Ocean News

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by ImaginaryNumber, Oct 8, 2015.

  1. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,341
    Likes: 180, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba, a little

    hoytedow Wood Butcher

  2. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    Katharine Hayhoe: The Five Stages of Climate Denial | Climate Crocks blog

    STAGE ONE: Climate isn’t changing – you scientists are faking/cherrypicking/manufacturing the data and we will continue to investigate you until we prove it.

    STAGE TWO: Okay, climate IS changing–but not because of humans. Everyone knows it’s [insert favourite cause: natural cycles, volcanoes, the sun, cosmic rays, or we should study it more because scientists still don’t know].

    STAGE THREE: It’s changing, and it’s us, but hey – who wouldn’t prefer warmer weather and higher carbon dioxide levels? It’s all good. Pass the margaritas.

    STAGE FOUR: It’s changing, it’s us, and some of the impacts might be bad; but it’s far more expensive to fix it than it is to live with the consequences. At least for my donors, that is.

    STAGE FIVE: Oops! It’s too late to do anything about it now. You scientists really should have tried harder to warn us. Your bad.


    Katharine Hayhoe: On Being a Climate Scientist in Texas
     
  3. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    A couple more videos of Dr. Katharine Hayhoe


    Katharine Hayhoe Assailed by Angry Climate Denier in Austin


    Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe on Faith, Climate Change & UN Paris Summit


    Dr. Katharine Hayhoe - Climate Change: Facts, Fictions, and our Faith
     
  4. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    It’s unambiguous and definitive. These five charts prove that the planet is heating up. | Washington Post

    State of the Climate in 2016 is a new report, prepared by 450 scientists from more than 60 countries, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and published by the American Meteorological Society. Major take-a-ways include:
    • The global surface temperature was the highest on record.
    • The global lower tropospheric temperature was the highest on record.
    • Sea surface temperatures were the highest on record.
    • The global sea level was the highest on record.
    • Greenhouse gases were the highest on record.
    • The number of extremely hot days are increasing worldwide
    • Mountain glaciers are retreating
    • The 10 hottest years on record for the planet have occurred since 1998

    [​IMG]
     
  5. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 12,123
    Likes: 184, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    None of the studies supporting Global Warming, which then became Climate Change (it was Global Freezing in the 70's) start the timeline with the formation of life on Earth. According to most scientific estimates, that was about 4 billion years ago. At that time, the planet was tropical and remained so with about five Ice ages of short duration. We are now at the end of one of the Ice ages. The planet is going to its natural tropical condition.
     
  6. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,341
    Likes: 180, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba, a little

    hoytedow Wood Butcher

    they will use whatever propaganda or other means is at hand in order to frighten the populace into submission.
     
  7. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    Would you care to provide us with scientific references to support your point of view, specifically that "we are now at the end of the ice ages" and "the planet is going to its natural tropical condition"?

    Can anyone say "STAGE TWO denial"?
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017 at 4:35 PM
  8. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

  9. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 12,123
    Likes: 184, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Certainly. We could start with the science books you read in high-school. They all have a similar timelines with geological eras.
    These are links from reputable sources. Read them and post a denial if you have data to back it up.
    Geologic time scale http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.php
    Geological time scale http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Geophys/geotime.html
    Quick summary of Geological Eras - Quatr.us http://quatr.us/geology/eras/
    Early Primate Evolution:  Time Scale of the Earth http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/time_scale_of_Earth_1.htm
    Nature's Blog: The Four Geologic Eras http://naturesblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/four-geologic-eras.html
     
  10. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    Gonzo,
    I don't think Climate Scientists would quarrel with any of your reference links. To support your assertion that Earth has been warmer in the past for much of its history, and that there have been five major ice eras, I've included the following graphs:

    [​IMG]
    See here for a more complete description of graph details. Note that time scale is not uniform, and that the graph covers only the last 1/2 billion years.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    However, I failed to find any support in your links for your assertion that "we are now at the end of the ice ages" and "the planet is going to its natural tropical condition." What is clear is that solar conditions and terrestrial conditions billions of years ago were much different than they are now. And since those ancient conditi0ns cannot be replicated anytime in the near future, it's not clear to me why you think we are on schedule to naturally return to those torrid conditions -- something we really don't want to happen!!
     
  11. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 12,123
    Likes: 184, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    That is because you are conveniently cutting off the graph at 500 million years ago. Also, the time scale is logarithmic, so the time period to the left is orders of magnitude larger than that to the right. You are misrepresenting a comparison of thousands of years to millions of years. Your posted graph shows your statement is wrong. Further, there is no proof that a tropical planet is bad. That is simply dogma from people that have a religious conviction. The biomass and biodiversity will once more increase, which I think is a good thing.
     
