Slashdot Mirror


Using Naval Logbooks To Reconstruct Past Weather and Predict Future Climate

Lasrick writes: What a great idea: the Old Weather Project uses old logbooks to study the weather patterns of long ago, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate. "Pity the poor navigator who fell asleep on watch and failed to update his ship's logbook every four hours with details about its geographic position, time, date, wind direction, barometric readings, temperatures, ocean currents, and weather conditions." As Clive Wilkinson of the UK's National Maritime Museum adds, "Anything you read in a logbook, you can be sure that it is a true and faithful account."

The Old Weather Project uses citizen scientists to transcribe and digitize observations that were scrupulously recorded on a clockwork-like basis, and it is one of several that climate scientists are using to create "a three-dimensional computer simulation that will provide a continuous, century-and-a-half-long profile of the entire planet's climate over time" — the 20th Century Reanalysis Project. Data is checked and rechecked by three different people before entry into the database, and the logbook measurements are especially valuable because they were compiled at sea.

102 comments

  1. The past didnt have global warming problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    All of this data is useless.

    1. Re:The past didnt have global warming problems. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      False, the past did indeed have warming and cooling times, even for the past thousand years. It also had percentage of CO2 in atmosphere rising for four centuries due to industrial age.

    2. Re:The past didnt have global warming problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

    3. Re:The past didnt have global warming problems. by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      THESE data

    4. Re:The past didnt have global warming problems. by itzly · · Score: 1

      I suppose they also "corrected" all the pictures of glaciers people have taken ?

    5. Re:The past didnt have global warming problems. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Yes it's all a vast, time travelling conspiracy. Like the moon.

    6. Re:The past didnt have global warming problems. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Aha, yet another thoroughly debunked denialist talking point, it's amusing to watch the arm chair skeptics lie desperately to support their fact free opinion.

  2. true and faithful account by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Faithful, yes, but if he didn't know how to navigate, how 'true' can they be? Eh, not to worry, chances are nobody would ever find those logs anyway, if you get my drift...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:true and faithful account by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Faithful, yes, but if he didn't know how to navigate, how 'true' can they be?

      Those people sank, and we do not have their log books. :-P

      I don't think navigation on the ocean was very forgiving before modern electronics. And I gather you still do it the old fashioned way as a back up, in case you ever find yourself without them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:true and faithful account by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If you can use a sextant, you got it made. I don't know anybody who ever got lost pre-GPS. Unfortunately, the damn thing can't predict the weather. All you can do is record what happened, the rest was guesswork. That's where electronics made the difference. Now we can see over the horizon. Hurricanes aren't a surprise anymore.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:true and faithful account by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you can use a sextant, you got it made.

      Only as long as you have an accurate chronometer that was correctly set. The sextant gives you North/South, but you need the chronometer for East/West

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:true and faithful account by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that GPS works much in the same way. You aren't measuring angles to known stars, but rather distances from known satellites, and it all works because there are atomic clocks on the satellites so you know exactly when the message left the satellite. It's a much more high tech way of doing almost the exact same thing.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:true and faithful account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, who knew ... deriving longitude and latitude were an integral part of navigation.

    6. Re:true and faithful account by stridebird · · Score: 2

      You will need an almanac as well, really. I think only Polaris or (possibly) the Southern Cross can be used for fairly approximate latitude without further data or measurement. Sun: noon altitude varies throughout the year. Basically any other body you need to know time and ephemeris. I am only learning astronavigation now but that's how I understand it.

    7. Re:true and faithful account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mechanical clock is iffy for providing the time.

      You need a radio to check the time, or an electronic watch which is sufficiently accurate.

      Either way, you are not completely off the electronics.

    8. Re:true and faithful account by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't think navigation on the ocean was very forgiving before modern electronics.
      Of corse it is forgiving.
      What exactly do you think would happen on the ocean?
      The coast is the problem if you believe to be somewhere where you actually are not.
      And as the GPS easy is 40m off hitting a rock by forgetting to adjust the GPS to local environments is a big mistake. Electronics easy give a false idea of safety. Hint: watch your depths log (echo lot)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:true and faithful account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longitude 2000 starring Jeremy Irons is an interesting account of exactly this.

