Read it and weep......

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

This is from a NASA page and I think might disprove the notion that Greenland was warmer recently:

The climate approximately three million years ago, during the epoch known as the Pliocene, appears to have been the most recent time during Earth history that global average surface air temperatures were more than a degree Celsius warmer than the average temperature of this century. The Pliocene is thus a potential analog of the future that may provide a means of gaining insight into the effects of global warming. Unlike many more ancient periods, which were also warmer than the present, the continents and most major mountain ranges of the Pliocene were approximately in the locations we find them today and many plant species and microscopic animals that existed then still exist today. Thus, as we study what the climate of the next century may be, we can apply much of what he have learned from examining Pliocene global warming.

chris1 · Sep 6, 2001

ReefLion,

Again in that article, it says they started measuring the ozone in 1960 when it was first suggested that Flourocarbons could be damaging to the ozone layer. Who is to say that hole wasnt 10x that size 40 years before? And dont say because it is steadily getting worse because in their very own data it shows the "hole" increasing and decreasing in size.

Also, like I said, this was a big subject in the 70s and into the late 80s until scientists figured out that the thing grew and shrunk as a normal cycle.

What is the last date of recorded info in this article? 1991............... How old is this article? If it is new, why do they stop showing results after the early 90s? Do they not want you to see the flow going back to the hole getting smaller again?

c

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

Chris-
Actually, I think there are better records than that. Ocean temperatures were frequently recorded before a hundred years ago, but also scientists have other means at their disposal. I believe they are using carbon isotope data from fossils of foraminiferans to gain salinity and temperature and probably other techniques as well.

I have a bit of a problem with the idea that there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to create data for global warming. There is a lot of competition and scientist love to debunk each other!

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

sorry, I was responding to your comments earlier on.

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

A glimmer of hope in the last paragraph, though:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The only cause for optimism was that new coral reefs could start to emerge in colder waters such as the north Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, Ormond said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reefstud · Sep 6, 2001

You know the topic of "global warming" really pisses me off. I am an avid reefer and surfer, and you would think that I would be the most sensitive to "global warming." I don't know if any of the so called experts on global warming have been in the ocean in California this year but I can vouch for the fact that it is F***ing freezing this summer. Hands down, it has been the coldest summer that I can remember.

There has been no conclusive evidence that global warming is happening. If there is I would love someone to show me.

The coral bleaching in Australia is not a good thing. Does anyone really know what is causing it? I don't know what is going on in my 150 gal reef (with sps corals) so how could anyone possibly know what is going on in a system 1 million times as complex?

I have to say that a "scientist" suggesting that there won't be any coral reefs in 50 years is very irresponsible. How can he possibly justify this stupid claim. I have been in both Indonesia and Fiji this year and have not seen any evidence of this bleaching. I want to point out too that the ocean temp is lower this year than it was on my five previous visits to these reef areas.

People, I am not a conservative, "big business" person. I do believe that scientists go a little overboard with their hypotheses. This scientist is merely speculating. Most people in the US think that global warming is actually happening. My question is where is the evidence of this?

DarwinTheDog · Sep 6, 2001

The media and science don't mix well. It really bothers me when some "scientist" make statement such as Rupert Ormonds does in this article. The kind of language he uses is not scientifically sound. He pronounces "The Sky is Falling", but the article provides no empirical data. Of course not it is a media article not a scientific journal.

There are far more hypothesis in science than there are scientific laws. Meaning there are far fewer absolutes than speculation. To say:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Most of the world’s coral reefs will be dead within 50 years because of global warming..

is very alarmist and speculative. Where is the data?

By the way what are Ormond's credentials? The article does not call him "Dr." so I assume he doesn't hold a phD. Not to say you have to be a Ph.D., or to question his knowledge, but we read this article and think, "if a scientist says it...then it must be true". Well there are good and bad scientist, just like any other profession. Also there are many scientist with very different opinions. Basically I am not questioning Mr. Ormonds beliefs, just pointing out that in science there are many opinions.

