Caribbean Coral Bleaching

I have to patronize you. You are blinded by dogma and idealism, back up none of your claims with fact and refuse to acknowledge information contrary to your preconcieved notions. Take with that your youth and inexperiance and the incoherant ramblings and misdirection answers to questions posed. I could debate each and every issue you put forth and possibly show you that your beliefs warrant further consideration. But you provide no source or direct statment.

"There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. "

That statement alone shows that you haven't done your homework, don't know the complete picture and did not even spend the 2 minutes it would have taken to fact check yourself. Everything else then becomes suspect.

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

Mike
 
Feel free to show us evidence, any evidence at all, that there is widespread dissent amongst the scientific community. While you're at it, feel free to show some counterevidence that warming oceans does not cause bleaching, or that the world is not warming.

I look forward to it.

Chris
 
Start with this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

"As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines"

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

"While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policyformulation."

"The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system."

""Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." "
 
You're kidding right? An editorial is totally moot. Firstly, how are we to know that the folks listed as supporting this document actually saw this draft of it? Censorship to the extent that it completely changes a documents original meaning is very common in the past 6 years under the Bush administration, for instance. Jim Hansen head of climatology at NASA just spoke out against this, not to mention the dozens of other scientists that have left posts in the last few years due to censorship. Secondly, this offers no evidence whatsoever, just opinion.

As I said, show us counterevidence, not opinion from sources with who-knows what bias.

Chris
 
And since you've talked up the peer-review process ... let's see some peer-reviewed articles [not from a newspaper, where chicken little talks ;)] that strongly suggest that warming is not occurring.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7193801#post7193801 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I suspect that you do not have the experiance or training to make such bold statements but that's okay. Your entitled to be as passionate with your beliefs as you wish.
Click to expand...
You are a scientist - what specialty?

Interesting that you feel happy to doubt Chris' experience with his subject field [corals ... `prove bleaching' as above] - but force him to disprove the few dissenters to what the scientific community has generally accepted. Seems like a double-standard to me.

[You know, there's `scientists' that claim evolution is bunk ... are these the same as those objecting to climate change theories?]

IMO, the ball is in the court of those who disagree with the commonly held facts to show them to be incorrect. In this case, I'd love to info/proof that heat-stress doesn't cause issues for coral - nor that there's any warming going on.

Having studied ancient climate in graduate school, I've seen little to doubt that the climate is warming. I'd be happy to - but it would take a little more than newspaper stories to disprove the peer-reviewed articles I've read. Please provide some :)
 
That's it? Your going to try to spin this. A letter written to the Prime minister of Canada by 60 senior scientists in this field of study and your reponse is to tighten your blindfold?

The proper response is "That is very interesting. I did not know that. I guess I was wrong."

Like I said, your belief is dogma. It is pointless to show you any evidence because you refuse to accept any given. If I show you clear data that the earth hasn't warmed signifcantly in 8 years you'll just argue the collection method. But it doesn't matter. The burden of proof lies with those that forwarded the theory. And so far the proof has been lacking.

Mike

Mark, I have bachelors in Biology, microbiology, and molecular biology and a Masters in chemistry.
 
Mark,

Like I said, and as a academic you should know, the burden of proof is on the one presenting the theory. Skeptics, which we all should be, are under no obligation to prove them right or wrong. A good scientist has the obligation to prove himself wrong.

Chris is a college student. He has made no indication that bleaching corals are in his subject field. As far as I know his field of study might be English Lit. He has made statement with phrases like "no doubt what-so-ever" and not sourced his argument but only challenged me to prove him wrong. Which in the case of global warming and the no dissenting scientist comment took me all of 2 minutes.

As for the climate warming. I'm sure it is. It's been warming since the last ice age. But if you read Chris's post you can see that he uses the phrase anthropological global warming. Man made global warming.

Mike
 
Mike,

The concensus on this issue is that global warming is occuring and that human activities are primarily responsible. The concensus is also that ocean warming is THE major cause of coral bleaching. If you disagree with this view please show counterevidence to it. Because this is such a charged issue politically, personal statements, editorials, and anything but data must be taken with a very large grain of salt. When an idea goes against the thinking of the time, the paradigm, the burden of proof always is with those wish to change the thinking.

If you think these ideas are wrong, please provide evidence that they are wrong, otherwise we will all have to side with the heap of evidence that suggests they are correct.

