Reef news

[Notathumpa]

Though some would deny science based information, I take it seriously.(Peer reviewable, of course)! Thought this would be of interest to all.






http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSTRE5654JY20090706

 

[serpentman]

Although I wouldn't deny that the reef's themselves are in danger due to overfishing, physical destruction and pollution, the attached article is based on the premise that global warming is real. It wasn't too long ago that there was a petition signed by 40,000+ environmental scientists disputing the claims that the globe is in fact warming, let alone a man-made phenomenon. Not to start a debate because this isn't the format, however, the argument comes down to politics more than actual science. Consequently, because of the pure scale of the issue that is at debate, there is too much financial implication (both for and against) that its virtually impossible to reach a peer-reviewable consensus.

Believe it or not, the single largest threat to reefs as we know it is physical destruction. In 3rd world countries, they are dynamiting reefs to use the rubble for concrete at a staggering pace.

 

[aznnutty]

not to start a debate but to support a thought. i once heard from the ceo of the weather channel explaining the reason what there was more warmth then normal is because of larger number of solar flares and sun spots in the mid 90s, since then the numbers have dropped back to normal ranges and our impact of CO2 is only 3% of 33 units to 100,000 units of earth's atmosphere. to affect that fraction of a percent, we would have to wipe out all of our man made machines, all of them and kill the earth's human population. as ratical as that sounds, there are more then we know that contributes to the CO2 in the atmosphere. all animals, fungle, some plants, swaps, jungles, and more all produces co2.

 

[aznnutty]

correction- i forgot if he said 100,000 units or 1,000 units, but it's still a very very small fraction

 

[Notathumpa]

Not to beat the dead horse! The evidence is out there, choose what you want to believe! The science, by the way, is most certainly peer reviewable and accessible.

 

[Ohiomom]

I find this is one of those topics that people choose to firmly believe one way or the other just like politics and religion. Rarely if ever will one side convince the other so would think a person will believe what they feel is right and the other "side" just kind of has to respect that and let it go..hope that makes sense..

 

[Notathumpa]

Thanks, Mom. I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to life on Earth! Don't want to wish I had when it's too late.
John

 

[serpentman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15319019#post15319019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Notathumpa
Not to beat the dead horse! The evidence is out there, choose what you want to believe! The science, by the way, is most certainly peer reviewable and accessible.

Would love to see it. I have spent several credit hours in climatology and oceanography courses. For every hypothesis that claims the earth is warming, there is an equally credibile case claiming that it is actually cooling. Others claims short durations of warming anomalies due to solar activity, etc. Quite frankly, either one is plausible depending on what data set you choose to believe. You say "peer reviewable", however, I'm not sure what you intend to prove by this. If you tune into the current scientific community on this particular issue, you will find considerable debate on this with no clear consensus. Unlike physics or chemistry, climatology is not an exact science as it requires enormous data over a long time period. Which is why I said the argument is a political one, not a scientific one. Again way too much money at stake for scientific objectivity to truly take place when both sides are tying to prove their hypothesis for the gain of their financial backers.

Like politics or religion, you'll never convince one side or the other to change their opinion. Right now there seems to be a lot of "gloom and doom" media hype. I think the debate is healthy as we should reflect on our impact on this earth. However, I wouldn't call the so called evidence available definitive by any stretch.

 

[serpentman]

By the way, I thought I would clarify for the record that I am neither for or against the theory of global warming. I just think a LOT more OBJECTIVE research needs to be done before we can begin making absolute statements.

 

[75pxatr]

The geological record shows billions of years of climate change. Ice ages advanced and then retreated without evil SUV's polluting the air.

I agree, there should be much more debate b4 we enact policies that will be devastating to our economy without understanding what impact if any will be had on global "warming".

Notice the debate has been changed from global "warming" to global climate "change". This in itself should warrant critical review from rational people.

 

[Notathumpa]

The slow rise of "greenhouse gases" over millions of years did certainly produce "climate change" in the form of "global warming. The vast timescales gave life sufficient time to adapt, evolve, or go extinct. This has been cyclical over geologic time. The issue with current elevations in these heat trapping gases is the speed at which they are rising. Since the begining of the 20th century(early indust.revolution) the levels of primarily C02, has exceeded levels(based on fossil evidence) seen to take millennia to achieve by natural means. Available imperical data from countless scientific publications supports this general description of the basic current problem. I am no scientist( though I have close to 80 credit hrs of college science study) but I have had no problem finding reliable information to support this. The evidence for "global cooling" is based on a very small (in total)geographical area and has not been widely supported. There has been some research into the phenomenon of "global dimming" which is the result of airborne pollutants reflecting a portion of sunlight resulting in overall(though minute) cooling. I do not believe that any credible scientist would ever claim "absolutes" in a conclusion! Rhetoric has little influence on true science.

 

[serpentman]

My point exactly. A lot of the science has already been perverted due to the rhetoric. True science views a hypothesis objectively. However, given the money and politics involved, what is being marketed as "pure science" on the subject is tainted from the start.

Given that the scientific community can't reach a consensus, I don't expect we will reach one here. However, since the mainstream media networks love to hype the "gloom and doom" side of the argument, I thought I would provide an alternate viewpoint.

Here is a link to petition that has been signed by 31,000 scientists rejecting the theory of global warming. The site also includes several peer reviewed articles disputing the theory.

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

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

Again, my intent is not to change anyone's mind on the subject of global warming but rather to encourage people to look at the research out there objectively.