The issue isn't wether the temperature in the sea is changing, it is always changing, the issue is whether it's man made change as some have complained. Those who believe it is man made want controls in place to give themselves some drastic powers that extend farther than what most people realize. Apple as a company would be greatly impacted if they were to be put in place and Tim Cook should be aware of this if he is out making such bold statements.
It's great Apple is working on new innovations with conserving resources but for a corporation to jump on this political bandwagon is suicide. You can't stop a volcano from erupting. Nature is not static, we have dinosaur bones and prehistoric glaciers to prove it.
Melted ice that is already in the water will not cause the oceans to rise. Fill a glass with ice and water to the brim. As the ice melts the glass does not overflow. Our water table has risen and fallen over the eons. As a cave diver I've seen stalactites and stalagmites in caves that don't form unless at one time that cave had just a small stream passing through it. Much of the central U.S. was an ocean at one time, all this happened without mans involvement.
I don't want to get embroiled in an argument on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no doubt that some of the science has been questionable, some of the data are open to dispute, and the political and economic implications make dispassionate debate difficult. I will make a few philosophical points though:
It is very important not to conflate a lack of conclusive evidence for a hypothesis with positive evidence that the hypothesis is wrong - that requires observations or data incompatible with the hypothesis;
Modification of a hypothesis as further data become available is not evidence that the hypothesis was wrong - that is the scientific method;
Hypotheses on complex system behavior almost never achieve the status of "proven" in the sense that many non-scientists use that word - they simply become more accepted as supporting data accumulate and refuting data are not found;
The existence of some poorly conducted studies and questionable data do not imply that all studies are poorly conducted or that all data should be discarded;
The observation that climate change has been occurring due to natural processes throughout the history of the planet does not imply that climate change cannot also be anthropogenically induced.
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
No, I mentioned a specific case where ice over top of an underwater volcanic eruption melted. The ice shelf elsewhere has grown. Snow has fallen in areas where it has not fell in 100 years. Over the last three years my utility bills have shown the monthly average being 2-3 degrees cooler than the previous year. From everything I've experienced and read it's getting cooler, not warmer. I get to travel across the U.S. for work (industrial applications) and every one I talk to mentions how the winters are becoming more severe.
No, I mentioned a specific case where ice over top of an underwater volcanic eruption melted. The ice shelf elsewhere has grown. Snow has fallen in areas where it has not fell in 100 years. Over the last three years my utility bills have shown the monthly average being 2-3 degrees cooler than the previous year. From everything I've experienced and read it's getting cooler, not warmer. I get to travel across the U.S. for work (industrial applications) and every one I talk to mentions how the winters are becoming more severe.
Yeah, ask Australians about cooler temperatures in the last year. Seriously, you can't shotgun this argument and cherry-pick a bunch of random data points about your neighborhood and "every one (sic) I talk to."
Are you saying that the oceans are not getting warmer in the last 100 years than they have been in the last 1000 years? Is there some study that debunks the amount of total heat energy in the oceans?
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
This, and the rest of your post, were very sensible. When I read these debates, I think a couple of problems really stand out:
The first is that none of us here are climate scientists, and that is obvious.
But further, I think a lot of people actually fundamentally don't understand how science works or what sources of information are valid and relevant. I'm not sure if this is down to poor scientific education, or if it is a broader phenomenon; but there seems to be much less focus on scientific literacy in several countries these days, at least as compared to the past.
This sort of issue becomes apparent with other debates too - such as evolution and/or the age of the Earth. Some such debates are literally "conversation stoppers", because it's difficult for lay people to make any headway with each other, especially when we are (by definition) not scientific experts in the field.
I don't want to get embroiled in an argument on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no doubt that some of the science has been questionable, some of the data are open to dispute, and the political and economic implications make dispassionate debate difficult. I will make a few philosophical points though:
It is very important not to conflate a lack of conclusive evidence for a hypothesis with positive evidence that the hypothesis is wrong - that requires observations or data incompatible with the hypothesis;
Modification of a hypothesis as further data become available is not evidence that the hypothesis was wrong - that is the scientific method;
Hypotheses on complex system behavior almost never achieve the status of "proven" in the sense that many non-scientists use that word - they simply become more accepted as supporting data accumulate and refuting data are not found;
The existence of some poorly conducted studies and questionable data do not imply that all studies are poorly conducted or that all data should be discarded;
The observation that climate change has been occurring due to natural processes throughout the history of the planet does not imply that climate change cannot also be anthropogenically induced.
