Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

[Rosseau]

Hunterx....


You're certainly right about the scientific method as per hypothesis, testing, theory etc..


AND yes, there is propaganda on both sides. Policy is being thrown around and often facts are neglected.

However things we do know which are fact:


-Currently greenhouse gasses (GHG) are rising, and our output of them is increasing and is measurable.

-GHG's do warm the earth. Period. If we didn't have GHG's our earth's temperature would be on average well below the freezing point, and most (if not all) life would cease to exist. Think of the moon, no atmosphere so it's barren and cold.

-GHG's make our planet what it is!

-"Global Warming" as we hear the term doesn't necessarily imply that everywhere on earth will warm, and that everywhere will warm equally. Climate Change is a much better term. You're right, climate is extremely complex and we still can't perfectly model it. Yet these models are important.

-The earth's climate has changed thousands of times in its ~6 billion year history, much of this we have been able to determine via based on evidence left on the earth (ice cores, sediments blah blah the list is long)

-It's absolutely clear that carbon and GHG increases will change the earth's climate. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

It doesn't mean that it will be a little warmer when you go to work in the morning. It means that everything can change. Think of any economy and how the climate affects it. Look at El Nino years and how this small term shift can destroy entire economies.



Nobody likes to read long posts, so i'll stop now.

Just know, that the coming changes in climate are comparable to those of the past and these past climates have been so incredibly different from anything you could image today. It's not just an issue of saving the polar bears, it's also about the lives we have all built for ourselves.

 

[Rosseau]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8797738#post8797738 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Leave it to you Hippie to say that cooling temps are a sign of global warming. At least your consistant.

I'm sorry, i've been reading through this thread now and have to stop here.

Global Warming is an average term.

One of the reasons Antarctica is cold is because it has a large cold water current encircling itself.



As you know, the greater thermal gradients are, the harder it is for mixing to occur. Water/Air needs more energy in order to pass this "thermal" barrier. Thus as the world's oceans/air masses warm thermal gradients can intensify and cold air/water can actually be trapped in an area, such as is the case with Antarctica. Thus it can cool while other areas warm.


Set up a little experiment in your bath tub, try it out. In a controlled environment that is....

Climate/earth systems are terribly complex and one thing always leads to another.... Kind of like an aquarium reef system. Anything you add/subtract has an effect on the system as a whole.


Our earth is just one big aquarium, and we only have one.

 

[HippieSmell]

awestruck: I understand what you're saying, and I understand what reefbuddha is saying too. However, I didn't like the way buddha insinuated that we should just accept what climate scientists say without having the ability to discuss the issue. That is potentially dangerous IMO.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9101547#post9101547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Hunterx
Look Stop fighting,
Hippy Global Warming is still a Theory and one with crappy observations. It's not because it's wrong or right or we just don’t know but because we can’t test it in a controlled environment (Key Word) because of the obvious impracticality. Control is the very foundation of science, there is NO vagueness in this and once you said that doesn’t matter you lose a LOT of credibility.

Crappy observations, huh? I'm sure you have a reason for saying that, please share. Needless to say, I don't agree with you.

I never said controls don't matter, I said they aren't always possible and that we learn many accurate things without controls. Having controls makes science easier and more concrete, but the lack of which by no means invalidates GOOD SCIENCE.

It may come to a surprise to you but even phenomena like gravity are a theory same thing goes with Evolution, because we can't test it. Sounds crazy right? Well it's not, a theory is based on many observations unlike a hypothesis which is an educated guess to a problem.

Yes, I know, I brought that point up earlier in this thread.

I myself would say the observations are really crappy considering we have been living on this planet for less then 1/8th of its history and only have really been recording it's history for less then 1/12.

I would say your math is crappy. Proto-humans have been on Earth for about 1/25th of its history, and keeping records for something like a millionth of Earth's history. But, I understand what you're saying, that's why we look a things such as ice cores that can tell us what happened in the distant past.

Quite Frankly if super computers can't accurately predict short term weekly forecasts then they are sure as hell not aint going to be able to predict Long term climate change.

The computer is only as good as the data put in it, and long term climate models are an entirely different beast compared to short term models, so judging the accuracy of one based on the other isn't possible.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9102011#post9102011 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
As you know, the greater thermal gradients are, the harder it is for mixing to occur. Water/Air needs more energy in order to pass this "thermal" barrier. Thus as the world's oceans/air masses warm thermal gradients can intensify and cold air/water can actually be trapped in an area, such as is the case with Antarctica. Thus it can cool while other areas warm.

