Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-08-2019, 20:53   #1186
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
That is a giant leap of a conclusion.
really like you are not extremely pro MMGWC biased .
__________________

__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 20:56   #1187
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,527
Images: 1
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
really like you are not extremely pro MMGWC biased .
My bias is evidence-based science.
__________________

__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is online now  
Old 09-08-2019, 20:56   #1188
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,792
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Unsubstantiated idle assertion.
So you're aware of climate science-related papers that Shaviv has published since 2017?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
That is a giant leap of a conclusion.
Prominent skeptics have been making the claim for years that they can't get grants, can't get published, can't get peer reviewed. A few pages back an interview from Curry said just that. Earlier in the thread it was an interview with Spencer. Most recently a physicist confirmed. Need more examples? Shall I put them on a graph so they'll look more like "scientific evidence" to you?

To counter all this, we have your pronouncement that a few published papers, some of them quite dated, somehow renders it "proof positive" that all of this criticism from prominent, vested professionals is simply "BS". So let's ask the question again, who's more biased, these scientists or you?

If they can't get grants to do research, then no papers get produced, and there's nothing to publish. Then there's little incentive for scientists to propose research other than that which supports the official line. But then partisans like you disingenuously decry the lack of "peer reviewed evidence" of natural forces that might otherwise justify the skepticism! Are you starting to see why some of us are not only skeptical, but cynical too?
Exile is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 20:59   #1189
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,792
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
My bias is evidence-based science.
Ahh. There it is! And I have no doubt you sincerely believe it.
Exile is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 21:53   #1190
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 3,615
Images: 7
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
So you're aware of climate science-related papers that Shaviv has published since 2017?



Prominent skeptics have been making the claim for years that they can't get grants, can't get published, can't get peer reviewed. A few pages back an interview from Curry said just that. Earlier in the thread it was an interview with Spencer. Most recently a physicist confirmed. Need more examples? Shall I put them on a graph so they'll look more like "scientific evidence" to you?

To counter all this, we have your pronouncement that a few published papers, some of them quite dated, somehow renders it "proof positive" that all of this criticism from prominent, vested professionals is simply "BS". So let's ask the question again, who's more biased, these scientists or you?

If they can't get grants to do research, then no papers get produced, and there's nothing to publish. Then there's little incentive for scientists to propose research other than that which supports the official line. But then partisans like you disingenuously decry the lack of "peer reviewed evidence" of natural forces that might otherwise justify the skepticism! Are you starting to see why some of us are not only skeptical, but cynical too?
And if they challenge the scientific rigor of papers that are being published as did Professor Ridd they get fired from their jobs.
RaymondR is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 22:05   #1191
Registered User
 
TeddyDiver's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arctic Ocean
Boat: Under construction 35' ketch (and +3 smaller)
Posts: 2,267
Images: 2
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Every time you post a graph showing warming or warming-related events such as sea ice extent, sea level rise, etc., or comment to that effect, without any further explanation or analysis, it implies the warming is the direct result of human-derived CO2 or you obviously wouldn't post them. Citing UAH data to confirm TD's observations, along with dropping Spencer & Christy's names along with, associates warming's impacts on the Arctic with AGW, a correlation which has plenty of mainstream support but does not amount to causative fact, and is certainly not the conclusions drawn by the scientists who produce the UAH data. But such low-level manipulation is hardly new, which is exactly why so much of the public associates any sort of warming-related event with anthropogenic forces alone.

I'm trying to honestly characterize the current state of the science despite my admitted bias, and won't be resorting to sophomoric tactics if someone intelligently and honestly corrects me. In contrast, you are so consumed with your own extreme bias that you are either oblivious to how misleading your posts are, or are doing it intentionally. Not sure which one is in play here, but it doesn't really matter since either way they are misleading, and so a disservice to the science you so rather cynically express such fidelity to.
Talking about honesty are we? The man made CO2 is so far the only plausible explanation with some proof. There are fancy theories but without substance about solar minimum, volcanoes, ocean CO2 and Newhauls favourite "there's no warming" etc.
It's ok to have scepticism but that should be practised equally to all theories not just to the one you happen to dislike.
TeddyDiver is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 22:54   #1192
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyDiver View Post
Talking about honesty are we? The man made CO2 is so far the only plausible explanation with some proof. There are fancy theories but without substance about solar minimum, volcanoes, ocean CO2 and Newhauls favourite "there's no warming" etc.
It's ok to have scepticism but that should be practised equally to all theories not just to the one you happen to dislike.
perhaps you should go back through some of the older CC threads and review my theorem before you actually say any more about it . It is actually in line with many other scientists theories . Ask jack or Sailoar for a refresher I'm sure they can bring you up to speed fairly quickly ..
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 23:27   #1193
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,792
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyDiver View Post
Talking about honesty are we? The man made CO2 is so far the only plausible explanation with some proof. There are fancy theories but without substance about solar minimum, volcanoes, ocean CO2 and Newhauls favourite "there's no warming" etc.
It's ok to have scepticism but that should be practised equally to all theories not just to the one you happen to dislike.
When it comes to climate science, I believe I am skeptical of all theories, and I'm even skeptical that the warming trend that's apparently been amplified up your way can simply be assumed to be aberrant or unusual. What's clearly aberrant is the spike in CO2, and it seems almost all scientists agree that this is contributing to warming to some degree, but they differ on how much and the amount of impact. Claiming that "no better explanation exists" assumes that the earth has never experienced such warming trends before, and so quickly becomes a red herring absent historical information. Speaking for myself, I can't "deny" the majority view, but the mere fact that other views aren't being reported in the media doesn't make the majority one any more viable scientifically. I think you have to be a qualified expert to fairly judge that one, and that's when Jack's oft-toted scientific "evidence" legitimately comes into play, not amongst laymen on the internet lacking expert credentials or expertise.

