|
|
|
|
#1
11/04/2006, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Australia using sun shades to save the coral reef
I read this article on Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061103...e_061103192835 The idea is to save coral reefs by using giant sunshades. It sounds far fetched, but I was confused because it seems like they would be addressing the wrong problem. Despite some obvious practical issues, it sounds like a lot of effort is being spent on this. They probably know what they are doing-- at least in theory-- so I guess I don't have the science right. I guess I am confused how global warming was causing the death of the coral reefs. I have read two different arguments: 1. Zooanthelae can't tolerate higher temperatures for long. The warmer water is causing zooanthelae to die, causing the corals to bleach. I even read an article (can't find it) stating new strains fo zooanthelae that could adapt to warmer water might in fact help save the coral reefs 2. Global warming is affecting the cycles of el nino and el nina-- warmer water carries with it less nutrients, which is causing the corals to starve to death. Maybe someone can help elighten me  Either way, I don't see how a sun shade would help. They can't shade enough area in order to change the water temperature... it sounds like they feel that UV radiation is contributing to the problems caused by global warming somehow... I figure aquarists would be a good group to ask how/if too much UV can kill off corals
|
|
#2
11/04/2006, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Certain research has shown that a combination of strong light and high temp makes bleaching more likely.
__________________
Sk8r "Make haste slowly." ---Augustus. "If anything CAN go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible moment."---St. Murphy. |
|
#3
11/10/2006, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Zealand and Australia area is where there is a hole in the ozone. Shading will help with extreme UV.
|
|
#4
11/19/2006, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmm maybe I'm being too simplistic about this but doesn't that eliminate also the factor of adaptation?
The two factors causing the bleaching combined could be catastrophic in the short term but removing the animals ability to change it's growth regiment by adapting to it's environment could be equally harmful in the long run? Since the likelihood of the reduction of ozone holes are not going to change very soon (USA isn't helping at all) this could be fruitless? I don't mean to be un-optimistic but it seems as though anytime we (humans) try to help in the realm of the ocean we often don't seem to make much, if any good impact. |
|
#5
12/09/2006, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
you dont know anything about the world if you think we dont help if you dont mind could you go KICK ROCKS. i cant stand when people try to blame international pollution on the U.S. you have no idea |
|
#6
12/10/2006, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#7
12/12/2006, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The whole issue of the decline of the reefs, specifically in Australia, is confusing.
Typically, you will hear that the corals' decline is due to the high temparatures caused by global warming (directly or indirectly), which is very different issue from the hole in the ozone... now it sounds like what people are saying is that the hole in the ozone is contributing to problems with the corals in the Great Barrier Reef. Maybe that is true, but the 'sun shades' (which you are saying is used to block the harmful UV) are not going to be effective against the problems caused by global warming. And to me, that sounds like the scientific consensus would agree is the greater issue (in regards to coral decline). As an aside, while the US has made great strides in helping to eliminate CFC which contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, the US is the biggest contributer to CO2 emissions which cause global warming. |
|
#8
12/17/2006, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So what do you guys think? |
|
#9
12/17/2006, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes GSM the U.S. is probably doing more than many underdeveloped nations but we are also putting in more waste overall as well if you want to include all possible chemical combinations. Regardless I'm not going to sit here and be condescending to you and play that game.
The bottom line is the polar ice caps are melting which is fact. Why exactly, is somewhat debateable, but I think we have made a large detrimental impact. Even if it's a cyclical thing with the enviroment how long will it be before our overall pollution catches up and reaches the limitations of the enviroment to repair itself? Inevitably it's going to happen. I'm glad to see that some groups are at least doing something to help but I hope they're cautious enough to look beyond the immediate impact which has been a problem in the past. Ratherbediving made a much better and accurate comment (intelligent) which disproves your go kick rocks theory. |
|
#10
12/18/2006, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Earth has gone through numerous cyclic temerature changes throughout history.
Ever heard of the Ice Age? I, for one, am very glad it didn't stay that temperature forever. Ever heard of Greenland? The Vikings moved there when average air temperatures rose high enough and long enough to support the growth of crops. Guess what? It didn't stay that temperature forever. They started slowly starving to death when temperatures plummeted once again and Greenland became too cold to grow their crops. |
|
#11
12/18/2006, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#12
12/18/2006, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can't see the sun shades helping much. If at all it will only help a very small portion for only a few years. From memory it was a university study that the Aus government took up as a good idea. I don't know how long a sun shade is going to stand up to a cyclone either.
|
|
#13
12/19/2006, 09:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
HippieSmell,
Wow! What an "original" way to show contempt for someone else's stand on a subject! ***yawn**** I guess not having a job gives you plenty of time to come up with real clever comments. Time for a nap, your argument is boring to me, as well. By the way, your username  tells me all I want, or care, to know about you!  
|
|
#14
12/19/2006, 09:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
An Inconvenient Truth: An Inaccurate Depiction of the State of Global Warming Science by Robert C. Balling Jr. (October 13, 2006) Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opened around the country earlier this year. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths: (1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.) (2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming. (3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period). (4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century." (5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming. Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime? "An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth." First appeared in TCS Daily (www.tcsdaily.com). Cartoon by Cox and Forkum. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4806 http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281 |
|
#15
12/19/2006, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#16
12/20/2006, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From your username, I figured you found this sight by accident when doing a search for "reefer"
 The point is I don't want to argue. You presented your side as though it were well documented FACT, when it isn't. That's my point. Scientists have been observing and documenting weather conditions since recorded time. Weather patterns do change, that is fact. Temperatures have risen and fallen, that is documented fact. Oh well, I said I didn't want to argue, so I quit. Happy reefing and have a merry Christmas.-Mike |
|
#17
12/20/2006, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To HUSS your posting was dated over a year ago.