This is a good point you brought up. People, for the most part, believe that the climate will simply get slightly warmer throughout the planet. While that is true on average, the most noticeable effect will be that the weather becomes more extreme, on both ends of the scale, hot and cold.

 

[HippieSmell]

Wow, you have to love articles like this: link
The US won't admit that emissions exacerbate GW, but by god, we've got contingency plans to reflect sunlight in order to cool the planet! Way to go.

 

[awestruck]

I believe that climate change is occurring--I believe that part of the change may be natural. I also believe that mankind is contributing in ways that are extrememly detrimental. Groan if you choose, but I bow my head in absolute humility to Mother Nature's true magnificence. I am awestruck at the beauty of the oceans, deserts, jungles, and mountains. I weep knowing that gorillas are poached inasmuch as their hands are used for ashtrays. I cry realizing that very few (if any) white bengals live in the wild. I hang my head as I watch garbage hills grow higher, and higher, and higher... I am frightened when smog is so dense that one can hardly see. I quiver as I see fish floating because their habitat has been poisoned by supposedly the brightest animals on earth. When my son was 9 he wanted to pray--he wanted to ask God to please take care of the people who were alive when the sun burns out. He asked me what I thought would happen to them. I responded, "Sweetheart, if we don't begin to nurture our planet, it simply won't matter."

 

[ReefBuddha]

Via CBS: "Next week, an international panel of top climate scientists, including Americans, will issue a long-awaited report on climate change.

The long-awaited report to be published next week puts hard scientific fact behind the cliché images of global warming. A final draft, obtained by CBS News, contains the strongest language yet on how fast the world is heating up and who to blame.

The answer? Us. " link, link 2

"Regardless of the subject, I'm certainly more likely to believe the worldwide scientific consensus from professionals who are qualified and scrutinized by peers, than I am likely to believe those who are not, like 'armchair scientists' .....i.e all of us here, including me.

We're not qualified either way...period. I don't believe for one second that I have answers that the best scientists across the planet have missed for decades...and I don't understand why anyone would presume to think that they do, sorry.

Now if in fact the current worldwide scientific community consensus is misguided, then it's up to those qualified and scrutinized professional climatologists to present that case in the same manner that the current theory has been formed. But again, we are certainly far from qualified either way. Science is about searching for truth, and certainly scientific theories have been corrected in the past, but we should leave the search and analysis to actual scientists qualified to do so, don't you think?

Nobody is saying not to question. nobody is saying not to learn. But , imo, we should keep a grounded perspective in the fact that we are not actually climatologists...and we should realize that our opinions are baseless compared to the most learned professionals in the field.

Above and beyond all of this is the hard reality that regardless of the truth(whether predominant theory is accurate or not), the most prudent thing to do is to play it safe so that our children are not paying the price in the future."

"Some of the most entertaining debate on the subject is on Digg. I love reading the comments almost more than the articles."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"some of the funnier, or more interesting comments from Digg:

"I think we can all agree that global warming is behind 9/11 attacks."

"As George Carlin once pointed out, the planet will be fine, it's the people living on the planet that will be ****."

good point here, and funny too, but still not a reason to not believe current science:
"Ah... a final verdict on a theory based on a computer model of a system that isn't well understood."

"Record snow in places it hardly does like Phoenix, Malibu, and Albuquerque. Insane record highs breaking well over 100 degrees in San Fransisco. Clearly Global Warming seems to be targeting Environmentalists..."

"The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert. Ok, that makes the United Nations, the European Union, several thousand climate experts and Steven f****g Hawking who think global warming is not only real but a serious, potentially catastrophic threat. Can we stop arguing over it now?"

liked this one:
"Theories don't necessarily equate to facts. They are simply scientific explanations based on current observations, experiments, and available data, and they can and do change when new evidence forces them to. It's just as foolish to claim that a theory is inherently true as it is to claim that a theory is inherently false. They are not proven, per se, but they are accepted as the best explanation of a specific phenomenon, based on the available evidence."

not how I would say it necessarily...but:link
"Ya, and thousands of climate scientists from hundreds of countries are making a mistake that sombody with college stats wouldn't make."

"1st the Internet, now Global Warming... Thanks a lot Al "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"that's why peer review and intense scrutiny by peers(even those who disagree) is a very crucial part of science. It minimizes that 'subjectivity' phenomenon, which is inherent in anything humans do...

We could take the next couple 100 years to examine the climate more closely with better technology to gather more evidence, but then the actual scenarios we are trying to predict will have already played out.

"The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert."

and...
frankly there are plenty of more obvious reasons to stop using fossil fuels beyond the debate about the details of climate change. The smart and safe thing for humanity to do is clean its act up regardless, imo.

