Interesting Commentary on Global Warming

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by RichardS
This is the type of prediction that I would think would have GW proponents screaming to switch towards nuclear energy asap. Only 93 years before all this happens? Now that isn't a very long time. Certainly not long enough to develop technology that doesn't exist (like fusion) and switch the world over to it. I'm sorry, I just don't see Los Angeles or New York being powered by windmills and solar panels. If you make cars 50% more efficient but the population increases 50% over the next 50 years well you really haven't reduced anything.

You might be right. It might be better to build a bunch of power plants and hope nothing bad happens until another source of energy is found. I guess I'd rather have a nuclear waste disposal problem that might be solvable rather than a global ecological disaster that we can't reverse.

[wayne in norway]

Only in America .......

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by scottras
Sorry I thought everyone new what alternative energy source are.
Hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, tidal and the best, fusion. There are plenty more that are out there as well. Some of these are very old technologies and some are fairly new. They all have pros and cons. They all need more research spent on them.

Fusion is not a viable alternative. As for the other "alternatives", it is not possible to even close to meeting the worlds needs. Therefore I believe at best they can be called supplemental sources.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Everything in pretty colors is mine. Overall, the article is a weak "argument". Spencer's credentials are good, but his professional connections, which have been brought up, are suspect. Also, with risk of resorting to ad hominem, his rejection of evolution further illustrates his apparent tendency to reject science, and partially explains his stance on GW.

Oh Hippie, you convinced me. I suggest we all form a lobby to place pressure on congress to introduce legislation to make reefkeeping illegal since it contributes the problem (if you wish we can throw in illeglaizing SUVs too). Interested?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by wlagarde
Oh Hippie, you convinced me. I suggest we all form a lobby to place pressure on congress to introduce legislation to make reefkeeping illegal since it contributes the problem (if you wish we can throw in illeglaizing SUVs too). Interested?

Ahhh, here we go again. You never debate me, at best you just resort to sarcasm. I'm waiting for you to resort to petty personal attacks (as if you know me) like you always do.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Ahhh, here we go again. You never debate me, at best you just resort to sarcasm. I'm waiting for you to resort to petty personal attacks (as if you know me) like you always do.

HippieSmell - My comment was made simply to highlight the hypocrisy of the green crowd. They are willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone elses money BUT their own.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by wlagarde
HippieSmell - My comment was made simply to highlight the hypocrisy of the green crowd. They are willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone elses money BUT their own.

Again, let me be clear since this is a difficult concept for you to grasp: you don't know me or what I do, so stop saying that I want to impose my beliefs on everyone but myself. Besides, they're not "beliefs", it's called science. Do you impose health care on your patients?

Besides, how is supporting alternative energy, reduced fossil fuel reliance, carbon limits, etc, hypocritical? Do you think there will be some sort of clause that exempts the "green crowd" if these policies are implemented? Give me a break.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Again, let me be clear since this is a difficult concept for you to grasp: you don't know me or what I do, so stop saying that I want to impose my beliefs on everyone but myself. Besides, they're not "beliefs", it's called science. Do you impose health care on your patients?

Besides, how is supporting alternative energy, reduced fossil fuel reliance, carbon limits, etc, hypocritical? Do you think there will be some sort of clause that exempts the "green crowd" if these policies are implemented? Give me a break.

No, they would like to implement those things that are congruent with their agenda and lifestyle regardless of how it effects others. Now if we start talking about illegalizing reefkeeping...that wouldn't be OK because they like keeping reefs, i.e. it is OK to emit CO2 if reefkeeping is involved but if it is SUVs or their healthcare or their etc it's not OK - Give me a break.

Since this is difficult for you to grasp I will reiterate it: Tthe green crowd is willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their own lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone else's money BUT their own.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by wlagarde
No, they would like to implement those things that are congruent with their agenda and lifestyle regardless of how it effects others. Now if we start talking about illegalizing reefkeeping...that wouldn't be OK because they like keeping reefs, i.e. it is OK to emit CO2 if reefkeeping is involved but if it is SUVs or their healthcare or their etc it's not OK - Give me a break.

Since this is difficult for you to grasp I will reiterate it: Tthe green crowd is willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their own lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone else's money BUT their own.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Everyone knows that the green crowd are the WORST polluters. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for that, not just blind prejudice. And I'm sure that if there was a clean energy source being used, the "greens" wouldn't use it just out of principle. I'm mean, they're all hypocrites, right? The policies that "greens" want implemented will impact them just as much as people like you, so it's not hypocritical. You think that the greens just want to make your life difficult? There is a reason for the way we feel, so it's not simply a lifestyle choice or unfounded agenda.

