Barrier reef damage exaggerated?

[ThRoewer]

Warming and acidification are only 2 of the issues.
The oceans are also still used as garbage dumps.

When it comes to the northern sections of the Great Barrier Reef heavy metals and especially copper have to be considered as a contributing factor as well. The sludge runoff from the Bougainville Copper mines on the south side of Papua New Guinea was massive and hit the GBR straight on. The mines are closed for a good while now, but the pollution is still there.

When it comes to global effects you may get a more conclusive picture when looking at the line islands: http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/expedition-line-islands

As for the Bikini Atoll - the nuclear fallout didn't harm the surrounding ocean much because it was washed away rather quickly and diluted in the vast volume of the Pacific and by now all other oceans as well.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Tripod1404]

The biggest problem I see is when money is donated for research, the research is used to help the person with there argument. Plus the global warming side needs to find better spokes people than Al Gore and others like this guy
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/bu...nvironmentalist-dicaprio-flies-eyebrow-artist
And if you do the research although the northern hemisphere is getting warmer, Antarctica has been getting colder until the large iceberg broke off and then global warming was the cause? It would be nice if someone would create a news channel and or paper that was accurate instead of putting there own spin and favoring there own beliefs in creating the news versus just reporting it.

This is a big urban legend. Very little money is donated to academic researchers from private sector. Any company rich enough to have money for science will either have its own R&D department or it is some type off a "Technology" company that makes money out of research (like many pharma and biotech companies).

Most of research money for academic institutions comes from government grants. I am a professional scientist and it is quite funny that people think we swim in money. You need to work on proposals for years to get even the smallest amounts of grant money. And no, we dont personally get any part of the grant money. Our salaries are set by the academic institution. Even if you get a $50 million dollar grant, your salary will not change. I am saying this because I have met with people claiming scientist say there is global warming to get grants, so that they can get rich.

Of course companies like Exon do "pseudoscience" under their so called R&D departments, but can we honestly trust a oil company to make unbiased research on climate change? When you look at scientific data on climate change, look at the number of articles that comes from academic sources. How many academic sources claim climate change is not real?

And what I dont understand is why do we need a spokesman. Science is based on facts, not beliefs. Would anyone disagree with gravity if there is a great spokesman against gravity and would that make gravity unreal. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson said “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

Btw, southern hemisphere and Antarctica are also getting warmer. If you average out whole southern hemisphere, it is clearly getting warmer. Southern hemisphere is much more ocean and much less land, so climate there is less prone to extremes. This makes the climate there to appear more stable. Coastal Antarctica is getting warmer, it is not having the same amount of sea-ice around the continent in Antarctic winter. It is true that the interior Antarctica is getting colder but that is mainly because of the shifts in ocean currents and dominant winds due to ocean heating.

 

[ThRoewer]

... Science is based on facts, not beliefs. Would anyone disagree with gravity if there is a great spokesman against gravity and would that make gravity unreal. ...

Sure, if someone with a cult following makes it a politically divisive issue and tell his his fanatical followers that it's a made-up scheme by their opponents or people they deem inferior...

One actual example of exactly that would be the "Arian Physics" (or "Deutsche Physik") of the Nazis that called among other things Einstein's general relativity a "Jewish hoax" despite the fact that it had already been proven that gravity is acceleration and that a strong enough gravity well can bend light.

And with the right assembly of blind followers you can repeat equally or even more ridiculous things any day of the week...

Just take carbon dating of fossils - you will easily find plenty of people who are dead certain that that is a hoax...

If it fits their world view people are willing to believe everything and wilfully ignore the facts - until they finally hit them in the face.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[alton]

I guess I should of stipulated my tax money going into research? You can watch the thermometer and see the temps going up. The question is what is everyone doing about it? And that answer is nothing! Have you ever wondered how much energy Face Book uses in a day? How much fuel we burn out on the lake or in a bay on a weekend with jet ski's, bass/bay/ski boats. I know some that go out and use 100 gallons of gas a weekend to fish. And please do not bring up controlling our population, I have received negative post about controlling growth. One last thing I grew up in a family of nine in a 2,000 sqft. home, today most homes are 3,000 SQFT + for a family of four?

 

[Tripod1404]

I guess I should of stipulated my tax money going into research? You can watch the thermometer and see the temps going up.

Wow, we have nothing to argue here after this much of anti-intellectualism. If someone didn't sit and watched how mold was growing, people would still be dying from bacterial infections.

 

[sde1500]

Wow, we have nothing to argue here after this much of anti-intellectualism. If someone didn't sit and watched how mold was growing, people would still be dying from bacterial infections.