      In the 18th century, the only way to navigate accurately at sea was to follow a coastline all the way, which would not get you from Europe to the West Indies or the Americas. Observing the sun or stars would give you the latitude, but not the longitude unless done in conjunction with a clock that would keep time accurately at sea, and no such clock existed. After one too many maritime disasters due to navigational errors, the British Parliament set up a substantial prize for a way to find the longitude at sea. The film's main story is that of craftsman John Harrison: he built a clock that would do the job, what we would now call a marine chronometer. But the Board of Longitude was biased against this approach and claiming the prize was no simple matter. Told in parallel is the 20th century story of Rupert Gould, for whom the restoration of Harrison's clocks to working order became first a hobby, then an obsession that threatened to wreck his life.In the 18th century, the only way to navigate accurately at sea was to follow a coastline all the way, which would not get you from Europe to the West Indies or the Americas. Observing the sun or stars would give you the latitude, but not the longitude unless done in conjunction with a clock that would keep time accurately at sea, and no such clock existed. After one too many maritime disasters due to navigational errors, the British Parliament set up a substantial prize for a way to find the longitude at sea. The film's main story is that of craftsman John Harrison: he built a clock that would do the job, what we would now call a marine chronometer. But the Board of Longitude was biased against this approach and claiming the prize was no simple matter. Told in parallel is the 20th century story of Rupert Gould, for whom the restoration of Harrison's clocks to working order became first a hobby, then an obsession that threatened to wreck his life.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192263/?ref_=kw_li_tt

    10. Re:true and faithful account by es330td · · Score: 1

      Those people sank, and we do not have their log books. :-P

      How nice of them to self select their data out of the dataset via the Darwin Process.

    11. Re:true and faithful account by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you think would happen on the ocean?
      The coast is the problem if you believe to be somewhere where you actually are not.

      Just so. As I learned when I was on a boomer these many years ago, the dangerous part of any patrol is the going out and coming back in, where the water is shallow and mistakes are not easily forgiven....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:true and faithful account by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      The Polynesians were able to navigate thousands of miles of open ocean without any problem:

      http://ageofex.marinersmuseum....

    13. Re:true and faithful account by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Important thing to note. Because of the speed those satellites are traveling, they have to make adjustments to their clocks every so often. As they end up being behind by micro-seconds.

    14. Re:true and faithful account by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the GPS satellites have to take relativity in to account. But the adjustment is built in, automatic and constant. Even being off by 1 microsecond would introduce a massive error. GPS timing operates on the nanosecond scale.

    15. Re:true and faithful account by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Only as long as you have an accurate chronometer that was correctly set. The sextant gives you North/South, but you need the chronometer for East/West

      Well, that's close, in that you need time, but not necessarily a chronometer. That was what Harrison had against him, the committee favoured a celestial approach to measuring time as well. And that did work, but the calculations were so onerous that they took literally hours to complete, for less accuracy than could be had by Harrison's chronometers.

      If Harrison's chronometers were the only way to determine longitude, then the committee would probably have come around a lot sooner. That Newton himself, as the chair of the board, wasn't all that keen, certainly didn't help. In fact while he didn't object to chronometers per se he did object that if it became unreliable, only celestial timekeeping methods could even hope to put it right again. Something that was true until the advent of radio.

      So the chronometer is an item of (practical) convenience, rather than theoretical necessity.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    16. Re:true and faithful account by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wow, who knew ... deriving longitude and latitude were an integral part of navigation.

      Duh, I just use google maps on my smartphone.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. HA! by Holi · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Anything you read in a logbook, you can be sure that it is a true and faithful account."

    Says someone who never stood watch in the Navy.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:HA! by Havokmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Anything you read in a logbook, you can be sure that it is a true and faithful account."

      Says someone who never stood watch in the Navy.

      Especially back before satellites and realtime communications Wanna pick up some 'native' chicks?

      Oh we're a week late because it was REALLY STORMY at sea. See? It says so in the log book.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:HA! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Suggesting that human-taken records are faithful is pretty damned flawed. Hell, we can't even trust people to write down important things like major historical events accurately.

      Now... the overall picture described by large volumes of this sort of data does have value in cross-checking other observations/predictions. More data, if its context is properly understood, never actively hurts.

    3. Re:HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or someone who hasn't done, well anything. People are lazy, period. While most of the data is probably really reliable, I guarantee with 100% accuracy that someone wrote either intentionally false information, unlikely, but who knows what goes through people's heads, or mis-read an instrument and it was actually 65 degrees instead of 85 or they just wrote down the wrong info by transposing numbers.

