More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html

I am amazed that sailors, who should know better, post this stuff.

It is classic cherry-picking. 1997 - 198 were El Nino years resulting in warming. 2011 was an la Nina year resulting in cooling. You could use the same argument in the northern hemisphere right now; August was hotter than January, therefore we are in cooling phase.

The MET office refuted the Daily Mail, which I believe is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but a British tabloid.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by micah719

Probably pointless getting involved with this religious debate....yes, religious, because the religion of climate change has nothing to do with science. It is also highly political, but only one side is permitted a voice. It's tolerance, you know. The chicken-little hysteria follows a cycle; imminent ice age, imminent overheating, imminent climate change. Just obey AGW Pope Gore and his coterie of priests, and open your wallet; and shut your mind and your mouth. Do not bother with facts, do not attempt to think, that is if you still can or want to after progressive schooling.

Climate Change Hysteria and the Global Warming / Global Cooling Yo-Yo - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

from the article:

Only one Cause or Charity ever gets any cash outa me...
In spite of the occassional frack up...
RNLI lifeboat launch in rough sea - YouTube
http://youtu.be/Wf_pRVdhLWU

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by ReMetau

I think the exact same statement can be aimed at people in light of the subject.

But people will evolve, or at least their behaviour will.

Just not neccessarily in nice happy clappy tree hugging ways though - in fact I very much doubt it.

Global Warming just a(nother) reason for the lords and masters to explain to the peasants that their ain't enough to go around. In ye olden days they could use religion to help with that (with the promise of happier times later) - in the modern age that don't work so well, even with Creationist Science - whose b#stard child is Climate Science .

Although I am firmly in the camp of if it smells like a turd it usually is and I don't need a taste to discover that (albeit I accept that very much is a YMMV thing for many ) - nonetheless I think the Climategate EOTW bogeyman scare story could be a useful tool to change the economic system globally.......to benefit far more people than it does now, including folks in the west (and especially me!)..........Work really hard for 25 years and you get a home, if you are lucky - and a lifetime of buying stuff that whilst nice is not really needed to be replaced quite so often.......after that you get to look forward to a retirement that likely involves working or being short of money. or both. and even the more fortunate are largely dependent on others, including those with money who rely on others not to send the financial system off a cliff or to steal or tax their money away (IMO money something that is totally bizarre to use as the principal measure of real wealth for humans).

At the risk of getting into the political ..........

Me is on the "lets find a better way and give it a go" end of the spectrum (and not any traditional left or right angle ) - I favour a mix of "each according to their needs" (at least the basics of shelter, food and healthcare) and "each according to their abilities". I think the key is not to share the money out, but to share the benefits of modern society more evenly - especially productivity generated by technology.........in ye olden days being a peasant was a full time & life long job - although things have got better, nonetheless nowadays we seem to be stuck with the concept that folks have to work long hours / long years. I have no problem with folks wanting to do that and also getting the benefits personally from doing so (more money, bigger stuff etc) but why not create a society (or world!) where we all only have to put in 20 hours a week for 20 years (or even less!)......sounds radical and maybe even fantastical!, but why not? All folks really need is certainty they have a home, food and decent healthcare plus a few quid / dollars in their pocket to have fun ..........including on boats .

Whilst I accept that Utopia will never be acheived - nonetheless we could all try to aim for it rather than just accepting that it is all too hard and complicated. or impossible. Impossible is for failures!

Oooops, the above a bit longer than I intended .

[micah719]

Thank you, lake effect. Instead of refuting an argument, attack the person. It's called "ad-hominem", and as proven by Saul Alinsky, a most effective technique...most of the time.

We should be wise and careful stewards of the creation we are in. This requires disernment and reason, to avoid being swept along by ideology and emotion put out by people with a sinister agenda...people whose track record on stewarding, and pretty much everything else, does not stand up to scrutiny. The false dichotomy you try to force us AGW heretics is a sham...we are not indifferent to the environment, and neither are we ignorant of those who have hijacked the conservation movement.

[Andrew Troup]

micah719

In reference to the article you posted on predictions of a coming ice age:

You're too smart to be making such a patently flawed argument.

Ice ages take thousands of years to establish.

AGW happens on a different, much shorter timescale.

If it's true, that is. At the moment it's only a theory ....but a very strong one, increasingly supported by the great majority of its predictions coming true.

Mostly what you're pointing out is that nobody foresaw just how much carbon we would release into the atmosphere in the latter part of the twentieth century.
It's still hard to believe how quickly it got so bad.

It's entirely consistent with a long term cooling proposition that our sudden release of unprecedented amounts of carbon could cause warming in the meantime.

It's also conceivable that this contrary mechanism could entirely override the cooling which would have happened in its absence.
The heating could even trigger the opposite of an ice age.

At present it's hardly an equal battle: the curve of the next ice age is still flat.

It's equally certain that when all the fossil fuel has been burned, a new carbon equilibrium will be reached, and presumably the cycle of ice ages will continue. But the rate of temperature change will be something humans (if we're still around) will have a better chance of adapting to.

