Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Declare End to Global Coral Reef Bleaching Event (phys.org)
Scientists in the U.S. have announced Monday that a mass bleaching of coral reefs worldwide has finally ended after three years. "About three-quarters of the world's delicate coral reefs were damaged or killed by hot water in what scientists say was the largest coral catastrophe," reports Phys.Org. From the report: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a global bleaching event in May 2014. It was worse than previous global bleaching events in 1998 and 2010. The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean, so the event loses its global scope. Bleaching will still be bad in the Caribbean and Pacific, but it'll be less severe than recent years, said NOAA coral reef watch coordinator C. Mark Eakin. Places like Australia's Great Barrier Reef, northwest Hawaii, Guam and parts of the Caribbean have been hit with back-to-back-to-back destruction, Eakin said. University of Victoria, British Columbia, coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years. While conditions are improving, it's too early to celebrate, said Eakin, adding that the world may be at a new normal where reefs are barely able to survive during good conditions.
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
WTF are you talking about? You're absolutely free to go and do some research yourself, it's not like you can't. Stop pretending that religion has any scientific merit, or that science is nothing but bullshit voodoo.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not like it matters. Reality is not a democratic process, it will happen whether people like it or not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Basic physics" shows that Methane has a much greater impact that CO2. Any non-political scientist would be advocating the reduction of methane rather than fossil fuels.
If you are serious about global warming, you should be trying to convince everyone to become vegans.
Regardless of the actions of man. Yawn. Film at 11.
Bullshit. CO2 has more than three times the impact of methane, because there is over 200x more CO2 in the atmosphere (403ppm vs 1.84ppm). The US emits eight times as much CO2 each every year.
40% of methane emissions come from the fossil fuel industry anyway (only 25% from cow farts), so dump the fossils and win/win!
"Basic physics" shows that Methane has a much greater impact that CO2. Any non-political scientist would be advocating the reduction of methane rather than fossil fuels.
If you are serious about global warming, you should be trying to convince everyone to become vegans.
Has methane emission increased globally during the last 150 years? How many times more methane is emitted today compared to 150 years ago?
Has CO2 emission increased globally during the last 150 years? How many times more CO2 is emitted today compared to 150 years ago?
Has temperature increased globally during the last 150 years? What is the rate of temperature increase today compared to 150 years ago?
Now go play with yourself until you understand why the above is relevant in understanding the problem at hand.
But...CO2 levels haven't actually dropped. They may have maybe slowed down acceleration but they haven't dropped.
Tovarich!
I've got this sweet deal to travel the world and hang out around all these coral reefs and get paid for it. All I have to do is dish whatever bullshit management wants when I get back.
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
It is because left wing = china = manufacturing and science. Right wing = USA = chat show hosts and preachers.
It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013). Also, the previous interglacial (the Eemian) was warmer than ours.
What happened with the coral reefs then?
it's in my head
It was just another lie from Soros funded pseudo "scientists". Just another fucking lie from the Deep State. It's pretty hard to keep up such a lie when peoples' own eyes show that there NEVER WAS any "bleaching event". Why do they persist in slinging mud against the wall? To see what sticks, of course, to find another way to separate you from your money. They will never be happy until all your wealth is confiscated.
Nah, we'll just wish that away too when we're done with that climate.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are definitely a lot of paid shills on this site.
No there aren't. These people are that dumb.
Probably haven't formed yet. But hey, if we wait another few million years, I bet they come back. Or something else. Ok, in the meantime it probably ain't such a good idea to swim there, but hey, life on this planet has survived worse catastrophes than humanity, it will overcome this one, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Coral reefs are indeed very old. The timing I referenced in my post was ~8000 years ago (feel free to read the scientific paper I sourced) and ~115000 years ago.
Apparently coral reefs have no problem surviving warmer temperatures than what we have now.
it's in my head
But you made sweet, sweet grad school money I imagine (what, $35 or maybe even $40k a year!) off the government tit. Sorta. Other than when it was funded by companies and private individuals.