    4. Re:HA! by plopez · · Score: 1

      What to make your bonus? Get that cargo of expensive perishable spices across the Pacific ASAP.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:HA! by plopez · · Score: 1

      Stormy? The crew on our other ship in the area said it was so nice the native babes were swimming topless....

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re:HA! by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 2

      Now, that's funny (Yes, I served).

      We had navigation logs, engine logs, bridge logs, radio logs, pretty much logs for everything. And, those were required to be accurate. Even the Boatswain mates had their own logs. Their log, however, I would question ...

    7. Re:HA! by marcello_dl · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, inaccuracies for reason others than hiding or underlining AGW may well become statistical noise instead of sabotage

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    8. Re:HA! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. For once a less to the point, more verbose post might have been better.

      There's always lots of statistical noise. If the volume of data is large enough, you can still uncover meaningful valuable.

    9. Re:HA! by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      Stormy? The crew on our other ship in the area said it was so nice the native babes were swimming topless....

      We were attacked by pirates. Fortunately, we were able to fend them off, but we lost Joe (who actually deserted).

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    10. Re:HA! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Especially back before satellites and realtime communications Wanna pick up some 'native' chicks?

      That is exactly how Pitcairn island became inhabited by Christians.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    11. Re:HA! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The thing that always amazes me in that story is they put Captain Bligh on a row boat in the Pacific and somehow he made it back to England.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:HA! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The thing that always amazes me in that story is they put Captain Bligh on a row boat in the Pacific and somehow he made it back to England.

      From what I understand he did it the same way the Polynesians did it: stellar navigation. Not to England, but to some island he knew about, most likely due west. He was the ship's captain, familiar with the nearby islands. Think about those crazy Polynesians who use stellar navigation to travel between Hawaii and Tahiti!

      Polynesian: The race of many islands

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    13. Re:HA! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, he only needed to get to Timor in the rowboat, but that was impressive enough (it was a 47-day voyage. Of the 19 men, only one was lost, to hostile natives when they made a landfall at Tofua). Bligh was an excellent seaman. And not a bad guy, his reputation notwithstanding.

    14. Re:HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anything you read in a logbook, you can be sure that it is a true and faithful account."
      Says someone who never wrote or scrutinized a logbook in the Navy.

      100% agree that there is some useful information in there but not "anything is true and faithful".
      When there is a fire drill while you write a logbook, there are a lot of options open about how people react then (and a good navy SHOULD have multiple fire drills).

    15. Re:HA! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The thing that always amazes me in that story is they put Captain Bligh on a row boat in the Pacific and somehow he made it back to England.

      And to keep on topic - he continued his log. http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/disco...

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  4. Backcasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The climate freaks would be much more credible if their backcasted models matched historical observations. This way they wouldn't have to waste our time.

    1. Re:Backcasting by plopez · · Score: 0

      Citation please.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Backcasting by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The climate freaks would be much more credible if their back casted models matched historical observations.

      Well you should be pleased to learn that they have been doing that for about 40yrs now.

      PS: Modeling past climate is normally referred to as 'hindcasting', perhaps if you google using the correct terminology you will get more informative results.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. US Navy still uses sextant and chronometer by perpenso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think navigation on the ocean was very forgiving before modern electronics. And I gather you still do it the old fashioned way as a back up, in case you ever find yourself without them.

    I saw a documentary on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier, it had a relevant incident. The carrier has GPS, LORAN, inertial navigation, etc. Yet every day a sailor steps outside the bridge with a sextant and takes readings on the horizon and sun. (does another sailor do so at night with the stars?). He then goes inside and using a WW2 manufactured mechanical chronometer calculates the position of the ship. When asked why the Navy still uses such ancient mechanical technology the sailor replied that this ship is a warship and is expected to be where it needs to be regardless of whether the fancy electronics is working or not.

    1. Re:US Navy still uses sextant and chronometer by plopez · · Score: 0

      When working with billions of dollars of taxpayer assets everything would be double checked to ensure nothing goes wrong. A colleague of mine was on a missile sub and that was how he described things to me.

      The private sector sees things differently it seems:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:US Navy still uses sextant and chronometer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISWYDT

    3. Re:US Navy still uses sextant and chronometer by youngone · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised they still do this, and no, it is not done at night, just at midday.

