Is the ocean broken?

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

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

    Anti-socialist rant.
     
  2. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Copepod are a group of small crustaceans found in nearly every freshwater and saltwater habitat and are major food organisms.

    Sheldon J Plankton is a copepod.

     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  3. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Huh?
    Shoulda named it Commissar.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  4. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Many measures of Earth’s health are at worst levels on record, NOAA finds
    • Average global temperatures rivaled the hottest, in spite of it being a "cooler" La Niña year
    • Methane sources, natural and man-made, have sent atmospheric concentrations spiking to unprecedented highs
    • Sea levels were the highest on record, at 3.6 inches above the average in 1993
    • Fires ravaged the American West
    • Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than any found in Antarctic ice cores going back 800,000 years
    • The northern town of Verkhoyansk, Russia, reached 100 degrees Fahrenheit — the hottest temperature ever recorded within the Arctic Circle
    • Esperanza Station broke Antarctica’s temperature record by 2 degrees Fahrenheit, hitting a balmy 64.9 degrees
    • Super Typhoon Goni was the most powerful storm to make landfall, slamming the Philippines with 195 mph winds
    • There were so many tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic that meteorologists ran out of letters of the alphabet for naming them and had to use the Greek letters Eta and Iota
    STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2020
    Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
     
  5. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Proof?

    Measured from where?

    Maybe land levels were lower due to tectonic factors, eh?
     
  6. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Irrational number has already made up his mind, cast in cement, and won't be, refuses to be confused by logic or facts.
     
  7. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    Perhaps, but I see that happening on all sides.
    If we can believe that the polar ice caps are melting, and it is easy enough for numerous independent interests to check, so I have to believe they are, than sea levels will rise regardless of tectonic movement. I believe the generalized reports. The parts I object to are the hypothetical doomsday predictions and the obvious exaggerations from special interest groups. Not everyone presents the facts with good solid straight forward logic and most of these groups are interested in motivating people. They deal in hyperbole and imagined threats.

    Humans pollute. There is evidence all around us of that. No one is trying to say we don't pollute our world. But try and get one group to clean it up when another group refuses. What do you get? Politics.

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

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    We don't dispute some ice melted. We only dispute blaming us for it.
     
  9. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I posted data that one degree rise in temperature over a century and a half is not huge by any standard or demonstrably catastrophic or unprecedented, Ice melt has only affected sea levels by a fraction of an inch, if that, and will need a millennium at this rate to melt to a couple of feet rise. Posted data hurricanes and violent storms are NOT more violent or numerous now, and proxy records warming periods occurred every thousand years, are apparently a natural cycle. CO2 is a minuscule parts per million of the atmosphere, traps a narrow band of radiation, already saturated, (no more exists to be trapped) and it's powerless to affect temperature in any dramatic way . Every argument of AGW is making mountains out of minutia, mere pimples. Climate hypochondriacs imagining symptoms but with a political agenda. Looneytoons.

    In traditional science, you observed effects and tried to determine cause. Science also developes new technology for engineers to put into effect. AGW starts with a cause, and tries to show effects supporting their cause. They only invent political decrees as solutions and censor opposing views.. Assbackwards politicized pseudo-science.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
  10. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

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

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Most of your erroneous conclusions stem from your mistaken understanding of the role of atmospheric CO2. If we had no CO2 in our atmosphere Earth would be a frozen snowball. And you are very definitely mistaken in thinking that the CO2 effect is "already saturated." Here is a scientific explanation why increased CO2 concentrations will continue to heat the Earth.

    A Saturated Gassy Argument

    Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
     
  12. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Now I remember. Bilgewater.
     
  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 resent your preaching that I'm ignorant of CO2 enabling our warm earth. You are neither smarter, wiser, or better informed, you arrogant commie.

    8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? | Royal Society https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/

    "Our understanding of the physics by which CO2 affects Earth’s energy balance is confirmed by laboratory measurements, as well as by detailed satellite and surface observations of the emission and absorption of infrared energy by the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at certain wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further."

    This is your last site referenced and worth quoting even though it offers an obvious lame argument for additional warming, it does admit CO2 at present level has done it's worst.

    The radiation we recieve from the sun is a finite measurable amount. When all the infrared is absorbed, you can't magically cause more to arrive on earth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
  14. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    I find the first article to be the most helpful for my understanding.

    A Saturated Gassy Argument

    The most pertinent point is that it is in the dry upper atmosphere that adding CO2 makes the big difference. Here are its summary points.

    So, if a skeptical friend [or an arrogant commie ;)] hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say:

    (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts

    (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2,

    (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and

    (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

    PS
    Neither the climate nor the scientific world really cares whether you understand the role of CO2. You can choose to educate yourself, or not. Your choice. Calling people an "arrogant commie" doesn't help either your ignorance or your argument.
     

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

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Saying someone is ignorant doesn't make you more credible, nor is it evidence they are ignorant. You are not a competent judge of anyone else's ignorance.

    The problem with the first two articles, arguing the troposphere argument, is if that ultimate layer warmed, then according to the laws of thermodynamics, the rate of heat exchange with space would increase. Entropy increases with the amount of difference. More heat emitted, not more heat retained.

    The error in using Venus as an example, is Venus has the highest albedo of any planet. Venus receives 40% more solar radiation than Earth does but due to it's high albedo:

    "Both models and observations show that less than 10% of the total solar energy incident on Venus reaches the surface, and only 2.5% is absorbed there. ... This is in contrast with the Earth, where 74% of the solar energy is absorbed directly at the ground (Arking, 1996)."

    Venus vs Earth? Apples and oranges. And Earth has only warmed a degree in a century and a half. Not a runaway scenario like you preach.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
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.