Caribbean Coral Bleaching [Archive] - Reef Central Online Community

Anthozoan

04/01/2006, 06:02 PM

It will only take a few years of back to back bleaching events, and as evidenced with the reefs in the southern Caribbean, you get stressed out corals that are susceptible to infection, and you can lose an entire reef in the matter of months. All the wild collection in the world can't put in dent in the amount that can and most likely will be lost in the coming decades due to global warming/bleaching/disease. Not that I'm supporting going out and raping and pillaging all the corals, but I do think it is imperative that some sort of live genetic bank of corals is set up to document the species and sub-species currently kept in captivity for future assurances of species survival.

I would guess that the water quality in the Southern Caribbean is pretty close to pristine too. Thus making this news that much more of a disheartening message. My exprience diving in Fiji (only a couple dives in one area) is that the reefs are nice, but not pristine, and clearly were much nicer in years past. The dive operators attributed the decline to recent crown of thorns and cyclone events. This was also the case in the Cook Islands, same story. I am going to guess that the bleaching events of '98 and '02 probably had an effect too... But to anyone that is only familiar with Florida Keys or touristy Caribbean reefs, then yes these Pacific reefs look pretty damn nice. However, in the Solomon Islands, I would happily have to say that the reefs there were pristine and very healthy.

I have given some thought to the "well if the waters warm up, why don't the corals just move north (or south in the southern hemisphere)?" question. I am going to hypothesize that just because the waters are warming in the summer, doesn't necessarily mean that the temps will be hospitible in the winter. Further more, once you get off of the existing reefs, it isn't long before you move into bottom habitat that probably isn't ripe for the development of new reefs. But I do think it would be interesting to study some of the freak North/South reefs like Lord Howe Island, Bermuda, and the Flower Garden Banks off Texas to see whether those reefs are being affected by bleaching, or whether they are actually doing better.

Sure, corals have adapated to changing water chemistry and temperatures over the eons, but can they adapt to even a 5 degree F increase over 100 years? I doubt it. If there are some massive corals like Montastrea that are over 800 years old, then adaptation is a moot point for them (although the adpatation of their zooxanthellae is a real possibility). And it is these giants are the important reef builders/ habitat providers. Acroporids would likely be the best candidates for adaptation due to their fast growth. There is definately a lot of room for investigation in this area, and I doubt that there is a lot of funding being provided for it.

If the reefs go, then it will be a domino effect that will effect the entire planet. The reefs will likely be the first major ecosystem to go worldwide, and if they are going to go , they will go fast, and then any tropical island nation of people is good as f***ed without these fisheries to sustain them. I doubt we have the ability to exactly calculate jsut how far reaching the effects will be worldwide, but I doubt that they will be very good. I'm not trying to be doomsayer, but I'm just pulling my head of the sand and looking at the facts and the outcome doesn't look to good.

Go see the reefs now if you want to see them as nice as they ever will be. In the meantime let's keep our chin's up and stay focused. Let's keep up the aquaculture, and collecting responsibly for those species that we haven't yet figured out how to aquaculture.

Shrimp_Killer

04/07/2006, 09:55 AM

Bump

It is getting depressing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/nasa.reef.bleaching.reut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html

MCsaxmaster

04/08/2006, 06:31 AM

Now that the southern hemisphere has gone through it's warm season it's had problems as well. Bleaching was severe in parts of the GBR. Bleaching has recently (last week) been reported in Fiji. Parts of the Line Islands (isolated, inaccessible reefs) are at 12+ degree heating weeks with heavy (near total) mortality expected in many areas, though no one has had a chance to do any surveys yet.

>>Climate change has happened for eons on this planet. Why can't the corals move south to cooler areas? Or are they saying that they know for a fact this climate change is happening faster than literally ever before?

Yes, what they're saying, and what has become very apparent, is that most organisms and most ecosystems including coral reefs cannot adapt to the current warming trend as fast as it is happening. We are currently warming at 10 times the normal rate for glacial/interglacial periods (e.g. in 200 years we will warm as much as at the beginning of the holocene--end of the last ice age--which took 2000 years).

cj

Carman34L

04/09/2006, 08:06 AM

I talked to a friend of mine, who lives on the gold coast in australia, he said that less than 1% of the GBR bleached, and it was at the northern most tip of the reef. He said alot of scientist make it out to be alot bigger than it really is. So he told me that if I have not seen it for myself dont belive reports about the bleaching.

MCsaxmaster

04/09/2006, 12:03 PM

Three things:

1. I never said that the whole GBR bleached or even that a large percentage bleached. Certain parts did, and they bleached severely.

2. Has your friend conducted transects anywhere to assess bleaching? Has he been to more than a few locations on the GBR this year? Has he been to any other locations outside of Australia? If not yes to all these, how can he say with any validity at all how accurate reports are? Besides, who's exaggerating? People do transects, assess bleaching on various reefs, and report their data. How can this be exaggerated?

