Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by ReefBuddha
There's some places where you barely get the bait out of the can and the fish just start jumping into the boat it seems. Perhaps more amazing, is when they insist on doing it even when you're not fishing.

You truly are completely clueless. Have fun being an idiot.

[Rosseau]

[ReefBuddha]

(chuckle) indeed. This gets better by the minute. And s/he still doesn't even realize we agree. Priceless[insert MC commercial here]. Yaknow Hipp, if all your miguided hostility could be harnessed for electricity, we might solve the energy crisis right now. Where's the 'eating popcorn' smiley when i need it? Somebody hook it up.

Back on topic though, today's ABC news feature: link

[ReefBuddha]

today's live CNN coverage, expert panel on Larry king - link

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by ReefBuddha
(chuckle) indeed. This gets better by the minute. And s/he still doesn't even realize we agree. Priceless[insert MC commercial here]. Yaknow Hipp, if all your miguided hostility could be harnessed for electricity, we might solve the energy crisis right now. Where's the 'eating popcorn' smiley when i need it? Somebody hook it up.

We agree that GW is real, that isn't what annoys me. It annoys me that you're passive aggressive, insulting, arrogant, and don't even realize it.

[ReefBuddha]

if you say so... I still think if you really understood my posts your hostility would feel rather miguided.

An off-topic thread on some obscure forum for reef geeks is hardly worth the mountain of hostility you've poured into it. I almost feel like I'm watching you court a stomach ulcer. Seems axhausting, I can't imagine. Stress is a killer yaknow...

And as easy as it appears, your buttons really only get pushed if you choose to allow them to be pushed. A mother once said there's always going to be people in the world who rub you the wrong way, but how you react and let them affect you makes all the difference.

Suit yourself though, this was definitely more entertaining than Seinfeld reruns. cya.

[Rosseau]

ReefBuddha, this isn't off topic. This part of the forum is all about this sort of thing... "Reef Geeks" probably have some understanding/appreciation for nature/science so this isn't so far off of the path.

The discussion may have gone a little awry. With the amount of data each of us can counter arguments with we can discuss in this matter for another 1000 pages, easily.

I don't think the criticism should be that we can't understand this and that we can't piece it all together and that we can't do anything about it, rather it should be to note how difficult it is to make a holistic argument or case either for or against global warming and everything in between.

Discussions like this are important.

…but yeah, fruit loops might help us all... the internet isn't always such a great place for arguments. does "bye now" mean we've lost you from this irrelevant thread forever?



I don't have the energy to start any more arguments on here..

[ReefBuddha]

hehe, nope just sayin' bye to another.

I hear ya Ross, really. I'm not saying discussion is not important, and i'm sorry if it came across that way. I was encouraging discussion by creating threads on the subject. But i am trying to maintain a realistic perspective before everyone decides they are just as qualified on the topic as the climate scientists behind these UN reports.

Originally posted by ReefBuddha

Nobody is saying not to question. nobody is saying not to learn. But , imo, we should keep a grounded perspective in the fact that we are not actually climatologists...and we should realize that our opinions are baseless compared to the most learned professionals in the field.

[ReefBuddha]

I am sorry if I came off that way Hippie, and anyone else whom I may have offended. I obviously include myself in the 'reef geeks who are not remotely qualified to challenge UN reports' club , so naturally I'm not offended by the idea. Frankly I find it a bit odd that any reef geek would be ____ enough to think that they have answers that the best minds on the subject missed.

Which brings me to the reason behind my point. The reason I was drilling home the point about being unqualified, is that often there are some less, uh, 'aware' voices who casually claim that this science is a hoax, all hype, or something to that affect. I really didn't mean to suggest that all discussion is pointless, although I can see how it may have seemed that way. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was no value in the discussion that you guys were having, which was very informative. So again, I do apologize.

[awestruck]

Hi everyone, been tagging along again. I'm glad to see that emotions settled down a bit although it's certainly understandable for people to get upset--the entire concept of GW is a frightening. And here's a compliment to all: I'm relieved to hear the emotional responses because at least you care enough to GET EMOTIONAL! But remember, don't kill the messenger Anyway, I have a basic question I would like feedback on: Let's pretend for a minute that GW isn't an issue. However, as a species, how can we possibly justify harming our planet to the point of death? If AIDS and world hunger do not kill everyone, a dead planet surely will.

