Great Barrier Reef: not really dying? - Page 8

MCary · 04/14/2006, 01:42 PM

Reeformadness,

No one disagrees that surface temps fuel hurricanes. That point is elementary. The disagreement is that these high surface temps are related to global warming. Hurricane scientists say that they are cyclical and have historical data to back it up. That we are in a cycle simliar to the heat wave of the late 30's early 40's. And that we are at the peak of that cycle and that hurricanes in the coming years, maybe even starting next year will be of less intensity and more likely to hit the east coast than the gulf. I remember clearly during Katrina when a reporter, interviewing the man from the national hurricane center, tryed to make a global warming link. The scientist quickly stated that it was cyclical and did not have a global warming link.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real" scientist. I have 3 bachelors in molecular biology, biology, and microbiology and a masters in chemistry. Am I a "real" scientist. And if not, what are the dues, I might want to join. I promise not to give away the secret handshake.

Mike

reeformadness · 04/14/2006, 01:57 PM

And you obviously know the LC doesn't move because you are an oceanographer right. C'mon don't throw false info out there buddy. If your a former NOAA meteorologist like you say you are then why don't you know that IT MOVES. The current moves north and south in the Gulf. It also occasionally sheds warm-core rings which will shed at a period of 7-14 months. The LC is what I study buddy.

twon8 · 04/14/2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MCary
Jent,

The problem I have with your graph of global temps, is that when I look for data I get this:

Now of course this is just USA temps and yours was global temps,

i have to point out that this is a graph of temperatures in september of each year and their variation against the entire period 1895-1998. a bit to spefic for my tastes, and completely worthless imo.

reeformadness · 04/14/2006, 02:12 PM

I am not suggesting that temps aren't cyclical...I expect that we will see a decrease in the future. Its that the peaks of these cycles have been and will be getting higher from what we know about it from science. Another interesting fact is that naturally the earth goes through "regime shifts". These are not gradual warming but rather quick (decades scale) shifts in temp(up or down). We could be in an ice age in 100 years for all I know. You can never predict the future. You can only give your best guess. Most scientists best guesses are that temperature estimates will be rising as long as CO2 is. The theory behind it is sound. Why wouldn't CO2 be increasing. A good volcano or meteor hitting the earth could change everything though. Not only are there historical time-temp series available but also time_CO2 series.

MCary · 04/14/2006, 02:37 PM

Okay fair enough. But since I have someone's ear whose knowledgable on the subject and not someone whose opinion is based on a favorite actor who happen to have read al gore's book. Let me ask this. Better than 85% of CO2 emmissions are from bio-mass and other narural phenomenon. Right? Human contribution is less that 15% true??? CO2 concentrations have risen by 82% since 1940. So the concentration is cumulative. How much could it feasibly be possible to reduce the human input? Could we quit using our SUV's and reduce it by half? Let's be optomistic and say yes. Us humans will reduce CO2 emmisions by 1/2. To say 7.5% of all CO2 is due to humans. Lets say the global temp is X degrees and the point of no return, death to us all is X+3. And lets say the predicted date of X+3 was 2050 but we reduced by half so what is the new target date? I would say 2053, sounds about right, true? So we have destroyed at least 2 industries, oil and automobiles, the economies of at least half the nations, and diverted resources from other valuable projects (poverty, roads and bridges, medicines) for an extra 3 years?

I think this type of critical thinking needs to be done by those in position to effect policy. We cannot allow people to label some issues as moral or right and therefore quash all debate about them. Environmentalism is one of those issues.

Mike

Weatherman · 04/14/2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reeformadness
And you obviously know the LC doesn't move because you are an oceanographer right. C'mon don't throw false info out there buddy. If your a former NOAA meteorologist like you say you are then why don't you know that IT MOVES. The current moves north and south in the Gulf. It also occasionally sheds warm-core rings which will shed at a period of 7-14 months. The LC is what I study buddy.

