New forcast on corals from Australia

[WallyBackm]

Also, global warming will just make Canada a nice place.

 

 

 

I don't think that's ever possible!

 

 

OK, to my Canadian friends, that was a joke.

 

Agreed JPDC and TX, good debate!

[txaggies07]

I don't think that's ever possible!

OK, to my Canadian friends, that was a joke.

 

Agreed JPDC and TX, good debate!

 

[bigJPDC]

I love it - we find common ground on Canadians.

 

Hey, if you change your scope to the US, 1934 is the warmest on record - and check out the spikes in the 30's and 50's.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

 

See what I mean about figuring out what temperatures and ranges to use? I need more info on how they are calculating that land-ocean index anomally statistic.

[txaggies07]

I hate cold weather anyways.

[Guest Larry-T]

Some interesting data was recently discussed.

 

Prior to the industrial revolution, the CO2 level lin the Earth's Atmosphere was about 275ppm. Since then it has risen to about 385ppm. This increase in CO2 is directly attributable to human activity - primarily the burning of fossil fuels (releasing CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years) and can be linked to a variety of effects:

 

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and so aggravates the accumulation of heat energy in the atmosphere. This directly leads to more severe weather and more extreme swings of climate.

 

2. CO2 acidifies water, including the ocean, and will damage corals and other pH dependent organisms.

 

3. CO2 is the direct controller of respiratory rates in all animals that use Hemaglobin as the Oxygen transport mechanism in their bodies. As CO2 concentration goes up, respiration also goes up. This can lead to a variety of health problems and has not, to my knowledge, been studied. It will take a lot to separate this effect from the masking and competing effects of diet, pollution, and better medicine, but it's worth looking at.

 

People looking for simple answers to complex issues treat this as a "human-caused or not" question. The real question is "How much has human activity contributed to the increase in global warming and how much can we do to moderate it?" People who just want to deny the issue, usually out of corporate interests or pseudo-religious doctrine, are unwilling to look at reality.

[treesprite]

We can only prevent future problems not undo past events, so there shouldn't even be a debate over cause. Best anyone can do is take steps to prevent the problem from worsening, whatever those may be.

[BeltwayBandit]

 

 

There is no money in saying global warming does not exist. The money is being sent to the researchers to show that there is global warming.

 

DING DING DING DING we have a winner! That is the real dirty little secret of AGW. The alarmists love to paint anyone who disagrees as some industry funded stooge, however the truth is all of the 'scientists' who support AGW depend on it for their livlihood far more than the ones who offer contrary positions.

 

From 1993 to 2006, each year was among the hottest 20 on record.

 

This is one of my favorite half-truths of the alarmists. Yes, the years are the 'hottest' on record, however the historical record that they are measured against is only 115 or so years long. The earth has been warming since the little ice age for over 200 years. So, getting worked up over the last several years being the hottest on record is akin to being alarmed when the temperature in July is warmer than February.

 

 

 

The Time story you reference I believe was from the early 70s, if I'm not mistaken, prior to the emergence of the last two decades empirical evidence.

 

Actually, I believe it was a 1975 Newsweek article.

 

Regarding what's responsible, I agree there are reputable scientists that

disagree with the IPCC's conclusions. However, there is not one single national or international scientific body to reject the basic findings that humans are causing, in good part, warming.

 

Science isn't a popularity contest. If the science is wrong, its wrong. You also have to look beyond the science when dealing with governments and explore the politics. AGW is far more a political issue than a scientific one. As far as the national scientific bodies, AGW is their gravy train. Would you like to be known as the body that killed the goose that is laying the golden eggs of research funding?

 

Dig a little deeper and go beyond what is selectively fed to you by the environmentalists and the media and you will find that there are far more questions than answers in this debate.

 

 

 

People who just want to deny the issue, usually out of corporate interests or pseudo-religious doctrine, are unwilling to look at reality.

 

You almost made it, yet then you shoot yourself in the foot and destroy your credibility with this last statement. People can and do disagree with the science, based on science. There is no need for blanket ad hominem attacks on people just because you disagree with them.

