Coral Reefs Dying

[The Dude]

Very sad........ Could it be cause of the warmer conditions?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_re_as/asia_dying_coral;_ylt=At3smjGgRXuy25PT3vQIxTsDW7oF

[MidiMagic]

UNlikely - it's been going on since the 1950s.

[quintoncoert]

this is really sad. last night on the news i saw about that fresh water dolphin which had gone extinct too. i am going to say that humans are responsible for the damage to mother nature and the planet.

[EnderX]

The evidence I've seen tends to indicate that global warming is a natural event, not a man-made one. It's possible the warming is changing things, I'll agree, but to blame that on mankind is excessive. And as to extinctions: Most of the species that have gone extinct over time did so well before man stuck his collective nose into the mix. I'll give you one man-driven extinction, the Passenger Pigeon, and one man-assisted extinction, the Mauritian Dodo. What others do you claim are our fault?

[jwenting]

Reefs in the southern hemisphere are bleaching despite (or is that because of?) a cold winter.

Of course the green mafia blames it on "global warming" but they're just perpetuating their lies of the last decade.

[EnderX]

Saw a statement awhile back attributed to one of the current crop of greens. I don't remember where I saw this, but it's worth noting:

"Global warming could mean cooler; it could mean wetter, it could mean drier."

Isn't that the beginnings of an unfalsifiable statement?

[quintoncoert]

can one of you perhaps explain to me exactly why you believe global warming to be a natural event? especially since consensus amongst scientists is that it is a manmade event?

normally i would shout BS but i am going to be open minded and at least give you guys a chance to explain your point of view.

i mean do you guys honestly believe that you know better than these scientists? these scientists who have researched the matter and disagrees very little with one another?

in fact do you guys even understand what global warming entails? what it is all about and how scientists believe it works? because if you understand even the smallest bit of the greenhouse effect and its relationship with CO2 levels you would not talk such foolish talk.

i am apt to agree with george bush that the kyoto protocol is not the answer. but to say that the whole global warming thing is natural. and that mankind neither caused it nor can he reversed it is very much like an ostrich sticking its head into the sand and hoping that by not seeing or knowing it can pretend that it is not happening.

[Ancient Dragon]

can one of you perhaps explain to me exactly why you believe global warming to be a natural event? especially since consensus amongst scientists is that it is a manmade event?
.

Simple -- its been going on for about 2-3 billion years now. And scientists have found evidence of it on other planets too (or so I heard on the radio within the past couple weeks).

>>since consensus amongst scientists
The only consensus is that there is no agreement. Ask 5 different scientists and you will get 5 different answers.

[EnderX]

because if you understand even the smallest bit of the greenhouse effect and its relationship with CO2 levels you would not talk such foolish talk.

i am apt to agree with george bush that the kyoto protocol is not the answer. but to say that the whole global warming thing is natural. and that mankind neither caused it nor can he reversed it is very much like an ostrich sticking its head into the sand and hoping that by not seeing or knowing it can pretend that it is not happening.

Okay, if you're going to bring up the Carbon argument, consider this question: Which puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, human activity or natural activity?

[Ancient Dragon]

If we only consider volcanoes vs humans -- 3% volcanoes and 98% humans according to this study.

[quintoncoert]

since i have so much respect for you i shall answer in a civil manner.
i was actually hoping some other fool would answer and i had a whole set prepared for just such a fool. now i have to rephrase! :-)

>Simple -- its been going on for about 2-3 billion years now.

no it has not. it is a phenomena of the past few centuries. the temperature started to rise during the mid to late 1800. of course earth's temperature fluctuates all the time. i am not denying that. but what we have now is not mere fluctuation. it is a quick and steady rise due to the greenhouse effect. also you are unfair to refer to 3 billion years. three billion years ago there was no ozone layer to protect earth from the sun's UV rays. the geology of the planet was different too. even if you insist on that fluctuation then remember this. the natural changes to earth's temperatures is very very very slow. far slower than what is happening now.

like i said i have a lot of respect for you but it would seem to me that you just made a rough grab for the 2 to 3 billion year thingy.