As a casual observer I had considered it more of a conversation than an argument. No reason to devolve to personal attacks.

 

[Tripod1404]

As a casual observer I had considered it more of a conversation than an argument. No reason to devolve to personal attacks.

It was not a personal attack, I didn't call anyone not-intellectual or ignorant. But a statement like "climate scientist are a bunch of people who just look at the thermometers" is clearly an anti-intellectual statement. A person can be very intellectual but support anti-intellectualism.

From wikipedia; Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.

 

[alton]

It was not a personal attack, I didn't call anyone not-intellectual or ignorant. But a statement like "climate scientist are a bunch of people who just look at the thermometers" is clearly an anti-intellectual statement. A person can be very intellectual but support anti-intellectualism.

From wikipedia; Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.

What I meant was since I am 57 years old I have seen winters here in south Texas with a seven degree winter day. From getting snow every few years, to no measurable snow in 32 years at my home. From reading as a child that the earth is cooling to now read and know the earths temps are increasing. What I have an issue with is people who claim and scream Global warming and then do nothing themselves to help fix the problem. It disgust me everyday when I see the amount of trash on our city, county, and state roads and highways. Or going to the beach and see a pile of trash not 10' from a trash can because of lazy idiots. Humans, we are our own best and worst enemy at messing up our World. The Great Barrier Reef is an Awesome site, I love watching videos and TV shows showing it. But like someone stated just like Hawaii how much of the demise is do to Pollution and the laziness of our government to properly clean the water before dumping it in our ocean? A bunch of the sewer lines here where I work are in creek beds, every time there is a flood manhole covers pop off and raw sewage finds its way into the creek, then to the rivers and finally the Gulf of Mexico. You are right about one thing, "Trust" is hard to come by these days.

 

[sde1500]

It was not a personal attack, I didn't call anyone not-intellectual or ignorant. But a statement like "climate scientist are a bunch of people who just look at the thermometers" is clearly an anti-intellectual statement. A person can be very intellectual but support anti-intellectualism.

Personal attack may have been the wrong way to put it sorry. But I didn't take what he said as an attack on climate scientists, more along the lines of what he further elaborated on below.

What I meant was since I am 57 years old I have seen winters here in south Texas with a seven degree winter day. From getting snow every few years, to no measurable snow in 32 years at my home. From reading as a child that the earth is cooling to now read and know the earths temps are increasing. What I have an issue with is people who claim and scream Global warming and then do nothing themselves to help fix the problem. It disgust me everyday when I see the amount of trash on our city, county, and state roads and highways. Or going to the beach and see a pile of trash not 10' from a trash can because of lazy idiots. Humans, we are our own best and worst enemy at messing up our World. The Great Barrier Reef is an Awesome site, I love watching videos and TV shows showing it. But like someone stated just like Hawaii how much of the demise is do to Pollution and the laziness of our government to properly clean the water before dumping it in our ocean? A bunch of the sewer lines here where I work are in creek beds, every time there is a flood manhole covers pop off and raw sewage finds its way into the creek, then to the rivers and finally the Gulf of Mexico. You are right about one thing, "Trust" is hard to come by these days.

I absolutely agree. It blows my mind how some people have managed to become the face of the Climate change crusade, all the while being nothing more than glaringly obvious hypocrites. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio telling us peasants to consume less, scolding us for our polluting ways, and talking down to us as if everyone is so dumb. All the while flying around on private jets, living in huge mansions using absurd amounts of electricity, and being photographed hanging out alone on 200+ foot yachts.

I absolutely believe we can do more to protect this earth, we should start with holding these idiots accountable for their "do as we say not as we do" attitudes.

Me too.

:celeb2:

 

[ca1ore]

But just to be clear here the fault is equally with those that acknowledge man made climate change and then hop into their new two ton Tesla instead of taking the bicycle or walk... or turn on the AC when it's getting hot...

..... or run an energy-hog of a reef tank . Though in my 'defense' I don't burn incandescent bulbs anymore, rarely run the A/C and make my kids grow their own food .....

 

[alton]

This is a big urban legend. Very little money is donated to academic researchers from private sector. Any company rich enough to have money for science will either have its own R&D department or it is some type off a "Technology" company that makes money out of research (like many pharma and biotech companies).

Most of research money for academic institutions comes from government grants. I am a professional scientist and it is quite funny that people think we swim in money. You need to work on proposals for years to get even the smallest amounts of grant money. And no, we dont personally get any part of the grant money. Our salaries are set by the academic institution. Even if you get a $50 million dollar grant, your salary will not change. I am saying this because I have met with people claiming scientist say there is global warming to get grants, so that they can get rich.

