I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 197 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
rockdoc123 wrote:
The science overwhelming indicates that human activities are affecting the global climate.
Quote:
Great finally we have someone who works in Climate Change Policy who actually has all the evidence.....kindly provide it here....As an earth scientist I have been searching for pretty much 10 years on this one through the literature (spare time mind you) and outside of models I haven't actually found any hard evidence, but of course because I never actually was interested in policy but rather the underlying science I might have missed it!
Nice little insult there about my work and my professionalism Rocdoc. No I don't think you have missed the information. The question is whether you have attempted to understand it in an unbiased way.
Anyhow I am sure that you have been here but a good place to start is
Off course this report is now 5 years old and a lot has happened since then. A good place to start is to go to www.realclimate.org. They summarise a whole bunch of issues but of course feel free to access the original papers and review them and any critiques.
rockdoc123 wrote:
And outside of the climate models your evidence would be?? Have you actually been keeping up with the number of variable outside of the current models that are now showing up to be important? Ever checked out the temperature increase back in the Mesozoic coming out of a global glaciation?
What variables are excluded? Be careful if you are going to say water vapour, cloud cover or solar cycles then you would be (ahem) misinformed, because they are included in the models and have been for some years. You can debate whether they are adequately included but then model development is always incremental.
About the issue of glaciation, no not personally, but why not go and ask the guys at Realclimate. I would be interested in their response and your response to their response.
rockdoc123 wrote:
Oh great ...so now we actually know that species extinctions have to do with climate change....perhaps you should inform the entire paleotologic community about this....I am tangentially involved with them and have to admit we haven't drawn that conclusion. In fact it may have to do with a number of things unrelated...could be climate but not necessarily.
I must admit I may have over simplified the causes of extinction events. But all us poor idiots down in ecology have long been of the view that climate change (at global, regional or local levels) is one of the major causes (pressures) of extinction - ergo all those theories about the Deccan Traps and Asteroids strikes to explain the Permian and KT extinctions?
rockdoc123 wrote:
have to admit we haven't drawn that conclusion .
By the way are you now claiming to be a Palaeontologist as well. My you are quite positively the renaissance man. See I can do sarcasm as well.
Quote:
Do nothing - accept our fate, or hope that we are more resilent than other societies or species have been
Do nothing now and hope that we can do something later
Do something now knowing that we still have imperfect information but it may provide more options later?
If we do something now but only concentrate on emission reductions (prevent it happening) However, the time for this option looks to have passed
Only concentrate on adaptation measures?
Do both (if so what priority)?
rockdoc123 wrote:
A better policy might be to educate the stupid asses with no science background ( or perhaps some science background who refuse to do any unbiased research) who want to be involved in policy decisions.
Well this just pisses me off. How dear you accuse the climate science community of bias and/or incompetence just because they are doing research that questions your values.
You are right I am not qualified to comment on the science as my background is in zoology and ecology, but I listen to the experts and work with them to summarise the results, take account the range of opinions and the uncertainties when helping develop Government policy. I do not presume to gain say what the state of the science is. I would need to go back to university pick a whole lot of undergrad papers and then do a PhD, then work in the field and then get published. Sorry but ten years at university was long enough.
rockdoc123 wrote:
Sorry for seeming rude....but I really get cheesed off when people claim certain bits of science are proven when in fact they are no where near close to that.
Not sorry for being rude back as I get cheesed off when people claim expertise outside their field and then attempt to denigrate the sincere efforts of many scientists who are attempting to understand what is a very complex issue.
I am sure you are a highly qualified petroleum geologist and good at finding the black stuff, but you are not a paleo-climatologist, paleo-biologist, or climatologist etc.
Let’s make it clear I don’t want anthropogenic climate change to be happening. There are enough other environmental/sustainability issues for me to be going on with. I have no financial, emotional or philosophical interest in promoting climate change as a significant issue. Can you claim the reverse?
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
It does not matter what we think! The eyes have it, We see whats going on any dummy with a brain with a cell to think! Can see this is about a world thats about to sink. Ticktock the gangs all hear!