3. In 1997 16% of all the live coral on the planet died due to bleaching. This was most severe in the Indian ocean. Many if not most reefs in the Maldives lost close to 100% of their live coral coverage. That doesn't seem like a big deal? If the entire Amazon died during a single summer, do you think that would make people pay attention?

cj

Carman34L

04/09/2006, 12:52 PM

He operates a sport fishing boat for tourist company that also does dive excursions. He is on the water just about every day. I only have what he said to go by and he said that what bleaching is going on is isolated on the GBR, he said it was at the northern most point of the GBR. I think I would trust his knowledge over some scientist land locked halfway around the world.

Carman34L

04/09/2006, 12:55 PM

If you take data from sites such as NOAA, their coral bleaching projections is based on water surface temps. Not actual data of people seeing it first hand. 75% of the worlds coral is over 25' under the surface. SO someone seeing it first hand saying otherwise makes more sense to me.

MCsaxmaster

04/10/2006, 12:54 PM

No, no, no, folks use satelite imagery to help detect hotspots. Bleaching reports become just that, reports, only when folks have actually dived those reefs and seen the bleaching. Coral Watch does a lot of this work with amateur divers and then folks with organizations like NOAA, AIMS, etc. quantify these reports by doing transects and such. The folks writing these reports are in the water for great lengths of time on every site they survey. Honestly, do you think they're just making the numbers up?

cj

Shrimp_Killer

04/11/2006, 01:17 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7143273#post7143273 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Carman34L
He operates a sport fishing boat for tourist company that also does dive excursions.

Don't you think it may be possible that these guys would want to downplay it as much as possible...not many people want to pay money to see dead coral. (I know he is your friend, but I tend to believe estimates from organizations like NOAA and NASA are probably low --- consider their boss)

MCary

04/14/2006, 12:20 PM

I did a search and I can't find it. Please help. I am looking for contolled experiments where the specific corals in question were put in controlled laboratory conditions and exposed to elevated tempertures along side a control group that maintained normal temperatures. And where the result of that experiment yielded the results of bleaching. Then where the experiment was reporoduced by a second independant laboratory which yielded the same result. This along with data showing that the temperature conditions in the affected areas were actually an anomily. I can't find those laboratory reports. If anyone could please provide a link. I would rather look at the actual report than just drink the kool-aid. Help a brother out can ya?

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/14/2006, 01:02 PM

I'll post some references later if I get a chance. Are you seriously doubting that elevated temps are a major cause of bleaching? There has been a concensus on that since just after the first worldwide event in 1989. No one in the scientific community questions this because it has been exceedingly, exceedingly well demonstrated.

cj

MCary

04/14/2006, 01:18 PM

I doubt everything until I see the evidence. You cannot observe bleaching and observe increase water temps and automatically make a correlation. You must first determine that the temperature variations are abnormal. You then must make a prediction based on your theory and observation. Experiments are then set up under controled conditions and the outcomes must follow the predicted path. Another lab must verify your results. and finally all other plausible explanations must be elliminated. When a scientist publishes a paper, its purpose is not supposed to be so Time magazine or CNN can start screaming the sky is falling. By publishing the scientist is offering up his research for peer review. It is supposed to be viewed with a very skeptical eye. It is the scientific communities duty at this time to try to disprove it.

So am I seriouly doubting, I'm a scientist by profession, its my job.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/15/2006, 01:16 PM

Feel free to search the literature. There are hundreds of papers written on bleaching (maybe upwards of 1000 by now). Warming temperatures has been demonstrated as causitive beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever. After the 1989 even a lot of people were left on the fence so they conducted a great deal of research including lab work. Indeed, elevated temperatures cause bleaching.

1. Corals maintained at elevated temps bleach and do not recover unless temps are brought down. Controls in unwarmed water don't bleach.

2. Zooxanthellae (especially clade C) has physiological problems, especially as related to oxygen radical damage, at elevated temps.

3. Corals exposed to higher temps tend to have tissues damaged from radicals and may even show tissue sloughing within the coelenteron.

4. Every major bleaching even recorded corresponds perfectly to elevated temperature anomolies.

5. No counterevidence exists to this theory whatsoever, despite extensive searching.

The questions you're asking now were answered 15 years ago.

Best,

cj

Mercutio

04/16/2006, 06:49 AM

Eco-hippies don't get funding with good news, hence, the plethora of chicken little articles.

MCsaxmaster

04/16/2006, 04:10 PM

Hmmm, it's probably nearer the opposite. The environment, nature, public health, etc. get very little coverage unless it's something warm and fuzzy (e.g. a bear cub is born at the zoo). Compared to any other topic, the environment takes a back seat when it comes to news coverage.

cj

MCary

04/17/2006, 02:06 PM

CJ,

You make bold statments like "Warming temperatures has been demonstrated as causitive beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever." Of course this isn't true but by saying it in that way you attempt to label those that might disagree as ignorant or ill informed. All your statements on Global Warming are very absolute. I suspect that you do not have the experiance or training to make such bold statements but that's okay. Your entitled to be as passionate with your beliefs as you wish. But for fun try a little experiment. You seem to know how to google. Pretend that you do not have an opinion on Global Warming and look for desenting opinions by reputable research and scientists. Since I know that there was a letter authored by 2300 scientists objecting to the Kyoto Accords and disagreeing with global warming theory, I know you can find some. You don't need to agree or disagree with the content of the dissent. You are not qualified to do that really. Just acknowledge that its there.