Of course companies like Exon do "pseudoscience" under their so called R&D departments, but can we honestly trust a oil company to make unbiased research on climate change? When you look at scientific data on climate change, look at the number of articles that comes from academic sources. How many academic sources claim climate change is not real?

And what I dont understand is why do we need a spokesman. Science is based on facts, not beliefs. Would anyone disagree with gravity if there is a great spokesman against gravity and would that make gravity unreal. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson said "œThe good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Btw, southern hemisphere and Antarctica are also getting warmer. If you average out whole southern hemisphere, it is clearly getting warmer. Southern hemisphere is much more ocean and much less land, so climate there is less prone to extremes. This makes the climate there to appear more stable. Coastal Antarctica is getting warmer, it is not having the same amount of sea-ice around the continent in Antarctic winter. It is true that the interior Antarctica is getting colder but that is mainly because of the shifts in ocean currents and dominant winds due to ocean heating.

First of all I need to apologize, I should of led off with how long have you been studying Global warming, what have you found in your studies, and what are your thoughts on trying to fix/curtail the problem. If you you still feel offended by my statements once again I apologize. Sometimes I get carried away

 

[marfuerte]

All things considered imho this thread is pretty measured and relaxed which I appreciate. I just returned from Belize and the damage is extensive. Out near the blue hole things look better but the shallow areas 10'+/- deep are in terrible shape. I'd guess 50%+ of the brain, elkhorn I saw was dead. All browned out. Sea fans galore.

I said in another post we're hobbyists who rely on data testing nitrates, phosphates, alk, calc, mag so I'm perplexed so many of us discount the data about climate change. We need to look at the data about the reefs, climate change and act now. Call me an alarmist. After last weeks trip I plead guilty. BTW so are some of old time dive masters I spoke to.

 

[jubei2006]

I know this is a reef forum, and we focus mainly on our aquatic friends, but I also have real concerns about our rates of deforestation in the name of progress. I think this may be the single biggest contributor to ocean acidification, as we have leveled millions of acres of rainforest and subtropical forest to make way for city expansion, agriculture, and commerce. All those tress we're able to consume huge amount of contaminants from the atomsphere and reduce co2 levels. No we are becoming more dependant on ocean micro and macro algaes

 

[alton]

I know this is a reef forum, and we focus mainly on our aquatic friends, but I also have real concerns about our rates of deforestation in the name of progress. I think this may be the single biggest contributor to ocean acidification, as we have leveled millions of acres of rainforest and subtropical forest to make way for city expansion, agriculture, and commerce. All those tress we're able to consume huge amount of contaminants from the atomsphere and reduce co2 levels. No we are becoming more dependant on ocean micro and macro algaes

Yesterday we broke a record high for the date of 103 set back in 1946 with a high of 104. And it only took 1,000,000 more people to do it. Looking at records in 1946 San Antonio had 400,000 people, today 1,400,000. The state of Texas had 7,000,000, today Houston and the surrounding area of Houston alone has 7,000,000. As we continue to over populate our pollution, lack of agriculture, and water resources will cause havoc. The highway system between San Antonio and Houston has not changed in 50 years, it is still two lanes in each direction. Thanks Ex-Governor Rick Perry for inviting Millions to come to Texas, while at the same time not doing anything about expanding our roads and protecting our natural resources.

 

[sh4rkbyt3]

Many of us had this very discussion on here many years ago about the same issue. Back then there were still naysayers who simply wrote it off as a cyclical or wonder of nature that would correct itself.

Other would simply just write it off as unproven science, many regardless of how much information is given will absolutely deny it . I think with the amount of data the fact there is a serious problem it at least needs to be looked at.

And in regards to one statement alluding to those people aren't doing anything? Many are, the only way they know how or can but when you are faced with deniers who will question every single piece of data because it doesn't coincide with what they believe for whatever reason, the ignorance level becomes very difficult to deal with.

When a group of us here were discussing it, much of the die off of the GBR had only had one really big die off (2004 I believe). Since then there have been at last two more and each grew in it's size of impact. Not only that but it has since reached virtually every reef around the world. While some sit around and attribute it to questionable information and data or political whatever and then require further testing which will take years it's not out of the question given what we already know and have seen that a very good portion of the scientists could very well be correct.

 

[Punchanello]

It's interesting that 25-30 years ago there was general scientific consensus that climate change (I think the language was global warming back then) was happening and it was very likely human activity causing it. No controversy. Science and the scientific method, are inherently non-political.

