+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8265
Total Topics: 226
Most Online Today: 30
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Global Warming is WITH US  (Read 18449 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #360 on: October 27, 2015, 12:41:29 am »

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity

PART ONE OF THREE PARTS

In this three part article I explain what the scientific community defines as the "Business as Usual" scenario in regard to atmospheric pollutants fueling Global Warming. A brief review of the existential threat to marine life that this scenario represents will follow.

Subsequently, I discuss global shipping. I provide a summary of the tremendous importance of blue water (deep ocean) cargo shipping to global civilization. You will be surprised at how vital to global civilization blue water cargo shipping is. All the military vessels, all the pleasure yachts and even all the fishing fleets are insignificant in tonnage compared to that of ocean going cargo and tanker vessels.

I then leave the subject of shipping and the types of cargo vessels, which I return to at the end, to provide the reader with a graphic climate history of the Northern Hemisphere, from the last Glacial Maximum to the present, followed by the, scientifically based, predicted sea level and land vegetation changes in the "Business as Usual" scenario within the next 85 years.

The discussion then returns to cargo ships and their behavior in rough seas. I provide graphics to explain what has been learned about ocean waves in the last 40 years that shocked the scientific community and caused them to go back to the drawing board on the science and math formulas of hydrodynamics in regard to maximum wave heights. Some tragic cargo vessel losses from "rogue" waves (that turned out not to be as "rogue" as science had thought) are presented as evidence that the oceans are becoming increasingly dangerous to shipping.

Finally, the Hansen et al paper, published in June of 2015, is referenced as evidence of a coming abrupt sea state change that will make modern blue water surface cargo shipping either too costly or impossible. The reason for this will be explained in detail with graphics showing ocean wave action and modern shipping design limitations.

Included in the last section that ties all the others together is a reference to another scientific paper published in July of this year (2015) that provides evidence that the worst case scenario ("Business as Usual") modeled by the scientific community severely understates the amount of sea level rise in the next 85 years.

I conclude with recommendations on what the governments of the industrialized countries of the world need to do within the next decade in order to prevent a collapse of civilization (or worse) within the next 25 years.

Let us begin with these nuggets of climate science from NASA:

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial'."

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said.
Quote
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general
."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

So, if you read some happy talk from the fossil fuel industry that it's the "water vapor" that is causing global warming, be sure and reference the above study (and the companion study also mentioned at the link) just before you call them on their ignorance, or worse, their duplicity.


You just read about the huge difference a mere 5 degrees C (Centigrade) can make.
Here's a graphic to give you an idea about how effective our greenhouse gas (GHG) shell is at keeping us from turning into a ball of ice.


Greenhouse gases are vital to regulating Earth's temperature. But there is a goldilocks band of these gases that must be adhered to in order to provide a viable biosphere.

In addition, GHG changes in concentration within that band must proceed, down or up, at or slower than a certain rate in order to allow the organisms that live in that biosphere to adapt to the changes or they will go extinct.

Industrial civilization has BOTH exceeded the upper margin of the GHG band by a huge margin AND has done it at a rate far above the ability of most complex non-microscopic organisms to adapt to these violent changes. Mammalian vertebrates, among the complex organisms on Earth, are the least able to adapt to rapid GHG concentration changes.


There is no precedent in the geological record for the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels over the last century. And the rate those fossil fuels are being burned is increasing, not slowing down or ceasing.

Non-self aware mammalian vertebrates, unlike us, cannot use technology to adapt. This is the part the CEO of ExxonMobil (Rex Tillerson) forgot accidentally on purpose when he said, "We will adapt to that". Mr. Tillerson is an idiot or a liar (possibly both). Those "qualities" seem to be a job requirement for those that work in the fossil fuel industry.

Mr. Tillerson's optimistic happy talk is not based on climate science or the geological record.

Quote
"Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago."

http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906

Whether we humans want to admit it or not, we need the 75% of all of Earth's species in danger of extinction from climate change. I know it is really hard for the fossil fuel industry predators 'R' US crowd to wrap their greedy heads around this, but it's hard to live on a diet of hydrocarbons. And if we don't stop burning them, both our plant and animal food supply, along with thousands of other species of other earthlings that make this planet viable, will go extinct.

This is not hyperbole. Mass extinctions are part of the geological record. In all but one of those mass extinctions, the rapid rise in GHG was the cause of the extinctions. Furthermore, in all the former mass extinctions, the RATE of rise in GHG was much slower than today.
Quote

"As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising  at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding."

http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906


According to the latest scientific studies on Global Warming, "Business as Usual", touted as the basis for the continued health of global civilization, is actually the greatest threat to global civilization and our species that we have ever faced.

Before we get to what exactly is meant by, "Business as Usual", let us first review the human caused pollution effects on ocean physical chemistry and temperature and marine species biochemistry.

The following review references an analysis of oceans that totally omits a growing problem for worldwide shipping. Although the review is mostly very bad news, it may turn out to be, in terms of what deals the collapse triggering blow to human civilization as we know it, the "good" news.

The World Ocean Review

The ocean may be buffering the most severe consequences of climate change for now. But in the long run we can only hope to avoid these if we strictly curb GHG emissions today.

Experts are concerned that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of methane hydrate could break down due to the warming of seawater – gas masses that are lying inertly in solid, frozen form in the sea floor sediments today. A portion of the methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, could then rise into the atmosphere and further accelerate the process of climate change – a vicious circle.

The oceans absorb many millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. They are the largest “sink” for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The excess carbon dioxide, however, upsets the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. It leads to acidification of the oceans, the consequences of which are unpredictable. Acidic water disrupts the sense of smell in fish larvae, carbonate formation by snails, and the growth rates of starfish. The phytoplankton, tiny algae in the ocean and vital nutrient basis for higher organisms, are also affected by acidification.

The coastal environment is still being damaged by effluent and toxic discharges, and especially by nutrients conveyed to the ocean by rivers. Thousands of tonnes of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds flow into the ocean around the world, causing an explosion in algal reproduction. In many coastal regions the catastrophe begins with the death of the algae. Bacteria feed on the algal remains and consume oxygen in the water. In these oxygen-depleted zones all higher life forms die off. Efforts to reduce nutrient levels have been successful in Western Europe.

Worldwide, however, the input of nutrients is becoming increasingly problematical. People are, without a doubt, abusing the oceans in many respects, and this is increasing the stress on marine organisms. Through over-fertilization and acidification of the water, rapid changes in water temperature or salinity, biological diversity in the ocean could drop worldwide at increasing rates. With the combination of all these factors, the disruption of habitats is so severe that species will continue to disappear.

Clearly the oceans continue to be the “last stop” for the dregs of our civilization, not only for the persistent chemicals, but also our everyday garbage. Six million tonnes of rubbish end up in the ocean worldwide every year. The trash is a fatal trap for dolphins, turtles and birds. Plastic is especially long-lived and, driven by ocean currents, it collects in the central oceans in gyres of garbage covering hundreds of square kilometres. A new problem has been identified in the microscopically small breakdown products of plastics, which are concentrated in the bodies of marine organisms.

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/wor-1-in-short/

That World Ocean Review I just quoted from, after laying out the hard facts, incredibly goes on to happily discuss ocean mining opportunities and methane hydrate harvesting plans for "energy products" for "energy independence". The only caveat they supply is more of an epitaph for human willful denial of facts than a precautionary warning. Please file the following in the WTF!? category.

Quote
Energy from burning ice

In addition to abundant minerals, there are large amounts of methane hydrate beneath the sea floor. Some countries hope to become independent of energy imports by exploiting marine gas hydrate deposits near their own coasts. The technology for production, however, is not yet available. Furthermore, the risks to climate stability and hazards to marine habitats associated with extraction of the methane hydrates must first be clarified.


http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-3-overview/methane-hydrate/

Yes, it seems the DANGER of extracting methane hydrates has not been "CLARIFIED" enough. Neither the Permian Extinction geological record nor the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) geological record has "clarified" the methane issue enough.

Hello? Is this, a more recent pre-human epoch, CLARIFICATION enough for you fellows providing your business friendly "World Ocean Review ", claiming, among other wonders of optimistic prose, that the sea level is only going to rise about 180 cm by century's end?


The following alarming, but still too conservative, MIT study EXCLUDES the ABRUPT climate change positive feedback loop effects we are now beginning to experience.

Do they think this MIT study needs "clarification"?

And the DANGER of an acidified ocean to most marine species, which will clearly be exacerbated by the methane bomb, has not been clarified? Didn't Professor Gerardo Ceballos, lead author of a study published in June of 2015 on the Sixth Mass Extinction we are now entering, with particular emphasis on marine mammal extinction threats, get the word?

I think he and his fellow scientists CLARIFIED the methane issue AND the CO2 pollution issue rather well. For those that do not get it, the CO2 pollution, now baked in, is already threatening marine mammals with extinction. When methane hydrates are added to the mix from a warmed ocean, acidification will accelerate and trigger anoxic conditions throughout the ocean water column, thereby destroying the food chain. That is a death sentence for most non-microscopic marine life and a large portion of the microscopic oxygen producing microscopic phytoplankton as well.


These scientifically challenged, insultingly naive, business friendly, bland statements sold as "sober advice" are precisely the kind of double talk that has placed humanity in the polluted situation it finds itself.

Some have blamed the scientific community.



They forget that scientists are mostly employees. They forget that businesses gag their reports or keep their published, peer reviewed papers from the public on a regular basis. So the criminally negligent here are business leaders, not scientists.

My experience with reading these big picture reviews of our terribly polluted situation is that they seem to feel obligated to give some peppy, optimistic, happy talk at the end.

Do these people understand what "business as usual" means? It appears that either they don't or willfully avoid doing so.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has a scientific name for Business as Usual. They have modeled it. They have a number for it. It's called the RCP-8.5. RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathway.

Business as usual is a death sentence for over 75% (or more) of life on Earth.

The people that defend business as usual are deluded. There is evidence, which I will present, that even the RCP-8.5 scenario is too conservative. And yet the methane issue needs "clarification"?

Dr. Scott Goetz (Deputy Director and Senior Scientist of the Woods Hole Research Center) has that thousand yard stare for a reason.

CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz


Friends, there is a crime being committed. But the guiltiest parties do not want to pay for their share of the damage. And that is why these reviews lack the urgency that they need to have in order to successfully convince government policy makers to alter our destructive trajectory.

But I have discussed that in my recent article, Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.  So, I will move on to other matters of concern to humanity.


Global shipping

Human civilization has come to rely on the relatively inexpensive movement of millions of tons of cargo over the oceans.

It is difficult or impossible to avoid a collapse without the use of the oceans.

To underline the importance of cargo shipping as the lifeblood of civilization, you need to look at the massive amount of tonnage these ships move globally on a daily basis.


Tankers, bulk carriers and container ships are the most important means of transportation of our time. Each year they carry billions of tonnes of goods along a few principal trade routes. Containerization has revolutionized global cargo shipping, bringing vast improvements in efficiency.


Throughout history the oceans have been important to people around the world as a means of transportation. Unlike a few decades ago, however, ships are now carrying goods rather than people.



Deadweight tonnage (abbreviated to dwt) or tons deadweight (TDW) is a measure of how much mass a ship is carrying or can safely carry; it does not include the weight of the ship.

Agelbert NOTE: Please take note of the caveat, "safely carry".  More on what that means later.

In terms of carrying capacity in dwt,


tankers account for 35 per cent,



bulk carriers account for 35 per cent,



container ships 14 per cent,



general cargo ships 9 per cent



and passenger liners less than 1 per cent.

In all, the global merchant fleet has a capacity of just under 1192 million dwt.

Shipping Activity of Tankers, Cargo and Cruise Ships on October 12, 2015:

The growth of the global merchant fleet according to type of vessel (as at 1 January [sic]) 2009.
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/transport/global-shipping/

There is a LOT of shipping out there and a LOT of ships. If the above graphics have not brought home to you how much shipping is going on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, take a look at this:

In summary, this is what is out there going hither and yon across the oceans on a regular basis:
Singapore anchorage

Most of those affordable products in our homes are a direct result of a the uninterrupted global lifeblood of efficient blue ocean shipping. If that shipping was no longer possible, global civilization would be impossible because it would be unaffordable. It is, therefore, extremely important to ensure that human civilization can use those oceans for routine cargo transportation. 

The oceans, as was pointed out earlier in this article, are a giant heat sink. The more CO2 we pump into the air, the hotter the oceans get. When the oceans get hotter, they become more active. This means trouble for shipping.

Insurance companies do not like that. They analyze the risks of blue water shipping and track any trends that might increase those risks. They have actuaries that pay a lot of attention to losses of insured ships.

All commercial shipping is insured. You and I are billed for insuring, not just the merchant fleets, but the military ships too! That's what the "defense budgets" lobbied for by all those welfare queen corporations, constantly whining about that "dangerous world out there", are all about.

Well, it looks like all shipping is going to find out how DANGEROUS the oceans, not some invented threat about bellicose humans, can be. The insurance actuaries already know that the "terrorist" or piracy threat on the high seas is insignificant compared to the threat of sinking from rough seas.

