Sahara Desert Snow Storm

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Whodathunk?? News to me and I'm sure many others. So why isn't this ever cited as another potential cause of coral reef degradation in areas of high concentrations of sunbathers like parts of the Caribbean & Fla. Keys? Instead we mostly read about warmer waters and acidification, both attributed to CC?

Good question. The Florida report on the paper does say the highest concentrations of the common UV-filtering molecule oxybenzone, and the one responsible for the coral death, "is in high concentrations in the waters around the more popular coral reefs in Hawaii, and the Caribbean.” The report also states rather unequivocally: "Oxybenzone also caused coral bleaching, which is a prime cause of coral mortality worldwide.”

If it is a “prime cause” I too would like to hear more about it.

The report goes on to make some comment about this being a threat to the resiliency of coral under stress by climate change, but doesn’t make any direct comparison as to the relative effect levels.

Whodathunk indeed … climate change encourages us to use more sunscreen, which helps kill coral. Lovely… I too am getting a bigger brimmed hat.

[Nikolina]

Sunblock! I'm going to need a different shrine! Goosfraba.... Goosfraba

[mdvick]

Thanks Mike!! Me too with the bigger hat. There are a small number of places around the world where they have placed video monitors that are taking a photo every 12 hours and they are solar powered and they are picking them up every 5 years or so and the loss of coral is staggering. Unless you see the coral dying in front of you at that speed you would never notice it. I am a melanoma cancer survivor of 16+ years and while I am still getting the agent orange skin cancers the big stuff is gone. I have found other ways to protect my skin ever since I learned about this. I truly cannot thank the Cruisers Forum Family for inciting communication and discussion about everything that affects us all everyday!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Good question. The Florida report on the paper does say the highest concentrations of the common UV-filtering molecule oxybenzone, and the one responsible for the coral death, "is in high concentrations in the waters around the more popular coral reefs in Hawaii, and the Caribbean.” The report also states rather unequivocally: "Oxybenzone also caused coral bleaching, which is a prime cause of coral mortality worldwide.”

If it is a “prime cause” I too would like to hear more about it.

The report goes on to make some comment about this being a threat to the resiliency of coral under stress by climate change, but doesn’t make any direct comparison as to the relative effect levels.

Whodathunk indeed … climate change encourages us to use more sunscreen, which helps kill coral. Lovely… I too am getting a bigger brimmed hat.

If such low concentrations of sunscreen can really do so much damage to living coral, ya gotta wonder what it might be doing to human skin! Hopefully this won't be like the butter/margarine, bad/good cholesterol, coffee/no coffee deals where the experts tell us they were wrong in a few years. Call me a cynic, but I can't help thinking the sunscreen problem hasn't been well publicized because it takes away from all the publicity surrounding CC. I know, I know, I'm a cynic . . . .

[Kenomac]

The sunscreen issue related to coral death is 100% nonsense.

No evidence the radioactive release from Japan did anything to coral, but gosh look out for that sunscreen.... it's a killer.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mdvick

Thanks Mike!! Me too with the bigger hat. There are a small number of places around the world where they have placed video monitors that are taking a photo every 12 hours and they are solar powered and they are picking them up every 5 years or so and the loss of coral is staggering. Unless you see the coral dying in front of you at that speed you would never notice it. I am a melanoma cancer survivor of 16+ years and while I am still getting the agent orange skin cancers the big stuff is gone. I have found other ways to protect my skin ever since I learned about this. I truly cannot thank the Cruisers Forum Family for inciting communication and discussion about everything that affects us all everyday!

Staggering?? Like all living things, doesn't coral have natural life cycles? Have these life cycles been accurately measured previously so we have a reasonable basis for comparison? Isn't there also evidence of bleached coral coming back to life? How can that be if it cannot survive in warmer, more acidic waters?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Nikolina

Sunblock! I'm going to need a different shrine! Goosfraba.... Goosfraba

Careful, a few more Goosfraba's and you'll attract the real religious zealots into the thread. Then all civility and rational discussion will be lost!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by mdvick

Thanks Mike!! Me too with the bigger hat. There are a small number of places around the world where they have placed video monitors that are taking a photo every 12 hours and they are solar powered and they are picking them up every 5 years or so and the loss of coral is staggering. Unless you see the coral dying in front of you at that speed you would never notice it. I am a melanoma cancer survivor of 16+ years and while I am still getting the agent orange skin cancers the big stuff is gone. I have found other ways to protect my skin ever since I learned about this. I truly cannot thank the Cruisers Forum Family for inciting communication and discussion about everything that affects us all everyday!

