Read! GBR will vanish in your lifetime (most likely)

[Lars]

Think about it. There are only so many options:

The threat is real - and you act to avoid it: might avoid disaster
The threat is real - and you ignore it: cannot avoid disaster

The threat is not real - and you act to avoid it: avoid disaster
The threat is not real - and you ignore it: avoid disaster

There are probably more options such as:

The threat is not real - and you act to avoid it but actually do more harm: might create disaster.

My point is that we do not have enough data or knowledge to fully understand what is happening let alone pretend we know what will happen if.... 100 years of data is nothing compared to the lifespan of the earth. Just look at SF's analogy of the scientists 'center of the solar system' debate. That took hundreds of years and didn't have data changing every decade. It's hard to know what is really happening when there are so many opposing views and opinions.

Here is a sample: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

 

[Anonymous]

...


Just look at SF's analogy of the scientists 'center of the solar system' debate.

...

Even more to the point is the analogy ignores the fact that scholars at the library of alexandria had formulated the sun centered solar system 100-200 bc. And even measured the circumference of the earth to 3-4% accuracy. All of which was lost when conquering societies with their own adjendas ignored and destroyed that knowledge because it did not agree with their beliefs.

 

[Anonymous]

To open, let me say that I AM a climate scientist and paleoclimatologist. My specific area of research is coral and tropics-based/

According to studies the earth has been actually COOLING for some 11 years now... at least on record.

False. Attached is the instrumental record of tropical sea surface temperatures. Note that on top of the warming trend is strong up and down variability on a 3-7 year time scale. This is primarily caused by the El Niño - Southern Oscillation, a natural, internal form of variability. 1997-1998 was a "super El Niño", and caused unprecedented (in the instrumental record) sea surface temperatures in the tropics. This fact allows skeptics to misleadingly claim that tropical SST's are cooling, when in fact, what you're actually looking at is 3-7 year variability superimposed on top of long term warming. The figure I've made here has major El Niño events highlighted.

 

[Anonymous]

To open, let me say that I AM a climate scientist and paleoclimatologist.

According to studies the earth has been actually COOLING for some 11 years now... at least on record.

False. Attached is the instrumental record of tropical sea surface temperatures. Note that on top of the warming trend is strong up and down variability on a 3-7 year time scale. This is primarily caused by the El Niño - Southern Oscillation, a natural, internal form of variability. 1997-1998 was a "super El Niño", and caused unprecedented (in the instrumental record) sea surface temperatures in the tropics. This fact allows skeptics to misleadingly claim that tropical SST's are cooling, when in fact, what you're actually looking at is 3-7 year variability superimposed on top of long term warming. The figure I've made here has major El Niño events highlighted.

I am a scientist.

How were the measurements taken?

How were the instruments calibrated?

what instruments were used?

How was the data scrubbed?

How was the magic red line drawn.

What are the measurements over land?

At poles?

How about the precession of the earth's axis?

Is this a contunuation of a 25,000 year cycle?

what in your graph indicates it is man's fault?

and doesn't el nino temperature rise have a cooresponding lowering of the ocean surface temperatures at other locations?

 

[Anonymous]

I am a scientist.

Really bob? What's your background and training in climate science? Any peer reviewed contributions?

 

[wade1]

I am a scientist.

I'm curious as well about your science education and background. I can respect anyone's well derived arguments, but I have real issue with people who use the internet as a sole resource to fuel debate. And who can't spell (even with a built in spellchecker) during a legitimate discussion, but that is a personal bias.

Secondarily, feel free to back up any points you wish to make with actual data or peer reviewed publications. The weight of evidence indeed points to a problem with both CO2 accumulation and planetary warming and I haven't seen anything in your rebuttals to date that points to evidence contrary to those widely held views.

Do you really believe criticizing NOAA's data accumulation will get you far?

 

[Anonymous]

I am a scientist.

