Bad outlook for world's reefs - CNN article
- Thread starter cgill311
- Start date
I guess there always has to be one like me...
In 1985, Ted Danson, the star of cheers and brilliant oceanographer (huh) proclaimed that in ten years the oceans would be fished out! hadn't quiet happened yet.
I'm 45. When I was a kid, the only way you could get research grants was to claim that we were on the verge of the next iceage. Didn't quite happen...
That burned out... then for the last 20 years you could only get research grants if you claimed global warming (and only if we caused it).
Then... (watch the propaganda film, day after tomorrow) we are only going to get the next iceage, because we will have global warming first. Huh!
And with all this the North Koreans or the Iranians will probably start up with the Nukes in a year or two...
And I'm supposed to feel guilty for turning on the toaster in the morning...
No Flames directed at anybody... but before skimming, fragging, and proper lighting... Guess who took the hit for destroying the reefs (that would be us
you may flame me at your leisure :cheers:
johnny :fish:
In 1985, Ted Danson, the star of cheers and brilliant oceanographer (huh) proclaimed that in ten years the oceans would be fished out! hadn't quiet happened yet.
I'm 45. When I was a kid, the only way you could get research grants was to claim that we were on the verge of the next iceage. Didn't quite happen...
That burned out... then for the last 20 years you could only get research grants if you claimed global warming (and only if we caused it).
Then... (watch the propaganda film, day after tomorrow) we are only going to get the next iceage, because we will have global warming first. Huh!
And with all this the North Koreans or the Iranians will probably start up with the Nukes in a year or two...
And I'm supposed to feel guilty for turning on the toaster in the morning...
No Flames directed at anybody... but before skimming, fragging, and proper lighting... Guess who took the hit for destroying the reefs (that would be us
you may flame me at your leisure :cheers:
johnny :fish:
The circle of life....I personally don't buy "global warming". Look back in time and you will find this is a re-ocurring process.. how do you think the Florida Keys got developed? They are "old Reefs"..
But the earth is doing what it does. You can go to Greenland and and dig down a couple hundred feet and find meadows where there is now glacier. and visa versa...
There and many more examples.....the reef's will survive...hell they just found a Lionfish in Rhode Island waters!!! Change occurs, we maybe dead, but they will thrive.
But DIVE to see them guys!! Global warming.....that's a left wing thing.....
sorry had to add that.
Todd
But the earth is doing what it does. You can go to Greenland and and dig down a couple hundred feet and find meadows where there is now glacier. and visa versa...
There and many more examples.....the reef's will survive...hell they just found a Lionfish in Rhode Island waters!!! Change occurs, we maybe dead, but they will thrive.
But DIVE to see them guys!! Global warming.....that's a left wing thing.....
sorry had to add that.
Todd
Yeah, you're right...
Every rat in the Americas came from Europe...
Every rat in Europe came from China...
What is the point in blame?
Enjoy the good stuff and do less of the bad...Then hope you are in the primal throughs with your significant other when Yellow Stone blows the US back to the stonage....
:shades:
One of the great things about being a graduate student in chemical engineering at Georgia Tech is every week top researchers and scientists from around the world give seminars on all areas in engineering and the sciences. As such, I was lucky to attend a lecture last week by Dr. Steve Chu, a nobel prize winning physicist working out of the Berkley national labs. He works for the Deparment of Energy and manages various research efforts there. He's in a unique position to advise (and has advised) lawmakers and the President on various energy and climate issues. See his webpage http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director/index.html">here </a>for creditials and other information.
His lecture was titled "The Energy Problem and what we can do about it". I just wanted to highlight some of the data he presented on climate and atmosphere change. (I took these slides directly from his lecture available on his website.)
The first attached image shows average global temperatures for the past 140 years. Note the increasing trend, but as Dr. Chu points out, "140 years is nothing by geological time scales!"
The second image shows temps from Antartica over the past 420,000 years as well as atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations (2 universally accepted greenhouse gases). This indicates a strong correlation between these gases and global temperatures.
Now let's look at how the greenhouse gas concentrations have varied over the past several hundred years (see slide 3). Carbon dioxide, methane, and NOx concentrations start to spike as the industrial revoltion occurs around 1750. (It occured earlier in industrial Europe than here in the states.)
