Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[SPSREEFS]

That is certainly my opinion based on a number of factors.

Do you think otherwise? Why?

There are a very few organisms that specifically need strontium to make certain types of structures, but normal coral skeletons is not one of them. Few if any reefers keep those that need strontium.

Was just curious. Have had certain stoney corals that have showed very positive results after starting additions and raising levels.

 

[Kent12456]

In my lifetime I have seen:

* "There's a hole in the ozone layer! We're all going to die!"

* "Acid rain! We're all going to die"

* " We are entering a new ice age! We're all going to die!"

* " Global Warming! We're all going to die!

* "Climate Change! We're all going to die!

There is money to be made on the weather....follow the money.
(Al Gore comes to mind, career politician,self proclaimed meteorology expert and film maker all rolled into one).
The real problem Mr. Gore, is there are too many people on the planet. Too much Pollution. Not enough water, food, housing, jobs.
Over population, Over population, Over Population. I'm pretty sure there is a group of "global population planners" in a dark room sonewhere working on a solution for the population problem. They just don't want to talk about the solution in public. They don't want to spook the herd.
I've lost all faith in the global government that is looking out for my well being, can you tell?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Was just curious. Have had certain stoney corals that have showed very positive results after starting additions and raising levels.

Most users see no change.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I've lost all faith in the global government that is looking out for my well being, can you tell?

Uh, you were probably save from a hideous death when those governments got together and reduced the frst two problems with very specific actions. No thank you is expected, but it would be appreciated, I'm sure.

Did you think those problems solved themselves???

The hole is still there, but at least stabilized when CFC's were reduced. More important is the ozone layer overall, however.

Acid rain is significantly reduced in the US when restrictions on emissions were put in place.

 

[SPSREEFS]

After testing and showing low numbers......

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/acid-rain-thing-past

The story of acid rain from the 1970s is preserved in newspaper headlines, textbooks, and, it turns out, the soils of the northeastern United States. Forty years after humans first began tackling the problem, the impact of acid rain still lingers in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, according to a new study. But the research also shows the first signs of recovery.

At the height of the acid rain problem, sulfur dioxide from burning coal drifted into the atmosphere and lowered the pH of rainwater. When this acidic rain fell to the ground, it leached calcium from the soil, depriving plants of a key nutrient. Acid rain also dissolved aluminum-rich minerals, freeing the metal to further poison plants.

To combat the problem, the U.S. Congress imposed strict emission regulations on industry in 1970 through the Clean Air Act, which was strengthened in 1990. By 2003, sulfur dioxide raining down on the northeastern United States had decreased by as much as 40%

 

[PSLReefer]

Was just curious. Have had certain stoney corals that have showed very positive results after starting additions and raising levels.

spsreefs. Do you contribute anything with an ounce of education behind it or just spout off one liners to everyone/thing you disagree with?

 

[Waterjockey]

Hundreds of feet? Really? That's what you'd need to see?
A rise of only a few feet will be a huge problem for coastal communities, and is clearly established by lots of differnt methods including local water gauges. That data says nothing about whether it is caused by man (although I think that evidence is also clear), but it is already happening and is already a problem.

What kind of problems? Catastrophic, unsolvable magnitude kind of problems?
"A rise of only a few feet" will take only a few *hundred* years, it's not like anybody is going to be caught off guard or anything
If the data says nothing about whether it is caused by man, then what is, in your opinion, the best response (if you believe we should take one, I honestly don't know, and am interested in your opinion) to a slowly rising sea level?

Just an aside, our technology and the ability to shape our environment is increasing at a logarithmic rate. 200 years ago was the early 1800's, we've come a long way baby, and we'll have come much, much farther along by 2217(if we haven't wrecked the planet, been eliminated by meteors, or destroyed ourselves via some other fashion other than burning carbon), and likely will have moved on from a carbon based energy supply long before then, if carbon is the concern (perhaps the "always 50 years off" promise of fusion tech will have finally matured). I have faith both the turtles and humanity will have adapted over that time frame

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What kind of problems? Catastrophic, unsolvable magnitude kind of problems?

Flooding worse from storms than would happen with lower water levels. An extra foot of water added to the most severe storms is a big deal. Even an inch can be the difference in topping a levy or entering a home, or not.

The home I am in right now is across the street from the ocean, and has been for 170 years. Someday it will be waterfront (not from erosion, we are on granite, but from sea level rise), which is why I would not buy across the street.

 

[Waterjockey]

Flooding worse from storms than would happen with lower water levels. An extra foot of water added to the most severe storms is a big deal. Even an inch can be the difference in topping a levy or entering a home, or not.

The home I am in right now is across the street from the ocean, and has been for 170 years. Someday it will be waterfront (not from erosion, we are on granite, but from sea level rise), which is why I would not buy across the street.

Ok, fair enough. So, can we agree that current sea levels are a likely about a foot above where they were in 1917? We had coastal cities, delta farming, and sea turtle nests on the beaches back then, like we do now. We are currently experiencing that extra foot of water compared to 1917, do you think (1 foot of sea level rise only) it's had catastrophic effect on humanity or the turtles? How about 1917 compared to 1817? We, and them, have survived those changes already, just fine. I'm not sure that the bulk of humanity in 2117 is at anymore of a threat to survival from the foot added between now and then, than we were the previous centuries.

And to wander off topic a little again, if the concern is burning carbon for energy, given the ever increasing demand for energy, wouldn't the most logical and appropriate response be to re-double or quadruple our research into alternative energy dense supplies like nuclear (both fission and fusion) to both supply the demand and eliminate burning carbon for energy? Would that not be the first and foremost direction we should be directing our wealth and talent?