It moves in the same sense that any ocean current moves. But it is a persistent feature. It never disappears.

reeformadness · 04/14/2006, 02:52 PM

I agree...but perhaps my bias only hears those that say global warming "isn't happening". It raises a flag for me to somebody that is biased the other way...the only difference is that my bias is based on science and often those that dispute global warming are highly ignorant of the subject. It scares me that the media sometimes discounts global warming scientists as doomsdayers and the such. i agree much is to be learned and the debate must go on. I just think its time we acknowledge the global warming and question what are the causes. Are humans partly responsible....or is it totally out of our hands? An impossible task, granted. But important. IF the world's temps continue to increase, the effects WILL be felt. However, human extinction I don't feel is near. We are TOO good at surviving.

wetWolger · 04/14/2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MCary
Jent,

The problem I have with your graph of global temps, is that when I look for data I get this:

I would like to respond to a lot of things said. But unfortantly I need to go to class in 1min. If you look back I said that climate change will mostly effect night time tempratures and winter tempratures. And that graph does not appear to be ether.

Also it says "estimated surface temprature anomalies" So I am not sure what that means. I was going to look it up but unfrotantly I don't have time. I will respond more later.

wetWolger · 04/14/2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reeformadness
It raises a flag for me to somebody that is biased the other way...the only difference is that my bias is based on science and often those that dispute global warming are highly ignorant of the subject.

Boy aint that the truth. Considering most people don't understand how the Green house effect really works, or that H2O is the largest GHG. I have heared things as crazy as people thinking there is a shield around the earth made of CO2. And that heat is bouncing between the surface and the shield. Kinda funny. But you can't disprove a statment because a large amount of followers are retarted. It is there fault they wanted to take sides on what I call a sexy subject they knew nothing about. But you can't blame the subject itself.

Anyways, off to class I go.

MCary · 04/14/2006, 03:20 PM

"estimated surface temprature anomalies" All the temperatures collected were averaged to establish a mean. then each year was bar graphed to show the actual temperature above or below that mean.

Jent, you are correct. 95% of all the green house effect is from water vapor.

And since we're talking about the green house effect and how it is possibly bleaching the corals. I run into another concern where the theories predictions are not following the hypothesis. The idea of the green house effect is that heat radiating from the surface is trapped in the upper atmosphere by water vapor, CO2, methane and numerous lesser gases and is not allowed to escape into space therefore warming the planet. Following this reasoning the Earth should warm from the upper atmosphere downward. Yet NASA has not been able to document this happening with its satalites designed for this purpose. yet we have reports of high surface temps all the time, including ocean temps responsible for strong hurricanes and supposedly coral bleaching. Since it does not follow logically that this is due to the green house effect, and since the green house effect is the foundation of GLobal Warming, can we say that recent high surface temps and global warming are unrelated?

Mike

"It scares me that the media sometimes discounts global warming scientists as doomsdayers and the such"

You've got to be kidding. Media is signed on lock stock and barrel. Anyone presenting an alternate idea on this subject is roundly ridiculed. This is the flavor of the day. Dissention is not tolerated. You sound like those southern evangelist claiming Christians are being oppressed. Yeah, they're down to 85% of the American population. We better stay vigilant.

Nabber86 · 04/14/2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reeformadness
I agree...but perhaps my bias only hears those that say global warming "isn't happening". It raises a flag for me to somebody that is biased the other way...the only difference is that my bias is based on science and often those that dispute global warming are highly ignorant of the subject. It scares me that the media sometimes discounts global warming scientists as doomsdayers and the such. i agree much is to be learned and the debate must go on. I just think its time we acknowledge the global warming and question what are the causes. Are humans partly responsible....or is it totally out of our hands? An impossible task, granted. But important. IF the world's temps continue to increase, the effects WILL be felt. However, human extinction I don't feel is near. We are TOO good at surviving.

