More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[Tar34]

Global warming is change over time and man has very little, if any, control over any of the factors relating to it. My question is once "global warming" is past and we go back into an ice age, what and who are they going to blame it on?

Well here is an objective lecture on Climate Change under the Science Curriculum Header / Sustainability. This will show how objective Science is taught in Canadian Universities.
Faculty of Science

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by rlh1246

Since Al Gore invented internet and discovered that the planet has been going through global warming a lot of folks who should know better have jumped on the band wagon. There are several questions involved in global warming:

1. Is it real?
2. Are the oceans rising as a result of it?
3. What is the major cause of global warming?
4. How long has global warming been going on?
5. Can we humans do anything about global warming?

There are plenty of other questions, but these are enough to look at here. The first two questions are easy to answer and that answer is a resounding Yes!
Having lived and worked in the NW Pacific Islands I can say for sure that the sea level has risen in the last 20 yrs at least...I have a house at N Topsail Island in NC and we used to be 5 houses from the beach front now we are 2 houses away and this has happend in the last 15 yrs! Anyone that denies this is either blind and stupid or they are in denial for one reason or the other... Question #3 is a bit more complicated and we don't have a clear answer for it, but the fact of it is that global warming more properly termed interglacial episode has happened numerous times over the past millions of years and the only difference between this one and those that preceded it is that we human pigeon-holers are here to attempt to place blame for the occurrence.

In answer of Question #4: global warming or the interglacial episode has been going on for approximately 15,000 years and during that time the oceans have risen around 200 feet. They are continuing to rise around one-foot per century.

Is there anything that man can do about global warming, probably nothing that is very substantial since it began long before we got out of the Stone Age and will run its course. What we can do is to reduce waste of all resources especially those that are non-renewable. Oil and Gas, water, minerals to name a few. They are all far too valuable to our society to waste at the rate that we are expending them.

The basis for the formation of oil and gas occurred during a period when humans would have been complaining that it was far too hot and humid and too much vegetation. Conditions for its formation won't occur again in the near or distant foreseeable future and it takes millions of years to concentrate it in the quantities that we would need.

The over pumping of ground water has an unacknowledged problem that is not normally recognized and that is the collapse of reservoirs. Most ground water was trapped when surrounding terrain was eroded into dry, marine or non-marine basins. Water filled the spaces between sediment particles and held them open. When a reservoir is over pumped the spaces collapse as the water is withdrawn and even if there is sufficient meteoric water (rain) to resupply the reservoir, there is no longer any space for the water and it runs off causing erosion or evaporates and is lost. Phoenix and other desert communities are in a very bad position due to over pumping of deeper and deeper reservoirs and they will never have any more water than what they have right now today.

Global warming is change over time and man has very little, if any, control over any of the factors relating to it. My question is once "global warming" is past and we go back into an ice age, what and who are they going to blame it on?

Having lived and worked in the NW pacific island I know for a fact that the sea level has risen...I have a house at N Topsail Island in NC and I was 5 houses away from the ocean 15 yrs ago ,now I am 2 houses away..anyone that says the sealevel is not coming up is either blind and stupid or they are in denial for some reason or the other...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Well here is an objective lecture on Climate Change under the Science Curriculum Header / Sustainability. This will show how objective Science is taught in Canadian Universities.
Faculty of Science

You finally got something right.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Having lived and worked in the NW pacific island I know for a fact that the sea level has risen...I have a house at N Topsail Island in NC and I was 5 houses away from the ocean 15 yrs ago ,now I am 2 houses away..anyone that says the sealevel is not coming up is either blind and stupid or they are in denial for some reason or the other...

Erosion is not sea level change.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You finally got something right.

The lecturer Littlemore on Littlemore to Michael Mann

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rlh1246

Question #3 is a bit more complicated and we don't have a clear answer for it, but the fact of it is that global warming more properly termed interglacial episode has happened numerous times over the past millions of years and the only difference between this one and those that preceded it is that we human pigeon-holers are here to attempt to place blame for the occurrence

....

Global warming is change over time and man has very little, if any, control over any of the factors relating to it. My question is once "global warming" is past and we go back into an ice age, what and who are they going to blame it on?

That's a dodge.

You've completely ignored that this time around, human activity of the past 200 years has made measurable changes to to the environment, CO2 increase being the most significant. Ice core records which span back to the last ice age or two confirm this.

The best models we currently have project that this added CO2 will skew the natural cycle to the warm side. The question is... will the effect be minimal, or as modeled, or worse... and will this just skew the normal cycle, create in a different equilibrium, or unbalance it? At the moment, the predicted changes are starting to look too conservative.

And one again, here's a person using climate change denial to say:
- nothing bad is happening
- we can't affect this anyway
- therefore there's nothing to change/do

... which of course ignores that most of the suggested changes (consume less, clean up better, develop alternatives to fossil fuel, etc) are good goals for 1001 other reasons besides global warming. Pick one.... doesn't have to be climate change, FFS.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tar34

The lecturer Littlemore on Littlemore to Michael Mann

If we can show you that this one quote is taken out of context, will you acknowledge that this nugget of climate-denial orthodoxy was false?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tar34

The lecturer Littlemore on Littlemore to Michael Mann

Richard Littlemore is PR specialist from Vancouver. His lecture is on the PR of climate science denial. He has some expertise in that area.

There is a concerted documented campaign against science.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If we can show you that this one quote is taken out of context, will you acknowledge that this nugget of climate-denial orthodoxy was false?