Of course you haven't read that in the papers. But you will read it here. And I will provide evidence for it.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. To understand what is happening in the oceans today, we need to go back in time about 20,000 years. We need to go back to the Last Glacial Maximum.

WHY? Because the sea state, as well as the sea level, is a function of the average global temperature. In addition, the vegetation changes that accompany changes in the average global temperature can have deleterious effects on the sea state, totally separate from the dire extinction threat these temperature changes represent to marine organisms.

The Environmental Change Model (ECM)

The following series of graphics deals with accurately modeled representations of the climate in a large part of the Northern Hemisphere centered on the Arctic. A link to the science and the source is provided. The average global temperature and pertinent data on the ice cover and types of vegetation is provided. Of particular importance to the reader are the different types of Tundra coverage. The legend has color codes for the graphical representations.

NOTE: The Greek letter "DELTA" ="Δ". It is used in science to mean, "Change in". The referenced average global temperature is what we have today (about 15 degrees Centigrade = T).

So, ΔT = - 6C is a change in average temperature of minus 6 degrees centigrade from today. THAT was when there was a two mile high glacier sheet edge near what is now New York City. That was also when the oceans were 120 meters = 394 feet lower than they are today.

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/ECM/

Notice how much dry and moist Tundra there was.
Notice the range and size of the types of forests and the polar desert coverage too. At a glance you can see that this was a very dry world in comparison to our world.

Fast forward to ΔT = - 0.5C.
This was the Little Ice Age of 1850. That was just before the industrial pollution revolution had gotten up to full biosphere trashing speed.

Sea level is close to the present level. Notice how the forest cover has changed. Notice how the Tundra moved north as the ice retreated. Notice how the forests and the forest Tundra transition changed.


Tundra responds in one of two ways when it goes above freezing. It has to do with the available oxygen. If there isn't enough in the soil, the microbes resort to anaerobic metabolism and make lots of methane. This is NOT methane locked in the Tundra. This is NEW methane. This is unrelated to the methane hydrates frozen on the ocean bottom, but it is still an additional feedback mechanism that increases the RATE of atmospheric heating. So these mechanisms are, by definition, not linear. They can become self reinforcing. That means they can go exponential.

Below, please find, the world we all grew up in (ΔT = 0C.). I have labeled some areas for clarity. The Tundra continues to shrink, as does the ice coverage. The forest transition area creeps north and the forests grow along with the prairie grass covered areas. There is less ice.


Which brings us the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario labeled "Business as Usual".

This scenario is considered "worst case". It does not expect us to hit  ΔT = plus 2C until 2050. The boundless optimism of the IPCC sounds a lot like those fellows doing the "World Ocean Review" that mentioned the methane "issue" needed "clarification" right after they admitted that the PRESENT conditions were causing the extinction of most marine animals.  zimg]http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif[/img

Please look at this graph:

The line with the number "1" is the  IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario. The temperature increases in lines 2 and 3 ARE NOT in the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario.

ΔT = plus 2C is considered extremely dangerous.
 

The IPCC projects a mere 0.5 meters sea level increase by 2050. But the July 2015 study that I reference in the graphic claims a sea level rise greater or equal to 6 meters (over 19 feet!) is evidenced in the geologic record for this type of temperature rise.

The IPCC projected sea ice decline will give you more context to understand why it is unrealistic to believe that we will not hit the  ΔT = plus 2C until 2050.


But nevertheless, the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario for ΔT = plus 2C is instructive because the Tundra is disappearing. You know what that means for increased methane release, don't you?



A note about the word, "Equilibrium" on the graphic: The word "Equilibrium" means that the full effects of the temperature change are being felt throughout the planet. Glaciologists had previously thought that "equilibrium" effects on ice sheets took centuries or millennia.

Now, because of empirical observations on the Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica and various glaciers in the world, they have come to accept that equilibrium is reached in decades or in years, depending on the temperature anomaly increase. As you know, or should know, the polar regions have warmed over 3C MORE than the rest of the planet in the last 50 years. 

The huge differential was not plugged in to the IPCC models so they are too conservative on ice retreat and sea level rise. So, if somebody tells you that all this is a long way off, they are uninformed or working for the fossil fuel industry.

I will return to the dangers of the ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world in a moment.

For now, I wish to show you the rest of the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario projections. Please remember that they are conservative projections and the effects portrayed will most likely arrive 25 years or more earlier than predicted. Also please remember that the actual sea level increase (see graphic below),

Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods

according to the July 2015 paper referenced previously, will be several METERS, not feet, above the predictions.

ΔT = plus 3C

Sometime after the loss of the ice cap, all the Tundra will have thawed. ALL the trapped gases, be they CO2 or CH4, will be released. Added grasses absorbing CO2 will not be enough to counteract the warming acceleration.

There are those who expect a negative feedback from the stopping of the thermohaline oceanic current circulation (stopped by all the cold fresh water melted off the Greenland ice cap into the oceans). Perhaps that will help slow the heating (north of about 45 degrees latitude - below that they will roast even more!) for a decade or so. But it will do nothing to calm the ocean surface.

ΔT = plus 4C


The worst effect is that Arctic ocean bottom frozen clathrates will thaw and the methane will be released. The planet will continue warming increasingly faster past  ΔT = plus 4C.

 
That will exacerbate ocean conditions even more. With more and more heat energy present, the ocean surface will get increasingly more turbulent. And we will already be well past the ΔT = plus 2C mark.

As evidenced by the two referenced scientific studies, both published recently this year (2015), and the woefully conservative IPCC predictions on the rate of the North Polar Ice Cap retreat, Antarctic and Greenland ice cap melt rates, and temperature rise rate, sea level will most likely rise a minimum of 6 meters within 10 years, not 35 years. We are talking about 2025, not 2050, for a ΔT = plus 2C world. We are not preparing adequately for that.

For those who will point to the increase in size of the floating ice around Antarctica as evidence that the Earth is not really warming, I beg to differ.

The fact that the Antarctic land mass IS losing ice has been measured with satellites. It is losing ice because of global warming. It is true that the floating ice around Antarctica has increased and will continue to increase as long as the Antarctic land mass is shedding melt water.

This is because of two factors. The first one is that there are very high winds around Antarctica, unimpeded by any land mass. The second factor is that fresh water freezes more rapidly on the ocean surface than salty water.

That's why salt is spread on roads in winter. On the ocean, the water molecules must rid themselves of the sodium and chloride ions dissolved in them before they can freeze. All the ice floating on the oceans is water ice. It has no salt in it.

And as long as that floating ice is the product of melt water from the Antarctic land mass, it will ADD to sea level.

And when the sea level goes up just 6 feet, never mind the 19 feet or more increase expected with CURRENT CO2 levels, all shipping port facilities (and most coastal airport facilities too!) in the world are no longer usable without gargantuan and heroic efforts requiring trillions of dollars in costs for every foot the land and port infrastructure must be raised.

It seems that the countries (see every industrialized country on the planet) dragging their feet on CO2 reduction actions do not understand this. There are, as of this writing, over 140 countries investing trillions of dollars in port facilities.

No, they aren't raising the level of the port facilities to prepare for rapidly rising sea levels. They are trying to cash in on container shipping by building more container shipping infrastructure.   


Don't these governments listen to their climate scientists?


End of PART ONE.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART TWO


for reading this article. Have a good day.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 05:31:06 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #361 on: October 27, 2015, 07:33:58 pm »

Stunning Drone Footage Shows Greenland Literally Melting Away

This is the kind of data that the deniers cannot dismiss. We are in trouble and CO2 pollution is the reason for that trouble. Fossil fuels are a liability, not an asset. It's time the governments of the world accepted that we do NOT have the money to raise the elevation of every shipping port facility (and most coastal airport facilities too!) land and infrastructure for every foot the sea level rises, not to mention 25% of all arable land BEING WITHIN A FEW FEET OF SEA LEVEL.

The IPCC RCP-8.5 "Business as Usual" scenario projects a mere 0.5 meters sea level increase by 2050. 


But according to this July 2015 study, the sea level increase will be several METERS, not feet, above the predictions. (over 19 feet!) as evidenced in the geologic record for the PRESENT level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. And the CO2 concentration is increasing.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #362 on: October 28, 2015, 03:11:03 pm »

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity

PART TWO OF THREE PARTS

On top of the disaster for civilization that a rise in seal level of 6 meters (over 19 FEET!) represents from the loss of coastal arable land, coastal cities, shipping ports and airports, there is the problem of wave activity. 

Which brings us back to shipping and the ocean surface.  Of particular concern to ocean shipping in a ΔT = plus 2C (and greater) atmosphere are the following facts about waves.

WHY?

Because that world will have more energy both in the oceans and in the atmosphere. That world will have, not just greater average wind speeds, particularly over unobstructed surfaces like the oceans, but a greater duration of higher wind velocities (speed in a relatively constant direction) over thousands of miles. High wind velocity and duration over hundreds or thousands of miles is a recipe for giant waves.

Here's a very brief primer on waves so you can grasp the impact of giant wave characteristics on shipping.

First, the high points of the waves are called "crests" and the low points of the waves are called "troughs". The crest is the part that starts to curl over and turn foamy when waves hit the beach. The difference in height between the crest and the trough is called the wave height.

The "amplitude" is one half the wave height. So if you have "50-foot seas", you have wave crests 25 feet above calm sea level and troughs 25 feet below it. The amplitude of 50-foot seas is 25 feet.

In the ocean, the trough of a wave is just as far below sea level as the crest is above sea level. 


Quote
Energy, not water, moves across the ocean's surface. Water particles only travel in a small circle as a wave passes.

How are waves energy?

The best way to understand waves as energy is to think of a long rope laid on the ground. If you pick up one end and give it a good snap --there's a ripple effect all the way to the other end -- just like the waves on the ocean! That means that energy is applied at one end and it moves to the other end.

What provides the energy?

In the case of ocean waves, wind provides the energy. Wind causes waves that travel in the ocean. The energy is released on shorelines. Some of the energy of waves is also released against the hulls of ships at sea. The larger the vessel surface being impacted by the wave, the more force is exerted against that surface. Being hit by a single giant wave from the front of the bow or the rear of the stern is normally within the structural design limits of a large vessel. But being broadsided can either sink a ship or severely damage it.

1973: A rogue wave off the coast of Durban, South Africa, strikes the 12,000-ton cargo ship Bencrauchan. The ship is towed into port, barely floating.

http://freaquewaves.blogspot.com/2006/07/list-of-freaque-wave-encounters.html

What determines the size of the wave?

The size of a wave depends on:

1. the distance the wind blows (over open water) which is known as the "fetch",

2. the length of time the wind blows, and

3. the speed of the wind.

The greater these three, the larger the wave.



The distance waves are apart is called the "wavelength". Wavelength is typically measured between the crests of two adjacent waves, but it could be measured from trough to trough or from any point on one wave to the same point on the next wave. You will get the same distance no matter where you measure.

Finally, the "frequency" of the wave specifies how many wave wavelengths go by in a set amount of time. So this is dependent not only on the speed of the waves, but on their wavelength.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/xray/wavefront.html


The "period" of a wave must also be considered. The period of a wave is the amount of time it takes for one wavelength to occur. 

Frequency and period are distinctly different, yet related, quantities. The frequency of a wave is how many wavelengths occur in a given amount of time.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-2/Frequency-and-Period-of-a-Wave

Ship hulls are designed to withstand about 15 to 20 tons per square meter. They can handle up to 30 tons per square meter only if they bend to take the blow.


When a wave with a height of 30 meters (100 ft.) is spoken of, only half that much of it is what is above the sea level. That doesn't do a ship much good because the ship will ride down the 15 meter trough before it gets hit by the 30 meter monster.  And "riding" down the trough is somewhat of a misnomer.

Large ships, because of the combined weight of the ship and the cargo, have a lot of inertia. If the ship is moving forward at about 13 kts (15 mph) and a giant wave is approaching it a 45 mph (this has been documented and is routine), you have a relative speed of the wave to the ship of 60 mph. The wavelength of a 30 meter wave is about 230 meters (this has also been documented).
 
Even if the combined speed against such a wave is just 45 mph because the captain has slowed his ship to reduce hull stress, the ship experiences a drop of ocean beneath it of 50 feet in 6 seconds, followed by the a rise of 100 feet in another six seconds.

Initially the ship just dives bow first and everybody on it feels like they are in free fall. When the ship hits the trough bottom, its inertia is still driving the bow down as the seas rise 100 feet. The bridge superstructure is impacted and often the windows are blown in and the bridge, with all its electronics, is flooded.
 
If that causes the engines to fail, the ship will probably sink. That is because the waves and wind will then turn the ship broadside to the waves. When a ship is broadside to the waves, it will either get rolled and sink or get holed by the force of a giant wave. Whether it sinks  or not depends on how long the severe sea state continues. This ship was hit broadside by a "rogue" wave, but survived.


Thirty meter waves have a force of about 100 tons per square meter, depending on the frequency and period of the wave. Waves of the same height with a higher frequency and shorter period are traveling faster, so they have much more force.