Really bob? What's your background and training in climate science? Any peer reviewed contributions?

and

beaslbob wrote:
I am a scientist.

I'm curious as well about your science education and background. I can respect anyone's well derived arguments, but I have real issue with people who use the internet as a sole resource to fuel debate. And who can't spell (even with a built in spellchecker) during a legitimate discussion, but that is a personal bias.

Secondarily, feel free to back up any points you wish to make with actual data or peer reviewed publications. The weight of evidence indeed points to a problem with both CO2 accumulation and planetary warming and I haven't seen anything in your rebuttals to date that points to evidence contrary to those widely held views.

Do you really believe criticizing NOAA's data accumulation will get you far?

Sure my education is engineering and business. And I am not published.

that does not mean I am not a scientist or the I do not undersantd and appreciate the scientific method and Philosophy. I did work for about 10 years as a test engineer testing aerospace equipment.

And I spell bad.


That said care to answer the questions posted?

It it your positions that such questions are to never be raised by scientists?

You never question experimental data, procedures, and equipment?

If that is the case please say so.

That way people reading this exchange can judge for themselves how valid the science is.

 

[Anonymous]

Even more to the point is the analogy ignores the fact that scholars at the library of alexandria had formulated the sun centered solar system 100-200 bc. And even measured the circumference of the earth to 3-4% accuracy. All of which was lost when conquering societies with their own adjendas ignored and destroyed that knowledge because it did not agree with their beliefs.

Actually it didn't ignore that fact, that was part of the point. Sometimes multiple ideas come about some which might be right, however you don't dismiss them all just because counter ideas come about or some might be wrong.

BTW Aristarchus came up with the heliocentric model he also used geometry to show that Sun was 20x further from Earth than the Moon, and the Sun was 5x larger than the Earth.... so yeah I wouldn't go putting them on too high a pedestal and blaming other agendas for "squashing the idea" (which is kind of ironic in this whole debate actually)

 

[Lars]

I defininately do not want to squash any ideas. I enjoy the debate and am open to most discussion. My only issue is with the knee-jerk reaction to the data (which I presume mostly to be accurate). It's kind of like watching the tide come in, interpolating the data and erecting a 50 ft wall along the shore to keep the water from destroying the coast only to watch it recede.

 

[blackcloudmedia]

I dont buy it, scientists have a habit of looking at one small picture and basing the big picture off of it. I just watched a documentary the other night showing coral reefs 150 feet below the ocean in Australia and explained that this was where the reef grew during ICE AGES when the water level was lower. They then went on to say that a change in a few degrees would kill the corals off. Hmm lets see, ICE AGE and A FEW DEGREES seem like a contradictory statement to me. My tank readily changes more than a few degrees and is nowhere near as healthy as a coral reef, yet my corals are just fine.

 

[blackcloudmedia]

Besides, beaslebob brought up a good point about the procession of the earth. The temperatures may be rising in certain areas, but are other areas cooling? We all know the Earth goes through cycles, how do we know whether C02 gases being released by volcanoes isnt just part of this process. We know that the composition of gases in the atmosphere hasnt always been the same.

 

[leftovers]

I dont buy it, scientists have a habit of looking at one small picture and basing the big picture off of it. I just watched a documentary the other night showing coral reefs 150 feet below the ocean in Australia and explained that this was where the reef grew during ICE AGES when the water level was lower. They then went on to say that a change in a few degrees would kill the corals off. Hmm lets see, ICE AGE and A FEW DEGREES seem like a contradictory statement to me. My tank readily changes more than a few degrees and is nowhere near as healthy as a coral reef, yet my corals are just fine.