Now take something that truely is a known. Say Gravity. Now look for dissenting opinions. Thats what separates an indisputable fact from a theory. No disputes.

Wisdom is gaining the knowledge that you don't know everything. You'll discover that when you get older.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/17/2006, 09:46 PM

You make bold statments like "Warming temperatures has been demonstrated as causitive beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever."

Yes...because they're true ;)

Of course this isn't true but by saying it in that way you attempt to label those that might disagree as ignorant or ill informed.

It most certainly is true, and those that disagree are ignorant or misinformed. There is an absolute concensus on warming oceans as causitive for coral bleaching.

All your statements on Global Warming are very absolute.

There's a reason for that ;)

I suspect that you do not have the experiance or training to make such bold statements but that's okay. Your entitled to be as passionate with your beliefs as you wish.

Well, then you'd suspect incorrectly, but yes, I am passionate about everything I think is important. Is there any other way to live? Not to seem harsh, but your line of questions has demonstrated you are quite ignorant on the issue. The questions you've been asking were answered over and over again over the past 15 years.

But for fun try a little experiment. You seem to know how to google. Pretend that you do not have an opinion on Global Warming and look for desenting opinions by reputable research and scientists. Since I know that there was a letter authored by 2300 scientists objecting to the Kyoto Accords and disagreeing with global warming theory, I know you can find some. You don't need to agree or disagree with the content of the dissent. You are not qualified to do that really. Just acknowledge that its there.

There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. Feel free to show me some. Every major organization that studies climate, include NOAA and NASA have made official statements on the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

I'd love to see what you're refering to because there simply is no such document of which you speak produced by climate experts.

Now take something that truely is a known. Say Gravity. Now look for dissenting opinions. Thats what separates an indisputable fact from a theory. No disputes.

Differences between the theory of universal gravitation and anthropogenic global warming: 1. the former is old, the latter new--I will point out that gravitation was flattly rejected for decades though, 2. there is a concensus amongst scientists on both, but only a concensus in the public on the former.

Wisdom is gaining the knowledge that you don't know everything. You'll discover that when you get older.

Please don't patronize me :rolleyes:

Chris

MCary

04/17/2006, 11:16 PM

I have to patronize you. You are blinded by dogma and idealism, back up none of your claims with fact and refuse to acknowledge information contrary to your preconcieved notions. Take with that your youth and inexperiance and the incoherant ramblings and misdirection answers to questions posed. I could debate each and every issue you put forth and possibly show you that your beliefs warrant further consideration. But you provide no source or direct statment.

"There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. "

That statement alone shows that you haven't done your homework, don't know the complete picture and did not even spend the 2 minutes it would have taken to fact check yourself. Everything else then becomes suspect.

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/18/2006, 12:48 PM

Feel free to show us evidence, any evidence at all, that there is widespread dissent amongst the scientific community. While you're at it, feel free to show some counterevidence that warming oceans does not cause bleaching, or that the world is not warming.

I look forward to it.

Chris

MCary

04/18/2006, 02:08 PM

Start with this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

"As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines"

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

"While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policyformulation."

"The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system."

""Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." "

MCary

04/18/2006, 03:00 PM

Need More?

Article by: Prof Bob Carter. a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

MCsaxmaster

04/18/2006, 03:08 PM

You're kidding right? An editorial is totally moot. Firstly, how are we to know that the folks listed as supporting this document actually saw this draft of it? Censorship to the extent that it completely changes a documents original meaning is very common in the past 6 years under the Bush administration, for instance. Jim Hansen head of climatology at NASA just spoke out against this, not to mention the dozens of other scientists that have left posts in the last few years due to censorship. Secondly, this offers no evidence whatsoever, just opinion.

As I said, show us counterevidence, not opinion from sources with who-knows what bias.

Chris

MiddletonMark

04/18/2006, 03:28 PM

And since you've talked up the peer-review process ... let's see some peer-reviewed articles [not from a newspaper, where chicken little talks ;)] that strongly suggest that warming is not occurring.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7193801#post7193801 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I suspect that you do not have the experiance or training to make such bold statements but that's okay. Your entitled to be as passionate with your beliefs as you wish.
You are a scientist - what specialty?

Interesting that you feel happy to doubt Chris' experience with his subject field [corals ... `prove bleaching' as above] - but force him to disprove the few dissenters to what the scientific community has generally accepted. Seems like a double-standard to me.

[You know, there's `scientists' that claim evolution is bunk ... are these the same as those objecting to climate change theories?]

IMO, the ball is in the court of those who disagree with the commonly held facts to show them to be incorrect. In this case, I'd love to info/proof that heat-stress doesn't cause issues for coral - nor that there's any warming going on.

Having studied ancient climate in graduate school, I've seen little to doubt that the climate is warming. I'd be happy to - but it would take a little more than newspaper stories to disprove the peer-reviewed articles I've read. Please provide some :)

MCary

04/18/2006, 03:37 PM

That's it? Your going to try to spin this. A letter written to the Prime minister of Canada by 60 senior scientists in this field of study and your reponse is to tighten your blindfold?

The proper response is "That is very interesting. I did not know that. I guess I was wrong."