1976: The oil tanker Cretan Star in Indian Ocean off Bombay radios for help: “Vessel was struck by a huge wave that went over the deck.” The ship is never heard from again. The only sign of the vessel's fate was 6 km oil slick.

http://ycaol.com/demons_of_the_deep2.htm

1980: A huge wave was reported to have slammed into the oil tanker Esso Languedoc off the east coast of South Africa. First mate Philippe Lijour, aboard the supertanker Esso Languedoc, took this rare photo.

http://www.theartofdredging.com/roguewaves.htm



1981: A giant wave seemed to want to teach a crude oil tanker named "Energy Endurance" (Gross tonnage, 97,005 tons. DWT, 205,808 tons) what REAL energy endurance is all about.

http://migciao.blogspot.com/2007/10/vagues-scelerates.html


There is no amount of cargo that a large vessel can safely carry under these conditions, regardless of the design claims about "safe" DWT tonnage for cargo and tanker ships you read about earlier in this article. 

Where are the largest waves found?

The largest waves are found in the open ocean. Waves continue to get larger as they move and absorb energy from the wind.
 
http://www.angelfire.com/crazy2/nur_filzah/new_page_2.htm

Waves at Sea

Waves at sea are created by winds blowing across the water surface and transferring energy to the water by the impact of the air. Small ripples develop first, and frictional drag on their windward side causes then to grow larger, or to collapse and contribute part of their expended energy to larger waves.

Consequently, large waves capture increasing amounts of energy and continue to develop as long as the wind maintains sufficient strength and constant direction.

As more and more energy is transferred to the water surface. waves become higher and longer, and travel with increasing velocities; 50-foot waves are not uncommon in the open ocean, and waves more than 100 feet high have been reported.

http://www2.fiu.edu/~kpanneer/lab_assignment/Lab8_Waves.pdf

2002: December 15, 2002, MS Hanseatic of the Radisson Seven Seas was struck by a large rogue wave while on a coastal cruise of New Zealand.
http://freaquewaves.blogspot.com/2006/07/list-of-freaque-wave-encounters.html



Above you see a scale simulation of two small vessels in 50 ft. seas. The wavelength is fairly large, so these vessels are handling a very dangerous sea state okay. The wave is 50 feet from crest to trough. The danger increases when the wind gets stronger. That is because the wind increases the wave height and the wave frequency while the wavelength gets shorter.

When large waves are present, the shorter the wavelength, the steeper and more dangerous the wave. And, as mentioned earlier, a higher frequency of large waves makes them even more dangerous because they have much more energy to be delivered as a force against the hull of a ship. It is simple physics that getting hit with a wall of water at 44 mph is potentially far, far more than twice as damaging as the same wall of water hitting you at 22 mph.

Larger vessels, while generally more sea worthy, have weaknesses that small vessels do not have. A small vessel with properly battened hatches can bob like a cork in a storm. In the above situation, the sail boat would probably have the sails reefed (taken in). It will survive as long as it isn't smashed against a reef or a rock. 

But a large vessel, because it is much longer than it is wide, is weakest in the middle and along the sides from bow to stern. The bow and stern act as giant levers moved by the wave crests and troughs with the fulcrum located somewhere in the middle.

The middle either sags or it "hogs" (bends up instead of down). There is no ship that can be made strong enough to handle the massive metal fatigue inducing stresses of repeated sagging and hogging that would occur in seas populated with 30 meter waves. Here is an example of a container ship that hit a reef. It did not sink right away. But you can see that it buckled and cra cked on the side from the up, down and sideways wave movement of the ends of the ship.


Individual "rogue waves" (also called "freak waves", "monster waves", "killer waves", and "king waves") much higher than the other waves in the sea state can occur.

NOAA ship Delaware II in bad weather on Georges Bank.
Quote

... the largest ever recorded wind waves are common — not rogue — waves in extreme sea states.


For example: 29.1 m (95 ft) high waves have been recorded on the RRS Discovery in a sea with 18.5 m (61 ft) significant wave height, so the highest wave is only 1.6 times the significant wave height.
Quote
The biggest recorded by a buoy (as of 2011) was 32.3 m (106 ft) high during the 2007 typhoon Krosa near Taiwan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_wave


Giants of the Oceans

Naval architects have always worked on the assumption that their vessels are extremely unlikely to encounter a rogue. Almost everything on the sea is sailing under the false assumption that rogue waves are, at worst, vanishingly rare events. The new research suggest that’s wrong, and has cost lives. Between 1969 and 1994 twenty-two super carriers were lost or severely damaged due to the occurrence of sudden rogue waves; a total of 542 lives were lost as a result.

G. Lawton. Monsters of the deep. New Scientist, 170(2297):28–32, 2001.

Freak, rogue or giant waves correspond to large-amplitude waves surprisingly appearing on the sea surface. Such waves can be accompanied by deep troughs (holes), which occur before and/or after the largest crest.

There are several definitions for such surprisingly huge waves, but the one that is more popular now is the amplitude criterion of freak waves, which define them as waves with heights that exceed at least twice the significant wave height. The significant height is the height of at least one third of the largest waves in a given area being traversed by a ship.


According to orthodox oceanography, rogue waves are so rare that no ship or oil platform should ever expect to encounter one. But as the shipping lanes fill with supercarriers and the oil and gas industry explores ever-deeper parts of the ocean, rogue waves are being reported far more often than they should.

The most spectacular sighting of recent years is probably the so-called New Year Wave, which hit Statoil’s Draupner gas platforms in the North Sea on New Year’s Day 1995. The significant wave height at the time was around 12 metres. But in the middle of the afternoon the platform was struck by something much bigger. According to measurements made with a laser, it was 26 metres from trough to crest.

Hundreds of waves been recorded by now that are at least twice the significant wave height, and several waves at larger than three times the significant wave height. Waves with an "Abnormality index" (Ai) larger than three (Ai > 3) are known.

Alexey Slunyaev Christin Kharif, Efim Pelinovsky. Rogue Waves in the Ocean. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.


The New Year Wave is an example of a wave with an Ai = 3.19.


Christian Kharif and Efim Pelinovsky. Physical mechanisms of the rogue wave phenomenon. European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids, 22(6):603 – 634, 2003.

I obtained the above information from a paper submitted to the mathematics department of the University of Arizona. Here is a summary:

"In this project, the rogue wave phenomenon is introduced along with its importance. The main equations governing both linear and nonlinear theory are presented. The three main linear theories proposed to explain the rogue rave phenomenon are presented and a linear model reproducing rogue waves due to dispersion is shown. A nonlinear model for rogue waves in shallow water is also exhibited."

I have skipped the math. The information is state of the art and the references are impeccable.

References
[1] Alexey Slunyaev Christin Kharif, Efim Pelinovsky. Rogue Waves in the Ocean. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.

[2] K.B. Dysthe, HE Krogstad, H. Socquet-Juglard, and K. Trulsen. Freak waves, rogue waves, extreme waves and ocean wave climate. Mathematics Departments in Bergen and Oslo, Norway. Available at: www. math. uio. no/-karstent/waves/index_ en. html, July, 2007.

[3] R.S. Johnson. A modern introduction to the mathematical theory of water waves. Cambridge Univ Pr, 997.

[4] Christian Kharif and Efim Pelinovsky. Physical mechanisms of the rogue wave phenomenon. European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids, 22(6):603 – 634, 2003.

[5] G. Lawton. Monsters of the deep. New Scientist, 170(2297):28–32, 2001.

[6] Pengzhi Lin. Numerical Modeling of Water Waves. Taylor and Francis, 2008. 13

And that is why the conclusions are so unsettling.

Conclusions

1. Precise physical mechanisms causing the rogue waves phenomenon remain unknown.

2. Rogue waves should be considered when designing ships and marine platforms to reduce the number of vessels sunk worldwide.

http://math.arizona.edu/~gabitov/teaching/101/math_485_585/Midterm_Reports/RogueWaves_Midterm.pdf

Ocean Ranger severely listing in a storm after being hit by a "rogue" wave.

Ironically, the first industry that started to feel the effects of an angrier ocean was the fossil fuel industry. You've already read about some oil tanker damage and losses. They continue to this day despite alleged vessel "design improvements".

But the 120 million dollar "unsinkable" Ocean Ranger, a giant ocean going oil platform damaged from a "rogue" wave, really got their attention. All hands perished. This was a wake up call to the scientists that studied waves and was of much concern to the fossil fuel industry.

The wave hit too high and damaged some electronics. The platform began to list. The operator made the right moves but the valves that should have closed, opened more. The last that was heard from them was that they were listing at about 15 degrees and going to the lifeboat stations.

Ocean Ranger reported experiencing storm seas of 55 feet (17 m), with the odd wave up to 65 feet (20 m), thus leaving the unprotected portlight at 28 feet (8.5 m) above mean sea level vulnerable to wave damage. Some time after 21:00, radio conversations originating on Ocean Ranger were heard on the Sedco 706 and Zapata Ugland, noting that valves on Ocean Ranger's ballast control panel appeared to be opening and closing of their own accord. The radio conversations also discussed the 100-knot (190 km/h) winds and waves up to 65 feet (20 m) high. Through the remainder of the evening, routine radio traffic passed between Ocean Ranger, its neighbouring rigs and their individual support boats. Nothing out of the ordinary was noted.


At 00:52 local time, on 15 February, 1982, a Mayday call was sent out from Ocean Ranger, noting a severe list to the port side of the rig and requesting immediate assistance. This was the first communication from Ocean Ranger identifying a major problem. The standby vessel, the M/V Seaforth Highlander, was requested to come in close as countermeasures against the 10–15-degree list were proving ineffective.

The onshore MOCAN supervisor was notified of the situation, and the Canadian Forces and Mobil-operated helicopters were alerted just after 1:00 local time. The M/V Boltentor and the M/V Nordertor, the standby boats of the Sedco 706 and the Zapata Ugland respectively, were also dispatched to Ocean Ranger to provide assistance.

At 1:30 local time, Ocean Ranger transmitted its last message: "There will be no further radio communications from Ocean Ranger. We are going to lifeboat stations." Shortly thereafter, in the middle of the night and in the midst of severe winter weather, the crew abandoned the rig. The rig remained afloat for another ninety minutes, sinking between 3:07 and 3:13 local time.

All of Ocean Ranger sank beneath the Atlantic: by the next morning all that remained was a few buoys. Her entire complement of 84 workers – 46 Mobil employees and 38 contractors from various service companies – were killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Ranger

It turns out that the math formulas for wave action were incorrect. But it took over a decade to get some proof that they were incorrect. The fossil fuel industry apparently filed the tragedy away as a freak incident. They certainly did not seem that concerned, considering they did everything possible to keep from having to build more sturdy (i.e. double hulled) tankers with the help of the Reagan and the first Bush Administration.

Scientists, up until the 1980's, had believed that it was impossible for an ocean wave on this planet to be higher than 80 feet. This, despite eye witness accounts from mariners to the contrary. As usual, the non-credentialed folks could not convince the scientists that there were waves out there that exceeded 100 feet.

AND that those waves appeared in seas that were only half as high (or less) as the giant wave(s) (sometimes they came in a group of three - they call them the three sisters - the women always get the blame - lol!). Impossible, proclaimed the scientist worthies. Fish tales! 

But in 1995, a laser wave height measuring device on an oil platform provided the first concrete evidence that the happy math was wishful thinking. :P You saw the graph of the 1995 New Year Wave earlier in this article. In this video it is modelled in 3D.


As you all know, when the fossil fuel industry wants action, it gets action. And it gets government funded action that you and I pay for and they don't pay a penny for. But I digress. ;D Faster that you can say fossil fuel profits are threatened, a three week satellite survey of the oceans was undertaken. Four giant waves were observed and measured in just three weeks! 

Not only was the math wrong, but, as referenced earlier in this article, "rogue" waves were not really "rogue" at all!

Of course, at that time, no connection to wave activity and global warming had been established.

Snark alert.  ;D Yes, it's true that scientists are taught, like all the rest of us that cook every now and then, that warmer waters can be a bit more turbulent, but it's a big ocean out there, right?

Well, the attitude of the scientific community is changing, at least in regard to these giant waves.

The cause of rogue waves is still an area of active research. One theory under investigation cites “constructive interference,” which is a result of several smaller waves overlapping in phase, combining to produce one massive wave. Another working hypothesis is based on the “non-linear Schrödinger effect,” in which energy is “soaked up” from neighboring waves to create a monster wave. Still other researchers are looking into the possibility that wave energy is being focused by the surrounding environments, or that wind action on the surface is amplifying existing effects.

http://www.damninteresting.com/monster-rogue-waves/
 

Suggested mechanisms for the formation of freak waves include the following:


http://www.theartofdredging.com/roguewaves.htm

End of PART TWO.

If you missed PART ONE, you may read it HERE.

You may read the final part at the link below.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART THREE


« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 08:32:32 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #363 on: October 29, 2015, 08:55:23 pm »
Part II of the Wave Article was very interesting!  :icon_sunny:

"We're going to need a smaller boat".  lol.

