maggie40738

Members
  • Content Count

    668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About maggie40738

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

2,949 profile views
  1. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

  2. maggie40738

    Rules Question for Start

    JohnMB nailed it. Whole boat must go back. If you want to try this it's important to realize that an OCS boat returning to the start must stay clear of boats that have already started. Also note that if you know you're over early you must either go back or retire. A few years ago a boat with a throw-out to burn in a series purposely started OCS so that he could camp on his rival and proceeded to close cover his rival the entire first leg. He was DSQ'd for violating rule 2.
  3. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    No doubt. Paleoclimate data indicates that there are indeed significant non-linearities in the historical climate record. In particular the non-linear transitions between the Ice ages and interglacials. If there is to be a non-linear increase in sea level, what could the cause be? Let's consider the potential sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion and ice melt. A temperature increase of 3 degrees will cause a thermal expansion sea level rise of 17 cm. Thermal expansion can cause annoyance flooding, but it simply cannot cause the catastrophic "Florida is submerged" sea level rise National Geo warns. For the National Geo scenario to occur ice melt must dominate. The vast majority of the world's ice is trapped in the center of Antarctica with the only other source of significance being Greenland. Eastern Antarctica, where the ice is, is really cold. The high annual temperature at Vostok station is -31 degrees C. If Antarctica warmed by 10 degrees, way more than predicted by IPCC, the warmest day of the year would be -20 degrees C. Ice doesn't melt at -20 degrees C. As long as the continent is located at the south pole that ice is never going to melt. The only way the bulk of the Antarctic ice is going to melt is if plate tectonics moves the continent north. The only other significant source of ice, Greenland, is actually accumulating more ice mass http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/. The annual high temperature in the center of Greenland, which is where the ice is, -10 C. Just like Antarctica, even with a warm up of 10 degrees the Greenland Ice Cap stays frozen. Bottom line, while Sea Ice, the Palmer Peninsula glaciers and the coastal Greenland glaciers would be impacted by a 2-3 degree warm up. The ice required to produce more than a meter or two of sea level rise is staying put. The National Geo picture was a misleading lie.
  4. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    We agree on the difficulty on modeling clouds and the Albedo effect. I'll take a look at Trenberth. Thank you. Thank you for the Charney reference. If I understand correctly Charney states that a doubling of CO2 will cause in increase of 3 degrees C (+- 1.5 degrees). When Charney was published CO2 was at ~ 335 ppm, since then it has increased to ~410 ppm, an increase of 22%. If Charney's increase is proportional, then we should have seen about 0.6 degrees in temperature increase, which is close to what the data shows. So, I would agree that Charney's prediction is, so far, correct. Given the current rate of CO2 increase it will take about 220 years for Charney's 3.0 degree increase to take effect. Why do the IPCC assessments warn us of 4-6 degree warming by 2100 when Charney predicts that the temperature increase will be much less. Regarding the GISS temperature data. The data set I posted was satellite data of the lower troposphere from NOAA, and it is up to date. The GISS data you posted is based upon ground observations. Interesting how the lower troposphere data does not correlate with the GISS dataset. Why is that do you think? Could it be that the increase in urban heat islands is biasing the ground-based data?
  5. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    JohnMB, With respect, I don't think this is true. It is a fairly straight forward experiment to show that, for a given amount of solar flux, a layer of CO2 traps black body IR radiation which then causes an increase in the body's temperature. Not only can this be shown in a small scale but there are also (IPCC referenced) papers that correlate CO2 measurements, downward flux and reflected IR radiation that provide evidence that this happens on a planetary scale.
