Ocean Concerns

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Oh I used to play the game and give all the science and all the detail literature but it's a waste of time the man-made global warming Believers don't care about science they care about ideology. As a scientist myself I would present facts and data and they were just call me names attack me say it's made up so I finally decided to stop wasting my time.

Really I think that is one of the most hypocritical thing I have heard anyone say.




Matt

[rgleason]

Photos Reveal More Than 200 Bright Blue Arctic Lakes Have Started Bubbling With Methane Gas
http://www.sciencealert.com/photos-r...th-methane-gas

Some would say, it's beautiful and natural, so we should just enjoy it, because we did not create it and cannot control it. Others from the scientific community are trying to understand why it happened and what the consequences are.

[rgleason]

Paraphrased
[Science is an exercise in finding what is true...scientific methodology... If it is true, you don't have a choice to believe it or not. ...Politics ...Once we understand, we can then have a discussion about what to do.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MqTOEospfo

This thread is Concerned with the Ocean, as understood through Science. Participants are invited to bring scientific knowledge about the Ocean and their observations to this space for discussion. This thread is not intended to discuss the validity of Science, or even Politics, those comments would most appropriately be placed in another thread. If your interest is to discuss Ocean findings or to question the details or methodology used within the framework of science, please feel welcome to post.

Thank you.

This entire thread and/or individual posts will be removed when they become personally directed, inflamatory or off topic.

[rgleason]

This is a worthwhile post. Thank you SailOar.

Originally Posted by SailOar

Ocean acidification research makes a strong case for limiting climate change | PHYS.org

250 scientists from 20 German institutions have collaborated together in a project called Biological Impacts of Ocean Acidification (BIOACID). Their purpose was to study ocean acidification and warming, along with other environmental stressors that impair life in the ocean. A brochure summarises major outcomes of the project for policymakers and the public.

Important BIOACID results:

• Changes in the ocean carbonate system impact the acid-base balance in marine organisms. This can negatively affect key processes such as calcification.
• Many organisms are able to withstand ocean acidification, but may lose this ability if also exposed to other stressors such as warming, excess nutrients, loss of oxygen, reduced salinity or pollution.
• A reduction of regional stress such as nutrient runoff or the loss of oxygen can mitigate the impact of global stressors like ocean acidification and warming.
• In a natural community, the impact of stressors on a species can be amplified or diminished by associated shifts in biotic interactions such as competition, predation or parasitism.
• Even small alterations at the base of the food web can have knock-on effects for higher trophic levels.
• Marine life is able to adapt to ocean change through evolution and can partly compensate for negative effects. However, since ocean acidification happens extremely fast compared to natural processes, only organisms with short generation times, such as microorganisms, are able to keep up.
• About half the tropical coral reefs can be preserved if carbon dioxide emissions are limited to concentrations that keep global warming below 1.2 degrees Celsius. However, additional risks posed by ocean acidification are not included in this forecast. [see my preceding post on the continuing rise of CO2 levels]
• Ocean acidification reduces the ocean's ability to store carbon.
• Climate change alters the availability of prey for fish and as a consequence may affect their growth and reproduction.
• Ocean acidification and warming reduce the survival rates of early life stages of some fish species. This will likely reduce recruitment of fish stocks and ultimately fisheries yields.
• The distribution and abundance of fish species will change. This will have a significant impact on economic activities such as small-scale coastal fisheries and tourism.
• It is crucial to consider ocean acidification and warming in the management of fish stocks and marine areas.
• Following the precautionary principle is the best way to act when considering potential risks to the environment and humankind, including future generations. Even if the extent of possible risks is not fully understood, precautionary measures need to be taken in order to avoid or reduce the harm.
• A more sustainable lifestyle and economy require an interaction between society, businesses and politics. Political frameworks should regulate the phase-out of fossil fuels. It is crucial for every one of us to reconsider concepts of normality and adjust behaviour in everyday life.

[rgleason]

Here is another good post. Thank you.

