ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Its a simple mater of do we put our heads in the sand and pretend nothings happening. Then it bites you in the ***. Or do you look at the data and read the signs, accept that there's a working theory and that it predicts the conditions now being observed. There are things that can be done for now to ensure that the worsening conditions in my chosen area of the world don't end in tragedy and it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

I may have found myself alone in a sea of denial but the evidence is overwhelming and the simple reality that there is a working theory able to predict accurately pretty much says it all. The mater is settled so what do we do about it. Conditions are changing and those who don't chose to change with them are likely to be smarting before its all over

Tom I'm not even remotely saying we stop going to see, not sure how you came to that conclusion but it is obvious that things are going to and are changing. We need to account for those changes.

you might enjoy a lecture by DR Jeremy Jackson called "a brave new ocean"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...gIFul5VmQ&sig2=WGMLPn8Xv-Qp1vSvEPZWvg&cad=rja

Mark
I've been looking into your suggestion of using Kelp to create Bio fuels
not sure about the lipid fat content of that particular species but I did find a simple way to separate the salts from the oils
kinda critical if you want to toast the stuff in an engine.
from what I can tell so far if its lipid fats content is high enough then it should be possible
might not be very efficient but it only has to produce more than it takes to process the stuff and its theoretically viable

you might get a bang out of the fact that I've now collected all the crap to build the refinery and am only waiting for some nice warm weather so I can start welding things together

what I would need is a sample and a press
wanto mail me a sample and I'll see what I can do with it ?

I've found at least a few folks who say it can be done with other Macro-algae

something tells me a few hours on the net would answer the Kelp question but it would be fun to send some of the slime through the US postal service if nothing else to see how it works out
cheers
B

 

In Scandinavia we're concerned about the Gulf Stream as it makes our climate considerably warmer. One consequence we anticipate of global heating is that the polar icecap and the glaciers on Greenland melt. The resulting fresh water flow can stop the Gulf Stream, at least from reaching Scandinavia. From what I've read this has actually happened, but only for a short period. I'm not going to dig up the sources for fresh water flow effect on Gulf Stream theory; it's still only a theory you may believe or disbelieve. The theory seems reasonable to me though.

Erik

 

The title of the thread is a statement many of us question. You talk about it as if it was an incontestable fact. I think that if you started by opening a discussion, the reaction might have been more positive. You come on as a bit of a militant sometimes.

 

That would be because the science is very clear and its just a mater of a few peripheral questions and what changes we can expect in the future based on what degree of action we take now. Its a done deal as far as science is concerned. There is a working theory able to make accurate predictions and has been since the 1930's. It is incontestable within the scientific context, the only argument is being held in the non scientific forum of public relations by the oil and gas industry. The science is sound and industry is terrified of having to deal with it. Cigarettes used to be 49C a pack, then the realities of smoking kicked in and now they are $5 a pack. Happy day when some fool gets to pay for his own stupidity. Same thing will eventually happen to the oil and gas industry but this time there are alternatives and folks are already jumping the dino fuels ship for "greener" pastures

Mark
yes there are several places that are using macro algaes to produce bio-fuels as to whether or not kelp works well I'm still looking

City of Venice JV with Port Authority and Electric Power Plant Algae Biofuel for Electric Power Italy – $200 million Euro project announced in March 2009 by the city of Venice to capture algae seaweed and generate 40 MW of power from algae biofuel to supply up to half of the city’s power supply and for to port facilities and docked ships in the harbor. The project will also cultivate microalgae in closed photobioreactors to generate biomass for power generation.
Biomara / Scotland’s Ministry of Energy Algal Biofuels Scotland – $8 million USD from Scotland’s Energy Ministry and the EU’s INTERREG IVA Programme, and Crown Estate in April 2009 to investigate seaweed and microalgae strains for commercial scale production.

here's another link
http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2...y-friends-macroalgae-projects-concepts-bloom/

deal is its in its infancy and it looks like everyone is doing a lot of ground breaking research, as such they don't want to just tell the world what kind of algae to use

I am hearing the word Kelp a lot though so I'm suspecting it works fine
ya know I think I can buy Kelp at the oriental store so maybe we wont be mailing slime around after all
cheers
B

 

Okay, fair enough.

So, what are we going to do? How can I help?

