Barrier Reef Bleaching Pic

[MCary]

Compare the earlier graph of green house gases with this chart:

Now I'm just asking, I may not fully understand, don't get all religious on me. Green house gases show an obvious trend upward. Its almost linear. Yet temperatures have risen and fallen. If what is said is true and there is a direct relationship shouldn't the temperature trends also be a linearly pregressing upwards? Why the cooling trend in the 70's? The CO2 is rising yet the earth is cooling? Doesn't that turn on a light? Make you go Hmmmmm?

Earlier there was a chart of surface temperatures that showed that recent years were the hottest on record. (just USA data I believe because China is experiancing a 20 year cold snap) but be that as it may. The green house effect should happen from the top down. The upper atmosphere should trap heat and warm first. Yet even with the hot surface temps sited the upper atmosphere has cooled 0.6 dergrees C according to NASA satallites. Once again, I don't know what that means, but it makes me go hmmmm.

BTW, as stated before, looking at the green house gas emmisions you need to keep in mind that those gases make up less that 5% of the greenhouse effect. 95% of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Also of the green house gases 10-12% are from humans. 88-90% are natural emmsions, volcanoes, swanps, elephant farts etc. Does that mean that humans contribute only 1/2 of 1% of the total greenhouse effect. Makes me go Hmmmm?

I am a scientist by trade and training. That means I'm a skeptic by nature. All scientists should be skeptics. It is the job of a scientist to spend his whole life trying to prove himself wrong. Why I keep hearing that a consensus of scientist believe this way or that, I wonder why they aren't pondering the same questions I am. I'm not saying global warming isn't real (oops global climate change, gotta use the new terminology) I'm just saying prove it better. Quit making the data fit the thesis instead of the other way around. Just because you found a 3 legged frog doesn't mean global warming is real. Rule out everything else first.

Whats with all this religious zealotry and dogma over this. Its just science. And to make this all fit the topic, if you think that driving your SUV caused the bleaching of the barrier reef then your just nuts. This is a very complicted field of study. It crosses lines with many scientific disaplines. Some researchers have spent their whole lives studing it. There are enough volumes of data to fill a library on both sides of the issue. For you guys who are passionate about this issue (and for the life of me I don't know why you would be) cherry picking a few graphs off the internet and calling me wrong and stupid just shows how unqualified you are to make this argument.

Mike

 

[wetWolger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6982913#post6982913 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Now I'm just asking, I may not fully understand, don't get all religious on me. Green house gases show an obvious trend upward. Its almost linear. Yet temperatures have risen and fallen. If what is said is true and there is a direct relationship shouldn't the temperature trends also be a linearly pregressing upwards? Why the cooling trend in the 70's? The CO2 is rising yet the earth is cooling? Doesn't that turn on a light? Make you go Hmmmmm?

Earlier there was a chart of surface temperatures that showed that recent years were the hottest on record. (just USA data I believe because China is experiancing a 20 year cold snap) but be that as it may. The green house effect should happen from the top down. The upper atmosphere should trap heat and warm first. Yet even with the hot surface temps sited the upper atmosphere has cooled 0.6 dergrees C according to NASA satallites. Once again, I don't know what that means, but it makes me go hmmmm.

A statment like the last one in the quote really shows you don't understand how the green house effect works. I don't mean to be mean or put you down, because IMO most people who talk about the green house effect don't know how it works. The reason the uper atmosphere is not heating first is because CO2 and H2O don't capture short wave radiation. They capture IR radiation....this is the longwave radiation that is radiationing off our earths surface in the form of heat. The short wave radiation (ie the radiation coming from the sun) passes right through CO2 and H2O without a second though. O3 and other products in the air are accually what break down the short wave radiation (uv).

So the increase of CO2 is not going to heat the earth by capturing more of the suns energy. It will be increasing the earths temprature by making less and less IR energy leave the earths surface.

Also on your graph I would like to see the source. It states those numbers are estimated, and yet in those years we should have been recording tempratures. Also I have a nasty suspesion that each year has a winter and summer month. So a source for the graph would help me in better responding to that.