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
hotsacks on that article:
Quote:
....One thing I learned at Sundance watching Al Gore's film was that a study has been done of the available scientific literature on the current state of scientific knowledge. The scientists gathered up nearly a thousand peer-reviewed articles that purported to examine the issue and picked at random, ten percent of these to read. They found a grand total of zero actually challenged the existence of the phenomenon
not sure how many times we have to go around on this issue but everyone seems to like to reference the paper in Science by Naomi Oreskes in which she claimed to have proved a concensus amougnst scientists that humans caused global warming....Dr. Benny Peiser tried to replicate her work and found that first off she didn't look at all the available literature and second only 1% actually stated that humans were responsible for global warming. When confronted she acknowledged her study was flawed and obviously incorrect. This is what is referred to in the article you posted.....a report of a report on a paper. The link to Peiser's work is on another thread somewhere.
As to the mention of James Hansens claim this is NASA response:
Quote:
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts." He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination." (New York Times)
It is interesting that Hansen is claiming NASA who hosts the Goddard Institute of Space Studies is censoring his pro-global warming approach given they are one of the largest proponents of global warming around.
And as long as I am here:
Quote:
Anyhow I am sure that you have been here but a good place to start is
Off course this report is now 5 years old and a lot has happened since then. A good place to start is to go to www.realclimate.org. They summarise a whole bunch of issues but of course feel free to access the original papers and review them and any critiques.
what makes you think I am not well read in this topic....I suggest you check out some of the other posts I've made on this topic.
Quote:
What variables are excluded? Be careful if you are going to say water vapour, cloud cover or solar cycles then you would be (ahem) misinformed, because they are included in the models and have been for some years. You can debate whether they are adequately included but then model development is always incremental.
Well as an example...cosmic rays.
The others you mention are included in the models but are handled differently between models. I don't think any of the modelers would argue the variability in forcings are often quite large....modelers have the ability to arbitrarily decide on positive versus negative forcings for factors such as water vapor.....they arbitrarily decide how much CO2 to plug in etc. It's a stochaistic problem that should result in an answer with huge error bars but the modelers prefer to report it deterministically. The fact that they are not yet adequately included is extremely important because you, Devil and others are calling for immediate action based on model results that are poorly constrained. Even the most adamant global warming dissaster zeolots would admit that aerosols are not adequately treated as yet. I think a good paper that illustrates model uncertainty is:
Hoar, M.R., Palutikof, J.P. and Thorne, M.C. 2004. Model intercomparison for the present day, the mid-Holocene, and the Last Glacial Maximum over western Europe. Journal of Geophysical Research 109
In this study the authors compared several general circulation models for replication of temperatures and precipitation during the Holocene, recently and after the last glacial maximum. What they found was that the the only concurence was for models developed from the same institute and that a statistical comparisons of the models with observed and proxy data sets demonstrated a lack of consistency in model performance.
Quote:
By the way are you now claiming to be a Palaeontologist as well. My you are quite positively the renaissance man. See I can do sarcasm as well.
and
Quote:
am sure you are a highly qualified petroleum geologist and good at finding the black stuff, but you are not a paleo-climatologist, paleo-biologist, or climatologist etc
First off I think I need to clarify for you what a petroleum geologist is.....there aren't separate schools for people to study the various aspects of geology and geophysics....basically everyone (at least in the better curriculums) ends up with a pretty rounded education in paleontology, sedimentology, petrology, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, rock mechanics, structural geology, mineralogy, geomorphology, solid earth geophysics, seismic etc. The practice of petroleum geology requires the use of various bits and pieces of these aspects of the earth sciences at different times. As to paleontology the petroleum geologist uses this science to identify age of sediments encountered in the field or through the drillbit....familiarity with micropaleontology is a necessity for example when drilling in frontier areas. As to my own qualification in that particular aspect of the science I never claimed to be a paleontologist....but I have worked with same in the past...have co-authored two papers that dealt mostly with aspects of palynology (study of fossil plants) and am pretty knowledgeable in things such as foraminiferal zonation in a number of Tertiary basins. As to the other fields related to climate studies I never claimed to be one of those either, however what I did say and still stand by is that my background and training make it relatively easy for me to pick through the literature dealing with paleoclimatology, ice core data etc....I speak the same "language". I never claimed to be an expert...but it doesn't take that much knowledge or reading in the area to suspect all is not right in the state of Denmark.
Joined: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 197 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Rocdoc said
Quote:
Well as an example...cosmic rays.
