20% of coral reefs dead

[Hank49]

Laypeople would probably be better off reading more and writing less on scientific issues.

By the same token pure academics, who possess vast amounts of knowledge on many subjects within their fields, should not presume they are the only ones capable of hypothesizing on the complexities of natural phenomenons. I've know many PhD marine biologists who are capable of quoting extemely complex data and terms that confuse and intimidate the "simple layman", who cannot grow a fish or shrimp to save their lives. (and I don't mean you Archman, I'm speaking in generalities here).

 

[yeehawherb]

Also considering the supposition that a volcano emits more CO2 emmissions than 100 years of human use of fossil fuels... Which hundred years? Cause China has 1.2? billion poeple, it's quickly becoming more developed and last year their use of fossil fuels increased by 300%... We're obviously using it at an increased rate, casue if you wanted to use 1800-1900 i believe you're right, but if you used 1850-1950, 0r 1900-2000 you're way off base. Now, If you want to keep arguing that man isn't to blame that's fine, i'm not trying to make you personally responsible for the problem, but i would appresicate it if you and everyone else would join me in accepting responsibility for the solution...

 

[Boogie711]

"Accepting responsibility for the solution" means having to accept that there is a problem in the first place, does it not?

It was warmer during medieval times on this earth than it is now. Explain?

 

[archman]

It was warmer during medieval times on this earth than it is now.

Not having instruments in place for precise monitoring, all one can do with pre-19th century climate is make rough temperature estimates from core samples. Establishing causal links to such values is more of a guessing game.

Although we are theoretically supposed to be moving back into a glacial period. I guess this next one is a late bloomer.

 

[yeehawherb]

"Accepting responsibility for the solution" means having to accept that there is a problem in the first place, does it not?

Evidence does nto point to opinions. It points to hypotheses and theories. Wether or not we choose to accept that 2+2 = 4 does not change the validity of the statement.

I recently read: The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Wearth

This book goes a long way to explain the path research has taken (both valid and false assumptions) over the years to come to the conclusion that Global warming is a very real problem, humanity is atleast in part responsible for it, and there are things we can do to at the least slow the affects.

 

[Boogie711]

Evidence does nto point to opinions. It points to hypotheses and theories. Wether or not we choose to accept that 2+2 = 4 does not change the validity of the statement.

I recently read: The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Wearth

This book goes a long way to explain the path research has taken (both valid and false assumptions) over the years to come to the conclusion that Global warming is a very real problem, humanity is atleast in part responsible for it, and there are things we can do to at the least slow the affects.

And when you read the work of Bjorn Lomborg or Ross McKitrick, get back to me...

 

[drbill]

It was warmer during medieval times on this earth than it is now. Explain?

It was cooler during the Little Ice Age which some date from about 1,300 to 1,900 AD. I know... my heating bill back then was outrageous even at pre-inflation SCE rates.

Dr. Bill

 

[Boogie711]

It was cooler during the Little Ice Age which some date from about 1,300 to 1,900 AD. I know... my heating bill back then was outrageous even at pre-inflation SCE rates.

Dr. Bill

So, if it was cooler from 1300 to 1900, you, by default, admit that you remember when it was warmer BEFORE 1300?

 

[Rick Murchison]

It was cooler during the Little Ice Age which some date from about 1,300 to 1,900 AD. I know... my heating bill back then was outrageous even at pre-inflation SCE rates.
Dr. Bill

Oh yeah???
Well what about the hundred year drought that ended the golden age of Mayan civilization, huh?
How hot was that???

Rick

 

[archman]

For the most extensive and up-to-date paleoclimate information, visit NOAA here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

You can look up info on the Little Ice Age, medieval warm periods, drought, sea level, etc...

Now back to the thread topic (coral)...

Coral cores taken off Belize indicate that nothing similar to the 1997-1998 die-offs have occurred over at least the last 3,000 years. 'Ol Richard Aronson's put out quite a nice paper on this.
http://faculty.disl.org/Publications/Ecol Monogr 2002.pdf

Pandolfi's made a cute little powerpoint-type report that can be accessed online. The graphs on pp. 29 & 30 are rather poignant regarding recent losses to Caribbean corals.
http://www.nmsfocean.org/chow/Pandol.pdf