Ocean News

In principle I agree with you. But in practice I find science to have a much more useful set of tools to observe, evaluate, and manage AGW than do the religions that I am aware of. However, since many in the US are very fond of their religion, and often their religion warns them to be skeptical of science, I am grudgingly appreciative of those who can bridge the divide between science and religion better than I do, such as Katharine Hayhoe.

Global Weirding with Katharine Hayhoe

 

The great nutrient collapse | Politico

Mathematicia Irakli Loladze has been studying the relation between atmospheric CO₂ levels and plant nutrition. He has found that while increased levels of CO₂ do increase the rate of plant growth by allowing faster production of carbohydrates within the plants, the uptake of other nutrients from the soil/environment does not increase proportionately. The net result is that while plants contain more energy (carbohydrates), they have less of other types of nutrients, such as protein, iron and zinc. In effect, plants are becoming more like junk food.

 

I suppose that comparing them to junk food is a proper analogy, in that they will have a high energy content. Also, I am not religious. However, religion provides emotional and mental stability to many people. It has, like other methods, good and bad things.

 

Climate change is not a thing a few decades in the future, and it's not just the warming itself. Theses latest hurricanes have dumped record amounts of water. In paved over Houston there were the initial floods, but after the water level started going down. Water coming down a few days later from upstream threatened to overflow the dam, so they had to open the gates. I saw on the news an interview with a person in a wealthier neighborhood. He was saying at the height of the storm flood the water was a foot or so below his floor level and was going down, in the background was his house now with almost 3 feet of water in it from the controlled release.

The Oroville Dam in California was in imminent danger of catastrophe last year after huge amounts of rain filled the dam, over flowed and eroded the emergency spillway to the point of collapse


Diverting water to the actual spillway destroyed it, again eroding to almost destroying the dam too.


Now Puerto Rico gets a hurricane, lot of rain and the Guajataca Dam is overflowing

the spillway is destroyed

and certain collapse has already happened or is imminent.

Right now, here in America, if you live around a dam, keep your eye on it and be ready to leave. If you don't have flood insurance, be ready to lose everything. Climate change is here now, no one has to wait decades. It's not just some third world problem.

 

Your arguments don't befuddle me, they make no sense and hint at your own befuddlement.
If some one answers "two and two of what?", it shows they do not have much comprehension of what was asked. It shows they missed the point. It shows they might be befuddled, unless there is a reasonable reason to reply "of what?" to a question asked of "How much is two and two?". The obvious answer is "four". Four whats, four whatevers. Or it could be some annoying variation of "not much" or "too much", "not enough" or "more than enough".
I can see the point you are possibly trying to make though that it would technically be better to ask "What does the addition of the numerals 2 plus 2 amount to?" but, a technically correct answer could be more annoying variations of "less than a million", "more than zero" etc. If someone wants to be obtuse or opaque, they should just go away because ain't nobody got time for that.

You actually need a reference to a dictionary?
Science - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Definition of SCIENCE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

the definition of scientific method http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method

You miss the point.

Here's where you wandered away from the point....I didn't say science doesn't use axioms and assumptions, I said any axioms or assumptions they do use can be challenged. You say they can't be challenged. I say that the basis of science uses testable knowledge and that testable is another way of saying challenged.

I am curious, what testable explanations and predictions do religions make?

.

 

UN solution for a pollution free planet: polluters should pick up the bill

Highlighting the dramatic progress made by China and India, Erik Solheim, executive director of UN Environment, urged governments to take a joined-up approach to going green.

“The profit of destroying nature or polluting the planet is nearly always privatized, while the costs of polluting the planet or the cost of destroying ecosystems is nearly always socialized,” he told an international conference on sustainable development at New York's Columbia University on Monday.

“That cannot continue," he said. "Anyone who pollutes, anyone who destroys nature must pay the cost for that destruction or that pollution.”

UN solution for a pollution free planet: polluters should pick up the bill https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0919/UN-solution-for-a-pollution-free-planet-polluters-should-pick-up-the-bill

 

Two halves make one

 

" Multiplicity is only apparent"

 

Haha good one. Obtuse, opaque plus diversion all in one.
How about testable explanations and predictions of religion?
How about axioms and assumptions that can't be challenged?
Possible increased biomass of doubtful quality or use....no more advantages of GW?

 

Science does not work without explicit assumptions. You did not specify two of what, therefore, there can be multiple answers.
You demand to test religion with science, which is like asking what is the color of sour. They are different systems. For example, the Greek system of deducting by pure thought can't be quantified by science since there is no experimentation to test the deductions.
Axioms, by definition, can't be challenged. If they are changed, a new system is created.
Increased biomass is good according to the Global Warming adherents.

 

Yes, as I said I see your point about being precise when using language. My point was if someone wants to be obtuse or opaque or whatever, that's fine, it's their right, but it's my right to decide that maybe they're being that way on purpose. Maybe their agenda is obfuscation and diversion. Maybe it's a waste of time communicating with them.
Ok. So axioms can be changed, therefore, ipso facto, they can be challenged.
First time I've ever used ipso facto.
So, there are no testable explanations and predictions of religion. It's pretty much what I said, one uses curiosity, observation and testable evidence, the other uses fear, superstition and hearsay. One deals with physical and theoretical reality, the other deals with conjecture and unsubstantiated faith. One is myth, one is math and to compare the two is a mythmath mismatch.
There are no other advantages to GW other than a possible increase of unknown plant types with lower nutritional value and maybe of no use to humans at all.

 

.
Some more pretty pictures...




and a graph...

Since this is from satellite measurements, I'm thinking it's all to do with rising water and not sinking land.
There is also an interactive graph on this site that documents global sea level rise since 1880. You can view it as a normal compressed graph and think Hmmm this doesn't look good or you can stretch out the timeline so the rise is basically flat and think Hahaha this is all a hoax.
Climate Change: Global Sea Level | NOAA Climate.gov https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

 

It's probably a good point in this thread to reiterate the previous request: the thread is titled ocean news; let's please keep posts in this thread relating to news about the oceans.

The purpose of this site is to provide a place to learn about and help one another with topics relating to aspects of boat design and boatbuilding. It would be better to take posts regarding politics and religion to another venue. Thank you.

 

Well Mod, things get tangled up with the ark and such, so please excuse the fellas over here for talking about the whole spectrum, as most of the earth is ocean, so everything on this planet is related with this topic.

 

It would probably be better if the thread title were more specific; the conditions of the oceans and news relating to the oceans at least have some direct applicability to boats and boating. Politics, Trump, or Religion would be better debated in depth at another venue. Thanks.