Report warns against Coral Triangle collapse (CNN)

[Anonymous]

Report warns against Coral Triangle collapse


(CNN) -- Experts have warned that the richly diverse coral reefs of the Coral Triangle around southeast Asia will disappear by the end of the century if action is not taken against climate change.

As well as the loss of one of the world's most diverse underwater ecosystems, the knock on effect would be the collapse of coastal economies that supports around 100 million people, according to the WWF- commissioned study outlined at the World Ocean Conference this week.

The Coral Triangle includes 30 percent of the world's reefs, 76 percent of global reef building coral species and more than 35 percent of coral reef fish.

However the authors of the study believe that effective global action on climate change and regional attention to problems of over-fishing and pollution would prevent catastrophe.

The report presents two different possible futures for the world's richest marine environment -- the coasts, reefs and seas of the six countries of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Timor Leste.

"In one world scenario, we continue along our current climate trajectory and do little to protect coastal environments from the onslaught of local threats," said Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland in a press statement.

"In this world, people see the biological treasures of the Coral Triangle destroyed over the course of the century by rapid increases in ocean temperature, acidity and sea level, while the resilience of coastal environments also deteriorates under faltering coastal management. Poverty increases, food security plummets, economies suffer, and coastal people migrate increasingly to urban areas."

Don't Miss
Secretive shark basks in Caribbean
New frogs found in Madagascar
World Ocean Conference 2009
"Tens of millions of people are forced to move from rural and coastal settings due to loss of homes, food resources and income, putting pressure on regional cities and surrounding developed nations such as Australian and New Zealand."

Even under the best-case scenario, communities will face loss of coral, sea level rises, increased storm activity, severe droughts and reduced food availability from coastal fisheries, the report's authors say.

A key difference, they note, is that communities remain reasonably intact and more resilient in the face of these hardships.

"Effective management of coastal resources through a range of options including marine protected areas, protection of mangroves and seagrass beds and effective management of fisheries would result in a slower decline in these resources," the summary report said.

"World leaders must support Coral Triangle countries in their efforts to protect their most vulnerable communities from rising sea levels and loss of food and livelihoods by helping them to strengthen management of their marine resources and by forging a strong agreement on greenhouse gas reductions at the UN Climate Conference at Copenhagen in December this year," said WWF International Director General James Leape.

 

[Anonymous]

I saw this the other day. Thoroughly depressing.

 

[Anonymous]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8O


The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Climate change is at best a theory and by far not a fact. The same UN group just admitted that they missed millions of tons of ice on the polar caps. A slight oversight :roll: .

Then instead of blaming climate change they go after human waste and over fishing as part of the cause :? . I also find it hard to believe that it is only affecting these certain nations in the South Pacific.

Obviously we need to help preserve the earth, but these "scientists" blow things out of proportion to scare you into believing it is Armageddon.

This is what really needed to be said," Effective management of coastal resources through a range of options including marine protected areas, protection of mangroves and seagrass beds and effective management of fisheries would result in a slower decline in these resources," the summary report said.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, because armchair commentators on the internet are so much more likely to be right that the vast majority of scientists that have made study of climate their life's work. :roll:

 

[livingstone]

...vast majority...

I'm glad someone has done the statistics on this. I certainly wouldn't have known.

 

[Anonymous]

Climate change is at best a theory and by far not a fact.

Forgive me for being a bit misinformed, but what is the difference between a "theory" and a "fact" in science? Could you give me a couple of examples of each, so that I might better understand?

 

[Anonymous]

Climate change is at best a theory and by far not a fact.

Forgive me for being a bit misinformed, but what is the difference between a "theory" and a "fact" in science? Could you give me a couple of examples of each, so that I might better understand?

It is a fact that a theory is different from a fact, but as to rather my theory of difference of fact and theory is true or not, I will need to look at my facts and see if there is any theory that is identical to a fact.

 

[Anonymous]

Climate change is at best a theory and by far not a fact.

Forgive me for being a bit misinformed, but what is the difference between a "theory" and a "fact" in science? Could you give me a couple of examples of each, so that I might better understand?

It is a fact that a theory is different from a fact, but as to rather my theory of difference of fact and theory is true or not, I will need to look at my facts and see if there is any theory that is identical to a fact.

:lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Climate change is at best a theory and by far not a fact.

Forgive me for being a bit misinformed, but what is the difference between a "theory" and a "fact" in science? Could you give me a couple of examples of each, so that I might better understand?

Theory


the⋅o⋅ry  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Fact



fact  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

—Idioms6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.


Very easy:

Theory- climate change is caused by the sun being closer to the sun on it's current orbit. NOT PROVEN

Fact- the sun is the earth's main light source. PROVEN

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, because armchair commentators on the internet are so much more likely to be right that the VAST MAJORITY of scientists that have made study of climate their life's work. :roll:

That is not science that is consensus....not fact.