He then went on to question that if we observe a correlation between greenhouse gases and global temperatures, then can we make predictions as to future events? And the best way to test these models is to predict past changes that we have known results for. The top graph in slide 4 shows the predictions the best climate models predict for global temperatures over the past 150 years taking into account natural occurences only (eruptions, weather patterns, etc.) The prediction in grey does not seem to fit the actual recorded temperatures well. However, the bottom model prediction accounts for human influences (industrialization). Although it is not a perfect model, it does trend quite well with the actual temperatures.
The last slide shows how changes in the climate may occur if all CO2 emissions were ceased in about 50 years (which realistically is never going to happen). Note how the full effects on temperature, ocean temps, and ocean levels take centuries to millenia to be realized.
So we should understand not to expect to see the full effects of elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in our lifetime. [I]The Day After Tomorrow</em> is obviously a bunch of BS, and I think most people know that. But what I do want to stress, is that people need to understand that these effects take time, and don't base your judgements on what you hear in the media and in movies. I wanted to present some real data here for everyone to make their own decisions and not jump on a bandwagon blindly following what others are saying.
Getting back to coral reefs and the oceans, I think they are in danger and we should be protected as best we can. Will they totally disappear? No. Will they suffer in the next 100 years. Probably. Should we be concerned? Yes. Let's appreciate them and preserve them for future generations.
This post is by no means an effort to make people feel guilty about using electricity or driving big cars. My truck gets less than 20 mpg. But I do think we as a society need to be more cautious and aware of our impact on the environment. Cleaner industries, cleaner CO2 neutral energy, better air and water treatment, increased recycling, etc all need to be adopted.
And most importantly, trust scientists. It's their job to investigate and research matters such as these. They don't make up blind predictions and falsify data. Otherwise, they wouldn't be employed for very long. The science community has been silent in political matters in the past. However as energy challenges arise, I think scientists will become more active and visible in social and political matters.
This was far longer than I intended to write, but since it's all down, I'm not retracting any of it. I hope everyone at least finds it interesting and will help to make better informed decisions.
weeeewww....done.
His lecture was titled "The Energy Problem and what we can do about it". I just wanted to highlight some of the data he presented on climate and atmosphere change. (I took these slides directly from his lecture available on his website.)
The first attached image shows average global temperatures for the past 140 years. Note the increasing trend, but as Dr. Chu points out, "140 years is nothing by geological time scales!"
The second image shows temps from Antartica over the past 420,000 years as well as atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations (2 universally accepted greenhouse gases). This indicates a strong correlation between these gases and global temperatures.
Now let's look at how the greenhouse gas concentrations have varied over the past several hundred years (see slide 3). Carbon dioxide, methane, and NOx concentrations start to spike as the industrial revoltion occurs around 1750. (It occured earlier in industrial Europe than here in the states.)
He then went on to question that if we observe a correlation between greenhouse gases and global temperatures, then can we make predictions as to future events? And the best way to test these models is to predict past changes that we have known results for. The top graph in slide 4 shows the predictions the best climate models predict for global temperatures over the past 150 years taking into account natural occurences only (eruptions, weather patterns, etc.) The prediction in grey does not seem to fit the actual recorded temperatures well. However, the bottom model prediction accounts for human influences (industrialization). Although it is not a perfect model, it does trend quite well with the actual temperatures.
The last slide shows how changes in the climate may occur if all CO2 emissions were ceased in about 50 years (which realistically is never going to happen). Note how the full effects on temperature, ocean temps, and ocean levels take centuries to millenia to be realized.
So we should understand not to expect to see the full effects of elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in our lifetime. [I]The Day After Tomorrow</em> is obviously a bunch of BS, and I think most people know that. But what I do want to stress, is that people need to understand that these effects take time, and don't base your judgements on what you hear in the media and in movies. I wanted to present some real data here for everyone to make their own decisions and not jump on a bandwagon blindly following what others are saying.
Getting back to coral reefs and the oceans, I think they are in danger and we should be protected as best we can. Will they totally disappear? No. Will they suffer in the next 100 years. Probably. Should we be concerned? Yes. Let's appreciate them and preserve them for future generations.
This post is by no means an effort to make people feel guilty about using electricity or driving big cars. My truck gets less than 20 mpg. But I do think we as a society need to be more cautious and aware of our impact on the environment. Cleaner industries, cleaner CO2 neutral energy, better air and water treatment, increased recycling, etc all need to be adopted.
