Greenhouse emmisions.........are we doomed by 2050
 

Hi guys, I’m from Tasmania - Australia, as you might have heard if emissions rise up to between 450 - 500 and a 2deg temperature rise by 2050......are we doomed? The big question eah!!

[url]http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=336637[/url]

I mean there is plenty we can do as a fellow hobbyist but what can we do as a community to reduce the impact on our reefs?

Are there going to be fewer and fewer of us taking up the hobby, because were not going to be able to take specimens from the ocean for ever? Will the average hobbyist take to fragging specimens? Is it going to become an industry of fragging?

I know in my lifetime im goning to see some dramatic changes in the industry, i know some of you may have already.

Ok here’s the question - where do you see the reef keeping industry in say 10 - 20yrs? The changes i have seen in the last 4 years of reef keeping is incredible let alone 10 - 20! what can we acheive together?

Would love to hear some feedback from some fellow enthusiasts.

Thanks

Ryan

I certainly don't think we're doomed or even that coral reefs will disappear even within the next hundred years. However, given the trend over the past 40 years I expect reefs as we know them today to unrecognizable, and probably not dominated by corals. There's also little doubt in my mind that our lifestyles in general are going to change dramatically. They have to. The current rate of resource use is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, I think that's going to essentially doom the hobby unless we make a lot of changes ourselves, though I'm not sure it will happen within the next 20 years. Legislation severely limiting the collection of livestock is probably coming within that time frame. Either we'll speed up the efforts to close the lifecycle of the animals we keep (which I don't really see happening) or the hobby will have to be content with the limited number of species currently available.

Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.

A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming longer and more intense".

But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.

In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th century.

Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.

The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.

This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst, spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted, but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade.

This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2 degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.

It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate change debate.

Double post

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11401210#post11401210 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate change debate. [/B][/QUOTE]

yes you're right. 2007 is the year that the denial brigade have had nowhere to go.

anyone who still thinks that burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases for the past 150 years has had no effect on the greenhouse effect is clealy quite clealry in denial.

its quiet simple the greenhouse effect is natural,there is a natural amount of these gases in our atmosphere. it acts like a blanket trapping the suns energy and keeping the planet warm. By adding more greenhouse gases it the blanket makes the planet warmer. It really isnt rocket science

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11401210#post11401210 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.

[/B][/QUOTE]

all you guys are worried about is your economy hey. :rolleyes:

stuff all the MILLIONS of people who are feeling the disasterous effects of climate change right now,and will in the near future. just as long as its not happening to you hey.

have you ever thought about the costs to the great US economy when new york goes under the water?

Its proven that it will work out cheaper in the long run to halt global warming than letting it happen. massive food shortages,massive amount of people displaced,more disease. the list goes on. the global economy will be have a massive downturn.

but hey just as long as it doesnt effect you guys..........yet!

The US were booed and heckled by everyone at the climate meetings in Bali,for deliberatly trying to mess things up.

At the moment you guys really are this planets worst enemy. with all your wars and pollution. its a disgrace. hopefully you will vote someone with some brains in next time. and get the toxic texan out.

sorry to rant and get poltical but we must act now. and all your government is doing is trying to scupper plans to save our planet.

All this based on models and regression analysis.

Disappointed though the Post may be in all things Bush Administration, imagine how this malaise could be improved by acknowledging actual comparative performance, figures for which are publicly available. Under any relevant modern baseline, e.g., the year Europe made its Kyoto promise (1997) or thereafter, U.S. emissions have risen far more slowly than those of its noisiest antagonists. For example, International Energy Agency data show that over the past 7 years (2000-2006), the annual rate of increase for U.S. CO2 emissions is approximately one-third of the EU's rate of increase. Indeed, over the same period even the smaller EU-15 economy has increased its CO2 emissions in actual volume greater than the U.S. by more than 20%, even while the U.S. economy and population also grew more rapidly. At minimum the Post can acknowledge performance, before trying to explain it away. In truth, mandates are not everything any more than Europe's rhetoric amounts to policy.

I agreed the EU has done sod all. But they plan to. whether it will be enough and in time is anyones guess. but the EU need the US to reduce emmisions with us,then china and others will follow.

The US is scuppering all the plans,its disgracefull.

.