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
One of the problems of this argument is that CO2 is such a tiny, tiny part of our atmosphere. There have been times where the CO2 has been considerably higher than it is now before we were even around, and everything has managed to work out so far. Again I think there are far too many questions at this point for anyone to claim they can "reverse the trend" when we don't have the complete knowledge of what the "trend" is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets
Yeah, ask Australians about cooler temperatures in the last year. Seriously, you can't shotgun this argument and cherry-pick a bunch of random data points about your neighborhood and "every one (sic) I talk to."
Are you saying that the oceans are not getting warmer in the last 100 years than they have been in the last 1000 years? Is there some study that debunks the amount of total heat energy in the oceans?
WARNING: Quoting me may cause accelerated wear of the (sic) keys on your keyboard. Especially when I reply via my iPhone.
Granted my observations are not scientific, however many of the "reports" out there do cherry pick their sources without letting the readers know. I never knew that until I read some of the stuff on the site you don't like. (I'm not a shill for the site, I'lll let interested people dig up through the comments to get the address.)
As for temperatures getting warmer, honestly how can you tell? We have what, maybe 100 years of somewhat reliable data to refer to? That is a speck of time in the earth's history. What is the pattern, how long do these cycles last? We know Europe has had large swings in the past. Who's to say this isn't happening now?Did Australia have some hot weather recently yep. It also snowed in Bagdad. So does one event cancel the other?
We're starting to get away from the topic of this article and that is Tim Cook beating the war drum on "reversing climate change". These are bold statements coming from any human, let alone someone who leads the arguably most influential tech company on the planet. Apple should pursueefficient and cleaner methods for production. Who the hell wants dirty air/water/land? Toot that horn Tim, but don't send out the B.S. that you can undoubtedly change the climate.
Granted my observations are not scientific, however many of the "reports" out there do cherry pick their sources without letting the readers know. I never knew that until I read some of the stuff on the site you don't like. (I'm not a shill for the site, I'lll let interested people dig up through the comments to get the address.)
As for temperatures getting warmer, honestly how can you tell? We have what, maybe 100 years of somewhat reliable data to refer to? That is a speck of time in the earth's history. What is the pattern, how long do these cycles last? We know Europe has had large swings in the past. Who's to say this isn't happening now?Did Australia have some hot weather recently yep. It also snowed in Bagdad. So does one event cancel the other?
We're starting to get away from the topic of this article and that is Tim Cook beating the war drum on "reversing climate change". These are bold statements coming from any human, let alone someone who leads the arguably most influential tech company on the planet. Apple should pursueefficient and cleaner methods for production. Who the hell wants dirty air/water/land? Toot that horn Tim, but don't send out the B.S. that you can undoubtedly change the climate.
As I said, the site organizationally sucks. I'd be very interested in a piece that discredits studies of ocean temps over the last 1000 years (this is not sarcasm).
Regarding 100 years of data, sticking a thermometer in the water is only one way of determining ocean temperature. Proxy measurements can be used, and as more proxy measurements agree, then the data are validated. Ice cores, coral growth, and sediments are examples of useful proxies for estimating temperatures in the past. The margin of error is large, but that is captured in my graph above.
Still, if there has been some major error in these studies, I'd love to learn about it. The site appears to be a means to generate a reasonable doubt regarding the body of evidence, but science isn't a democracy, and data don't benefit from the constitution. You gotta prove it wrong.
I don't want to get embroiled in an argument on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no doubt that some of the science has been questionable, some of the data are open to dispute, and the political and economic implications make dispassionate debate difficult. I will make a few philosophical points though:
It is very important not to conflate a lack of conclusive evidence for a hypothesis with positive evidence that the hypothesis is wrong - that requires observations or data incompatible with the hypothesis;
Modification of a hypothesis as further data become available is not evidence that the hypothesis was wrong - that is the scientific method;
Hypotheses on complex system behavior almost never achieve the status of "proven" in the sense that many non-scientists use that word - they simply become more accepted as supporting data accumulate and refuting data are not found;
The existence of some poorly conducted studies and questionable data do not imply that all studies are poorly conducted or that all data should be discarded;
The observation that climate change has been occurring due to natural processes throughout the history of the planet does not imply that climate change cannot also be anthropogenically induced.
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
One of the problems of this argument is that CO2 is such a tiny, tiny part of our atmosphere. There have been times where the CO2 has been considerably higher than it is now before we were even around, and everything has managed to work out so far. Again I think there are far too many questions at this point for anyone to claim they can "reverse the trend" when we don't have the complete knowledge of what the "trend" is.