But, I have a reef, so I guess what I say doesn't mean anything . I hope you never eat saturated fats, drink, smoke, etc. I mean, how could you without being a hypocrite? Get real.

[scottras]

Come on guys, cut the politics out or the thread will be locked just like all the others on climate change.

Re alternative power source, I absolutely agree, all thos power source I mentioned will not power a city nor will they make a large dent in the need for fossil fuels, at least straight away. But they can do in time. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to power source with less environmental impact. I am sure nuclear may be a part of that, but it is too expensive and not clean enough to be the silver bullet. I cant see many developing countries being able to affor nuc power, and even the cost to completely convert to nuc would bankrupt most nations.

Alternative power sources have the advantage of being flexible to the local conditions. If we started adding supplemental power to the grid now then we are reducing the dependency on fossil fuels already.

Greater efficiency will also be reached when there is a demand for it.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
...Do you impose health care on your patients?

No, I don't. However, the democrats ARE attempting to do this.

[HippieSmell]

Why do you always try to divide this argument up into political categories? Is it so you can convince yourself that it's ok to blow off issues that you don't have an argument for? Those comments will get this thread closed, BTW.

The point I was trying to make with the health care comment is that if science determines that a drug is harmful to people but still useful for certain ailments, what do you do? Do you believe that you should give the drug to a patient, or do you do something else? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm just trying to point out the fact that you use your BRAIN, and use the available evidence to make a decision. The same thing can be said for CO2. It has been scientifically shown that too much CO2 is bad for the planet's ecology. But, fossil fuels give us many benefits. What do you do? I choose to find an alternative to fossil fuels, because I believe the science shows that the risks outweigh the benefits, as a whole. It isn't an issue that can be reduced to the simple arguments you give such as "it's just a bunch of liberal hypocrites that want to make our lives miserable".

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Why do you always try to divide this argument up into political categories? Is it so you can convince yourself that it's ok to blow off issues that you don't have an argument for? Those comments will get this thread closed, BTW.

The point I was trying to make with the health care comment is that if science determines that a drug is harmful to people but still useful for certain ailments, what do you do? Do you believe that you should give the drug to a patient, or do you do something else? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm just trying to point out the fact that you use your BRAIN, and use the available evidence to make a decision. The same thing can be said for CO2. It has been scientifically shown that too much CO2 is bad for the planet's ecology. But, fossil fuels give us many benefits. What do you do? I choose to find an alternative to fossil fuels, because I believe the science shows that the risks outweigh the benefits, as a whole. It isn't an issue that can be reduced to the simple arguments you give such as "it's just a bunch of liberal hypocrites that want to make our lives miserable".

Hippie - No who's resorting to personal attacks here? I simply have come to a different conclusion. Science has NOT proven CO2 CAUSES GW. It has simply established a CORRELATION.

Remember, the number one adverse event for almost any drug is headache. Is this because all of these drugs CAUSE headaches? - NO. While SOME drugs do cause headaches others do not. For the drugs that do not cause HAs why is HA listed as an AE? The reason is because HA are common and by chance happened to occur concurrently with administration of these drugs. This does not imply causality. Of course we've been here before and I think it is a moot point to discuss this with you further.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by wlagarde
Hippie - No who's resorting to personal attacks here? I simply have come to a different conclusion. Science has NOT proven CO2 CAUSES GW. It has simply established a CORRELATION.

You're right, we have been here before, and nothing changes. You still believe that climate science needs to be "proven", while we both know that isn't possible and doesn't imply the conclusions are wrong. Your entire field is chock full of scenarios like this, so I find it hard to believe you don't understand it, you just have preconceptions that you refuse to acknowledge. I suggest you read sources covering GW that you don't normally read or agree with. I do it all the time, that's why your arguments frustrate me so much.

[Ninong]

This Winter Was the Warmest on Record Worldwide

WASHINGTON - This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the U.S. government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate.

The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

As for this winter, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

You can read the rest here.

[Ninong]

02/02/2007 -- New American Meteorological Society Statement on Climate Change: Climate is Changing; Humans Play a Role

Despite uncertainties, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, according to a new information statement on climate change adopted by the American Meteorological Society on 1 February 2007.