The people who own the coal mines are blue collar folks who work tirelessly for only tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. They're literally keeping several thousand jobs open for people, with all that profit while you suck it off like a leach to tell them they're murdering people. Seriously, stop being so selfish, the billionaires are hurting.
Reality may be what it may be but interpretation of reality will always be adjusted to suit the ego and greed of those doing the interpreting and they simply censor the truth to protect the lie. They will lie about global warming and sea level rise, right up until the water crosses your threshold and then blame you for it. You built where you shouldn't have, you were warned (even if they were telling you the opposite) and you did nothing, it's a normal cycle, you made happen by stopping the increase of carbon dioxide which would reflect heat out (don't even start on that one), God did it on purpose (I am not kidding about that one) and every other lie they can try.
Smarter people who see the inevitable and make the location change will simply say I told you so, as they campaign for crimes against humanity trials and life prison sentences for the worst perpetrators and propagandists. You want to shift yourself at least 50 metres above current high tide levels because coastal land will do a lot of moving and shifting as water levels rise.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
Abstract
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
No shit, Sherlock.
Where's that "97% consensus" now?
You WANTED mankind to be "destroying the planet" so you could make yourself feel superior "because you cared". So you POLITICIZED climate science.
So now you reap what you sowed - every damn thing that doesn't align with alarmist Chicken Fucking Little screaming about how "AGW is destroying things!" is going to get tossed in your fucking face.
Provided nothing else comes in, probably.
Life is quite resilient. There have been quite a few events during this planet's existence where life was on the brink of elimination and very obviously it bounced back. There had even been a time when our ancestors were reduced to a few 1000s individuals in a fairly small area, any halfway decent event could have wiped our species from existence before it had time to become that apex predator we are today.
Coral reefs are rather delicate, though. They react very poorly to quick changes in their environment, and while they probably could bounce back from a thermal problem, anything that we add on top of it (and considering that we're like an elephant in the china store on this planet, it's likely that there's more on top of that) could well mean game over for the coral reefs.
That's not to say that this would be a catastrophe. Sure, for the reef it would be, but bigger catastrophes have hit our planet than us. Life has survived all of them. Not all lifeforms and not all species, but life itself emerged from anything so far. It will also survive us. Changed and with fewer species, at least to start with, but in the end, when the dust settles and we're but a bad memory, life will go on on this planet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean...coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years.
She might want to consult a map before she sets off.
Science is only science if it follows the scientific method. Which means other people being able to examine your method and data to check for errors and being able to independently reproduce your results. It's not a religion to accept without question - exactly the opposite.
4 words: Berkeley Earth Surface Report. Touted as a totally independent look into climate change and AGW. Funded by the Koch brothers; looking at independent data sets; using raw data and so on; WUWT talked about how this is the definitive study to prove AGW or not.
Guess what: Same conclusion as all the other climate scientists.
WUWT also deleted any mention of this report. This is precisely what the deniers asked for but because the conclusion didn't match their expectations they just ignored the report. Do you think this makes deniers look like good scientists or just partisan hacks who don't believe in AGW because they just don't want to?
And no matter how high the sea levels rise, we won't change a thing.
First, the narrative was "there is no rising sea levels, so we needn't change our behaviour". Today we have "yeah, but it's normal and nothing we can influence, so we needn't change our behaviour". And we'll eventually end up with "yeah, we pretty much fucked up, but it's too late to do anything anyway, so we needn't change our behaviour".
So no matter what you do, you can still drive your SUV.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is probably the lull before the storm...
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed.
This one is easy. First follow the money. Oil and gas companies have a vested and huge financial interest in avoiding any science that might point a finger at them and they support and fund conservative politics that lead to that might lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This is simply money interests protecting the status quo. Second, look at the ideology. Conservative's purport to like small government and many of the environmental issues we have are best solved through regulation which to various degrees means larger government. So this makes an easy target for conservative pundits who want to make a buck on the backs of credulous people who inherently distrust government. It's little different from a preacher to tells people that the bible says homosexuality is bad. People listen to the preacher even when what he says is ridiculous. Third is simply tribalism. A lot of liberals are concerned about the environment and so the conservatives simply treat them as The Other. Because the opposition likes it then it must be bad. Whether or not this is contrary to their own self interest becomes irrelevant.
