More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

So combustion has suffered? Our fires don't burn so bright? We are short on breathe?

Small increases (of the order we have already seen over the period of human history, but mainly in the last half century) in CO2 and other gases such as methane, are dangerous (to the earth's energy balance) in the long term.

Following this 'balance' idea for a mo: Effectively, the sun makes deposits in our planet's energy bank; energy leaks out of the account (back out into space).
But these trace gases partially plug those leaks.

It's called the greenhouse effect because the gases act a bit like the glass panels of a greenhouse, whose main purpose is to stop the sun's energy escaping back out of the enclosure (by re-radiation).
It's not complicated or controversial science; quite the opposite.

It was discovered and reasonably well understood before phones were invented.



Large increases, which is what your list of "symptoms" would indicate, would snuff out life as we know it, effective immediately. Are you really suggesting that it's not worth taking seriously until we're teetering on that particular brink ?


No-one is saying CO2 is the only thing which can cause warming. But we know that CO2 and a couple of other culprits can far outweigh all other influences, and will definitely do so unless we stop arguing about things which are not in contention, except among a fringe of controversialists in the science community (tiny but highly vocal) and a seemingly increasing proportion of the general public, highly visible on this forum, who don't like the message so they don't believe it.

These people are possibly the first people ever of whom it could truly be said, on a global scale:

If you're don't believe this needs to be solved, then YOU are the problem.

Because far from politicians colluding to manipulate public opinion (as is so frequently and gratuitously asserted), on this issue the history tells a very different story.

Politicians, manipulated by the most powerful lobby groups on the planet and unduly influenced by dilettante deniers, are showing steadily diminishing enthusiasm for any sort of action, and it's only politicians who can solve this one.

But they won't have a bar of it while so many voters like your good selves are engaged in looking the other way.

[Lagoon4us]

I don't believe anywhere i've said climate change is occurring, the point i've pushed is that Co2 is not the singular responsible gas, many times in history Co2 has increased with no detrimental effect.

Man and his modern life is/are a natural polluter.

Regarding your large increases question, i simply asked the question 'has our mix of gases changed'? My second part to that question was 'what is the constant that Co2 ratios are based on'?

You misjudge me.

[Andrew Troup]

Lagoon

Given that your innate perceptions and senses and reasoning powers are evidently finely tuned to warn you about threats, and given your views on mainstream science

it's only fair to alert you to a wonderful business opportunity: there are unbelievable real estate propects, vast tracts of land literally going begging,


in Fukushima prefecture, Japan.

[Lagoon4us]

Thank you oh gifted one, i'll swap a block on Russell Island, Australia.

[Andrew Troup]

'what is the constant that Co2 ratios are based on'?

I'm not sure who told you there is a constant.

What there is is a range of values arising from natural causes

Perhaps even more important, we can see the rate of change.

Bubbles of atmospheric air from the distant past are preserved in ice so densely pressed by the kilometers above as to be impermeable

The deep ice cores extracted from the Vostok vicinity in the Antarctic, are a reliable indicator of how far and fast those greenhouse gas values have changed during human history and prehistory.

What we are doing since the industrial revolution is superimposing a single mass release of CO2, ON TOP of the natural fluctuations.

By effectively burning a significant fraction of all the fuel ever laid down under the earth's surface, we've released a single surge of CO2 which completely swamps anything (in quantity and rate of change) which has happened naturally since our distant ancestor species first stood upright.


The atmosphere is a big place. It takes a LOT of CO2 to increase the concentration by 50%, as we have recently done.

Unlike ozone, CO2 disperses evenly throughout the atmosphere, so it's clearly the only pan-global influence we have ever exerted on its composition.

The attached graph shows in crude terms the fluctuations in CO2 levels indicated by the ice cores (yellow triangles) as remaining fairly constant around 250 to 270 ppm during the last ten thousand years.

The rate of increase since the exploitation of fossil fuels is remarkable and unprecedented and it's looking increasingly unlikely that we can adapt fast enough, without very serious consequences, to the climate change yet to come.