And most importantly, trust scientists. It's their job to investigate and research matters such as these. They don't make up blind predictions and falsify data. Otherwise, they wouldn't be employed for very long. The science community has been silent in political matters in the past. However as energy challenges arise, I think scientists will become more active and visible in social and political matters.
This was far longer than I intended to write, but since it's all down, I'm not retracting any of it. I hope everyone at least finds it interesting and will help to make better informed decisions.
weeeewww....done.
Forgot to attach the slides!
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend>
>
class="gc-images" title="Avg Temp 140 yrs.jpg_Thumbnail1.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a>
>
class="gc-images" title="Avg Temp 420K yrs.jpg_Thumbnail1.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a>
>
class="gc-images" title="Global Models.JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a>
>
class="gc-images" title="Greenhouse Gas Conc.JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a>
>
class="gc-images" title="Warming Chart.JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a> </fieldset>
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend>
On the face of it, you make very vaild points. However I would make the following observations (or opinions if you will). But every point I make will reference these three words: Follow the Money
>lecture last week by Dr. Steve Chu, a nobel prize winning physicist working out of the Berkley national labs. Berkley is the absolute bastion of leftwing politicial (and scientific) thought. I don't directly question his points or thoughts. But if you want traction, starting off with the most radical left wing think tank leaves a bit to be desired.
>use of charts and graphs. Most certainly a very common way to help make a point. But neither I nor most others have any to verify how the data was gathered and how it is referenced and used. So we have to trust the source. See above
Remember Enron and Worldcom used al kinds of charts and graphs to show us how profitable and sound they were.
>They don't make up blind predictions and falsify data. Otherwise, they wouldn't be employed for very long. Sorry, can't let you slide on this one. I don't even know where to start. How about silicone breast implants. A fantastic, multi billion dollar, company (Owens Corning) was ruined because left wing academia bantered for years about all the dangers of the implants. That has since been proven "totally" false. Those people should be in prison for what they did. How about DDT. Have you noticed how it has been quitely been brought back this past year. Seems that somebody started feeling bad for the 50 million (or so) children that have been killed by malaria since it was banned. Turns out the "science" behind it has no foundation at all. Oh, and what about Alar on our apples. Brain cancer from cell phones (though I will concede that many drivers talking on cellphones do appear to be brainless
I have to stop. I making myself mad just thinking about all this "brilliant science" that was nothing more than a pack of lies. Follow the money...
You may be totally right. And I have proven that I am part of the advanced right wing conspiracy.
So what the heck. Got any frags you want to sell ?:fish:
Follow the Money
>lecture last week by Dr. Steve Chu, a nobel prize winning physicist working out of the Berkley national labs. Berkley is the absolute bastion of leftwing politicial (and scientific) thought. I don't directly question his points or thoughts. But if you want traction, starting off with the most radical left wing think tank leaves a bit to be desired.
>use of charts and graphs. Most certainly a very common way to help make a point. But neither I nor most others have any to verify how the data was gathered and how it is referenced and used. So we have to trust the source. See above
Remember Enron and Worldcom used al kinds of charts and graphs to show us how profitable and sound they were.
>They don't make up blind predictions and falsify data. Otherwise, they wouldn't be employed for very long. Sorry, can't let you slide on this one. I don't even know where to start. How about silicone breast implants. A fantastic, multi billion dollar, company (Owens Corning) was ruined because left wing academia bantered for years about all the dangers of the implants. That has since been proven "totally" false. Those people should be in prison for what they did. How about DDT. Have you noticed how it has been quitely been brought back this past year. Seems that somebody started feeling bad for the 50 million (or so) children that have been killed by malaria since it was banned. Turns out the "science" behind it has no foundation at all. Oh, and what about Alar on our apples. Brain cancer from cell phones (though I will concede that many drivers talking on cellphones do appear to be brainless
I have to stop. I making myself mad just thinking about all this "brilliant science" that was nothing more than a pack of lies. Follow the money...
You may be totally right. And I have proven that I am part of the advanced right wing conspiracy.
So what the heck. Got any frags you want to sell ?:fish:
Follow the Money
A question was asked about just this point. Berkley has been in the past and to a lesser degree currently (IMO) a hotbed of leftwing thinking. However his responce to a question of whether politics affected the science, he said he had no secret agendas and if they didn't think he was doing a good job they could fire him. (He'd easily secure a position at any of the nations top universities and research centers considering his talent. me saying this, not him</em>) That doesn't totally address your point, but I did get the feeling he wanted to be in a position where he could fairly and impartially advise government officials while speaking intelligently about climate change.
johnqx4 wrote: >use of charts and graphs. Most certainly a very common way to help make a point. But neither I nor most others have any to verify how the data was gathered and how it is referenced and used. So we have to trust the source. See above
This is not data he's collected personally. It's collected by various research groups across the scientific community. I don't know where the data came from, but I am confident he's pulling data from reliable sources considering his reputation and responsibility. I'm sure he could tell you if you wanted to know.