So do you know when the last time, if ever, this level of warming you've been witnessing occurred, and if it was prior to the fossil fuel era? Or if the rate of the warming has been truly aberrant? I believe there were some successful passages of the NWP in the 19th century that were recorded, and probably some prior thereto, but sea ice extent is influenced by a lot of factors other than just temps so I'm not sure how much to rely on that.

I similarly can't make any of my own judgments about solar activity, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc., except that they are obviously minority views. It appears we are in fact "cooling" right now, but only for the past few years, and thus far it could be consistent with similar short-term cooling periods coming off strong El Nino's. Jack's presentation of graphs & posts did a good job of demonstrating that one. Newhaul's position is that this is the start of a new, long-term cooling trend due to reduced solar activity (still don't understand the cosmic ray deal ), but he's acknowledged the long-term warming trend and agrees that we'll obviously have to "wait & see." There does seem to be (minority) support from the science that solar activity may be a dominant force, but also (majority) evidence that disputes it. In any event, I don't quite understand why Newhaul's positions draw such ire, but whatever. I also don't know how to keep "score" on the various theories since it's not like the skepticism is coming from fortune tellers & witch doctors. There are serious professionals doing competent research on both sides.

The only theory I "don't like" are those put forth, under the guise of objectively representing "the science," that state or imply that the dominant/official theories are the only ones worthy of consideration, and therefore people inquiring about how the minority views can be so easily dismissed are, well [fill in the blank]. I don't mind bias in its own right, or people advocating why their position should be accepted over others, but it's misleading to misrepresent the actual state of the science as completely one-sided, since it's not. You can be both biased and bring some level of objectivity to bear without being deceptive or dishonest. My personal bias is more directed against what I see are not very credible people simply dictating the majority theory without much thought, while arrogantly and often angrily dismissing alternative ones with a similar absence of thought. For me, this signals some sort of personal or political agenda, with actual truth a mere secondary goal.
Exile is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 00:13   #1194
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 3,615
Images: 7
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

I think we need a break from all this catastrophism. I have lived through three of these cultish imminent catastrophe cults.

The first was the imminent ice age because statistically we were nearing the end of one of a series of inter ice age warming periods.

The second was the nuclear winter, where the smoke from all the burning cities due to the imminent northern hemisphere nuclear war was going block out the sun and the crops would not grow and we would all starve to death.

Now we have global warming and when that branding lost effectiveness because the imminent end did not come about on time, climate change.

Quit it, I'm sick of it.
RaymondR is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 00:37   #1195
Registered User
 
Marc1's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney Australia
Boat: 2004 Steber 2200 Persuader
Posts: 203
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post

The only theory I "don't like" are those put forth, under the guise of objectively representing "the science," that state or imply that the dominant/official theories are the only ones worthy of consideration, and therefore people inquiring about how the minority views can be so easily dismissed are, well [fill in the blank]. I don't mind bias in its own right, or people advocating why their position should be accepted over others, but it's misleading to misrepresent the actual state of the science as completely one-sided, since it's not. You can be both biased and bring some level of objectivity to bear without being deceptive or dishonest. My personal bias is more directed against what I see are not very credible people simply dictating the majority theory without much thought, while arrogantly and often angrily dismissing alternative ones with a similar absence of thought. For me, this signals some sort of personal or political agenda, with actual truth a mere secondary goal.
Well said, best post so far.

The reason you observe this behaviour is simple. This is a cult, far removed from science.

The "belief" predate the search for a confirmation, a bit like those who want to prove scientifically the existence of God. The bias fits a pre existing set of values and "global warming" and those who are at fault, have been in the hate list well before global warming was invented.

This just fits the bill.
Marc1 is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:08   #1196
Registered User
 
TeddyDiver's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arctic Ocean
Boat: Under construction 35' ketch (and +3 smaller)
Posts: 2,267
Images: 2
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
When it comes to climate science, I believe I am skeptical of all theories, and I'm even skeptical that the warming trend that's apparently been amplified up your way can simply be assumed to be aberrant or unusual. What's clearly aberrant is the spike in CO2, and it seems almost all scientists agree that this is contributing to warming to some degree, but they differ on how much and the amount of impact. Claiming that "no better explanation exists" assumes that the earth has never experienced such warming trends before, and so quickly becomes a red herring absent historical information. Speaking for myself, I can't "deny" the majority view, but the mere fact that other views aren't being reported in the media doesn't make the majority one any more viable scientifically. I think you have to be a qualified expert to fairly judge that one, and that's when Jack's oft-toted scientific "evidence" legitimately comes into play, not amongst laymen on the internet lacking expert credentials or expertise.