You can read their full report here.

P.S. -- The reason I searched the AMS website is because Dr. Roy Spencer, the author of the review of An Inconvenient Truth that is the topic of this thread, is a member of the AMS and the recipient in 1996 of an AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."

Dr. Spencer's views on climate change are contrary to the official position statement of the American Meteorological Society. Dr. Spencer is skeptical of the predominant scientific view that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

[Ninong]

How does Dr. Roy Spencer explain his minority views on climate change and evolution, two subjects he has written on extensively?

Dr. Spencer, realizing that his views on evolution and climate change are not shared by the majority of his colleagues in the scientific community, has offered up an unusual faith-based explanation for why he is right and the majority is wrong. In fact, a belief that scientists are influenced by faith is a central theme in Dr. Spencer's writings.

For a scientist, he displays a remarkable lack of understanding of the scientific method as evidenced by his quoted comments in the opening post of this thread: "How can we trust scientists' predictions now?" All truth in science is provisional and subject to revision and change as new information becomes available. You might call it an evolutionary process, which is probably why Dr. Spencer has difficulty grasping the concept.

Dr. Spencer published Let Them Confess Their Faith on 6 February 2004 in which he made the following statement:

"It wasn't long after I became a research scientist that I learned that scientists aren't the unbiased, impartial seekers of truth I always thought they were. Scientists have their own agendas, philosophies, pre-conceived notions, and pet theories. These views end up influencing their science. Nowhere does this have a greater impact on the science than in global warming theory."

We have already discussed Dr. Spencer's faith-based rejection of evolution and, since evolution is not the topic of this thread, I see no reason to explore that topic further except to note that it reveals something about his approach to science in general. Dr. Spencer's defense of his contrarian scientific positions seems to rely on his belief that faith plays an integral part in science and his belief that those who do not share his views are biased and not impartial seekers of the truth.

[Ninong]

As I stated previously, I haven't seen Al Gore's film and I haven't read his book, but I did read the New York Times article that the topic starter linked early in this thread. It is based on misinformation and misleading comparisons provided by the discredited experts the Times' science editor interviewed for his story.

Detailed excerpts of Al Gore's book are available online. For one thing, the article falsely suggested that Gore was endorsing the view of some researchers that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes. In his book Gore said: "There is no scientific consensus linking the absolute number of hurricanes to global warming."

The Times article also set up a false comparison by stating that the IPCC report, which "estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches," was in contrast to Gore's claim, "citing no particular time frame" that seas would rise "up to 20 feet." But the article was comparing apples and oranges. In the book, Gore wrote that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea."

In an earlier post I pointed out that the 23-inch increase in sea levels in the IPCC report is based on volumetric increase in sea level based on increased water temperature alone but I failed to point out why they chose to go with an estimate based on a single criterion. It was because the report had to be endorsed by hundreds of scientists representing many different national governmental agencies and there was insufficient support from some of those governments for publishing the higher estimates that would have included all variables. They may do that in a future report if they can get sufficient political consensus to allow them to report their findings.

P.S. -- It is interesting to note that conservative headline writer, Matt Drudge, had an item on his blog before the Times article was published alerting his readers that "a hit piece against Al Gore's film" was about to appear in the Times. He added a link to the article after it had been published.

The paper that gave us Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, now gives us political "hit pieces" based on misinformation from discredited scientists.

[Ninong]

Rush Limbaugh interviewed Dr. Roy Spencer on 28 February 2007:

Dr. Spencer: The trouble is scientists are human, too, and there's this groupthink amongst climate scientists that global warming has created careers. It brings in money.

Rush: That's the key.

Rush: We know there's been warming and cooling as natural cycles of the Earth. The presumptuousness and the arrogance of people today who think that we, human beings, in the twenty-first century are destroying the planet is something that offends my sensibilities. The vanity that these people have to think we have that kind of power over this massively complex creation is one of the things that I just instinctively use to disbelieve them.

Dr. Spencer: Yeah, I can understand that.

That was towards the end of the conversation after Dr. Spencer had explained his views on climate change.

[Ninong]

The following is the text of a letter sent by Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M, a climate scientist who has been critical of climate models in the past.

Dear Prof. Schroeder:

The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.

The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.

From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.

If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.

Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.