How else would you display data? You don't question the stock market charts do you? And they would have a HUGE influence as to the flow of money.
johnqx4 wrote: >They don't make up blind predictions and falsify data. Otherwise, they wouldn't be employed for very long. Sorry, can't let you slide on this one. I don't even know where to start. How about silicone breast implants. A fantastic, multi billion dollar, company (Owens Corning) was ruined because left wing academia bantered for years about all the dangers of the implants. That has since been proven "totally" false. Those people should be in prison for what they did. How about DDT. Have you noticed how it has been quitely been brought back this past year. Seems that somebody started feeling bad for the 50 million (or so) children that have been killed by malaria since it was banned. Turns out the "science" behind it has no foundation at all. Oh, and what about Alar on our apples. Brain cancer from cell phones (though I will concede that many drivers talking on cellphones do appear to be brainless
Ok, so you're right. You shouldn't blindly trust scientists either. Way to call me out. And you are right about "follow the money". However, in Chu's case, his comment about being fired leads me to believe his situation is unique in that his views and predictions are not tied to securing funding. The DOE already pays his salary, and I don't believe they have hidden agendas and exist for the good of the country. I could be wrong though.
Breast implants...The early models by Dow-Corning were proven to be defective. There are documented cases. Dow still exists and is doing great as a company. The company was held accountable for their products (and rightly so). Should D-C have gone under? dunno on that point.
DDT was a great pesticide. Tragically, it has been linked to cancer and thin bird eggs. However, I don't think we should solve one problem (malaria via mosquitos) by causing another. We should be smart and find something as effective minus the health effects. Is it really being brought back? Maybe a modified version. Where did you hear this?
Nice point about brainless cell phone users. I couldn't agree more. he he
I asked my personal physician if cell phones caused cancer and he said it was all BS. I do have a few for trade/sell. If anyone's interested, shoot me an email for pics.
1) 4-5" piece of blue ridge coral
2) 4" Greenish-red mushroom rock
3) 3" Kenya tree
I read your reply again. I shouldn't have....
>he said he had no secret agendas and if they didn't think he was doing a good job they could fire him.
"He Said" and "they could fire him" Come on, you have to do better than this. "He Said"... "they could fire him" WHY would they, he is towing the party line.
>I did get the feeling... That is indeed the problem. Feelings aren't proof.
> This is not data he's collected personally...Therefore he can't actually vouch for it. Come on...
>It's collected by various research groups across the scientific community. And their agenda's are....
>I don't know where the data came from...And, that is the problem...
>You don't question the stock market charts do you? EVERY **** DAY!
You are wrong on the breast implants. Their were breakages (and that is a real problem. but you hit any item with enough force and it will break. Silicone and carbon (us) don't mix. That is why we use it to seal our aquarium tanks. It doesn't leach into the water...I realize that a leakage or such would be terrible to the woman (man?) involved, but there were no medical issues with the product.
>DDT was a great pesticide. Tragically, it has been linked to cancer and thin bird eggs. However, I don't think we should solve one problem (malaria via mosquitos) by causing another. We should be smart and find something as effective minus the health effects. Is it really being brought back? Maybe a modified version. Where did you hear this?Sorry, I gotta call you out again... it was linked to thin bird shell eggs and cancer by the lying scientist that had it banned. They had 0 (zero) proof. Seems once the power companies stopped shooting the osprey nest off of the tops of telephone polls (and let them live in peace) their trouble subsided. Further research has shown NO evidence of this at all. That is why the bans are being dropped all around the world (Just Google DDT and you will see). It will be back in this country in a decade.
You know, saccharin was linked to cancer too. it seems if I drink 800 diet drinks a day (the amount they were feeding to the rats) I might get cancer...man, that had me bothered...
I do apologize. But I couldn't let it go...
johnny
>he said he had no secret agendas and if they didn't think he was doing a good job they could fire him.
"He Said" and "they could fire him" Come on, you have to do better than this. "He Said"... "they could fire him" WHY would they, he is towing the party line.
