The former. Were you one of those who flagged me and couldn’t tell me why?
This is a forum generally concerning professional mariners, and people with an interest in, looking to share, or learn, about the industry. I’d imagine if you want to discuss the industry, you’d be welcome. If you want to hammer away conspiracy theories and discuss politics, particularly American politics, probably not so much. I know Australia has had a lot of controversy concerning its maritime policies recently. That would be interesting and useful to hear about.
if the ice melts over greenland will the sea level go up or down?
Um, I am. Perhaps you should read the title of this thread. Discuss.
The issue is one I’ve noticed is concerning the mariners who discuss things here and it has been a constant theme in daily updates eg regarding new fuel regulations from the IMO. Everyone seems he’ll bent on saving the world from this disaster as they see it. I’m not.
If ever there was going to be runaway climate change it would have happened by now with several billion years of trying and mostly with a warmer world than now. But look where we are now with a near perfect climate and billions of people getting better off each year on average. Not a bad effort, I’d say.
We could refer, I suppose, to the geological time when that actually happened. When the mile of ice melted over present day Chicago could also be used as an example.
i was referring to the issue that the centre of Greenland is well under sea level and hasnt really been mapped so I dont think there is an answer to my question.
North pole melts there is no change, its ice on land that will raise the level then again;
The hotter we get the more humid it will get holding moisture in the air
Some deserts will re grow
We take more water from rivers so they dont go into the sea any more
We keep dredging but we do reclaim as well
We take sand and build buildings
Continents go up down move and tilt
We keep putting bigger ships in the sea and more of them
where will the sea level end up?
Who knows? It will do what it wants. I doubt humans have any influence at all on it. Is it perfect now? Was it perfect once? It’s not something we can fix.
The human condition has improved by the use of the scientific method. The idea that we can further improve our situation by abandoning the scientific method now is nonsensical.
It’d be like sailing half way around the world and deciding to stop using the techniques of navigation to get the rest of the way home.
I’m not sure who’s abandoning scientific method. I’m certainly not. All of my post are based on it. It seems to be a great surprise to many here that actual, real, reputable scientists disagree with other actual, real and reputable scientists about this topic. The very basis of the scientific method is to be sceptical, not rely on the word of others, but to constantly verify or test everything against observations of the real world, not some computer model.
Nullius in verba.
Here is a New article with some of the same data but presenting some new ideas on oil+gas which directly involves a lot of the members here.
The world is flat, well science was unanimous, I’ll bet someone disagreed
Sun goes around the earth, science was unanimous, I’ll bet someone disagreed
Meteorologists advise commodity traders on what the weather is doing as they make large bets on it and almost always disagree with those other guys who just get paid to make models.
.5 temp record after 80 years of trying, damn, too many aircons turned on in a concrete jungle
I wonder if they still have the same thermometer as used in 1939?
We used to have weather, now its called climate change
All models are wrong, some are useful.
The assumption that the earth is flat is still useful today in many day to day cases. Even in navigation the errors in plane sailing are not significant over short distances.
The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov
Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn’t. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That’s why the theory lasted so long.
The temperature in one little “two pub town” in Oz doesn’t change, therefore temperature in the world doesn’t change??
Meteorologists predicts weather for tomorrow, or at the most for 5 days hence, that is not climate science.
It doesn’t matter how many pubs are in town. In fact it doesn’t matter if there’s even a town there. What matters is that the empirical observations of temperatures there over a long period with high quality siting and thermometers showed a small but significant declining trend which was falsified by Australia’s official met bureau ‘climate scientists’ into a strongly warming trend. They hid their justification. They won’t release their data. They won’t debate their doubters. They won’t submit their reasoning to peer review. They just changed it from cooling to warming. That’s not the much touted ‘scientific method’, is it?
Why would they do such a thing? My suspicion is (based on the evidence of the scientist who wrote the article) they know which side their bread is buttered. If they reported cooling, they’d be looking for work elsewhere and their bureau wouldn’t attract government funding that flows only one way -to the alarmists … and most of them believe the world is warming so those troublesome empirical temperatures must be wrong. They have to be made to match the decreed warming models.
Oh, and meteorologists actually also observe the weather and are responsible for recording the data ie gather empirical evidence - an essential of the scientific method. Once they have data they can fiddle with it to produce what they want. The same bureau studies the data and makes longer term forecasts for the seasons ahead. They are invariably wrong because their models only forecast warming. So, yes they are climate scientists. At least their shorter term forecasts can be trusted.
No, you are conflating weather and climate.
Climate change projections are not simply long-range weather forecast stretched out for longer time periods.
It’s like saying long range tidal height predictions are wrong because a coastal wave height forecast is only good for a few days. Long range tidal predictions are useful because tidal height changes are driven by a different phenomena then are wind driven waves.
I don’t think so. I didn’t say climate change was just a long range weather forecast. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) does both. I said their long range forecasts were always wrong because it is only these that we can test against the actual weather we got. We can’t test their climate predictions for decades to come.
The point of that comment was that the BOM is the agency charged with the gathering of data and making it available. In this instance they changed a cooling trend actually observed into a warming one (does that fit into your definition of the scientific method?) at one of Australia’s few stations of its reference network (ACORN). If they do this there, what are they doing with the others? We don’t know because they refuse to allow peer review or independent verification of their data. They only present homogenised (ie adjusted) data, not the observations and this feeds into the world’s data base for calculating surface air temperature.
Finally, amateurs have found glaring contradictions in the presented data which the BOM is reluctant to investigate or correct. Impossibly high or low temperatures aren’t weeded out. Daily minimums exceeding maximums. That sort of thing that infests every huge data base. It seems the BOM considers itself above criticism. It isn’t.
Don’t know, the amateurs could use the same method to determine if the same problem exist at other stations.
OK I was wrong, Rutherglen apparently have three pubs.
PS> In my days in Australia (1968-70) the number of pubs were an easy way of describing the size of a town or settlement. Not an accurate science to be sure, but useful for everyday use.
But I do agree with you it doesn’t matter how many pubs, how big the town, or where in the world a single measuring point showing no variations for a century is situated, it still don’t prove anything about past temperature on earth, or for predictions about the future.For every place you bring to the table that has none I could probably find hundreds that has had above average temperature increase. (That is only in Australia)
Here is one example:
Hopefully they don’t have to cancel the Boat Race due to rain this year:
In a statement about its climate records, the Bureau said:
The Bureau measures temperature at nearly 800 sites across Australia, chiefly for the purpose of weather forecasting. The ACORN-SAT is a subset of this network comprising 112 locations that are used for climate analysis. The ACORN-SAT stations have been chosen to maximise both length of record and network coverage across the continent. For several years, all of this data has been made publicly available on the Bureau’s web site.
Here are links to both raw and adjusted data. This story is from four years ago. More than enough time expose any conspiracy.
Both the raw and adjusted ACORN-SAT data and the larger unadjusted national data set all indicate that Australian air temperatures have warmed over the last century. This finding is consistent with observed warming in the oceans surrounding Australia. These findings are also consistent with those of other leading international meteorological authorities, such as NOAA and NASA in the United States and the UK MetOffice.
Where global warming is causing most changes isn’t anywhere in Australia, which is already warm, dry and arid, it is in the polar regions.
Here is a BBC World News report aired today:
Of course the deniers will say BBC is biased and one of the worst fake news channels.