[Guest Larry-T]

You almost made it, yet then you shoot yourself in the foot and destroy your credibility with this last statement. People can and do disagree with the science, based on science. There is no need for blanket ad hominem attacks on people just because you disagree with them.

 

Considering your denigrating comments on anyone you identify as an "environmentalist" you should be the last person complaining about ad hominem attacks. The fact of the matter is that there is a widespread scientific consensus on two factors:

 

1. The overall trend of Global Warmng is real and closely tracks the increase in greenhouse gasses over the past few centuries.

 

2. The increase in greenhouse gasses is almost certainly due to human activity linked to increased industrial activities which have released huge quantities of CO2 sequestered many millenia ago.

 

Do you deny those facts? If so, we nothing further to discuss. If you do not, how do you propose humanity addresses the issue?

[BeltwayBandit]

Considering your denigrating comments on anyone you identify as an "environmentalist" you should be the last person complaining about ad hominem attacks.

 

Please provide a reference where I made denigrating or ad hominem comments about someone for being an 'environmentalist'. I have pointed out the flaws and hypocrisy of some environmentalist propaganda, but in principle I generally do support sound science based environmentalism.

 

 

The fact of the matter is that there is a widespread scientific consensus on two factors:

 

1. The overall trend of Global Warmng is real and closely tracks the increase in greenhouse gasses over the past few centuries.

 

2. The increase in greenhouse gasses is almost certainly due to human activity linked to increased industrial activities which have released huge quantities of CO2 sequestered many millenia ago.

 

Do you deny those facts? If so, we nothing further to discuss. If you do not, how do you propose humanity addresses the issue?

 

 

1. Correlation does not equal causation.

2. Yes there is some link to the increase in CO2 from man. There is also a natural increase in the CO2 due to the warming climate. Separating the two sources of the increase is difficult.

 

So,

[txaggies07]

1. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Also, if temp and CO2 were directly in a cause and effect relationship, the recent increase in CO2 gases would have made it much hotter than it is.

[BeltwayBandit]

Wow.. I have to admit that I am surprised to see this piece in the New York Times. I won't spoil it, but it is a must read IMO. (Ok, a little tease. It points out the media bias in reporting of global warming, and how the tired argument with vague references to more 'extreme weather events' is really a canard.)

 

NY Times Article

[txaggies07]

Wow.. I have to admit that I am surprised to see this piece in the New York Times. I won't spoil it, but it is a must read IMO. (Ok, a little tease. It points out the media bias in reporting of global warming, and how the tired argument with vague references to more 'extreme weather events' is really a canard.)

 

NY Times Article

 

Definitely weird to see that in the NY times. Good article.

[Brian Ward]

Definitely a good article. I think there are certainly things we can do to be more environmentally conscience. Using less oil and focusing on renewable energy sources that make sense fiscally, economically (both macro and micro) and scientifically are things we should address in order to reduce our impact on our environment. However, change is constant. This planet is not entirely stable. It orbits on a fluxuating axis about a body of hot, burning gas that is itself unstable and will eventually collapse - as all stars do. There are thousands of scientists studying the micro and macro physical effects that make up our universe and no one has yet been able to develop the "theory of everything" - the one mathematical description of how particles, energy and everything else within our universe interact with each other that does not have exceptions, does not break down at the sub-atomic level while working other places. The fact of the matter is no one truly understands how everything in our world works.

The one interesting factoid I picked up a while back indicates that there are additional forces in our universe that we are incapable of detecting: Paired electrons always spin in opposite direction. When the spin of one electron changes (or is changed, reversed) the spin of the paired electron will instantly reverse itself. Through experiements this has been shown true no matter the distance that separates the electrons - a clear indication that there is a force we cannot detect or a signal that moves faster than the speed of light.

 

I don't think the 100 or so years of empirical data available for analysis is enough to create a statistically meaningful sample set for the purposes of extrapolating climate change data. In terms of geological cycles we have been on this earth for only a milisecond.