Ironically the republicans used to be rather forward thinking about environmental issues. The EPA and NOAA came into existence under republican administrations. It is a fairly recent development that conservatives started using the environment as a political punching bag. I find it hugely irritating that the notions of clean water and a hospitable climate could possibly be items of contention but it's amazing what some people will do to make a buck and gain power.
The "Climate Crisis" gangs in Washington DC, New York UN and WMO Geneva will be calling for the killing of the report authors and claim the report is the written by Donald Trump.
ioioioioioioioio
40k a year! Wow! Maybe I should quit my job, go to university again, get a master's degree, get a doctorate, publish a few dozen scientific articles so I can get noticed and finally get that sweet, sweet 40k grant money!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...you're saying that one of the oldest eukaryotes on the planet, one that has survived and flourished in much warmer and much colder earth climates, and which has likewise survived much more sudden ecological changes like massive globe-altering meteorites and sustained volcanism, maybe won't be as badly affected by a trivial warning as feared?
Do tell.
-Styopa
Yes, and sulfur dioxide has an even more devastating effect.
Luckily we have even lower amounts of that in the atmosphere than we have Methane. Sadly the same cannot be said for CO2.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The whole "global warming conspiracy" bullshit is also limited to the US, from the outside it and other similar issues (gun control, prison population, corporations as people, large numbers of other "conspiracy" beliefs) looks absolutely insane. Because quite frankly it is.
WUWT also deleted any mention of this report.
Strange. As a regular WUWT reader I'd say it has been covered and discussed at length, many times, and one of its authors is participating in the general comments section to articles mostly every day.
I paraphrase George Carlin when I say, "The Earth will be fine. The people are fucked."
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
...or at least that is what the environmental wackos will claim.
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades.
And what exactly is your point? The evidence CLEARLY points to the climate research being useful. I'm fine with spending that money as long as the evidence supports further investigation. The only people seemingly opposed to further climate research are people who make money from opposing it. Don't tell me you are one of these conspiracy theorists who thinks scientists actually en-mass are trying to scam you out of your tax dollars. If scientists really wanted to make money in a corrupt fashion the real money would be in opposing climate research.
Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
TRILLIONS are spend on fossil fuel subsidies annually. Again, what exactly is your point? Clean energy is an unambiguously good thing and subsidies are necessary for a time to get the technology to the point where the economics work. In many cases they have already succeeded. This is true for all kinds of new technology. Not sure why you seem to have a beef with subsidizing clean energy when fossil fuels in 2016 were $5.3 Trillion globally. That is 6.5% of global GDP for an industry that is wildly profitable and clearly does not need subsidies.
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
Bullshit. First off, fossil fuel companies collectively make TRILLIONS, not billions. The amount of money in clean energy currently is positively dwarfed by the amount of money currently in fossil fuel production and sales. It's not even remotely close. Second, "AGW agenda"? Spare me your nonsensical ravings. When you want to have a fact based discussion then we can revisit. Until then you are just spouting vague conspiracy theory bullshit.
Once again, Trumpsters do what their Dear Leader is best known for: projecting. They're the ones with a political religion. It mandates denial of facts in the face of overwhelming evidence - just like... wait for it... religion.
Please link
Coral bleaching is not caused by global warming but more likely farm run off.
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
Because demented it is. Don't think of it as left vs right, but more as batshit crazy that has succeeded in denial of what is in front of it's eyes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
But you made sweet, sweet grad school money I imagine (what, $35 or maybe even $40k a year!) off the government tit.
Is this intended as irony? I honestly can't tell.
When I was a grad student, my take-home pay was $667 a month. That was a long time ago, though.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There is absolutely no science whatsoever that indicates any climate effects that will support a statement like "the people are fucked".
