Barrier Reef Bleaching Pic

[MCary]

I doubt that the bleaching shown was from warming oceans. If it was then none of the coral would survive. There wouldn't be spots of growth and spots of bleaching. A more plausible explanation would be predation by spiny sea stars. Populations of spiny sea stars has exploded in the great barrier reef. Might want to check that out.

About global warming, I'm a scientist by profession. I am with holding my opinion until I have more answers. My opinion is a point of interest for me, not a religious zealotry. I have questions:

1. The rate of measurable CO2 in the atmosphere has risen at a steady linear rate since the industrial revolution, yet temperatures have not. If increased CO2 raised global temperatures then we should see a linear correlation.
2. The warmest year on record before last year was in the 1930's and some of the coldest was in the 1970's. Dispite steady increases in greenhouse emmisions. The current warming trends seem to indicate a cycle. Media claims that the frequency and strength of last years hurricanes might be from global warming was denied by those that study them. They said it was cyclical.
3. 90% of all the earths ice is in Antartica. Antartica has shown a reverse of 6000 year old warming trend and is growing by gigatons of ice a year.
3. Are we still coming out of the last ice age that lasted 100,000 years.
4. Animals can live easily in an environment with 10x the CO2, but even 2x the CO2 would cause plants to explode in growth. The plants would cool the earth through respiration, reduction of CO2, and shade reducing radiate heat. So isn't the earth self regulating?
5. Climatologist need there to be global warming and it must be bad to the point of crisis for them to get paid. No research grants are going to be given to them for an interesting phenomenon that really doesn't affect anyone. Possible extra hype. Consider the source argument.
6. Is Global warming real?
7. Is it bad?
8. Is man causing it?
9. Can man reverse it? If every provision of the Kyoto accords were followed for example, it would cost trillions and would only delay global warming by 4 years.
10. If so, would fixing it cause the destruction of economies which will cause more evironmental distruction than what your trying to fix. Keep in mind that poverty is the worst thing for the environment.

Keep in mind that global warming is a forecast of what might happen. Few without a grant to get say it is already happening. Laymen often walk outside and say "Damn it hot" and think global warming. But localized phenom doesn't count.

And last, since global warming is not happening at the rate forcasted and since areas show record cold along with record heat, the name has been changed to global climate change. If its so obvious why the spin?

Answer those questions and my skepticism will lessen.

Mike

 

[trippyl]

Like I said before let's stop the hypocrisy. We all run reef tanks which at minimum use up more power than a constantly running hair dryer. We then populate these tanks with species of fish and corals that feed a system of reef poaching, which is often carried out in a damaging way to the reef. Way more often than not, these animals die prematurely in our care.

I just laugh when i hear a fellow reefer get all righteous about the environment. We are definitly part of the "problem." That said, i agree with the majority, that global warming is yet another chapter in the media's fear campaign which sells newspapers and gets liberals elected - both objectives of mainstream media.

Sure, we certainly have a negative impact on the environment, and we should take steps to improve the situation. That said, environmentalists have shot themselves in the foot by basically always finding the problem but never really offering a reasonable solution. Sure, we could stop driving carbon emitting vehicles, but good luck buying anything at the supermarket or target or whatever. Sure we could halt CO2 emmissions, but our ecomony will tank if we move too quickly. Especially if those moves are not echoed in third world countries (Kyoto protocol would have allowed that).

Someone said something interesting earlier in this thread:

yep...the media trys to make it sound like the jury is out, but no respectful atmospheric science researcher would deny global warming is happening.

This basically means that if any scientist disagrees with the hysteria, then they are not worth listening to. This is what is known as opinion intimidation. Lets get off the soap boxes, and remember that charity begins in the home (your home).

 

[MCary]

Just a couple more things. A consensous of scientists is a stupid argument. Just about every major breakthrough in science was done by a single scientist or scientific team who went against conventional thinking and their results were usually attacked. Einsteins theory of relativity, Copernicus idea that the earth revolved around the sun and the guy who said that the continents were all one (Pangea) at one time come to mind. So when you say 99.9% of all scientists agree then "So what!" Besides only those in the disaplines of climatology count and they could be bias for economic reasons.