-Tom

 

Ok, Boston. I have some questions.

Let me preface my post by letting you know I am a trained Physicist with a computer science minor. I worked at NASA as well as ESA and several software companies.

I am well versed in the ways of those folks you hang out with. Have any of them heard of the concept of a control in an experiment? (obviously they have)

Where is the control here?

Sure, they have data saying things are changing. Things are.

However, to make some wild leap to say that humans have caused climate change without a control is not science. It's conjecture. It's highly speculative and completely unproven. This isn't science. Science relies on taking a theory then using experimentation (or data) to prove that theory. Nothing has been proven here except that fact that there is climate change. Making a leap to say humans are causing the climate to change is where this sits very badly with me, as a scientist.

1st: How do we know that humans have changed the planet?

2nd: How do we know that the planet is not changing on its own?

3rd: If the planet has been much hotter in the past (it has) and much colder in the past (it has) who are humans to decide what the "correct" temperature for the plane it is?


Lastly, some things we have done might be obvious creators of global warming. Ever look at pictures of the Earth from space back when they were first taken and compared them to modern pictures? There is visibly less green and more black/grey. What's all that black and gray? Tar - on roofs, parking lots, etc... If you take something that's green, then make it black, it's going to absorb much more heat from the sun.

Global warming could be as simple as us having cut down too many trees and replaced them with parking lots and the like.

Yes, we have the data saying the climate is changing, but we do not have any *proven* theory for why it is changing. We also don't have any reason to say that this temperature we have right now is the "correct" temperature. Maybe the temperature when the dinosaurs were alive was correct... warmer with reptiles loving it and mammals a little too hot. Maybe ice ages are correct. Either way, both have happened before and neither were the result of carbon emissions.

Saying humans are the definitive cause of a warming of the planet is not science. It's pure conjecture until something is proven. So far... it's just a theory.

Let's not confuse how the Scientific Method works. We are in hypothesis/theory here, not law or fact.

PS: I'm very much against pollution, cutting down trees to make parking lots and wind farms destroying ocean habitats. I live as low impact as I can (very VERY low, actually). However, I'm a trained scientist and any trained scientist who isn't just going along for the ride on this one would have the same questions I had above.

 

http://www.k12science.org/curriculum/gulfstream/annotated.html

http://sam.ucsd.edu/sio210/lect_5/lecture_5.html

"The two northern sources of NADW are formed from surface waters that flow northward in the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current and then eastward and northward in the subpolar region. These surface waters cool and freshen along this path towards the ultimate intermediate-depth convection regions. Cooling of the subpolar surface waters creates very thick mixed layers in the subpolar gyre. These thick layers are called Subpolar Mode Water, in analogy with the Subtropical Mode Water of the subtropical gyres. SPMW temperature range from about 14C near the North Atlantic Current, to 8C where SPMW enters the Norwegian Sea, to 4C where SPMW enters the Labrador Sea. (Figure from McCartney and Talley, 1982.)"

Concerns about Labradoran fresh water are unfounded. The cooling of the Gulf Stream water as it makes its way north and subsequently east actually decreases its salinity. With the period of global cooling which we are now in there is little threat of Greenland or Labrador contributing to hyposalinity in the northern Gulf Stream.

 

I think you might agree that it is a difficult task to setup an entire planet as a control for the experiment we are currently conducting on this one.

One could note that the next planet over - Venus - is supposed to be a virtual twin of Earth which should be merely a few degrees warmer by virtue of its closer orbit to the Sun. However it is a raging inferno and our scientists are at a loss to explain why.

Of course, ignorance on the part of human scientists is an entirely valid reason to do nothing. It is also a good reason to play safe and do whatever you can on the grounds that, if there is a chance that our behavior is sending the planet to hell, we should do what we can to stop it ASAP. It all depends on your point of view. There is a third viewpoint, which is only a minority of the population of the planet has had a chance to screw it up and it is only fair to allow the remaining majoriy an equal opportunity; I think that one is called the Kyoto Protocol.

We seem to be evenly divided on this issue. So the sensible and human thing to do is, for those of us who think it is all ******** to do nothing, and the others of us to do nothing because it takes all of us to make a difference. That leaves it all up to God, in whom the vast majority of us do not believe.

it will be interesting to read the first post after this one. Will it be in agreement? Or will it react like the legendary Oozelum-and-floozelum bird?