The others you mention are included in the models but are handled differently between models. I don't think any of the modelers would argue the variability in forcings are often quite large....modelers have the ability to arbitrarily decide on positive versus negative forcings for factors such as water vapor.....they arbitrarily decide how much CO2 to plug in etc. It's a stochaistic problem that should result in an answer with huge error bars but the modelers prefer to report it deterministically. The fact that they are not yet adequately included is extremely important because you, Devil and others are calling for immediate action based on model results that are poorly constrained. Even the most adamant global warming dissaster zeolots would admit that aerosols are not adequately treated as yet. I think a good paper that illustrates model uncertainty is:
Hoar, M.R., Palutikof, J.P. and Thorne, M.C. 2004. Model intercomparison for the present day, the mid-Holocene, and the Last Glacial Maximum over western Europe. Journal of Geophysical Research 109
I totally agree models vary considerably with their different design and assumptions. Similar assumptions and similar design results in clustering. That is what the paper (sorry abstract only and a poster presentation at the CRU) seem to be saying. I have yet to see a model say the global climate is currently cooling.
I have never heard a modeller report the results of their model in either papers or in person 'deterministically'. They have in my experience always discussed the validity of the assumptions,pointed out the weaknesses of the model and given the results with their statisitical ncertainty. What is subsequently reported in the media is another matter.
When you are thinking about what still remains excluded from the models is it likely to be signficant, if so how do you include it, and will it change the range of results so dramatically as to invalidate general trends in the resu current output? I don't know the answer to that but it is with this uncertainty that we put up results of the models and all the other scientific evidence to the decision makers. In New Zealand we use a number of different models which give different results (all predict warming it is the rang eof warming and the regional impact where they differ). The polies then make the decsions based on this information and other non scientific criteria.
You move into policy and politics with the comments about what is the appropriate response to make in the face of uncertainty. You argue that until we have complete certainty (whatever that is) we should not undertake any actions that might impose certain costs with uncertain benefits.
This goes to psycology more than science. You may be right we all fumble towards the future.
But if I applied the same logic to other areas I could argue:
Don't mine and process any tar sands until the energy benefits of such an operation have been totally proven and it is certain that the mitigation of the environmental effects of the operation will be completely dealt with
Don't build anymore nuclear reactors until we have total assurance that all the waste will be contained until such time as it reaches background levels
Only reduce top marginal taxes until we have total assurance that it will result in sustained growth in the economy and not result in reduction in the quality of government serives, budget blow out, or not favour certain sectors of society over others increasing social inequities.
Etc
Ah when to take a risk?
In my long and winding teritary academic road I tooks papers in physics, statistics, economics, engineering (also philosophy and classical history but they were for fun). I am not any of those things - I know enough to know how much I don't know.
If you have a feeling that something is rotten in Danemark or the GISS I strongly encourage you to focus on an area of study that you consider weak and do some work in that area. Contrary to what the conspiracy theorists say good science will be taken seriously.
I would be happy if there was an active body of science that showed there is no climate change (not just sniped away at the gaps from the AEI, Tech Central, or Junk Science). Even Christy one of the last credible scientists seems to have gone quiet.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Quote:
I would be happy if there was an active body of science that showed there is no climate change (not just sniped away at the gaps from the AEI, Tech Central, or Junk Science)
I think most of the detractors...outside of Junk Science suggest although there is evidence the world is warming it is not something that is unusual in the earths history. The proof of anthropogenic responsibility for that heating, whether heating rates should or will get worse is what is in question. And although the detractors are often dismissed as sniping from the sidelines the issues they bring up are important ones (as we saw with the comments from McItrick and Mcintyre on Mann's hockey stick work).
As to delving into policy... there is a big difference between producing oil sands at least knowing that we are going to make a difference somewhere (i.e. supply some energy) realizing there are risks that can only be partially quantified or investing in nucleur energy knowing we can offset hydrocarbon useage (albeit with 3 mile island kind of risks) than there is imposing Kyoto when we are not sure it will have any affect on climate change at all (let alone a postive one) and knowing that it will cost trillions of dollars. I think it was Roger Pielke who pointed out that if we believe that the earth is heating and regardless of the cause (be it manmade or not) it makes much more sense to spend money on something where you know you can make a difference. His view is it is much more cost effective to prepare the third world for climate change (as it is inevitable whether Kyoto targets are met or not) than it is to try and affect it....and you are guaranteed of an outcome. That seems to me to be a fairly sensible approach.
But obviously we can agree to disagree....I just wanted to make people aware that there are many uncertainties involved in the science as well as a decision on what the correct response (if any) should be.
Quote:
If you have a feeling that something is rotten in Danemark or the GISS I strongly encourage you to focus on an area of study that you consider weak and do some work in that area. Contrary to what the conspiracy theorists say good science will be taken seriously.