What kills me about the whole debate is as soon as I say that I am not sure how much Global Warming is caused by man, people take it to mean that I dont believe that global warming is happening at all. I agree that the earth is warming. It has been since the end of the last ice age. Then when I ask the person to prove that the earth is warming (preferably with something other than a colorful map depicting a temperture increase with respect to time from an unknown data set), they think that I do not understand the concept and try to teach me about global warming with all of the doomsday spins and slants. That's where my red flag goes up.

It is easy to gloss over the science and debate the possible effects of global warming because it is 100 percent speculation and it cant be proved. All you have to do to arm yourself is pick up a couple of recent popular magazine articals and you are an undefeatable expert.

reeformadness · 04/14/2006, 03:28 PM

One thing to keep in mind is that the higher the ocean temp...the less CO2 that it can dissolve...thus temp goes up and it releases CO2 into the atmosphere

Nabber86 · 04/14/2006, 05:02 PM

Well people, it has been a long week. Maybe it is time for a little self reflection . What did you do to save the environment this week?

Let's see, this week I:

Submitted a 90 percent design pacakge for the installation of a groundwater interceptor system at a Dept. of Defense facility. The project will remove 30,000 gallons per day of solvent contaminated groundwater (primarily trichloethylene) from a potential groundwater source. The water will be treated with UV and carbon and then discharged to the local POTW.

I also finished a report of an investigation that delineated the extent of a nitrate plume in the groundwater beneath a large beef packing plant in Kansas. We are looking at using phytoremediation to remove the nitrogen load from the groundwater.

Then I was awarded a contract to install a vapor extraction system to remove chlorinated solvents (TCE) from a groundwater plume that is 2 miles in length and located beneath the City of Wichita.

What did any of you do to cleanup the planet??

Anyway, I am loading the family and dog into the SUV and heading to the lake this weekend. Then I am gonna burn up several more gallons of fossil fuel zooming around the lake on a jet ski. All I can say is thank God for global warming because we hit a new record high today and wake-boarding season is going to start early!

Have Fun!

MCary · 04/14/2006, 06:31 PM

Dude, Good on ya!

Let's see. I walked to work all week and didn't drive my Ford Exploder Sport Trac. Of course I live across the street from work. Oh yeah, I abstained from flatulance producing foods. But that was more cause I was sick. But its actions not their motivations that count right?

Nabber86 · 04/14/2006, 09:22 PM

Wow! The silence is deafening. I would have thought that somebody did something good for the environment this week.

(posting from a WiFi network in a boat by a cove. Oh, I just caught a crappie. Got to go nowÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.)

twon8 · 04/14/2006, 09:47 PM

like they have wifi in kansas.

wetWolger · 04/14/2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nabber86
Well people, it has been a long week. Maybe it is time for a little self reflection . What did you do to save the environment this week?

Let's see, this week I:

Submitted a 90 percent design pacakge for the installation of a groundwater interceptor system at a Dept. of Defense facility. The project will remove 30,000 gallons per day of solvent contaminated groundwater (primarily trichloethylene) from a potential groundwater source. The water will be treated with UV and carbon and then discharged to the local POTW.

I also finished a report of an investigation that delineated the extent of a nitrate plume in the groundwater beneath a large beef packing plant in Kansas. We are looking at using phytoremediation to remove the nitrogen load from the groundwater.

Then I was awarded a contract to install a vapor extraction system to remove chlorinated solvents (TCE) from a groundwater plume that is 2 miles in length and located beneath the City of Wichita.

What did any of you do to cleanup the planet??

Anyway, I am loading the family and dog into the SUV and heading to the lake this weekend. Then I am gonna burn up several more gallons of fossil fuel zooming around the lake on a jet ski. All I can say is thank God for global warming because we hit a new record high today and wake-boarding season is going to start early!

Have Fun!

Lets not get into this whos penis is larger than whos kind of stuff. I work for the EPA/NFS in air quality every day. But obviously not everyone can do what we do for a living. So it is the small things. Like biking to work, not littering, telling someone not to poor there motor oil down the drain or gutter or something. Everyone just needs to do there part and everything will be okay. Sorry I don't mean to flame you but this is a discusion/debate not a contest.