    4. Re:US Navy still uses sextant and chronometer by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      It's lucky there's no fancy electronics involved in the engine, steering or weapons on a ship then.

      I assume the Navy still have oars in the hold and cannons to fire when they arrive at their target?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:US Navy still uses sextant and chronometer by perpenso · · Score: 1

      It's lucky there's no fancy electronics involved in the engine, steering or weapons on a ship then.

      I assume the Navy still have oars in the hold and cannons to fire when they arrive at their target?

      The fancy electronics they are worried about are outside the ship, beyond their control, the GPS satellites. Electronics on board the ship are an entirely different story.

  6. Re:No one cares by thephydes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    wrong..... plenty of people give a shit, so unless you can provide compelling evidence that global warming is not happening - man made or otherwise - stop spreading your bullshit or get it published in a peer reviewed journal instead of here.

  7. But I thought .... by KirbyCombat · · Score: 2

    Don't we already know the average temperature of the planet to better than a tenth of a degree back to the 1890's?

    1. Re:But I thought .... by itzly · · Score: 2

      Overlapping datasets are always good. Helps to catch mistakes, and helps to reduce error bars.

    2. Re:But I thought .... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The average temperature calculated from the data of three thermometers randomly spread over the ocean/land gives a different average than a few million thermometers.

      And no, certainly not to 1/10th of a degree. I would be surprised if in old times it was half a degree accurate and would be even more surprised if two thermometers at the same place would show the same temperature, due to "flaws" in scales.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:But I thought .... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Independent confirmation of results is a fundamental part of the scientific method. For example it has been known since the 1990's that tree rings are an unreliable climate indicator after ~1960, nobody knows why, but they do know that it doesn't match the other lines of evidence, which includes the modern instrumental records. This is what the infamous "Mike's trick in Nature" quote was referring to in the 'climategate' beat up, the truncation of a data set that was known to be wrong. The character assassins behind 'climategate' insisted that removing the bad data was dishonest and politically motivated, despite the fact that the explanation of the 'trick' had been published in Nature.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:But I thought .... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The accuracy of an individual measurement is one thing. When you combine the results of many measurements it's reasonable to state the result to a far greater accuracy than the individual measurement. The most straight forward example of this that is know is baseball batting averages. The measurements are either 1 (a hit) or 0 (an out) yet baseball batting averages are reported to 3 decimal places.

    5. Re:But I thought .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it known that the tree rings are unreliable after ~1960, what makes people think they were accurate before then? They were pretty? The matched what people liked?
      If I find that some measurement in something I am working with is inaccurate after some point, my immediate reaction is to not trust that measurement anywhere.

    6. Re:But I thought .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it known that the tree rings are unreliable after ~1960, what makes people think they were accurate before then?

      Umm ... "independent confirmation of results." (i.e. they match other proxies and ice core sampling). In fact there are a number of trees sampled of a single species from locations in the ex-Soviet Union that are unreliable after ~1960.

      If I find that some measurement in something I am working with is inaccurate after some point, my immediate reaction is to not trust that measurement anywhere.

      No, you must throw them all away immediately and make no attempt to isolate those measurements which are inaccurate nor to salvage those which are fine ... otherwise you risk collecting evidence about the real world. That would never do.

    7. Re:But I thought .... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Rofl, sorry. That made no sense at all.
      If I measure temperatures as: 1.2, 1.2, 1.4
      And you measure the same temperature at the same place with a different (scale) thermometer as: 1.1, 1.3, 1.3 then the average is different.
      And I really doubt avarages are any helpfull anyway ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:But I thought .... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It comes from the law of large numbers. The more measurements involved the more accurate your results will be.

    9. Re:But I thought .... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Only if the measurements are accurate.

      What is so difficult to understand that no amount of inaccurate measurements add up into an accurate average ... espeacially if you are not interested in averages but e.g individual averages fir certain months?

      We are not talking here about different measurements of 'the same thermometer' but of many thermometers that are all off by an unknown +/- amount. There is no way to average that out reliable, you only can make an educated guess.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:But I thought .... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Accurate thermometers have been available for well over 200 years. Modern thermometers may be more precise but they aren't necessarily more accurate. There are two kinds of accuracy that are important to thermometers. One is the absolute accuracy, how close the measurement is to the real temperature. The second is repeatable accuracy, how well the thermometer repeats the measurement for given conditions. Even if the absolute accuracy isn't perfect if the repeatable accuracy is good you can get an accurate rate of change which is what we care about in measuring global warming. In combining thousands of measurements from thousands of thermometers unless there is a bias to the instruments any measurement errors will be random and tend to cancel each other out (more law of large numbers). So unless you're assuming all of the old measurements are biased one way as long as the repeatable accuracy is good (and I've seen no reason to believe it isn't) then the absolute accuracy isn't that important to measuring a rate of change.