Cordially,

Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar
Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar

P.S. -- Both Prof. Schroeder and Prof. North declined AEI's invitation to participate.

[Cronus]

Al Gore in the whole issue of Global Warming is a joke and certainly not impartial...in fact, he stands to gain quite handsomely financially from man made CO2 being a GW driver.
If he is so concerned about the effect of man made CO2 then why did his mansion in Tennessee use 20 times more electricity than the average American home (nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours)
He raves on about 'carbon credits' and being 'carbon neutral' which is fine for a man who 'buys' his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.,” and for a small fee will invest your money in “high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns.” Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3. So, who is the chairman and founding partner of this company? Al Gore, he could even fund the cost of purchasing his credits with the money he receives from his relationship with Occidental Petroleum...which is handy. The only thing green about Gore is the money he's currently lining his pockets with.
As for the IPCC, they are a politically motivated and biased body that sponsors and funds scientists to come up with the 'right' facts about GW, they have in the past omitted critical parts of their report from the public because they do not sit in line with the whole 'man is killing the planet' hypothesis and although many scientists, some being leaders in their field have stepped down from the IPCC because they do not agree with the reports being made available and being passed off as their work the IPCC continues to list them in reference to their reports...one scientist even took the IPCC to court to force them to remove his name from their report.
For my part i do believe GW is happening and i also believe that we are having A impact but at the moment i cannot agree the we are the sole drivers of GW with our CO2 output and there are far to many factors involved to say it is cast iron either way, i also agree that we should looking a greener methods of production/transport etc but not on the premise that if we don't we will cause catastrophic damage to the planet in ten years.
There is another subject that i would like to see if anyone can confirm who has any relevant knowledge in chemistry or marine biology...one of the major linchpins of the GW debate for man made GW is the fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic and thus no longer playing a major role in the natural uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere as it's becoming saturated, now to my mind if the oceans are indeed becoming measurably more acidic then this has a domino effect of the entire eco system of the ocean...we seem to have a lot of climatologists and oceanologists etc jumping up and down about climate change but surly if the ocean was going through what could be considered a serious ph issue then more marine biologist would be jumping up and down...or are they and i have missed it?

[Ninong]

but surly if the ocean was going through what could be considered a serious ph issue then more marine biologist would be jumping up and down...or are they and i have missed it?

I guess you missed it. The pH of the ocean has dropped from 8.3 to 8.2 over the past century. Most climate models show it dropping to ~7.9 by the end of this century. The Australian Institute of Marine Science predicts that it could drop as low as 7.7 by the end of this century.


From AIMS:

Coral reefs and climate change 2007
(AIMS briefing/position paper)

February 2007

The Great Barrier Reef

"A Reef such a one as I now speak of is a thing scarcely known in Europe or indeed any where but in these seas: it is a wall of Coral rock rising almost perpendicularly out of the unfathomable ocean."

Joseph Banks - August,1770

"We had wheat sheaves, mushrooms, stags horns, cabbage leaves, and a variety of other forms, glowing under water with vivid tints of every shade betwixt green, purple, brown, and white; equalling in beauty and excelling in grandeur the most favourite parterre of the curious florist."

Matthew Flinders - October, 1802

"In among the branches of the corals, like birds among trees, floated many beautiful fish, radiant with metallic greens or crimsons, or fantastically banded with black and yellow stripes."

J. Beete Jukes 1842-46

The scale, biodiversity and beauty of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) continue to astound us hundreds of years after these first written observations. Extending for over 2,000 km along the northeast coast of Australia, the GBR covers 35 million hectares – an area larger than England. Listed as a World Heritage Area (WHA) in 1981, in recognition of its outstanding natural values, the GBRWHA is the largest marine protected area in the world. The GBR is the best-managed and protected coral reef ecosystem in the world. The impact of climate change on coral reefs is receiving ongoing national and international media attention. Consequences for Australia’s coral reefs could be severe despite our significant efforts in protection and management, if key issues are not addressed urgently. The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) maintains the following position on climate change and coral reefs:

What is known

Global climate is changing rapidly due to human activities and will result in continued rising temperatures both on land and in the sea.

Climate change due to the enhanced greenhouse effect has significant consequences for coral reefs. There is a direct link between unusually warm seawater temperature and bleaching of reef-building corals around the world.

Changing ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 may also have serious implications for coral reefs and other marine calcifying organisms and is likely to alter the makeup of marine ecosystems and weaken coral reef structures.