 

All that said, I fully believe in reducing the amount of energy we consume and reducing the impact we have (both individually and collectively) on the earth. Many things make sense but others do not. Many ideas are highly reactive to antecdotal evidence - are hybrid cars really better than pure gasoline cars? In the short-term, sure. But what about disposal of the lead-acid or polymer batteries? If we move to plug-in hybrids in order to reduce gasoline consumption is this really better if we don't work to change how the electricity for our power grid is produced? Maybe fuel-cell vehicles are more ecologically friendly from a macro-ecological perspective and more money should be poured into making this a viable option rather than producing better hybrid technology?

 

China and India, are 2.5 of the 6.5 billion people on this planet - over 38% - so any effort to combat the human impact on our planet must include an effort on the part of these 2 countries as well.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Brian Ward

[txaggies07]

Definitely a good article. I think there are certainly things we can do to be more environmentally conscience. Using less oil and focusing on renewable energy sources that make sense fiscally, economically (both macro and micro) and scientifically are things we should address in order to reduce our impact on our environment. However, change is constant. This planet is not entirely stable. It orbits on a fluxuating axis about a body of hot, burning gas that is itself unstable and will eventually collapse - as all stars do. There are thousands of scientists studying the micro and macro physical effects that make up our universe and no one has yet been able to develop the "theory of everything" - the one mathematical description of how particles, energy and everything else within our universe interact with each other that does not have exceptions, does not break down at the sub-atomic level while working other places. The fact of the matter is no one truly understands how everything in our world works.

The one interesting factoid I picked up a while back indicates that there are additional forces in our universe that we are incapable of detecting: Paired electrons always spin in opposite direction. When the spin of one electron changes (or is changed, reversed) the spin of the paired electron will instantly reverse itself. Through experiements this has been shown true no matter the distance that separates the electrons - a clear indication that there is a force we cannot detect or a signal that moves faster than the speed of light.

 

I don't think the 100 or so years of empirical data available for analysis is enough to create a statistically meaningful sample set for the purposes of extrapolating climate change data. In terms of geological cycles we have been on this earth for only a milisecond.

 

All that said, I fully believe in reducing the amount of energy we consume and reducing the impact we have (both individually and collectively) on the earth. Many things make sense but others do not. Many ideas are highly reactive to antecdotal evidence - are hybrid cars really better than pure gasoline cars? In the short-term, sure. But what about disposal of the lead-acid or polymer batteries? If we move to plug-in hybrids in order to reduce gasoline consumption is this really better if we don't work to change how the electricity for our power grid is produced? Maybe fuel-cell vehicles are more ecologically friendly from a macro-ecological perspective and more money should be poured into making this a viable option rather than producing better hybrid technology?

 

China and India, are 2.5 of the 6.5 billion people on this planet - over 38% - so any effort to combat the human impact on our planet must include an effort on the part of these 2 countries as well.

 

Well put.

[Steve G]

I'm surprised to see so much skepticism about climate change here. I'd be willing to change my lifestyle if I thought there was a chance of reducing coral bleachings and extinctions of marine life even if there's a chance that I'm wrong. Give the reef the benefit of the doubt.

 

I read something about how humans used to eat only marine animals at the top of the food chain. Then, as we fish/hunt those animals into extinction we have to move further and further down. The idea of people eating crabs and other crustaceans and mollusks instead of using them for bait was once strange. Commercial fishers are promoting jellyfish consumption now. One day we'll all be algae eaters (and farmed-shrimp eaters, I guess). California roll, anyone?

[WallyBackm]

This is one of my favorite half-truths of the alarmists. Yes, the years are the 'hottest' on record, however the historical record that they are measured against is only 115 or so years long. The earth has been warming since the little ice age for over 200 years. So, getting worked up over the last several years being the hottest on record is akin to being alarmed when the temperature in July is warmer than February.

Actually, I believe it was a 1975 Newsweek article.

