20% of coral reefs dead

[archman]

This article was published in Newsweek. What a difference from the scenario of today.

http://ksfo.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

That article gets trounced around the internet almost like spam. It's been so overhyped and referenced, one would think it's peer-reviewed and current. It is neither. Like most news articles, worst-case scenarios are presented. Worst-case scenarios virtually never occur.

Do not read much into public information articles, without scrutinizing the details. The details ARE peer-reviewed, and still mostly valid. There was and is an equatorial temperature increase, and North America has had some fluky climate the last half century. North America is not a good model for global climate change; it does not nearly as well reflect the trends seen on other continents. Climatologists do not use regional-scale values as proxies for global patterns anymore; they simply monitor the entire Earth from orbit.

I have tracked down a fairly simple-to-read article geared for farmers in Nebraska, which as far as I can tell leaves out the hype and drama regarding global warming phenomena. It's actually rather nice, with cute tables and graphs.
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/generalag/g1311.htm

You will also note any reference to causal factors in the old Newsweek article. It merely discusses temperature patterns predominantly from North America, and gives hypothetical predictions for global patterns. This time period also predates all but the most basic computer models, integration of oceanographic data, and the bulk of laboratory experimentation. Global data was much harder to quantify (mainly due to lack of satellites) as well. It is universally known that increases (or decreases) in global air temperatures will still result in regional-scale reversals, due to weather pattern changes. El Nino was only just being understood in the 1970's... most decadal-scale weather oscillations at the present time are believed to now be accounted for.

Science, unlike a great many other disciplines, only improves with time. The data compounds. Modeled predictions get better. This is dramatically emphasized by monthly editions of Popular Mechanics (or Popular Science). They have one page dedicated exclusively to referencing science-related news articles from the past, in 25, 50, and 100-year intervals. Very rarely are the older reports more valid than the newer ones. Typically that's because the older science had less data to work with.

The take home lesson is not to use older science as a level against newer science in the same discipline(s). This isn't the liberal arts. :dazzler1:

 

[wacdiver]

OK Not to hop on the bandwagon for Global warming but seriously dude you honestly don't think that we humans have had a negative effect on our environment?
How about this you sit in your garage for an hour or two with the door closed with your car running. Then tell me that the effects of our OVERUSE of fossil fuels and our POLLUTION of our surrondings has no effect on us or the environment.
BTW we humans are the ONLY species on earth to create waste! I don't mean biological waste (urine/feces which is biodegradable) I mean Solid waste (plastic and other nonBiodegradables) Gasses (excessive amounts of CO2, Carbom Monoxicde, CFCs) oh and not to mention Radioactive waste.
I know your next reply is gonna be the world is much larger than the small space in my garage and therefore the comparison is not valid. And you are right but take into account that Just in the US alone there are more than 100 million cars on the road every day (thats allot of exhaust). Now add to that that we humans are cutting down the Earths only filter system by hundreds of of square miles a day. Our trees and plants are the only way for the earth to maintain the O2-CO2 balance. There are More cars less trees every year. The cutting down of the rainforests and clearing of almost all the natural lands to build hoses or farms can't help matters. This IS SOMETHING WE CAN FIX and it WON"T COST 500 billion a year to do. Drive less and plant a tree every person can DO THAT!

QUOTE=Boogie711]The best thing you can do for the environment? Seriously?

Go buy stuff.

Improve the economy of the world around you. As countries grow, they buy prosperity. As they develop prosperity, they start to look after the environment around them.

Good theory but seriously the people in charge of big cooparations and Govt officals only care about 1 thing the allmighty dollar! Look at our Lovely @$$ #0!* president Bush! Lets give tax breaks and reduce the pollution restrictions on coorparations who spew tons of toxic gasses and/or worse into our Air and water. But hey it help increase their profit so it must be OK who cares if the water we drink 5 years from now is too toxic, I made money off it so it is all good!
BUY something?!? That is what got us in this mess in the first place. Humans as CONSUMERS are the biggest threat we have to ourselves. Instead of living with our environment as was intended by the man upstairs. We feel we have to CONSUME it make it ours use what you can then just toss it aside. Rather than try to live with the Earth. So yeah lets go buy that Hummer that only gets 6 miles to the gallon what do I care about the future resources of the planet I look too cool driving this!

The Great Lakes are cleaner now than they were 50 years ago. The air over London, England is cleaner than it was in the 1700's!

That is because we discovered better ways of treating our raw sewage, and stopped dumping it into lakes and rivers untreated!

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not a bad thing, ScubaTwo, and kudos to you for doing your part. But don't think that anything us humans are going to do is going to make a significant affect on global warming.

