Slashdot Mirror
Coral Reefs In Grave Danger, Say Climate Simulations
sciencehabit writes "Nearly every coral reef could be dying by 2100 if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue, according to a new review of major climate models from around the world. The only way to maintain the current chemical environment in which reefs now live, the study suggests, would be to deeply cut emissions as soon as possible. It may even become necessary to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, say with massive tree-planting efforts or machines."
So what if all the Coral Reefs die, what do you think? Perhaps that some all-powerful super-destructive aliens will come from deep space to threaten the Earth if they aren't around?
Besides, we all know Brain Coral is trying to take over the planet anyway. The sooner it is gone, the safer we will all be.
The high-pitched squealing cumming from the LiberTards is really getting quite annoying.
"There is a very wide coral response to omega—some are able to internally control the [relevant] chemistry," says Rau, who has collaborated with Caldeira in the past but did not participate in this research. Those tougher coral species could replace more vulnerable ones "rather than a wholesale loss" of coral. "
I guess his views were not in line with the study, so his results were not included.
This should make the so-called skeptics pay attention as it represents a very real danger to people. Those broken up bits of dead coral can really cut your face when you bury your head in the sand.
Masturbate like mad, perhaps 2-3 times. Semen is food for these reefs.
Really, lets look at REAL science, not this who National Enquirer tabloid bullshit pseudo science. Does anyone really believe this stuff? Really? In this day and age?
And look at what's actually happening:
Remember when scientists would discard theories when their predictions were wrong? Good times....
I understand that too much CO2 is bad, but in the particular case of the Great Barrier Reef it is not CO2 which is causing the coral to bleach and die. It is really a coral disease which is causing the issue:
http://www.reef.crc.org.au/discover/coralreefs/Coraldisease.htm
Not to put a dampener on the Global Warming campaign, but this particular issue requires biologists and scientists to go do some really hard research and try and figure out how to fix this problem. By standing back and saying it is a problem with CO2 is neglecting the actual cause of the problem which is a local disease.
Hard work by scientists not politicians in the UN asking for more grants to research how CO2 affects the barrier reef. The immediate problem is a coral disease - no matter what CO2 does, the reef will die.
How about we all stop with the crazy predictions that only drive fear and eventually apathy, and focus on what's actually happening NOW. And stop that.
You can throw 50 different predictions at a normal person and he'll say: "Wait, this is stupid. This can't all happen? So what it is?", and they'll deny the problems that are already occurring. Instead just focus on what's happening now, with the warming of the ocean etc, and merely say: "It's bad. Very bad."
Politicians are simple. People as a group are simple. So keep it simple..
EXCELLENT link!
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KILL everything that isn't human! HALLELUJAH!
I've had it with you socialists that think that anything that isn't human should be allowed to live. Why do you hate freedom?
I find it very upsetting that there is an abundance of people that are concerned about the CO2 output but very few that take the time to investigate and lobby for solutions that won't drive us back into the stone age. The only solution that we have now, with no need for new technological advancements, is nuclear power. We have not built a new nuclear power plant here in the USA for something like four decades. Those that are still running are undoubtedly reaching the end of their safe and profitable lifespan.
Alternatives like wind, solar, and bio-mass take considerable amounts of land. This land is expensive and competes with other vital needs like food. I recall a solar power plant that could not produce enough electricity to pay it's property taxes. They were allowed a discounted rate on the tax but they still went out of business since they couldn't pay their other bills. Bio-mass is a direct competitor to food as any land that can grow a plant suitable for energy is also land that is suitable to grow food. There just is not enough land, water, and sun to both feed us and provide our power needs. There might be enough to both fill our tummies and our fuel tanks on our vehicles but the biggest producer of CO2 is not our vehicles, it's our coal fired power plants.
Wind might some day be competitive with coal and be profitable. The problem with wind, as well as geothermal and hydro, is that it is highly sensitive to location. Wind power can share land with things like food crops but it shares a weakness with solar power, it is highly sensitive to weather.