    11. Re:But I thought .... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Rate of change implies that the same instruments are used repeatedly over a long time. This is not the case here. The instruments are random. There are not even "same coordinates" measurement except on land. Nevertheless you have a point.

      I originally only wanted to point out that the "law of large numbers" only has limited force in this case :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Offtopic: What is with the egregious clickbait by presidenteloco · · Score: 2, Informative

    at the bottom of the classic slashdot homepage.

    9.5 out of 10 on the annoying and intelligence-insulting scale.

    Dice please exterminate this local outbreak of this putrid Internet fungal growth.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Offtopic: What is with the egregious clickbait by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Apparently Adblock does work

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Offtopic: What is with the egregious clickbait by Carnildo · · Score: 2

      I disabled Javascript on Slashdot. The site suddenly became far more usable, and the clickbait ads went away.

      (I also disabled images, and the usability shot up again.)

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  9. This data doesn't show as much change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the measurements taken over land so they need to be buried. There's a reason most studies only use data from airports near growing metro areas.

  10. assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1. Accuracy - What kind of precision instrumentation was available aboard ship 200 years ago? I don't recall seeing any paintings or pictures where an anemometer/touchless IR thermometer/etc was depicted.

    1. Re:assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In 1850, +-0.1 C...about.

  11. silly conspiracy theorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    still believing that mankind is causing the earth's climate to change.. soo silly LOL

  12. Not the first time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago (about 25, yowser) I worked on an ocean-bottom mapping project (Hydrographic Information System) for the Australian Navy. We used depth data from everything from laser satellite measurements to Captain Cook's (and others') logbooks.

  13. Exxon Valdez by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2

    Well, the thing about the Exxon Valdez spill, is that it happened at night, shortly after leaving Port Valdez. Taking elevations at noon only tells you your latitude, unless you have a very accurate clock, and the sun can only be used in that manner at noon (AFAIK). You could try using another celestial object, but the visibility in the Valdez Narrows tends to be bad even for the region, although the seas are generally less than in Prince William Sound or the rest of the Gulf of Alaska. I presume you're referring to allegations that Exxon Valdez's radar navigation was turned off, but there has never been any evidence to that effect. Personally, I don't know Greg Palast, but I did grow up in Valdez, and I was there for the spill, and while I have no definitive evidence, I am pretty sure he is not only full of shit, but paid to be so. Even if the radar was off, you detect reefs with sonar, and that was working perfectly.

    The biggest factor in the Exxon spill was the lack of a double-hull construction. It should not have been a disaster. Even if everything else that went wrong had still happened, it would have been mitigated to a great degree with better construction. It wasn't a problem of double-checking procedures or equipment, it was a fundamental design flaw.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Exxon Valdez by drinkypoo · · Score: 3

      I thought the problem with the E.V. was that it's hard to make intelligent decisions when you're drunk, regardless of how much accurate information you have.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Exxon Valdez by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      True. And the Titanic wasn't a navigation fault - too fast for conditions, bad design, and substandard steel plates. Hubris trumps tech most of the time.

    3. Re:Exxon Valdez by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Joe Hazelwood may or may not have been drunk, but he was provably not on the bridge when the ship struck. Also, he could have been drunk as a lord, and if the ship had not been a glorified Capri Sun, it wouldn't have mattered what he hit. Overall, his role in the spill was pretty minor. Blame Exxon for hiring him, blame them for the tanker's condition, the spill response, and for the travesty of justice perpetrated afterwards: Hazelwood might have had the official responsibility, but singling him out as a scapegoat only ignores the real problems of the spill.

      Honestly, I don't know what issue people still have about this. Yes, it was a disaster, but so was the spill response, and either way it's completely invisible today. The salmon fisheries are as healthy as they ever have been, and there are as many eagles, sea otters, and sea lions as you could possibly want and then some. If you want to point out real, permanent damage, you might note how far the Columbia and other nearby glaciers have receded in that same period. That is the real damage that oil companies have wrought in Alaska.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re:Exxon Valdez by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Taking elevations at noon only tells you your latitude, unless you have a very accurate clock, and the sun can only be used in that manner at noon (AFAIK).