We're still on the flat part of what looks increasingly likely to be an exponential temperature rise. Remember the story of the king, the chess board, and the grains of rice?

[Lagoon4us]

Do you believe Andrew that prior to man's influence that there were levels of Co2 that exceeded todays measured levels?

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Do you believe Andrew that prior to man's influence that there were levels of Co2 that exceeded todays measured levels?

I don't know. I do believe that the maximum level in the last 417,000 years was 300 ppm, reached only once. I attach a graph showing why I believe this.

So that's a fair bit shy of the current 390ppm and rising.

But I say again, it's the rapid change which is the biggest worry. There's no natural mechanism I know of which could have released that much carbon into the atmosphere, especially in just a hundred and fifty years, and if there was, and it happened now, we'd be in twice as much trouble, because it would be added to what we've released.

The implied rate of warming is eventually likely to exceed our maximum rate of adaptation. Our economies will be depleted in the earlier phases, and by the time we're really up against it, we won't have any resilience left in our systems.
It's not a zero sum game where 'property developers on high ground' will make gains which match the abandonment of coastal cities: there's the realistic possibility of wealth destruction on a heroic, pan-national scale.

-------

Someone further up the thread said (without any supporting information) that carbon had reached high levels many times in the past without consequences.

ON EDIT: Actually I just came across it again: it was you, Lagoon, saying "many times in history Co2 has increased with no detrimental effect."

I'm not sure where this information was sourced; every study I've accessed suggests that high CO2 levels have always been associated with high temperatures.

However, as I said in a post a page or two back in this same thread, complete with a comprehensive graph to support my contention: CO2 has not necessarily been the initial trigger for past warming cycles.

And, as I said then: that's because nobody has dug up trillions of barrels of oil (and coal and gas) before, and burned them in short order.

so the thing which has generally caused the release of CO2 has been something else kicking off a warming cycle. Which has led to release of CO2, which in turn accentuates the warming.

This time looks different, because of us.

The past is not a reliable guide to this particular present and future.

- - - - - -

If I was to say "Gambling can cause Poverty",

it would not be a convincing rebuttal to say

"No, you've got that the wrong way round: Poverty > hopelessness, hopelessness > Gambling"

These statements do not contradict each other.

Similarly:

CO2 can lead to warming
AND
Warming can lead to CO2* release.

This sets up a positive feedback loop, which implies runaway of both CO2 and warming.

*(and more worryingly, in our present situation where CO2 is already high, methane release. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but unlike CO2 it doesn't hang around very long. Short summary: they both present significant risks)

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

impressed to see families walking the beach , kid's and dogs in tow picking up all things made of plastic or rubber.

That's being pro-active, that's doing something about where we sail!



The majority of those plastic items come from boats other than disgusting countries whom dump there trash from barges at sea....

The photo above shows the marina in Bali, Indonesia. To say its gross is an understatement.

Global Warming has moved the responsibility from each and every person to clean the planet to only the big bad companies in the western world. Remember the developing world does not have to lower emissions or drop polution. Governments are now taxing us for the 'global warming' further removing the rank and file from reality.

Yes, the good people in Western countries pick up rubbish. but Asia and Africa doesnt. They live in a pile of poop thats exacerbated by the demonization of the causes of global warming.

If people want to bleat on about the environment go to Asia before they post.


Mark

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

The photo above shows the marina in Bali, Indonesia. To say its gross is an understatement.

Global Warming has moved the responsibility from each and every person to clean the planet to only the big bad companies in the western world. Remember the developing world does not have to lower emissions or drop polution. Governments are now taxing us for the 'global warming' further removing the rank and file from reality.

Yes, the good people in Western countries pick up rubbish. but Asia and Africa doesnt. They live in a pile of poop thats exacerbated by the demonization of the causes of global warming.

If people want to bleat on about the environment go to Asia before they post.


Mark

Don't be silly... why would I want to go back there... when here in the West I'm in Paradise...