[samtheman]

What is a dead planet? Or do you mean one without humans? Do bacteria and insects exist? Or do you mean like the moon? No atmosphere and cold.

As for pretending Global Warming isn't a big issue, the latest from the UN says its inevitable and we can't stop it. So why not pretend its not an issue as we have no way to impact or change it.

[Rosseau]

Originally posted by samtheman
What is a dead planet? Or do you mean one without humans? Do bacteria and insects exist? Or do you mean like the moon? No atmosphere and cold.

As for pretending Global Warming isn't a big issue, the latest from the UN says its inevitable and we can't stop it. So why not pretend its not an issue as we have no way to impact or change it.

We can't "stop" a lot of these things from happening, however we can affect to some degree their severity and direction... I think it's dangerous to think any differently.

Climate change acts steadily however in the past we do see times where rapid change occurs.. meaning there likely are "tipping points" if you will, at which the system can "flip" or change very drastically. To the point where we wouldn't even recognize it. So, reaching these threshold points may be inevitable, but I'm not convinced that humans can't affect how soon they are reached. The more prepared we are when this happens the better off we will be.

[Rosseau]

Regardless of climate change we can't forget the benefits of clean breathing air and healthy ecosystems, which we certainly do affect in a big way.

[MCary]

Although maybe not quite as stong, I do agree with Hippie in pinciple that people should get as deep of an understanding as they can with any issue the choose to advocate. I am tired of hearing the "catch phrases" being parroted back to me by people who have proxied their thinking. When someone says "A consensus of scientists" and I ask, "Name one?" they should be able to name at least one or the name of an organization at least.

Anyway, the reason I posted was to ask Hippie a question. You said that the US was a CO2 sink. I believe that it is due to the foilage right? I am curious why planting trees is not more predominantly mentioned as a way to reduce CO2. Any thoughts on this? Should it be? Would it work?

Mike

[ReefBuddha]

When someone says "A consensus of scientists" and I ask, "Name one?" they should be able to name at least one or the name of an organization at least.

(chuckle)Sounds meaningless, imo. Anyone can google a name, so be my guest. There are plenty of climate scientists from around the world backing the UN report. Just go to the sites for the UN, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, or Stanford etc. science departments and no doubt there's a list.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by MCary
Although maybe not quite as stong, I do agree with Hippie in pinciple that people should get as deep of an understanding as they can with any issue the choose to advocate. I am tired of hearing the "catch phrases" being parroted back to me by people who have proxied their thinking. When someone says "A consensus of scientists" and I ask, "Name one?" they should be able to name at least one or the name of an organization at least.

Anyway, the reason I posted was to ask Hippie a question. You said that the US was a CO2 sink. I believe that it is due to the foilage right? I am curious why planting trees is not more predominantly mentioned as a way to reduce CO2. Any thoughts on this? Should it be? Would it work?

Mike

Yup, growing vegetation sequesters CO2. There are many organizations that promote planting trees to reduce CO2, but it's overshadowed by the push to reduce emissions. The reason is that planting trees doesn't just sequester CO2, it also alters solar radiation dynamics. In the lower latitudes (tropical rainforests) the trees absorb CO2, but they also reflect sunlight because of the clouds they create (because of the water released through respiration). In the middle to high latitudes, cloud formation isn't as prominent, so the dark green leaves absorb sunlight and actually raise local temperatures slightly. I don't think middle to high latitude trees have a net global warming effect, it's more of a wash. However, like I said, lower latitude forests are very important for mitigating GW, not to mention the enormous biodiversity wealth.

Here's a good paper:
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/corvallis/m...arland2003.pdf

[Rosseau]

In regards to tree's being good CO2 sinks, and planting of forests... The way we cut them down is important. Clearcutting isn't really a natural distrubance so forests have a hard time growing back. By using cutting methods modelled after natural disturbances (i.e. forest fires) we can obtain wood and keep our forests.

Just a thought.

[DgenR8]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
You truly are completely clueless. Have fun being an idiot.

'Ya see here, this is a perfect example of a personal attack. It's not okay here, and if it is now, or becomes a pattern in your posts, you will lose the ability to post here.

[flamealert]

[MCary]

Confucious says, if you allow someone to make you angry, you have already lost the argument. Or was that Carrot-top?

[ReefBuddha]

I think it was Toomy Chong.

LINK to this article. Interesting comments after the article. And on Digg too.