Your argument is a bit like saying that forecasts for a neap tide at the end of the month must be wrong-headed because someone else is forecasting a storm surge at the end of the week, making the tides higher, not lower.

Both statements can simultaneously be true.

[jackdale]

A little light reading

Key Messages
1. The rise in ocean temperature over the last century will persist into the future, with continued large impacts on climate, ocean circulation, chemistry, and ecosystems.
2. The ocean currently absorbs about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, leading to ocean acidification that will alter marine ecosystems in dramatic yet uncertain ways.
3. Significant habitat loss will continue to occur due to climate change, in particular for Arctic and coral reef ecosystems, while expansions of habitat in other areas and for other species will occur. These changes will consequently alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species.
4. Rising sea surface temperatures have been linked with increasing levels and ranges of diseases of humans and marine life, such as corals, abalones, oysters, fishes, and marine mammals.
5. Altered environmental conditions due to climate change will affect, in both positive and negative ways, human uses of the ocean, including transportation, resource use and extraction, leisure and tourism activities and industries, in nearshore and offshore areas. Many marine activities are designed based on historical conditions. Thus, climate changes that result in conditions substantially different from recent history may significantly increase costs to businesses as well as disrupt public access and enjoyment of ocean areas.
6. In response to observed and projected climate impacts, some existing ocean policies, practices, and management efforts are incorporating climate-change impacts. These initiatives, such as increasing the resilience of built infrastructure or natural marine ecosystems, can serve as a model for other efforts and ultimately enable people and communities to adapt to changing ocean conditions.

http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/downl...p24-oceans.pdf

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by micah719

this time, we're assured, there is scientific consensus. It's agreed. Everybody knows what's going on. It's global warming, don't you know! Even the media is sure of it this time.

Love the media!

Great article.

[Kenomac]

Your average volcanic eruption will spew more carbon dioxide in a day or two than the entire industrialized world can spew in a year. Meanwhile, I continue to only see the potential positive effects of global warming on the environment. Call me a sceptic if you like, but I hate the cold.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Your average volcanic eruption will spew more carbon dioxide in a day or two than the entire industrialized world can spew in a year. Meanwhile, I continue to only see the potential positive effects of global warming on the environment. Call me a sceptic if you like, but I hate the cold.

You might want to look at the latest report from Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. He attributes climate change to two factors: increased CO2 and volcanic action. The former increases temperature that latter lowers it.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkele...se-july-29.pdf

Muller is a former skeptic. Real research can do that to thoughtful people.

[micah719]

Andrew, I only posted the article as an example to show that climate hysteria is nothing new, actually somewhat amusing if it weren't already costing people lives and promising to wreck many more.

We're a bit behind the times, still talking about warming....the cutting edge activists are harping on about climate change rather than warming, because the warming is patently not true and they know that excuse won't fly any more, even for the sheeple that float with the flow like dead fish as we were all taught in school. So, now they hype extreme weather and blame it on naughty humans; and with their captive media suppressing the voices of cooler heads pointing out that we are actually experiencing a dearth of extreme weather, the farce is merely re-routed rather than finally being put to rest. It is about power and money, and the prize is a global kingdom with unprecendented scope and mandate. Their self-made utopia is nearly compete, and it will be hell on earth, literally. A very short-lived one, but awful while it lasts, and still worth opposing even though they are permitted to gain the upper hand for a while. If you want to see what their "heaven" is, read the Georgia Guidestones. How do we get from 7 billion people to half a billion? Genocide, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. What a lovely lot we are.

[jackdale]

Micah

The IPCC has always been the IPCC (1988), and the CC part does not stand for global warming.

The popularization of the "climate change" phrase came from a GOP strategist named Frank Luntz. Check out his web site (Home - Luntz Global), he is quite proud of this.

[hellosailor]

Jack, the world cannot be saved, they'd rather watch football. Once our NFL adopts their new policy on concussions (no helmets, no tackling, will use tomahawks instead) that job may get even harder.

In the meantime, really, what will happen if global warming is real or not? Well, either way, climate change happens and if it happens fast enough, there will be what the economists call "some disruption" as shores flood and folks drown while watching football. As long as you're not one of them, you can position yourself to be on the upside of the disruption, and benefit from their loss. Maybe by real estate, maybe in foodstuffs, maybe by getting the authentic licensing rights for those tomahawks.

But trying to save the masses? Wouldn't that be the job of L. Ron Hubbard, or maybe Jim Jones?

If you tell EVERYONE about global warming, that's gonna make it all the harder for some of us to make a buck on the economic disruption part.

[jackdale]

Hello -you are probably correct and I am working at cross purposes.

I live at 1,000 meters above sea level in the oil capital of Canada, and most of my clients make their living from fossil fuels.

Drill baby, drill. (the Palin wink)

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You might want to look at the latest report from Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. He attributes climate change to two factors: increased CO2 and volcanic action. The former increases temperature that latter lowers it.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkele...se-july-29.pdf

Muller is a former skeptic. Real research can do that to thoughtful people.

What was the pre 1956 warming due to, presumably a time frame of at least
11,000 years.

[sailorboy1]

if the coral dies does that reduce anchoring restrictions