Coral Reefs Dead By 2050

[Radioheadx14]

The actual warming of the oceans is not whats going to cause th corals to die... its the increase in CO2, making the oceans more acidic. Also this will cause algae blooms which will choke the corals out of resources. And the "scientists" who say this is a natural trend probably have a second agenda besides providing truth. Never in history has the earth changes this fast. Fast in geological time is 1-10 million years... we are predicted to have significant/catastrophic warming in 200-300 years (starting in the 1800s).

Everyone who is doubting will have fun when 2 billion people are relocated because their homes are under water or baking in the desert.

 

[samtheman]

I am a doubter. When will we shut off the power?

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

It is our numbers, not methods that cause the problem. If every couple was restricted to 1 child, we could cut our population in half without killing each other. 2 generations later, we would consume 1/4 of the resources our runaway habits are consuming.

Then again, it could just be a natural cycle that will reduce our population in a far less pleasant manner, so feel free to breed like bunnies.

 

[JER-Z]

so does everyone use LED lighting, Red Dragon Pumps, have the roof lined w/ solar panels and drive a Prius?

A reef tank is a luxury item that uses ALOT of energy and water. The majority of reef hobbyists tend to leave a bigger Carbon Footprint than their next door neighbor.

Whats worse? Not believing in Global Warming? Or believing in the theory and doing nothing about it other than arguing on the internet?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11933872#post11933872 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
Whats worse? Not believing in Global Warming? Or believing in the theory and doing nothing about it other than arguing on the internet?

I'm not sure. You start.

 

[JER-Z]

i never said i was a believer. Just pointing out it's pretty hypocritical and selfish for a believer in Global Warming to even own a reef tank. Unless of course they took the necessary steps to cancel out the increase in energy consumption.

So Mr. Smell, what measures have you taken?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11934065#post11934065 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
i never said i was a believer. Just pointing out it's pretty hypocritical and selfish for a believer in Global Warming to even own a reef tank. Unless of course they took the necessary steps to cancel out the increase in energy consumption.

So Mr. Smell, what measures have you taken?

So, not only do you not believe, you don't do anything. Do you know WHY you don't believe in GW? Also, I'm not going to cover what I do or don't do because those discussions are fruitless and never end well. You'll probably think that I'm just dodging the question, and yes, I definitely am. One thing I will say though; it has been my experience that those people who believe in GW tend to vote for people that are most likely to do something about it, even if they live less than carbon neutral lives themselves. That is very important and is what will have the greatest and most immediate impact.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11933872#post11933872 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
so does everyone use LED lighting, Red Dragon Pumps, have the roof lined w/ solar panels and drive a Prius?

A reef tank is a luxury item that uses ALOT of energy and water. The majority of reef hobbyists tend to leave a bigger Carbon Footprint than their next door neighbor.

Whats worse? Not believing in Global Warming? Or believing in the theory and doing nothing about it other than arguing on the internet?

It does not matter how much energy you use, it matters where it comes from.

 

[JER-Z]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11934243#post11934243 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
So, not only do you not believe, you don't do anything. Do you know WHY you don't believe in GW? Also, I'm not going to cover what I do or don't do because those discussions are fruitless and never end well. You'll probably think that I'm just dodging the question, and yes, I definitely am. One thing I will say though; it has been my experience that those people who believe in GW tend to vote for people that are most likely to do something about it, even if they live less than carbon neutral lives themselves. That is very important and is what will have the greatest and most immediate impact.

That is one of my biggest problems with the theory. It has become a political propaganda tool and there is not enough Scientific evidence to support EITHER side of the argument. Instead of coming up w/ solutions people like to point fingers.

Actually I am pretty energy efficient both of our cars get about 35 mpg and we live in a 850 sq ft condo (no solar panels allowed). We drive fuel efficient cars but that isnt because I fear global warming. It's because I think if we become less petroleum dependant less money gets funded to terrorists.

I feel we should definitely always strive for cleaner energy. But i will never vote on public officials based on Propaganda, especially since it hasn't been proven. The Fact is Nuclear Energy remains one of the cleanest, most efficient ways of producing energy. However, because of False propaganda, we have coal burning plants everywhere. Which has alot to do w/ the increased carbon.

The same people who fought nuclear energy are now crying about "Global Warming" how's that for irony?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936245#post11936245 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
That is one of my biggest problems with the theory. It has become a political propaganda tool and there is not enough Scientific evidence to support EITHER side of the argument. Instead of coming up w/ solutions people like to point fingers.

Actually I am pretty energy efficient both of our cars get about 35 mpg and we live in a 850 sq ft condo (no solar panels allowed). We drive fuel efficient cars but that isnt because I fear global warming. It's because I think if we become less petroleum dependant less money gets funded to terrorists.

I feel we should definitely always strive for cleaner energy. But i will never vote on public officials based on Propaganda, especially since it hasn't been proven. The Fact is Nuclear Energy remains one of the cleanest, most efficient ways of producing energy. However, because of False propaganda, we have coal burning plants everywhere. Which has alot to do w/ the increased carbon.