You misunderstand - I'm not making an argument - just an observation on the current state of consensus, if that is the part you are objecting to. As for your argument, I'd just add that it is an example of how non-scientists often completely misconstrue these kinds of concepts. "It's so tiny - it can't possibly have a significant effect". If physics were fully linear it would all be so simple, except I'm guessing that (1) you don't know what that means and (2) we would not exist.
It's quite true that CO2 levels were much higher in prehistory, and if they were that high again the planet would survive fine, it's just that life, as we know it, would not be around to appreciate it. As for "reversing the trend", the only trend that we might, potentially, have some control of, is atmospheric CO2, a major factor in the forcing models.
It's apparent that the integrated climate models do not yet fully capture the relationships between net thermal flux and ocean thermal transport and mixing, so maybe everything will be fine anyway, at least for a while, or maybe those models are still missing a significant process that could completely change the prognosis. The qualitative concerns seem to be more based on simple historical correlation between climate and atmospheric composition, which doesn't always capture system hysteresis. So, the rising CO2 levels could be a ticking bomb, or could be a dud, but the current consensus, based on available knowledge, is the former.
Comments
The issue isn't wether the temperature in the sea is changing, it is always changing
So now we're in agreement that the earth is warming up?
The issue isn't wether the temperature in the sea is changing, it is always changing, the issue is whether it's man made change as some have complained. Those who believe it is man made want controls in place to give themselves some drastic powers that extend farther than what most people realize. Apple as a company would be greatly impacted if they were to be put in place and Tim Cook should be aware of this if he is out making such bold statements.
It's great Apple is working on new innovations with conserving resources but for a corporation to jump on this political bandwagon is suicide. You can't stop a volcano from erupting. Nature is not static, we have dinosaur bones and prehistoric glaciers to prove it.
Melted ice that is already in the water will not cause the oceans to rise. Fill a glass with ice and water to the brim. As the ice melts the glass does not overflow. Our water table has risen and fallen over the eons. As a cave diver I've seen stalactites and stalagmites in caves that don't form unless at one time that cave had just a small stream passing through it. Much of the central U.S. was an ocean at one time, all this happened without mans involvement.
I don't want to get embroiled in an argument on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no doubt that some of the science has been questionable, some of the data are open to dispute, and the political and economic implications make dispassionate debate difficult. I will make a few philosophical points though:
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
No, I mentioned a specific case where ice over top of an underwater volcanic eruption melted. The ice shelf elsewhere has grown. Snow has fallen in areas where it has not fell in 100 years. Over the last three years my utility bills have shown the monthly average being 2-3 degrees cooler than the previous year. From everything I've experienced and read it's getting cooler, not warmer. I get to travel across the U.S. for work (industrial applications) and every one I talk to mentions how the winters are becoming more severe.
No, I mentioned a specific case where ice over top of an underwater volcanic eruption melted. The ice shelf elsewhere has grown. Snow has fallen in areas where it has not fell in 100 years. Over the last three years my utility bills have shown the monthly average being 2-3 degrees cooler than the previous year. From everything I've experienced and read it's getting cooler, not warmer. I get to travel across the U.S. for work (industrial applications) and every one I talk to mentions how the winters are becoming more severe.
Yeah, ask Australians about cooler temperatures in the last year. Seriously, you can't shotgun this argument and cherry-pick a bunch of random data points about your neighborhood and "every one (sic) I talk to."
Are you saying that the oceans are not getting warmer in the last 100 years than they have been in the last 1000 years? Is there some study that debunks the amount of total heat energy in the oceans?
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
This, and the rest of your post, were very sensible. When I read these debates, I think a couple of problems really stand out:
The first is that none of us here are climate scientists, and that is obvious.
But further, I think a lot of people actually fundamentally don't understand how science works or what sources of information are valid and relevant. I'm not sure if this is down to poor scientific education, or if it is a broader phenomenon; but there seems to be much less focus on scientific literacy in several countries these days, at least as compared to the past.
This sort of issue becomes apparent with other debates too - such as evolution and/or the age of the Earth. Some such debates are literally "conversation stoppers", because it's difficult for lay people to make any headway with each other, especially when we are (by definition) not scientific experts in the field.
I don't want to get embroiled in an argument on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no doubt that some of the science has been questionable, some of the data are open to dispute, and the political and economic implications make dispassionate debate difficult. I will make a few philosophical points though:
Is the AGW hypothesis correct? Maybe, maybe not, but currently there is broad consensus in the scientific community that the relatively straightforward radiative forcing models must imply a change in the net thermal flux as CO2 levels rise, and that the only real issue is how sensitive the climate is to that flux. It would probably take the discovery of a fundamental, and currently unknown, process to change that view.