There's a part of me that thinks this scare over CO2 output is largely a hoax. There is a part of me that just doesn't care. What I do want to see is all this arguing to stop and people put some real solutions to work. I want them to STFU and build some nuclear power plants already. I can see a perfect spot for one from my front door. It has a rail nearby, a small river flowing by for cooling water, and a ready market in the city that I can see from my back door. My only concern is that a power plant so close might shade my house.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Utter sheer bullshit!
The authors haven't the foggiest f**king idea what will be happening in 2100! Who could possibly believe this drivel except an idiot?
And from the abstract of the actual paper referred to by the wuwt page :
"...Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century."
Remember when non-experts would actually listen to scientists rather than cherry pick what they wanted to hear? Good times...
... and SHOVE them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 3246 times, shame on the fucking media that won't let go and stop trying to sell this shit that is climate change that NOBODY believes in anymore.
Friendly tip: time for the new con to rob everyone of a slice of money and keep developing countries at 'developing' forever.
kissesbye
Trap all that carbon in clothing, acid free art paper, hempcrete, hemp fiber composites, etc... :)
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
We could always go out to the coral reef, and rescue the creatures living there, and put them in aquariums.
I need to restock the aquarium in my surgary.
P. Sherman
Dentist
42 Wallaby Way
Sydney, Australia
Let me guess: Those models are all based on the theory of Global Warming?
Then it's less than guesswork and worthless... Next!
You fucking moron.... CO2 bubbling up in a limited area has close to zero impact on the temperature and the acidity of the ocean in that area. Which is what is driving the coral die-off.
Thank god that scientists are actually doing that, because otherwise they'd keep putting forward idiotic, wrong and self-serving ideas - like the ones being served up on that site. Quite honestly, when he started out, Watts was actually doing some fairly useful commentary. He was mostly wrong, but at least he was asking questions that needed answering in the public, instead of just in the scientific literature. Now.... he's just clinging to an incorrect idea that has been his meal ticket for years. He's not going to give up or change his mind, because he will have no purpose or income.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Try telling someone from the middle of the USA that coral reefs are in danger.
1) they have probable never seen the sea let alone a coral reef.
2) you will take his 5 or 6 ltr Pickup off if him, over his dead body. You know the one, with 5 rifles in a rack behind the driver.
For many in this world this sort of statement means absolutley zip. What the climate people have to do is express it in terms that that particular audience will understand.
For the redneck farmer, that might be impossible though.
They overlooked the part in their model where more acidic seas dissolve existing carbonate faster. Nature recycles. How do you think coral survived 7000ppm CO2?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/Evo_large.gif
They've overlooked simple biomechanics before: "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
See also: There are winners and losers among corals under the accumulating impacts of climate change, according to a new scientific study. In the world’s first large-scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought - but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely. Ref: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00255-2"
Need Mercedes parts ?
TEMPEST Attacks! LCD Monitor leaks system noise to FRS
This post is one example of why Tor developers should focus on anti-TEMPEST-ing the Tor Browser, in color, fonts, etc.
===
I don't operate any wireless equipment at my living location. This includes computers, computer equipment, routers, non-computer equipment, etc.
I'm having a problem with one of my LCD monitors.
It works without problems. That was until I picked up some heavy static noises from a hand held radio. I eliminated all sources of generating this type of noise until I came towards an LCD monitor. When the monitor is on and there is content on the screen the radio makes several types of garbage(static) sounds. As I manipulate contents on the screen, maximize and minimize windows, open different applications, the radio responds with scratchy(static) noises to match the activity on the screen. This includes typing and mouse movement.
When I switched the desktop background to a solid black color without wallpaper, the radio noise went down to almost nothing. But when I loaded any program with a white background, the noise from the radio exploded in volume.
When I passed the radio across different computer and non-computer electronic devices other than the LCD monitor, the wired mouse made a high pitched squeal sound within the static. None of the other computing devices such as the tower generated any noise.