Is coral bleaching a real phenomenon? Of course it is. Can temperature be a factor? Absolutely. Does this mean that every species of coral will bleach under the exact same conditions? NO! Corals, like any other animal have certain conditions (range of tolerances) that they can survive with in and this varies by species. Not every species (or individual within a species) likes the same amount of light or same temperature. Not all coral species would react the same under a given condition.
Again where is the science?? You need to know which species bleach under exactly what conditions, before you can make generalization like Mr. Ormond has done. I would speculate that if temperatures continued to rise as a result of global warming or any other mechanism that some coral species would live and some survive. The symbiotic algae in some species could conceivably adapt. Isn't nature all about "decent with modification or evolution"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Humanity would also suffer directly as the dead reefs are eroded and shorelines that have been protected for the last 10,000 years face the wrath of the oceans without their natural defenses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW coral reefs are made from dead coral skeletons.

Anyway....I am not trying to answer whether or not global warming is occurring. I am just saying question everything. Go read a few scientific journal articles about temperature change. You may be surprised what you do and don't find there. You might see articles that talk about the influence of El Nino on coral bleaching or a number or other issues.

Ok well enough of a rant!

DEADFISH1 · Sep 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by loosbrew:


heh...take the blame offt he most destructive force on earth...man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry, but I believe that an asteroid is more destructive than mankind.

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

yeah, but its not on earth.

DEADFISH1 · Sep 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DanConnor:
Deadfish- Sorry, I meant your belief that its a natural phenomenon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you can't dispute the fact that the earth has been going through changes since the beginning of time, I'm no scientist by no means but I do tune into the Discovery channel.

DEADFISH1 · Sep 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DanConnor:
yeah, but its not on earth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, you got me there, but they do effect it.

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

Darwin:

You said:
Again where is the science?? You need to know which species bleach under exactly what conditions, before you can make generalization like Mr. Ormond has done.

- A large percentage of the corals don't even have their taxonomy worked out, much less have this kind of data known. But is it ok if some species survive, and some do not? If you are going to err on one side or the other, I would stick with the cautious side. Because if it turns out that global warming is really bad, and we don't do anything about it out grandkids are going to be pretty pissed.

ReefLion · Sep 6, 2001

Chris,

You seem to be taking an absolute position based on nothing but your own opinion of scientists. The link I sent was one of literally hundreds that come up on any basic Yahoo search.

The site I linked is copyrighted 1998, and it includes a vast amount of information, beyond what I specifically posted, about how our production of CFC's and similar chemicals affect the ozone layer. It also includes links to other sites that provide detailed measurements of the ozone layer.

I'm sure you are aware of international agreements that limit the production and use of CFC's, yet you seem to blindly and conveniently assume that the renewal of the ozone layer in recent years is due to natural effects. To be honest, I don't know what part, if any, is natural or man-made, but at least I'm willing to do factual research rather than just assert, without support, that scientists are inventing an imaginary problem to bolster funding.

I'm not saying we caused the hole in the ozone layer, or that we caused global warming. I'm saying evidence exists that supports those theories. To discard it as "hooey" is, in my opinion, shortsighted and naive.

Here's another link purportedly debunking some of the myths surrounding the debate about the ozone layer. I say "purportedly" because that's what people say when they can't vouch for a source, as obviously I can't do for this one. For the record, this is from the Friends of the Earth web site, so the authors probably have a bias. I do note, however, that the assertions the article makes are heavily supported by citation.

Lots of Other Sources of Info by Searching "Ozone Layer" on Yahoo

Here's the regular link: http://www.foe.org/ozone/mythlist.html

ReefLion

MattM · Sep 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chris:
And what evidence is global warming based on? Less than 100 years of averaged temperatures? What were the global temperatures before that? Did they rise and decline? They dont know, because they have no readings on that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good temperataure measurements have been obtained going back about 420,000 years by examining ice cores from up to 3.3 km down in Antarctica. Although the ice pack over Greenland is not as thick, ice cores drilled there have confirmed these measurement very closely as far back as the Greenland samples go (about 110,000 years).