The same people who fought nuclear energy are now crying about "Global Warming" how's that for ironic?

There is a ton of evidence supporting GW. I'm guessing that you've never actually read any of it, since it's all "propaganda". It's hard for me to take you seriously when you don't even know basic facts concerning the issue. You say you drive fuel efficient cars so that less money gets to the terrorists, but if you were really worried about it, shouldn't you stop driving all together? Do you know how many boxcutters a tank full of gas can buy? You should drive a Prius and move to a home where you can install solar panels rather than make excuses on the internet. How hypocritical of you.

Nuclear energy isn't really that clean, either. It takes about 10 years before a nuclear power plant produces its first watt of energy because of the enormous amount of construction required to build it. That, and there is about 10 years worth of uranium left in the ground. AND, talk about the threat of terrorism! Of course there are always IAEA inspectors to monitor that, if allowed, but I digress.

 

[JER-Z]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936586#post11936586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
There is a ton of evidence supporting GW. I'm guessing that you've never actually read any of it, since it's all "propaganda". It's hard for me to take you seriously when you don't even know basic facts concerning the issue. You say you drive fuel efficient cars so that less money gets to the terrorists, but if you were really worried about it, shouldn't you stop driving all together? Do you know how many boxcutters a tank full of gas can buy? You should drive a Prius and move to a home where you can install solar panels rather than make excuses on the internet. How hypocritical of you.

Nuclear energy isn't really that clean, either. It takes about 10 years before a nuclear power plant produces its first watt of energy because of the enormous amount of construction required to build it. That, and there is about 10 years worth of uranium left in the ground. AND, talk about the threat of terrorism! Of course there are always IAEA inspectors to monitor that, if allowed, but I digress.

I do know the FACTS which is why i give up on discussing this with you. You obviously bought into all of the propaganda and believe it as fact so there isn't really any sense in discussing this further with you. I am a scientist, so when Gore puts out a little propaganda film i can't help but look for holes in BOTH sides of the discussion. The fact is climate changes happen before humans were on this planet and will continue to do so after we are gone. It's impossible to prove the cause of the climate change. Many scientists feel the planet is still coming out of an Ice Age. Those polar ice caps that are melting? They have been melting for a VERY long time. I don't deny climate change and warming, what i am not sure about is whether humans caused it or whether humans can do anything to prevent it.

I can't stop driving all together, unless i want to be unemployed. The amount of carbon produced to smelt enough nickel for a Prius Battery is more than you would ever produce w/ a normal 35mpg car. Smelting Nickel is a NASTY business, but people don't see that and like to pat themselves on the back for driving a hybrid

Both my Father AND my Brother are Nuclear Engineers, so I know a bit about nuclear energy and alot of what you are saying is false. Do you know how much carbon waste you are pumping into the atmosphere to create the same amount of energy a baseball sized piece of uranium can produce? You would be surprised. Whats worse pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Or storing uranium underground under 8 ft of concrete until it is not harmful?

I don't understand how anyone can blindly support either side of the argument, there is alot of BS on both sides .:rolleye1:

All i can do is try to be as efficient as possible and hope for the best. Electing officials based on their views on Global Warming? Foolish. They are only using the "global warming" to scare people into a vote. Look at Al Gore, his house uses a TON of energy and they fly around on private Jets everywhere. Politicians only care about your vote. They will say anything if they think it makes them look better than the competition.

Supporting corporations who strive to be "Green"? Not so foolish. Afterall, it's the corporations who rule this country anyway

 

[illsquaddotcom]

Could someone please tell me what brought the earth out of the last few ice ages, or furthermore what took us into them. This planet has experienced millions and millions of years of climate change, please understand that we are not quite as important as we think we are.The greatest factor in earth's temperature equation is the sun. I know many of you want desperately to consider yourselves part of that equation but your not. Sorry.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936704#post11936704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
I do know the FACTS which is why i give up on discussing this with you. You obviously bought into all of the propaganda and believe it as fact so there isn't really any sense in discussing this further with you. I am a scientist, so when Gore puts out a little propaganda film i can't help but look for holes in BOTH sides of the discussion. The fact is climate changes happen before humans were on this planet and will continue to do so after we are gone. It's impossible to prove the cause of the climate change. Many scientists feel the planet is still coming out of an Ice Age. Those polar ice caps that are melting? They have been melting for a VERY long time. I don't deny climate change and warming, what i am not sure about is whether humans caused it or whether humans can do anything to prevent it.

The simple fact that you call it propaganda tells me you don't know jack. There is legitimate research behind the theory, and you would know that if you knew anything. To say that the GW theory should be dismissed because it can't be "proven" also makes me wonder if you know anything about how science works, period.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936704#post11936704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
I can't stop driving all together, unless i want to be unemployed. The amount of carbon produced to smelt enough nickel for a Prius Battery is more than you would ever produce w/ a normal 35mpg car. Smelting Nickel is a NASTY business, but people don't see that and like to pat themselves on the back for driving a hybrid. Both my Father AND my Brother are Nuclear Engineers, so I know a bit about nuclear energy and alot of what you are saying is false. Do you know how much carbon waste you are pumping into the atmosphere to create the same amount of energy a baseball sized piece of uranium can produce? You would be surprised. Whats worse pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Or storing uranium underground under 8 ft of concrete until it is not harmful?