Sorry .....Although the subject is quite interesting to me it is a part-time distraction (don't think I bad mouthed the GISS here did I?)....I still have to work a few more years for a living. Perhaps when I retire. I suspect funding would be an issue though.
Joined: Jul 25, 2004 Posts: 681 Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Hi Coyote! Thanks for being as courteous as you have been. It's not easy to refrain from name-calling when someone disagrees with one as completely on a topic as I do with you about Global Warming. Certainly, I think Coyote has to be commended for showing the politeness he has, and certainly some others (yes, that's a subtle hint) could take note of it.
LOL, I notice that someone has pointed out that we seem to be seing the "non-scientists" asking the scientists to do more science? But that's what amateur ASTRONOMERS do all the damn time.
coyote wrote:
ubercynicmeister wrote:
... if the entire Northern Ice-Cap (not including Greenland) were to melt, inconvenient though that might be for a whole lot of Polar Bears, this melting would have ZERO effect on the world's ocean levels...because the ice is already floating ....if it melts, it just ...well...dissolves into the stuff it was floating on top of.
Yep, that was one of the more interesting things I found out during my research. Most of the Arctic ice is already displacing sea water, so melting wouldn't have much effect (at least as far as sea level goes).
Yup, quite true. Like the pic, BTW. reminds me of a wisdom tooth i had taken out (note: no, it wasn't made of ice & didn't weigh millions of tonnes, but it just looked simliar)
coyote wrote:
One of the more bizarre facts that I didn't know: that most of the sea level rise scientists warn about is due to the expansion of warming waters, and only secondarily by melting glaciers, Greenland, Antarctica.
Well, that's another difficulty for me. OK, if one looks at the orignal Global Warmign theory, they had not "factored in" such sea-level rises from "expansion", only the sea-level rises if the Greenland & Antarctic ice-sheet were to melt (permafrost wouldn't matter as much as what others are saying - it ends up becoming ground-water, anyway).
Ok, that makes sense: if one melt ice that was on land, it will (usually) run off into the oceans, or at least the lowest point around. This was the cause (in my opinion) of all of the "flood" stories that ancient cultures have. Noah is simply the best known version ( Noah was the fellow's name in South American legend, too, or so I'm told). Water runs downhill, unless one is the local council, which is why they have the drains at the highest point in the road. (and we expect thse people to Peak Oil Aware? They don't even know Water runs downhill...)
Now, I realise that if one warms up water that is at (say) 20 degrees C and takes it to (say) 30 degrees C, it will occupry more room. Warm almost anything up, and it will occupy more room, due to thermal expansion. But the one exception is water at or below 5 derees C.
Water -as-ice floats above the water it formed from. This is unlike almost every other substance, and is due to the rather odd way that water actually increases it's volume once one cools it below 5 degrees C.
But think of that in the opposite way: if one warms water from zero degrees (freezing point, or melting point, if you like) to 5 degrees, it will actually occupy a whole lot LESS volume. If Ice (on land) melts it will run off at only slightly above freezing, simply because of the surroundings. If ice (floating above water) melts, that water will gradually warm to 5 degrees (or higher) but in doing so it will, firstly, occupy LESS room. So if we are to take into account the expansive qualities of water in the measurement of our sea-level rise then why the blue blazes are we NOT to take into account the contractive qualitites of the self-same water?
Won't the sea-level drop if we convert the highly-expanded "water"-as-ice to water at 5 degrees C? Indeed, how is it that ice can still float in water that's at 30 degrees C (or, if you like Iced Tea, water at nearly boiling)? It must imply that the ice occupies a greater volume than the water - and thus is less dense.
Thus the contractive qualities are NOT to be taken into account, when remembering water-as-ice-that-becomes-water (ie: melts) but we're all to take this expansive quality into account when we talk about water that's past the magic 5 degrees C (some books say 4 degrees C; some say 5)?
Huh?
This is utterly confusing!!!
If there's enough water to raise sea levels significantly (and there seems to be) if all of the Ice in Antarctica were to melt (and Greenland) then that water would have a CONTRACTING effect on the rest, NOT an expansive effect.
The first one (that melting ice will raise sea levels) I can easily see, but the second (thermal expansion and only expansion) involves so many damn contradictions that the whole idea seems confused.
coyote wrote:
ubercynicmeister wrote:
We now know the damn things are hurtling past us at speeds of about 40 km/ second (depending on the direction they come from) - some as high as 72 km/ second, and a very few at higher than 90 km/ second. Most miss us by hours, and most we see after the event. Right now, we'd have 3 minute's warning.