      As it happens, the Sun and the Moon are only two of the many objects that can be used for Celestial Navigation. And, as far as having a very accurate clock, what do you think a Marine chronometer is for and why all ships are required to have at least one?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Exxon Valdez by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the impression that I was unaware of those things? I did mention the concept, honestly. I am just saying, from long personal experience, that the weather in the specific area of the Valdez Narrows and Arm is extremely unconducive to seeing anything at all, but especially not the celestial sphere. As a method for navigating a supertanker through those same waters, it is entirely useless. Tits on a bull, seriously.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    6. Re:Exxon Valdez by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I got that impression because the way you posted implied that you weren't familiar with Celestial Navigation and didn't realize that you can get a fairly accurate fix with two objects and a very accurate one with three.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Exxon Valdez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND A VISIBLE HORIZON.

      Which, typically, when you're dealing with stars at night, happens only at dusk and dawn.

      AC

    8. Re:Exxon Valdez by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? I served in Tonkin Gulf back in '72, and there wasn't any trouble finding the horizon during the night, as long as we weren't steaming back and forth through a fog bank. Of course, part of it was obscured because we were in sight of land, but there was generally enough to see that celestial navigation wasn't a problem.

      And, before you ask, I wasn't involved in navigation, but one of my best friends at the time was.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:Exxon Valdez by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're a land lubber then, despite living in Valdez... :-)

      OK, where to begin. Disregarding the drunk captain (who I'm told taught navigation in NY to mariners after the incident...), historically first and foremost you don't use celestial navigation if you have land marks to navigate by. That is to say, when in coastal waters, the sextant stays in it's coffer. When you're in coastal waters you use "piloting" skills, hence the name of the specialist you take aboard your ship for extra sensitive tasks. (I.e. the pilot). Piloting uses bearings to visible land marks (rocks, houses, light houses etc), depth readings etc. to establish your position, and compass and log to update it by dead reconing. In the age of technology many of those bearings could be taken by radio direction finding (of radio beacons), manually and via radar. The radar can of course also be used to get bearings and range to other (radar) visible landmarks. That's how ships could pilot in poor visibility, by using so called "radar navigation".

      Now, you don't use a depth gauge (whether a knotted line, or a sonar one) to avoid a shoal. By the time you've detected it you're already either on it, or much too close for comfort. Instead navigation by depth reading is done to keep you i.e. in the middle of a sound, or comfortably far away from a coast etc. (Very useful when you have gently sloping costs, that are common in sandy regions. If you sail outside a beach, you can often rely on depth for navigation. Rocky coasts, not so much.)

      Now, what to do when you can't navigate by landmarks. That's where celestial navigation comes in. If you have the proper knowledge (tables) a way to measure the apparent height of a celestial object (sun, moon, star) and an accurate clock (which ships have had since the late 1700-hundreds), then you can determine your position on the globe. Now, for reasons of simplicity most ships that still bother with celestial anything resort to a single noonday sun reading, as that's a simple thing to do, and doesn't require you to be as precise with your timing (and working out the position is simplified). Since you're in the middle of the ocean anyway, you don't need to a fix more often than that. You can safely use dead reckoning until next noon. However, should you want to (and have the correct tables) there's nothing stopping you from using the sun as long as it is visible at any given time of day (back in the day, sightings were often taken at least once a watch, i.e. every six or four hours), or the stars at any time they are visible. The moon is also usable, but since it moves so quickly over the sky in relation to the stars, taking a moon height requires skill and dedication, and hence navigational stars are preferred.

      All this is historical of course. The merchant navy doesn't even carry the equipment to navigate celestially anymore, and they're not skilled in its use. Today it's GPS and everything else a distant second. Radar navigation skills are still practice however, as it can come in very handy.

      So, when it comes to the Exxon Valdes, having your radar turned off if radar navigation thorough that sound was warranted, would indeed be a court martial offence. "Sonar" would have probably been of very little use, as a depth reading will only tell you that you're seriously off course (soundings on charts are only so accurate) and with a ship that size, you should already be well aware of that fact if you're to have any chance of saving the day. Even thinking about using celestial navigation in narrow coastal waters should have you forcibly removed from the bridge, as that couldn't tell you anything you needed to know in time to do anything worthwhile with a ship that size, moving that fast. Celestial navigation is for the open water, period.