Now, if you had the available energy and resources to do it, the solution would be to stop building your Supertankers and Cargo Ships as Surface Vessels, but rather build them as large Submarines that operate at say around the 300' below mean sea level depth.  This would keep them out of the way of even the largest of rogue waves.

RE

I address that problem in PART THREE in the conclusions. The problem is rather intractable.

SNIPPET:

If the ships cannot handle the seas (NO ship is designed, or can cost effectively be designed, to handle anywhere near 100 tons per square meter of force on her hull), shipping itself will no longer be cost effective unless cargo ships morph into cargo submarines. The cost of doing that is staggering. Even if they designed them to ride just beneath the wave turbulence, they still would have to submerge to one half the wavelength of ocean waves.

Quote
Deep-Water Waves
If the water depth (d) is greater then the wave base (equal to one-half the wavelength, or L/2), the waves are called deep-water waves. Deep-water waves have no interference with the ocean bottom, so they include all wind-generated waves in the open ocean. Submarines can avoid large ocean waves by submerging below the wave basehttp://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php?action=post2;start=0;board=2

PART THREE will be published by November 1. Expect Palloy to scoff.  ::)

So once again I am labelled with "defenders of the fossil fuel **** status quo", when what I am saying is that Peak Fossils will let us all down.  That's the FIFTH time you've done it, since I put you right.  Maybe you don't have any other response to criticism of your methodology.  I'm NOT arguing from the point of view that Climate Change isn't true.  I'm NOT arguing that the models are wrong (although you are).   I'm arguing that Peak Fossils makes all IPCC's (and your) predictions of fossil fuel burning WRONG.

Not only WILL Peak Fossils let down BAU, but it will let down RCP8.5, RCP6.0, RCP4.5 and RCP2.6 and all IPCC's forecasts, even though the models are strictly correct.  It's all a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out - Fossil Fuel production rates will be nothing like what they forecast.  What is it about that that you don't understand ?

Look at the charts I provided and answer the questions beneath them.

I HAVE looked at the charts. YOU apparently HAVEN'T.  Get this, pal, your assertion that the collapse is going to take care of the warming trend is not based on GHG climate cause and effect science.

You pull out the IPCC RCP scenarios showing LESS burning of fossil fuels as some kind of "proof" that the RCP-8.5 scenario is "alarmist".

Which shows how biased you are when you LOOK at the scenarios. Yes, the ICPP set up those scenarios BASED ON the tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere. But the COMBINATION of different fossil fuels used in decreasing quantities that they point to in the scenarios besides the RCP-8.5 "Business as Usual" (THEIR TERM, NOT MINE!) is IRRELEVANT because their modeled AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE EXCLUDES METHANE CLATHRATES and a greater than 6 METER sea level rise.

YOU claim that "IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN" because of the collapse.

Let's be clear about the FALSE CORRELATION you are setting up between the coming collapse, something we both agree will happen, and the REDUCTION in AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE.

You labor under the incredibly, and unscientific, optimistic view that the PRESENT 400PPM of CO2 is no big deal.

The Dutton et al paper alone, published in July of this year, is evidence that the RCP-8.5 scenario, you know ,the one you call "alarmist", is TOO CONSERVATIVE.

And it's not too conservative because of the math on what combination of fossil fuels is used or sh it canned, as you want to believe with all your might, but because the CO2PPM in the atmosphere AT PRESENT will lead us to ΔT = 4C within 85 years, EVEN IF WE STOP BURNING ALL FOSSIL FUELS TODAY!

You do not get that. You do not want to get that. You think the collapse will take care of the warming issue. You point at all the happy math PROJECTIONS by the IPCC as some kind of "proof". Good luck with that.

And no, I am NOT basing all my projections on the IPCC-8.5 Business as Usual scenario. I am basing them on Hansen et al and Dutton et al!

I agree that we will not be able to burn the fossil fuels in that scenario, as well as the other scenarios you brought up,  due to the coming collapse.

As of NOW, we are locked in to a HIGHER average global temperature than even the IPCC-8.5 scenario projects. The CORRELATION between CO2 concentration and average global temperature is so ridiculously optimistic in that scenario that it is pathetic.

You are free to hang on to your quaint belief that the reduction in the combination of fossil fuels used due to the collapse will take care of the temperature increase. But Hansen et al and Dutton et al make a mockery of that bit of wishful thinking.

And, so far, you haven't even provided any evidence of a reduction in the RATE of INCREASE of CO2 pollution, never mind the increase itself. So all you have is a false correlation/equivalence between the different RCPs the IPCC has modeled and the increase or not of global temperature.

Because of positive feedbacks, the modeling departed a scientifically valid correlation/causation after the turn of the century (possibly earlier).

THIS (see below) is the present global reality. When you can show me that has changed, we can discuss when the temperature increase SLOPE is going to BEGIN to flatten. I can guarantee you that it will NOT be in less than one or two CENTURIES! 

Nearly 7,000,000,000 MT of CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere year to date!

Crude oil production year to date is over 26 billon barrels!

Coal is over 6 billion MT!

And only a TINY bit of ethanol is being produced in comparison.   


Stats at link.
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #364 on: October 29, 2015, 08:56:38 pm »
The China Containerized Freight Index is already at its lowest point ever since they started calculating that index.  They are mothballing container ships by the platform full.


Note:  I would love to see the crane that got those ships stacked up like that.  That has to be one big ass crane.

There will probably still be some coastal trade going on in small boats, but the big tankers full of Oil and the big Container Ships loaded with Toys from China are going to be in mothballs long before we get to 4C.

RE

GO posts some amazing pix every AM, but this is the damnedest photo I have seen in a long time. FWIW.


 

RE,
Well said! Fantastic picture!          

I saw one of those giant cranes in a video on salvage. They use these long giant cables with a type of abrasive as hard as diamonds to saw sunken ships into pieces when they are just too heavy to pull up in one piece. Then this huge crane with umpteen pulleys SLOWLY lifts the section and puts it on a large floating barge.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #365 on: October 29, 2015, 10:01:55 pm »
Abrupt climate change can occur below 2°C warming rise
Sudden shifts in settled climates can occur long before global warming reaches the internationally-agreed safety level, European scientists say.


Climate change could arrive with startling speed. New research has identified at least 37 “tipping points” that would serve as evidence that climate change has happened – and happened abruptly in one particular region.

And 18 of them could happen even before the world warms by an average of 2°C,  the proposed “safe limit” for global warming.
Weather is what happens, climate is what people grow to expect from the weather. So climate change, driven by global warming as a consequence of rising carbon dioxide levels, in response to more than a century of fossil fuel combustion, could be – for many people – gradual, imperceptible and difficult to identify immediately.

But Sybren Drijfhout, of the University of Southampton in the UK and his collaborators in France, the Netherlands and Germany, are not so sure.

They report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they “screened” the massive ensemble of climate models that inform the most recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and found evidence of abrupt regional changes in the ocean, the sea ice, the snow cover, the permafrost and in the terrestrial biosphere that could happen as average global temperatures reached a certain level.

The models did not all simulate the same outcomes, but most of them did predict one or more abrupt regional shifts.

No safe limit
But the future is not an exact science. “Our results show that the different state-of-the-art models agree that abrupt changes are likely, but that predicting when and where they will occur remains very difficult,” said Professor Drijfhout.

“Also, our results show that no safe limit exists and that many abrupt shifts already occur for global warming levels much lower than two degrees.”

The idea of a “tipping point” for climate change has been around for decades: the hypothesis is that a climate regime endures – perhaps with an increasing frequency of heat waves or windstorms or floods – as the average temperatures rise. However, at some point, there must be a dramatic shift to a new set of norms.

The researchers explore some of the telltale indicators of such abrupt change. One of these would be the wholesale collapse of the Arctic Ocean winter ice: the Arctic is expected to be largely ice-free most summers in the next few decades. Winter ice would then become increasingly thin. Once sufficiently thin, warming and wave power would do the rest, and tend to leave clear blue water even in the coldest seasons.

Another indicator would involve massive unexpected plankton blooms in the Indian Ocean as a consequence of an upwelling of nutrient-rich waters from the ocean bottom, in response to changes in the Asian monsoon regime.

A third would involve massive snow melt on the Tibetan plateau: in 20 years, the annual average snow cover could fall from 400 kilograms per square metre to a trifling 50kg.

A fourth signal would be massive dieback in the Amazon rainforest over a few decades, mainly because of reduced rainfall.

Early signs
Yet another telltale aspect of climate change has already been addressed by Professor  Drijfhout. It would be the sudden, paradoxical dramatic drop in temperatures in the North Atlantic, as a response to global warming and a collapse of the ocean current that carries warm surface water north, while denser, colder and increasingly more saline water in the Arctic sinks to the bottom and flows back southward. This “overturning circulation” has already seemed to weaken as the Arctic has warmed.

In one of the team’s climate model simulations, the Atlantic circulation system keeps ticking over until about 2020. For another 20 years, sea and air temperatures vary wildly and the ocean current weakens much more swiftly. After about 2040, ice starts to form on the North Atlantic. By 2060, the circulation system has collapsed and the sea ice starts to spread.

“Increase of sea ice in the whole Atlantic sector of the Arctic causes a temperature decrease of more than 4 °C in a 20°-wide latitude band (55°N−75°N), stretching from 60°W to 40°E”, the scientists say. South of 40°N and outside the Atlantic, global warming continues. Only a portion of oceans in northern Europe would see dramatic cooling.

But that is a result from only one model of a number which predict varying levels of change for Europe.

The researchers add that the models aren’t perfect: they don’t simulate some things that really could happen, and perhaps show signs of happening now. They conclude: “An additional concern is that the present generation of climate models still does not account for several mechanisms that could potentially give rise to abrupt change.

“This includes ice sheet collapse, permafrost carbon decomposition, and methane hydrates release.”


http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/E5777.abstract

for this post.

Those of us, like you, who care are in a war with this of us who don't.

World War CO2

Why Dianoia is sine qua non to a Viable Biosphere.

Our Responsibility to Future Generations



[/quote]
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #366 on: October 29, 2015, 10:19:38 pm »
MKing said to Fenixor,
Quote
Look at this picture, and tell me that we haven't already survived the majority of ice sheet disintegration. You really think after having beaten THAT much ice melting, we can't handle the little bit that is left?


I see the fossil fueler MKing is, ONCE AGAIN, doing his "we will adapt to that" Rex Tillerson imitation.  ::)

SNIPPET from PART ONE of my recent climate change article:

Non-self aware mammalian vertebrates, unlike us, cannot use technology to adapt. This is the part the CEO of ExxonMobil (Rex Tillerson) forgot accidentally on purpose when he said, "We will adapt to that". Mr. Tillerson is an idiot or a liar (possibly both). Those "qualities" seem to be a job requirement for those that work in the fossil fuel industry.

Mr. Tillerson's optimistic happy talk is not based on climate science or the geological record.

Quote
"Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago."

http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART ONE of Three Parts
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #367 on: October 30, 2015, 02:41:18 pm »
  South Africa Sets Earth’s Hottest October Temperature on Record: 119°F   
 


Jeff Masters, Weather Underground | October 30, 2015 10:17 am

Earth’s hottest temperature ever recorded in the month of October occurred on Tuesday, Oct. 27 in South Africa, when Vredendal hit a remarkable 48.4°C (119.1°F). According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is also the highest temperature ever observed at Vredendal and the third highest temperature in South African history.

The new global October heat record was made possible by a “Berg wind” — a hot dry wind blowing down the Great Escarpment from the high central plateau to the coast. As the air descended it warmed via adiabatic compression, causing the record heat. These sorts of foehn winds are commonly responsible for all-time record temperatures; mainland Antarctica’s all-time record high of 17.5°C (63.5°F), set on March 24, was due, in part, to a foehn wind (see wunderground weather historian Christopher C. Burt’s blog post on this).

According to Herrera, the previous world October heat record of 47.3°C was set at Campo Gallo, Argentina on Oct. 16 1936, and South Africa’s highest reliable temperature for any month is 48.8°C (119.8°F), recorded at Vioosdrif in January 1993.

Five-minute resolution plot of the temperature at Vredendal (at link), South Africa on Oct. 27, when the station hit a remarkable 48.4°C (119.1°F)—an all-time record for the planet for the month of October. Photo credit: South African Weather Service / Gail Linnow

Five-minute resolution plot of the temperature at Vredendal, South Africa on Oct. 27, when the station hit a remarkable 48.4°C (119.1°F)—an all-time record for the planet for the month of October. Photo credit: South African Weather Service / Gail Linnow

In the Arabian Sea, Tropical Cyclone Chapala has spun up to hurricane strength, with top winds of 75 mph estimated at 8 a.m. EDT Thursday by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Chapala is expected to take advantage of low wind shear, warm ocean waters near 30°C (86°F) and favorable upper-level outflow to intensify into a Category 4 storm by Sunday. Thereafter, weakening is likely as the storm encounters higher wind shear, lower oceanic heat content and interaction with land. Chapala is likely to make landfall on Monday in a sparsely populated area near the border of Yemen and Oman.