 

[allen00se]

I would also like to know a little more of the story behind the graph. The graph says that its the "annual estimated surface temperature anomolies". The way I understand the graph is that those temperatures shown are just when we hit a record high temp or low temp (anamoly) not the average temp throughout a day, month, or year. We could have an extremely low avg temp for the summer but just have one really hot day and that would be your temp anamoly for the year.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the use of the word anomoly but thats the impression that I get.
Also it seems that if you are just taking an average of the USA it would seem that your data could be very misleading. Say for example that most of the northern states have an average year as far as temp goes. However the remaining southern states are .5 degrees warmer for the year. The graph would show that the Avg temp for the USA was .25 higher than the historical avg. This data might allow the uninformed reader to believe that all of the states experienced a warmer year, when in fact they did not.
The point of this long post is just that you can not look at a graph and draw conclusions, we would all need to see the data that was collected to make an informed decision.
Also what was meant earlier when it was said that "the north and south pole will switch". Is this really true, if so I would like a link to the article so I could read about it.

 

[MCary]

For gods sakes, its an NOAA graph. They're the biggest drum beaters for global warming there is. Theiir logo is on the graph. And its an easy graph to read, it shows temps as a degrees above and below normal. Anyonw who argue this stuff should know that the 1930's were a period of abnormal high temps and the 1970's were a abnornally cold cycle. This is pretty common knowledge. And it is well known that the green house effect should happen in the upper atmosphere first. Yes it bounces offf the earth first but it is then trapped in the upper atmosphere on the way up. Feeling the radiant heat off the earth is not global warming.Your really not going to try to address my concerns by spinning the question?

 

[onthefly]

Another interesting thing about the cooling trend in the 70's. Ask anyone from the San Fernando Valley that's over the age of 40 and they'll tell you that the air is cleaner today than it was in the 70's. Despite there being 100-1000x the number of cars.

Something I never quite understood, people/sciencists are trying to "model" global warming....for all purposes a "geologic" process with human influences on a time scale of 100, maybe 150 years of data. Yet, this time frame represents a "blip" on the geologic clock. Greenland ice cores show that the trends MCary talks about happen all the time. 10, 20, 30 years of above average temp, followed by 10, 20, 30 years of below average temps. Kinda like the El Nino which only made the front page in the 80's.

12 foot tall gymnosperms (cycads, coniferns, ferns, etc.) used to grow in what we now call the South Dakota "Badlands" which currently averages 60-100 inches of snow a year, the earth magnetic pole fills every 5,000-10,000 years, ice ages, blah, blah, blah. Face it......the earth is far more dynamic than we give it credit for.

 

[Weatherman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6984556#post6984556 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by onthefly
Another interesting thing about the cooling trend in the 70's. Ask anyone from the San Fernando Valley that's over the age of 40 and they'll tell you that the air is cleaner today than it was in the 70's. Despite there being 100-1000x the number of cars.

Having lived in the L.A. Basin in the late ââ"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“60s and all of the ââ"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“70s, I can verify that you are 100% correct. Cars are vastly cleaner and more efficient today than they were 30-40 years ago, and it shows.

Regarding the magnetic pole switch. Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s a very common occurrence in Earthââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s history:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/3/1/14


Former member of the ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œDrum Beaters for Global Warmingââ"šÂ¬Ã‚

BTW, global warming (if a long-term trend exists) will appear at the poles first and work itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s way toward the tropics.

 

[Azurel]

One thing nobody has talked about is volcanic activity releasing gases into the atmosphere or any other natural process. When Mt.Pinatubo in the Philippines blew up it released more ash and methane, C02 into the atmosphere then 100 years of industry. We do have a role in it and we also must keep our home clean but the world is much bigger then you think and there are more natural activities that take place that we never here about on a daily basis. How much gas is being released into the air from Hawaii and it's continious volcanic activity does anybody know the effect that has also?

 

[ncny21802]

my opinion, people can post what they want. You shouldn't be the only one who gets to argue his point trippyl. This whole forum was just about the first post. For us to see what has happened there. It wasn't an ethical discussion. I drive a Z71 Tahoe and fly to the Jamaica and other islands as often as I can. I'm only 1 of tens of millions who do this. This is the age we live in. Live with it.

 

[wlagarde]

Global warming is a myth blown out of proportion by the liberal media for political gain. There have always been warmer periods and cooler periods in the earths history (ice ages, etc) and yet the corals survived. I would argue the corals might be bleached for another reason...

 

[kewliz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6952464#post6952464 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jent46bow
they make a chiller....it is called 'GET RID OF YOUR SUV" ;-)

Yeah that's a very broad accusation to make. We've had our SUV for over 3 years and have put just 17k miles on it. My brother in law has a regular sedan and has put well over 100k miles on it in the same time period. Having an SUV doesn't mean anything.

