Is the ocean broken?

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

  1. rwatson
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 5,866
    Likes: 299, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1749
    Location: Tasmania,Australia

    rwatson Senior Member

    And yet you fail to answer the recognised predictions that got it RIGHT!

    Talk about perception bias.
     
  2. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 127, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    The non-doom predictions aren't threatening.and many of those are still wrong. I can flip a coin and be right more often than the AGW group.

    Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

    Can you trust their seldom correct predictions?

    I don't. Evidence of my own eyes discourages trust in lefties.
     
  3. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,719
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    It's 8°C in Hobart as I post this. Not what I would call warm weather just short of summer. I know your latitude is -42.9° but still...
    Tacoma, WA is closer to the poles than you are and is presently 7°C just short of official winter. It's going to be a cold winter.
     
  4. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 426
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s
    The first systematic review finds that climate models have been remarkably accurate.

    It turns out that attempting to understand, model, and predict the entire global biophysical/atmospheric system is complicated. It’s especially tricky because there’s no way to run tests. There’s no second Earth to use as an experimental control group. The best scientists can do is use their knowledge of climate history and climate physics to build models of Earth systems and then test the models against future emission scenarios.

    A group of scientists — Zeke Hausfather of UC Berkeley, Henri Drake and Tristan Abbott of MIT, and Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies — has done a systematic review of climate models, dating back to the late 1970s. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, it tests model performance against a simple metric: how well they predicted global mean surface temperature (GMST) through 2017, when the latest observational data is available.

    Long story short: “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication.”

    Almost all the models chosen for the study are no longer in use, having been superseded by more sophisticated models since. ...It turns out that even those crude early models were fairly accurate, which is remarkable given the sophistication of the science and the available computing power.

    There are two basic factors that contribute to the accuracy of a model’s projections. The first is physics — how various biophysical systems like the ocean and atmosphere respond to external radiative “forcings” like carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That’s the stuff we expect climate scientists to get right.


    But they also depend on the level of forcings, i.e., how many tons of GHGs are actually pumped into the atmosphere. That’s not a matter of physics, it’s more about demographics, economics, history, and sociology. It’s about how human societies and technologies develop, which depends on endless variables that climate scientists can’t possibly be expected to predict (not like anyone else can either).


    [​IMG]
    On the first metric, temperature vs. time, 10 of the 17 models were consistent with observed GMST. Three predicted temperatures too low, four too high.

    On the second (and better) metric, implied “temperature vs. change in radiative forcing" (TCR), 14 of 17 models were consistent with the observed relationship between forcings and temperature change. Two had an implied TCR that was too high, one too low. That’s extremely accurate overall.
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 127, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Publicity has surrounded claims of a global warming hiatus during the period 1998–2013. The exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 was an outlier from the continuing temperature trend, and so subsequent annual temperatures gave the appearance of a hiatus: by January 2006, it appeared to some that global warming had stopped or paused.[2] A 2009 study showed that decades without warming were not exceptional,[6] and in 2011 a study showed that if allowances were made for known variability, the rising temperature trend continued unabated.[6] There was increased public interest in 2013 in the run-up to publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, and despite concerns that a 15-year period was too short to determine a meaningful trend, the IPCC included a section on a hiatus,[7] which it defined as a much smaller increasing linear trend over the 15 years from 1998 to 2012, than over the 60 years from 1951 to 2012.[8] Various studies examined possible causes of the short-term slowdown.

    Global warming hiatus - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

    I remember how all the predictions were way off and the AGW crowd desperate to deny or excuse the hiatus. Now you claim it never happened? What are you smoking?
     
  6. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 426
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    What you don't seem to understand is that science exists to figure out things that we don't understand. What you didn't quote from the Wikipedia article is the extensive research that went into understanding why, or why not, the warming hiatus happened. The important thing to notice is that whether the warming hiatus was a real event or just a measurement glitch, temperatures have continued to climb. And that there is not an exclusively natural explanation. And that the CO2 gas (and other green house gases) that humans have released fits perfectly into a physical explanation for the rising temperatures.

    Another point from my previous post that you seem to have missed is --
    "More sophisticated models" doesn't mean "better able to bamboozle the sheeples of the world". It means "better able to account for all the anomalies that scientists keep noticing." The point of my previous post is that whether you look at the crude climate models from 40 years ago, or the most recent, cutting edge models, they all say the same thing.
    • Earth is getting warmer.
    • Human actions are triggering that change.
    • The changes are consequential, both in the short term and in the long term.
    • We might want to use our intellect, and not just our emotions, to decide what to do about it.

    [​IMG]
    Comparison of climate results with observations.(a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings:solar variation and volcanic activity.(b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
    How reliable are climate models?
     
  7. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,719
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    Your posts may not be brief but they are certainly lengthy.
     
  8. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 426
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Your posts may not be intelligent, but they certainly are vacuous.
     
  9. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 426
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Huge methane cache beneath Arctic could be unlocked by the moon
    • Researchers found that methane gas levels near the seafloor rises and falls with the tides
    • At high tides less gas is released than at low tides
    • They showed that gas release from the seafloor is more widespread than is seen using traditional sonar surveys
    • Their discovery implies that scientists have been underestimating greenhouse gas emissions in the Arctic
    • It's possible rising sea levels might partially counterbalance increased gas emissions being caused by a warming ocean
     
  10. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,719
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    You may not be an individualist but you certainly have a hive mentality.

    20201219_085056.gif
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2020
  11. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 426
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Researchers Warn of Looming Oil Spill Four Times Larger Than Exxon Valdez if Urgent Action Not Taken
    • The corroding Safer, an abandoned oil tanker in the Red Sea, threatens an oil spill bigger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez catastrophe
    • The Safer is moored off the coast of Yemen and has been under control of Houthi rebels since 2015
    • Safer holds over 1 million barrels of oil, 4 times the Exxon Valdez tanker spill
    • At risk are the coral reefs of the northern Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba, which are projected to be among the last reef ecosystems in the world to survive the warmth of the coming decades
     
  12. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 127, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Somebody loves you, Hoyt..
     
  13. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,719
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    Last edited: Dec 20, 2020
  14. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 426
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    What caused the ice ages? Tiny ocean fossils offer key evidence
    • During the last million years Earth has had frequent glacial-interglacial cycles, each roughly 100,000 years long
    • These Milankovitch cycles are triggered by variations in Earth's orbit and rotation, but they are too subtle to explain the large changes in climate
    • CO2 levels were 30% lower during the ice ages, but the causes of the CO2 change remained unknown
    • Typically, tropical and temperate ocean waters absorb CO2, while upwellings at high latitudes vented CO2
    • A recent study of diatoms suggests that upwelling declines in the Southern Ocean worked to store more CO2 in the deep ocean
    • The new findings suggest that the atmosphere and ocean around Antarctica will change greatly in the coming century
    The study was published in Science.
     

  15. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,719
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    The drop in CO2 levels were the result not the cause of global cooling during the ice age.
    Colder temps support less animal life. Less animal life produces less CO2.
     
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.