This is the problem no-one thinks we can make a difference! BUT we CAN! If every person in the US ALONE made a point of turning off lights and appliances that were NOT being used, (I do it every day I even turn off lights/Office equipement at work when I leave) and made an effort to carpool to work even once a week, and tried to be more Enviromentally conscience about their daily lives it could be a HUGE difference. We have the technology now to have cars that run on alternate fuels (water, hydrocells, electric, hybrids, and EVEN GARBAGE!) BUT we don't see all too many of en on the road! WHY? The people in charge don't get the big kickbacks or under the table deals that they DO get from BIG OIL Co.! So it is once again all about the $$$$

Put this in perspective. That's all I'm asking. Is it real? Maybe. Should we be spending money to fix it? Not at the rate the activists pushing Kyoto say we should be... and DARN near not enough to give clean drinking water to every citizen on earth. Every year![/QUOTE]

ON this you are right to send that much $$ on something that MAY not work is just plain STUPID!! BUT to not try other methods of generating power and energy is also just as stupid! WE KNOW the exhasut gases we release from our cars, factories, and homes are TOXIC to the environment this is not theory it is FACT! So why not try to reduce what we can. I am not saying go back to the stone age but we have soo many other energy options (solar, Wind, Hydro, Geothermal, even Tidal currents are being used) we just choose to use the EASY way.

Sorry about the rant but I actually care about the FUTURE GENERATIONS and what MESS we leave them with!

 

[yeehawherb]

My feeling is that there is plenty of blame to go all around...

My feeling is that locating blame isn't as important as doing somrhitng about it. I do agree that it's important to understand the root of the problem. I just pften see discussion about who/what is to blame get out of control when it's really arbitrary to argue....

 

[yeehawherb]

The comments on 'human interference' are interesting. Admittedly out of context, you may be interested to know that the Mount Pinatubo explosion in 1990 created more Carbon Dioxide emissions than over 100 YEARS of human based emissions. Clearly, human based GHG emissions are not the problem. In fact, everyone is running around hysterical about GHG in the troposphere - did you know that only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide? Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent, respectively.

Does global warming exist? MAYBE.

Is it human caused? No.

Is there anything we can therefore do about it? No.

Should we be spending money or implementing protocols to prevent it? Considering that they're as effective as spending millions of dollars to install a toilet paper barrier around Los Angeles to prevent a Tsunami disaster, I'd say no.

Your conjecture that "The earth makes more carbon dioxide than we do" is weak. Carbon dioxide is only one of many polutants that are adding to increades global warming.

Your argument is like a smoker saying"I'm otherwise healthy, i have low cholesterol and second hand smoke kills anyway so that's why i smoke... "

Just becasue earth has her own cycles and creates catastrophic events on her own, doesn't mean we have to help along. What idon't uinderstand is why there's an argument today about wether or not to do anything about it it. It's like people refusing to recycle. There are people who actually get angry when you point to a recycling bid next to a trash can. I'm not trying to make you feel inferiour by supposing that our environment is dying, it's jus tthat i'm young and it may be along time before i have children and raise them, and i'd much rather show them a tree outside than in a library....

 

[dlndavid]

it's jus tthat i'm young and it may be along time before i have children and raise them, and i'd much rather show them a tree outside than in a library....

Kind of a far fetched scenario, doom and gloom indoctrination I see.

 

[yeehawherb]

Now add to that that we humans are cutting down the Earths only filter system by hundreds of of square miles a day. Our trees and plants are the only way for the earth to maintain the O2-CO2 balance. There are More cars less trees every year. The cutting down of the rainforests and clearing of almost all the natural lands to build hoses or farms can't help matters. This IS SOMETHING WE CAN FIX and it WON"T COST 500 billion a year to do. Drive less and plant a tree every person can DO THAT!

I believe most of the planet's photosynthesis occures on the ocean surface, Phytoplanton accounts for 70% (i believe) of photosynethsis on the planet. Just wanted to impress the often unknown importance of our oceans

 

[Boogie711]

That is because we discovered better ways of treating our raw sewage, and stopped dumping it into lakes and rivers untreated!

And why do you think that is? Do you not think its because someone out there saw the potential to make money off of developing a better water infrastructure system?

People buy prosperity, and then they 'buy their environment.' There's a reason why people have cleaner lakes and rivers than they did 50 years ago - they can afford to. It improves their quality of life. Otherwise, we'd have clean water in Bangladesh or southern India. We don't have clean water there because they can't afford to do it. It's not like they don't have access to the technology - they simply can't afford to. What's the best way of allowing them to afford the technology needed to clean up their lives? Make them a member of the world economy.

In other words - if you want a cleaner environment, buy stuff. When we throw it out, we'll do so in an environmentally responsible manner. It's a simple fact that your strawman arguments about consumerism not withstanding, the cleanest environments come from developed nations.

Why is that?

WE KNOW the exhasut gases we release from our cars, factories, and homes are TOXIC to the environment this is not theory it is FACT!

I really hope you're not referring to carbon emissions. Undoubtedly, there are some things that come out of a tailpipe which are 'bad.' But, the one that you're referring to in your earlier "leave the car running in the garage" example, carbon monoxide, is NOT toxic. There have been several efforts to have carbon dioxide listed as a toxic substance, but so far, thankfully, all have failed. No credible source lists carbon emissions as "toxic."

After all, if carbon emissions are ever banned, I'm sure the plants would hate that.

Think about it.

 

[Randy43068]

We've got 80 percent left then.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/25/seychelles.coral.reut/index.html

This isn't new news by any means, but it's starting to get better press. Better do some more reef diving, they're going downhill fast!

 

[archman]

We've got 80 percent left then.

That also includes all the sick and *not-quite-dead* corals. That's a pretty hefty percentage too.

 

[vladimir]

Archman, thank you for informing and elevating this debate. Laypeople would probably be better off reading more and writing less on scientific issues.