Is the ocean broken?

Not so simple. Anyone can check that the reported data is the published data, but they can't double-check the data. This is a measure once and hope it was done right situation. Unless you happen to have clearance to launch your own satellite, you use what "they" give you. My point wasn't that you can't trust it, my point was that you HAVE TO.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Please show me where either one of us advocated violence against anyone.
Also please show me how it is that you can speak on whose help God does or does not want.
It is written, "
Matthew 28:19

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

I am not a preacher but we are also commanded not to hide our light under a bushel(no matter how dim).

Matthew 5:15
King James Version

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.



Just because I love you does not mean for me to remain silent and not counter your efforts to aid those who would subjugate humanity.

 

I would like that.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

While technically you are correct, you are bordering on being disingenuous. AGW-skeptics Spencer and Christy are not contesting the satellite data, only the interpretation of it. And it has to be interpreted. The satellites don't give actual atmospheric temperatures, but a proxy for temperature. So you have to create a complex mathematical model to extract temperature. I understand that the raw data is available for you, or anyone else, to interpret.

As far as "you HAVE TO" trust it.... Well, you trust your life all the time to other people. Doctors, drunk drivers, bridge engineers, food processors. Not sure why all of a sudden you are unwilling to trust scientists? They have a lot of checks and bounds within their scientific system to keep them honest. One of the foibles of human nature is that we "blindly trust" those who tell us what we want to hear, and "blindly distrust" those who tell us what we don't want to hear.

 

Warming and acidification form dual threat to corals

• Carbon emissions dissolve into oceans, making them more acidic
  
• Carbon emissions and warming are also causing ocean heat waves, which in turn is bleaching the world's coral reefs
  
• A new study shows how both heat and acidity harm the corals even more than the sum of their parts would suggest
• Two studied species of coral could tolerate either higher temperatures or greater acidity, but not both combined

The paper was published in Science Advances

 

"Doctors" covers a wide range of talent. The guy who graduated at the bottom of his class still gets the title.
Study: Medical Malpractice the Third-Leading Cause of Death https://www.spinalcord.com/blog/medical-malpractice-the-third-leading-cause-of-death
I don't trust them. I don't even trust preachers.
Why should I trust you?

 

While I like to practice what I consider a healthy regiment of skepticism, I'm not saying I don't mistrust science or scientists.

The original statement that started me on this line of rhetoric was,

I'm saying that strict adherence to such a rule is impossible, even for the well positioned scientist, but most especially for us pseudo-scientists. Such absolute statements are only distracting. I am an AGW skeptic, but I'm willing to believe it. However, the entire conflict distracts us from having to simply live our lives responsibly and morally. It only matters that humans are the cause of the earth heating up in the political arena. That it is and that it is not good for us and that we have the ability to do something about it is what the point should be. I am also not convinced that we will experience catastrophic sea level rise. I am not convinced that starvation and draught and cancer and sun stroke and the heart break of psoriasis will all become bigger issues because of Global Warming.

NPR did a report on the Maple Sugar industry and the effects AGW was having on it. The scientist who was studying it predicted that in less than ten years, maple trees would be unable to grow south of Canada. This was well over ten years ago. I have no less maple trees than I had then and neither does anyone else in the North Country.

Who do you think these high and mighty scientist are? Last I heard, any human who studied with the right people and got the right funding could be a scientist. Peer review? If it's cutting edge, ground breaking, Earthshaking science, there are no peers.

It's like the complaints that 75% of the world's wealth is in the hands of only 1% of the people. All true, supposedly, but is the answer to that problem to take it out of their hands and put it into the hands of government? Government is run by people who have demonstrated over and over and over their incompetence and corruption and to top it all of, represent a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.

I'm not opposed to the idea of AGW, but like Yo has said, there's a lot about this fight that just sounds like puritanical moral high ground and manipulation based in shame. It is the wrong approach because it causes resistance where there need not be any.

I'm not saying you, IN, are promoting the charge against AGW for this purpose. There do seem to be plenty who are simply using it as an excuse to attack the haves and exonerate the have nots. You trade jibes with Yo and Hoyte and even me. That's all fine and even fun, it's why I stick around, just don't fall into a trap that detracts from the real issues.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

I'm curious what evidence you have to support your understanding? The data and analysis of privately funded research may indeed not be made public, and generally it is considered less reliable because of that. My understanding is that publicly-funded researchers must make both their data and their analysis public. The exception is if the research is of a sensitive national defense nature, etc.

