies:
    147
    Views:
    16,065
  2. sun
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
  3. Squidly-Diddly
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,039
  4. JosephT
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,792
  5. Waterwitch
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    6,154
  6. Milehog
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,785
  7. daiquiri
    Replies:
    2,748
    Views:
    126,283
  8. rwatson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,042
  9. BPL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,317
  10. urisvan
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,352
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.