As the fervor over global warming continues to permeate the discussions of politicians and the media alike, I’ve noticed a stock set of anecdotal arguments from those who choose to remain unconvinced of anthropogenic global warming. A lot of their arguments remind me of the arguments of those who believe NASA faked the moon landings: “Well, in their pictures you don’t see the stars, so it must have been done in a studio.” Um, have you ever tried taking a picture of the night sky? How many stars do you see? But I digress...

While RealClimate has a solid collection of responses to common contrarian arguments, I have yet to see a concise, simple document targeted at the average reader for debunking the global warming denier crowd. NASA has hardly bothered to produce a response to moon landing deniers, finding it impossible to do so with a straight face at the preposterousness of the claims. Given the gravity of global warming, we similarly must respond seriously to the denialists even if it pains your face to keep from laughing in theirs.

This is my collection of rebuttals for the most prominent arguments put forth by the folks who deny anthropogenic climate change.

1. Mars is undergoing global warming, therefore humans can not be causing it on Earth.

No. Mars is not undergoing global warming. The Mars Global Surveyor detected a decrease in the mass of the South Polar Cap between 1999 and 2005. First, this is a regional (not global) warming localized to the south pole of mars. There is no similar data for any corresponding temperature change at either the north pole or any other part of Mars. Secondly, since a Martian year is 687 days, this represents only 3 data points, which does not equate to the long-term trend we see on Earth. (Indeed, we see dramatic peaks and valleys in the yearly temperature data on Earth.) Lastly, research has shown that Mars’ climate is far more volatile than our own, and is quite sensitive to changes in dust storm activity and orbital variations. If most of the planets and moons in the solar system were exhibiting warming trends, that would be a valid point for argument.

2. Volcanoes release much more carbon dioxide than humans.

No. Volcanic activity is 0.02 to 0.05 Giga-tons/year. [Note: 1 Peta-gram (PgC) = 1 Gigaton (Gt)] Humans produce 8 Gt/yr (and climbing). Volcanoes elicit a far more dominating cooling effect due to atmospheric dispersal of particulates and sulfur dioxide. In addition, there has been no recent increase in volcanic activity – and the volcanic activity we have seen has actually slowed global warming.

3. The Earth (and its carbon cycle) is too big for humans to affect it.

While the Earth exchanges a great deal of carbon between the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and biosphere, it is the net balance which is of greatest concern to us. Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year. During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. As mentioned above, we currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere.

4. The sea level has not changed.

Yes, it has. Since 1900, sea level has risen by about 35 cm (13.8 inches). This change in sea level is accelerating.

5. Scientists predicted imminent global cooling in the 1970s.

No, they did not. Some magazines reported it as such, but scientists understood that their preliminary, localized, and uncertain measurements could not be extrapolated to either the world or a long-term trend. They did indicate that the potential for an ice age in the next 20,000 years was possible, but they made no predictions. Climate science has advanced tremendously in the intervening years, as has the data, and the conclusions for our climate are far more certain.

6. Scientists get paid big bucks to skew their data to indicate global warming.

No, they don’t. There is little commercial funding available for research designed to support global warming. It is far more lucrative to produce research denying global warming. With little exception, funding for climate research is provided by governments, which do not attach conditions to the results of the research (OK…maybe some conditions).
Logically, of course, it doesn’t make sense that corporations or governments would want to fund skewed studies that indicate their entire way of living is threatening the planet. And with tens of thousands of scientists producing research indicating human-induced global warming, the task to compromise the ethics of so many esteemed professionals would be, to say the least, challenging.

7. Variations in solar output cause global warming

While global warming could not occur without solar influx, the sun’s output has been relatively stable for as long as we’ve studied it, and has in fact been declining in recent years. Solar variability plays a very small role, if any, in global warming.

8. All temperature data is suspect due to the urban heat island effect.

That argument might be valid if all measurements were taken in the heart of cities. But they aren’t. Thermometers in the middle of the arctic, in barren deserts, in the middle of oceans, on top of mountains, and deep in the wilderness all agree on a global temperature rise. Unless you believe that the urban heat island effect can affect satellites, this claim is clearly wrong.

9. Because it snowed a great deal and got very cold in some areas, global warming is not happening.

First, increased precipitation is predicted by global warming. Increased snowfall events are further evidence of global warming, not proof against it. Second, regional temperature variations occur. It is the global average temperature which is of greatest concern. And third, temperatures vary. Even record cold global temperatures for an entire year would not be out of step with global warming. Global warming is about the long-term average trend.