  6. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    Not assuming anything. Just looking at the data. Since they started using satellites to measure sea level (circa 1979) the increase has been strikingly linear at roughly 3.2mm/yr.
  7. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    ajbram, I think you mis-interpreted the quote. Earlier I wrote that, like you, I too am a scientist. As a scientist did you really think I would be appealing to a religious authority as part of my argument? What do you think the quote, "In God we trust, all others bring data" means? The quote is from a engineer/businessman to junior staff (either Deming or George Box, depending upon who you believe first said it). The quote was an instruction to his staff that meant: "unless you are God, and you aren't, bring some data to support your your claims". I included the quote as a cautionary note to both sides of the debate. Unless your view is ordained by God, and it isn't, show me some data to back up your claims. I'll add another relevant quote into the mix. This one is definitely from George Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Box was a world class statistician that used this quote to caution his fellow statisticians to make sure they understood the uncertainty in their models and the impact that uncertainty had on their conclusions. This too should be a cautionary note for both sides of the global warming argument. Over-trust in ones models is risky until you have empirical evidence to back up your conclusions. Box's quote relates to Huff, who in his book "How to lie with statistics" said, "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything". If you're not familiar with it check out: Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998), "Confirmation Bias; A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises", Review of General Psychology, Educational Publishing Foundation. 2 (2): 175–220. Nickerson discusses confirmation bias in science as well as other fields. What do you think? Is it possible that the climate science community is falling prey to confirmation bias? They certainly do seem to be intolerant of minority opinion, as this board attests. Am I too much of a heretic for my ideas to warrant a considered, scientific reply?
  8. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    Science is the pursuit of truth. The integrity of the climate science community requires that truth should be pursued without bias, or even the hint of bias. Anthony Watts' web page and National Geo are both media platforms that represent climate science from particular points of view. To the extent that climate scientists interact with the media they must be unbiased. To do otherwise besmirches their community. If the climate science community were shy scientific acolytes that never interacted with the media their failure to rebuff National Geo would be understandable; however, there is no shortage of climate scientists (Hansen et al) who vigorously police any and all reports in the media that run counter to global warming orthodoxy, yet this same community is strangely silent when false pro-global warming statements are offered by media outlets (e.g., the National Geo cover). If anything, National Geo is, compared to Watts, the more substantial media outlet and more worthy of critique. The community's failure to correct pro-global warming falsehoods such as the Nat'l Geo cover are indications of bias that leads one to question whether the entire community is experiencing confirmation bias. "In God we trust, all others bring data" - Deming
  9. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    Monsoon, Hay et al showed that sea level is rising at ~1m for every 1.8 degrees of warming. Given that the current level of warming is ~ 0.012 degrees per year, if Gay et al are right (which I believe) sea level is rising at about 2 feet per century. This makes National Geo's cover showing the statue of Liberty up to her waist in water, a sea level rise of 200 feet which would take 10,000 years to occur, patently misleading. Don't you think that the use of over-hyped, misleading statements and claims such as the National Geo cover, needs to challenged by the scientific community with the same vigor that false statements from deniers are challenged?
  10. maggie40738