These temperature measurements have shown several very important things:

1) Global temperatures have fluctuated by wide amounts throughout recent geologic time (from 400,000 to 10,000 years ago).

2) Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Methane levels are very closely tied to global average temperature changes.

3) Most temperature changes occur slowly enough for the biosphere to adapt - over hundreds or thousands of years.

4) There have been events in the past where the global average temperature changed very rapidly - several degrees in just a couple decades. These events are almost always accopanied by increased dust levels in the core samples, leading to the belief that they are related to cataclysmic volcanic events. The most recent rapid climate change events are about 15,000, 28,000, and 29,000 years ago.

The periods of very rapid change in global temperature are likely to have caused widespread species extinction as they are more rapid than the biological adaptation mechanisms.

The problem with global warming as it relates to mankind's endevours is not that we haven't experienced natural temperature changes before - we have. The problem is that though our effects on the atmosphere, we are causing the global temperature to change at a rate approaching that of cataclysmic, mass-extinction events.

It's not the change, it's the rate of change.

chris1 · Sep 6, 2001

Dan,
You wrote:

"Hey you wanna go live in a grass shack its ok with me!"

Is there a place to plug in my reef tank?

Cheesey baby,

I am well aware of these "facts". Perhaps I am overstating my opinion. I would never, ever, try to say that the human race is having no effect on the environment around us. It makes me sick to my stomach to see a tanker spilling millions of gallons of oil near the Gallapagos Islands, etc. I guess my point is to no believe everything you read, and to look at an article like this and believe that the sky is falling. This article pretty much states that the oceans will warm 1.5 degrees over the next 50 years and that will destroy all of the worlds reefs. Come on!!! Destroying the worlds reefs will take alot more than that and I am sure man is plenty capeable of figuring out exactly what can do it. But an article like this does nothing more that stir the emotions of people to do exactly what I said. Bring in the grant money.

Reef Lion,

"I'm not saying we caused the hole in the ozone layer, or that we caused global warming. I'm saying evidence exists that supports those theories. To discard it as "hooey" is, in my opinion, shortsighted and naive."

I agree with this statement. However, I believe there is equal evidence that supports the converse of this. Again, I am not saying that we absolutely did not create these problems. My argument is more against alarmist types of articles like this rather than the facts of the case. I believe that man is a disaster on his surrounding environment, and I am far more concientious about things that I do to help this than most people I know.

In the end, I want to see the truth about these things going on. However, I dont think we have found that yet.

c

BCReefer · Sep 6, 2001

As someone else wrote in their post. People sensationalize things to sell advertising. In Vancouver Canada we have had the worst summer in 70 years. Who knows what the earth cycle is. Maybe every 200 years the corals die so new breeds can start. We do not have enough information to make a rational decision.

DEADFISH1 · Sep 6, 2001

one thing to think about is if carbon fuels are the reason for all of this then everyone should support using nuclear power, it's clean and efficient, nuclear waste is of course an issue but at least you can contain it, and who knows, in the future maybe we will find a use for it or at least find a way to eliminate it, if carbon fuels is an evil then maybe nuclear is the lesser of the two.

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DEADFISH:
one thing to think about is if carbon fuels are the reason for all of this then everyone should support using nuclear power, it's clean and efficient, nuclear waste is of course an issue but at least you can contain it, and who knows, in the future maybe we will find a use for it or at least find a way to eliminate it, if carbon fuels is an evil then maybe nuclear is the lesser of the two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

Rorschach · Sep 6, 2001

These "global warming" predictions into many years into the future is so much crap.
Accurately predict the weather say, Saturday after next, then tell me what is going to happen 20 years from now. There is HUGE amounts of data available for weather "prediction" that can't be determined accurately.

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2001

*sniff* *sniff*

It's starting to smell like the sump around here. Not that there's anything wrong with that

Read it and weep......

Anonymous

Guest

Active Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Active Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Experienced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Sponsor Reefs