Last week credible scientists from all over the world haave come out and said that it is now a "fact" the polar ice caps are in fact melting. I said nothing about particulars such as not driving cars etc. That's your assumption. The overwhelming evidence at this point is more than proof that bad things are happening that we've not seen before. WHat you would liek to attribute them to is up to you but I can say that our burning of fossil fuels, dumping refined chemicals, etc is having an enviromental impact let alone direct impacts on human life. If you get on the CDC website you'll find my area of the U.S. carries some of the highest concentrations of cancer rates. You may alos find that the industrial build up in our sector of the U.S. over the last 60 + years has been incredible. Believe whatever you want and continue to put your head in the sand to real facts but it's more than simply a coincidence. |
|
#18
12/20/2006, 01:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#19
12/20/2006, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
HUSSCDN,
So you've read at least one (biased) article based on one person who made one film about a massive subject. It's a start, but what does your article show? There isn't one "truth" in there that disproves GW, or even seriously challenges it.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#20
12/20/2006, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But as for green house gases, pick any volcanic eruption in the last 100 years. Anyone of them did 1000x more for global warming then 1000 years for what we do on a daily basis. The point of the previous posts articles was not to sway anyone one way or the other but to make a point of how politicians use the environemnt as a tool for votes and in reality could care less about the rainforests or reefs, and that goes for the left and right. Take Hollywood for instance, how many actors life styles show modesty and restraint? limos and private jets anyone? The truth is some where in the middle im sure. If i came off harsh i apoligize. Regardless of political ties i think the one thing we can all agree on is that nature is our most important resource. |
|
#21
12/21/2006, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
HUSSCDN
You bring up some interesting points. However, a few of the things in the article don't ring true to me. For example-- the "Summary for Policymakers" by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was referenced in the article can be found here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf You should take a look at it. The article you quoted used this summary to refute some claims made by Gore. However, the document itself backs up a lot of the claims he says in his book (I haven't seen the movie yet). There will always be confusion and skepticism regarding a subject as complicated as global warming. However, the consensus of scientific opinion is that we are affecting the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is having (and is going to have) dramatic effects on the earth's climate. The fact that it is going to take a lot of work to make an impact is not reason for us to do nothing, it should provide MORE incentive for us to do what we can to cut global emissions. I hear a lot about how much the developing world will contribute to Greenhouse emissions. Even projecting to 2025, China and India COMBINED (they have over a billion people each) will produce less greenhouse gases than we do: http://www.net.org/warming/docs/tech..._emissions.pdf Finally-- you said "But as for green house gases, pick any volcanic eruption in the last 100 years. Anyone of them did 1000x more for global warming then 1000 years for what we do on a daily basis." That is ridiculous. The US alone is producing almost 6 billion metric tons of CO2 every year (see link above). Where are you getting your information from ?!?!? |
|
#22
12/21/2006, 10:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here are a few links that talk about how little we do compared to volcanic eruptions
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volc...e_effects.html THE OZONE, GREENHOUSE, AND HAZE EFFECTS There is considerable debate on the role that humans play in changing global climate through both the burning of fossil fuels and the release of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases. Some argue that human interaction poses less of a threat to our atmosphere than do natural processes, like volcanic eruptions. This places a great deal of importance on understanding the role of volcanic eruptions in affecting global climate change. Whatever the source, it is apparent that compositional changes in the earth's atmosphere generate three principal climatic effects: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0607073223.htm One thing i have found in reading up on this topic is that there are two camps. One says we will end up in an ice age and one says we will end up with warm climate that will flood us out. |
|
#23
12/21/2006, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
In his book, Gore actually addresses the 'Ice Age' reference. I understand that you probably don't trust the source . At any rate, he says this claim came from a research paper; later, the author of the paper actually admitted he was wrong. However, national media picked up the story and repeated it a few hundred times. Gore made it sound like this wasn't something the scientific community as a whole agreed with at all. I can look it up tonight when I get home if you are interested. At any rate it can understate the problems with getting information from the media who often get information from other news stories or the most sensationalistic reports-- not necessarily from the latest, most accepted (and accurate) scientific reports.
|
|
#24
01/12/2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ultimately, the climate has changed thousands of times in earth's history and animals have always adapted. BUT huge (!) extinctions have taken place during times of rapid climate change. If humans want to survive, or at least our society and its economies this needs to be addressed!!!
Sure we won't kill the entire earth right away, we'll just mix it up so much that we won't have a clue what is going on..... we'll have fun with that. It will affect everyone no matter who you are.
__________________
Still fighting entropy. |
|
|
Linear Mode