And just some data for your files. The statment that the Earth's temperature is showing an obvious trend upward is because the data shown is from 1970 to the present. If you take data from 1930 to the present the trend actually shows that the earth is cooling.

 

[wetWolger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969165#post6969165 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
1. The rate of measurable CO2 in the atmosphere has risen at a steady linear rate since the industrial revolution, yet temperatures have not. If increased CO2 raised global temperatures then we should see a linear correlation.
2. The warmest year on record before last year was in the 1930's and some of the coldest was in the 1970's. Dispite steady increases in greenhouse emmisions. The current warming trends seem to indicate a cycle. Media claims that the frequency and strength of last years hurricanes might be from global warming was denied by those that study them. They said it was cyclical.
3. 90% of all the earths ice is in Antartica. Antartica has shown a reverse of 6000 year old warming trend and is growing by gigatons of ice a year.
3. Are we still coming out of the last ice age that lasted 100,000 years.
4. Animals can live easily in an environment with 10x the CO2, but even 2x the CO2 would cause plants to explode in growth. The plants would cool the earth through respiration, reduction of CO2, and shade reducing radiate heat. So isn't the earth self regulating?
5. Climatologist need there to be global warming and it must be bad to the point of crisis for them to get paid. No research grants are going to be given to them for an interesting phenomenon that really doesn't affect anyone. Possible extra hype. Consider the source argument.
6. Is Global warming real?
7. Is it bad?
8. Is man causing it?
9. Can man reverse it? If every provision of the Kyoto accords were followed for example, it would cost trillions and would only delay global warming by 4 years.
10. If so, would fixing it cause the destruction of economies which will cause more evironmental distruction than what your trying to fix. Keep in mind that poverty is the worst thing for the environment.

And last, since global warming is not happening at the rate forcasted and since areas show record cold along with record heat, the name has been changed to global climate change. If its so obvious why the spin?

Wow, well it is time to pull up some research. First of all global tempratures are rising. That is a FACT, and no one really disputest that. The question is really if we are the cause.

Now to disect some of your points:
1: I aggree

3: I would like to read your source for this info

2: 2005 was accually the hottest year on record. Breaking the privious record of 1998.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1541414.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

4: If (and there is) an increase of plant growth on earth it would make earth less reflective. Due to the dark green leaves. And this effect would reduce the albedo effect of the earth. Which means we would be absorbing more energy from the sun since less will be reflected back into space. Which means that there will be a further incrase in tempratures.

5: I aggree, it may be blown out of proportion. BUT IT IS HAPPENING. The real question is how much are we contribuiting and if we can help it.

6: YES IT IS look at #2

7: This is a hard thing to anwser. If we are contributing to it then yes it is bad, if we are not, and it is earths natural course than no it is not bad.

8: Hard one to anwser but we do know that tempratures are rising. We do know that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. We also know that CO2 is an excllent absorber of longwave radition (the IR heat radiating from our earth). So with this knowlage one could lead to beleave that we are infact contributing to some level.

10: This is indeed a good point. But I must just say that because some societys are worse off than ours, and maybe not contributing to the solution. Does not mean you should ignore the problem and not take personal responcibility. It is important that everyone does there part.

 

[MCary]

You really didn't dissect my points because I didn't have any I was just asking questions. But a quick google found that you cherry picked your data. The temperatures cited were from Australia and weren't global. Global temperatures as measured by satalite since 1970 show a 0.6 degree C drop in temperture.

It is difficult to use "quick reply" and prove that you need to do alot more research with a more skeptical eye and I'm not going to write a 20 page research paper post. Just want to say that the global warming thing is not just an interesting idea for zealots, they want us to alter our entire lifestyle. Before we do that, lets allow ourselves the luxury of reviewing the data with an unbiased eye and making up our own minds without being hung on a cross.

By the way, the greenhouse gas that effects the planet the most is water vapor. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the green house effect. Of CO2 emmissions human contribution is about 20% of total emmissions. Human contribution to overall greenhouse effect is 0.28%

Mike

 

[loyalty]

as an aside, adherents of the global warming theory should check out Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". Though it's a work of fiction, one of the main characters presents a lot of (cited in the real world) research points in a less technical, layman friendly way.