I also like the link:

Deep Ocean Currents (Global Conveyor Belt)

Originally Posted by Don C L

Yes it is important to understanding the nature of the currents, to understand energy and "coldness" and then density, relative to water, ice and salt. As I am sure many know, as the polar ice melts, it releases cold (but not REALLY cold) fresh water. This water does not have the density either in terms of salinity or temperature, to sink, which is the primary driver of the deep ocean currents, which in turn move large masses of coldness () around the globe. Hence the potential slowing of deep currents... When ice is freezing at the poles, there is more dense salty water sinking which is able to displace more water below and generate an albeit very slow but steady cold current. This is a simplification because there are other currents resulting from other variations in salinity and temperature. Some may remember the stories of World War II subs using the salinity driven currents to drift silently in and out of the Med past Gibraltar submerged at the depth of the current corresponding to the direction they wanted to travel.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...n-current3.htm

[StuM]

Originally Posted by rgleason

This entire thread and/or individual posts will be removed when they become personally directed, inflamatory or off topic.

When did you become a moderator?

[rgleason]

Stu,
I am not, I am the OP, but I will do what I can...
Thanks for clarifying this.

There are many good posts and observations here, however there are some that stray.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by rgleason

There are many good posts and observations here, however there are some that stray.

It’s the nature of the forum, and I assume all forums.
However as long as it remains polite some of us could learn something, maybe not life changing, but knowledge is interesting and worthwhile.
Thread drift is common and normal, and possibly a good thing. In truth I believe that just about any possible question that has to do with cruising has been asked and answered here already, so what’s wrong with a little thread drift?
People have different views and opinions, some believe strongly in them, but so long as they respect that others are allowed to have differing opinions we can have healthy, respectful debates

[john61ct]

Funny OP thinking they can "enforce" what is and isn't on topic.

By definition externalities like environmental and health damage are not accounted for by "free markets" and tragedy of the commons effect gives incentives to destroy public goods.

The point of carbon credits is that it a mechanism that lets the market choose which sources of that damage can be ameliorated first, most cheaply and quickest.

Rather than relying on an international EPA type regulatory bureaucracy make the decisions.

Just like the stock mkt, commodities, real estate, all markets really, there will be middlemen making fortunes facilitation the trading, that's how markets work.

Farmers and miners may think it's all funny money, but most modern economic activity is created from faith out of thin air these days, just moving pieces around the board, no actual resources produced or consumed.

[Don C L]

I believe the OP is asking us to keep bullet four under "Be Courteous" in mind when we choose to post:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ork&page=rules

[CatNewBee]

Hey folks, calm down.

What is science?

Well science is:

- to produce a hypothesis
- to try to prove it by experiments or fail to refute it by experiments...
- let other scientists redo / refine your experiments either to prove or refute.

Science is nothing static. science lives of try and error, discussion, prove and refute of former / current findings. This is what scientists do all day long, science is evolving and nothing considered final, every thing / law within science can be challenged by science at any time and can be revised.

If you claim MMGW is given and no one is allowed to dispute it, this is no science at all, it is a dogma.

So either you claim climate change "science" exists - then it is essential to allow discussions and tries to refute this hypothesis - or it is a dogma and not a science - then of course it is a hoax, rip-off,fake, because you do not even allow to use scientific methods to refute or prove it.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Hey folks, calm down.

What is science?

Well science is:

- to produce a hypothesis
- to try to prove it by experiments or fail to refute it by experiments...
- let other scientists redo / refine your experiments either to prove or refute.

Science is nothing static. science lives of try and error, discussion, prove and refute of former / current findings. This is what scientists do all day long, science is evolving and nothing considered final, every thing / law within science can be challenged by science at any time and can be revised.

If you claim MMGW is given and no one is allowed to dispute it, this is no science at all, it is a dogma.

So either you claim climate change "science" exists - then it is essential to allow discussions and tries to refute this hypothesis - or it is a dogma and not a science - then of course it is a hoax, rip-off,fake, because you do not even allow to use scientific methods to refute or prove it.