Well this is a case of a documentary not fully explaining the situation and giving limited information in limited time and being able to describe the temperature ranges during that ice age of what the water temps in and around Australia were. I believe most corals only have a very narrow band of +/-8°F in which they will successfully thrive and survive in. But as in all things, nature has the last word...­

 

[wade1]

I dont buy it, scientists have a habit of looking at one small picture and basing the big picture off of it. I just watched a documentary the other night showing coral reefs 150 feet below the ocean in Australia and explained that this was where the reef grew during ICE AGES when the water level was lower. They then went on to say that a change in a few degrees would kill the corals off. Hmm lets see, ICE AGE and A FEW DEGREES seem like a contradictory statement to me. My tank readily changes more than a few degrees and is nowhere near as healthy as a coral reef, yet my corals are just fine.

The issue here is CO2 loading of the ocean and its direct effect on corals - not warming. Yes, corals are all over the world - even in temperate and low light regions. Those are not hermatypic (reef forming) species most often... so yes, corals will survive temperature fluctuations. BUT - they will not survive the sudden inability to create a carbonate base on which they depend (the same with most bivalves). Some random mutation might promote a coral species or two that will indeed manage it... but the reefs as we know them will vanish. And all of their protective and productive benefits will go along for the ride.

I'll let someone else speak to global SST measurements and trends. Regional differences are not a correct assumption though.

In addition, this isn't "one piece of evidence" and you, by inference, are saying that the accumulation of evidence by almost all fields of physical, chemical and biological scientists are bogus. Its becoming quite overwhelming, even if trendy. I will state that when you look for something you are likely to find it. But good science isn't done that way. That is why the peer review process is so mandatory, it prevents poor science from gaining a foothold.

 

[blackcloudmedia]

FOrgot to mention the reefs 150 feet underwater were calcerous reef building corals, not gorgonians and such.

 

[Anonymous]

...
but the reefs as we know them will vanish.

...

Which is true of the entire universe in science. It is both foolish and IMHO unscientific to attempt to preserve what we observe curently forever. Even if it did not change, the inaccuracies in our observation equipment will record something different from what we measure currently.

 

[Anonymous]

Which is true of the entire universe in science. It is both foolish and IMHO unscientific to attempt to preserve what we observe curently forever.

Jesus Christ... talk about foolish and unscientific....

You'll eventually die, so why do we even have health coverage? Why try to preserve life at all? Why should we repair roadways? They will eventually crumble why try to preserve it if it won't last forever anyways?

This is not about preserving something forever, this is about stopping an act of humans that is causing premature damage to something that is very valuable to us.

 

[blackcloudmedia]

Its hard to take global warming seriously when the face of the scientists has been the extremist bunch in the media saying we need to live in huts and eat berries. If there was a serious crowd that presented a cure rather than complained about the disease I think a lot more people would be willing to jump on the bandwagon. If you scientists seriously believe the past 100 years of car driving has changed the content of the massive oceans and atmosphere, create a model of an economy where humans dont ruin the world.

 

[Anonymous]

Which is true of the entire universe in science. It is both foolish and IMHO unscientific to attempt to preserve what we observe curently forever.

Jesus Christ... talk about foolish and unscientific....

You'll eventually die, so why do we even have health coverage? Why try to preserve life at all? Why should we repair roadways? They will eventually crumble why try to preserve it if it won't last forever anyways?

This is not about preserving something forever, this is about stopping an act of humans that is causing premature damage to something that is very valuable to us.

Actually IMHO it is engineering to attempt to change the universe around us. Science just observes and attempts to explain the observations.

And engineerining can be good, bad, and ugly. so you are not about science but controlling the human behavior. Based upon something you consider valuable. that is all good, fine, and dandy. And subject to honest debates. Plus being totally premissable in an engineering sense.

And totally not premissable in science.

 

[Lars]

And it's not all the humans fault (although you could make an argument that if we were vegetarians.....). This study found that "30% of Argentina's (total greenhouse) emissions" are caused by cow burps! I know were talking CO2 here but I found this interesting and along the same lines.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... ws&sp=true

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, but would there even be all those cows if humans hadn't been breeding and raising them?