Also, look at the dates and consider the sources when reading articles on any subject. Does the source have qualifications? Is the source scrutinized by the worldwide scientific community? Is there a consensus by others in the science presented? Has it been approved by a body of science or not?"

"If I were to put my money on which side of the debate had a larger vested interest in deception though, I'd be betting on the oil industry's vested interest in survival and profit. Historically, I'd also assume the oil industry(and corporate america in general) has more experience with deception than the scientific community does."

 

[Hunterx]

Long terms indicators like ice cores can only tell the temperature at the exact source then you can estimate, they are not accurate at all.

What I also hate is when we (The U.S That is) get blamed for having the worst environmental policies and pollution when we are light years ahead in pollution control and emissions reductions

I love it when foreign countries say [Insert insult/4 letter Word here] like we are the worst when it comes to environmentalism. Considering the last time I was in China the clouds where brown and the rivers where green because of the unregulated burring of coal (The Biggest man made CO2 source after cars) and other crap/toxic waste too. We have come a long way with highly advance catalytic converters, which can reduce particulate and CO2 emissions by 75% and improve mileage significantly and that’s not even a hybrid card.

We have strict clean air regulations these days, I remember that people where burning garbage in NYC and driving through the NJ oil refineries was like driving thorough a volcano on the turnpike. We are much cleaner then we where 30-40 years ago and we ARE using technology to improve the environment we live in. We didn't have the same unregulated burring of coal and lax emission controls and tech 30-40 years ago.

If we didn't have the same protocols as today things would be 50x worse in terms of our environment.

Any way long posts are boring as said before so I will leave it at that.

But I Really love it when famous actors and politicians preach environmentalism yet fly around by them selves in private jets (Which Pollute tremendously) and show no restraint in their own lives (Mc Mansions, Excursions, other wastes) (You can quote Maddox on that) it is so hypocritical that’s one reason I am so skeptical. When in reality these politicians couldn't care less about the environment when all it means is gaining approval and votes.

 

[Rosseau]

The Ice Cores are actually very accurate. look up oxygen isotope ratios... they tell a lot about prevailing climate. But they only go back as far as the ice is old.

That's a big problem with this all, determining whether the recent rise in temperatures we have observed in the past 200 years is actually significant - since climate does fluctuate naturally and it's possible that 100 year increase in temp are normal.

We are trying to curb our consumption, and determining what is acceptable is still up for debate. It's all about context. I really believe that technology will be our savior as it has been in the past. Realistically we're not going to want to give up personal transportation (cars). Also our cities are designed entirely around the car. Rather new technologies will become available and we will accept them, because they are superior, not just because of legislature.



Anyways......

The celeb's make me sick too.... I guess they are in a position where they can reach a large audience with their message. But personally I'd rather have a guy from the USGS telling me what is going on.

 

[ReefBuddha]

science forums realclimate.org, sciforums.com , or thescienceforum.com.

List of climate science resources, from usa today, and here.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9118624#post9118624 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Hunterx

What I also hate is when we (The U.S That is) get blamed for having the worst environmental policies and pollution when we are light years ahead in pollution control and emissions reductions

The US gets blamed for being a big polluter because it is currently the worst polluter. This will probably change to China soon enough because of the amount of coal fired power stations going up. But just because the US has cleaner air does not mean the energy consumption and pollution is worse.

From memory the clean air act did not address the amount of co2 emisions but I may be wrong on that one and feel free to shoot me down.

FWIW Australia is the largest polluter per capita and the largest exporter of coal.

 

[MCary]

Gotta go so I have to keep this short:

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural occuring gas essential for life in this planet.

Rosseau,

As long as there are credible dessenting scientists, then

THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

is an inaccurate statement.

You are presenting yourself as more of an expert than you are. Take a lesson from Hippie and qualify or reference your responses.

Hippie is right. Scientists are people who have the job or the time to make observations and draw conslusions from those observations. They have not been annointed as the vessels of truth. They should and are expected to justify all their conclusions. You have every right, and as a member of the human species, obligation to question them. Taking the logic of Buddha, we should never question the president or ask our doctors for a second opinion cause we're just not smart enough to understand.

Mike

 

[Rosseau]

I know that was a bold statement, I expected to get reamed out for it. I was writing a little frantically. Fair enough.

My point was really just that green house gasses are known (by all that I know) to affect the climate on earth - by scientists on all sides of the "global warming debate" (yes, maybe some don't agree). As GHG's partially compose our atmosphere which naturally warms the planet - it follows that changes to the concentrations of these gases will have some effect on this system.