>scientists found evidence of it happening on other planets too

you cannot possibly compare what is happening on other planets with what is happening on earth. except for the sun the other planets has nothing in common with earth. and the rise in earth's temperatures is to quick and to high to be attributed to the sun alone.

consider venus for example. its temperature is so high at least in part because of pressure in the atmosphere. the temperature of a gass is directly proportional to the pressure applied on it. average temperature on earth is 15 degrees ( celsius ) but this temperature is due only to the sun.

i actually wanted to use jupiter as an example but i am going to make sure of my facts first. (not a big fan of the internet. am going to the library)

in any event if it was mere temperature rising i would not have cared that much because as soon as the factors (natural or not regardless) responsible for this rising temperatures subsides then the temperature would go down too. but this is the entire point. that is what scientists and environmentalists alike is worried about. with a green house effect there is no subsiding of temperatures. greenhouse gasses keeps all heat firmly trapped on earth so that there is no loss of temperature to space. earth's rise in temperature is not due to a hotter sun but to sun energy no longer escaping at night or in winter etc. over centuries the accumulating heat is the issue. you must understand that the problem is not a thousand extra factories producing extra heat but a thousand extra factories producing carbon dioxide which will keep all heat both man made and natural firmly trapped on earth. that is the crux of the entire global warming matter. that is why i asked in the previous post whether the guys actually understand the procces of global warming.

>>since consensus amongst scientists The only consensus is that there is no agreement. Ask 5 >different scientists and you will get 5 different answers. wrong again. go to the following page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

now you have surprised me! i am under the impression that you are an intelligent person. or perhaps you counted on the hope that i should not see the flaw in your argument. of course the fewer people you ask the greater the proportion of different answers you are likely to get. ask a larger group and answers will tend to converse. so dont ask 5. rather ask 500 or even 5000.

one more thing. scientists may disagree on the degree at which each factor influence the bigger picture but that is it. in general there is consensus that rising levels of earth's temperature is because of greenhouse gasses put in the atmosphere by humans.

[Ancient Dragon]

>>but it would seem to me that you just made a rough grab for the 2 to 3 billion year thingy.

Yes of course I did. I'm not quite that old and there are no historical records to indicate otherwise. It just seems obvious that there have been many many periods like this over the life of our planet.

>>wrong again. go to the following page
I never claimed to be perfect. It certainly isn't the first time I may have been wrong, and certainly won't be the last. Not see -- you ain't going to get a big raise out of me because I don't play that game. :)

[jwenting]

can one of you perhaps explain to me exactly why you believe global warming to be a natural event? especially since consensus amongst scientists is that it is a manmade event?

Not only is there no consensus at all, but it's been proven time and again that the statements of those who claim there is are utterly false and inspired only by either religious fervour of political grandstanding (or both).

The climate of this dirtball has been changing for the better part of 4 billion years, ever since it came into being in fact.
It's not going to stop any time soon either, in fact not until the thing is destroyed during the latter stages of the Sun's existence.

Anyone thinking that everything was eternally nice and stable until the 1980s and that suddenly "human action" caused the climate to get "worse" is not only utterly misinformed (or an outright liar) but extremely homocentric.

[jwenting]

one more thing. scientists may disagree on the degree at which each factor influence the bigger picture but that is it. in general there is consensus that rising levels of earth's temperature is because of greenhouse gasses put in the atmosphere by humans.

And that last is patently false.
There is NO such consensus, never has been either.
In fact there's not even a consensus on your first claim that those "greenhouse gasses" CAUSE the rise in temperature.
It is equally possible (and far more plausible) that at least to an extent those gasses are released into the atmosphere as a sideeffect of the changing temperatures, reversing the flow of cause and effect from the one the Goreites would have you believe in.