Increased mass bleaching events on the GBR and elsewhere since the mid-1970s are linked to global warming.

Well-protected and well-managed reefs are more resilient to stresses but are not protected from the global-scale effects of rising water temperatures and changing ocean chemistry.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has warmed ~0.4oC since the 19th century (global warming ~0.7oC) and has experienced 2 major coral bleaching events (1998 and 2002).

During the 1998 coral bleaching event 42% of shallow water corals reefs on the GBR bleached and an estimated 2% died that year.

In 2002, the largest event on record, an even greater proportion of the Reef bleached (55%) and an estimated 5% died.

Coral bleaching was again observed in the 2006 summer, particularly in the southern GBR, where local water temperatures reached ~1-2oC above the seasonal average.

Healthy reefs (more ecologically intact and less exploited) recover better from bleaching than highly stressed reefs.

AIMS research is monitoring & modelling ocean climate changes, assessing impacts of climate change for coral reef organisms, identifying potential adaptation mechanisms, and identifying characteristics and locations which may provide refuge for marine species in a rapidly changing world.

The Consequences

The pace of warming is of major concern as it gives organisms little time to respond or adapt to the changed climate conditions. The GBR could be 1-3oC warmer by the end of this century and, as it warms, conditions conducive to bleaching could occur annually within ~20-30 years.

There is a limit to what can be done locally to protect natural ecosystems such as the GBR. Global leadership is required to commit leading world economies to drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. There is only a small window of time for action before changes are irreversible.

Suggestions that rising sea levels and increasing temperatures will be good for coral reefs and even allow the GBR to expand southwards are unlikely as there is a lack of suitable substrate for coral reefs south of the current GBR and also the rapidity with which such changes would have to occur – tens of years compared with the 100s-1000s of years required for intact ecosystems to migrate.

The impacts of bleaching on coral reefs are expected to affect large numbers of other reef organisms given that coral provides the habitat and food for tens of thousands of other organisms.

The Science in Detail

Human Induced Climate Change Will Alter Life on Coral Reefs

The health of coral reefs in many parts of the world is declining due to a variety of direct, local human pressures (such as overfishing and land-based activities affecting water quality; see Wilkinson 2004). Coral reefs are now subject to an additional global-scale threat to their long-term wellbeing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The two most important consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect for coral reefs are warming of the oceans and changes in ocean chemistry.

Rising sea temperatures increase the frequency of mass coral bleaching events. Corals live only 1-2oC below their upper thermal limit and sustained periods of water temperatures above this threshold during the summer stress the coral and their symbiotic algae (the essential partner for reef-building corals) which are expelled when the coral is stressed. The host coral may die, partially die, or recover, though coral growth and reproduction can be affected in surviving corals. Approximately 16% of the world’s reefs were seriously damaged during the 1998 bleaching event – probably the warmest year experienced by modern corals. Based on the recovery of some affected reefs, it is clear that healthy (more resilient) coral reefs recover better than reefs degraded by other human pressures.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the best managed and protected reef in the world (because of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Representative Areas Program, zoning and permitting systems, the July 2004 declaration of 33% No-Take Areas and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan), yet major bleaching occurred in 1998 and 2002 as a consequence of the relatively modest warming of GBR waters (~0.4oC) since the end of the 19th century.

Current projections suggest that average tropical ocean temperatures could warm 1-3oC by the end of this century. There is general scientific consensus that global warming and consequent coral bleaching are a significant threat to the maintenance of coral reef communities as they presently exist and that healthy coral reefs (more ecologically intact and less exploited) will be more resilient than those degraded by other human pressures. There is some evidence emerging that corals may be able to adapt to climate change by altering their symbiotic algae to more thermally tolerant partners, though this may be at the expense of growth rates. This capability may, however, only occur in a few species and not be sufficiently rapid to keep pace with temperature rises. Current research at AIMS focuses on these possible adaptive changes in corals and their effects on coral growth.

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal greenhouse gas) is changing the chemistry of the oceans. About 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activities since the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by the oceans. This changes the chemistry of the oceans, which become more acidic (lower pH; global ocean pH has already dropped by 0.1 and could be 0.4-0.5 lower by the end of this century) thus altering the concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate ions. Many marine organisms (corals, calcareous algae, shells, benthic and planktonic organisms such as foramanifera and coccolithophores) use calcium and carbonate ions from seawater to secrete calcium carbonate skeletons.