One of the problems of this argument is that CO2 is such a tiny, tiny part of our atmosphere. There have been times where the CO2 has been considerably higher than it is now before we were even around, and everything has managed to work out so far. Again I think there are far too many questions at this point for anyone to claim they can "reverse the trend" when we don't have the complete knowledge of what the "trend" is.
Yeah, ask Australians about cooler temperatures in the last year. Seriously, you can't shotgun this argument and cherry-pick a bunch of random data points about your neighborhood and "every one (sic) I talk to."
Are you saying that the oceans are not getting warmer in the last 100 years than they have been in the last 1000 years? Is there some study that debunks the amount of total heat energy in the oceans?
WARNING: Quoting me may cause accelerated wear of the (sic) keys on your keyboard. Especially when I reply via my iPhone.
Granted my observations are not scientific, however many of the "reports" out there do cherry pick their sources without letting the readers know. I never knew that until I read some of the stuff on the site you don't like. (I'm not a shill for the site, I'lll let interested people dig up through the comments to get the address.)
As for temperatures getting warmer, honestly how can you tell? We have what, maybe 100 years of somewhat reliable data to refer to? That is a speck of time in the earth's history. What is the pattern, how long do these cycles last? We know Europe has had large swings in the past. Who's to say this isn't happening now? Did Australia have some hot weather recently yep. It also snowed in Bagdad. So does one event cancel the other?
We're starting to get away from the topic of this article and that is Tim Cook beating the war drum on "reversing climate change". These are bold statements coming from any human, let alone someone who leads the arguably most influential tech company on the planet. Apple should pursue efficient and cleaner methods for production. Who the hell wants dirty air/water/land? Toot that horn Tim, but don't send out the B.S. that you can undoubtedly change the climate.
Granted my observations are not scientific, however many of the "reports" out there do cherry pick their sources without letting the readers know. I never knew that until I read some of the stuff on the site you don't like. (I'm not a shill for the site, I'lll let interested people dig up through the comments to get the address.)
As for temperatures getting warmer, honestly how can you tell? We have what, maybe 100 years of somewhat reliable data to refer to? That is a speck of time in the earth's history. What is the pattern, how long do these cycles last? We know Europe has had large swings in the past. Who's to say this isn't happening now? Did Australia have some hot weather recently yep. It also snowed in Bagdad. So does one event cancel the other?
We're starting to get away from the topic of this article and that is Tim Cook beating the war drum on "reversing climate change". These are bold statements coming from any human, let alone someone who leads the arguably most influential tech company on the planet. Apple should pursue efficient and cleaner methods for production. Who the hell wants dirty air/water/land? Toot that horn Tim, but don't send out the B.S. that you can undoubtedly change the climate.
As I said, the site organizationally sucks. I'd be very interested in a piece that discredits studies of ocean temps over the last 1000 years (this is not sarcasm).
Regarding 100 years of data, sticking a thermometer in the water is only one way of determining ocean temperature. Proxy measurements can be used, and as more proxy measurements agree, then the data are validated. Ice cores, coral growth, and sediments are examples of useful proxies for estimating temperatures in the past. The margin of error is large, but that is captured in my graph above.
Still, if there has been some major error in these studies, I'd love to learn about it. The site appears to be a means to generate a reasonable doubt regarding the body of evidence, but science isn't a democracy, and data don't benefit from the constitution. You gotta prove it wrong.
You misunderstand - I'm not making an argument - just an observation on the current state of consensus, if that is the part you are objecting to. As for your argument, I'd just add that it is an example of how non-scientists often completely misconstrue these kinds of concepts. "It's so tiny - it can't possibly have a significant effect". If physics were fully linear it would all be so simple, except I'm guessing that (1) you don't know what that means and (2) we would not exist.
It's quite true that CO2 levels were much higher in prehistory, and if they were that high again the planet would survive fine, it's just that life, as we know it, would not be around to appreciate it. As for "reversing the trend", the only trend that we might, potentially, have some control of, is atmospheric CO2, a major factor in the forcing models.
It's apparent that the integrated climate models do not yet fully capture the relationships between net thermal flux and ocean thermal transport and mixing, so maybe everything will be fine anyway, at least for a while, or maybe those models are still missing a significant process that could completely change the prognosis. The qualitative concerns seem to be more based on simple historical correlation between climate and atmospheric composition, which doesn't always capture system hysteresis. So, the rising CO2 levels could be a ticking bomb, or could be a dud, but the current consensus, based on available knowledge, is the former.