  12. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    "I" didn't cut off anything. That is the way the graph came. I posted those graphs to support your correct statements that:

    1) There are times in Earth's history when it was much hotter than present
    2) There have been multiple ice ages in the past

    I'm assuming you are referring to the first graph. No, the time scale is not logarithmic, and No, I am not misrepresenting anything. If you had read the caption I put under the graph you would have noted that I said that the "time scale is not uniform". Also, if you had read the link that I included in the caption you would have gone to a web page which describes how each of the time segments making up the graph are linear, but that each time segment is a different scale from the others.

    The other two posted graphs are completely linear and uniform, and one of them extends back to 4.6 billion years.

    I'm not sure which statement of mine you think is incorrect?

    Define "Bad". A fish thinks that living on land is bad. A polar bear thinks that living in Brazil is bad.

    A nomadic human who lives in a tepee and moves every few months probably wouldn't care either if the sea level rises six feet, or if the average temperature rises or falls a few degrees -- because he can easily just pull up his tent stakes and move a few feet, or a few hundred miles (assuming the people already living where he wants to move to are amenable to the idea, which is a problem modern-day climate-forced migrants are also facing).

    However, our modern society is far from nomadic. We have built hugely expensive "permanent" infrastructure that can't easily be moved. Even a few feet of sea level rise will be problematic, and a rise of 3-6 feet that some scientists are predicting for this century under a "business as usual" scenario will be hugely disruptive.

    And our food resources are already being exploited beyond carrying capacity. If, for instance, climate change either creates more droughts or heavier downpours (both of which are predicted to happen, and both of which are already happening), then it will be increasingly difficult to produce enough food for the still-increasing world population.

    The bleaching and death of coral reefs is another disaster that's happening before our eyes. Reefs are nurseries to many species of fish. If the reefs collapse, many fish stocks will also collapse. Of course reef fish (and oceanic fish) are already under huge pressure from over-fishing and pollution running off adjacent land.

    If Earth does become 10 or 20 degrees hotter, will life survive? Sure, in one form or another.

    Will it be a comfortable place for modern human civilization to thrive? Absolutely not!

    I think you are misinformed about Earth's biodiversity. Flowering plants, which are most of the useful plants we see around us (grains, trees, edible vegetables, etc) only evolved in the last 1/4 billion years. That means that for seventeen-eighteenths of Earth's history there had been no flowering plants. But maybe you enjoy eating ferns and seaweed.

    For mammals it is even worse -- they've been around (in substantial numbers) for only about 65 million years, or only 1.5% of Earth's time in existence, and homo sapiens for about 0.005% of Earth's history. But maybe you're cool with using a dinosaur to plow your fields with. :) As for me, I'm like Goldilocks; I like it not too hot, and not too cold.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017 at 5:36 PM
  13. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 12,123
    Likes: 184, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    The scale of the first graph is logarithmic. The right third covers one million years. The left two thirds cover 550 million years. It is not linear.
     
  14. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber An Imaginary Member

    All of the five time periods are linear. Here is part of what the caption for that graph says:

    But whether the scale is logarithmic or linear is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether your assertion that "we are now at the end of the ice ages" and "the planet is going to its natural tropical condition" is correct or not. So far you've not presented any supporting scientific data.

    I should also add to my last post that the fact that plants and animals have evolutionarily adapted to large climate changes in the past is mostly irrelevant to what's happening now, as the climate change that is happening now is so much faster (on the scale of a few human lifetimes) than climate changes that have happened in the past (in geological timescales). Your complaint that the aforementioned graph is logarithmic (which is sort of correct, because each time segment gets a progressively shorter time scale) obscures the fact that temperatures at the extreme right edge, which is where we are, are skyrocketing at a totally unprecedented rate.

    Well, maybe not totally unprecedented. Some of the major life extinction periods, which I suspect happened at the time breaks shown on the graph, may have also happened in the geological blink of the eye. My understanding is that some of these extinctions happened due to a massive catastrophe, such as the Earth being hit by a large meteor, or a huge volcanic event. Some researchers are calling our current era a major extinction event too, because so many current species are dying off due to humans bollixing up their environment, including AGW.

    [​IMG]

    ps
    I'll be taking a bit of time off. Hope you all can get along without me :)
     

  15. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 12,123
    Likes: 184, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    The difference between a linear and a logarithmic scale is huge. I think that your lack of understanding of the difference is what confuses you about time periods.
     
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.