Coyote, it has been calculated that if an 800 m wide asteroid made of pure iron (there are quite a few of those, I'm told) were to impact into the mid-Atlantic at 70 km/ second, the resultant Tsunami would be so big, it would crest over the Appalachian Mountains and break on the Rockies.
Yikes!
Yeah, Yikes is the word. Mind you, the atmosphereic effects might be just as dangerous. cCnsidering the area on the ocean floor would be super-heated - enough to melt rock - where the impact occured, it would generate a "hurricane" with winds calculated to be between 2,000 km/h and 3,000 km/h. Mind you, that would drop off once the "hypercane" moved away from the source of heat. Then the winds might drop to only 800 km/h. That's faster than most known tornadoes, over the size of something (say) twice the size of Katrina...mebbe three times the size?
coyote wrote:
ubercynicmeister wrote:
Ahh, but will you acept them now that you know I'm not a scientist?
Now that I know that, I shall have to once again refer you to my opening posts.
LOL, yep, same confusion, different source.
coyote wrote:
ubercynicmeister wrote:
I hope you can realise the difference between a polite disagreement and that which is not, Coyote. I try to be polite, precautionary principle, or not.
Sure, no worries. And I hadn't even heard about the 'precautionary principle' until earlier this week. I just listen to the scientists as best I can. Especially regarding our precious life support system.
LOL, good point and one in your favour. I listen too, but I get increasingly skeptical when they mention things that seem to leave out asteroid / comet impacts and the contraction of water as it warms from zero degrees C to 5 degrees C.
The Precautionary principle is best stated as being: Ok, the science might be disagreed with, but isn't it better to be safe than sorry? In that form, it's been known for hunderds of years. Such an argument is, to my mind, a whole lot easier to accept than the "let's ignore impacts on our climate" Global Warming guys.
In any case, allow me to, once again, thank you for being as polite as you are. It's no easy thing to be in such utter disagreement with someone over an issue that seems "important" to you. It's an attitude others could learn from (hint, hint). _________________ .
"To Get Rich you have to:
Joined: Sep 13, 2004 Posts: 142 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
ubercynicmeister wrote:
But think of that in the opposite way: if one warms water from zero degrees (freezing point, or melting point, if you like) to 5 degrees, it will actually occupy a whole lot LESS volume. If Ice (on land) melts it will run off at only slightly above freezing, simply because of the surroundings. If ice (floating above water) melts, that water will gradually warm to 5 degrees (or higher) but in doing so it will, firstly, occupy LESS room. So if we are to take into account the expansive qualities of water in the measurement of our sea-level rise then why the blue blazes are we NOT to take into account the contractive qualitites of the self-same water?
Won't the sea-level drop if we convert the highly-expanded "water"-as-ice to water at 5 degrees C? Indeed, how is it that ice can still float in water that's at 30 degrees C (or, if you like Iced Tea, water at nearly boiling)? It must imply that the ice occupies a greater volume than the water - and thus is less dense.
It's Archimedes principle. The water displaced weighs as much as the object displacing it. Look at the sea ice/ice berg. When the ice melts, the part that was sitting above the surface, is now in the water, thus cancelling out your much wished for effect.
Rather than posting voluminuous amounts in this thread, time is better spent doing some basic learning.
Enjoy. _________________ Let's hope the next generation have a sense of humour ... our generation will need it.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1840 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:56 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Sorry uber, but your contracting water argument doesn't make much sense to me. You claim that all the folks at the various Academies of Science etc. haven't taken this into account, but if it's at all important then I'd be pretty surprised if that were accurate. Contracting water counteracts all the warming and all the displacement of the melting ice sheets? Um, no. And any such process would be a one-shot deal anyway. Try getting that effect you're talking about to keep counteracting all the warming and expanding over decades.
It doesn't matter anyway. It's probably too damn late.
If anyone here doesn't understand how critical coral reefs are, do a search on marine biodiversity. If they're in this much trouble already, they'll be gone in a decade, two at the outside. Then all we have to do to ensure our own destruction is to get rid of the remaining rainforests. I don't think we'll have much of a problem doing that.
Someone on these boards once asked, "I wonder what the Easter Islanders said as they cut down the last trees on the island?" I'll tell you exactly what they said. "No problem," they said, as the few of them who understood what was going on shrieked at them to stop. "Those guys over there are just a bunch of frikken doomsayers. History shows that there have been periods of tree declines. It's just cyclical. In any case, economic growth's the important thing, right boys? God will provide. Now where's that hatchet?"
