Is the ocean broken?

The problem with the language isn't the lack of proof, it is that it is the language of worst case scenarios. It is inflammatory and costly. It isn't that these things aren't possible, it is whether or not these things are reasonable enough to build policy around. The language these reports use are usually chosen my reporters trying to sell articles and it has crept into the science in unhealthy ways.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Self-evaluation of one's foibles is typically not reliable. If you have enough self confidence you might ask a trusted, dispassionate third party to use Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit to evaluate your personal belief system.

 

Or else that is exactly what the scientists are saying...

Global Ice Melt Matches Worst-Case Climate Scenario, Study Says

• Melting on the ice sheets has accelerated so much over the past three decades that it’s now in line with the worst-case climate warming scenarios outlined by scientists
• "Although every region we studied lost ice, losses from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have accelerated the most."
• Earth’s northern and southern poles are warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet
• As the sea ice shrinks, more solar energy is being absorbed by the oceans and atmosphere, causing the Arctic to warm faster than anywhere else on the planet
• Mountain glaciers are critical as a freshwater resource, thus the retreat of glaciers around the world is of crucial importance
  
• Two thirds of the ice loss was caused by the warming of the atmosphere, with about a third caused by the warming of the seas

The paper was published in the journal The Cryosphere

 

I don't value his opinions, unlike billions and billions of sheeple.
My little chunk of ocean is a very pleasant place today, being warm and sunny.

 

Clothes washing linked to ‘pervasive’ plastic pollution in the Arctic

• The Arctic ocean is polluted by microplastic fibres from the washing of synthetic clothes by people in Europe and North America
• Much more water flows into the Arctic from the Atlantic than the Pacific
  
• An estimated 3,500tn plastic microfibres from clothes washing in the US and Canada ends up in the sea each year
  
• Most of the samples were taken from 3-8 metres below the surface, where much marine life feeds
  
• The type of plastic found at different depths in the oceans depends on the density of the plastic, with buoyant polystyrene likely to float and dense PVC more likely to sink to the ocean floor. Polyester is closer to neutral buoyancy

The research is published in the journal Nature Communications

 

Polyester is great stuff.
Of what is your boat made?

 

Science is knowledge, arrived at by proof. Anything short of that is scientific or unscientific theory or maybe just conjecture.
With social distancing clothes washing is not as critical, but you may be troubled by the flies. Consensus is not science. It often is the result of peer pressure. Cotton kills but is biodegradable. Trade off.

 

Sadly, your understanding of the scientific method is inaccurate. Science doesn't "prove" anything; it only generates supporting or falsifying evidence. Here is one generalized description of the process.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

​

Consensus is an integral part of the scientific process, but even if scientists happen to arrive at a consensus, that still is not a proof. Further evidence can result in a long-established understanding being supplanted by a better understanding.

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]...

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[10][dead link][11] climate change,[12][dead link] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[9]...

Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, science should be based on falsification. Whilst this forms a logical theory for science, it is in a sense "timeless" and does not necessarily reflect a view on how science should progress over time....

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[9]....​

 

You can have your science by commitee, the same sort who threw Galileo in jail. Bah!
Observation is the best science.

 

So from what kind of plastic is your boat made?

 

I have yet to wash any of my boats in a clothes washer. <laugh>

 

That is not an answer.
<scoff>

 

They(you know who I mean) want to close the coal mines, gas and oil wells for one reason and it isn't because they love nature. It is they can grab those assets for pennies on the dollar; and then they will reopen them.

 

Bill Gates: Here's a Formula That Explains Where We Need to Invest in Climate Innovation

• Almost a billion people don't have access to reliable, affordable electricity, which is essential to modern living
  
• Contribution to climate change: manufacturing - 31%; electricity - 27%; crops - 19%; transportation - 16%; heating and cooling buildings - less $
  
• The Green Premium for zero-carbon jet fuel fuel, for example, is ($5.35 for biofuel) - ($2.22 for conventional fuel) = $3.13, for a premium of 140%
  
• The Green Premium to convert U.S. electricity system to zero-carbon sources would cost 15% more, or $18/month for average home -- mostly affordable
  
• Green Premiums for advanced bio-fuels for bunker fuel for cargo ships is 600% -- way too high
• Many countries don't have the abundant access to solar and wind potential that US has
  
• Developed country's governments need to spur innovative green energy technologies for use by both rich and poor countries

 

I'll bet "pennies on the dollar" that you are wrong about a Democrat-controled government closing then reopening coal mines (barring a national emergency like a world war, etc).