 

[Lasse]

Over population, Over population, Over Population

Planned parenthold and birth control on a global scale ..... maybe a solution of the overpopulation......

Uh, you were probably save from a hideous death when those governments got together and reduced the frst two problems with very specific actions. No thank you is expected, but it would be appreciated, I'm sure.

Did you think those problems solved themselves???

The hole is still there, but at least stabilized when CFC's were reduced. More important is the ozone layer overall, however.

Acid rain is significantly reduced in the US when restrictions on emissions were put in place.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/acid-rain-thing-past

The story of acid rain from the 1970s is preserved in newspaper headlines, textbooks, and, it turns out, the soils of the northeastern United States. Forty years after humans first began tackling the problem, the impact of acid rain still lingers in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, according to a new study. But the research also shows the first signs of recovery.

At the height of the acid rain problem, sulfur dioxide from burning coal drifted into the atmosphere and lowered the pH of rainwater. When this acidic rain fell to the ground, it leached calcium from the soil, depriving plants of a key nutrient. Acid rain also dissolved aluminum-rich minerals, freeing the metal to further poison plants.

To combat the problem, the U.S. Congress imposed strict emission regulations on industry in 1970 through the Clean Air Act, which was strengthened in 1990. By 2003, sulfur dioxide raining down on the northeastern United States had decreased by as much as 40%

I totally agree Randy – and the discussions was as hard as they are today about Global Warming/Climate Change. At that time it was discussions about lacking data, natural forces and everything else we see today. There is differences – One that give me hope is the all over 97 % consensus among scientist in the field. It was not close that figures back in the good old days.

The Berkeley study is interesting because when it’s started – Richard A. Muller was a climate change sceptical researcher and the study was partly granted by Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation and Bill Gates. After obtaining the research – he turned in the opposite direction

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ok, fair enough. So, can we agree that current sea levels are a likely about a foot above where they were in 1917? We had coastal cities, delta farming, and sea turtle nests on the beaches back then, like we do now. We are currently experiencing that extra foot of water compared to 1917, do you think (1 foot of sea level rise only) it's had catastrophic effect on humanity or the turtles? How about 1917 compared to 1817? We, and them, have survived those changes already, just fine. I'm not sure that the bulk of humanity in 2117 is at anymore of a threat to survival from the foot added between now and then, than we were the previous centuries.

And to wander off topic a little again, if the concern is burning carbon for energy, given the ever increasing demand for energy, wouldn't the most logical and appropriate response be to re-double or quadruple our research into alternative energy dense supplies like nuclear (both fission and fusion) to both supply the demand and eliminate burning carbon for energy? Would that not be the first and foremost direction we should be directing our wealth and talent?

Add a foot to several storms prior to Sandy, and they would have flooded the subway:
see the graph: High-Water Events in Lower Manhattan
http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch_1_SandyImpacts_FINAL_singles.pdf

 

[Lasse]

http://theconversation.com/sea-leve...n-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Waterjockey]

Add a foot to several storms prior to Sandy, and they would have flooded the subway:
see the graph: High-Water Events in Lower Manhattan
http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch_1_SandyImpacts_FINAL_singles.pdf

Hopefully that will take care of itself. With the Antarctic, Greenland, and the Arctic all accumulating ice, perhaps the 2 year trend flat line in global average sea level is actually a turning point in the trend.

https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#6baba9c22892

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It would be a nice mitigating factor if warming/climate change allows Antarctica and possibly other locations to take up more water from more snow falling, but your own link suggests the effect is quite small:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

[Lasse]

From 2017 https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ My BOLD

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s surface mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ReeferBob]

I guess the real question is has anyone that has read this thread changed their mind and gone the other direction?

 

[Lasse]

Also 2017
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Results from this year - now Antartica lose ice cover also

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

Sincerely Lasse

 

[SPSREEFS]

spsreefs. Do you contribute anything with an ounce of education behind it or just spout off one liners to everyone/thing you disagree with?

spsreefs. Do you contribute anything with an ounce of education behind it or just spout off one liners to everyone/thing you disagree with?

PSLReefer, Funny. Coming from a guy that has provided NOTHING but replies to what everyone else has posted on here. Just because one does not go with the majority does not mean they are incorrect. NOTHING has been proven here to change my mind(or others) that are skeptical of man made global warming.
Far too many variables. We have not been keeping records long enough in my opinion to come to the conclusion that this is a problem and that we can do anything about it for that matter.
I remember "Smog alerts" when I was a kid. We have not had one in over 30 years that I am aware of. Leaded fuel is gone. Cars put out very little pollution now. Many factories are gone, and the ones that are left have cleaned up what they produce.
The United States emmisions have declined at a annual average rate of 1.4 % since 2005. And correct me if im wrong, but the Energy Information Administration predicts it will stay well below 2005 levels over the next 20 years!
So if anyone wants to "bag" on the United States for not giving money and participating in the Paris Accord they need to go hound China for starters.
Participation in the Paris Accord would be fundamentally unfair to American tax payers. It would require transfer of BILLIONS of our hard earned dollars to other countries through the Green climate fund.
It would further apply emmisions-reduction targets and timelines to the United States that DO NOT APPLY TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!
In fact, the agreement as negotiated would COMMIT the United States to reduce greenhouse gases by ANOTHER 26-28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025!!!
Then in the meantime, it allows countries such as CHINA TO INCREASE EMISSIONS FOR YEARS TO COME!
So read this a few times, let it sink in, and tell me if you think its fair PSLReefer!! If you can understand it. Because the way I see it, its not fair to me or anyone else working and paying taxes in this country............