Really I just meant the earth vs. the moon (atmosphere, no atmosphere)


I'm not considering carbon sinks etc., i'm assuming they stay the same.......



I'll try and put sources up for my ideas as I know that's important. A lot of my sources are not online, and if you want me to qualify my responses like Hippie does... I am an undergrad climate/geo/bio student currently. Please don't jump on me for this, i'm not pretending to know all, or to be fully qualified. Just that a lot of the info I get is through my professors and reports I read.

I've calmed down now at least.

-Cheers

 

[MCary]

Thanks,

Please don't think that I'm saying I know your wrong. Any disagreement I have does not make you wrong. It might be me. But when you speak in absolutes then I only need find one example where you're wrong and your entire argument is invalidated.

Also, there are many examples where a scientist will stand up and presume to speak for his whole scientific community, like if he said "There isn't a credible scientist today that doesn't know that Global Warming is real". When if fact there are many. This is picked up and parroted by Algore types that are outside the community. Then they are presuming to speak for the entire scientific community. A pet peeve.


BTW, do you know what the most abundant GHG is? Water vapor. Water vapor causes increased atmospheric CO2. So, is CO2 causing global warming, or is global warming causing increased CO2? Or since periods with rapidly increasing CO2 levels also saw decreased global temps, (example 1970's), maybe neither.

I know Hippie will disagree, and will probably site good reasons why, but it still makes you go hmmmmmmmmmm and want to know the answer right?
Mike

 

[Rosseau]

The complexity of the system and the connections between different variables is what makes this such a hot topic. If it were only a few variables, or even a few tens of variables I doubt debates such as this would exist. It makes it interesting, but much harder to understand and model.

If you have time and feel like getting a better and more comprehensive understanding of all of this I suggest getting your hands on a copy of the new (or old) IPCC reports.. They only allow info to be published which has passed very rigorous standards and acceptance levels. It reveals the science and doesn't dumb it down, however I think most people can get through it......

Anyways, the point of it is that it illustrates pretty well all of the connections between things, like you mentioned with the CO2 and water vapour.


I think an interesting point of debate is... What is the most important green house gas to us?


i.e. water vapour for example and CO2 are so abundant, yet molecule per molecule they aren't the most potent or long lasting... so how should we decide where to focus our efforts?



Also, there are things like the response of the oceans and forests to incresed CO2. Will they become more productive and actually remove much more carbon from the air? or will they just be limited by some other growth factor


As the earth warms, there is more potential for evaporation and thus more water vapour and so further warming...

.. i'm just typing at free will now, read along if you want...



for example after the last de-glaciation (~12-10 thousand years ago) melting glaciers changed oceanic water currents and actually restarted glaciations for ~1,300 years.... (known as the younger dryas)... things that you might not think of right away can happen like this. It's pretty amazing I think.


In the end, if we have any doubt that we're causing this, or at least contributing why not take the safe road?

-end rant.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9127133#post9127133 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Gotta go so I have to keep this short:

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural occuring gas essential for life in this planet.

Mike

According to the dictionary it is. Or I should say releasing CO2 into the atmosphere would be polluting. That is probably a better way of putting it.

 

[Rosseau]

Scottras. By breathing you're "polluting" by your standard. When you turn off the lights in your tank at night, your corals also "pollute". (via. Respiration, the basic opposite of photosynthesis)


You have to first define what is pollution...or at least the context you want to use it in.

CO2 is naturally occuring, very very abundant even without us little humans.


I guess we have to decide whether we are "natural", and if our impact on the systems is natural, as we are in the end just animals.

 

[Rosseau]

sorry, that sounded as if I was challenging you, i'm not...

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9130041#post9130041 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
Scottras. By breathing you're "polluting" by your standard. When you turn off the lights in your tank at night, your corals also "pollute". (via. Respiration, the basic opposite of photosynthesis)


You have to first define what is pollution...or at least the context you want to use it in.

CO2 is naturally occuring, very very abundant even without us little humans.


I guess we have to decide whether we are "natural", and if our impact on the systems is natural, as we are in the end just animals.

Thats fair enough, I did leave a large gap in the statement.

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

This is from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollutant

Hope this is a little more specific.

 

[Rosseau]

Yeah well, I mean again the definition of pollutant doesn't work for me.

CO2 example again...

If you're stuck in an air tight room, when you breathe you take oxygen out of the air and put C02 into the air. In this situation the CO2 is polluting the room.

Conversely, A plant in the room which uses CO2 in order to perform photosynthesis would not consider the CO2 a pollutant.



I guess the definition uses the term "harmful concentrations".. but harmful to what?


I think this whole climate change issue is all about context and scale.