    SCIENCE!

    OK. Against my better nature I'm going to post. First, an appeal to authority is not a valid scientific argument. Likewise, guilt by association is not a scientific argument. Some of the greatest scientists in history (i.e., Einstein) were, by their own admission, wrong at different points in their career. Ad hominems against deniers make you look like snarky bullies. I know this is sailing ANARCHY and it's a wild west of snarky (albeit clever) put downs, but clever put downs are not scientific arguments. Besides, none of you are as good at snarky put downs as Lesbian Robot and he's long gone. In the interest of civil scientific debate. I'd like to state a couple of agreed to principals that then I'd like to pose a couple of questions: Agreements (I think): 1 - The earth is warming (based upon observations), which is causing the sea to rise (observations w/correlation drawn by well understood physics-based thermodynamic models) 2 - Man has put a great deal of CO2 in the atmosphere (based upon observations), but not more than the planet has ever seen, but much more than we've seen in the Holocene. 3 - CO2 traps IR radiation, warming the earth (Greenhouse effect, which is established theory supported by easily reproducible experiments) 4 - Increased warming due to CO2 trapping of IR radiation will have feedback effects, some positive (H2O trapping of additional IR radiation) and some negative (H2O blocking of downward solar flux and increased rate of CO2 sequestration due to accelerated growth of flora) Now, a couple of questions: a) If the atmosphere were saturated by CO2 (i.e., 100% of of the IR energy were reflected back down to earth) what are the first order thermal effects of CO2 saturation (i.e., how much would the CO2, by itself, heat the earth with no feedbacks). I don't have the exact figure here but I seem to remember from the IPCC report that it is less than 2 degrees C. b - Over time how well have the IPCC predictions been supported by observations? For example, IPCC #3 came out in 2001, 23 years after NOAA/NASA put satellites up that measured global climate. Have the satellite data since 2001 supported the 4-6 degree C/century warming predicted by IPCC #3? The best data we have from (see NOAA graph below) shows a diminishing trend. The most favorable view supported by the data (if you advocate global warming) is to cherry pick 1978 to current day which shows a 1.4 degree/century linear trend, hardly the 4-6 degree C/century catastrophe IPCC warned us about and definitely not the exponential growth we were warned about. Admittedly recent IPCC reports have softened the dire predictions found in IPCC reports 1..3 and pushed the looming disaster farther into the future. My hypothesis - In trying to explain the apparant contradictions in (a) and (b) I hypothesize that we underestimated the feedbacks to anthropogenic warming. The amount of time and energy scientists have spent investigating positive feedbacks seems to far outweigh the time and energy spent investigating negative (damping) feedbacks. The IPCC acknowledges this and has publically recognized that several important damping feedbacks are not well understood (Albedo effect in particular, but increased sequestration as well). I hypothesize that the planetary impact of global warming will be much closer to the first order CO2 effects than the feedback-heavy effects predicted by IPCC. The last 20 years of satellite data appears to agree with my hypothesis by showing a diminishing warming trend and only 1.0 to 1.4 degrees C/century of warming. Clearly I'm a shill for Exxon by using NOAA data. I admit I'm a scientist, author of 50+ papers, conference chair, journal editor, yada, yada, yada; however, I'm in a different field and do not claim to be an expert in climate science. Even if I were a climate scientist that fact should have no bearing on the merit of my argument or lack thereof. So, please help me understand. What is the flaw in my argument? Why is my hypothesis wrong?
  11. maggie40738

    Older well known IOR Boats

    I have another theory on why the "Golden Age" of racing that was roughly from 1965 to 1990 occurred. The rise of the golden age of big boat one design coincided with the emergence of comparatively low-cost production keel boats with fin keels. This produced general purpose boats that were comparatively low-cost and could be both raced and cruised for over 20+ years. The longevity of fiberglass boats meant that boats were around much longer, creating an abundant supply of lower cost used boats. This was also a period of relatively stable yacht design. For all the odd bumps IOR created the performance of these lead mines boats didn't really change very much over this period (i.e., Cal 40 built in 1964 rates 120 and the 1979 SORC One Ton winner rated rated 2 seconds slower in PHRF, not much speed improvement for 15 years). Improvements in construction methods allowed for much lighter production boats such as the J-35 and Soverel 33 made the heavy IOR boats obsolete, beginning the decline of the "Golden Age". The Golden Age truly ended with the advent of the very lightweight sport boats that could plane down-wind in moderate breeze and had no cruising accommodations. There was never (and has never been) sufficient demand for large production runs for large planing sport boats (200+ hulls) so the used market never saturated and the fleets dies when the old heavy boats just stayed home rather than race against the small lightweight boats. I'd be interested in Perry's assessment of these thoughts.
  12. maggie40738

    Some of my old sailing photos 2

    did she race as Old Blue here on the bay? I used to race against her back in the 80's when I crewed on Reprisal. There was another boat in that era called Goldfish.. Heritage or Carter one ton I think. I wish I'd kept better track of my pictures from back then. Can't find any of em. If I remember correctly, regulars against Reprisal and Old Blue in IOR B in the early 1980s were: Goldfish (orange boat) which was the Heritage one-tonner owned by the Zinns, March Hare (ex-Pipe Dream, yellow boat) was the M36T one tonner owned by Milt Ricketts, McAteer's Immigrant, Bluefish (blue F3), Yellow-jacket (Yellow F3), Intuition (grey Carter 3/4 Ton), Mr. Bill (white Peterson 3/4 Ton), and Auf Ghets (sp) (an white/orange/yellow Peterson 34), Dr. Feelgood (a red Peterson 34) and Contraire (white w/blue-grey slashes, Farr 33). Those were very colorful days.