>I did get the feeling... That is indeed the problem. Feelings aren't proof.
> This is not data he's collected personally...Therefore he can't actually vouch for it. Come on...
>It's collected by various research groups across the scientific community. And their agenda's are....
>I don't know where the data came from...And, that is the problem...
>You don't question the stock market charts do you? EVERY **** DAY!
You are wrong on the breast implants. Their were breakages (and that is a real problem. but you hit any item with enough force and it will break. Silicone and carbon (us) don't mix. That is why we use it to seal our aquarium tanks. It doesn't leach into the water...I realize that a leakage or such would be terrible to the woman (man?) involved, but there were no medical issues with the product.
>DDT was a great pesticide. Tragically, it has been linked to cancer and thin bird eggs. However, I don't think we should solve one problem (malaria via mosquitos) by causing another. We should be smart and find something as effective minus the health effects. Is it really being brought back? Maybe a modified version. Where did you hear this?Sorry, I gotta call you out again... it was linked to thin bird shell eggs and cancer by the lying scientist that had it banned. They had 0 (zero) proof. Seems once the power companies stopped shooting the osprey nest off of the tops of telephone polls (and let them live in peace) their trouble subsided. Further research has shown NO evidence of this at all. That is why the bans are being dropped all around the world (Just Google DDT and you will see). It will be back in this country in a decade.
You know, saccharin was linked to cancer too. it seems if I drink 800 diet drinks a day (the amount they were feeding to the rats) I might get cancer...man, that had me bothered...
I do apologize. But I couldn't let it go...
johnny
I look at it like this...
Believe the science or not, what harm is done by making changes to our impact on the planet? Conserve oil, Protect the forests and oceans, and don't use cfc's.
Maybe it will make a positive impact, maybe it won't, can't hurt to try.
Of course the counter argument to follow the money is who is trying to convince us there is no Global Warming, Big Oil... tell me they do not have an investment in the science.
Believe the science or not, what harm is done by making changes to our impact on the planet? Conserve oil, Protect the forests and oceans, and don't use cfc's.
Maybe it will make a positive impact, maybe it won't, can't hurt to try.
Of course the counter argument to follow the money is who is trying to convince us there is no Global Warming, Big Oil... tell me they do not have an investment in the science.
That last point lays bare your entire premise, Johnny. I just don't know how you can honestly make the "follow the money" argument with a straight face. Forgive me for being rash, but do you think there's any particular reason why the current administration has manipulated and supressed scientific findings from its own agencies and packed advisory panels with ideological lackees? Could it be for the same reasons they manipulated and supressed intelligence that did not support their case for war with Iraq (a case which has not been borne out by even their own shifting standards)?
That global warming can be easily identified as an inevitable outcome of our reckless environmental policies is an inconvenient fact for those who profit the most from those policies. So why not just keep getting some scientist to say, "there's not enought evidence..." while arguing that changing course would hurt the economy?
Like Wardaddy said, why not just err on the side of moderation rather than gamble with the future of the planet? Yes, nature is a powerful and equalizing force that in the end will probably prevail regardless of what damage we do. But do you really believe that global warming is a hoax made up by hard up scientists desperate for research dollars? I think that's as laughable as raising the specter of left wing conspiracy to refute well documented science. It's a convenient position to take without having to do much of your own thinking.
Now I work for a research company in the area of public health and have witnessed first hand what can happen when sound science and good public health policy gets co-opted by ideologues in the administration. A case in point is their pushing of abstinence only programs. We have done the research, and have found that on their own, absitinence only programs have had not made an impact on reducing the spread of HIV/Aids or unwanted pregnancies. Condom use, however, has. But teaching kids about condoms isn't popular with the conservative base of the party in power. We have had our own reports, which are prepared for the government by non-partisan scientists, sent back to us by non-scientists who have literally counted the times "condoms" were mentioned in a report and required us to mention "abstinence-only" every time they were mentioned. And this is the stuff that builds the rationale for policy, folks. We have people who want to stay in power that please their base by producing "pallatable" policy that in the end does not pass scientific muster, and leads to worse, not better, public health outcomes.
So forgive me if your argument reads a bit like a John Birch fantasy to me... I absolutely support your skepticism, but I just don't think you've made a compelling enough argument to lay this one to rest.
Then again, being a left wing liberal myself, it could be that I just can't smell my own s**t...