Read it and weep......

[Len]

A good place to observe the effects of average temperature variation is near the polar extremes, where temperature is fairly constant and more impervious to minor external influences.

Over the last half century, the temperature recorded in Alaska has risen, on average, 0.7-0.8 degrees Celcius per decade. This translates to a 7-8 degrees per every 100 years. If this isn't alarming, consider that the Ice Age developed over thousands of years, and had a temperature shift of only -5 degrees Celcius.

Fact is, CO2 is being produced faster then natural mechanisms can recylce it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that efficiently retains heat in the atmosphere. Add the two up, and you don't have to be a Math Guy

to figure out that this equates to a very real problem.

Too many people are comfortable placing the responsiblity of the blantantly obvious degradation of our biosphere on false testimony or natural cycles. Humans can't be responsible. Why? Because a big worldwide scientific conspiracy is so much more plausible

If you want to talk conspiracy: Isn't a conspiracy by our (historically greedy) energy corporations to downplay the significance of human's coal consumption on our ecosphere a more likely conspiracy? Fossil fuel is the drug of the world, and the pushers don't want us to see the harm it's causing, so long as we keep consuming.

Someone alert Dr.Reef. Better yet, sump the topic and let's get a real discussion going

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]

 

[Len]

BTW people, stop relating personal weather data with global weather data. Just because your neck of the woods seems a little cooler this year is not a reflection of the rest of the world.

And a rise in just 1 degree Celcius is ecologically significant. Just because humans are more adaptable to temperature variations does not mean the rest of our global community is.

Time to get out of your comfortable, little shells and see the bigger picture.

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]

 

[DarwinTheDog]

Hi Dan,

You quoted me :
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>I 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I stand by this statement. As you pointed out we know very little about many coral species. To proclaim animals we know little about will be dead because of global warming has little basis. I don't disagree that coral bleaching can result from elevated temps. I know this to be true. I am not saying global warming does not have merit, but I don't buy every prediction either.

What I am saying is that you shouldn't proclaim the sky is falling based on little evidence. Now of course as you said it is perhaps better to err on the side of caution. I generally agree that it is better to be safe than sorry. However my main point here is that it is irresponsible to make unfounded predictions, and benefits noone.

If I were in a movie theather and smelled smoke I wouldn't scream "FIRE!" without first investigating further. Doing so could be very dangerous, of course it couldsave lives, but it to could destroy lives. You might think that Mr. Ormond's proclamation that all the reefs are going to be dead in 50 years will cause people to be more responsible and perhaps prevent the tragedy, this is not likely. In fact Mr. Ormond's basic premise is it is too late we are already doomed. This is not likely to help the problem.

I have read your other post and respect your opinion. My main point is that more study is necessary to determine the future of the coral reefs. I for one also belief that nature will adapt, man may as well, but nature will survive. It may be different species that survive and thrive (and not all of them) , but nature will go on. This is the beauty of genetic variation.

As for Mr. Ormond I believe the information portrayed in the article makes him appear to be very irresponsinle IMHO.

At anyrate it is always enjoyable to exchange ideas, even if different from our own! Good thought provoking thread!

 

[Len]

I'll tell you an interesting correlation:

Global surface temperature averages were on a gradual downslope for the last millenium until it hit the early 1900's. Post 1900, earth temp has risen roughly 0.2 degrees celcius every 10 years (+2 degrees/100 years). In the more buffered environments (eg polar extremes), this increase is 2-3 times more evident.

The industrial revolution commenced in the early 1900's.

Coincedance. Perhaps.

Of course, some of you will argue this data set has been scrupulously manipulated by the evil scientific community.

Another footnote: If you've had the privelage of diving in tropical reefs, you'd notice that year after year, the reefs look progressively worse. Native islanders (multi-generational natives) will readily attest to this observation.

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]

 

[LINK]

Let us not forget that not only is the earth's orbit cyclical, but so is the sun's surface activity (and thus its output). Also, the reefs have been completely wiped out several times over the last 20,000 years, but new organisms take up the niche that was left open. It is actually VERY good for the planet in the long run, in that it adds to species diversity, and genetic adaptation and strength. We are taught that this cycle is bad, but it IS the cycle of evolution...and has been since life took hold on this planet.
Like Rorschach pointed out, We have computers processing tremendous amounts of data about our weather systems, temperatures, Jet stream data, Barometric pressure, rainfall, humidity, etc; and we still can not accurately predict the weather three days from now. Future temperature predictions are at best a joke, and it seems that all of the "Evidence" is in the form of computer model predictions.