Changing the ocean chemistry essentially shifts the geochemical equation by which these organisms "calcify". The implication of continued change in ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 is that these organisms will not calcify as well as they did in pre-industrial times and thus produce weaker skeletons and grow more slowly. For coral reefs, weaker structures would reduce their resilience to the natural forces of erosion and slower growth will set back the rate of recovery after bleaching and other disturbances. Also, changing ocean chemistry will alter the ocean depths at which dissolution of calcium carbonate skeletons of different mineralogies occurs. Modelling and experimental studies (e.g. Biosphere 2 mesocosm) have demonstrated that increased CO2 reduces coral calcification rates (Kelypas et al., 2006).

Calcification rate also depends on water temperature. AIMS has provided evidence (Lough & Barnes 2000) that several long-lived massive Porites corals on the GBR had increased their calcification rate towards the end of the 20th century (up to ~1980 when cores were collected) which matched the observed rise in GBR water temperatures (AIMS is currently examining more recent coral growth rates from short coral cores). This finding generated some controversy, as it did not match the model or experimental findings. The conclusion from this work was that, at least initially, some corals might respond more to rising water temperatures than to changes in ocean chemistry. More recently scientists from UNSW, CSIRO and AIMS (McNeil et al., 2004) published model results suggesting that the warming effect on coral calcification (in one coral species) outweighs changes in ocean chemistry and that coral calcification will increase with global warming. Kleypas et al. (2005) refuted these controversial findings and concluded that they were "based on assumptions that exclude important factors and therefore need to be viewed with caution." These studies focused, however, on the most heat resistant type of coral and did not consider the overall effects on reef calcification rates of the widespread death of the majority of corals that are less heat resistant.

How much ocean warming reefs can withstand will, however, be limited by the point at which temperature thresholds for coral bleaching are regularly exceeded. The general scientific consensus is that changing ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 has serious implications for coral reefs and other calcifying marine organisms of the open ocean. These changes could well alter the makeup of marine ecosystems, alter food webs and weaken coral reef structures. Clearly, there is much more we need to learn about the effects of rising CO2 and marine calcification. The importance of this problem and its impacts on marine ecosystems is recognized in a recent report of the British Royal Society (2005) and the outcomes from an international workshop held in Florida in 2005 (Kleypas et al., 2006; Janice Lough from AIMS was an invited participant in the workshop and a contributing author).

Other impacts of climate change on coral reefs and associated coastal ecosystems will result from changes in air temperatures (2005 was the warmest year on record in Australia), rainfall and river flow, the occurrence and intensity of tropical cyclones, ocean circulation patterns and sea-level rise. Taken together, such climate change impacts threaten the biodiversity of marine ecosystems. In June 2005, the Department of Environment and Heritage supported a workshop National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan, Research and Information Gaps Workshop: Synthesis and Summaries for Four Key Objectives (Janice Lough, AIMS was a co-facilitator with Jo Johnson, GBRMPA of the Climate change and marine, estuarine and coastal ecosystems theme). The GBRMPA is co-ordinating preparation of a book GBR Ecological Vulnerability Assessment which will consider climate change impacts on all aspects of the GBR, not just coral reefs (Several AIMS scientists are chapter lead authors: Janice Lough – climate change scenarios; David Mckinnon – plankton; Nicole Webster- microorganisms, Katharina Fabricius – reefs; and other AIMS staff will be contributing authors).

The Scientific Advice

Coral reefs of the world are under threat from both local and global-scale stresses. The enhanced greenhouse effect (through bleaching and ocean chemistry changes) is likely to alter the community structure of reefs, including the world’s best-managed reefs of Australia. The impacts of bleaching on coral reefs are expected to affect large numbers of other reef organisms, given that coral provides the habitat and food for tens of thousands of other organisms. There is a clear scientific consensus that reducing and reversing local human pressures on coral reefs has to be accompanied by drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to limit the amount of global warming if coral reefs are to survive. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for improved monitoring of the GBR as well as more research into the impacts and response of coral reefs to climate change and climate variability. The impacts of climate change and climate variability is a high priority research area for AIMS.

The Future

Even with rapid global implementation of strategies to stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, we are committed to significant rapid climate change and possibly accelerated sea level rise. The urgent scientific challenge is to understand how these rapid environmental changes will affect tropical marine ecosystems such as the GBR and, in particular, how reef communities will respond and/or adapt to the changing physical environment. Climate change and global warming pose significant challenges (in a number of ways) to the GBR – a vast and beautiful ecosystem that we do not, and will probably never, fully understand.