Science isn't a popularity contest. If the science is wrong, its wrong. You also have to look beyond the science when dealing with governments and explore the politics. AGW is far more a political issue than a scientific one. As far as the national scientific bodies, AGW is their gravy train. Would you like to be known as the body that killed the goose that is laying the golden eggs of research funding?

 

A "half-truth of the alarmists"

Of course these are the hottest ON RECORD, and the record is only 115 years or so. That's why I wrote "on record." The statistical probability that the 20 hottest years have occured in the the previous 20 years given a 115 year schedule is not very high. I fail to see how this statistic is anything close to "July being warmer than February."

 

"science isn't a popularity contest." What does this mean? You have every single major scientific/meterological organization of any repute in agreement that global warming is (a) real (b) caused, in large part, by human activity and this amounts to a popularity contest? That's an interesting manner in which to counter this observation.

 

"If the science is wrong, it's wrong." Why is the science wrong? Why is every single scientific/meteoroligcal organization wrong? And, please, no red herrings about lack of funding. Why are you so convinced?

[BeltwayBandit]

A "half-truth of the alarmists"

Of course these are the hottest ON RECORD, and the record is only 115 years or so. That's why I wrote "on record." The statistical probability that the 20 hottest years have occured in the the previous 20 years given a 115 year schedule is not very high. I fail to see how this statistic is anything close to "July being warmer than February."

 

Well, the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. 115 years is hardly even a drop in the bucket, so to speak. When you consider that the earth has been in a warming cycle longer than the length of the temperature record, it is very significant. Our record only captures the most recent upward swing. Say you start measuring temperature in February. You observe the temperature increasing every month, should you get alarmed? Its the same thing with the temperature record. We started keeping accurate records at the tail end of a period known as the Little Ice Age (winter in my metaphor). We are now in the dog days of summer (look at the HADCRUT3 temperature reconstruction for the last 6 years it is basically flat). So yes, looking at a very short temperature record and getting alarmed is simply tilting at windmills.

 

"science isn't a popularity contest." What does this mean? You have every single major scientific/meterological organization of any repute in agreement that global warming is (a) real (b) caused, in large part, by human activity and this amounts to a popularity contest? That's an interesting manner in which to counter this observation.

 

Your argument is an appeal to authority. There are many examples of where the scientific consensus was wrong. Having numbers on your side does strengthen the argument, but it does not mean that their conclusions are infallible. Regardless, in a discussion of Science opinions do not matter. Its the facts that matter. If you explore the available scientific papers, not the press releases but the actual papers, you will find that there is still a great deal of uncertainty in this whole arena.

 

"If the science is wrong, it's wrong." Why is the science wrong? Why is every single scientific/meteoroligcal organization wrong? And, please, no red herrings about lack of funding.

 

Why is pointing out that these organizations are dependent on funding a red herring? If skeptical positions can be derided for any real or imagined link to industry, why shouldn't we examine the funding of the alarmist positions. Think about it. The US government is spending Billions of dollars for research in this area. What happens to that money if the problem suddenly goes away? How many scientists have built their careers on this research and are dependent on its continued funding? These are all legitimate questions to ask. Why do those ringing the alarm bells have such a visceral reaction when such questions are asked?

 

Why are you so convinced?

 

I remain unconvinced because I have gone beyond the media and press releases and actually read the underlying research papers. I read the IPCC 4AR-WG1 report. I read the authors correspondence for the IPCC WG1 report. Professionally, I have worked with computer modeling of three dimensional heat transfer operations. I know how difficult it is to match a model to reality on even a small scale. Here is a recent comment by Roy Spencer with regards to cloud feedbacks in computer models. This is just one example of uncertainty in the computer modeling. I have also followed some of the issues with the authors of various articles failing to archive data and code sufficient to reproduce their work (in violation of journal policies) and the failure of the journals to enforce those policies. These are just some of the issues that have me unconvinced that AGW really is a threat.

[WallyBackm]

It's tough not to make an appeal to authority on such a complex issue. Wouldn't one also be appealing to scientific authority that the sun is at the center of the solar system?