(IPCC AR5 WGII is a good start for more information on the subject)
it's in my head
Multiple factors are likely - including human caused global warming, which is an established fact.
Rather than panicking or useless attempts to roll back the clock, start adapting. Plant coral that thrives in warmer water.
Has methane emission increased globally during the last 150 years? How many times more methane is emitted today compared to 150 years ago?
The answer is probably has increased, based on measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It is being released constantly via natural processes, and is illustrated when it gets trapped, as when people drill holes in frozen lakes and ignite methane trapped under the ice. And yeah, people and cows fart.
The wild cards in the methane issue are permafrost melt, and methane clathrates. We've seen methane releases as permafrost melts http://www.sciencealert.com/7-... and are looking at that issue.
Then there is the methane clathrates, or methane hydrate - which is part of the permafrost issue. But there is a lot of that stuff in the ocean. Ice with a lot of methane trapped in it. Hopefully the stuff in the ocean is stable.
In what is an ironic twist, it may be wise to harvest as much of the Methane clathrate as possible, and use it as a transition energy source. While it does produce some CO2, that will be preferable to large scale methane releases.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, and sulfur dioxide has an even more devastating effect.
Luckily we have even lower amounts of that in the atmosphere than we have Methane. Sadly the same cannot be said for CO2.
If you are talking about the sulfur dioxide aerosols, they have a cooling or anti-greenhouse effect. It's been proposed by a few that it be used as a counter-agent to the greenhouse gases, but like sowing the oceans with iron is not a very good idea.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The entire length of the current Great Barrier Reef was dry land about 8000 years ago. Coral is ancient. but the reefs are dynamic and are in a continuous process of movement, growth, decay and adaptation. I've walked along swathes of ancient coral reefs over 150 miles inland from the current coast. I don't have an age on those formations, but they sure as hell were bleached!
Science is only science if it follows the scientific method. Which means other people being able to examine your method and data to check for errors and being able to independently reproduce your results. It's not a religion to accept without question - exactly the opposite.
Wrong.
"Science" is whatever those pointing the guns at you say it is. Governments have the most guns and they say AGW is real science, especially since it gives them an excuse for expanding their power and ability to control people and further restrict freedom.
True, of course (maybe with some slight adjustment to the exact timing). The idea that the globe is ever static is a problem when talking about "survival" of species.
The Great Barrier Reef is about 500,000 years old, but it hasn't always looked as it does today. Reefs on Australia's continental shelf have taken on many forms, depending on the sea level, and the current formation is about 6,000 to 8,000 years old.
According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science and other scientific research, the current reef began to form during the Last Glacial Maximum. This period, which occurred from about 26,500 years ago to 19,000 to 20,000 years ago, ushered in significant environmental changes in the region, including a dramatic drop in sea levels.
The land that forms the base of the Great Barrier Reef is the remains of the sediments of the Great Dividing Range, Australia's largest mountain range. About 13,000 years ago, the sea level was 200 feet (61 meters) lower than the current level, and corals began to grow around the hills of the coastal plain, which had become continental islands. The sea level continued to rise during a warming period as glaciers melted. Most of the continental islands were submerged, and the coral remained to form the reefs and cays (low-elevation sandy islands) of today.
https://www.livescience.com/62...
it's in my head
I think he meant "fucked" in the metaphorical sense.
Ain't like your good for anything else you slacker.
I am not a coral-ologist, and the article wasn't much help. Why, or how, did the bleaching stop? Was it something the biologists/oceanographers did to curtail this or did, ah.. uh.. ah.. nature find a way?
TFA is a junk. It didn't even cite the source article. TFA cited the original image with some infos but never gave the link to the article. What does this say to you? What is the intention of the author?
"then something later evolves to take their place"
Exactly. Why do you hate the evolutionary winners? Things come and go, including humans. We don't have to save everything. Though bringing back the mammoth does sound tasty.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I just assume these are all troll accounts, because they're the dumbest comments I have ever seen.
Someone's either needs to read more about emission levels of gases, or take a math course or seven.