As for showing clear evidence that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 8 years, I'd be very interested to see what you have as I've seen just the opposite. In fact, the 90's were the warmest decade on record. 1997 was the warmest year on record, though I know 2005 was a close second. I'm not sure whether '97 or '05 is officially the warmest recorded at the moment. There is an obvious warming trend in all the data for the last century, except during part of the midcentury. This was due to increases in soot and aeresols blocking sunlight. As soon as the Clean Air Act began to reduce air pollution the temp. went back on a climbing trend. There are countless pages of data all telling the same story.

Best,

Chris
 
p.s. I'm actually finishing a dual set of bachelors degrees in zoology and Spanish. My formal area of specialty is in ecology and evolutionary biology, though I've spent just as much time working on oceanography/reef ecology. I'm actually in negotiations now deciding which gradute school I'll be attending this fall to work on reef ecology/coral biology. Wish me luck :D
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7201271#post7201271 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Like I said, your belief is dogma. It is pointless to show you any evidence because you refuse to accept any given. If I show you clear data that the earth hasn't warmed signifcantly in 8 years you'll just argue the collection method.
Click to expand...
I think we are both asking for information - and without providing it you cannot characterize our reactions ... unless your idea of `proof' is a little different than mine ;)
 
As a zoology major you know the burden of proof is always with the person offering the theory. That's not what I think is a good idea, its the way it is. Its scientific method. "The consensus of scientists" is an overused phrase that is completely meaningless.

The political charged atmosphere is from the environmentalists. Almost exclusively. I find it interesting that those aren't the motivations be questions. Opposing scientists have nothing to gain. Opposition will effect their ability to get funding as well as chastisment by the other side. Because of the zealotry of the believers and financial interests of scientific supporters, you should automatically question everything they offer. Common sense.

Now about your warmest year on record comment. It doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with global warming theory. It is interesting yes, but is anecdotal. Anecdotes aren't data : Anecdotal data are essentially a single or a few observations. Anecdotes are designed to appeal to your emotions and fears. It's a ruse to get you to put your brain in neutral and overlook the facts. A record cold year would not disprove global warming either. Which by the way, might be coming, we're at the end of a warming cycle that probably peaked in 1998. We'll now enter a cooling period simliar to the 70's.

Global warming, even if its real, even if its man made, and this is important, hasn't happened yet. The theory predicts future occurances. There was never a claim that it was a current problem. Claims of global warming already upon us are always sensational. So far predictions are off by over 400%. On the down side by the way. And the effects were'nt supposed be seen for 50 years or longer. What would happen if you submitted a paper to your professor that had a 400% error?

Oh and good luck!

Mike
 
Chris,

Just wanted to clear up something. I am not arguing for or against the merits of global warming theory. I am not qualified to do that. I do disqualify any information until I can see that the researchers have followed proper scientific method. But this is only for the purpose of formulating my own opinion. What makes this debate seem heated by me is my response to your absolutes. Statements like "There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. " are easily refuted because of there stated certainty. So here's another one for you:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

The petition was signed by over 18,000 dissenting scientists.

Mike
 
Since this is getting us nowhere, here's some data:

limbaugh-20050816-1.jpg


limbaugh-20050816-2.jpg


I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that models have a 400% error. As can be seen, they've predicted trends very accurately. These are also a few years old. Today's models are more accurate still.

See the IPCC report

here

cj
 
Since you've moved on past the subject of dissenting opinions of qualified scientist, I will assume that you've conceded the point. Now lets move on to your graph.

I don't know how much statistics you've had in college so please excuse me if I sound like I'm patronizing. A graph of anomalies is statistics. what you must know about stastics: Statistics are the lingua franca of junk science. They make good sound bites, adding a quantitative feel to otherwise "fuzzy" scares. Credibility is added ostensibly by a statistic's neutral nature and authoritative source. The result is an inappropriate transformation of a likely meaningless number into conventional wisdom. Know That Statistics Don't Prove Cause and Effect.