Yeah, the puffins were being filmed by the expert scientists who were counting the puffin eggs (irritating the birds), as they watched the puffin population decline.... boo hoo, they hypothesized that soon there would be no more puffins (they're so cute).

It never occured to the idiots that the puffins simply moved 100 miles away to get away from the boneheaded scientists.

Coral moves too.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

If such low concentrations of sunscreen can really do so much damage to living coral, ya gotta wonder what it might be doing to human skin! Hopefully this won't be like the butter/margarine, bad/good cholesterol, coffee/no coffee deals where the experts tell us they were wrong in a few years. Call me a cynic, but I can't help thinking the sunscreen problem hasn't been well publicized because it takes away from all the publicity surrounding CC. I know, I know, I'm a cynic . . . .

I’ve never been a grand conspiracy theory kinda guy. Gives way too much credit to peoples’ ability to plan and strategies way into the future. I tend to look for the more obvious reasons for things to happen: stupidity, foolishness and greed to name a few.

Sunscreen hasa darker side to its story. Critics claim it doesn’t actually protect against cell damage, but just masks or protects against the symptoms. Then there is the more substantial criticism that it may actually promote DNA damage, again by supporting longer exposures to UV radiation.

This info is truly fascinating and disturbing, but I really would like to read the research that presents the scale of the issue (if there is an issue). Just about any chemical is toxic to some life at at some level. If this is a real effect (which it seems to be), then at what level, and what is the lifespan of the chemical in the environment? I have lots of questions.

But wearing wide brimmed hats, and light full pants and shirts seems, like a good idea.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This info is truly fascinating and disturbing, but I really would like to read the research that presents the scale of the issue (if there is an issue). Just about any chemical is toxic to some life at at some level. If this is a real effect (which it seems to be), then at what level, and what is the lifespan of the chemical in the environment? I have lots of questions.

Seems like adverse impacts from chemical contamination often center around concentration levels. I remember visiting some natural hot springs resort where they had an arsenic pool, and watched in amazement as people sitting in the pool drank the water. Then I was told the arsenic was harmless due to its low concentration level. Even so, I opted for a different pool.

So kinda hard to imagine that such relatively low levels of sunscreen in the open ocean could do such harm, but who knows? Hopefully the scientists publishing these sorts of reports, right?

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed!
“... On Thursday, the temperature there was almost 30 C warmer than average, and it continued into Friday morning. Ocean buoys recorded temperatures near the North Pole of 0 C (32 F) or warmer. That's right: It's warmer in the Arctic than it is in Thunder Bay, Ont ...”
➥ Arctic temperatures soar to 30 C above normal - Technology & Science - CBC News

This is the sort of thing that causes deniers to exclaim, "You are talking weather. Weather is not the same as climate." Despite the radical nature of the temperature oddity (or is it a new normal?), they are correct, and efforts to gain support for acceptance of warming, and the need to do "something" if it is human caused or there is a controllable human contribution, has been dealt yet another set back. Maybe not as bad as some of the early fabrications, but an excuse for the deniers anyway.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Everybody's mind is on Hurricane Mathew. The worst is over.
Now people are discussing the cause.
Sources say that it was partly caused by global warming.
.

So the argument against the snow in the Sahara not debunking "global warming" is that climate change is not shown by a single weather event.

But every time there is a hurricane, tornado or other weather event that supposedly supports their position, "global warming" is trotted out by the so called experts claiming the sky is falling.

If the "global warming" crowd wants to be taken seriously, they should quickly and immediately shout down people making these types of statements as quickly as they shout down the snow in the Sahara comments.