 

It's commendable that you've taken the time to read the source information and form your own questions. As I stated earlier, for me the IPCC's latest "90 percent certainty" regarding this, as well as the consensus from all other scientific/meteorlogical organizations, is grounds enough for me to at least hold that it is likely that we are warming the earth and that we should attempt to do something to mitigate the effects. I'm not sure that its tilting at windmills to observe a warming trend in the last two decades that is coupled with significant increases in CO2 releases into the atmosphere and to draw an inference that perhaps there is some causation there, notwithstanding the age of the earth.

 

The fact that we only have temperatures for the last 100+ years is unfortunate. However, there is some work being done through borehole measurements that suggest that temperatures over the last 20 years are the warmest in the past 500 years. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

 

Regarding the ice age theory from the 1970s, there simply was no consensus that an ice age was imminent. See http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ for a list of every article/lecture/analysis completed in the 70s regarding this.

 

As far as the models being unproven, I agree there are problems. In the absence of having 100 years to test them, though, I think it is prudent not to punt on the issue given the potential serious ramifications.

[Gatortailale]

Thought this line from this article was interesting. Would like to see more on whether the therory has not undergone the checks as noted by this author. Full article below w/ link to original.

 

 

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

 

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

 

 

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

13:54 | 03/ 01/ 2008

 

 

 

 

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti)

[jnguyen4007]

Interesting article. I remember reading in the Scientific American Journal awhile back about the earth's magnetic polarity reverse itself over the millenium and that in turn also caused havocs with the climate and environment around the world.

 

I am not an alarmist but I do believe that all of that CO2 that are being released into the atmosphere world wide can't possibly be good for the environment. Nature has a hand in that too with volcanic eruptions and such, but that is out of hand. What is within our control is what we release into our atmosphere.

[Highland Reefer]

The primary point one can derive from this article is that the coral reefs conditions are declining. There are many possibilities for the declining conditions including:

1) Increasing temperatures Man made or not.

2) Increased acidity of the water.

3) Increased disease

4) Increased pollution of the waters

5) Increased harvesting of the inhabitants.

6) The list goes on & on.

 

These factors are occurring now. The Earth has constantly changed in the past. New species evolve where others loose out. Life on earth will continue to survive one way or the other for a long time to come.

 

I am sure that man has had some impact on the reefs do to improper harvesting which is occurring now.

One can certainly derive from these facts that additional research is needed on the earth

[txaggies07]

poor fish

 

We need (happy) fish

[zotzer]

The train has left the station on this issue. There is no amount of science that will prove or dis-prove the causes of global warming to the satisfaction of everyone, at this point. It has entered the realm of near-religious zealotry and politics, and science/reality is going to be secondary from this point forward.

 

Even *if* the earth is in a natural warming trend, when things start moving the other direction, people will choose to believe that they played a big part by switching out their standard light bulbs for flourescent, etc..... The environmentalists will have a victory, and we will all be looking for good deals on down jackets.

 

I mean, heck...recycling and conservation isn't *bad*, even if it is not the real solution to the problem. Who's going to argue NOT to conserve? Doesn't hurt to scare people into doing it. Scare tactics *work*!

 

The argument is practically futile at this point, as the end result is going to be the same. IMO, nature will most likely be responsible for the disruption of the global warming trend, but man will gladly take the credit.

 

Tracy

Edited January 4, 2008 by zotzer

[txaggies07]

Did I mention how much I hate the cold.

[OUsnakebyte]

The primary point one can derive from this article is that the coral reefs conditions are declining. There are many possibilities for the declining conditions including:

1) Increasing temperatures Man made or not.

2) Increased acidity of the water.

3) Increased disease

4) Increased pollution of the waters

5) Increased harvesting of the inhabitants.

6) The list goes on & on.

 

These factors are occurring now. The Earth has constantly changed in the past. New species evolve where others loose out. Life on earth will continue to survive one way or the other for a long time to come.

 

I am sure that man has had some impact on the reefs do to improper harvesting which is occurring now.

One can certainly derive from these facts that additional research is needed on the earth

Edited January 5, 2008 by OUsnakebyte