Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Old School Data Mining, Maritime Style? 236

jason0000042 writes "The BBC is reporting on Cliwoc, the Climatological Database for the World's Oceans, which pulls data about climate change from 18th and 19th Century sailing ships' logbooks. It's like a window in time that could help us better understand global climate change, if they can decipher the olde timey language of the 1750's. Personally, I can't wait to know if we're going to melt down, or alternatively, have an ice age."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Old School Data Mining, Maritime Style?

Comments Filter:
  • 'tis good (Score:5, Funny)

    by m0rphin3 ( 461197 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:44PM (#7829098)
    Nowe we canne fynde oute about the Dragons and mighty Sea-Serpents alsoe. I, for Onne, can't Waite to fynde oute if they melted down, or what.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:46PM (#7829124)
    Did anyone read that as "Old School Data Mining, MARTIAN Style?"

    I pictured rovers being smashed into a database.
  • AARRRGH!!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by thepuma ( 721283 ) *
    Ye landlubbers will never find me gold, no matter how hard ye search me logs!

    I'll keel-haul ye varmits!

    -Blackbeard
  • Please... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rune.w ( 720113 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:49PM (#7829151)

    Personally, I can't wait to know if we're going to melt down, or alternatively, have an ice age.

    Unfortunatelly the data sample being studied is insufficient to give you an answer for two main reasons:

    1. The data is more complete for the Atlantic Ocean. A big chunk of the Pacific Ocean is left out simply because the most interesting travel routes were concentrated on the South Pacific.

    2. 100 years of weather records are insufficient to make accurate predictions of global climate patterns.

    I, for once, would be grateful if /. editors and contributors refrained of making comments like these in the stories.

    R.
    • Oh puh-LEEZ! (Score:3, Informative)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )
      Yeah, can't count on anything from back in those days. They wouldn't know a trend in weather if their lives depended upon it.

      Actually, they kept very complete records, as was required to establish best times of year to sail and what to expect. 100+ years of that information can help indicate if there's a trend or we are simply seeing spikes.

      El Nino has been considered as evidence of global warming, however, there are records of extreme rainfalls along the west coast of California back in the late 1800'

    • Re:Please... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by strictnein ( 318940 ) *
      2. 100 years of weather records are insufficient to make accurate predictions of global climate patterns.

      The 100 years by itself may not, but add to that the 150+ years (1850 - present) that were measured via more traditional means, and you start to have something a little bit more solid.
  • by Savatte ( 111615 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:49PM (#7829153) Homepage Journal
    if they can decipher the olde timey language of the 1750's.

    I'll help bridge the language gap in words all slashdotters can understand

    Yar! Shiver me timbers matey, there be a seaman on the poop deck = first post, nautical style!

    Avast me scurvys = why the hell didn't we bring any women on this 12 week voyage? My nuts feel like cannonballs!
  • Global Warming... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slick_Snake ( 693760 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:51PM (#7829163) Journal
    Could just be a normal cycle in the earth long term weather. We are still technically in an ice age after all. The world has been much hotter than it is today and warming over the past couple of centuries does not necessarily mean the end of the world.
    • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:56PM (#7829209)
      There are very few things I can think of that would mean the end of the World. However there are a lot of things that would mean the end of Humans.
      • Isn't that one of your favorite arguments made by people who don't want to even consider action to address GW? "It's been hot before, and earth supported lots of life then." Brilliant.

        Any even passing knowledge of history, just little old human history, will show you the sorts of catastrophic social changes that occur as a result of serious climate change. The Mfecane in SE Africa was a massive migration caused by climate change there: Shaka Zulu was the end result. Krakatoa erupting around 535 A.D., affe

    • The world will do fine regardless of whether it warms up or cools down.

      It is humanity that will suffer as our coastal cities get flooded or our fertile plains become desert or our valleys become lakes.

      Science is helps us understand, predict, prevent, and change in our favor our environment. The whole brouhaha is whether we are making things worse *for ourselves* or whether we can somehow make it better.

      Yes, it is nice to protect the Earth; I believe in that, but a lot of people seem to need the additiona
      • Yup. My house is hundreds of metres above sea level. If the sea *does* rise, I'll need to pick a different route to work. But I won't need to tow my boat so far.
      • we need to at least *prepare* for it if we cannot do anything else.

        The thing that the "we're all going to die!" extremists miss, is that the changes will happen over a very long period of time. e.g. In 5 years, the shore may creep up 10 inches. If it starts becoming a problem, you'll find that governments will start building dykes, or digging shoreline trenches to keep the water at bay.