 

[AlexS!]

they don't even mention what WE are doing to save the reefs-
BUY AQUACULTURED!

 

[Len]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TANK:
<STRONG>We are taught that this cycle is bad, but it IS the cycle of evolution...and has been since life took hold on this planet.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but the question is: have we deviated from that natural cycle because of human activity?

I don't think anyone is proposing that natural variation is bad. But is what we're observing "natural?" The changes we're witnessing seems highly anomalous and accelerated, if you ask me.

 

[Len]

Plus the simple math that + CO2 = + Heat retention. This fact is a little hard to refute.

 

[Anonymous]

So... killing as many species is possible is good because it will lead to greater diversity and strength to protect the ecosystem from something that will kill as many species as possible?

I did not know that the reefs were totally wiped out several times in the last 20,000 years. Thats pretty recent in terms of evolution. Can you tell us more about this?

I wish people would stop equating short term weather forcasts with long term predictions. If you see temps changing with regularity over a period of decades it doesn't take a genius to preduct that it will continue unless some change occurs. Also plenty of medium term forecasts are right on. Everybody knows when its going to be an el nino year, right?

 

[DEADFISH1]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cheese Sandwich:
<STRONG>Sump! Sump! Sump!

(You people are lightweights!!! Come argue with the sump-dwellers!)

</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NO WAY, it's getting way too religious in the sump for me, that thread is a monster.

 

[SPC]

I am lost on this argument of natural occurrences being equated to man made Co2.

Where do you guys think these man made green house gases are going?
Steve

 

[Bodine]

This gobal warming conspiracy is just bunk.....

Just like there is still no prof smoking causes cancer.....

Sometimes `ya just gotta be hit over the head with something before you believe it.....

 

[Colonel]

You folks don't get it. All of the CO2 was at one point or another in the atmosphere. We are burning fossil fuels last time I checked. So at some point or another all of this C02 was in the atmosphere. I think the flucuations in temp that everyone is talking about have occured because of this flucuation. More co2 higher temps. Higher temps more plant growth. More growth, less co2, lower temps, and so on.

Just my 2 cents

 

[SPC]

Colonel, do you think that humans burning fossil fuel is a naturally occuring event?

If so, then I guess your right, I don't get it.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonard:
<STRONG>

Ah, but the question is: have we deviated from that natural cycle because of human activity?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this Question is rhetorical but what do you say we go down to Love Canal for a glass of water, Work on our tans at Chernobyl, and then hunt some wild game on Anthrax island. Then we can come back and ask this Question again

 

[chinese101]

all a bunch of BS. Just media types wanting to sell their story and scientist wanting gov funding to do their research. I remember in the 80s that they said we gonna run out of fossil fuel by now.

 

[LINK]

Dan, according to your logic, during an ice age (cooling) or the peroid there after (warming) you could take steady temp readings for decades and see the trend. Something would have to be done or that trend would continue. Maybe I'm a bit biased, I am kind of glad evolution works the way it does, that is how more complex organisms (us) get here. I am not (at least not in this thread, as that is another discussion) saying that our climate isn't warming up, I am just saying that with less that 50 years of accurate data, it is hard for me to believe that we have pinpointed the cause. Especially in light of all of the things we know about our planet (like cyclical weather, orbit, etc).
This is not meant as a flame to anyone, (even you Dan, I just really enjoy debating) but if you believe that a system as complex as the earth's weather is a linear system, I would suggest reading something like James Gleick's book titled "CHAOS". It is a book dedicated to understanding complex system behavier.
Lastly, I absolutly agree that IF global warming is happening, that we are absolutly having some effect on it, measurable or not. I don't believe, however, in the prevailing attitude that if you question anything an environmentalist says, you must be ANTI-ENVIRONMENT. I don't believe in Radical Legislation when we don't understand the problem. I do believe that the people at the head of the environmental movement (like most other movements, religion included) are there for the power and influence and not the cause itself.

 

[chris1]

Dan,

We can agree to disagree.

Scientists have other "means at their disposal" which are all based on guestimation. Well we THINK the temperature would have been this because if it was, we THINK that this fossile would have looked like that.

There are stories galore about scientists ignoring facts that would disprove their beliefs.

Agreeing to disagree.

c

 

[Anonymous]

Sump! Sump! Sump!

(You people are lightweights!!! Come argue with the sump-dwellers!)

 

[Anonymous]

Don't forget that our entire society is based on what scientists "think". I "think" we went to the moon!

I will proudly ride this one to the sump!