I tried CRT monitors and separate computers attached to the CRT monitors but they did not generate any noise in the radio. On the computer connected to the net, I unplugged the cable leading to the router to rule this out but it made no difference, the LCD monitor is at fault.
While monitoring the radio noise, there were several instances where the noise on the channel being monitored stopped, and I switched to another channel and the same noise appeared. Why would the noise from the LCD switch channels during normal use of the LCD? Back and forth throughout the day the noise generated by the LCD would switch from one channel to the next and back to the first channel again.
The noise extends several steps within my living location. I'll test this another day to determine if it extends outside my living location and if so by how many feet.
The computer/monitor are grounded and attached to a surge protector. I'm not sure what I need to do to stop this, or if I should ignore it.
I assumed LCDs would be quieter than CRTs when it came to noise.
Unless I have a radio tuned to a specific channel, the LCD does not generate any noise which I can detect, unless it's above my hearing capacity.
The LCD monitor also functions as speakers, and while the sound cable is connected to the tower, I have disabled the onboard sound in my BIOS. The only other connection is the DVI cable to the tower.
How may I decrease this noise or eliminate it? It seems like the LCD is a mini radio station. When I turn it off the noise in the radio stops, if I blacken the screen the noise lessens. When I switch to a colorful background or load white screened applications like a web browser the noise jumps up loudly. I've tried grabbing and moving a browser window around the screen and the movement matches the noises in the radio.
Would any of this be considered normal?
==-
This certainly isn't unheard of, it's because some part of the monitor is unshielded. The more fix-it stuff is at the top of the following, with the technical backdrop that just might be good to know is at the bottom.
Unfortunately, the issue is most likely the panel charging the LCs. The only thing you can do is see if the manufacturer will replace it or upgrade you. Complain to the manufacturer, be sure to come up with some important thing it's interfering with(if I recall some medical devices use some sort of radio).
If the issue is actually internal wiring which is highly unlikely as detailed below, and it isn't in warranty, attempt to shield it yourself. To shield it yourself, you'll need thin foil(not kitc
Really? Is CO2 increasing?
There is a huge difference between global warming and man-made production of CO2 - everything being attenuated by global dimming.
There is so much BS about this that I really hope anyone who has some critical thinking skills use them and make up their own mind.
http://sciencespeak.com/ in case you need a refresher.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
At this point in time you are more likely to obtain the truth by linking to a homeopathy site compared to wattsupwiththat.com.
It is only two days since the world survived its last apocalyptic prediction. I guess there is room for the next one.
I like my morning madness undiluted :)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
"This paper presents a new formula for calculating when fossil fuel reserves are likely to be depleted and develops an econometrics model to demonstrate the relationship between fossil fuel reserves and some main variables. The new formula is modified from the Klass model and thus assumes a continuous compound rate and computes fossil fuel reserve depletion times for oil, coal and gas of approximately 35, 107 and 37 years, respectively. This means that coal reserves are available up to 2112, and will be the only fossil fuel remaining after 2042." http://www.peakoil.net/publications/when-will-fossil-fuel-reserves-be-diminished
Current trends cannot be continued until 2100. There isn't enough fossil fuel. All the easily reachable oil is going to be burned and go into the atmosphere, no matter how successful the attempts to curb global warming. If we dramatically curb the use of fossil fuels, it will simply take a little longer to burn it all up. But it is all going into the atmosphere. There is no political force strong enough to tell all the people of the world they can't run their cars or heat their homes with fossil fuels any more. Since is entirely futile to stop all the easily extracted fossil fuel from being burned, there is no point in debating how to curb emissions. Our focus should be on what we can do to minimize the impact.
Plant a tree?
Are these supposedly 'educated' scientists really promoting the tree as a major net CO2 filter?
And they wonder why we don't take the entirely natural process of THE FUCKING WEATHER as a cry to end human existence?