        To anyone who thinks this sort of terraforming is a big deal, you need to take a trip to visit Superior-Deluth on the bo
        • The thing that the "we're all going to die!" extremists miss, is that the changes will happen over a very long period of time.

          The thing that the head-in-the-sand extremists miss, is that climate changes could happen very quickly - extreme inputs could push chaotic atmospheric and ocean current systems over to another attractor. For example, there is the possibility that the Gulf Stream will be stopped by meltwater from the arctic (see this thread [slashdot.org]).

          • "Could" being the operative word. Stopping the Gulf Stream would seriously suck, but it wouldn't immediately kill a whole bunch of people. Resulting weather patterns may, but we are getting better at dealing with those.

        • If it starts becoming a problem, you'll find that governments will start building dykes, or digging shoreline trenches to keep the water at bay.

          This works great for Holland, or for small areas of countries (such as the example you provide). However, the total shoreline of the United States is huge! It would be the largest engineering project to date to reinforce the shorelines of the entire country. If a large rise in the water level did occur, I would suspect that not all of the shoreline would be protec
          • If a large rise in the water level did occur, I would suspect that not all of the shoreline would be protected, but based on the development on the shoreline in New Jersey, I would bet on a good portion of the shoreline requiring protection.

            Most of the West Coast U.S. remains pretty much undeveloped. However, the East Coast U.S. is pretty well developed up and down. Much of this development is in the form of harbors. If you look at it from the perspective of every harbor hiring a few trawlers or dyke buil
  • by Fjornir ( 516960 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:51PM (#7829169)
    ...I can't wait to know if we're going to melt down, or alternatively, have an ice age...

    Let's do both!

    • ...I can't wait to know if we're going to melt down, or alternatively, have an ice age...

      Let's do both!


      Don't laugh...it could happen... [dinosauria.com]
    • Do you have any bloody idea how close you are to the truth?

      The first thing to happen with global warming will be a Gulfstream stop. Most of Europe will freeze outright. The current models are for 9-11C lower on year averages in England and around 7-9C around the North Sea - Germany, Denmark, Belgium, etc.

      At the same time Central America will get fried as the rainfall band goes north and near desert conditions descend on the Mexico and Panama. Texas will become cooler and more humid, so on so forth.

      Ever w
  • by W32.Klez.A ( 656478 ) * on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:53PM (#7829181) Homepage
    Expedition to Tanzania seeks clues about ancient climate

    http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/releases/99355a.html [smu.edu]

    Hunt is on for ancient 'global warming' documents

    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_787743.html [ananova.com]
  • Warming AND Ice Age (Score:5, Informative)

    by RabidChipmunk ( 19279 ) <stuart&subQ,org> on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:53PM (#7829184) Homepage Journal
    Actually, current models look like we're going to get both.

    The basic gyst is that the warming melts Greenland. This diverts the gulf stream; plunging Europe into an Ice Age. [It also cools the NE of North America, but Europe really gets it.]

    The average temperature is rising, that doesn't mean it's getting warmer everywhere.
    • by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @03:07PM (#7829280)

      The basic gyst is that the warming melts Greenland. This diverts the gulf stream; plunging Europe into an Ice Age.

      To be more specific, the meltwater coming off a warmer Greenland will dilute the seawater at the terminus of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is driven in part by salinity differences (hence the term "thermohaline circulation), and if the dilution reduces the magnitude of these differences too much, then it is possible that the Gulf Stream will shut down. A good introductory discussion of this subject can be found here [guardian.co.uk].

      To see what Europe might be like without the Gulf Stream, consider that the British Isles are at the same approximate latitude as Newfoundland. Brrrrr!

      • Actually, the old (1850s) idea that the Gulf Stream moderates European temperatures has come under fire recently. Many meterologists are now thinking that most of the poleward transfer of heat is done by the atmosphere, and not the ocean. Basically, it's the Rockies that keep European temperatures moderate, not the Gulf Stream. So you'd better watch out...if you don't play nice, we'll take the Rockies down...THEN what are you gonna do? Huh? Yeah, that's what I tought.

        There was a paper in October of '02 outl

        • by Aardpig ( 622459 )

          So you'd better watch out...if you don't play nice, we'll take the Rockies down

          Hah, if you do that, then we'll blow La Palma [bbc.co.uk] and watch the US east coast disappear under a tsunami over half a kilometre tall! In fact, we don't need to blow it; according to this article [benfieldhrc.org], the collapse of La Palma becomes more likely as global temperatures rise.