Who is we and what are you waiting for? Just show it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Who is we and what are you waiting for? Just show it.

We is us.

...Jackdale beat me to it.

What else u got? warning - most of the climate-conspiracy case is based on stuff about as good as that.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by rlh1246

The over pumping of ground water has an unacknowledged problem that is not normally recognized and that is the collapse of reservoirs.

Maybe a little more acknowledged of late..
Satellites Reveal the Depletion of a Vital Middle East Water Supply - NYTimes.com

NASA - NASA Satellites Find Freshwater Losses in Middle East

Global warming is change over time and man has very little, if any, control over any of the factors relating to it. My question is once "global warming" is past and we go back into an ice age, what and who are they going to blame it on?

What is going on now is happen extremely rapidly, the "change over time" doesn't come close to explaining what is happening at the moment.

Arctic Ocean is on thin ice

30% summer arctic sea ice volume in 10 years is a lot of ice to melt. Could to down to a fifth of what it was in 1980.
Hard for an individual to ignore but easy for a species which has no significant control on the development of its' societies. There really doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that homo sapiens are any more in control then a few billion bacteria multiplying happily away in a petri dish.

Which kind of takes the heat of each of us individuals so do your best and enjoy each day.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Richard Littlemore is PR specialist from Vancouver. His lecture is on the PR of climate science denial. He has some expertise in that area.

There is a concerted documented campaign against science.

Well, he is on the Faculty of Science, shouldn't he be on the Faculty of Propaganda?

[John Drake]

Oh boy, you have a stroke and look what happens to the group.

One hates to wade in on these things, but really, 11 pages and the two "scientific" sources cited (the original NatGeo news blurb and the canadian lecture) are pathetically, woefully, terrbily inadequate pseudo-science puff pieces. NO data, no references, no peer review, no substance. The canadian lecture...balanced?? Not hardly, most of what this guy did was talk about newpaper articles and political polls. That is not science.

One of the first papers published on caribbean coral diseases and die offs was actually written by me. And a colleague who continues to be promenent in the field. That was in the early 1980's and our speculation then was a microorganism, not some specter such as global warming, but something we could demonstrate through observation, analysis and experimentation.

Speculation regarding urchin dies offs is also plausable. But, I suspect there are many reasons. A much simpler and more likely cause is all the &*%@ tourists that come and impact the reefs on a weekly basis.

Fishing has an impact on the reef. What do you think the abrasion of all that monofiliment does to that single cell layer of coral, on living rock? And not just the lines from people fishing, but all the gobs of monofiliment that accumulate in the oceans and onto the reefs.

If you really want to get into the global warming debate (and I do not care to, it is far too specious a topic)you need to address several questions separately:

Is the earth warming, in some unnatural way?
Is this warming man made?
To what extent is it man made?
Can man do anything about it?

Ahh.... got you with the very first question.

And then after that, the following three questions are conundrums. They cannot be accounted for or adequately calculated given the lack of data. It would take a super computer to do the analysis of all sources (earths position to the sun, solar activity, space weather, geologic activity, volcanic activity, cow and sheep farts, release of methane from the oceans, the pH of the seas), and to date, no one has done this.

The final question is also a conundrum. Since you cannot legislate all man made activity on earth, China, India and all other developing nations exempted themselves under the Kyoto protocol.

But, you should probably stick to the original topic, the dying of coral reefs. There are many impacts on corals and the cumulative effects of all the people who use the reefs is tremendous.

What policies would help prevent further coral degradation: DON'T SAIL, DON'T MOTOR, DON'T DIVE, DON'T FISH, don't run around in your dink, turn OFF your bildge pump, don't eat seafood.

The above would have a much more beneficial impact on corals than trading carbon credits would. And positive results would be observed more quickly.

So, what should be done?

Respectfully

J

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Well, he is on the Faculty of Science, shouldn't he be on the Faculty of Propaganda?

No he is not on the Faculty of Science at the University of Regina.

http://www.uregina.ca/science/files/...%202012-10.pdf

Richard Littlemore | DeSmogBlog

[Lake-Effect]

hey don't go bringing 'science' into this. We've mostly avoided it so far.

Originally Posted by John Drake

If you really want to get into the global warming debate (and I do not care to, it is far too specious a topic)you need to address several questions separately:

Is the earth warming, in some unnatural way?
Is this warming man made?
To what extent is it man made?
Can man do anything about it?

Ahh.... got you with the very first question.

The same set of misdirecting questions.

The climate change debate centers on what climate scientists are projecting is likely to happen, and their assertion that their projection is so far holding true... although it can also be argued this early on we are still within a normal variance of an unaffected climate cycle, given that we don't know everything.

The urgency about "now" is that if we just sit back, make no adaptations and see who's right, it will truly be too late to make any helpful change. many say we've already crossed that line.

And ONCE AGAIN - the things we could be doing to reduce our affect on climate are also good things to do for a host of other reasons. Such as not using up all the oil as quickly as possible so that maybe there will be a little bit for the grandkids or greatgrandkids.

But, you should probably stick to the original topic, the dying of coral reefs. There are many impacts on corals and the cumulative effects of all the people who use the reefs is tremendous.

What policies would help prevent further coral degradation: DON'T SAIL, DON'T MOTOR, DON'T DIVE, DON'T FISH, don't run around in your dink, turn OFF your bildge pump, don't eat seafood.

If this was totally the case, then protected, or hard-to-access reefs would be doing just fine, wouldn't they? Except they're not.