You shouldn't be, this is all made up !! You're academia set you up !!
This is a false argument. What is really happening is that the coral reef organisms are shifting location. This has happened repeatedly in the past as the climate changed before. The reality is that climate change is normal. The world has been far colder and far hotter than it is today. Humans, and urbanites in particular, are simply used to the current climate and they resist change because they simply are resistant to change and because change will cause some of them to have financial losses (coast line taking away their precious cities).
Frankly, I would rather have global warming than global cooling. During times of global cooling we have had the great die offs. During ties of global warming there has been an explosion of life and diversity. Warming is opening up more of the world to life. This is a good thing.
The real problem is that people are using global warming and climate change as a distraction from the real problem of toxic pollution. People need to pollute less of the mutagenic and toxic pollutants. This is the real danger. Global warming is merely a distraction.
What you are saying is that all AGW is science and that anything else is not science. That is your prejudice and your excuse for rejecting skeptical arguments.
Perhaps we should call you the denier because you reject the possibility of skeptical scientists. I will just call you ignorant because you clearly do not understand the scientific arguments against catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Skeptics don't argue that the planet hasn't warmed. They also don't argue that CO2 doesn't have some part in that. They do argue that CO2 is not the main driver of climate change. The science is far from settled.
You link to the site of an outed Heartland Institute shill, not to mention a clearly non-scientific denialist? Haha what a fucking sheep you are, an intellectual slave.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Scientists have been studying weather control since the 1940's. There are geoengineering patents, geoengineering conferences, countries like China have a government department dedicated to weather modification, and the US does too but the government lies about it pretending they aren't doing it. People who collect rain samples from around the US have tested the water and proven the same things used by geoengineers are being sprayed in US skies (sulfur, barium, aluminum). They are playing God with the weather and doing things like causing massive drouts for multiple purposes such as pushing political agendas (carbon taxes will make some people trillions of dollars), making billions of dollars using geoengineer insider knowledge betting on Weather Derivatives that are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, forcing small farmers to go out of business and sell their farms to mega corporations that use Monsanto seeds, strengthening and steering hurricanes for political benefit (Sandy + election = Obama victory), etc. Our favorite super villan Bill Gates happens to be heavily invested in both Monsanto and geongineering.
All that stuff sounds expensive. So just keep telling everyone you don't believe in global warming. And praying. That's free too.
We're not going to do fuck all until it's far too late. Just like every other major problem in the world. because some people might not make as many billions if we start spending on the planet.
profit > all
And that includes the coral reefs. (that provide alot of the profit)
The article starts by making the statement that the "CO2 emissions" are responsible for the climate change. The nuance in this study is the inclusion of a new feature: "... include simulations of how ocean chemistry would interact with an atmosphere with higher carbon dioxide levels in the future". So the sources of error are the corelation of 'emissions' to climate changes AND the modeling of the interaction of CO2 with the ocean (and coral's hardiness in the face of change). The latter two in particular are still very very poorly understood. So the margins of error are pretty big on this new model. Bravo on the modelling work but stop with the calls for sweeping changes based on them.
If your car (or aircraft!) were designed with models of such comparably low granularity and poorly understood principles, you'd be dead ... if the governement even let them on the road (or skies).
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Gravity and relativity are not comparable to AGW. Both have been demonstrated clearly through easily observable testing, many times over, starting with "I dropped something and it fell," and then you can work out the science behind it. Or, "yep, that atomic bomb worked."
With AGW, both the science behind the observable event AND THE EVENT ITSELF are postulated. With gravity, there may be debate about why the rock fell, but it fell. Global warming isn't so simple. Even demonstrating that there has been warming in the first place requires relying on sampled data with uneven and inconsistent collection, with the sensors not placed the same from decade to decade, and use of records compiled in decades past that we're never intended for scientific study. So, there's a qualitative difference between AGW and most physics... Almost a difference between a set and a power set in what is being observed versus what is being theorized.