Fast forward 10 years and industry funded "think-tanks" started popping up and engaging in the most effective disinformation campaign in modern times. The true genius was the politicisation of the scientific method and flipping the narrative. The least qualified and most ideologically driven where now the sceptics, not the qualified scientific community using a sceptical model developed over hundreds of years that has driven the greatest period in human advancement in history. Climate sciensce was now a communist plot to redistribute wealth driven by the EU behemoth, or some such frothing delusion.

This episode is similar, but on a much grander scale to what the tobacco industry did with cigarettes, the pharmacy industry did with thalidomide and James Hardie did here in Australia with asbestos.

I'm interested in some of the comments about the hypocrisy of celebrities on the issue or people who buy a low emission car instead of walking etc. Most data I've seen, certainly in Australia, shows it is individuals, state governments and smaller enterprise (in that order) doing the heavy lifting on emissions reductions. Not Federal government, not industry and not the financial industry who are all failing miserably as leadership goes.

As far as celebs go, I'm a bit of an iconoclast. But I am bemused at the tomatoes being thrown in the direction of people who do have something to say on the issue. Let's face it, Di Caprio and others could be sitting around being fed peeled grapes by swimwear models while polishing their Oscars or whatever it is that rich people do. Good on them if they want to use their fame to influence change. There are other celebs living in opulence doing nothing at all. I don't read what they are saying as talking down to plebs, I think they are actually talking up to governments and corporates and trying to influence policy. Nobody is being asked to sit in the dark, stop all travel and turn off their winters in winter. Just do what you can with the resources you have.

 

[Slarti]

Sure, if someone with a cult following makes it a politically divisive issue and tell his his fanatical followers that it's a made-up scheme by their opponents or people they deem inferior...

One actual example of exactly that would be the "Arian Physics" (or "Deutsche Physik") of the Nazis that called among other things Einstein's general relativity a "Jewish hoax" despite the fact that it had already been proven that gravity is acceleration and that a strong enough gravity well can bend light.

And with the right assembly of blind followers you can repeat equally or even more ridiculous things any day of the week...

Just take carbon dating of fossils - you will easily find plenty of people who are dead certain that that is a hoax...

If it fits their world view people are willing to believe everything and wilfully ignore the facts - until they finally hit them in the face.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You mean like the very active flat earth society?

Anyway, a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole process but my understanding is there is little empirical evidence that actually links climate change (and higher CO2) to human activity. Lots of conjecture and finger pointing but not much more.

 

[Punchanello]

Anyway, a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole process but my understanding is there is little empirical evidence that actually links climate change (and higher CO2) to human activity. Lots of conjecture and finger pointing but not much more.

That depends on your definition of "empirical evidence" because to my knowledge that is not even a scientific measure. If you use the definition applied by elected Australian senator and resident conspiracy theorist and kook Malcolm Roberts, empirical evidence is a single world changing cosmic "gotcha moment" that that doesn't need any scientific interpretation and can make someone loose control of their bowels.

If you define the term empirical as hundreds and thousands of little pointers which when viewed in their entirety lead again and again to the same conclusion then that might be a more reasonable expectation in just about any scientific field.

On this Malcolm Roberts character, and I'm using him because of his reliance on the term to dismiss anything he doesn't want to hear, one of Australia’s most famous and celebrated scientists Prof Peter Doherty (Nobel prize winner for his research into the immune system) said "I’ve never used the term ‘empirical evidence’, or heard any other working scientist say it. [Roberts] has no understanding of how science works."

 

[ThRoewer]

If you compare the consumption of fossil fuels with the CO2 levels over the time it was measured and recorded you will have to be willfully blind to not see the connection.
But CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gasses and not even the worst. Methane is actually several times worse. The main source of that are among other (mostly also man-made factors) the one billion cows (and sheep as well) worldwide we keep for milk, steaks and hamburgers.
If you then also factor in the past and ongoing deforestation the human involvement becomes quite clear.

The current global warming is clearly man made. And if you doubt that there is even warming going on, just ask someone living in Alaska for long enough.

Furthermore, the rate of warming doesn't really allow any other conclusion than humans as cause.
All warming periods of the past were rather slow and gradual over thousands of years.

It's the denial and "skepticism" that's the scheme and not the climate science.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[alton]

Well I guess the way to control methane is control the human population, but no one wants to hear or do that in this country. And although I do love my fellow Americans, I wish they would stop moving to Texas, we are already busting at the seams. Darn Ex-Governor Perry and his big mouth.