Tropical Cyclone Chapala as seen by the VIIRS instrument at 08:30 UTC October 29, 2015. At the time, Chapala was intensifying from a tropical storm with 65 mph winds to a Category 1 storm with 75 mph winds. Photo credit: NOAA / RAMMB

Tropical Cyclone Chapala as seen by the VIIRS instrument at 08:30 UTC October 29, 2015. At the time, Chapala was intensifying from a tropical storm with 65 mph winds to a Category 1 storm with 75 mph winds. Photo credit: NOAA / RAMMB (at link)

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/30/south-africa-record-temp/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #368 on: October 30, 2015, 03:21:37 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Remember folks, it's Spring in South Africa now.  8)

South Africa Sets Earth’s Hottest October Temperature on Record: 119°F   
 


Jeff Masters, Weather Underground | October 30, 2015 10:17 am

Earth’s hottest temperature ever recorded in the month of October occurred on Tuesday, Oct. 27 in South Africa, when Vredendal hit a remarkable 48.4°C (119.1°F). According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is also the highest temperature ever observed at Vredendal and the third highest temperature in South African history.

The new global October heat record was made possible by a “Berg wind” — a hot dry wind blowing down the Great Escarpment from the high central plateau to the coast. As the air descended it warmed via adiabatic compression, causing the record heat. These sorts of foehn winds are commonly responsible for all-time record temperatures; mainland Antarctica’s all-time record high of 17.5°C (63.5°F), set on March 24, was due, in part, to a foehn wind (see wunderground weather historian Christopher C. Burt’s blog post on this).

According to Herrera, the previous world October heat record of 47.3°C was set at Campo Gallo, Argentina on Oct. 16 1936, and South Africa’s highest reliable temperature for any month is 48.8°C (119.8°F), recorded at Vioosdrif in January 1993.

Five-minute resolution plot of the temperature at Vredendal (at link), South Africa on Oct. 27, when the station hit a remarkable 48.4°C (119.1°F)—an all-time record for the planet for the month of October. Photo credit: South African Weather Service / Gail Linnow

In the Arabian Sea, Tropical Cyclone Chapala has spun up to hurricane strength, with top winds of 75 mph estimated at 8 a.m. EDT Thursday by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Chapala is expected to take advantage of low wind shear, warm ocean waters near 30°C (86°F) and favorable upper-level outflow to intensify into a Category 4 storm by Sunday. Thereafter, weakening is likely as the storm encounters higher wind shear, lower oceanic heat content and interaction with land. Chapala is likely to make landfall on Monday in a sparsely populated area near the border of Yemen and Oman.

Tropical Cyclone Chapala as seen by the VIIRS instrument at 08:30 UTC October 29, 2015. At the time, Chapala was intensifying from a tropical storm with 65 mph winds to a Category 1 storm with 75 mph winds. Photo credit: NOAA / RAMMB

Tropical Cyclone Chapala as seen by the VIIRS instrument at 08:30 UTC October 29, 2015. At the time, Chapala was intensifying from a tropical storm with 65 mph winds to a Category 1 storm with 75 mph winds. Photo credit: NOAA / RAMMB (at link)

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/30/south-africa-record-temp/

Agelbert Comment:
These studies further confirm the reality that burning fossil fuels is poisoning the biosphere. 

Global civilization is threatened within 25 years.

The  Hansen et al June 2015 study * and the Dutton et al July 2015 study ** evidences a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400PPM. As of October of 2015, the CO2 concentration is at 400PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.  

*Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-
© Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming is highly dangerous 

J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5,
G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9,
K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and
K.-W. Lo3,4



** Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods

A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #369 on: October 30, 2015, 05:43:36 pm »
AG, you accuse me several times of saying that Collapse will save us from Climate Change.  I have said that elsewhere, but in this thread I have only said Peak Fossils will save us from Climate Change.  There is a big difference - the Peak Fossils scenario at least has us burning all the FFs we can extract until it has all gone, Collapse would leave most of the remaining FFs still in the ground.

So there is a spectrum of forecasts of FF burning, that runs from low to high:
Collapse, Peak Fossils, RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, RCP8.5, Dutton
I believe Collapse is the most likely, and Peak Fossils is the very worst we could experience.  You believe Dutton is right (or perhaps you  believe even that is too conservative).  I just wonder where you think all those FFs are going to come from.

The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing?  What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.

Quote
Quote
Palloy:     Look at the charts I provided and answer the questions beneath them.
...
Do you really imagine that the amount of oil extracted in 2050 is going to be 70% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of gas extracted in 2070 is going to be 310% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of coal extracted in 2090 is going to be 155% of 2010 levels?

AG: I HAVE looked at the charts. YOU apparently HAVEN'T.

Huh? What is THAT supposed to mean? - I haven't looked at my own charts?
No, you haven't looked at my charts (of RCP2.6), and you haven't answered any of the questions.  Anyone that understands Peak Fossils would know that those charts are way too high.

It follows that RCP2.6's forecast for maximum temperature rise of +1.6°C (range 1.2 - 1.9) is way too high.  Anyone can see that.  What you don't want to do is admit that because of Peak Fossils, Climate Change is not a top priority.  +1.6°C probably will have some unpleasant consequences, but it is not catastrophic.

So let me try to get to the crux of this.  Do you believe in Peak Fossils?  I know MKing doesn't, but how about you, AG ?

Palloy SAID:
Quote
What you don't want to do is admit that because of Peak Fossils, Climate Change is not a top priority.  +1.6°C probably will have some unpleasant consequences, but it is not catastrophic.

I am convinced there will be a collapse. I am convinced that the use of fossil fuels will be reduced by said collapse, but not one second before the collapse. I AGREE with MKing that there is no way in hell that we will EVER "run out" of fossil fuels. Sure, the "cheap" stuff is gone, but SO WHAT? Are you going to start with MKing's "supply and demand" horsesh it? The issue here is CO2 pollution damage, NOT whether we can find more hydrocarbons to burn. But you just cannot believe that because you are so enthralled by the "strictly correct" IPCC models happy talk.

Your post above is confirmation that

A) you think collapse will save our bacon (you even posted that the collapse would take care of the fossil fuel "problem" to me once - I'll dig it up if you like. ) and

B) you do not understand or accept the relationship of the PRESENT 400CO2PPM concentration in the atmosphere with average global temperature and sea level rise over the next 85 years as evidenced by these two studies.

And it will get a lot worse, according to two recent studies by credentialed climate scientists.  

These studies further confirm the reality that burning fossil fuels is poisoning the biosphere. 

Global civilization is threatened within 25 years.

The  Hansen et al June 2015 study * and the Dutton et al July 2015 study ** evidence a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400PPM. As of October of 2015, the CO2 concentration is at 400PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.  

*Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-
© Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming is highly dangerous 

J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5,
G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9,
K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and
K.-W. Lo3,4



** Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods

A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9

Palloy SAID:
Quote
The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing? What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.


No, Palloy the amount of methane effects on temperature increase modeled are much less than the latest accurate estimates. The Dutton model is the one that is STILL too conservative!

WHAT PART of "ANOTHER USA in equivalent emissions" (see video below) do you think is in ANY of the models? NONE! Model THAT!

CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDxw0PcRgE0&feature=player_embedded


Your "strictly correct" precious models (see circular argument) are happy talk IN and happy talk OUT. You mathematicians were convinced waves couldn't get higher that 80 feet or so on planet Earth. The waves was just a bit of math stupidity, but the IPCC models are far more egregious. 

The FACT that every single model, including the most "alarmist" RCP-8.5 Business as Usual scenario, was subject to MASSAGING by government lawyer(s) defending GDP fossil fuel fun and games has been DOCUMENTED by luminaries from the IPCC itself has apparently no importance to you. I have posted about that. I guess you missed that.  ;)

The ice retreat models ensemble MEAN predicted the 2012 retreat to occur in 2060! ONE STANDARD DEVIATION on the "alarmist" side predicted it in 2048. WTF is with you trying to make a case that these models are anything but happy talk, HUH?

And one more thing, Palloy, EQUILIBRIUM on these deleterious effects has been ERRONEOULY modeled as taking CENTURIES, not decades. But I expect you to try to talk your way around Dutton with the , "it takes centuries to reach equilibrium"    happy talk that has already been totally discredited.

What Dutton predicts is baked in LONG before 2100. I do not care if you do not wish to believe it. That's your prerogative. But the next 25 years will prove that even Dutton is too conservative.


Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #370 on: October 30, 2015, 07:19:41 pm »
Quote
... In the words of Michael Le Page from The New Scientist:

Whatever we do now, the seas will rise by at least 5 metres. Most of Florida and many other low-lying areas and cities around the world are doomed to go under. If that weren’t bad enough, without drastic cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions–more drastic than any being discussed ahead of the critical climate meeting in Paris later this year—a rise of 20 metres will soon be unavoidable.

The arithmetic is pretty depressing (chart from New Scientist article): 0.4 metres for mountain glaciers, plus 0.8 metres for ocean thermal expansion, plus 3.5 metres for the West Antarctic ice sheet (the areas in orange in the chart below). If we go past 2 degrees Celsius of warming and get to 4 degrees, then we add all the blue bars as well.


http://therationalpessimist.com/tag/ipcc/

IPCC HAPPY (i.e. move along, this is no "big deal" - don't worry your GDP about it.    ;)) SEA LEVEL TINY INCREASE GRAPHS:


Agelbert NOTE: ANYONE, especially Palloy, who claims that "equilibrium" sea level increase time for CO2 concentration PPM effects to fully apply is "properly" modeled in CENTURIES, not decades, also believes the IPCC model(S) (ALL OF THEM as averaged) of ice retreat level for 2060 that occurred in 2012 were "strictly correct".   


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #371 on: October 30, 2015, 08:28:41 pm »
Palloy SAID:
Quote
The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing? What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.


So, is Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes an "alarmist" too. Palloy?  ;)

Quote

"It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror." --  Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes



Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming


 
A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesn’t adequately account for a methane warming feedback

SNIPPET:


To put this in perspective, permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere. In the rapidly warming Arctic (warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole), the upper layers of this frozen soil begin to thaw, allowing deposited organic material to decompose. The plant material, which has accumulated over thousands of years, is concentrated in to upper layers (half of it is in the top 10 feet). There is a network of monitoring stations that are measuring ground temperatures have detected a significant heating trend over the past few decades and so has the active layer thickness.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #372 on: October 31, 2015, 03:29:38 pm »
AG, you accuse me several times of saying that Collapse will save us from Climate Change.  I have said that elsewhere, but in this thread I have only said Peak Fossils will save us from Climate Change.  There is a big difference - the Peak Fossils scenario at least has us burning all the FFs we can extract until it has all gone, Collapse would leave most of the remaining FFs still in the ground.

So there is a spectrum of forecasts of FF burning, that runs from low to high:
Collapse, Peak Fossils, RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, RCP8.5, Dutton
I believe Collapse is the most likely, and Peak Fossils is the very worst we could experience.  You believe Dutton is right (or perhaps you  believe even that is too conservative).  I just wonder where you think all those FFs are going to come from.

The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing?  What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.

Quote
Quote
Palloy:     Look at the charts I provided and answer the questions beneath them.
...
Do you really imagine that the amount of oil extracted in 2050 is going to be 70% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of gas extracted in 2070 is going to be 310% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of coal extracted in 2090 is going to be 155% of 2010 levels?

AG: I HAVE looked at the charts. YOU apparently HAVEN'T.

Huh? What is THAT supposed to mean? - I haven't looked at my own charts?
No, you haven't looked at my charts (of RCP2.6), and you haven't answered any of the questions.  Anyone that understands Peak Fossils would know that those charts are way too high.

It follows that RCP2.6's forecast for maximum temperature rise of +1.6°C (range 1.2 - 1.9) is way too high.  Anyone can see that.  What you don't want to do is admit that because of Peak Fossils, Climate Change is not a top priority.  +1.6°C probably will have some unpleasant consequences, but it is not catastrophic.

So let me try to get to the crux of this.  Do you believe in Peak Fossils?  I know MKing doesn't, but how about you, AG ?

Palloy SAID:
Quote
What you don't want to do is admit that because of Peak Fossils, Climate Change is not a top priority.  +1.6°C probably will have some unpleasant consequences, but it is not catastrophic.

I am convinced there will be a collapse. I am convinced that the use of fossil fuels will be reduced by said collapse, but not one second before the collapse. I AGREE with MKing that there is no way in hell that we will EVER "run out" of fossil fuels. Sure, the "cheap" stuff is gone, but SO WHAT? Are you going to start with MKing's "supply and demand" horsehockey? The issue here is CO2 pollution damage, NOT whether we can find more hydrocarbons to burn. But you just cannot believe that because you are so enthralled by the "strictly correct" IPCC models happy talk.

Your post above is confirmation that

A) you think collapse will save our bacon (you even posted that the collapse would take care of the fossil fuel "problem" to me once - I'll dig it up if you like.     ) and

B) you do not understand or accept the relationship of the PRESENT 400CO2PPM concentration in the atmosphere with average global temperature and sea level rise over the next 85 years as evidenced by these two studies.

And it will get a lot worse, according to two recent studies by credentialed climate scientists.  