Like I said, your belief is dogma. It is pointless to show you any evidence because you refuse to accept any given. If I show you clear data that the earth hasn't warmed signifcantly in 8 years you'll just argue the collection method. But it doesn't matter. The burden of proof lies with those that forwarded the theory. And so far the proof has been lacking.

Mike

Mark, I have bachelors in Biology, microbiology, and molecular biology and a Masters in chemistry.

MCary

04/18/2006, 03:52 PM

Mark,

Like I said, and as a academic you should know, the burden of proof is on the one presenting the theory. Skeptics, which we all should be, are under no obligation to prove them right or wrong. A good scientist has the obligation to prove himself wrong.

Chris is a college student. He has made no indication that bleaching corals are in his subject field. As far as I know his field of study might be English Lit. He has made statement with phrases like "no doubt what-so-ever" and not sourced his argument but only challenged me to prove him wrong. Which in the case of global warming and the no dissenting scientist comment took me all of 2 minutes.

As for the climate warming. I'm sure it is. It's been warming since the last ice age. But if you read Chris's post you can see that he uses the phrase anthropological global warming. Man made global warming.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/18/2006, 03:54 PM

Mike,

The concensus on this issue is that global warming is occuring and that human activities are primarily responsible. The concensus is also that ocean warming is THE major cause of coral bleaching. If you disagree with this view please show counterevidence to it. Because this is such a charged issue politically, personal statements, editorials, and anything but data must be taken with a very large grain of salt. When an idea goes against the thinking of the time, the paradigm, the burden of proof always is with those wish to change the thinking.

If you think these ideas are wrong, please provide evidence that they are wrong, otherwise we will all have to side with the heap of evidence that suggests they are correct.

As for showing clear evidence that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 8 years, I'd be very interested to see what you have as I've seen just the opposite. In fact, the 90's were the warmest decade on record. 1997 was the warmest year on record, though I know 2005 was a close second. I'm not sure whether '97 or '05 is officially the warmest recorded at the moment. There is an obvious warming trend in all the data for the last century, except during part of the midcentury. This was due to increases in soot and aeresols blocking sunlight. As soon as the Clean Air Act began to reduce air pollution the temp. went back on a climbing trend. There are countless pages of data all telling the same story.

Best,

Chris

MCsaxmaster

04/18/2006, 03:58 PM

p.s. I'm actually finishing a dual set of bachelors degrees in zoology and Spanish. My formal area of specialty is in ecology and evolutionary biology, though I've spent just as much time working on oceanography/reef ecology. I'm actually in negotiations now deciding which gradute school I'll be attending this fall to work on reef ecology/coral biology. Wish me luck :D

MiddletonMark

04/18/2006, 04:49 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7201271#post7201271 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Like I said, your belief is dogma. It is pointless to show you any evidence because you refuse to accept any given. If I show you clear data that the earth hasn't warmed signifcantly in 8 years you'll just argue the collection method.
I think we are both asking for information - and without providing it you cannot characterize our reactions ... unless your idea of `proof' is a little different than mine ;)

MCary

04/18/2006, 04:56 PM

As a zoology major you know the burden of proof is always with the person offering the theory. That's not what I think is a good idea, its the way it is. Its scientific method. "The consensus of scientists" is an overused phrase that is completely meaningless.

The political charged atmosphere is from the environmentalists. Almost exclusively. I find it interesting that those aren't the motivations be questions. Opposing scientists have nothing to gain. Opposition will effect their ability to get funding as well as chastisment by the other side. Because of the zealotry of the believers and financial interests of scientific supporters, you should automatically question everything they offer. Common sense.

Now about your warmest year on record comment. It doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with global warming theory. It is interesting yes, but is anecdotal. Anecdotes aren't data : Anecdotal data are essentially a single or a few observations. Anecdotes are designed to appeal to your emotions and fears. It's a ruse to get you to put your brain in neutral and overlook the facts. A record cold year would not disprove global warming either. Which by the way, might be coming, we're at the end of a warming cycle that probably peaked in 1998. We'll now enter a cooling period simliar to the 70's.

Global warming, even if its real, even if its man made, and this is important, hasn't happened yet. The theory predicts future occurances. There was never a claim that it was a current problem. Claims of global warming already upon us are always sensational. So far predictions are off by over 400%. On the down side by the way. And the effects were'nt supposed be seen for 50 years or longer. What would happen if you submitted a paper to your professor that had a 400% error?

Oh and good luck!

Mike

MCary

04/18/2006, 06:08 PM

Chris,

Just wanted to clear up something. I am not arguing for or against the merits of global warming theory. I am not qualified to do that. I do disqualify any information until I can see that the researchers have followed proper scientific method. But this is only for the purpose of formulating my own opinion. What makes this debate seem heated by me is my response to your absolutes. Statements like "There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. " are easily refuted because of there stated certainty. So here's another one for you:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

The petition was signed by over 18,000 dissenting scientists.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/18/2006, 06:19 PM

Since this is getting us nowhere, here's some data:

http://mediamatters.org/static/img/limbaugh-20050816-1.jpg

http://mediamatters.org/static/img/limbaugh-20050816-2.jpg

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that models have a 400% error. As can be seen, they've predicted trends very accurately. These are also a few years old. Today's models are more accurate still.