 

[MCary]

Back to the original post:

Crown-of-thorns sea star
Armed with poison spikes and an appetite for hard coral, adult crown-of-thorns sea stars can kill a reef. By projecting their stomachs out of their mouths and wrapping them around coral, they slowly devour itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âor not so slowly if theyââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢re out in force, which is increasingly the case.
No oneââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s quite sure why crown-of-thorns epidemics are on the rise. Some believe theyââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢re part of a natural cycle, like wildfires. Others think humans inspire the outbreaks, possibly by overfishing species that cull juvenile crown-of-thorns sea stars.

Divers are sometimes trained to kill sea stars at popular dive sites, but there doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t seem to be a large-scale, responsible weapon against crown-of-thorns epidemics. For now, conservationists watch and waitââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âand hope afflicted areas bounce back.


Google crown of thorns sea stars and see if it might be something to consider.

 

[wetWolger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6987557#post6987557 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kewliz
Yeah that's a very broad accusation to make. We've had our SUV for over 3 years and have put just 17k miles on it. My brother in law has a regular sedan and has put well over 100k miles on it in the same time period. Having an SUV doesn't mean anything.

yea but if you had a car (or if your needs better fit a van)....then that would be 17k less harmfull miles than in your SUV....think about conservation of mass...you can not make or destroy mass

so for every pound of gassoline you put in your car you are putting the exact same weight of pollution into the air.

 

[Zach117]

GO RED STATES!!

 

[wetWolger]

just because your are polluting less than someone else does not make what your doing right....

 

[Zach117]

"12 foot tall gymnosperms" Is that a new type of Tang?? Someone is going to put one in a 55 gal.

 

[davidryder]

it's still a completely debatable subject rather or not what we are doing is contributing to the rise of the earths temp. the earth is supposedly billions of years old. there are very interesting and valid points from both sides, and from respected scientists. atmospheric scientists have scientists that would disagree with what they say about global warming. do a search on global warming debate and do some research. try to keep an open mind and decide on the issue yourself. when it comes down to it there is no way to determine what is causing an increase in temp. there is no solid scientific model to create an experiment like that. it's all just speculation right now and chances are we will never know. i doubt the ice age was due to negligence on the earths inhabitants at the time.
i do agree that we are getting a little out of control with pollution but even the debate on the great barrier reef can't be solved.

it seems like people form an opinion, read a couple articles, remember what is in favor of their opinion, and discard the rest.

for my opinion to be validated, i have to know all sides of the subject. i can't possibly see myself forming an opinion without getting information from various points of views.

so that's my ramble. lol

 

[MCary]

A problem I have with the oil and gas consumption debate is this. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels are going to get used no matter what. (because they are cheap) If we don't burn them in our SUV's, China and India will burn them in their cars. (Don't get me started on their emmision standards). Either way eventually they will get burned. The very best thing you can do for the environment is to go out an buy lots of Hummers and Escalades and drive the heck out of them. The resulting increased demand will force the price of gasoline up. Once oil reaches a couple hundred dollars a barrel, people will use public transportation more, walk and ride bikes and turn down the thermostats. So, thank-you SUV owners for protecting our planet.

Mike

 

[NCreefwannabe]

Sorry but my little honda is far worse than any suv ever made... I race yeah, no catalytic converter, full race exhaust. Me driving my car everyday, all day, until i died, still wouldnt put a dent in anything.

Driving an suv doesnt mean ****. Most suvs now have the same or better gas mileage than most mid-sezed cars. You really think the bigger sedans are great? they have horrible gas mileage and weigh almost as much as an suv...

Cars arent the problem. Stop beating this into the dirt, look elsewhere for your answers.

Has anyone thought of silt? The silt coming off rivers into the ocean is also causing the sun not to penetrate as deep.
Why not make the worlds largest skimmer, and see how that works before you go bashing well over half the people on this sight that prolly have large cars/suvs.

 

[davidryder]

what about bio-load mike? same thing applies here. if we burn all the fossil fuels off at once don't you think the earth is going to have a much more difficult time recovering from such a concentration of pollution? i hope that post was supposed to be comical lol

 

[MCary]

I thought of that David, and its a good argument except that it seems that scientists are saying the emmissions are cumulative and the gases don't dissapate. So burning them all later only delays the enevitable. I have heard scientists say that if everyone stopped burning today it would not stop the effect. I have heard that if all the Kyoto accords were followed the predicted temps would only be delayed by 4 years according to their models. From what I can tell, if global warming is real its too late to do anything about it so light up. But don't worry, we're due for another cyclical ice age in 2012.