          However, there's no cause for panic. I have a friend working at the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias [www.iac.es], and he's promised to phone me if La Palma collapses. I'll

    • That's not so bad, since NE North America is only a bunch of people who talk funny, no one even knows what they're saying or thinking anyway. Ditto for Europe.
    • The overall opinion from computer modeling is one more degree warmer and we (Europe) freeze out. This aparently is the 'little ice age' of the past repeating itself. It would be very interesting to know if Florida was under-water then?

      It seems that that such seemingly small change of a single degree (Celsius) might actually do this. Once a firm believer man was doing all of this I'm not all that sure anymore. All told nature always wins and from that point of view we are not much of an influence.

      This does
      • This doesn't mean I think Americans should drive SUVs. If the price of petrol was fair (about $4 - $5 / gallon) we could atleast eliminate the human factor to a great extent.

        How exactly would $4/gallon be fair to anybody but B.P. stockholders?

        • How exactly would $4/gallon be fair to anybody but B.P. stockholders?

          How would your driving habits change in the long term if gasoline prices tripled or quadrupled and your fuel budget did not?
          • How exactly would $4/gallon be fair to anybody but B.P. stockholders?

            How would your driving habits change in the long term if gasoline prices tripled or quadrupled and your fuel budget did not?

            Not at all, to be quite honest, and how does that answer my question?

  • by jsav40 ( 614902 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:54PM (#7829191)
    ...the current data being collected by Volunteer Observing Ships today. See: http://www.etl.noaa.gov/programs/oceanobs/ for details. Basically the program combines physical data with old fashioned observation.
  • Ship's Log (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:55PM (#7829196) Homepage Journal

    Januarye 17, 1787

    Anchored at Shanghai bye night, traded opium for much filver, failing for Hong Kong on the tide. Temperature 65.

    Januarye 21, 1787

    Anchored at Hong Kong, but were vifited by cuftomef officialf. Snuck up a river by night to fell more opium to chinefe for silver. Got very nice candelabra for the wife. Temperature 61.

    January 24, 1787

    Macau not welcoming our bufineff, but fnuck up a river by night and fold laft of opium for more filver. Blimey, what racket, time to head back to Tonkin. Temperature 62.

    • It was my understanding that China was an avid importer of silver, that came from Mexico via the Manila Galleon.

      Actually, by then China was so developed and so self-sufficient that the only noteworthy imports were silver and opium. It was the European countries who wanted to trade all the fine Chinoiseries.

      So, did the Chinese really trade back silver?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:55PM (#7829202)

    If they are worried about the Great Ocean Conveyor giving out in the Labrador Seas due to an increase in freshwater runnoff, (there is evidence to suppor that this happened during one of the last ice ages, when a ice dam broke and billions of gallons of fresh water dumped into the North Atlantic, shutting down the Gulf Stream, and turinng a gradual thaw into a deep freeze,) there is a simple solution, should this be found to be the problem.


    Dump lots of dense, salty crud in the North Atlantic!


    This will help keep the water sinking, drawing more warm water up from the Gulf, and incedentally keep Europe warm. Where to get this water densification material? Why good old fashion pollution, of course.

    Heavy metal salts, and any industrial ionic or polar goop that readily disolves in water can be spread by the tanker load accross the Labrador and Greenland Seas, increasing the density of water, and compensating for the freshwater runnoff that is occuring as a result of global warming.


    The normal quote in industry is "The solution to pollution is dilution" Well, in this case, "The solution to dilution is pollution!"

  • Sufficient Range? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ba3r ( 720309 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:57PM (#7829210)
    Is a couple of centuries sufficient to spot trends in climate change? Given that the ice age was over a period of thousands of years, it seems difficult to imagine that the climate fluctuations of a few hundred years is of sufficient length to form an accurate view of long term change. My confidence still lies in the drilled cores of Antartica (and i readily admit i have limited knowledge about the subject to make any reasonable judgement, and was too lazy to google enough information to pretend i do).
  • by Charlton Heston ( 588481 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:57PM (#7829211) Homepage
    There must be some trick to reading logs that I haven't figured out yet. For example, I just read my log and it said that the climate is going to be long, brown, smelly, squishy, and somewhat moist. Followed by a localized cyclonic oceanic disturbance, and a short trip down a narrow pipe.
  • You'll have both (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Homology ( 639438 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:57PM (#7829213)
    Personally, I can't wait to know if we're going to melt down, or alternatively, have an ice age. Ice ages and hot periodes are cyclic, natural events. Question is just when.