[quintoncoert]

>And that last is patently false.

english is not my native tongue so please be kind enough and explain to me how something can be patently false. I have always been under the impression that my english is as good as that of most english speaking people but this really is a new nibble for me.

>There is NO such consensus, never has been either.

you have obviously not followed the link i pasted for ancient dragon. if you did follow it that you and i define consensus differently.

>In fact there's not even a consensus on your first claim that those "greenhouse gasses" CAUSE the rise >in temperature.

you have obviously not followed the link which i have pasted for ancient dragon. if you did then please be so kind as to explain to me exactly what you consider consensus.

>one of those goreites

i have cared about the earth ever since i could remember. gore is a recent addition to a long list of people caring about the earth. we are not goreites. if you utterly have to stereotype us then at least have the decency to call us environmentalist.

>It is equally possible (and far more plausible) that at least to an extent those gasses are released into >the atmosphere as a sideeffect of the changing temperatures, reversing the flow of cause and effect.

normally i insult people by telling that they have a baseline grasp of a situation. like they do in some books i have read. in your case however i am confounded. there is no way that i can insult you since you dont even have a base line grasp of the situation. please do some research. read up on what global warming is and what it is all about before you again end up trying to disprove something you dont even undrstand. you sound like carl sagan who tried to disprove astrology in a widely published book. and like you he did not have the first clue about how the thing worked that he tried to disprove. if even the most dedicated scientist reads a basic book on astrology and then read carl sagan's book he would realise just how little sagan knew of what he tried to disprove. ragardless of whether astrology is true or not i consider sagan a dogmatist for that kind of idiocity.

and finaly. i said that i am going to give you guys a chance to explain just why you guys think you know better than the scientists who study these things. so far i have had no explanation from any of you. just a bunch of conjecture.

narue once told someone that he did not have the intelligence to understand the reason why he is a fool. i am not going to say the same thing to you since i have no evidence that you are in fact a fool. sagan was quite intelligent. so was ptlomey. but i am going to say that you are not worth a counter argument since you did not present any case to begin with.

still i suppose i should indulge you with the following fact. chew on it while you read up on global warming.

earth's levels of CO2 had been stable for the past two million years. through glacials and interglacials. through drifting continents. through the extinction of the dinosaurs. then in the mid 1700 the humans started the industrial revolution and ever since the CO2 levels had been rising. currently those levels are almost three hundred percent the levels they had been over the preceding two million years. think about it.

[quintoncoert]

>>but it would seem to me that you just made a rough grab for the 2 to 3 billion year thingy.

Yes of course I did. I'm not quite that old and there are no historical records to indicate otherwise. It just seems obvious that there have been many many periods like this over the life of our planet.

>>wrong again. go to the following page
I never claimed to be perfect. It certainly isn't the first time I may have been wrong, and certainly won't be the last. Not see -- you ain't going to get a big raise out of me because I don't play that game. :)

when you say raise you obviously mean a violent response. if you feel the need for a violent response then i apologise. like i said i have a lot of respect for you.

i am not saying this because you have often helped me in C++. i no longer am using C++ in my job although i am learning it for myself. so you see this is not ass kissing since there is no need.

i have respect for you because i have seen that you are good at what you do and you always help others. to me that indicate intelligence and decency which are amongst the things that i admire in humans.

in fact now that i think about it i have said some things to you which i should not have said. but i had a whole stack of things to say to who might have felt the urge to respond to my post. had you been the second person the respond i might have insulted the first fool(i realise that this comes accross as making it sound as if i think you are a fool too. but i do not think that you are fool. my english, although excellent, is not good enough to make the first person responding sound like a fool while not applying the same to the second which would then be you.) and said less harse things to you. now this by no means justify my response to you(and only to you). but since i cannot take words back an apology is the best i can do.

but you are still wrong if you want to say that we are not responsible for the state of the planet.

aia once said that we cannot reverse the flow of a river upstream but i must ask him what great natural process created the hole in the ozone layer. i must also ask him why this natural process stopped as soon as the humans stopped using CFC based products.