Silver and gold must have I
Or the coral reefs shall surely die
I know it's true 'cause the models say
I don't care as long as you pay
Pay me now or pay me later
If you won't pay you're just a hater
Jacques Cousteau told the world decades ago. We didn't listen, we won't listen now. Only when the oceans are dead will we wake up. Fat lot of good that will do.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I am in no way a climate scientist, so if someone could please explain this article to me, I would appreciate it.
1) It says "Coral Reefs Could Be Decimated by 2100" but then the first sentence is that "Nearly every coral reef could be dying by 2100 if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue" - decimation is 1/10, significantly different from "nearly every". Is this just sloppy language or which is correct?
2) The article says "No precise rule of thumb exists to link that figure and the health of reefs. But the Carnegie scientists say paleoclimate data suggests that the saturation level during preindustrial timesâ"before carbon pollution began to accumulate in the sky and seasâ"was greater than 3.5." and "In the absence of deep reductions in CO2 emissions, we will go outside the bounds of the chemistry that surrounded all open ocean coral reefs before the industrial revolution," meaning the reefs are "...toast". But then it also says "...No precise rule of thumb exists to link that figure and the health of reefs..." - first, a rule of thumb isn't precise (again, just bad writing?), second it doesn't seem that there's a question of precision here - there's simply no actual connection, just a hypothesis that's incredibly vague based entirely on inference?
3) The article says that the inescapable conclusion is that the reefs "...are toast." Yet ""There is a very wide coral response to omegaâ"some are able to internally control the [relevant] chemistry," says Rau, who has collaborated with Caldeira in the past but did not participate in this research. Those tougher coral species could replace more vulnerable ones "rather than a wholesale loss" of coral. "" - So really, while the currently-flourishing varieties of coral ARE optimized for the high-pH ocean, there are already-extant species that are more durable. So again, we're not talking about the 'loss of all coral' as the article implies, but more like 'a loss of the current varieties of coral that can't tolerate the coming change'?
4) As I understand it, corals are some of the oldest organisms on the planet, both individually and as a species. These organisms have survived far, far higher planetary temperatures and conditions which - to humans at least - would have been considered uninhabitable. The quote "[But] an important point made by [Caldeira] is that corals have had many millions of years of opportunity to extend their range into low omega waters. With rare exception they have failed. What are the chances that they will adapt to lowering omega in the next 100 years?" seems disingenuous. We KNOW corals have adapted to broad conditions over the history of the earth. As we're seeing with other ocean species, more durable, more tolerant, and simply tougher species (which have been marginalized by the species who have successfully adapted energetically and efficiently to today's 'optimum') are doing much better. In essence while some species bet their genetic currency on adapting supremely to current conditions but with little ability to operate outside them, others hedged for the long game remaining marginal species but having a greater ability to tolerate changes. Isn't that kind of how evolution simply works?
All in all, this article seems long on speculation, self-contradictory, and (sadly, typical) climate-FUD more intent on histrionics than presenting facts and reasonable hypotheses.
-Styopa
How is a MODEL which predicts events happening 100 years from now testable? Hell, every time a predicted event does NOT come true, all you hear is WELLLL that's true, but we've just changed our model and now it shows the data to fit global waming! Tada!
Cassandras are back again. Please stop forcing your global warming religion onto free society. We have separation of state and church. Take you AGW religion back to your church and stay there.
JAM
already known that seeding ocean with iron will cause huge increase in plankton, which cuases huge increase in fish population. the plankton take carbon to the bottom of the sea in their shells when they die (as they always have). Carbon is thus removed from the atmosphere, and the ocean. problem solved. already tested on small scale and entirely natural
Nice dude! That's the most epic strawman I've seen from an AGW acolyte all day.
The recently leaked IPCC AR5 report acknowledges that there is little evidence to support the existence of positive feedbacks that would lead to catastrophic AGW.