    So what you are asking are what effect human activities (air/sea pollution, cutting down rain forests) have on current climate, and on the climate in the next few decades. Most scientists, except Bush croonies paid by the oil industry, agrees that pollution has increased temperature.

    Most likely, it'll be your grandchildren that will see the worst of the effect. Except, of course, countries that is very flat on just above sea level, like Bangladesh, are already hit. But then again, poor people in the third world does not matter, eh?

  • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @03:01PM (#7829246) Homepage
    People have this "The Sky is Falling" mentality of current weather, what with the ozone and pollution, my God, all the ice caps will melt! But did you know that there is a natural cycle with global warming, and every now and then the ice caps DO melt? Did you know that in fact we are in that part of the natural cycle? The next thing you know, German cockroaches will be declared an endangered species!
    • by sparrow_hawk ( 552508 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @03:42PM (#7829540)
      It is true, granted, that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling. (It would be hard, however, to console the residents of Florida with "but it's quite natural" when their houses are under water. Just a thought. A twelve inch sea-level increase can cover a lot more land than you might think.)

      However, until it's clear whether human activity or climatic cycles are causing the warming, doesn't it make sense to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases? If the doomsayers are wrong, well, at least we've reduced pollution (which most greenhouse gases are, btw). If they're right, we're better off than we might have been. Think of it as taking out an insurance policy.

      By the way, you may have noticed that the ozone hole isn't in the news as much anymore. There's a reason for that -- since our industries have stopped emitting CFCs in such incredible quantities, the hole has slowly begun to close itself up again. It's going to take a while before the ozone layer is 100% "healthy," but it's a good example of how the correct steps taken can begin to correct a problem.
      • you may have noticed that the ozone hole isn't in the news as much anymore. There's a reason for that -- since our industries have stopped emitting CFCs in such incredible quantities, the hole has slowly begun to close itself up again.

        B.S. The largest ozone hole on record was in 2000. The second largest was this year [sciencedaily.com]. There's too much inter-year variability to make such a claim. Perhaps the Earth's weakening magnetic field will allow in more electrons, which have been shown to destroy ozone [sciencedaily.com].

      • However, until it's clear whether human activity or climatic cycles are causing the warming, doesn't it make sense to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases?

        Not necessarily. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses may, in fact, have no significant effect on global climate. They may, however, be significantly disruptive to the economy, particularly in poorer nations. Oddly, only the very wealthy are concerned about climate change and the environment. Poor people are usually more concerned about clean drinking
  • Both (Score:5, Informative)

    by Euphonious Coward ( 189818 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @03:01PM (#7829247)
    There's no reason not to expect a meltdown followed hard upon by an ice age.

    The weather has been demonstrated conclusively to be a chaotic system. One feature common in chaotic systems, easily seen in the Lorenz simulation (e.g. in your screen saver) is that when the system's oscillations get increasingly large (a little moreso each cycle), this is prelude to a change in mode to a different attractor, where all recent history has no predictive value at all.

    Imagine what would happen if the Gulf Stream decided to flow on a different path, e.g. because of the massive salinity decrease around the north pole. The end of agriculture in northwestern Europe is just a beginning. Anybody who thinks that ocean currents can only flow the way they do now is very silly indeed.

    Funny, lots of shipping company executives are excited about the prospect of driving across the north pole.

  • if they can decipher the olde timey language of the 1750's

    Isnt the fact we cant even decipher 1750's English a testament to our inferiority at predicting the weather.... not to speak of the fact Ive never known a single weather reporter to give a accurate forcast of the weather.. well now thats where I slip up ;)

    Gotta love this weather thing.
  • "Personally, I can't wait to know if we're going to melt down, or alternatively, have an ice age."

    I reather have an ice age. since i live in a tropical place is unlikelly that ice will cover here, in a worst case scenario we'll have a climate resembling that of southern chile or argentina (snow in winter, warm in summer). plus, my sister lives in a litoranean city. if the ice caps melt (specially the southern one) her city will drown.
  • by mesocyclone ( 80188 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @03:18PM (#7829368) Homepage Journal
    Seriously... this is the title of the Caltech Michelen Lecture [crichton-official.com], 1/17/2003 by Michael Crichton.

    Since this discussion will lead to the inevitable global warming flap, this paper offers a good viewpoint on the issue (although I disagree with his assertion that SETI is a religion - it isn't - it's an experiment).

    A few quotes:

    Regarding Sagan's claims of nuclear winter:

    Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about,"

    In my book, if Feynam said it, it was almost certianly true. I used to go to his lectures at Hughes Malibu Research Center and it was an amazing experience. ...and...