Coral reefs can't die and reform in thousands of years? Interesting. All the sources I can find claim it takes less than 10,000 years for them to form.
We're supposed to accept the climate change religion of the left without question. All hail High Priest MightyMartian, who uses his words to stroke down anyone who cares question the religion of climate change. Who needs facts when we have the IPCC holy book to guide us?
I'll laugh when your die in a heat wave in october, you superstitious faggot
> is not a very good idea.
Please expand on that. I don't think Sulfur Dioxide aerosols is a good idea, but I think other aerosols is about the only realistic thing that can be done to lower the global temperature. Realistically, I don't think that reducing CO2 will happen quickly enough, if at all.
NO, frankly I really don't care about any of that. Finding someone to blame is a political game, and counter productive (as is telling people to go play with themselves). My question is: what is the most effective way to reduce global warming? And, reducing Methane levels is more effective.
To be fair, it's probably not the actual warming but the common cause of CO2 emissions that's affecting the corals. A couple degrees won't usually kill corals but a small pH swing will, and some of the CO2 that isn't staying in the air is doing so by forming carbonic acid .
I'm confused, what is the connection to Tipper Gore's anal bleaching and can AlGore even see his dick over his carbon sequestering belly?
But don't you enjoy watching the Great American Sport of Partisan Politics? They put the vatnik retard in this time, so it's not entirely harmless.
Bleaching? Like with Clorox?
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Well, the conspiratorial mind will immediately jump to the conclusion that what you just said is yet another proof of the imagined conspiracy. "Of course the powers that be want us to think there is no conspiracy, and they trot out such arguments to make us believe there is none ... no?"
That is sad, and unfortunate. It shows that the conspiratorials' strategy work by alienating qualified talent from the field.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Feel free to go extinct, then. The rest of us would like to preserve an environment that's hospitable to human life.
I don't normally read WUWT, but I wanted to test your hypothesis, so I searched Google for WUWT Berkeley. It showed a lot of results.
Scientific method proved your claim wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How do you plant an animal?
Coral isn't a plant.
Global warming is 100% real because all the research money (5 bill+ a year) goes to only to the pro global warming researchers and that fair.
Global warming is 100% real because of how serious their leaders are are about their carbon foot print only the best private jets are used.
The greatest threat to the peoples of this planet is plant food?
The science is not in if you pay for only 1 side of the story. If you dare disagree you are guilty of heresy you are a belief system that pretends to believe in science.
Please keep making your insane predictions and statements because every time you do you lose more of the masses.
http://berkeleyearth.org/team/...
https://www.google.com/#q=watt...
Why in the world did you get marked troll? The whole point of science is that it's not a priesthood and that you can research for yourself. A buddy of mine didn't believe in photon entanglement. I showed him on hackaday a way to make an entanglement rig yourself. In college I didn't believe Poisson's spot. We set it up in the lab and did it. If you have questions about the climate science, you can set up your own temperature recording stations and collect data for a few decades. Sure it will take a while, but the point is that you CAN do it.
It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013).
Bullshit, Marcott says no such thing. Kindly indicate where in this paper you imagine claims that, because nothing there says it exceeded 0.4 +/- 0.1 C over the 1950-1990 baseline, whereas current temperatures are almost 1.0 C past that.
So yeah, there's no evidence that currently-sited coral reefs had to deal with anything like the sort of sustained temperatures we're seeing today, but there's good evidence otherwise. Of course, when temperatures actually were warmer in the long-distant path, coral reefs could easily have existed in higher latitudes - just not where they are today.
From the paper:
Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of
the Holocene temperature history.
it's in my head
Indeed you're right. What I should have said is that WUWT deleted any mention of the Report as the definitive prove that AGW was real or not.
ok, that way of saying it clarifies your meaning.
I can't think of a Google query to verify that claim haha. Probably would have to use the wayback machine or something.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actual arguments against the science of climate change: 0.
You are literally no better than creationists, anti-GMO activists, anti-vaxxers. You're barely better than flat earthers and breatharians.