These studies further confirm the reality that burning fossil fuels is poisoning the biosphere. 

Global civilization is threatened within 25 years.

The  Hansen <i>et al</i> June 2015 study * and the Dutton <i>et al</i> July 2015 study ** evidence a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400PPM. As of October of 2015, the CO2 concentration is at 400PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.  

<b>*</b>Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-
© Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 

<b>Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming is highly dangerous</b><i> 

J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5,
G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9,
K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and
K.-W. Lo3,4</i>


<b>**</b> Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
<b>Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods</b>

<i>A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9</i>

Palloy SAID:
Quote
The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing? What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.


No, Palloy the amount of methane effects on temperature increase modeled are much less than the latest accurate estimates. The Dutton model is the one that is STILL too conservative!

WHAT PART of "ANOTHER USA in equivalent emissions" (see video below) do you think is in ANY of the models? NONE! Model THAT!

CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDxw0PcRgE0&feature=player_embedded


Your "strictly correct" precious models (see circular argument) are happy talk IN and happy talk OUT. You mathematicians were convinced waves couldn't get higher that 80 feet or so on planet Earth. The waves was just a bit of math stupidity, but the IPCC models are far more egregious.  :emthdown:

The FACT that every single model, including the most "alarmist" RCP-8.5 Business as Usual scenario, was subject to MASSAGING by government lawyer(s) defending GDP fossil fuel fun and games has been DOCUMENTED by luminaries from the IPCC itself has apparently no importance to you. I have posted about that. I guess you missed that.  ;)

The ice retreat models ensemble MEAN predicted the 2012 retreat to occur in 2060! ONE STANDARD DEVIATION on the "alarmist" side predicted it in 2048. WTF is with you trying to make a case that these models are anything but happy talk, HUH?

And one more thing, Palloy, EQUILIBRIUM on these deleterious effects has been ERRONEOULY modeled as taking CENTURIES, not decades. But I expect you to try to talk your way around Dutton with the , "it takes centuries to reach equilibrium"    happy talk that has already been totally discredited.

What Dutton predicts is baked in LONG before 2100. I do not care if you do not wish to believe it. That's your prerogative. But the next 25 years will prove that even Dutton is too conservative.


Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods
Quote
... In the words of Michael Le Page from The New Scientist:

Whatever we do now, the seas will rise by at least 5 metres. Most of Florida and many other low-lying areas and cities around the world are doomed to go under. If that weren’t bad enough, without drastic cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions–more drastic than any being discussed ahead of the critical climate meeting in Paris later this year—a rise of 20 metres will soon be unavoidable.

The arithmetic is pretty depressing (chart from New Scientist article): 0.4 metres for mountain glaciers, plus 0.8 metres for ocean thermal expansion, plus 3.5 metres for the West Antarctic ice sheet (the areas in orange in the chart below). If we go past 2 degrees Celsius of warming and get to 4 degrees, then we add all the blue bars as well.


http://therationalpessimist.com/tag/ipcc/

IPCC HAPPY (i.e. move along, this is no "big deal" - don't worry your GDP about it. ;)) SEA LEVEL TINY INCREASE GRAPHS:


Agelbert NOTE: ANYONE, especially Palloy, who claims that "equilibrium" sea level increase time for CO2 concentration PPM effects to fully apply is "properly" modeled in CENTURIES, not decades, also believes the IPCC model(S) (ALL OF THEM as averaged) of ice retreat level for 2060 that occurred in 2012 were "strictly correct".   



Palloy SAID:
Quote
The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing? What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.


So, is Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes an "alarmist" too. Palloy?  ;)

Quote

"It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror." --  Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes



Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming


 
A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesn’t adequately account for a methane warming feedback

SNIPPET:


To put this in perspective, permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere. In the rapidly warming Arctic (warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole), the upper layers of this frozen soil begin to thaw, allowing deposited organic material to decompose. The plant material, which has accumulated over thousands of years, is concentrated in to upper layers (half of it is in the top 10 feet). There is a network of monitoring stations that are measuring ground temperatures have detected a significant heating trend over the past few decades and so has the active layer thickness.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming

You would save a lot of electrons if you would just humour me and tell me if you believe in Peak Fossils, and whether you think my charts of FF production for RCP2.6 are too high or not.

Yes I believe in Collapse, I admitted that in my last post, and all my DD posts.  But I only believe in it because I am sure about Peak Fossils.  I am sure RCP2.6 can't happen. Even more so all the higher scenarios.  I DON'T think IPCC's scenarios are "happy happy" - they are catastrophic, but they won't happen because they CAN'T happen because of Peak Fossils.

You seem to be studious avoiding answering the question about what YOU believe about Peak Fossils.  If you could just answer that, we would be one step away from sorting this out.

Palloy questions:
Quote
Do you really imagine that the amount of oil extracted in 2050 is going to be 70% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of gas extracted in 2070 is going to be 310% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of coal extracted in 2090 is going to be 155% of 2010 levels?

Your questions on fossil fuels use are irrelevant. That's why I didn't answer them. I told you that the AMOUNT of fossil fuels we use in the future IS NOT RELEVANT to the baked in temperature rise and sea level rise at the PRESENT CO2 400PPM concentration. But I will humor you and say, NO, I do NOT believe the percentage use in your three questions about fossil fuel use will be anywhere near those percentages. SO WHAT!!!? You believe the incredibly ignorant correlation/causation temperature and sea level rise projections in those IPCC scenarios. I've told over and over again that  the models are wishful thinking. I've explained why. It's like talking to a wall.   

As for Peak Fossil Fuels, Read for comprehension. I said I agreed with MKing that we will NEVER run out of fossil fuels. THAT MEANS, that NO, there ain't NO SUCH THING as "peak" fossil fuels!

What part of that did you not understand? Are you stupid or do you like to play at being a close minded, irrational stuffed shirt?

I countered your "methane is accounted for in the models" wishful thinking and you are quiet as a mouse.   

You have no interest in logical discourse. This conversation is over.

Part three will be published today or tomorrow.

SNIPPET:



Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity

PART THREE OF THREE PARTS

Whatever is finally determined by scientists as the exact combination of factors that forms these monster waves, it is well known that wave height and ferocity is a function of the ferocity and duration of the winds.

ΔT = plus 2C or greater guarantees ferocious winds of long during over wide areas in a consistent direction.
____________________________________________________________________________

I'm sure it will provide you with a lot of good laughs and plenty to scoff about. It really doesn't matter what you invent out of whole cloth in your feverish little brain. The sad human experience of the next quarter century will teach people like you how fu cked up their "strictly correct" modeling happy talk IN and Happy talk OUT is, despite its utility as a corrupt, GDP defending, empathy deficit disordered fig leaf for PERPETUATING the dirty energy status quo.       
THIS is what those IPCC modeling happy talk scenarios Palloy defends, if they are taken seriously, will visit on future generations:


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #373 on: November 03, 2015, 07:05:53 pm »
Mon Nov 2, 2015 9:06pm EST
Wreckage of doomed U.S. cargo ship El Faro found off Bahamas

Container ship El Faro
MIAMI  |  By David Adams
 
A large ship found in deep water off the Bahamas is the lost freighter El Faro that sank with 33 crew members in a hurricane last month, U.S. authorities said on Monday.

The wreckage, in an upright position and intact on the ocean floor, was initially detected by a U.S. Navy salvage team over the weekend at a depth of nearly three miles (5 km). It was found in the vicinity of El Faro's last known location off Crooked Island in the southeastern Bahamas, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said.

The Navy salvage tug Apache subsequently deployed a deep ocean remotely operated submersible, CURV-21, equipped with a camera to confirm the identity of the ship, officials said.

A salvage team will now seek to retrieve the ship's voyage data recorder - similar to an airplane's black box - which could contain vital clues for the NTSB-led investigation into what sank the El Faro.

The 790-foot (241 meter) cargo ship, disappeared on Oct. 1 on a regular weekly run between Florida and Puerto Rico after the captain reported losing propulsion and taking on water.
 
The crew included 28 Americans and five Poles and there are no known survivors of the worst cargo shipping disaster involving a U.S.-flagged vessel since 1983.

The wreck is sitting in such deep water - 2,500 feet (760 meters) deeper than the Titanic - that it is beyond the reach of divers.


El Faro Debris Field

http://www.growthmarkets-oil.com/uploads/storefront/24074/images/215606/small/wex023_ps_subsea%20deep.jpg.jpg

The eight-foot-long (2.4 meter) CURV-21 is designed to operate in depths up to almost four miles (6 km) and has arms that can be remotely manipulated from the Apache via a fiber-optic cable, said Christopher Johnson, spokesman for the Naval Sea Systems Command.


The submersible is also equipped with another, smaller remotely operated vehicle called X-Bot that can be used to enter smaller spaces if necessary, Johnson added.


Claudette Riley, sister of El Faro crew member Mariette Wright, 51, welcomed the discovery of the wreck but said the potential recovery of the data recorder "brings a whole new wave of sadness."

She said she was afraid of what it might reveal "about how scared they all must have been."
 
Riley said she and her family were not optimistic the Navy would be able to recover the remains of crew members at such a depth.

The cargo ship's owner, Tote Inc, is facing four lawsuits filed by relatives of the crew, alleging the ship was not seaworthy and charted a course too close to Hurricane Joaquin.

Tote filed for liability protection in a federal court in Florida on Friday, citing U.S. maritime law and saying the ship was "seaworthy and properly manned" and that the company bears no responsibility for its loss.


(Additional reporting by Susan Cooper Eastman in Jacksonville; Editing by Chris Reese and Tom Brown)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/us-ship-elfaro-idUSKCN0SR23W20151103#W7EYUitk22DBKWGW.99

Agelbert NOTE: Had the El Faro been properly equipped, 33 crewmembers would not have perished. Learn more about the El Faro's fateful voyage below.   


Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity

PART THREE OF THREE PARTS

Whatever is finally determined by scientists as the exact combination of factors that forms these monster waves, it is well known that wave height and ferocity is a function of the ferocity and duration of the winds.

ΔT = plus 2C or greater guarantees ferocious winds of long during over wide areas in a consistent direction.

We are already experiencing the beginning of the abrupt climate change that is bringing these destructive winds due to the increase in frequency and severity of cyclonic movements over the oceans.

Hurricanes and typhoons are the DIRECT result of overheated ocean surface water. As heat increases, so will they continue to increase in frequency and severity, setting new records. As soon as the surface temperature of the ocean is at or above 27.8C (82F), they can form.

Quote

Sea surface temperatures must be 82 degrees F (27.8C) or warmer for tropical cyclone formation and sustenance.
Recipe for a Hurricane

The higher the ocean surface temperature, the more often they will form to wreak havoc with ships and coasts.




 
Susan Casey gives us an eye opening look at giant waves.

The book titled, "The Wave" is the overall scope; Casey links how the Earth's weather is changing to how waves are growing, and there's no denying the stats: there is a clear correlation. She visits various scientists and marine salvage folks and shares their stories; they all agree that we're seeing the oceans get nuttier, and it's only just beginning.

 

The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean by Susan Casey

Susan Casey, National Post · Monday, Sept. 20, 2010
57.5° N, 12.7° W, 175 MILES OFF THE COAST OF SCOTLAND FEBRUARY 8, 2000

The clock read midnight when the 100-foot wave hit the ship, rising from the North Atlantic out of the darkness. Among the ocean's terrors a wave this size was the most feared and the least understood, more myth than reality -- or so people had thought. This giant was certainly real. As the RRS Discovery plunged down into the wave's deep trough, it heeled 28 degrees to port,
The above graphic is a scale simulation of 295 ft. ship heeling 28 degrees to port in the trough of a 100 ft. wave by yours truly.

rolled 30 degrees back to starboard, then recovered to face the incoming seas. What chance did they have, the 47 scientists and crew aboard this research cruise gone horribly wrong? A series of storms had trapped them in the black void east of Rockall, a volcanic island nicknamed Waveland for the nastiness of its surrounding waters. More than 1,000 wrecked ships lay on the seafloor below.


Captain Keith Avery steered his vessel directly into the onslaught, just as he'd been doing for the past five days. While weather like this was common in the cranky North Atlantic, these giant waves were unlike anything he'd encountered in his 30 years of experience.

And worse, they kept rearing up from different directions. Flanking all sides of the 295-foot ship, the crew kept a constant watch to make sure they weren't about to be sucker punched by a wave that was sneaking up from behind, or from the sides.


No one wanted to be out here right now, but Avery knew their only hope was to remain where they were, with their bow pointed into the waves. Turning around was too risky; if one of these waves caught Discovery broadside, there would be long odds on survival. It takes 30 tons per square metre of force to dent a ship.

A breaking 100-foot wave packs 100 tons of force per square metre and can tear a ship in half. Above all, Avery had to position Discovery so that it rode over these crests and wasn't crushed beneath them.

He stood barefoot at the helm, the only way he could maintain traction after a refrigerator toppled over, splashing out a slick of milk, juice and broken glass (no time to clean it up--the waves just kept coming).