 

[Anonymous]

So how do I distinguish between what is a theory and what is a fact?

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, because armchair commentators on the internet are so much more likely to be right that the VAST MAJORITY of scientists that have made study of climate their life's work. :roll:

That is not science that is consensus....not fact.

How do you think those scientists form their views? Unlike some people, it's not just by watching Fox. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Guys... Topside, remember, not the SUMP. I know it's bright up here but can't you leave that to down there?

 

[Anonymous]

Guys... Topside, remember, not the SUMP. I know it's bright up here but can't you leave that to down there?

Leave what down there? Our critical faculties?

 

[Anonymous]

(snickers)

 

[Anonymous]

Guys... Topside, remember, not the SUMP. I know it's bright up here but can't you leave that to down there?

Leave what down there? Our critical faculties?

No, your THIRST for debate...as evident by your post to me

You guys are flipping broken records. I've seen this thread puked up a thousand times in the sump and guess who posts in all of those <looks at Tom and Co.>

Global warming
No it's not
Scientists say it us
They don't know what they're talking about
CUE Chris, he's the last link to this chain :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Guys... Topside, remember, not the SUMP. I know it's bright up here but can't you leave that to down there?

Leave what down there? Our critical faculties?

No, your THIRST for debate...as evident by your post to me

You guys are flipping broken records. I've seen this thread puked up a thousand times in the sump and guess who posts in all of those <looks at Tom and Co.>

Global warming
No it's not
Scientists say it us
They don't know what they're talking about
CUE Chris, he's the last link to this chain :lol:

*Shrug*

There ain't that many new lines of argument when the same silly points are made by the head in the sand crowd. Topside's just lucky to get a bit of the vim and vigor that enlivens the Sump from time to time. :wink:

Oh, and I might post from time to time in the climate change threads, but I'm not the regular you make me out to be. You clearly need to spend more time downstairs.

 

[Anonymous]

So how do I distinguish between what is a theory and what is a fact?

<sea pulls up a chair>

Is this what it's like to be in one of your classes?

Guys... Topside, remember, not the SUMP. I know it's bright up here but can't you leave that to down there?

You've gotta admit that the thread didn't start out that way, and it turned pretty quickly because of the post of one topside-only poster's response. The only other difference is that our claws have been well-sharpened down in the Sump.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, what makes something scientific is not that it can be proven as a "fact" with metaphysical certitude. Rather, the idea is that it is testable. All of our empirical observations, or "facts", are impregnated by theory. If you measure the velocity of a car, you are making an assumption (admittedly a very safe one) that the average velocity is the difference in distance between the starting and end points for a given time. That assumption is based on Newton's Laws, which we know, strictly speaking, are not correct (but are good enough unless we are talking about velocities approaching the speed of light). So the simple "fact" that your car is traveling at 75 mph is actually based upon a theory. It is probably based on a whole bunch of other theories about how things like gears work, electronic devices work, and so forth.

You can't prove anything in Science, so there are no indisputable "facts". Rather, what scientists really do is to test and refute theories (or hypotheses, conjectures, educated guesses, whatever you want to call them).

The idea that evolution or global warming or whatever can be dismissed because it is merely a theory instead of a fact is as silly as the idea you can dismiss the theory of gravitation as merely a theory. Any of these might be wrong, but you have to offer some credible evidence that they are wrong. It has nothing to do with establishing truth by social consensus. Rather, the only way we can come closer to the truth is to construct theories with better and better predictive power, and then test them as rigorously as possible. Rhetorical whining does not constitute experimental refutation.

If you want to dismiss the claims in the article posted, offer some good solid empirical evidence that the theoretical predictions are wrong.

Here is a simple example:

The Bible claims that the sun orbits the earth.

Theories have been constructed in which the earth orbits the sun, and in which the sun orbits the earth. Logically, both cannot be correct. The theory that the earth orbits the sun has greater predictive and explanatory power, so that theory is favored. Is it possible that it is wrong, and the sun really does orbit the earth? Of course, but if you want to convince anyone of this, you have a burden of proof to meet that is rather extraordinary.

 

[Anonymous]

Guys... Topside, remember, not the SUMP. I know it's bright up here but can't you leave that to down there?

Leave what down there? Our critical faculties?

No, your THIRST for debate...as evident by your post to me

You guys are flipping broken records. I've seen this thread puked up a thousand times in the sump and guess who posts in all of those <looks at Tom and Co.>

Global warming
No it's not
Scientists say it us
They don't know what they're talking about
CUE Chris, he's the last link to this chain :lol:

That is exactly why I let it go.