Whatever, I'm not going to get involved in those side issues because they're just parts of the puzzle.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936704#post11936704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
I don't understand how anyone can blindly support either side of the argument, there is alot of BS on both sides .:rolleye1:

All i can do is try to be as efficient as possible and hope for the best. Electing officials based on their views on Global Warming? Foolish. They are only using the "global warming" to scare people into a vote. Look at Al Gore, his house uses a TON of energy and they fly around on private Jets everywhere. Politicians only care about your vote. They will say anything if they think it makes them look better than the competition.

Supporting corporations who strive to be "Green"? Not so foolish. Afterall, it's the corporations who rule this country anyway

I don't blindly support it, I know why I support it, there's a difference. The least of the reasons being Al Gore. It's not foolish to support politicians based on their views, that's the whole point. Why do you vote for a politician? Because they make you feel good? I will agree that supporting corporations is a good idea, but profits are the bottom line for them, so legislation is required to see substantial progress in a lot of areas. Unrestricted capitalism will, and is, devouring this planet.

 

[samtheman]

There is no "data" on global warming as there is for most scientific theorys. Data on gravity or evolution is there for anyone to see and the data is repeatable.
The way global warming was developed was to try and find a human cause for climate change. Since there was not data, it had to be manufactured. First they used tree rings and later ice cores to "estimate" temperature changes over time since we have no recorded data except for maybe the last 100 years. Next they tried to find a way to tie human activity to the changes they had manufactured. The only way to do this is with huge weather models that utilize the varied and estimated temeratures. These models predict global tmeperature for thousands of years. They are not data, but a guess of possible outcomes. They are unable to predict past weather accurately and are not varifiable.
If I drop an apple, the probibility that it will fall to the ground is much higher and more easily reproduced than anything in the GW theory. If I exhale, does the temperatur go up. More C02, more temperature, right?
If you know anything about the scientific method, you know that GW science doesn't use it. Instead they invented a new way to look at the world, called consensus science. You don't have to prove anything, just get a bunch of other people to agree with you and its the TRUTH.

 

[SuperNerd]

Some of you guys sound ridiculous. Why does it have to be one answer and not the other? Is it possible that "man made global warming" and "natural global warming" take place around the same time during our lifetime and that either of the two events exacerbate the effects of the other?

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936704#post11936704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
I do know the FACTS which is why i give up on discussing this with you. You obviously bought into all of the propaganda and believe it as fact so there isn't really any sense in discussing this further with you. I am a scientist, so when Gore puts out a little propaganda film i can't help but look for holes in BOTH sides of the discussion. The fact is climate changes happen before humans were on this planet and will continue to do so after we are gone. It's impossible to prove the cause of the climate change. Many scientists feel the planet is still coming out of an Ice Age. Those polar ice caps that are melting? They have been melting for a VERY long time. I don't deny climate change and warming, what i am not sure about is whether humans caused it or whether humans can do anything to prevent it.

I

You should take these "facts" to someone higher,the US government im sure would be keen to listen to them,as for years they have denied man made global warming. they now have to admit it as the scientific evidence is so strong.

but it sounds like you and your uncles have turned science on its head! go and see big george, im sure he will be very keen to listen. I think your going to be up for a Nobel prize with this.

WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11944725#post11944725 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SuperNerd
Some of you guys sound ridiculous. Why does it have to be one answer and not the other? Is it possible that "man made global warming" and "natural global warming" take place around the same time during our lifetime and that either of the two events exacerbate the effects of the other?

Anything is possible. What is probable and practical should be based on science and not a poll.

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11945374#post11945374 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
Anything is possible. What is probable and practical should be based on science and not a poll.

and its the science of climate change that climatologists around the world have been studying for years.

but according to samtheman they havent yeah?

 

[illsquaddotcom]

Whatever, I'm not going to get involved in those side issues because they're just parts of the puzzle.

Thats exactly what I expected to hear from your type. "lets just skip over the real crux of the issue ie (carbon emissions) As long as Prius drivers feel that they are doing something, whether they are or aren't is just part of the puzzle.

 

[JER-Z]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11941341#post11941341 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
The simple fact that you call it propaganda tells me you don't know jack. There is legitimate research behind the theory, and you would know that if you knew anything. To say that the GW theory should be dismissed because it can't be "proven" also makes me wonder if you know anything about how science works, period.

I don't know anything about how science works? haha thats hilarious. So Mr Wizard let's see this "legitimate" research.

There is research to many theories on the climate change. Nothing has been proven, many politicians have jumped on the theory you believe in for political gain. And you bought it hook line and sinker.

I havn't bought into any of the theories, like i said there isn't enough proof to support any side of the argument. I guess i know too much about how science works to believe what a politician tells me. :rolleye1:

just read a good article. It says the exact cause of reef degradation is not exactly known as it could be a number of things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/science/earth/26reef.html?ref=science