04/14/2006, 09:47 PM	#191
twon8 Formally registered membe Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: slightly sw of richmond, va Posts: 5,920	like they have wifi in kansas. __________________ Anthony Richmond Reef Club "and as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention." Not building a wall but making a brick Current Tank Info: 300g DD display, 60g frag tank

04/14/2006, 01:42 PM	#176
MCary Premium Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hardin, Montana Posts: 3,142	Reeformadness, No one disagrees that surface temps fuel hurricanes. That point is elementary. The disagreement is that these high surface temps are related to global warming. Hurricane scientists say that they are cyclical and have historical data to back it up. That we are in a cycle simliar to the heat wave of the late 30's early 40's. And that we are at the peak of that cycle and that hurricanes in the coming years, maybe even starting next year will be of less intensity and more likely to hit the east coast than the gulf. I remember clearly during Katrina when a reporter, interviewing the man from the national hurricane center, tryed to make a global warming link. The scientist quickly stated that it was cyclical and did not have a global warming link. I'm not sure what you mean by "real" scientist. I have 3 bachelors in molecular biology, biology, and microbiology and a masters in chemistry. Am I a "real" scientist. And if not, what are the dues, I might want to join. I promise not to give away the secret handshake. Mike

04/14/2006, 01:57 PM	#177
reeformadness Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 650	And you obviously know the LC doesn't move because you are an oceanographer right. C'mon don't throw false info out there buddy. If your a former NOAA meteorologist like you say you are then why don't you know that IT MOVES. The current moves north and south in the Gulf. It also occasionally sheds warm-core rings which will shed at a period of 7-14 months. The LC is what I study buddy.

04/14/2006, 02:12 PM	#179
reeformadness Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 650	I am not suggesting that temps aren't cyclical...I expect that we will see a decrease in the future. Its that the peaks of these cycles have been and will be getting higher from what we know about it from science. Another interesting fact is that naturally the earth goes through "regime shifts". These are not gradual warming but rather quick (decades scale) shifts in temp(up or down). We could be in an ice age in 100 years for all I know. You can never predict the future. You can only give your best guess. Most scientists best guesses are that temperature estimates will be rising as long as CO2 is. The theory behind it is sound. Why wouldn't CO2 be increasing. A good volcano or meteor hitting the earth could change everything though. Not only are there historical time-temp series available but also time_CO2 series.

04/14/2006, 02:37 PM	#180
MCary Premium Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hardin, Montana Posts: 3,142	Okay fair enough. But since I have someone's ear whose knowledgable on the subject and not someone whose opinion is based on a favorite actor who happen to have read al gore's book. Let me ask this. Better than 85% of CO2 emmissions are from bio-mass and other narural phenomenon. Right? Human contribution is less that 15% true??? CO2 concentrations have risen by 82% since 1940. So the concentration is cumulative. How much could it feasibly be possible to reduce the human input? Could we quit using our SUV's and reduce it by half? Let's be optomistic and say yes. Us humans will reduce CO2 emmisions by 1/2. To say 7.5% of all CO2 is due to humans. Lets say the global temp is X degrees and the point of no return, death to us all is X+3. And lets say the predicted date of X+3 was 2050 but we reduced by half so what is the new target date? I would say 2053, sounds about right, true? So we have destroyed at least 2 industries, oil and automobiles, the economies of at least half the nations, and diverted resources from other valuable projects (poverty, roads and bridges, medicines) for an extra 3 years? I think this type of critical thinking needs to be done by those in position to effect policy. We cannot allow people to label some issues as moral or right and therefore quash all debate about them. Environmentalism is one of those issues. Mike

04/14/2006, 02:52 PM	#182
reeformadness Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 650	I agree...but perhaps my bias only hears those that say global warming "isn't happening". It raises a flag for me to somebody that is biased the other way...the only difference is that my bias is based on science and often those that dispute global warming are highly ignorant of the subject. It scares me that the media sometimes discounts global warming scientists as doomsdayers and the such. i agree much is to be learned and the debate must go on. I just think its time we acknowledge the global warming and question what are the causes. Are humans partly responsible....or is it totally out of our hands? An impossible task, granted. But important. IF the world's temps continue to increase, the effects WILL be felt. However, human extinction I don't feel is near. We are TOO good at surviving.