 

[FLY CRJ]

I agree with jent46bow about not everyone knowing what they are talking about on this topic. But I have some insight also.

1. I don't really think "SUVs" or "gas guzzlers" are really a major contribution to Global Warming. It's the people who drive them. There is absolutely no reason to drive your "gas guzzler" to work every day by yourself when the drive is say 50 miles round trip. If you need a large vehicle for your family, towing, or utility work that is fine, as long as it's justified. But when you need to run errands by yourself or drive long distances when a large vehicle is not required drive something reasonable!!!

2. About planes contributing greatly to global warming, I agree. BUT do you see everyone flying around in their 747 alone? Nope. When planes fly its justified, and in an essence car pooling if you will. Our air transporation system in the lifeblood of the world, and I belive that is the biggest justification you can make. I am also a pilot and I can tell you the ammount of aircraft in the air at any one given time is far less porportionate to the billion and billions of cars on the roads. Over the US there is on average 15,000 aircraft in the air durring rush hours. (pulling this figure out of my head, had a tour of Denver ARTCC last week, so its close)

3. Global Warming is just one of the issues. Ozone depletion is far more important IMO. While global warming can be debated on and on, there is no doubt that Ozone depletion is caused by humans. Afterall it was mass ammounts of CO2 and other trace gasses from volcanoes that created our atmosphere in the first place. So with out that we would just be like anyother rocky planet. Extremely hot & Cold, dusty, barren with no life.

So back to Ozone depletion. CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) used in aerosol sprays, refrigerant, ect., is a much bigger problem because such small ammounts of chlorine can damage ozone. When CFC are releases and rise to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) UV radition from the sun breaks down the compounds (carbon, hydrogen, fluorine, and chlorine). Catalytic reactions then occour where 100,000 molecules of ozone can be destroyed per chlorine atom. These CFC compounds have a lifetime of 55 to 140 years depending on the complex.

The good news is O3 is generated when UV reacts with O2, it's an ongoing process of being generated by the sun, then broken down. The bad news is most countries are still using them in the most harmfull complexes of CFCs, and have no plans to place restricitons. While the US has taken action and has other counties on board, we are simply using CFCs with less chlorine in the complex. We are still depleating Ozone at a far greater rate, and it will effect us far more and earlier then the effects of Global Warming!

 

[smleee]

Data for temperature that only goes back to 1860 just doesn't fit the bill here.

eee

 

[wetWolger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969898#post6969898 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FLY CRJ
3. Global Warming is just one of the issues. Ozone depletion is far more important IMO. While global warming can be debated on and on, there is no doubt that Ozone depletion is caused by humans. Afterall it was mass ammounts of CO2 and other trace gasses from volcanoes that created our atmosphere in the first place. So with out that we would just be like anyother rocky planet. Extremely hot & Cold, dusty, barren with no life.

So back to Ozone depletion. CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) used in aerosol sprays, refrigerant, ect., is a much bigger problem because such small ammounts of chlorine can damage ozone. When CFC are releases and rise to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) UV radition from the sun breaks down the compounds (carbon, hydrogen, fluorine, and chlorine). Catalytic reactions then occour where 100,000 molecules of ozone can be destroyed per chlorine atom. These CFC compounds have a lifetime of 55 to 140 years depending on the complex.

The good news is O3 is generated when UV reacts with O2, it's an ongoing process of being generated by the sun, then broken down. The bad news is most countries are still using them in the most harmfull complexes of CFCs, and have no plans to place restricitons. While the US has taken action and has other counties on board, we are simply using CFCs with less chlorine in the complex. We are still depleating Ozone at a far greater rate, and it will effect us far more and earlier then the effects of Global Warming!

I like a lot of what you wrote but I would like to see some sites with information about the last few things you said. From what I have read O3 depleation has stoped. Infact there is evedience that it is starting to repair itself. It is not that the whole world has stoped using CFC's but we are using them in a manner in which is sustiainable and the earth is starting to repair itself. So I am just a little cuirious on that one (not arguing, just not my understanding).