Current understanding suggests that the GBR will not disappear but its appearance and community structure will change from the coral-dominated reef described years ago by Banks, Flinders and Jukes and that we know today. If temperatures rise to a level that is unsustainable for corals, the limestone base structure of the reef will persist. Given the massive size of the GBR, at least a few corals are likely to survive in sheltered locations. Under such a worst-case scenario, however, the ecological goods and services provided by the GBR (including commercial values associated with tourism and fisheries) will dramatically alter as coral communities dwindle and reefs of the GBR shift from being dominated by corals to reefs dominated by algae and filter feeders.

AIMS Research

Ongoing scientific research at AIMS directly addresses key issues associated with the regional impacts of global warming and climate variability. Scientists from AIMS are approaching the issue of climate change using technologies ranging from genetic analysis to monitoring of whole ecosystems. AIMS scientists are:

monitoring detailed changes in weather, climate and circulation on the GBR.

looking back into the past using centuries-old coral cores to detect recent environmental trends and track the growth responses of corals to changing environments.

studying the potential for reef corals to adapt to climate change by focusing on the key relationship between corals and the single-celled algae living within their tissues. Prior research suggests that this relationship is critical in predicting a coral’s ability to withstand varying environmental conditions.

leading the implementation of the GBR Ocean Observing System – a integrated state of the art observing system for the whole of the Great Barrier Reef.

Additional Reading

Kleypas, JA, RW Buddemeier, M Eakin, JP Gattuso, J Guinotte, O Hoegh-Guldberg, R Iglesias-Preito, PL Jokiel, C Langdon, W Skirving & AE Strong (2005). Comment on "Coral reef calcification and climate change: the effect of ocean warming". Geophys Res Lett. 32, L08601

Kleypas JA, RA Feely, VJ Fabry, C Langdon, CL Sabine, & LL Robbins (eds) (2006). Impacts of Increasing Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and other Marine Calcifiers. Report from international Workshop on the Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers, 18-20 April 2005, St Petersburg, Florida sponsored by NSF/NOAA/USGS.

Lough, JM & DJ Barnes (2000). Environmental controls on growth of the massive coral Porites. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 245: 225-243.

Lough J, R Berkelmans, M van Oppen, S Wooldridge & C Steinberg (2006) The Great Barrier Reef and Climate Change. Bulletin Australian Meteorological & Oceanographic Society 19: 53.58.

McNeil BI, RJ Matear & DJ Barnes (2004) Coral reef calcification and climate change: the effect of ocean warming. Geophys Res Lett 31, L22309

The Royal Society (2005). Ocean Acidification due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Policy Document 12/05, London UK, (www.royalsoc.ac.uk), 60pp

Wilkinson, C (2004). Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. GCRMN, ICRI, AIMS

[virginiadiver69]

The cut and paste feature is a beautiful thing isn't it?

[Ninong]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
The cut and paste feature is a beautiful thing isn't it?

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post?

I identified the post as the official position paper recently released by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and I provided a link to their site. As a convenience to readers and to insure that it will be available in the future, I copied the entire paper into this thread. I have found that linking to outside sources can be problematic as time goes by because the links often don't work after a few months.

[Qcks]

Considering how the links kept coming up inactive before.... yes. Simply put, Based off of scientific evidence, Global Warming isn't a myth it's a fact. Further, the debate of whether it's man made or naturally occuring seems like a moot point to me anyway; even if it's a naturally occuring proccess, it may not necessarily be a beneficial one for humanity to endure.

Quick note though....
it might be helpful, Ninong, if you used the quote tags.

The problem is it's a political issue, by nature.

Giving up reliance on Hydro carbons as an energy source requires a change in our economic structuring (it should be noted that the change isn't necessarily a negative one), as well as an exchange of power between the various powers that be.

Something to consider, speculatively of course:

Even if Petroleum is suddenly abandoned for other forms of cleaner energy it won't kill the petroleum industry. The US is thoroughly dependent upon plastic (today, the most effective solar panels require special plastic polymers). Further, the only obstacle to plastic becoming more widely used as a building material is the overall cost of it. If it became cheaper it might be able to push wood off the market as the favored structural building material.