Climate change - the vast hippy conspiracy of all powerful environmentalists. lol. You fucking twat.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Me? Nothing. I live more than 500m above sea level and I have a gun to fend off those that try to escape the (of course never coming) flood.
Now, please get out of my way, my SUV needs gas.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A slacker interested enough in FOURTY K A YEAR to get an advanced degree, get a doctorate and publish paper after paper to even as much as get noticed in the scientific community, well, at least noticed enough to actually have a chance running for grant money...
Screw this. I bet I can land 100k a year at least pushing out a "everything's fine, sponsored by Exxon" report every couple months.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And the most effective way to reduce methane levels is to stop burning fossil fuels, which has the advantage of reducing CO2 levels AS WELL - so it's a win-win there.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I give it about an hour before somebody comes ranting about how water is the greatest greenhouse gas of all, and somehow oddly forget to mention that the average water molecule spends 11 days in the atmosphere while the average CO2 molecule spends up to 80 years there.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
For starters: acid rain.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Erm - right, so we'll just forget about that time the Koch Brother (a fossil fuel company remember) paid for research to disprove AGW...
Oh it turns out that research not only ended up confirming the theory - but it's data set is now the prime data set used by most researchers as it's the best quality dataset available.
Plenty of money get's spent on the 'other' side - they just never find anything the other side LIKES - in fact, the best science from money spent on disproving AGW has ended up confirming it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The OP should also bear in mind that the initial bleaching is caused by the animal part ejecting its algae passenger due to the heat.
"a small pH swing will, and some of the CO2 that isn't staying in the air is doing so by forming carbonic acid ."
Enough carbonic acid that ion concentration in the oceans has changed by about 30% in the last 200 years. Apart from coral bleaching the oceans are getting acidic enough to start preventing shells/coral reefs from forming and that's a likely precursor to an axnoic event (look that one up and start worrying)
Flooding isn't what you need to worry about.
How well can you (or your grandchildren) survive in a 16% oxygen atmosphere?
"But there is a lot of that stuff in the ocean. Ice with a lot of methane trapped in it. Hopefully the stuff in the ocean is stable."
four words which should give you the answer you need "Laptev Sea Methane emissions"
There's somewhere between 1 and 5GT in that area and the keyword for probable effects is "Storegga"
"But there is a lot of that stuff in the ocean. Ice with a lot of methane trapped in it. Hopefully the stuff in the ocean is stable."
four words which should give you the answer you need "Laptev Sea Methane emissions"
There's somewhere between 1 and 5GT in that area and the keyword for probable effects is "Storegga"
Yeah, that's not good. http://arctic-news.blogspot.co...
While I don't care for the use of "Horrific", that isn't a particularly encouraging map. Interestingly, Greenland shows a pretty high amount of methane over the glaciated land, which I find troubling.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm less concerned about the 16% oxygen than the 4% CO2.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't worry about the OP, they probably think coral bleaching is caused by bleach being dumped in to the ocean.
The 2016 global methane survey couldn't account for a significant amount of methane in the atmosphere and the surveyors postulated that it was coming from farming (rice paddies and cow farts), but the sensors weren't tuned for emissions over water (apparently it's a lot harder to detect this) and they weren't looking at the Laptev sea because they weren't aware of it. The processing software only looked for methane over land (not even sea ice).
They're now aware of the emissions and their possible size - which would be about the size of the unaccounted-for methane in the atmosphere. Efforts are being made to comb the collected data to see if methane emissions over water can be worked out from what was collected. (This is similar to the 1970s ozone problem. Raw data may hold the answer, which is why you don't toss it), otherwise a new survey with appropriately tuned instruments will be needed.
The russian government isn't cooperating to let independent scientitsts into the Laptev area and russian reports are regarded as highly unreliable by western researchers, so it's critical that the claimed emission plumes are verified independently somehow.
As usual with all climate research, when it's not high profile and it's actual science, getting the money required to do this job is extremely hard (RAs, programmers, storage space and processing all need to be paid for)