See the IPCC report

here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mediamatters.org/static/img/limbaugh-20050816-2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160007%3Fis_gsa%3D1%26final%3D1&h=310&w=422&sz=20&tbnid=JApvX-53NG6STM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=122&hl=en&start=14&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Bwarming%2Bmodel%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN)

cj

MCary

04/18/2006, 10:54 PM

Since you've moved on past the subject of dissenting opinions of qualified scientist, I will assume that you've conceded the point. Now lets move on to your graph.

I don't know how much statistics you've had in college so please excuse me if I sound like I'm patronizing. A graph of anomalies is statistics. what you must know about stastics: Statistics are the lingua franca of junk science. They make good sound bites, adding a quantitative feel to otherwise "fuzzy" scares. Credibility is added ostensibly by a statistic's neutral nature and authoritative source. The result is an inappropriate transformation of a likely meaningless number into conventional wisdom. Know That Statistics Don't Prove Cause and Effect.

What your graph shows is statistical slight of hand. It takes advantage of two things. Scaling, looking at the scale you see that the scale was set a -1-1 degree. This highlights a dramatic effect. What your graph doesn't show is the coefficient of variation or the standard deviation. It does not show the precision of the measuring equipment. It is merely statistical data point placed on a very small scale for dramtic effect. And the second thing it does it show a degree anomalie without stating whether the variance was from increased warming, or for lack of another phrase "decreased colding". And you should know that mild winters are good for the planet and do not reflect global warming. They are due to the jet stream pushing arctic air into the lower regions of the globe. Yet a mild winter will show as a spike in your graph. Okay, enough, I've explained the slight of hand used and I'm sure your still skepical so lets take the exact same data used to construct this graph and graph the absolute temperatures. This IS science. It is a recording of observed data and plotted on a graph.

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/18593NCDC_absolute-med.gif

Seems remarkably stable now don't you think. I can see a slight warming trend here. But nothing to write home about. You've been duped by clever statistics, but not worry, it happens to us all sometimes.

Mike

MiddletonMark

04/19/2006, 05:19 AM

MCary?

How about using something that isn't from a politically charged, less-than-scientific website? The one linked in the corner of your post there isn't exactly `peer reviewed' ;)

The data might be from a great source, but it's selection is problematic.

As you said...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7202180#post7202180 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I do disqualify any information until I can see that the researchers have followed proper scientific method.
Exactly the point.

MCary

04/19/2006, 08:13 AM

Mark,

Let's not just attack the messenger. We'll forget that fact for the the moment that the site is authored by a scholar, holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center, and a member of the Cato institute. I knew the data and graph existed so I googled to find it and took it from that website. That website did not create the graph. It is an NCDC graph, the organization that collects mean global temperatures, and is sourced by an ftp site if you want to see the original or you can google {absolute global mean temperatures} and take it from the website of your choosing.

I could just as easily say that the graphs and information supporting the theory were from radical environmentalists or from a scientific community trying to cash in on the scare. But I don't, I let the data speak for itself.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/19/2006, 12:15 PM

Since you've moved on past the subject of dissenting opinions of qualified scientist, I will assume that you've conceded the point.

I said it before and I'll say it again, there is no or nearly no dissent amongst reputable scientists on the issue. There is a near total concensus. It's rare to get a concensus on much, I'll add.

I don't know how much statistics you've had in college so please excuse me if I sound like I'm patronizing. A graph of anomalies is statistics. what you must know about stastics: Statistics are the lingua franca of junk science. They make good sound bites, adding a quantitative feel to otherwise "fuzzy" scares. Credibility is added ostensibly by a statistic's neutral nature and authoritative source. The result is an inappropriate transformation of a likely meaningless number into conventional wisdom. Know That Statistics Don't Prove Cause and Effect.

So statistics are useless except to lie with? Then why are you showing data? :confused:

A statistical analysis is as accurate as its adherence to standards. Sure, statistics are complex and it's easy to lie to the public by misusing statistics, by misrepresenting the data, but that involves all manner of bias or outright errors. We as a scientic community have gotten really good at figuring out how to eliminate that over the past century. Statistics when done correctly demonstrate what the data is saying. Simple as that.

What your graph shows is statistical slight of hand.

A line graph of data measurements is 'statisctical slight of hand?' :confused:

Scaling, looking at the scale you see that the scale was set a -1-1 degree. This highlights a dramatic effect. What your graph doesn't show is the coefficient of variation or the standard deviation. It does not show the precision of the measuring equipment. It is merely statistical data point placed on a very small scale for dramtic effect.

Why would they use a different scale? It's pretty hard to discern a 0.7 C increase if the scale is tens of degrees C. Since very small variations in the global mean temp. cause dramatic changes in climate (5 C is a BIG difference) it only seems appropriate to illustrate such changes in context.

And the second thing it does it show a degree anomalie without stating whether the variance was from increased warming, or for lack of another phrase "decreased colding". And you should know that mild winters are good for the planet and do not reflect global warming. They are due to the jet stream pushing arctic air into the lower regions of the globe. Yet a mild winter will show as a spike in your graph.

So warmer winters is not indicative of warming? :confused: Please explain that one to me.