What your graph shows is statistical slight of hand. It takes advantage of two things. Scaling, looking at the scale you see that the scale was set a -1-1 degree. This highlights a dramatic effect. What your graph doesn't show is the coefficient of variation or the standard deviation. It does not show the precision of the measuring equipment. It is merely statistical data point placed on a very small scale for dramtic effect. And the second thing it does it show a degree anomalie without stating whether the variance was from increased warming, or for lack of another phrase "decreased colding". And you should know that mild winters are good for the planet and do not reflect global warming. They are due to the jet stream pushing arctic air into the lower regions of the globe. Yet a mild winter will show as a spike in your graph. Okay, enough, I've explained the slight of hand used and I'm sure your still skepical so lets take the exact same data used to construct this graph and graph the absolute temperatures. This IS science. It is a recording of observed data and plotted on a graph.



18593NCDC_absolute-med.gif


Seems remarkably stable now don't you think. I can see a slight warming trend here. But nothing to write home about. You've been duped by clever statistics, but not worry, it happens to us all sometimes.

Mike
 
MCary?

How about using something that isn't from a politically charged, less-than-scientific website? The one linked in the corner of your post there isn't exactly `peer reviewed' ;)

The data might be from a great source, but it's selection is problematic.

As you said...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7202180#post7202180 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I do disqualify any information until I can see that the researchers have followed proper scientific method.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point.
 
Last edited:
Mark,

Let's not just attack the messenger. We'll forget that fact for the the moment that the site is authored by a scholar, holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center, and a member of the Cato institute. I knew the data and graph existed so I googled to find it and took it from that website. That website did not create the graph. It is an NCDC graph, the organization that collects mean global temperatures, and is sourced by an ftp site if you want to see the original or you can google {absolute global mean temperatures} and take it from the website of your choosing.

I could just as easily say that the graphs and information supporting the theory were from radical environmentalists or from a scientific community trying to cash in on the scare. But I don't, I let the data speak for itself.

Mike
 
Since you've moved on past the subject of dissenting opinions of qualified scientist, I will assume that you've conceded the point.

I said it before and I'll say it again, there is no or nearly no dissent amongst reputable scientists on the issue. There is a near total concensus. It's rare to get a concensus on much, I'll add.

I don't know how much statistics you've had in college so please excuse me if I sound like I'm patronizing. A graph of anomalies is statistics. what you must know about stastics: Statistics are the lingua franca of junk science. They make good sound bites, adding a quantitative feel to otherwise "fuzzy" scares. Credibility is added ostensibly by a statistic's neutral nature and authoritative source. The result is an inappropriate transformation of a likely meaningless number into conventional wisdom. Know That Statistics Don't Prove Cause and Effect.

So statistics are useless except to lie with? Then why are you showing data? :confused:

A statistical analysis is as accurate as its adherence to standards. Sure, statistics are complex and it's easy to lie to the public by misusing statistics, by misrepresenting the data, but that involves all manner of bias or outright errors. We as a scientic community have gotten really good at figuring out how to eliminate that over the past century. Statistics when done correctly demonstrate what the data is saying. Simple as that.

What your graph shows is statistical slight of hand.

A line graph of data measurements is 'statisctical slight of hand?' :confused:

Scaling, looking at the scale you see that the scale was set a -1-1 degree. This highlights a dramatic effect. What your graph doesn't show is the coefficient of variation or the standard deviation. It does not show the precision of the measuring equipment. It is merely statistical data point placed on a very small scale for dramtic effect.

Why would they use a different scale? It's pretty hard to discern a 0.7 C increase if the scale is tens of degrees C. Since very small variations in the global mean temp. cause dramatic changes in climate (5 C is a BIG difference) it only seems appropriate to illustrate such changes in context.

And the second thing it does it show a degree anomalie without stating whether the variance was from increased warming, or for lack of another phrase "decreased colding". And you should know that mild winters are good for the planet and do not reflect global warming. They are due to the jet stream pushing arctic air into the lower regions of the globe. Yet a mild winter will show as a spike in your graph.

So warmer winters is not indicative of warming? :confused: Please explain that one to me.

Mild winters are actually a potential catastrophe in many ways. The ecosystems north of about 60 deg. latitude are already dying and this expected to accelerate markedly. Here in the midwest (where I live) freezing temps during the winter significantly dimminish the effects of diseases and insect pests, especially on crops. It's been demonstrated that warmer winters harm crop production markedly. El Nino disrupted upwelling and rain patterns in many areas. The sea lions in the Galapagos died en masse. Australia had unprecedented droughts. Billions (if not trillions) were lost in failed crops and collapsed fisheries. Need I say more. No, mild winters aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Okay, enough, I've explained the slight of hand used and I'm sure your still skepical so lets take the exact same data used to construct this graph and graph the absolute temperatures. This IS science. It is a recording of observed data and plotted on a graph.