Is science claiming MMGW is given and no one is allowed to dispute it? And much the bedrock of science isn't constantly changing, Newton still gets used all over the place, it's just at certain extreme scales to us 6' tall apes that it falls apart.

The mass of evidence and physics certainly points towards humans releasing greenhouse gasses is highly likely to be a major driver in the very recent fast rise in the heat content of the planet, if you can come up with something else then fame and huge wealth will be at your doorstep. No one is stopping you, bags full of money await if you think you can come up with something. Ask Willie Soon.

If there is something else at play and CO2 et all aren't having any effect then it pretty much means throwing everything out.

2 questions - If greenhouse gasses aren't having an effect then why not? That part of the bedrock is rock solid in line with predictions made by the same quantum mechanics that makes your computer and everything else on the planet with a transistor in it work.
If greenhouse gasses aren't a major player then what is? No one can find another gun smoking, plenty have looked and continue to look.

So if not - why not? If not - what is?


The idea that it's all a big scam is just laughable, 1,000's of competitive climate scientists somehow all talking to each other to make up similar findings which then nobody at all challenges under peer review or no one digs the published papers apart? Beyond tinfoil hat territory that is..

[SailOar]

US Government Accountability Office argues for acting on climate change | ARS Technica

A GAO report says that the US is already spending money to respond to climate change, and it will likely spend more as the Earth continues to warm. But it suggests that the US has no plans for figuring out how best to minimize these costs. It concludes that the feds faced a bill of $350 billion due to extreme weather and fires, including more than $200 billion for aid and recovery, $90 billion for payouts on crop and flood insurance, and nearly $30 billion for repair to federal facilities. US government scientists expect that extreme events are likely to increase in a warming climate.

[CatNewBee]

Well, first of all, it's cold outside - no warming whatsoever....

Second: There was climate change in the past without human intervention, what was the cause?

My fist bet is solar activity, that changes over time and some dramatic events.

If it is CO2, the global collapse and extinction of live in the very first place was due to over consumption of carbon by the plants, so they starved almost until live develops bacteria, fungus and animals that could degrade bio-mass and set free CO2 to keep the circulation up. All carbon was in the atmosphere in the first place, before plants eat it by photosynthesis.

So this is not a bad thing at all. Many bio-mass was buried below the soil after the ice ages, that lead to smaller plants and smaller animals that could survive. Before this happened, there were giant plants, able to feed a lot of huge animals like dinos etc. This were warm periods without ice on the poles and much higher CO2 concentrations.

Also there is a lot of evidence, that the deserts were green in warmer time periods, even the Atacama desert was inhabited and green, before the climate change / ice age caused a fatal impact. So NO, warming is not bad at all, HUMANS were invented by nature to CORRECT the climate and FREE the buried fossil resources and bring them back into the circle of life. This is our purpose on earth.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Well, first of all, it's cold outside - no warming whatsoever....

Second: There was climate change in the past without human intervention, what was the cause?

My fist bet is solar activity, that changes over time and some dramatic events.

Many of your questions have been answered here.

If it is CO2, the global collapse and extinction of live in the very first place was due to over consumption of carbon by the plants, so they starved almost until live develops bacteria, fungus and animals that could degrade bio-mass and set free CO2 to keep the circulation up. All carbon was in the atmosphere in the first place, before plants eat it by photosynthesis.

So this is not a bad thing at all. Many bio-mass was buried below the soil after the ice ages, that lead to smaller plants and smaller animals that could survive. Before this happened, there were giant plants, able to feed a lot of huge animals like dinos etc. This were warm periods without ice on the poles and much higher CO2 concentrations.

Also there is a lot of evidence, that the deserts were green in warmer time periods, even the Atacama desert was inhabited and green, before the climate change / ice age caused a fatal impact. So NO, warming is not bad at all, HUMANS were invented by nature to CORRECT the climate and FREE the buried fossil resources and bring them back into the circle of life. This is our purpose on earth.