Mild winters are actually a potential catastrophe in many ways. The ecosystems north of about 60 deg. latitude are already dying and this expected to accelerate markedly. Here in the midwest (where I live) freezing temps during the winter significantly dimminish the effects of diseases and insect pests, especially on crops. It's been demonstrated that warmer winters harm crop production markedly. El Nino disrupted upwelling and rain patterns in many areas. The sea lions in the Galapagos died en masse. Australia had unprecedented droughts. Billions (if not trillions) were lost in failed crops and collapsed fisheries. Need I say more. No, mild winters aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Okay, enough, I've explained the slight of hand used and I'm sure your still skepical so lets take the exact same data used to construct this graph and graph the absolute temperatures. This IS science. It is a recording of observed data and plotted on a graph.

The graph shows a warming of about 0.5 C over the last 30 years, exactly like the ones I posted. Agreed :thumbsup:

Seems remarkably stable now don't you think.

No, not at all :confused: A temp. increase of that rate is nearly unprecedented in the geologic record. It is quite certainly the fastest worldwide increase in the last 750,000 years, and probably much longer. There's also good evidence now that the arctic is the warmest it's been in more than 1 million years, and it's projected to get quite a bit warmer.

You've been duped by clever statistics, but not worry, it happens to us all sometimes.

I have? *cough* *hack* *cough* ;)

Best,

Chris

onereefnotenuf

04/19/2006, 01:54 PM

I am no academic. My tasteful avatar should be a clue. My interpretation of the NCDC graph is that since the summer of 2001 the high temperatures have actually remained steady or decreased slightly and the highest temperature on the graph was 1997 (el nino year).The low temperatures seem to follow the same pattern. I realize these last few years may not be statistically relevant but it seems to be an overall small downward trend since 1997.
I do have one question. What is a double solar maximum?

MCary

04/19/2006, 02:06 PM

So, the 18,060 scientists I've shown you aren't enough? I'll say one thing. You are stubborn.

The parsing and tap dancing of the rest of your post is difficult to respond to. Take what I told you about statistics, you can even print the post, and consult with a stats or math professor. They'll tell you I'm right. You are basically justifying and spinning trying hard to salvage your arguement. Maybe I should list some talking points..

El Nino has never been and still isn't linked to global warming. It is still almost completely not understood and has been impossible to predict. It is more than anything else responsible for the record warm winter temps of 1997-98. Any discussion of this phenomenon with Global Warming is a red herring.

In order for your statistics to have value you need a missinf element. You need a baseline. This is the expected temperature for that particular reporting period for that time in the climatic cycle. That figure is impossible to aquire. Instead your model took an average (mean) of the temperatures for each year. Then claimed that temps above and below that mean were a statistical anomalie. This of course isn't the case because the Earth's temps on on an ~60 year cycle. So a high temp at the peak of the cycle would show as an anomalie when in actuality are quite normal.

The fact that you don't know about the trick of scaling in statistics means you need to do more homework before I can discuss this further.

Your statements about .5 degrees C being a big difference and mild winters being dangerous I suspect were just pulled out of the air so I won't respond to that. And of course the effect of bad weather, droughts etc are meaningless unless you can link them to the topic. Anthropological global warming.

But you think your right and stick by your data, so lets use your data. First lets define scientific method:

The Scientific Method can be summarized in 5 steps:

1. Observe some phenomenon in the universe
2. Develop a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for the phenomenon
3. Test the validity of the hypothesis (e.g., do an experiment or otherwise collect relevant data)
4. Refine the hypothesis on the basis of the results of the test
5. Repeat #3 and #4 until the hypothesis fits the phenomenon

Now lets apply it to Global Warming:

Hypothesis: Radiant energy reflecting back from the surface of the planet are trapped into the upper atmosphere by green house gases, preventing them from radiating back into space causing a green house effect and warming the planet.
Prediction: The green house effect will cause the planet's temp to rise 3 degrees in the decade 1990-1999. (Hansen 1988)
Experiment: results (based on your graph) temperature rose by ~0.7 degrees.
Conclusion: Experiment failed to follow prediction therefore failed to validate hypotheis. Hypothesis remains unproven.

This is simple 2+2=4 stuff. It is basic scientific principle. If you argue or disagree you are basically agreeing that its Junk Science.

And finally, you can't measure global mean tempertures within a half degree. That level of precision is not possible. Any numbers within 2 standard deviations are in effect the same number. They are within the margin of error.

Mike

MCary

04/19/2006, 02:13 PM

onereefnotenuf,

The reason you notice a downward trend is because there probaly is one. We're currently going over the peak of a 30 year warming cycle. The last one was in 1938 which compares to 1998. The climate then trended downward until the 70's where we experianced record colds and began climbing again in 1978. I would suspect that the Earth will cool now for the next 30 years. I have no idea what the Global Warming crowd is going to say then. But it'll be fun to watch.

Oh and the 60 years cycle has been examined over at least 4 cycles. Been running like clockwork.