The graph shows a warming of about 0.5 C over the last 30 years, exactly like the ones I posted. Agreed :thumbsup:

Seems remarkably stable now don't you think.

No, not at all :confused: A temp. increase of that rate is nearly unprecedented in the geologic record. It is quite certainly the fastest worldwide increase in the last 750,000 years, and probably much longer. There's also good evidence now that the arctic is the warmest it's been in more than 1 million years, and it's projected to get quite a bit warmer.

You've been duped by clever statistics, but not worry, it happens to us all sometimes.

I have? *cough* *hack* *cough* ;)

Best,

Chris
 
I am no academic. My tasteful avatar should be a clue. My interpretation of the NCDC graph is that since the summer of 2001 the high temperatures have actually remained steady or decreased slightly and the highest temperature on the graph was 1997 (el nino year).The low temperatures seem to follow the same pattern. I realize these last few years may not be statistically relevant but it seems to be an overall small downward trend since 1997.
I do have one question. What is a double solar maximum?
 
So, the 18,060 scientists I've shown you aren't enough? I'll say one thing. You are stubborn.

The parsing and tap dancing of the rest of your post is difficult to respond to. Take what I told you about statistics, you can even print the post, and consult with a stats or math professor. They'll tell you I'm right. You are basically justifying and spinning trying hard to salvage your arguement. Maybe I should list some talking points..

El Nino has never been and still isn't linked to global warming. It is still almost completely not understood and has been impossible to predict. It is more than anything else responsible for the record warm winter temps of 1997-98. Any discussion of this phenomenon with Global Warming is a red herring.

In order for your statistics to have value you need a missinf element. You need a baseline. This is the expected temperature for that particular reporting period for that time in the climatic cycle. That figure is impossible to aquire. Instead your model took an average (mean) of the temperatures for each year. Then claimed that temps above and below that mean were a statistical anomalie. This of course isn't the case because the Earth's temps on on an ~60 year cycle. So a high temp at the peak of the cycle would show as an anomalie when in actuality are quite normal.

The fact that you don't know about the trick of scaling in statistics means you need to do more homework before I can discuss this further.

Your statements about .5 degrees C being a big difference and mild winters being dangerous I suspect were just pulled out of the air so I won't respond to that. And of course the effect of bad weather, droughts etc are meaningless unless you can link them to the topic. Anthropological global warming.

But you think your right and stick by your data, so lets use your data. First lets define scientific method:

The Scientific Method can be summarized in 5 steps:

1. Observe some phenomenon in the universe
2. Develop a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for the phenomenon
3. Test the validity of the hypothesis (e.g., do an experiment or otherwise collect relevant data)
4. Refine the hypothesis on the basis of the results of the test
5. Repeat #3 and #4 until the hypothesis fits the phenomenon

Now lets apply it to Global Warming:

Hypothesis: Radiant energy reflecting back from the surface of the planet are trapped into the upper atmosphere by green house gases, preventing them from radiating back into space causing a green house effect and warming the planet.
Prediction: The green house effect will cause the planet's temp to rise 3 degrees in the decade 1990-1999. (Hansen 1988)
Experiment: results (based on your graph) temperature rose by ~0.7 degrees.
Conclusion: Experiment failed to follow prediction therefore failed to validate hypotheis. Hypothesis remains unproven.

This is simple 2+2=4 stuff. It is basic scientific principle. If you argue or disagree you are basically agreeing that its Junk Science.

And finally, you can't measure global mean tempertures within a half degree. That level of precision is not possible. Any numbers within 2 standard deviations are in effect the same number. They are within the margin of error.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

griss
Caribbean Stony Corals
Replies
0
Views
148
griss
griss
Reefing102
No MACNA 2024
2
Replies
24
Views
699
SantaMonica
S
Corals.com
**Saturday Spotlight: Chalice Corals!** ~ Corals.com
Replies
0
Views
134
Corals.com
Corals.com
Misled
Fiji corals
Replies
5
Views
328
griss
griss
Corals.com
**25% OFF MOTHER'S DAY SALE!!** Saturday Spotlight: Acan Lords!
Replies
0
Views
140
Corals.com
Corals.com
Back
Top