Are the Seas getting more Violent?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Re: gnats ass

Was talking about this with the Wife the other day, Sunday in fact.

I had an epiphany one day sitting in a park looking at a big ol oak. Here is this big mass of tree, and as much more underground in the root system. Where did all that stuff come from? How come ther isn't a big hole around the tree where it drew its matter from?

The answer is, of course, that the "tree" is made up of carbon drawn from the air.

Now think about driving from NY to Chicago then to NOLA then Jackson vile and back to NY. That whole swath of land was once covered with huge trees. It's now gone, well not gone, the carbon has been out back into the air, and then into the ocean. Try to imagine all those huge old trees cut down, think of the mass.

Now think of this, the fossil fuel we burn every year represented thousands of forests worth of carbon. Millions of years of downed trees Cortney of cabin concentrated into coal and oil. Think of how many cords of wood it would take to heat your house. Now know that is only a small fraction of the energy, dead trees, that you burn each year. So on top of your downed forest make layers and layers of more downed trees.

Now burn them, all of them, and then do it again next year.

And next year.

And next year.

Such is a gnats ass.

Better to burn coal than timber for fuel.

[Red Sky]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Not true. There was never a consensus on "impending ice age" -- far from it. That's just another misrepresentation of the denier crowd.

American Meteorlogical Society: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

There's no consensus on MMGW either.

When I was in elementary school in the early 70's, my hippie teachers all tried to indoctrinate us into the religion of impending global cooling in the exact same way the MMGW believers do now.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Rutgers meterologist Jennifer Francis studies this topic and has done some pretty good videos on the subject. The one I saw was a presentation to some TV meterologist. A bit hard for the layman to follow, but I got the gist.

Very practical, not alarmist in presentation, factual.

Tho, at the end they asked her how to reverse the trends we are now seeing and she said it wasn't possible.

There are shorter videos, but this is good, if long. She address some of these questions pretty directly.


Video for rutgers meteorologist jennifer▶ 84:25

Jan 23, 2012 - Uploaded by StormCenterInc
SESSION 9: Jennifer Francis, Rutgers University Topic: The Arctic Paradox. ... Details are ...

Excellent video, thank you for posting. At 30 min. someone interrupts her to ask how she knows that ice loss is due to greenhouse gases and not natural variability. If you follow what she is laying out, the answer is painfully obvious. I hope EVERYONE takes the time to listen to ALL of what this scientist is explaining.

[LakeSuperior]

A few years back there were a several of articles discussing the observed increase in wave heights in the North Atlantic. One of the main theories for the increase was the reduction in amount of oil on the ocean surface.

The surface oil reduction stemmed from better tanker hulls, fewer shipwrecks, fewer spills, etc.

The resulting increase in surface tension on the water allowed bigger waves to form.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

A few years back there were a several of articles discussing the observed increase in wave heights in the North Atlantic. One of the main theories for the increase was the reduction in amount of oil on the ocean surface.

The surface oil reduction stemmed from better tanker hulls, fewer shipwrecks, fewer spills, etc.

The resulting increase in surface tension on the water allowed bigger waves to form.

Also have to remember the increase in large shipping.. all those wakes have to be havng some effect..

[Reefmagnet]

I've got a seamanship book written in the 70's that actually has pouring oil into the water whilst lying ahull as a storm tactic. Times have certainly changed.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by TrinitySeas

... The issue is not global warming, nor even climate changing, for climate is dynamical and perpetually changing. At issue is the conclusion that the pattern of change is itself changing, perhaps, even very likely, transformative changing as contrasted with the transitional changing we agricultural-industrial humans have grown accustomed over the last 10000 years. The implication, me thinks: we need to learn to expect (more and bigger) surprises. Three word hypothesis about the coming several years: accelerated hysteresis changing.

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, TrinitySeas.

Well said.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I've got a seamanship book written in the 70's that actually has pouring oil into the water whilst lying ahull as a storm tactic. Times have certainly changed.

If I'm not mistaken there was a tremendous amount of oil poured onto the water during the D day invasion to calm the water, maybe not on D day but later?

[a64pilot]

If you use the age of the earth to correspond to one day, 24 hours. Humans have existed for the last 2 sec. of that 24 hour period, modern record keeping humans for considerably less than 1 sec.
Is that less than 1 sec of time really enough to be drawing conclusions?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Red Sky

There's no consensus on MMGW either.

When I was in elementary school in the early 70's, my hippie teachers all tried to indoctrinate us into the religion of impending global cooling in the exact same way the MMGW believers do now.

I'm sorry, I went to school in the 70s, too, and I never heard such a thing even from my "hippie teachers." In fact, that you'd describe your teachers that way makes me doubt your claim.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

That's not really the problem. The problem is we have too many users.

That's the "Oh, let's not bother" answer and it's certainly not true at present.

In North America, 50% of food grown/raised/manufactured for human consumption is wasted. Secondly a high proportion of our diet is traditionally-raised meat which is tasty for sure, but very inefficient to produce.

Most of the developed world, especially North America consumes inordinately large amounts of energy and resources, and alot of that is still produced in 'dirty' ways. (sidebar: big coal is suing EPA over new regulations. This article mentions greenhouse gases, but in other articles it's more about the mercury level, which is much easier to remove from the coal plant's outputs. Mercury in output is currently causing birth defects and death, especially in indigenous populations who eat alot of locally caught fish. Over 60% of US coal-burning plants currently do not have scrubbers. China is apparently ahead of the US in the installation of scrubbers in their coal plants)

There's more... the point being that there's things we can be doing NOW to make better use of resources and energy, while also looking for the things that will stabilize the future population.

But... there's a big science/green/commie conspiracy and I'm just an unwitting part of it, so you can safely dismiss anything I say.

[hpeer]

Not to fuel the deniers,, but I thought this article might be of some interest.

I've no idea if tis related to climate change, simple weather variability, or both.

I do find it interesting.

Provincial government urges Ottawa to prepare fish compensation plan - Newfoundland & Labrador - CBC News

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If you use the age of the earth to correspond to one day, 24 hours. Humans have existed for the last 2 sec. of that 24 hour period, modern record keeping humans for considerably less than 1 sec.
Is that less than 1 sec of time really enough to be drawing conclusions?

I see your point. Yet I think you overstate it. We have had a large number of oscillations so thAt the period is much shorter than you make out. Also we seem to know that the atmosphere "likes" to be in a hot or cold state, 6°C warmer or colder than now. Our culture developed in a remarkably calm period where we are in a quasi stable state between hot and cold stable states.

Consequently it does not take much to push us off either side. Which might be why you see contradictory predictions. It can go either way.

I use arctic sea ice history as a touchstone for recent trends, since 1979.

There are sources of info, including the Canadian Coast Guard, but here is a pretty succinct one.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

Also, here is an interesting article on current conditions.

Arctic Sea Ice

[TanzerTom]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

to quote AL Gore, in any capacity, is to demean the whole subject. Mr Gore is merely a bad spokesman for a particular argument and in fact one he has done more damage to.

Scientists that study the data and build models in general have agreed that climate change is occurring, as you say , there is a man made component. whats not agreed is the scale of the change or the subsequent consequences. It could be relatively benign , or even within our ability to easily cope, or it could be more catistropic depending on who you listen to.

Many scientists find what they are paid to find. Is the climate changing? Is water wet? The man made warmer horse **** is targeted at the gullible, the ignorant, and the just plain stupid. Ask a believer what percent of all that influences climate is human? They have NO clue because that number is infinitesimal.

[Reefmagnet]