Mike

MCsaxmaster

04/19/2006, 08:32 PM

Hi Onereef,

1997 was definitely a hot year. Subsequent years (other than maybe 2005...I'll have to check to see if it was hotter or not) were not as hot, but there are two important points to consider. Firstly, a few years, even a decade, are not enough to predict a change in climate. Secondly, while 1998-2004 were cooler than 1997, they were still hotter than almost every other year this century. In other words, compared to 1997 these years don't seem hot, but compared to every year before that for at least the last 150 years (and probably for thousands of years) those years were much hotter. 1997 was just the hottest of many recent hot years. The trend for the past 150 years has been a warming climate. Before that period the global average was pretty stable, and the geologic record shows that global mean temperature doesn't usually change very quickly (i.e., the increase this century in global mean historically happens at about 10% this rate).

Looking at the temperature measurements for the last 150 years though, of which we have at thousands of sites every year, we can see that there is an obvious warming trend from about 1850 to the 1940s. From the 1940s-70s there is a slight cooling trend due to what's been called global dimming. Soot and aeresols in the air from factories/cars/etc. literally shaded the Earth and reflected sunlight. We've also measured that. I think there's been about a 10% reduction in solar radiation hitting the surface, if I recall correctly. Since the 70's though, when we passed the Clean Air Act our air has gotten cleaner and the effect of dimming has disappeared. Since then we've been warming again.

Mike,

Since you seem more intent on insulting me than debating respectfully I will ask you to provide evidence that 1. the world has not warmed, 2. if there is warming human activities have not been the major cause, and 3. (the reason this thread was started) ocean warming does not cause coral bleaching. Again, I'm looking for evidence, not opinion nor anecdote. I don't care to see any more editorials. All of these are moot. If you have evidence for any of these three please post it so we all can take a look. If you don't then please don't pursue this further. I've provided tangible evidence to support my view. All I ask is that you do the same.

Best regards,

Chris Jury

snowrider

04/19/2006, 10:11 PM

So there you go, get rid of the tree huggers and the temps would go back down. That is what you stated correct? Since the clean air act the temperatures have increased.
Since the clean air act, all facotries, manufacturers had to abide by them, but what about NASA??????
I lift off equals several years of pollution of the entire nation, yet they send off how many a year?????? Who cares about what other planets are doing, why not invest the money into something that we need more information about, this planet?

onereefnotenuf

04/20/2006, 06:50 AM

Thanks for you're responses. It seems that over the last 30 years the temperatures are rising overall even with the short decrease at the end. my question is if we have been keeping accurate temperature records for only 150 years or so, is it possible that this recent upward trend is something that could have occurred naturally in the past and we just don't have enough data to confirm it? I don't consider myself a hard core believer of global warming but there does seem to be enough data supporting it to cause concern.On the other hand with such a short period of accurate record keeping I understand why some scientists are not convinced.

Snowrider,
Where did you get the information that a NASA rocket somehow equals the pollution produced by the nation for several years? If that were true wouldn't the ecological groups be throwing a fit?
If we are unable to keep this planet livable, our great grandchildren might be happy that we found a way to exist somewhere else in the solar system.

MiddletonMark

04/20/2006, 08:19 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7212213#post7212213 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by onereefnotenuf
. my question is if we have been keeping accurate temperature records for only 150 years or so, is it possible that this recent upward trend is something that could have occurred naturally in the past and we just don't have enough data to confirm it? I don't consider myself a hard core believer of global warming but there does seem to be enough data supporting it to cause concern.On the other hand with such a short period of accurate record keeping I understand why some scientists are not convinced.
For things like global mean temperature - we may not have such long-term measurements.

But if you start looking at things like glacial ice cores [which can record differences in CO2 level, precipitation, among other things], pollen cores [which can record vegetation changes, I know the middle east goes back 10,000 years+] ... while we don't know temperature per se, we can see that rainfall patterns [based on vegetation] have changed in many places, we can see that CO2 levels are higher than they have been since the last interglacial period [1 million +].

When it gets down to it, significant climate change might not be reflected in any one statistical measure. Nevermind the original question of Caribbean coral bleaching may not be reflected in mean surface temperature or such.

Thus statistics are used with an agenda to prove/disprove things that may or may not be significant with the data used. Like in all science, you just might find some divergent opinion saying that cigarettes are good for you ;)
That's where consensus of those who study the field comes in handy ... as I'm sure I can find `scientists' that might sign something disputing cigarettes negative health implications - but I'd bet you'd find a lot less M.D.'s signing that same petition.

When I see `climate' petitions signed by lots of M.D.'s ... I question that the same way I would medical petitions signed by lots of geologists and climatologists.
Then again, I should admit my bias as someone who minored in geology in grad school :D

MCary

04/20/2006, 10:07 AM

Good post Mark. It shows a consideration of all evidence. In your mind the preponderance supports Global Climate change. This is what I've arguing for the entire time even though I've somehow gotten trapped into presenting the opposing viewpoint. Mostly by my love of arguing. I would part from you only in a semantic way, statistics do not prove anything. Statistics are a way to present data. Statistics Don't Prove Cause and Effect. Example: EPA claimed in 1996 that fine particulate air pollution kills 20,000 Americans annually. The basis for the estimate was a statistical study comparing death rates among geographic areas with varying levels of pollution. There were no clinical evaluations of any of the deaths included in the study and the researchers didn't know whether air pollution caused or contributed to any of the deaths or have any idea of how much fine particulate pollution any study subject inhaled. So bascially they made a scientific conclusion with no scientific evidence, only statistics. Never confuse statistics with science.