04/14/2006, 03:20 PM	#185
MCary Premium Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hardin, Montana Posts: 3,142	"estimated surface temprature anomalies" All the temperatures collected were averaged to establish a mean. then each year was bar graphed to show the actual temperature above or below that mean. Jent, you are correct. 95% of all the green house effect is from water vapor. And since we're talking about the green house effect and how it is possibly bleaching the corals. I run into another concern where the theories predictions are not following the hypothesis. The idea of the green house effect is that heat radiating from the surface is trapped in the upper atmosphere by water vapor, CO2, methane and numerous lesser gases and is not allowed to escape into space therefore warming the planet. Following this reasoning the Earth should warm from the upper atmosphere downward. Yet NASA has not been able to document this happening with its satalites designed for this purpose. yet we have reports of high surface temps all the time, including ocean temps responsible for strong hurricanes and supposedly coral bleaching. Since it does not follow logically that this is due to the green house effect, and since the green house effect is the foundation of GLobal Warming, can we say that recent high surface temps and global warming are unrelated? Mike "It scares me that the media sometimes discounts global warming scientists as doomsdayers and the such" You've got to be kidding. Media is signed on lock stock and barrel. Anyone presenting an alternate idea on this subject is roundly ridiculed. This is the flavor of the day. Dissention is not tolerated. You sound like those southern evangelist claiming Christians are being oppressed. Yeah, they're down to 85% of the American population. We better stay vigilant.

04/14/2006, 03:28 PM	#187
reeformadness Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 650	One thing to keep in mind is that the higher the ocean temp...the less CO2 that it can dissolve...thus temp goes up and it releases CO2 into the atmosphere

04/14/2006, 05:02 PM	#188
Nabber86 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stalewater Kansas Posts: 408	Well people, it has been a long week. Maybe it is time for a little self reflection . What did you do to save the environment this week? Let's see, this week I: Submitted a 90 percent design pacakge for the installation of a groundwater interceptor system at a Dept. of Defense facility. The project will remove 30,000 gallons per day of solvent contaminated groundwater (primarily trichloethylene) from a potential groundwater source. The water will be treated with UV and carbon and then discharged to the local POTW. I also finished a report of an investigation that delineated the extent of a nitrate plume in the groundwater beneath a large beef packing plant in Kansas. We are looking at using phytoremediation to remove the nitrogen load from the groundwater. Then I was awarded a contract to install a vapor extraction system to remove chlorinated solvents (TCE) from a groundwater plume that is 2 miles in length and located beneath the City of Wichita. What did any of you do to cleanup the planet?? Anyway, I am loading the family and dog into the SUV and heading to the lake this weekend. Then I am gonna burn up several more gallons of fossil fuel zooming around the lake on a jet ski. All I can say is thank God for global warming because we hit a new record high today and wake-boarding season is going to start early! Have Fun!

04/14/2006, 06:31 PM	#189
MCary Premium Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hardin, Montana Posts: 3,142	Dude, Good on ya! Let's see. I walked to work all week and didn't drive my Ford Exploder Sport Trac. Of course I live across the street from work. Oh yeah, I abstained from flatulance producing foods. But that was more cause I was sick. But its actions not their motivations that count right?

04/14/2006, 09:22 PM	#190
Nabber86 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stalewater Kansas Posts: 408	Wow! The silence is deafening. I would have thought that somebody did something good for the environment this week. (posting from a WiFi network in a boat by a cove. Oh, I just caught a crappie. Got to go nowÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.)