Up on the bridge everything was amplified, all the night noises and motions, the slamming and the crashing, the elevator-shaft plunges into the troughs, the frantic wind, the swaying and groaning of the ship; and now, as the waves suddenly grew even bigger and meaner and steeper, Avery heard a loud bang coming from Discovery's foredeck. He squinted in the dark to see that the 50-man lifeboat had partially ripped from its 2-inch-thick steel cleats and was pounding against the hull.

Below deck, computers and furniture had been smashed into pieces. The scientists huddled in their cabins nursing bruises, black eyes and broken ribs. Attempts at rest were pointless. They heard the noises too; they rode the free falls and the sickening barrel rolls; and they worried about the fact that a 6-foot-long window next to their lab had already shattered from the twisting. Discovery was almost 40 years old, and recently she'd undergone major surgery. The ship had been cut in half, lengthened by 33 feet, and then welded back together. Would the joints hold? No one really knew. No one had ever been in conditions like these.

One of the two chief scientists, Penny Holliday, watched as a chair skidded out from under her desk, swung into the air and crashed onto her bunk. Holliday, fine boned, porcelain-doll pretty and as tough as any man on board the ship, had sent an e-mail to her boyfriend, Craig Harris, earlier in the day. "This isn't funny anymore," she wrote. "The ocean just looks completely out of control." So much white spray was whipping off the waves that she had the strange impression of being in a blizzard. This was Waveland all right, an otherworldly place of constant motion that took you nowhere but up and down; where there was no sleep, no comfort, no connection to land, and where human eyes and stomachs struggled to adapt, and failed.

Ten days ago Discovery had left port in Southampton, England, on what Holliday had hoped would be a typical 3-week trip to Iceland and back (punctuated by a little seasickness perhaps, but nothing major).

RRS Discovery in calm seas


Along the way they'd stop and sample the water for salinity, temperature, oxygen and other nutrients. From these tests the scientists would draw a picture of what was happening out there, how the ocean's basic characteristics were shifting, and why.

These are not small questions on a planet that is 71% covered in salt water.
As the Earth's climate changes -- as the inner atmosphere becomes warmer, as the winds increase, as the oceans heat up -- what does all this mean for us? Trouble, most likely, and Holliday and her colleagues were in the business of finding out how much and what kind. It was deeply frustrating for them to be lashed to their bunks rather than out on the deck lowering their instruments. No one was thinking about Iceland anymore.

The trip was far from a loss, however. During the endless trains of massive waves, Discovery itself was collecting data that would lead to a chilling revelation. The ship was ringed with instruments; everything that happened out there was being precisely measured, the sea's fury captured in tight graphs and unassailable numbers.

Months later, long after Avery had returned everyone safely to the Southampton docks, when Holliday began to analyze these figures, she would discover that the waves they had experienced were the largest ever scientifically recorded in the open ocean. The significant wave height, an average of the largest 33% of the waves, was 61 feet, with frequent spikes far beyond that.

At the same time, none of the state-of-the-art weather forecasts and wave models-- the information upon which all ships, oil rigs, fisheries and passenger boats rely -- had predicted these behemoths. In other words, under this particular set of weather conditions, waves this size should not have existed. And yet they did.

http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2


You could call them whatever you wanted -- rogues, freaks, giants -- but the bottom line was that no one had accounted for them. The engineers who'd built the Draupner rig had calculated that once every 10,000 years the North Sea might throw them a 64-foot curveball in 38-foot seas. That would be the maximum. Eighty-five-foot waves were not part of the equation, not in this universe anyway.

But the rules had changed. Now scientists had a set of numbers that pointed to an unsettling truth: Some of these waves make their own rules. Suddenly the emphasis shifted from explaining why giant waves couldn't simply leap out of the ocean to figuring out how it was that they did.

This was a matter of much brow sweat for the oil industry, which would prefer that its multimillion-dollar rigs not be swept away. It had happened before. In 1982 the Ocean Ranger, a 400-foot-long, 337-foot-high oil platform located 170 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, was struck by an outsize wave in heavy weather. We'll never know how big the wave was exactly, for there were no survivors. Approved for "unrestricted ocean operations," built to withstand 110-foot seas and 115-mile-per-hour winds, considered "indestructible" by its engineers, the Ocean Ranger had capsized and sank close to instantly, killing all 84 people on board.

In the nautical world things were even more troubling. Across the global seas ships were meeting these waves, from megaton vessels like the Munchen -- oceangoing freighters and tankers and bulk carriers -- down to recreational sailboats.

At best, the encounters resulted in damage; at worst, the boat vanished, taking all hands with it. "Two large ships sink every week on average [worldwide], but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather,' " said Dr. Wolfgang Rosenthal, senior scientist for the MaxWave Project, a consortium of European scientists that convened in 2000 to investigate the disappearing ships.

http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2

MS München

December 12, 1978: Considered unsinkable, the Munchen was a cutting-edge craft, the flagship of the German Merchant Navy. At 3:25 a.m. fragments of a Morse code Mayday, emanating from 450 miles north of the Azores, signaled that the vessel had suffered grave damage from a wave.


Artist's conception of MS München facing a giant wave.

But even after 110 ships and 13 aircraft were deployed -- the most comprehensive search in the history of shipping -- the ship and its 27 crew were never seen again.

A haunting clue was left behind: Searchers found one of the Munchen's lifeboats, usually stowed 65 feet above the water, floating empty. Its twisted metal fittings indicated that it had been torn away. "Something extraordinary" had destroyed the ship, concluded the official report. *

The Munchen's disappearance points to the main problem with proving the existence of a giant wave:
If you run into that kind of nightmare, it's likely to be the last one you'll have.

The force of waves is hard to overstate. An 18-inch wave can topple a wall built to withstand 125-mile-per-hour winds, for instance, and coastal advisories are issued for even five-foot-tall surf, which regularly kills people caught in the wrong places.

The number of people who have witnessed a 100-foot wave at close range and made it back home to describe the experience is a very small one.

http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2

* Agelbert NOTE: The container ship El Faro sank during Hurricane Juaquin on October 1, 2015. All 33 crewmembers perished. The lifeboats on El Faro were also 65 feet above the water line. From the condition of the lifeboat that was recovered, the evidence indicates a giant wave sank the El Faro. The authorities have not admitted this as of yet. But I am not the only one that strongly suspects that the condition of the lifeboat is evidence that a giant wave sank El Faro (Spanish for "Lighthouse"). 

Quote
"A heavily damaged lifeboat from the El Faro was discovered, with no one ..."

Coast Guard Investigates El Faro Life Boat
Quote
Published on Oct 5, 2015
A Coast Guard Air Station Miami MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew investigates a life boat Sunday, Oct. 4, 2015, that was found from the missing ship El Faro. El Faro lost propulsion and communications prior to Hurricane Joaquin passing directly over it. U.S. Coast Guard video.


Warming oceans are with us now and increasing the violence of the oceans. By chance, I recorded the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) off the East Coast of the USA the day before Hurricane Juaquin sank the El Faro container ship. Here's the September 30, 2015 (8 day average - proof  that it was really consistently hot out there!) screenshot:


Here's two days later (one day after the El Faro Container ship sank). I superimposed the hurricane location. It is a one day average SST so the conditions when the El Faro sank are displayed.  I was not aware that the El Faro had been lost at the time I made these screenshots. Notice the cooler spot on the ocean precisely where Hurricane Juaquin is lashing El Faro. A hurricane transfers several degrees of water temperature directly to the atmosphere, which, in turn, increases the ferocity of the winds. Ferocious winds produce ferocious waves.


El Faro departed Jacksonville en route to San Juan, Puerto Rico.




The El Faro was one of TWO cargo ships that went down because of Hurricane Juaquin (the 215 ft. MV Minouche that went down didn't make national headlines, because people, perhaps, might start to get "unnecessarily alarmed" about the increasing shipping losses from our increasingly violent oceans). All 12 crew of the MV Minouche were rescued.

MV Minouche

The Coast Guard pilot's voice shakes as he describes conditions they have never before experienced in rescue attempts when they were searching for the El Faro and rescuing the crew of the MV Minouche.


US Coast Guard search for El Faro; 12 rescued from MV Minouche
Quote
Published on Oct 5, 2015
A US Coast Guard C-130 pilot describes a flight through Hurricane Joaquin in 100 knot winds and over 40-foot waves in search of the cargo ship El Faro, which has been reported sunk after debris was found. Part two of this video features footage from an Oct. 1 rescue of 12 people from the MV Minouche near the Bahamas.

The El Faro, that went down with a crew of 33, all lost, 294 cars, trailers and trucks, along with hundreds of containers, had a type of lifeboat that is a death boat in stormy seas.

Here's a comment by a fellow who's handle is deckofficer:

Hurricane Joaquin vs. M/V El Faro's final voyage, weather and decision-making...

I guess the only point I would like to make is some owners don't seem to value the lives of their crews. Schedules are tight and safety equipment is in many cases the bare minimum for certification. In the case of SS El Faro (it is my understanding this is a steam ship, not diesel) the open life boats as high on the super structure as they were meets requirements but certainly doesn't offer the all sea state conditions of deployment as free fall enclosed life boat capsules. If these souls are lost at sea, it is maddening that the simple added investment of better emergency egress would have saved their lives. I have done more lifeboat drills than I can remember, and for the older style gravity systems there was a good reason these drills only occurred on calm days.

When sea state is overwhelming and you have lost propulsion and need to abandon ship, do you want this....



Or this....


https://youtu.be/a7giEX-vIyo

Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)


http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f122/hurricane-joaquin-vs-m-v-el-faros-final-voyage-weather-and-decsion-making-154191-3.html

Free fall enclosed life boat capsules are a great idea. They should be mandatory. The fact that they aren't is mute evidence of the neoliberal Empathy Deficit disordered "cost/benefit analysis" that values goods more than lives. As long as people continue to line up to crew the ships, management will cut corners on life support.

And the Libertarians will cheer them on demanding all those "government regulations" be eliminated so the shippers can make more money without "government interference".   

 
But the greedball shippers are increasingly going to have a bit more to worry about than whether they have a labor force or not. Thanks to the fossil fuel industry socialized cost of CO2 pollution (even though Big Oil is getting a bit of payback from the oceans with oil rig difficulties and tanker losses), this is no longer going to be about whether the "demand" for products "justifies" cargo shipping.



I am grateful to Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa for alerting me to the threat from violent oceans that mankind faces.

Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.

An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves

by Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 23, 2015

"Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this..." 


If the ships cannot handle the seas (NO ship is designed, or can cost effectively be designed, to handle anywhere near 100 tons per square meter of force on her hull), shipping itself will no longer be cost effective unless cargo ships morph into cargo submarines. The cost of doing that is staggering. Even if they designed them to ride just beneath the wave turbulence, they still would have to submerge to one half the wavelength of ocean waves.

Quote
Deep-Water Waves

If the water depth (d) is greater then the wave base (equal to one-half the wavelength, or L/2), the waves are called deep-water waves. Deep-water waves have no interference with the ocean bottom, so they include all wind-generated waves in the open ocean. Submarines can avoid large ocean waves by submerging below the wave base.


The wave that hit the Draupner platform in 1995 was over 90 ft. high and had a wavelength of 231 meters (which it covered in only 12 seconds! - 45 mph). To avoid these waves, a submerged cargo vessel or tanker would have to withstand pressures at a minimum of 116 meters below sea level.

That may be a piece of cake for a normal submarine but it would cost multiples of what cargo and tanker vessels cost now to make cargo submarines and tankers capable of routinely submerging to 400 or 500 feet.

And in water that is too shallow to get under the wave action, they will not avoid being damaged or sunk. Those waves Paul Beckwith mentions will be visiting the coastlines regularly in a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.

During WW2 the Germans actually made submarine tankers. They nicknamed them "Milk Cows". The German type XIV U-Boat could resupply other boats with 432 t (425 long tons) of fuel. I'm sure ExxonMobil will look into it when the going gets REALLY rough on the oceans, instead of doing the right thing and giving up fossil fuels. They aren't known for their ability to consider the wider consequences of their greed based, short term profit motive stupidity. But I digress.  ;D

Besides the large increase in sea level, the wave action predicted makes every hull design of modern shipping inadequate. It will be very hard to sustain our level of civilization without the benefits of modern shipping.

Redesigning hulls will not work for the simple reason that the waves, now called "rogue" waves, of those oceans will be routine. 30 to 35 meter tall waves exert forces on a hull of about 100 tons per square meter. No modern hull design exceeds 30 tons per square meter.
Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

To give you a better idea of the huge threat a giant wave or three is to a large tanker or cargo vessel,  I took some screenshots from a video of a wave laboratory testing the effects of 72 ft. waves on a modern supertanker. I'm sure Big Oil is paying attention, regardless of what they say in public.  ;)




The tanker completely capsized. In a real world situation, this is a death blow to the crew because it happens too fast to get survival gear on or reach the lifeboats, even if they are the emergency egress sealed type you saw earlier. That is why both tanker and cargo ships do everything they can to avoid being broadsided. In the real world, when the engines are lost in these types of seas, the only way to survive is to immediately abandon ship on a free fall enclosed life boat capsule.