For those who have, perhaps, led a more sheltered life, the OAF - when startled by an intruder - takes to the wing and flies higher and higher in ever-decreasing circles, finally disappearing up its own fundamental orifice from which strategically advantageous position it showers **** and derision on all below. Known as a SAD reflex.

 

That is exactly my point.

There can be no control, so you can't be sure. It's all guesswork.

Couple the fact that it's all guesswork with the fact that the planet has been much warmer and much cooler in the past and you have no frame of reference to say the planet should be a certain temperature, never mind that humans caused the change.

Looking at Venus as a control, did humans cause that? No. It's natural. Maybe ours is too. You just can't know. If our scientists can't figure out why Venus is so hot, they surely aren't qualified to understand why Earth has ramped up a few tenths of a degree in temperature.

Human caused global warming is interesting thought, but highly speculative and not at all likely, given past temperatures of the planet.

Still, I'll do my part to leave a smaller footprint on the planet and keep anything I can clean and free of pollutants and contamination. Building my boat really has been troubling for my wife and I because it's a huge waste of resources and it's terrible for the environment compared to buying used. I couldn't afford used though. It's a tough situation to be in, because boats put food on the table for us. The science isn't there yet re global warming, but it sure is when it comes to destroying the planet in other ways.

 

Would you call it "highly speculative and completely unproven" a "wild leap" that science considers the moon as being the likely cause of ocean tides on earth?

Where is the control?

There is an abundance of phenomena which are well understood by science and yet are completely outside of being subjected to a controlled experiment.

The effect of C02 on heat retention is well documented by experimental evidence BTW- give us a date Boston- has been proven for what, 80 years?

 

Your moon example is clearly proven by data and direct observation. Humans causing climate change is not, I'm afraid.

Well, materials arrive in 2 days, so I won't be able to enjoy this thread for too long...

 

Its getting pretty bad when I'm agreeing COMPLETELY with Cat. The dude is making perfect sense.
Also, here's your control group (good point!): Venus has no humans and is hellish. Earth has humans and is moderate. Logically, humans cause planetary cooling.
Control model for moon causing tides? Planets without moons don't have a bulge on the side facing and the side facing away from an orbiting body. Planets with moons do... and there are billions of control models.
Bos, the young green kelp one eats may have different properties than adult, brown, bull kelp. Buy some and eat it like any other vegitable. The brown stuff tastes like you just licked a dock piling in Port of Tacoma (I think).
What you do when you postulate that "The science is done" and the change is "rapid" is you are turning the thread into your soapbox. I really think you should consider taking the politics out of it rather than just try to bypass the intent of closing of the other thread. You lead me to believe that your intent is to make a political statement, knowing it will stir ****. Rather disingenuous and you know good, Gdamn well that some are with you and some are agin you and nobody other than someone too young to have not yet formed an opinion is going to change their mind. What is your objective here - to simply carry on about how smart you are? Make it a discussion by taking the politics out of it and we might just learn something. Keep it a soapbox like the other and it will end up like the other.

 

I'm not a scientist like the rest of you and the following statement may not be scientific but it seems to me that with all the crap we've pumped into the air in the last century I'm surprised we can even see the sun. How can anybody even think that our pollution has'nt had a very significant influence on our weather is unbelievable. How could it not be so?

 

you can believe anything you want if you have enough faith and are very very gullible

 

Cat
these questions have all be thoroughly answered over on the climate thread. This thread is going to look past the agnotology and on to dealing with the changing world which we have, for better or worse, created for ourselves.

I'll keep the answers brief and if you have any questions refer you to the climate change thread were there are more than adequate answers to dispel any reasonable doubts

Bntii
a guy named Farior Foriar something like that in about 1825 experimentally proved CO2 is what is now known as a greenhouse gas
that part of the science is one of the earliest accepted conclusions

Peeps
what in the world are you talking about we don't know why Venus is so hot. Friend of mine is in the Mars group at Nasa and we just had coffee the other day ( he's on sabbatical ) . Venus is hot because its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2 and because its a bit closer to the sun. No brainer there guys, wow.

Ward
I'm a bit unclear on what looks like a major shift in opinions concerning climate
whats up am I just missing the sarcasm or did you hop the fence