I agree that we should "live our lives responsibly and morally." And I also agree "that we have the ability to do something about it is what the point should be."

But it seems to me that how much resources we humans choose to expend to deal with AGW is dependent of the seriousness and urgency of the problem. And to make decision requires us to understand as much about what is happening, or what will happen, as we can. Thus the need to inform ourselves about the science of the situation.

I guess you need to define what "catastrophic" is? And for whom?

If we are talking about sea level rise is catastrophic 1 foot, 3 feet, 10 feet?
Is catastrophic in 1 year, 10 years, 100 years?
Are we talking about a very flat country near sea level like Bangladesh, or a very precipitous region like Norway?
Are we talking about a rich country like the US, or a poor country like Cambodia?
Are we worried about only this generation, or two or three generations away?

You may be far enough north to not yet be seriously affected, but that doesn't mean that things aren't changing for you.

Climate Change Is Ruining Maple Syrup By Making It Less Sweet And Affecting When We Tap It

...For example, the tapping season in New England now begins and ends approximately one week earlier than it used to. And, a new study shows that, by 2100, maple syrup season may begin one month earlier than it did between the years 1950 and 2017....

In addition to determining that sap production will occur earlier in the year by the end of the century, the team also found that syrup production will likely decline in Virginia and Indiana, but increase considerably in sugar maple groves further north. However, sugar content will likely decrease and become more variable from year to year....​

Those two criteria you mentioned, who you study under and getting funding, create a significant filtering process. Mentors only take the smartest students, and funders only fund the most promising research teams and projects. Most scientific researchers have PhDs, and many funding requests are not filled due to lack of money. Generally speaking, acquiring funding is a very competitive process.

Partially true, but there are also many, many competent people employed by government.

But it's also true that private business is also full of incompetence and corruption. One would think that companies listed in the S&P 500 would be the best of the best, yet since its inception in 1957, and as of 2006, "Ninety-four of the surviving companies are still in the S&P 500, twenty-six are publicly traded companies not in the index, and five are in bankruptcy proceedings."

 

Arctic stew: Understanding how high-latitude lakes respond to and affect climate change

• Near Nunavut, Canada, as lakes warm, surprisingly, their carbon dioxide concentrations fell
  
• It was expected that warmer temperatures would trigger larger releases of greenhouse gases from the lakes
  
• Experiments have shown that as waters warm, carbon dioxide production by microbes increases more quickly than carbon dioxide uptake by plants
  
• Possible explanations are that Nunavut is on the Canadian shield where soils are thin and unlikely to contain massive stores of organic matter
  
• And water chemistry may be changing to create better growing conditions for algae, thus absorbing more CO2
• Lakes in other parts of the Arctic may have different off-gassing process

The research was published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles

 

Or maybe, CO2 isn't the climate warming driver after all, as I've often posted it can't possibly be, posted with the numbers to support that contention, not mine alone, shared by many scientists.. Oceans drive climate, and warming cycles are natural and have long histories unaffected by mankind..

 

In the Oceans, the Volume Is Rising as Never Before

• A metastudy is showing that anthropogenic noise is becoming unbearable for undersea life
  
• Many creatures either produce sound to communicate, or listen to sound to orient
  
• Humans create an overwhelming background noise with ships, seismic surveys, air guns, pile drivers, dynamite fishing, drilling platforms, speedboats
  
• Our underwater noise affects everything from zooplankton and jellyfish to killer whales
• Sound is a relatively controllable pollutant. “We know exactly what causes noise, we know where it is, and we know how to stop it.”

The study was published in Science.

 

With record lows, why do you try to make us even colder?
Try to whisper. Too much noise is harmful.

 

They know how to stop noise? A modern philosopher visited London and Paris then returned to the US. He remarked the difference in cultures was easily expressed. The Brits obey all laws, no matter how bad. The French ignore all laws, no matter how important. Americans ignore laws they disagree with.

 

Fresh water is pouring into the Arctic Ocean. Climate change is to blame

• Previous research pointed to natural cycles as the cause for the 10% influx of fresh water on the surface in the last few decades.
• But multiple simulations all show that it is due to a forced response — in other words, it's a "clear climate change signal"
• The simulations also suggest that emissions reductions might not make not reduce the amount of freshwater until the second half of the century
• More freshwater could cause changes to ocean currents in the North Atlantic that help keep winter temperatures in northern Europe more mild

The study was published in Geophysical Research Letters

 

Melting is to blame.