So do you know when the last time, if ever, this level of warming you've been witnessing occurred, and if it was prior to the fossil fuel era? Or if the rate of the warming has been truly aberrant? I believe there were some successful passages of the NWP in the 19th century that were recorded, and probably some prior thereto, but sea ice extent is influenced by a lot of factors other than just temps so I'm not sure how much to rely on that.

I similarly can't make any of my own judgments about solar activity, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc., except that they are obviously minority views. It appears we are in fact "cooling" right now, but only for the past few years, and thus far it could be consistent with similar short-term cooling periods coming off strong El Nino's. Jack's presentation of graphs & posts did a good job of demonstrating that one. Newhaul's position is that this is the start of a new, long-term cooling trend due to reduced solar activity (still don't understand the cosmic ray deal ), but he's acknowledged the long-term warming trend and agrees that we'll obviously have to "wait & see." There does seem to be (minority) support from the science that solar activity may be a dominant force, but also (majority) evidence that disputes it. In any event, I don't quite understand why Newhaul's positions draw such ire, but whatever. I also don't know how to keep "score" on the various theories since it's not like the skepticism is coming from fortune tellers & witch doctors. There are serious professionals doing competent research on both sides.

The only theory I "don't like" are those put forth, under the guise of objectively representing "the science," that state or imply that the dominant/official theories are the only ones worthy of consideration, and therefore people inquiring about how the minority views can be so easily dismissed are, well [fill in the blank]. I don't mind bias in its own right, or people advocating why their position should be accepted over others, but it's misleading to misrepresent the actual state of the science as completely one-sided, since it's not. You can be both biased and bring some level of objectivity to bear without being deceptive or dishonest. My personal bias is more directed against what I see are not very credible people simply dictating the majority theory without much thought, while arrogantly and often angrily dismissing alternative ones with a similar absence of thought. For me, this signals some sort of personal or political agenda, with actual truth a mere secondary goal.
Quite right what you said. I think the most bias against MMGW is how the media and environmentalists represent it, not the science itself.
The theory of cosmic rays is fashinating, thou as long as we (our solar system) are inside this galactic arm there's no no substancial change but eventually we travel between the intermediate space between two arms and that will be another matter..
One have to understand that the scientists studying the subject are not a homogenous group working for a common goal. There's a lot of academic politics and personal bias among them and most have their own interests in the game. There's also a lot guilt on politicians who mostly make their proposals politically profitable as they are more worried of their career and support from voters than the environment itself, hence the blaming and bias against opponents.
TeddyDiver is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:17   #1197
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
From Newhaul's link
... Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.
“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.” ...
... In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper* on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors ...
“Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” ~ by: Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer
*➥ http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/I...s/GSAToday.pdf

See also:
“On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate” ~ by: Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer
On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate | ScienceBits
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:36   #1198
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 201
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808103807.htm
ImaginaryNumber is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:57   #1199
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber View Post
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808103807.htm
Excerpt:

"... Model calculations for coral growth based on these chemical data resembled the decline in growth measured in the field highlighting their importance to facilitate growth. In an environment with a lower pH, the corals at the ojos must put more effort to raise their pH to the observed level. This process is likely to cost them more energy. Since the corals must distribute their energy reserves over many important functions such as food acquisition, digestion, reproduction or defense against diseases, they grow more slowly. Other influences, however, such as the calcium concentration in the calcifying fluid or the role of coral symbionts, offer potential for further research. "The study has also shown that we still have a long way to go before we understand all the interactions between changes in seawater and coral growth,...

“Using B isotopes and B/Ca in corals from low saturation springs to constrain calcification mechanisms” ~ by M. Wall, J. Fietzke, E. D. Crook & A. Paytan
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11519-9
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:28   #1200
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
“Using B isotopes and B/Ca in corals from low saturation springs to constrain calcification mechanisms” ~ by M. Wall, J. Fietzke, E. D. Crook & A. Paytan
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11519-9
this is the first sentence in the paper linked to
Ocean acidification is expected to negatively impact calcifying organisms, yet we lack understanding of their acclimation potential in the natural environment


Read we don't have have a clue.
But it is a start and its not like this isn't a natural process that has been going both ways for eons .
__________________

__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Star in the Ocean - A lonely and his beloved (the star) are crossing the ocean Velanera General Sailing Forum 18 21-12-2017 05:22
For Sale: Ocean 60 - Southern Ocean Shipyards for sale Ocean Viking Classifieds Archive 2 12-05-2013 04:30
Volvo Ocean racers take a rain check on the Indian ocean sarafina Cruising News & Events 7 06-02-2012 13:52
World Ocean Database and World Ocean Atlas Series GordMay The Library 2 15-01-2007 21:14
Cruising the Indian Ocean Bob Sailor Logs & Cruising Plans 1 29-03-2003 09:46

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 13:55.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.