      P.S. We got the double hulls now and they're not all they're cranked up to be. You see, they don't actually use more steel in the construction of a double hull tanker. So it's the same amount of steel now d

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    10. Re:Exxon Valdez by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Definitely a lubber, I appreciate the info. There's never been any evidence to suggest that the radar was off, and at midnight in a totally unpopulated area prone to foul weather, it sounds extremely unlikely.

      It seems the citizenry were sold a bit of a package with the double hull tankers, although perhaps it helps with low-energy collisions.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    11. Re:Exxon Valdez by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Joe Hazelwood may or may not have been drunk, but he was provably not on the bridge when the ship struck.

      "My response to the charge of being drunk in charge of a ship is that (a) I wasn't drunk, and (b) even if I was, I was safely asleep in my cabin and therefore not in charge of the ship."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Exxon Valdez by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Definitely a lubber, I appreciate the info. There's never been any evidence to suggest that the radar was off, and at midnight in a totally unpopulated area prone to foul weather, it sounds extremely unlikely.

      You're welcome. The elephant in the room when it comes to maritime safety is really twofold, alcoholism and sleep deprivation. The 6-by-6 watch keeping that is common means watch personell build up a sleep deficit that isn't helped by the rampant alcoholism (fueled by boredom and tradition). So more often than not, the reason ships run aground, esp. at night, is that the one guy on the bridge falls asleep at the wheel. Of course, no amount of radar or other currently available electronic navigation aids will help in that situation.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  14. Re:No one cares by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The shit you gave in your post implies your anger is rooted in your own willful ignorance.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. fucking great bleb, and a reet doylem an' alll by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    A mechanical clock is iffy for providing the time.

    Bollocks. As mentioned by someone else, a Yorkshire carpenter made a perfectly adequate one 300 years ago.

    I'm guessing your country didn't even exist then.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:fucking great bleb, and a reet doylem an' alll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's from Germany?

    2. Re:fucking great bleb, and a reet doylem an' alll by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      In which case his county did not exist :-) Germany only came in to existence in 1871, and modern Germany much more recently than that.

    3. Re:fucking great bleb, and a reet doylem an' alll by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. As mentioned by someone else, a Yorkshire carpenter made a perfectly adequate one 300 years ago

      Aye, a proper wooden clock made out of two cricket bats owned by Geoffrey Boycott, not some namby pamby southern clock with girly springs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Re:No one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's on you to prove that it is happening. i can't prove a negative.

  17. Isn't this old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure I read about this on here when the project was launched a couple of years ago. I was certainly aware of it through other channels.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Anything you read in a logbook...Uh WHAT? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Anything you read in a logbook, you can be sure that it is a true and faithful account.

    Seriously? You believe that?

    Maybe there still IS a market for bridges and ocean front property in Flagstaff, AZ.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  20. Former Coasty Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bridge and Radio watch standers were tasked to submit weather reports and log weather. With the exception of two people (one was I) on a ship of 100, every single watch stander who was tasked to this most important task didn't give a fuck. It was just one more bullshit task that the O's wanted done because it looked good on an OER. They could most of the time be counted on to report/ record somewhat accurately ambient and sea temperature, iff the gauges were working right. However if everything else that was required to be reported such as cloud type and amount, direction of swells / waves, and secondary swells was made the fuck up. If the guage reporting sea temperature on the bottom of the hull gauge was reporting a temp of 109 degrees F in the bearing sea in winter, you can bet that was the temperature that was put down in the official record.

    Just saying. People put too much faith in numbers, and don't use their head to give the numbers a sanity check.

    1. Re:Former Coasty Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but when your life is actually on the line, because it's the only means of navigation you have?

      I'd be more inclined to trust those measurements. Not getting dead is a great incentive.

    2. Re:Former Coasty Here by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Too bad no-one's come up with a way to account for deviant numbers.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  21. Re:No one cares by thephydes · · Score: 1

    You obviously cannot read and comprehend what you read - perhaps you need to go back to grade school and get some lessons.. I didn't ask you to prove anything (although you have proved yourself to be an intellectual cripple). I asked you to provide compelling EVIDENCE that the earth is not warming. There is a load of EVIDENCE that it is if you can actually read more than comics. And posting as AC reinforces what a stupid prick you are.