10. It is not possible to distinguish the effects of human activities from natural processes with regard to CO2.

That is not true. We know how much CO2 is produced from burning a barrel of oil and we know how many barrels of oil we use. Similarly, we know how much CO2 certain types of plants absorb and we have solid estimates for how many of each type of plant exist. The same goes for volcanoes, the ocean, and the soil. It is a matter of collecting this data, which is the task undertaken by hundreds of scientists. Estimates vary, but they all agree on one point -- humans are causing global warming.

[MCary]

Wow, now I feel insulted. Swing and a miss Buddha. "No its not", "This is not true", "No they don't". I'm sorry, what make this guy such a genius that he can make these statements? He hasn't even picked the most common rebuttals, he just chose some he could argue against the easiest. Plus he even starts out insulting the skeptics by suggesting that they are whack jobs, insinuating that the advocates somehow have a monopoly on clear thinking. How many pro global warming advocates, with Jessica Simpson intelligence, example Bill Mahr from HBO. make stupid, uneducated statements like, "It's hot outside, any idiot can tell there's global warming!" Let's ignore the fact that New York is having its coldest Winter in 2 years. As we should, because anedotal local weather evidence is meaningless.

Listen, Global Warming theory may be exactly whats happening. But to say that skeptics do not have a legitamate point of view on this subject is just plain wrong. Demonizing and insulting those that disagree just drives this point of view underground, which ensures that it is never heard. This is indoctrination, not education.

Mike

[Rosseau]

I get to listen to David Suzuki lecture this week. Lucky me. He's a guy who knows exactly where it is at. Look him up if you don't know him.

[ReefBuddha]

Great man. You're lucky Ross!

Mike, lol, are we having a conversation I'm not part of? I wasn't insulting or 'swinging' so I don't even know how I could 'miss', lol. All I did was cut and paste a blurb from an article if anyone was interested. If you feel like responding to the author, then I suggest that's who you should contact. Sorry.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by ReefBuddha
I am sorry if I came off that way Hippie, and anyone else whom I may have offended. I obviously include myself in the 'reef geeks who are not remotely qualified to challenge UN reports' club , so naturally I'm not offended by the idea. Frankly I find it a bit odd that any reef geek would be ____ enough to think that they have answers that the best minds on the subject missed.

Which brings me to the reason behind my point. The reason I was drilling home the point about being unqualified, is that often there are some less, uh, 'aware' voices who casually claim that this science is a hoax, all hype, or something to that affect. I really didn't mean to suggest that all discussion is pointless, although I can see how it may have seemed that way. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was no value in the discussion that you guys were having, which was very informative. So again, I do apologize.

Thanks for apologizing, and I'm sorry about some of my previous posts. FWIW though, none of us are trying to come off as being "qualified experts", but there are still many valid questions out there, and it doesn't take an expert to ask them. Also, just because you include yourself in an insult (i.e. "stupid fish geek"), it doesn't make it any less insulting to others. You may be ok with it, but I try to keep my self-hate to a minimum

Originally posted by DgenR8
'Ya see here, this is a perfect example of a personal attack. It's not okay here, and if it is now, or becomes a pattern in your posts, you will lose the ability to post here.

I figured that comment would get me in trouble. Some obvious frustration was showing through. Sorry.

Originally posted by MCary
Confucious says, if you allow someone to make you angry, you have already lost the argument. Or was that Carrot-top?

I must be a pushover then. I'm a patient and non violent person, but I definitely have my buttons.

[ReefBuddha]

None of us are trying to come off as being "qualified experts", but there are still many valid questions out there, and it doesn't take an expert to ask them.

I agree, but I also suspect it often takes an expert to answer them sufficently.

I am sorry if you were offended by my use of the term 'reef geek' but I was under the impression that it merely refers to someone who's an avid reefkeeper.

I try to avoid the term 'stupid' myself. I merely said if by 'stupid' you meant we're uninformed and under qualified. By definition, I think relative 'ignorance' is a more appropriate term. And that is not an insult to reef geeks either, it just means that in relation to hundreds of climatologists, we're all unaware, uninformed, and lacking specific knowledge on climatology. I doubt that is much of a leap of logic.

no worries.