I do believe the climate is changing. I have yet to see any clear evidence that it is manmade and the idea that we can control and change it to our purpose if pure fantasy.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

This is the sort of thing that causes deniers to exclaim, "You are talking weather. Weather is not the same as climate." Despite the radical nature of the temperature oddity (or is it a new normal?), they are correct, and efforts to gain support for acceptance of warming, and the need to do "something" if it is human caused or there is a controllable human contribution, has been dealt yet another set back. Maybe not as bad as some of the early fabrications, but an excuse for the deniers anyway.

The first graph in the article Gord cited showed amplification of warming in the Arctic, a well known phenomenom that is indpt. of so-called CC but can be accentuated by warming in other parts of the earth. The graph also showed temp anomalies on the cooling side for large swaths of Russia, Alaska, Greenland and other areas. So which of these temp anomalies would you prefer we ascribe to climate vs. weather?

"Denier" has a religious connotation. Skeptic, cynic, doubter, challenger, etc. suggests one who questions conventional opinion & conformity, not necessarily one who always opposes. I figured it wouldn't take long for this sort of discourse to start.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I do believe the climate is changing. I have yet to see any clear evidence that it is manmade and the idea that we can control and change it to our purpose if pure fantasy.

All too rational, but in the eyes of the smitten you are still a mere denier. It is a matter of faith after all.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Denier" has a religious connotation. Skeptic, cynic, doubter, challenger, etc. suggests one who questions conventional opinion & conformity, not necessarily one who always opposes. I figured it wouldn't take long for this sort of discourse to start.

It’s a perhaps unfortunate term that has been applied to those people who “deny” the data, facts and increasingly clear conclusions coming from the vast majority of experts in the study of climate. The vast, vast majority of these deniers are not experts in the area. And a disproportionate are found in the USA and are considered on the right of the political spectrum. Since facts should have little or no relationship to political beliefs, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that those who ignore the scientific consensus in this regard are more ideological driven than research-based. This can also be seen in some of the conspiracy theory arguments presented to explain away the data and conclusions of climate researchers.

When the vast majority of virologists and immunologists say vaccines are not only safe, highly effective, and do not cause outcomes like autism, we rightly dismiss the few who cling to their opposing perspectives. When the vast majority of cancer researchers concluded smoking can cause cancer, we rightly dismissed the few who cling to their opposing perspectives. In all these cases, “denial” of the scientific consensus does take on quasi-religious characteristics since it is a belief divorced from facts.

I appreciate the term has become like the red cape in the bull fighter’s hands now, so an alternative term would probably be useful. It’s hard to think of a term which does as good a job of capturing the fullness of the situation, but I’m certainly willing to try.

Suggestions?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It’s a perhaps unfortunate term that has been applied to those people who “deny” the data, facts and increasingly clear conclusions coming from the vast majority of experts in the study of climate. The vast, vast majority of these deniers are not experts in the area. And a disproportionate are found in the USA and are considered on the right of the political spectrum. Since facts should have little or no relationship to political beliefs, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that those who ignore the scientific consensus in this regard are more ideological driven than research-based. This can also be seen in some of the conspiracy theory arguments presented to explain away the data and conclusions of climate researchers.

When the vast majority of virologists and immunologists say vaccines are not only safe, highly effective, and do not cause outcomes like autism, we rightly dismiss the few who cling to their opposing perspectives. When the vast majority of cancer researchers concluded smoking can cause cancer, we rightly dismissed the few who cling to their opposing perspectives. In all these cases, “denial” of the scientific consensus does take on quasi-religious characteristics since it is a belief divorced from facts.

I appreciate the term has become like the red cape in the bull fighter’s hands now, so an alternative term would probably be useful. It’s hard to think of a term which does as good a job of capturing the fullness of the situation, but I’m certainly willing to try.

Suggestions?

It wasn't that long ago (25 years), that the vast majority and scientific consensus believed that without a doubt stomach ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid and worry, and those ulcers were treated with surgery and antacids.

Then along comes one guy who has the nerve to question the entire medical community and suggest ulcers are caused instead by a bacteria. He was laughed at by everyone, indeed.... "how could anyone be so stupid to believe a bacteria could actually live in the human stomach?"

Well guess who was right? Look it up.

Today, stomach ulcers are nearly universally treated with antibiotics, saving millions of people from painful and ineffective surgery.