It looks like a doubling of CO2 leads to approx. one deg. C of warming. There is some evidence that negative feedbacks will offset that but there's no consensus on that yet. In any event, hard core deniers and alarmists aside, the science is settling. CO2 will make it somewhat wamer than it would otherwise be. Dry places will become somewhat drier. Wet places will become somewhat wetter. Extreme climate events will not become more common.
The non-activist scientists on both sides of the issue are coming a lot closer together. The activists will continue to rant but one hopes that people will quit listening to them.
You typed so many words with so little substance. Well, you sure gave quite a few insults, and made a few claims to having knowledge of the scientific process, but you didn't give any substance (or evidence) at all. I think you have a solid career in politics ahead of you.
Doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt (I admit I am going out in a limb here), you seem to be operating from the position of basic philosophical skepticism. That is to say, you hold that there is simply no means by which humans can ever know the basic truths about our existence, at all. While religious belief is obviously guesswork, the scientific method is also guesswork, just less obviously so. Specifically: it cannot be proven that our senses give us accurate information about reality, and the logical soundness of inductive inference cannot be demonstrated. The scientific method assumes both of these on blind faith.
Just because something happened the same way over and over again in the past, a scientist thinks he has established that it will happen that same way in the future? That is an utter guess!
I don't know if this is your position...I am just assuming it is because that seems to be the essence of your polemic. I apologize if I have misread you, which would make my post an enormous straw man fallacy. But it wouldn't be my fault, as you did not make your position clear.
These two guesses are properly called the "metaphysical assumptions" of the scientific method. However, these two assumptions are also made by every human being in the ordinary living of his ordinary life. In order to operate in the world word, humans must assume that what we see and feel are real, and that our prior learning applies to the present. Without that assumption, we wouldn't even be able to feed ourselves (since we wouldn't trust that what we are smelling is food, nor would we believe that stuffing it in our mouths would sate our hunger, not that we would believe in hunger anyway, etc.). So, while this is a guess, it is realistically impossible to operate without this guess. Rejecting the accuracy of our senses (and applicability of prior learning) is just a matter of taking intellectualism to an unworkable extreme.
So the scientific method begins with this absolute bare minimum that cannot be escaped, and accepts it. Religious thinking, by contrast, assumes quite a lot more than this. It also makes guesses about supernatural beings, a great supernatural drama in which we are caught, an afterlife, and on and on. All of these assumptions are made in addition to the same basic assumptions made by the scientific method, with no justification (you don't have to assume this in order to be functional).
So, that is an important difference in what we might call "scientific faith" and "religious faith." Scientific assumptions are paltry and inescapable, whereas religious assumptions are enormous and needless.
And, about the other points.....
Scientists were wrong in the past because they are only as good as their data, which is constantly accumulating. That is no justification for rejecting the scientific method as useless. The very computers we are now using stand as a testament to the power and rightness of science and the scientific method, as they would not exist at all without it. Prior wrongness simply proves the honesty of science: we aren't claiming to know anything by divine revelation, but are struggling to figure it all out through experimentation. We would expect mistakes, but that doesn't justify total rejection.
The acceptance of modern scientific claims feels a lot like religious faith to people who are not themselves trained scientists, and who have not themselves reviewed the experiments and the evidence. That does not mean that accepting scientific claims is the same as accepting religious claims, because in the former case it is still possible to do the research yourself, whereas in the latter case you are forever dependent
It's tough when you're a feckin-A underwater rock! Imagine. Fish shit on you and human scuba-divers chop-off-pieces for their cocktail tables ... Woe is us. Then weather-fag climate clowns pour unsalted tears all over your crispy poisonous skin-slashing surface. Boo hoo!
It is really very grave!!! OK... MAYBE!
Simulation is a software fed with some input data, then said software performs calculations, iterations, and so on.
If political agenda is part of input data, then whole simulation becomes a lot trickier. It is tricky from start - as we assume software writer had good model, programmed without errors... When input data is biased towards particular political goal, then all bets are off. And anybody following whole climate "discussion" knows how objectivity is long dead.