BTW incase anyone wonders the reason why I am so passionate and knowlagable on these atmospheric science topics is because it is just a side intrest of mine. I work for the EPA (enviromental protection agency) & NFS (national forest service) in air quality research. Although I am not a researcher myself (i do computer stuff) I am exposed to it all the time, and I hear a lot of intresting things. So it is just something I have picked up lots of tidbits over the years.

 

[smleee]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6954217#post6954217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Reefer91
by the way, i'm calculating the design for the ULTRA-CHILL chiller right now

Meanwhile..........back at the ranch. Does that mean I should tell the bank to go ahead with my pre-approved loan? Let me know when you have finished and I'll deposit the $$$.

eee

 

[aubee91]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969165#post6969165 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I doubt that the bleaching shown was from warming oceans. If it was then none of the coral would survive. There wouldn't be spots of growth and spots of bleaching.

Sorry, but it does not follow logically that for global warming to exist all parts of the ocean must warm uniformly. In fact, that would be quite unexpected.

Fwiw, there's a pretty good article in last year's March issue of Scientific American by William F. Ruddiman entitled "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?" that may be of interest to anyone interested in global warming.

 

[trippyl]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969898#post6969898 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FLY CRJ
About planes contributing greatly to global warming, I agree. BUT do you see everyone flying around in their 747 alone? Nope. When planes fly its justified, and in an essence car pooling if you will.

Not really. The amount of emissions from one jet flight to any reef of our choice will be greater PER PERSON than someone driving an SUV for a year.

 

[JotaDe]

Is this that much different than the other times the earth has swayed to and from ice ages? May there have been periods in the past where temperatures have changed drastically throughout years/decades before human intervention?

 

[trippyl]

There absolutely was. In fact as recent as several hundred years ago, the dark ages represented a very cold period in earths history. Some believe that a meteor hit earth resulting in a sort of nuclear winter.

 

[trippyl]

There absolutely was. In fact as recent as several hundred years ago, the dark ages represented a very cold period in earths history. Some believe that a meteor hit earth resulting in a sort of nuclear winter.

As has been stated previously, the earth's temperature fluctuates, the sun's activity fluctuates, and god knows what else happens in the cosmos affecting the climes on this planet as well.

 

[JotaDe]

I'm not being glib about global warming at all, I just wonder if we're moving away from our last ice age instead of heading towards another and hitting some hiccups along the way - in which case can you lay most blame of things like this to humans?

 

[jmkins]

I posted a report of bleaching being found to be initiated by increased organic material in oceans leading to an increased number of bacteria which in essence eat away at the coral.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=784404

Haven't got my hands on the entire article since I haven't really looked to hard but if any of you have access to Science check this out.

 

[JotaDe]

I bet if everyone who dived at that reef stopped peeing in the water the coral would bounce back pretty quick.

 

[rooroo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6970322#post6970322 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by trippyl
There absolutely was. In fact as recent as several hundred years ago, the dark ages represented a very cold period in earths history. Some believe that a meteor hit earth resulting in a sort of nuclear winter.

As has been stated previously, the earth's temperature fluctuates, the sun's activity fluctuates, and god knows what else happens in the cosmos affecting the climes on this planet as well.

I recently watched a science channel special about the "mini ice age". Same time period you're talking about. They were able to grow grapes in England on par with France's grapes. The global temperature rose an estimated 4 degrees celcius. Then it got cold.

The real question is what are you gonna do when the oceans rise.

Anyway, better than buying an economical car is building a self sustained house. Solar panels, filtered water that is reused as much as possible, septic system (or go for the not-so-popular waterless toilet! no it doesn't stink, seen one in real life). All much better stuff, albeit much more expensive, than buying a good-on-gas car. Though high mpg cars would help too.

 

[trippyl]

when i buy a house, i am definitely looking into solar panels. Not so much for the environment, just to escape the con edison complex. You can actually sell off any power you dont use (imagine getting a check from the power company), and with the right setup, you can possibly acheive a much more stable power supply.