[Lagoon4us]

I was just looking at temperature/Co2 relationships etc and found this gem, i've highlighted the comment. It is in File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encylopedia


For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years. However, since this plot is a fair representation of the range of reconstructions appearing in the published scientific literature, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.

Gotta love it!!!

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

The photo above shows the marina in Bali, Indonesia. To say its gross is an understatement.

Global Warming has moved the responsibility from each and every person to clean the planet to only the big bad companies in the western world. Remember the developing world does not have to lower emissions or drop polution. Governments are now taxing us for the 'global warming' further removing the rank and file from reality.

Yes, the good people in Western countries pick up rubbish. but Asia and Africa doesnt. They live in a pile of poop thats exacerbated by the demonization of the causes of global warming.

If people want to bleat on about the environment go to Asia before they post.


Mark

Dear Mr Desalinator supplier your unit does not perform.....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Global Warming has moved the responsibility from each and every person to clean the planet to only the big bad companies in the western world.

Um, no. That's part of hand-waving hype of the climate-change deniers.
Individuals in a democracy continue to have the lead role, not only in their personal choices, especially consumption, but in what they ask of their governments.

Remember the developing world does not have to lower emissions or drop pollution.

Per-capita, Canada & the US consume far more fossil fuels than developing countries. I imagine Australia is up there. So we can't exactly expect them to do what we won't do. Second, we are forcing the developing world to follow blindly in the West's footsteps by exploiting them to cheaply make the stuff we crave. We have the leverage to say "make our stuff in a responsible low-impact way"... but instead we say make it cheaply as possible, we don't care what you emit, we don't care whether you hire kids, we don't care whether you're a dictatorship or a theocratic medieval throwback, just sell us your oil and make our stuff cheaply.

Finally, there is environmental consciousness in just about all countries, but they're easily steamrollered by foreign economic pressure and domestic demand.

Governments are now taxing us for the 'global warming' further removing the rank and file from reality.

I think the rank and file have opted to skip reality.

Especially in the US, the price of gas is artificially low, and does not cover the full life-cycle cost of producing, distributing and burning the stuff. In other words, gas consumption is actually subsidized. Tax is one way of balancing that out, but, hell, current fuel taxes don't even cover the full cost of maintaining and building highways and roads. So,vehicle use is subsidized that way too.

Tax is of course also a tool for changing behaviour.

Carbon credits and swaps are a potential free-market way of managing carbon emission efficiently, but since the free market can't even manage money properly (2008, anyone?) I don't know whether that will work in practice.

Someone is going to get the bill. If not us, our kids, or more than likely, our great-grandkids.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

I think Don has something to do with it.

I dropped the remote the a week ago and the temp shot up to 65 F. I put it back together but it seems to have broken; as since it has been in the 20s and I haven't been able to turn the temp up!

To make it worst the snow setting went crazy and resulted in a blizzard!

[Tar34]

ON EDIT:Troup Said: Actually I just came across it again: it was you, Lagoon, saying "many times in history Co2 has increased with no detrimental effect."

I'm not sure where this information was sourced; every study I've accessed suggests that high CO2 levels have always been associated with high temperatures.

However, as I said in a post a page or two back in this same thread, complete with a comprehensive graph to support my contention: CO2 has not necessarily been the initial trigger for past warming cycles.

There is correlation between the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2. There is evidence warming preceded the rise in CO2. There is no proof that Co2 causes warming. There is data to show high CO2 levels, as much as 4000+ PPM
with no associated dramatic increases in temperature. We are actually in an impoverished CO2 relative minimum. We can turn the discussion where it rightly belongs to CO2 as a boost to the biosphere and the accompanying increase in water vapor, cloud cover and cooling. I see no benefit to chicken little forecasts vis a vis carbon and theoretical forecasts built on assumptions unless of course it is to push and pander a political agenda. Chew on this.....

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Tar34

my contention: CO2 has not necessarily been the initial trigger for past warming cycles.

What? they had politicians back then too????????