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
    • Crichton's lecture is surprisingly interesting, but he is wrong about climate change. We already know with negligible remaining room for doubt that there is a human-caused warming and we expect larger human-caused changes in the future. This has nothing to do with economic predictions and little to do with weather forecasts. The predictability time scales are different for phenomena with different time scales. We can pretty much tell you where Jupiter will be in the sky a million years from today, even if w
      • Global warming skeptics seem to think the political pressures are in the direction of exagerrating the problem. This may be true in some countries, but is hardly true in the present configuration of the United States.

        Although political pressures are important, I think it's the journalistic pressures that predominate. Bad news sells papers. Scientists are as prone as the rest of us to getting the overall impression that things are getting worse, because bad news travels faster than good news and sells bet

        • I think it's the journalistic pressures that predominate. Bad news sells papers. Scientists are as prone as the rest of us to getting the overall impression that things are getting worse, because bad news travels faster than good news and sells better.

          Okay, then, I'll send my next grant proposal to Time Warner instead of NSF. Thanks.

      • On the other hand it is not difficult to show that the last fifteen years have followed the course of the predictions of 15 years ago.... We already know with negligible remaining room for doubt that there is a human-caused warming and we expect larger human-caused changes in the future.

        (Note I've reversed the order of the sentences in the original post.)

        The problem I have with this logic is that it does not follow. There's only three basic predictions to make on climate issues right now, "It'll get warm
        • The problem I have with this logic is that it does not follow. There's only three basic predictions to make on climate issues right now, "It'll get warmer", "It'll get cooler", or "It'll stay the same". Since the smart money is not on the third outcome, you really have a 50-50 chance of being right on this issue by sheer luck.

          Clever, but wrong.

          This isn't about a prediction of the sign of the change. It's about a prediction of unnaturally rapid change, mostly in high latitude continental interiors. Been

    • That was an excellent article. Thanks for the link.
  • on the history channel [historychannel.com] had a special kinda relating to this. The episode What sank the armada? had a scientist researching why the spanish were not prepared for a naval battle (defeat of the spanish armada). The scientist was researching the log books and trying to recalculate areas of low and high pressure. pretty interesting.
  • I have been watching Star Trek Since I was a kid, starting with the Original Series through the latest "Enterprise".

    It seems that Star Trek inventions become real inventions 20 to 30 years after the original broadcast date. This is not hard-tested theory, but something I am researching.

    By my reconning, the weather control systems mentioned in TNG (circa 1995) will be implimented sometime between 2015 and 2025. So as long as we can keep global warming from getting out of hand until them, we should be coo
  • by photonic ( 584757 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @03:55PM (#7829651)
    Some years ago I heard a talk by a researcher of our national meteorology bureau. These old ship logs are the oldest available data series that are used to study long scale climate changes. One of the biggest challenges seems to be to 'calibrate' all the measurements that were done over time with different methods. In the past, the temperature measurements were done by trowing a bucket in the water, hoisting it to the deck and sticking a thermometer in it. At some time, however, they changed from using leather buckets to using metal ones, which has an influence on the reading that is taken.

    According to the guy this causes one of the biggest uncertainties in todays climate models! They try to compensate this by fudging with the so called bucket correction factor [noaa.gov].

    • One of the biggest challenges seems to be to 'calibrate' all the measurements that were done over time with different methods.

      First thing I thought of -- Ships' logs took weather damn seriously in the age of sail, but all the various experimental instruments to gauge salinity and temperature at different depths and so on would be just crazy to try to work with now. (Humboldt would be so proud to know we're using his stuff, but he was hardly confident in the results he got even then.)

      We're talking about

  • by kfg ( 145172 )
    "Under a democratical government the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused, and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude."

    Yeah, I see what you mean. Most people wouldn't understand a word of it.

    KFG
  • I remember learning in elementary school that the Earth is in roughly a 10k year ice age cycle. 400 years of data against a 10,000 year cycle is fairly insignificant. Human caused global warming is a political topic, not a scientific one.
    • 400 years of data against a 10,000 year cycle is fairly insignificant.

      That 10,000 year cycle was sustained without human pollution.
      Depending on how much of an influence we are, the cycle could be modified.
      In that sense, those 400 years are important.

      The politicians can't make informed decisions without the help of science.

      -metric

    • Human-induced atmospheric change is a scientific topic. People want to keep debating the effects of the changes we're making to the atmosphere. Why are the changes themselves not debated? Wouldn't it be prudent to avoid changing something that our lives depend on -- especially if the effects are uncertain?

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Working...