Apocryphal? Fine. It's what we're saying now. While those in the scientific community shriek at us to stop. Please start listening! _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Quote:
If anyone here doesn't understand how critical coral reefs are, do a search on marine biodiversity. If they're in this much trouble already, they'll be gone in a decade, two at the outside. Then all we have to do to ensure our own destruction is to get rid of the remaining rainforests. I don't think we'll have much of a problem doing that.
Yes reefs are very important....however there are many reasons for reef bleaching and/or decline that are unrelated to CO2 and global warming.
After the 1998 bleaching event of the Great Barrier Reef the following were listed as potential causes in addition to warmer ocean waters: (1) rising nutrient levels caused by runoff from agricultural activity on land, (2) outbreaks of the coral-devouring crown-of-thorns starfish, (3) the barbed hooks and scything nets used in fishing, (4) tourists and the developers who build resorts and marinas for them, (5) increased sediment levels, (6) the nets of prawn trawlers stirring up the growing load of sediments, (7) the 6-10 tons of "bycatch" for each ton of prawns netted that are caught and die, which dramatically changes the composition of reef life, ( sea life depleted to the point of exhaustion by over-fishing, (9) huge catamarans and dive boats that take thousands of visitors to the Barrier Reef each day and dump their sewage in the sea on the way home, (10) the live reef-fish trade, (11) fishermen using dynamite and cyanide, (12) coral diseases, and (13) pollution.
Much of this is human induced but unrelated to global warming...cutting back on emissions would do nothing to alleviate these effects. Hence my previous suggestion that one needs to understand the problem very well before embarking on a "fix".
There is also evidence that reefs are capable of responding to warmer oceans by expanding their latitudinal range.
Precht, W.F. and Aronson, R.B. 2004. Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 307-314.
they noted that there are a number of real-world examples where corals are currently expanding their range, including (1) the recent establishment of staghorn coral off Fort Lauderdale in Broward County, Florida (Vargas-Angel et al., 2004), (2) the expansion of elkhorn coral as far north as Pompano Beach in northern Broward County, (3) the discovery of elkhorn coral at the Flower Garden Banks in the northern Gulf of Mexico, (4) the identification of eight coral species along the eastern Pacific that are considerably north of their previously known ranges, and (5) the arrival of six new species of coral at Lord Howe Island in Australia within the past decade.
they also pointed out that based on their work:
Quote:
warmer temperatures during the last major interglacial period were not associated with contraction of the southern range of the acroporids or the demise of reef systems in the tropics
suggesting that higher ocean temperatures are possibly not the main culprit in reef decline.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1840 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Well, I think it's indicative that almost all of the bleaching happens during the hot months. But I agree about the other points you mentioned, those are surely factors as well. I sure hope those guys you referenced are right. But even if they are, and coral does (slowly) spread to other latitudes, the loss of the main Barrier Reef would mean the end for a tremendous range of species and one of the most biodiverse systems on the planet. This is some scary crap, and no mistake.
Someone mentioned earlier about a 'precautionary principle.' That really doesn't apply in this discussion. This stuff isn't something we 'may' have to worry about 'someday.' It's happening right now. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
It is in light of complex scenarios like reef destruction that the contrarian position on GW becomes important.Roughly 25% of climatologists hold the view that anthropogenic causation is far from being established.They fear the implications,and the agenda, of the mainstream view that manmade CO2 is at the bottom of all the rapid changes in the biosphere.The debate is healthy and should be continued in all of its finer facets.The attempts to shut down the debate,and to turn science into ideology,are coming from both sides of the aisle. Fascinating insights into the squabbling,prevaricating and spinning that pervade the GW dialogue can be found at Roger Pielke's University of Colorado site:
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1840 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
That's fine, we'll keep talking. But we can't use that as an excuse. 25%, if correct, still isn't nearly enough to warrant inaction considering the consequences. Bottom line: we have to stop dumping poison into the life support system, whether it's CO2, CFCs, chemicals or raw sewage. We have to stop now, yesterday.
One of the few things I'm pretty sure of about the future is that our grandchildren are going to hate our guts... _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Few are arguing a manmade component inherent in GW.
There is no question steps must be taken to curtail GHGs.
But the contrarians are arguing that alarmism is not the right course,a position I'm sure you agree with.
I'm saying the debate is not over;the evidence is strongly in favor of anthropogenic
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