Sam, the theory of anthropogenic warming was never based on which year was the hottest or when the worst drought occurred. They're nice for illustrating the idea to the public, but taken separately they have no statistical meaning. Again, it's about separating the signal from the noise. Especially hot or dry years are nothing but noise. The shortest period with any significance is 5 year. The climbing temperature is the signal whether it climbs steadily every year or not. Even with McIntyre's corrections the trend is still a statistically significant warming trend. Both of the last 5 year periods have been hotter than the early 30s.

The drought data is also a straw man. Some researchers predict increased rain at high latitudes and reduced rain towards the equator, while others think the frequency of strange weather will increase without an increase in severity. Simply looking at the global rankings of specific weather events can be misleading. Some areas like the Southwest periodically experience severe droughts and due to natural variation some of them are significantly worse than others and rank globally. Meanwhile the current drought in parts of the SE is more severe than anything the region has seen since observations started, but on a global scale it's not that special.

Guys leave politics and the blame game out of this. I realize that it's temping, but it's not allowed on RC and there's plenty to talk about on the issue without getting into it.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11402204#post11402204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191 [/i]
[B]Guys leave politics and the blame game out of this. I realize that it's temping, but it's not allowed on RC and there's plenty to talk about on the issue without getting into it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry.

I'm just gutted about what happend at the Bali talks.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11401845#post11401845 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini [/i]
[B]I agreed the EU has done sod all. But they plan to. whether it will be enough and in time is anyones guess. but the EU need the US to reduce emmisions with us,then china and others will follow.

The US is scuppering all the plans,its disgracefull. [/B][/QUOTE]

We are reducing emissions at a faster rate than the EU. They talk a good plan. Most of the EU won't come close to thier Koyto goals. They were pretty low remember. Why set new and more stringent goals if they aren't making the current ones? Who will police this international effort?

It seems this conversation is beginning to ask the right questions. one being "what is the best method and policy for a global change?".
To spend effort in arguing that the human impact and fossil fuel emissions have no or little effect is a futile effort against a natural coexistence with our surrounding.
There will have to be a global change that starts with one player and migrates to the rest.
Progress will be achieved by all though the efforts of the individual.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11410781#post11410781 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lewismw [/i]
[B]It seems this conversation is beginning to ask the right questions. one being "what is the best method and policy for a global change?".
[/B][/QUOTE]
This seems like an excellent start: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower[/url]

All for about $10 billion, wow. I can only imagine how much better this world would be if we spent even a fraction of what we spend on killing each other and spent it on projects like this instead. I just can't get over how cheap it is. It makes me really optimistic and also makes me want to vomit.

Yeah, that and hot rock technology are great ideas. It doesn't cost much when you think about it. It could probably be started with only a very small percentage of the US defence budget.

LOL. The US defense budget, war, politics, world trade, and/or foreign policy has absolutly nothing to do with GLOBAL WARMING. People seem to be extreamly quick to blame the US for all world problems yet faster still ask for help to swing their domestic problems to their favor. I firmly believe the people that are claiming global warming are simply concerned for ours, theirs, and everyones futures. So what if a few politicians get ahead.
I wonder what is to be gained by claiming there is no global warming? Why kill technology that would make our lives cheaper, better, and eaiser? I also think that sceisntist love for debate among themselves causes a never ending cycle of debate non-resolution. Don't people get upset when they have to pay 3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 dollars/yen/pounds a gallon for fuel/gas/petrol? I theorise that if I were to study the economical/enviromental impact of new cheaper TV/Video/digital/skimmer technology nobody, nobody would be complaining.(Well maybe the skimmer folks)

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11415771#post11415771 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by steven_dean17 [/i]
[B]LOL. The US defense budget, war, politics, world trade, and/or foreign policy has absolutly nothing to do with GLOBAL WARMING. [/B][/QUOTE]
You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding.

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11416601#post11416601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. [/B][/QUOTE]

hahahaha copied and pasted word for word from an article by Bob carter in the telegraph,wait for it........ nearly 2 years ago!

:lol:

True. So how does that change it?

Loads of things have been proven since then.....

I really cant believe you people still cling to your little pieces if misinformation.

That seems like a personal attack to me. Why can't you just address the question? I don't call you names because of what you believe.