If the above series of screen shots are not convincing enough to the reader of the threat shipping faces from giant waves, the following video series will leave no doubt in your mind that world shipping is incapable of handling the routine 30 to 35 meter waves that the Hansen et al June 2015 paper predicts for a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.

The following video series is the first of an excellent BBC series that describes the difficulties that shipping faces with giant waves. Some of the material I have covered is presented with some added background provided. You will learn much from these videos. You will learn that absolutely nothing I have told you is exaggeration or hyperbole.

The threat is real and it is getting worse. I urge you to set aside some time to view them because this concerns our future as a civilization. We are not prepared for a ΔT = plus 2C  world (and beyond).


CONCLUSIONS

Global Civilization is threatened within 25 years or less by the scientifically predicted ocean surface wave activity in the Hansen et al June 2015 study * and the Dutton et al July 2015 study ** evidencing a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400PPM. As of October of 2015, the CO2 concentration is at 400PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.

* Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous
J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5, G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9, K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and K.-W. Lo3,4

www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf

** Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: .1126/science.aaa4019 

Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods
A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019.abstract

Furthermore, the rate of increase is also rising, evidencing, not only the lack of concerted action by the governments of the industrialized nations of the world to stop using fossil fuels, but an increase in their use, along with the incredibly destructive policies of subsidizing the exploration for fossil fuels.

If drastic action is not taken to avert this violent oceans catastrophe for human civilization, our global civilization will collapse into "sea-locked" regions unable to conduct trade across the oceans except via air transportation, a method that is not economically feasible to use for bulk cargo.

Port facilities and coastal airport facilities will become unusable. In addition, the salt water fishing industry would also collapse, both from the violent oceans and the increasing rate of marine extinctions, creating joblessness, food shortages and widespread hunger.

At least 25 percent of the world's arable land, all of which is low lying and near sea coasts, will be lost due to salt water invasion of the water table, even several miles from the coasts.


RECOMMENDATIONS


To prevent a collapse of global civilization into a group of "sea locked" areas, we must act now to prevent the oceans from being too stormy for shipping.

This requires the following:

1. The manufacture of internal combustion engines, and spare parts, used to power utility scale power plants, land, sea and air vehicles and emergency generators for public or private use, be they large or small, is to be outlawed, unless they are designed to run exclusively (low temperature alloys ONLY - 2/3 lighter engine blocks - they break down due to high waste heat if run on fossil fuels) on ethanol or some other biofuel. All aircraft must be powered by biofuels until electrically powered or hydrogen powered aircraft replace current jet engines. All ocean going oil tankers are to be recycled for low cost EV metals. All remaining ships of all sizes must be electrically powered as well, unless they can be modified to run on biofuels. Biofuels must be used to bridge the gap while phasing out the internal combustion engine in industry, the military and transportation by air, land or sea.

2. All ships must have enclosed egress lifeboats capable of surviving 35 meter waves.

3. Small engines, like those used for lawn mowers. leaf blowers or weed whackers are to be outlawed. All ordinances requiring lawns are to be outlawed. All lawn, gardening or snow removal power equipment not running on E100 is to be electrically powered without any exceptions or grace period.

4. A program to phase out of all uses of fossil fuels within one year must begin immediately. All gasoline stations are to have at least two E100 pumps. A gasoline tax of one dollar per gallon is to be levied to existing gasoline or other distillate fuels tax. The tax is to be increased by one additional dollar per gallon every month.

5. All governments must provide an EV for gas guzzlers consumer trade program at no cost to the owner until all on road and off road vehicles that are not fueled exclusively with E100 (100% ethanol) have been recycled.

6. All public and private buildings (including the military) are to be modified to have 100% renewable energy for heating and cooling. Zero percent financing and a 30 year amortization period is to be provided to all private households and landlords for the purchase and installation of Renewable Energy infrastructure. No household is entitled to heat and cool more than 500 square feet per occupant. No exceptions. Monitoring devices are to placed on all large houses in general and mansions in particular with heavy fines for violations.

7. After all buildings are heated and cooled with renewable energy, the remaining energy needs, plus a surplus, are to be generated by renewable energy in order to begin the process of returning to less than 350PPM of CO2. Carbon will be sequestered with renewable energy machines.

8.The manufacture, sale or use of fossil fuel based pesticides or chemical fertilizers for agriculture is to be outlawed with a six month phase out grace period.

9. The manufacture and sale of any product, including, but not limited to, pharmaceuticals and plastics, using fossil fuels as a feed stock is to be prohibited by law. A one year grace period will be allowed for transition to the use of plant based carbohydrates as feed stock.

10. Water use is to be heavily regulated.

11. Military budgets are to be limited to no more than 5% of tax receipts.

12. All subsidies for fossil fuels are be declared null and void in every country in the world. All rigs, refineries, tanker trucks, pipelines and other fossil fuel industry plant and equipment are to be recycled within a five year period. The fossil fuel industry stock holders are to shoulder the cost of this. Corporate bankruptcies of fossil fuel corporations will not limit the liability of the corporation stock holders sccording to a worldwide proclamation of Force Majeure. Executives, board members and all other stock holders will be liable for all recycling costs according to ownership records over the last 50 years.


And that is just the start. Massive conservation efforts must be undertaken to preserve and protect all animals now threatened with extinction. All governments must put these efforts on the level of war time demands simply because our survival as a civilization and possibly as a species is threatened.

We cannot function without the use of the oceans. We will not be able to use those oceans if we don't lower the CO2 atmospheric content to at least 350 PPM.

And even then, with the 6 meter or more (over 19 feet!) rise in sea level locked into the  ΔT = plus 2C  world, we will lose the use of all port facilities, coastal cities and arable land near sea level within a decade or, optimistically speaking in regard to the IPCC RPC-8.5 "Business as Usual" scenario, by 2050. Our civilization does not have the money to rebuild and replant and relocate millions of people as the seas go up and fly all cargo when the seas can't be used, PERIOD.

It is only possible to avoid a collapse of global civilization by the drastic measures I listed, and only if those measures are undertaken within a decade.

If not, then mankind will be split into several "sea locked" groups watching the oceans acidify and the temperature increase to the point when the methane bursts from the thawed clathrates in the Arctic ocean bottom. Then the ΔT = plus 2C world will be a distant mild memory in comparison to the  ΔT = plus 4C and beyond runaway GHG hell.

Sadly, I do not see any of evidence that any government is championing drastic action. 


Oil Tanker named "Prestige" sinks. Is this the Writing on the Oil Tanker Hull Wall for Big Oil?

It is small consolation to me that these oil tankers will not survive the coming oceans. But there is a certain logic to it.

If you find this article of importance to our survival as a species or the survival of civilization, please pass it on with or without attribution. People need to properly understand the nature of our climate problem in general, and the fossil fuel industry's blame for profiting from it in particular, in order to embrace the outlawing of the burning of fossil fuels.


They must be held accountable and they must NOT be allowed to influence energy policy ever again. They will try to sabotage or water down all the reforms proposed at the December 2015 COP21 Climate Conference, as they have done at all the other global climate conferences through corruption or threats. Our survival and the welfare of the children of the world depends on stopping these criminals NOW.


 

Please help the children.



Quote
"We call on you to take immediate action to protect COP21 and all future negotiations from the influence of big polluters. Given the fossil fuel industry’s years of interference intended to block progress, push false solutions, and continue the disastrous status quo, the time has come to stop treating big polluters as legitimate “stakeholders” and to remove them from climate policymaking."

Today, we are facing the prospect of the destruction of life as we know it and irreversible damage to our planet due to climate change. Scientists are telling us with ever more urgency that we must act quickly to stop extracting fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the world’s largest polluters have prevented progress on bold climate action for far too long.

We call on the Parties to the UNFCCC to protect the UN climate talks and climate policymaking around the world from the influence of big polluters. The world is looking to the next round of negotiations – in Paris this December – for decisive action on climate. This is a pivotal moment to create real solutions. We need a strong outcome from the Paris talks in order to seize the momentum of a growing global movement, and to urge leaders to take bolder action to address the climate crisis.

But the fossil fuel industry and other transnational corporations that have a vested interest in stopping progress continue to delay, weaken, and block climate policy at every level. From the World Coal Association hosting a summit on "clean coal" around COP19 to Shell aggressively lobbying in the European Union for weak renewable energy goals while promoting gas – these big polluters are peddling false solutions to protect their profits while driving the climate crisis closer to the brink.

 A decade ago, the international community took on another behemoth industry – Big Tobacco – and created a precedent-setting treaty mechanism that removed the tobacco industry from public health policy. This can happen again here.


Corporate Accountability International will deliver this message and the list of signatures at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany, the first week of June. We will do another delivery by the end of COP21 in Paris this December.

Participating organizations:

350.org
Amazon Watch
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Climate Action Network International
Corporate Accountability International
CREDO Action
Daily Kos
Environmental Action
Food & Water Watch
Federation of Young European Greens
Forecast the Facts
Greenpeace USA
League of Conservation Voters
Oil Change International
People for the American Way
Rainforest Action Network
RH Reality Check
SumOfUs
The Natural History Museum
CC: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Outgoing COP20 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal
Incoming COP21 President Laurent Fabius


Many will read this and scoff. They do not accept the FACT that Business as usual is a death sentence for global civilization. They do not accept the FACT that nature does not negotiate. They do not accept the FACT that Incremental/half measures are like being half pregnant with Rosemary's baby. 

They will say that there is absolutely no way that the governments of the world will undertake even a tiny portion of the recommendations I list as sine qua non for our survival as a global civilization. 

Perhaps they are right about the governments. If they are, then perhaps we will, because of the successful degrading of democracy and the biosphere by the fossil fuel industry over the course of about a century, experience the roaring oceans and the collapse of all of civilization, not just global civilization.

If so, then the ocean violence, now predicted by science, was prophesied about a long time ago.

Quote
And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luke 21:25-26 English Standard Version 

But whether you believe the above prophesy is valid or not, I think it safe to assume that our future ocean surface will be very unsafe.             

For more background, read these articles:

The Real Sea Monsters: On the Hunt for Rogue Waves
By Lynne Peeples | September 2, 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rogue-waves-ocean-energy-forecasting/

Rogue waves are no fish tale
Once regarded as extremely rare, satellite photos and radar imagery have documented the existence of numerous rogue waves, and it turns out that they are far more common than previously thought.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/15284/rogue-waves-are-no-fish-tale

If you missed the first two parts, you can read them at the links below.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART ONE

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART TWO
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8070
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #374 on: November 03, 2015, 07:41:49 pm »
The Australians are watching.  8)

What does a warm North Pacific mean for us?
7 May, 2015
 
Early analysis of the warm SST in the North East Pacific is showing temperature anomalies exceeding 4 standard deviations above the mean. This warming began in 2013 and it has been suggested that this may be a new sort of phenomenon not seen before in modern records (http://www.oceannetworks.ca/warm-northeast-pacific-ocean-conditions-continue-2015).


http://oceancurrent.imos.org.au/news.php

Agelbert NOTE: something very interesting is going on in the Pacific; the sea level is GOING DOWN! 

No, the fossil fuel industry didn't find some giant plug to pull and drain the giant ocean bathtub down a bit.  :D

That is an El NIŇO characteristic. They haven't seen that sort of thing so strongly since the 1997-98 strong El NIŇO. But what they fail to mention is that, since there is a LOT more water in the oceans now than in 1998, thanks the accelerated ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica, the sea level is going to get a rather large BOOST in some other part of the planet. :P


Sea level in the western equatorial Pacific drops dramatically

15 July, 2015

The month-average of sea level north of New Guinea has dropped to levels not seen since the ‘super El Niño’ of 1997/1998. An El Niño event occurs when sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific become sufficiently warm that the atmospheric circulation shifts resulting in weaker equatorial trade winds. Low sea levels north of New Guinea (a result of weak equatorial trade winds) are strongly correlated with Nino3.4, the El Niño index that relates best to Australian climate.


Dark Blue in graphic below is lower sea level:  :o



The Bureau of Meteorology declared 2015 an El Niño year in mid-May. Sea levels north of New Guinea have continued to drop sharply since then. The map at right shows the June 2015 SLA for the Australasian region, while the time-series below shows that the average for the region north of PNG  (boxed on the map) has only been lower once before since 1992 when satellite sea level observations commenced.

Low sea levels in the western equatorial Pacific are also strongly correlated with the strength of the Leeuwin Current. There is a two month delay between the sea level anomaly off Perth and the region north of New Guinea. The low sea level signal propagates southward along the west coast of Australia weakening the Leeuwin Current and causing water temperatures to be cooler.

http://oceancurrent.imos.org.au/news.php
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
542 Views
Last post March 07, 2016, 08:06:00 am
by trianglejohn
1 Replies
224 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 10:29:36 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Pollution by AGelbert
Today at 02:00:39 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
Today at 01:47:19 pm

Ocean Species Habits and Ocean Conservancy by AGelbert
Today at 01:32:45 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 09:26:25 pm

Historical Documentaries by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 06:50:36 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 02:58:11 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 01:33:10 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 01:15:51 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
November 20, 2017, 11:22:51 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
November 20, 2017, 10:33:03 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial