Coral Reefs Bleaching Worldwide

[wds21921]

I keep seeing statements about scientists not sure or not knowing what's going on.
The fact is every major scientist has data and is of the opinion that the warming effect we're going through may in part be cyclical but the temps and water rising has not been this fast or this widespread previously. They are also in agreement that the greenhouse gases etc. and the breakdown of them are partially responsible.
If your going to post an opinion state it as that (some have).
The facts though don't agree with your statements sometimes.

[wds21921]

SCIENCE & SPACE
Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years
Panel: 'Warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years'

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 3:46 p.m. EDT (19:46 GMT)




FACT BOX
CLIMATE REPORT FINDINGS:

-- Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, maybe more.

-- The National Academy of Sciences studied tree rings, corals and other natural formations, in part, to conclude that the heat is unprecedented for potentially the last several millennia.

-- Human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming, the Academy says.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since Earth has run such a fever.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. (Watch as lawmakers argue saving the planet could ruin our economy-- 2:24)

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

[55semireef]

agreed. There has to be global warming. Look how much harmful gases we put out everyday. It adds up.

[James77]

Heres a link worth reading-
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[wds21921]

Nice article with plenty of pictures but no sources!!!

[James77]

gotta have those sources!!!!

[chrisaggie]

Originally posted by Dactyl
im considering taking it to the press since i can precisely document things.

I'll second that "go for it"

BTW, there are very few carribean corals which are illegal to have in an aquarium. Has anyone actually seen any laws anywhere? I have heard this word of mouth but never seen them on paper.

[wds21921]

The "Lacey Act" is still in effect in most places and especially in the Philippines where the penalties are quite severe.

[maddyfish]

Originally posted by chrisaggie
Dactyl, the coral diversity here in the caribbean is not nearly as high as othr places in the world (pacific). Because of this, collection and captive propogation is not nearly as big an issue as other places. I know of plenty of public aquariums and such which have both of the caribbean acroporas along with many other carribean corals of concern. I think oppening up collection or permiting for collection to the public would only damage our reef that much further.

Because we all know how great public aquariums are at propagating corals. Yeah right! They're lucky if they can keep them alive a year, let alone conserve and distribute them.

[maddyfish]

Originally posted by kmainzer
I am a NASA scientist, and global warming isn't something we're making up - believe me, I wish it were. It is heartbreaking.
Sometimes I feel like Cassandra - the Greek woman of legend who was doomed to know the future and no one would believe her.

How can you know the future? You guys spend 2 BILLION dollars, and still can't get styrofoam to work right.

[55semireef]

I am more worried about what pollution is going into the water instead of temperatures rising.

[obadii]

I find that people are very myopic in their view of the world (and universe) around them. I remember looking at the continents on a globe when I was young and thinking "Wow! It looks like they all fit together!" Then I learned of Pangaea, tectonic plates, and the constant shift of the continents around the earth.

Going back in time, when the planet had one continent, I wonder what the weather was like. How many ice ages have occurred between then and now? How many heating periods? Through all of this time, species have adapted, gone extinct, and many new ones have come into existence.

I find it disappointing that people look at the world today and believe that because the temperature was 80 last year, that it should be 80 this year, and that in 10,000 years the temperature should be 80. This is a nice idea, but it isn't reality! Things have changed for as long as the earth has been here, and they will continue to change until our sun goes supernova and the planet is reduced to dust. Flexibility and adaptability will determine if humans will be around to see it (nothing is a given.)

The thing that chaps my hide more than anything is to hear someone like Al Gore say that it is the "human race" that is the cause of all of the earth's problems. People fail to realize that there are so many variables at work that impact our environment that we cannot begin to understand the impact of one variable on the overall picture.

Some food for thought (from my limited knowledge)...

The moon is not in static orbit around the planet. I recall reading an article on solar eclipses where the author was discussing the fact that the moon is moving farther away from the earth and the impacting the intensity of solar eclipses until one day there will be no more solar eclipses. People on this board recognize more than most that tides have HUGE impacts on the oceans. Everything from filtration with sand, to current, to things we can't even begin to imagine. I even have read an article recently saying that life outside of earth may be rarer than has previously been calculated due to the make-up of moon(s) on planets we have observed. It seems our moon is abnormally large, providing us with a variety of benefits (some listed previously.) I don't see all the experts referencing how changes in the position of the moon impact the climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Or...nship_to_Earth (I hate to reference wiki in an argument, but I have no clue of the article I read this in and it was an easy find.)

The sun goes through cycles. The last article I read referenced an eleven year cycle, of which we are at a peak. More output from the sun = more heat for us! This has nothing to do with whether your house runs on natural gas, coal, solar, or some other type of electric. Many of the "tends" that "experts" utilize are based on extrapolation of variables that have been tracked over time (hundreds of years) through MUCH less accurate equipment. That means we may not be able to always trust all the numbers on the chart, but the numbers represent the best information that is available to us. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...s/solarmwp.jsp

In science I remember always using a control group to verify your experiment was actually accomplishing what you expected it to accomplish. Recently I read an article on what I believe was Venus' surface temperature raising at the same rate as the earth's, even though there are no nasty combustion engines on Venus (that we know of.) Don't ask me how they figued the tempreture (that one is beyond me!) Unfortunately, I can't find the article on that one, but I'm sure with a little hunting, someone could come up with a link! ;-)

We don't even conceptually have a good idea of what is under our feet (crust, mantle, etc.) This is a great article on the deepest hole ever drilled by humans. The major take away? What they found just a few miles under the surface is vastly different than anything they imagined. What type of impact does this have on the environment? Who knows! I do know there are volcanoes constantly in erupting (above and below the ocean's surface), earthquake rearranging the oceanscape and changes taking place that we just miss. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=567

So where does this leave us? In my opinion, I believe we have to be good stewards of what we have. I believe that to the extent we can, we should try to ensure that species do not become extinct (man included), and that we should try to predict as much as possible, based on the information we have.

At the same time, I believe we need step back and be critical of the information we receive. Does the conclusion being reached by the information being presented seem logical? Ask questions! Questions are not bad. I'm the first person to admit that I don't have the answers, but when people say you can't ask questions, or start calling you names because you want to know more, I really get scared of whatever they are shovelling! ;-)

Listen, think, question, and do what you can, but don't get to full of yourself along the way, there is a LOT more going on out there than I think we have developed an understanding to grasp (at the moment at least!) ;-)

-P

[jaymz101]

Ditto

The Earth is in a constant state of flux always has been, always will be.

So the earth is warmer now than at anytime in the past 400 years. Does that mean we caused it? To me that just says the it was warmer in the 15-1600's than it is now. And I dont recall....how many cars or factories were there then........

At the same time, I dont believe that we can be reckless with our planet. But this is what happens when emotions become involved. Granted we've done some pretty bad things in the past based on profit, or bad science and destroyed some very nice places. But on the flip side, environmentalist policies havent fared much better even though they may have been done with the best of intentions (not that they always are).

Take home lesson...dont accept what anybody else tells you without researching it. Ask questions, dont just parrot back what anybody tells you...Especially Al Gore (Didnt he invent the internet? And has he caught Manbearpig yet?) Use your brain, thats why monkeys gave them to us.

[wds21921]

So what we've done collectively has done little to no damage? That seems to be what your implying.
Talk about being myopic? To think we've done nothing with our trillions of tons of trash and years of nuclear waste build up and the like.............

[jaymz101]

Thats not what I said. Im just saying that I havent seen evidence yet that the slow, small increase in temperatures in some places around the world is solely the fault of man made processes. If there is one constant in nature, throughout the entire history of the earth and even the universe, it is change. Does this mean we cant strive to clean up our act? NO.

I know we have done tremendous damage. I live in Tampa Bay where reckless dredge and fill policies, island building and poor urban runoff containment nearly destroyed the seagrasses. But, since the 80's or so, thoughtful and calm management have turned things around and they bay is the healthiest I have seen it since Ive lived here (~10 yrs).

Emotional, reactionary policies like those that the Sierra Club and Greenpeace espouse usually dont help at the very least and can even make things much worse. In my experience dealing with these and other like mnded groups is that their learders are politicians, celebrities, and fundraisers (and very good at it by the way).

Good science should set environmental policy, not knee-jerk reactions lest we make the problem worse. Problem is, science takes time to be done well. Studies need to be funded, carried out, analyzed, presented, argued, and confirmed or denied. It can take years and in my experience, the public doesnt always have the patience required, especially when environmental fear mongers are screaming in their ears about the day after tomorrow.

I really just want to have a rational, calm conversation about it without one of them jumping in and flailing their arms about telling me I personally have doomed the earth. What does that solve??

[wds21921]

Much better post jaymz and I understand you much better now.
I agree Greenpeace and the like in many instances have caused more problems than perhaps they've helped to solve but also in that regard our ecology seems to be at the mercy of politicians that see only dollars for there communities to forward there re-election campaigns. In that sense we're lucky in many regards to have at least some organizations who are willing to put there money where there mouth is. Our politicians sure won't and that's who we HAVE to turn to.
Good science? Hmm ideally I agree with you there. The problem however is even that sience itself has been so mismanaged and flawed lately I'm not even sure we can rely on them with or without data. Look at the catastrophe over the stem cell research from Korea that was proven to be an outright fraud. This after the medical AND science communities had already published the works as fact when they were nothing more than cleverly (?) placed documents.

I think the cleaning up effort should have started long ago. Maybe it does or doesn't have anything to do with what's going on, that point is arguable of course. I would lean to the common sense side of things though and believe that we've perhaps done some irrepairable damage at this point.

[jaymz101]

Agreed, Good science is the ideal. But there are a few unscrupulous scientists (even some who I work with) who will do science and manipulate the data or selectively collect data to support either their agenda or that of their grantors to ensure funding in the future. I think this was the case with the stem cell and cloning researchers in Korea.

More often my organization makes recommendations to a comittee who either uses or discards our findings to regulate something (bag limits, slot sizes, water usage, boating regulations, etc.). Now this really isnt the fault of the scientists that the regulators declined to use good science to make decisions, but it still maddens me that my bosses take an oh well attitude to the situation.

Most often the decision goes to the Commercial Guides Association, a very large and powerful lobby in fisheries. Usually this doesnt bother me too much. Guides have a vested interest in keeping fisheries stocks at fishable levels. On the other hand, water usage decisions often go to the city that needs it. Regardless of what our data say, they take the water needed to support their exploding populations. While there are some environmental and moral concerns here, drawing off the water is the only real solution that makes any economic sense.

I know Im a little off topic, just wanted to give some sense of how these things happen in my limited experience.

On your last point, its never to early to look for cleaner technologies. Im glad we're finally finding some, but it seems too slow for my tastes and I think we're going about it all wrong with govt supplied (and developed) technologies. Individual enterprise, inventiveness, and competition are what make this country work. When was the last time the govt fixed something that made sense?

[masterqaz]

captive propagation is a good idea but it is far sighted, sure it will save some corals but if you look at the big picture of how the reefs have progressed over time and then suddenly died off youll see that its enevitable, propragation will save some corals but we might as well spot driving our suv's and burning the planets fossil fuels. IMO we are all royally F'ed in the end anyways no matter what we dom, we are doomed to die by our own demise, or even the unknown (something from space). There is a point at which we must open our eyes and realize that there will be no fixing what we have done to our planet. No worries though, for that the earth will not end because of us, it will continue like it has for the pass 4 billion years. Reefs die off its happened before and it'll happen again. its unfortunate but hey what are we going to do about it, we cant play god, so all i can say now is that we might as well enjoy them well they still exsist, after all the human race is all about greed. (the cambrian era had no reefs they were none exsistant)

[55semireef]

Originally posted by masterqaz
captive propagation is a good idea but it is far sighted, sure it will save some corals but if you look at the big picture of how the reefs have progressed over time and then suddenly died off youll see that its enevitable, propragation will save some corals but we might as well spot driving our suv's and burning the planets fossil fuels. IMO we are all royally F'ed in the end anyways no matter what we dom, we are doomed to die by our own demise, or even the unknown (something from space). There is a point at which we must open our eyes and realize that there will be no fixing what we have done to our planet. No worries though, for that the earth will not end because of us, it will continue like it has for the pass 4 billion years. Reefs die off its happened before and it'll happen again. its unfortunate but hey what are we going to do about it, we cant play god, so all i can say now is that we might as well enjoy them well they still exsist, after all the human race is all about greed. (the cambrian era had no reefs they were none exsistant)

thanks for your philosphy

[wds21921]

It has nothing to do with playing god. It has everything to do with cleaning up your own mess. And yes it is that simple.
I remember the bigh push in the 70's for people to start cleaning up the trash on the streets and highways.
It worked!
I can drive down many streets and highways now and I don't see 1/10th the trash that I saw as a kid or teenager.

The only time anyone is royally F'd is when they throw there hands up in the air and take the "Oh Well" attitude. Instead I try to take a proactive approach. It does and has worked when you give it a chance.

[55semireef]

Originally posted by wds21921
It has nothing to do with playing god. It has everything to do with cleaning up your own mess. And yes it is that simple.
I remember the bigh push in the 70's for people to start cleaning up the trash on the streets and highways.
It worked!
I can drive down many streets and highways now and I don't see 1/10th the trash that I saw as a kid or teenager.

The only time anyone is royally F'd is when they throw there hands up in the air and take the "Oh Well" attitude. Instead I try to take a proactive approach. It does and has worked when you give it a chance.

Exactly

[masterqaz]

Originally posted by wds21921
It has nothing to do with playing god. It has everything to do with cleaning up your own mess. And yes it is that simple.
I remember the bigh push in the 70's for people to start cleaning up the trash on the streets and highways.
It worked!
I can drive down many streets and highways now and I don't see 1/10th the trash that I saw as a kid or teenager.

The only time anyone is royally F'd is when they throw there hands up in the air and take the "Oh Well" attitude. Instead I try to take a proactive approach. It does and has worked when you give it a chance.

and yet global warming continues. It is true that we can clean up but not to the extent that people are dreaming about, the fact is that garbage, pollutants, etc. are still all there whether we see it or not. If we clean it up off our streets to make the place look cleaner its just shipped off and put into a land fill somewhere else, Dont get me wrong i believe in recycling and such its just that its not doing enough, i guess there are just no simple anwsers like we would all hope for. Anyways i feel that i have said enough to stir up the hive (so to speak) and thats why i shall stop.

[55semireef]

So your going to stop short of what can be done your basically saying?

[maddyfish]

Originally posted by maddyfish
How can you know the future? You guys(NASA) spend 2 BILLION dollars, and still can't get styrofoam to work right.

More styrofoam troubles today.

[55semireef]

How can you know the future? You guys(NASA) spend 2 BILLION dollars, and still can't get styrofoam to work right.

Didn't the shuttle get delayed yesterday becuase of "unexpected" weather I presume?


ROTFL