Never cry wolf, it was said... I hope we will not pay gravely for past abuse of cry-wolf.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Wow. Seems I have a stalker on my hands with mod points. A single mod-down in some of the gun/AGC threads that I posted in over the last few days. Nice.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Absolutely. In the meantime, I highly recommend driving without a seatbelt. You can put it on once the collision is underway.
Haha what a fucking sheep you are, an intellectual slave.
Says the intellectual coward who ignores people when they tromp all over them, with factual information and then play the "you're just an ignorant hick" card.
Good times, carry on.
Devistated is nearly all of them dying out. They are being decimated now, by 2100 they will be devistated.
People in Country A don't get an increased risk for lung cancer because Country B has a lot of smokers.
You mean like the Montreal Protocol? That 'ineffective' and abusive regime?
Cooperation on AGW has to be international for multiple reasons. Two of them are 1) Atmospheric conditions at this scale affect everyone, and 2) Cooperation has to bring competitiveness to heel on this issue, so that anyone taking an 'If they don't do it, we will' attitude to high-GHG modes of production will be made to feel the pressure.
The suggested relationship between these facts and the topic at hand is erroneous as pointed out by numerous sibling posters, I can ignore them for the purpose of this argument.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Remember when we disagreed about a scientific hypothesis and could talk about it rationally? Good times...
You don't happen to believe in string theory do you? Or Intelligent Design? You can't reason with those people.
the anachronistic definition is cool. The modern definition is kinda lame.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Don't be obtuse, I wouldn't be the first to waste my breath on you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335397&cid=42373765
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's a great crime because it will lower my standard of living. There have been countless dramatic climate changes and the world conspicuously fails to end. My world will end when I die. After that, who cares? Specifically not me. Between now and then I intend to live a life of oil based luxury.
So the sources of error are the corelation of 'emissions' to climate changes AND the modeling of the interaction of CO2 with the ocean (and coral's hardiness in the face of change).
As the correlation of CO2 emissions to climate change is 100% ...
So the margins of error are pretty big on this new model.
So we likely can reduce the error by some magnitudes (according to your logic)?
If your car (or aircraft!) were designed with models of such comparably low granularity and poorly understood principles, you'd be dead ... if the governement even let them on the road (or skies). Since when do you need a model to build/design a car or a plane? Yes, we use models to make them more efficient ... but you don't need a model to build one.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Coral reefs have existed for hundreds of millions of years, although not in current locations. They survived the death of the dinosaurs and preceding extinctions. If they can't survive this, what hope do we have?
My data says that the coral reefs are going to expand by 500 percent by the year 2100.
Isn't "data" cool?
Plastics from the oils in algae? That's the first good idea I've heard in ages. Most people worry about their SUV when they think of oil shortages, but lacking raw materials for plastics is a lot more dire.
Journalists are qualified to work with words. If they can't even get that right, they are total oxygen thieves and not to be taken seriously.
I did not know about it, so the explanation might help others: omega measures the presence of aragonite in water. Aragonite is a flavor of calcium carbonate, and coral use them as building block. It is also found in mollusk shells.
CO2 released in the atmosphere gets absorbed in the oceans, lowering its pH, which in turn breaks up aragonite, as I understand.
I can write a simulation that has the results to be anything I want it to be.
It is sad but something that may or may not be avoidable. 99% of all species to ever walk the earth are now extinct...so maybe, as humans consider ourselves lucky or maybe just to damn good!
More of their models? The same models that have got almost every prediction WRONG so far? Yea those models. How about getting your head out of models and check out reality for a while. You know actually do some real wold OBSERVATION?
Destructive fishing practices are the biggest threat to coral reefs not CO2.
I am amazed that coral could survive at all throughout geologic time with CO2 levels 3 to 5 times higher than present for millions of years. Yet we focus our energy and efforts on the worthless CO2 angle rather than doing something about the very real destructive fishing practices.