Chris,

I am sorry you felt insulted. It stems from a frustration that you argue against my points with very little knowledge of the subject as demostrated by your obvious lack of understanding of statistics, something that I am very well trained in and use on a daily basis. You do not argue against the data by providing contrary data, you attack the source of the data, not the collecting method or the validity mind you, you look for an underlying political agenda and if one isn't found you simply assume there is one. Or you ignore it all together.

I've provided tangible evidence to support my view.

You have made claims without any supporting evidence, no links, footnnotes, or sources. An example is your most recent claim of global dimming. Yes I watched Nova too. The theory was offered by a single scientist and subsequently picked up by others who are investigating the phenomenon. It has not yet been accepted by your "consensus" of scientists, yet you present it as fact to explain why the predictions of computer models of global warming have been wrong. And of course your claim of global dimming was not sourced. We are supposed to take the explanation of a college student (not a scientist) on faith. Anyway I think I've made my points on this. A thinking person can choose to agree or disagree. I'm done. I'll just leave you with this:

I have tryed to explain that a direct relationship of CO2 and Temps could not be demonstrated, yet look at the relationship between the Sun's energy and temps:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/mwcary/untitled1.jpg

So is the earth warming due to increased CO2 or increased sun activity? Another part of scientific method is removing all other plausible explanations.

and of course these gems:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)

Good Luck on your Acedemia, wish I was back in college.

Sincerely,

Mike

onereefnotenuf

04/20/2006, 12:40 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7212672#post7212672 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
For things like global mean temperature - we may not have such long-term measurements.

But if you start looking at things like glacial ice cores [which can record differences in CO2 level, precipitation, among other things], pollen cores [which can record vegetation changes, I know the middle east goes back 10,000 years+] ... while we don't know temperature per se, we can see that rainfall patterns [based on vegetation] have changed in many places, we can see that CO2 levels are higher than they have been since the last interglacial period [1 million +].

We are in an interglacial period now correct? I would imagine by anybody's standards that a million plus years is a long time for a climate situation to repeat itself. The high CO2 levels back then could be attributed to volcanic activity. Now it is (what is that fancy word you guys use ?) "anthropogenic" reasons for the increased CO2. I seem to remember reading something about natural causes for the CO2 increase but I can't find it right now.
"scientific consensus" is an oxymoron in my opinion. nothing but the most basic scientific facts are unanimously accepted. This subject is hotly contested because of the political issues involved.I would like to find a concise easy to read conclusion on the reasons why global warming is or isn't a reality. I really appreciate all the info that MCARY,MiddletonMark and MCsaxmaster have set forth because I have learned more about this subject from this thread than everything else I have read,watched.listened to.I am in over my head with you guys so I am going to sit back and lurk so I can learn some more!
thanks again.

MCsaxmaster

04/20/2006, 04:49 PM

I am sorry you felt insulted. It stems from a frustration that you argue against my points with very little knowledge of the subject as demostrated by your obvious lack of understanding of statistics

Now why would I feel insulted :rolleyes:

As for the graph you posted, it doesn't disagree with what I've been saying nor does it disagree with the data I posted. In fact, it agrees.

As can be seen in the first graph from the IPCC, natural forcing (including fluctuation in solar radiation) can explain some of the observed warming for the early part of this century, though it cannot explain the warming that has occured more recently. Quoting their 2001 report

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years. These studies include uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance)..."

"The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over
this period and cannot explain the warming; whereas most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. The best agreement between model simulations and observations over the last 140 years has been found when all the above anthropogenic and natural forcing factors are combined, as shown in Figure SPM-2." (bold added)

There is no question that natural forcing has contributed a small amount to the warming over this century, mostly during the first half, but there is also no question that natural forcing alone, including solar radiation, cannot explain the warming that has happened in the last 30 years. Most of the increase has been during that period too.

Onreef,

Yes, we are in an interglacial period right now. There are a lot of reasons that CO2, CH4, and N2O are high during warm periods and low during cold ones. As you're getting at, it doesn't really matter if the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere go up because phytoplankton growth in the southern ocean is low or because we've burned a lot of fossil fuels--more greenhouse gases is more greenhouse gases, regardless of where they come from.

As for the use of the term "consensus," the darn thing has two definitions which are similar, though different. Often the word consensus is used to mean 100% agreement by a group, but it also is used to mean "general agreement or accord" (thefreedictionary.com). As such, because the vast majority of a group agrees on something, whatever that is, there is said to be a consensus, even if there are a few dissenters. It's sort of like the question of reasonable doubt. Of course there is always doubt in everything, but is it reasonable to doubt something given the evidence.

For a good book to explain all the dynamics of global warming I'd suggest Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by John Houghton as your best, most understandable, most up-to-date source. The most recent publication is 2004.

Also, as Mark said above, we have direct temperature measurements for the last ~150 years. Before that we have to use references to infer what the temperature was since no one actually measured it. For this people use tree rings, cores from coral reefs, ice cores, etc. There are certain relationships, especially in the ratios of certain isotopes, that depend highly on temperature. While not as good as a thermometer measurement, when 1000's of samples all come out the same all around the world, one can assume that they've got a pretty accurate depiction. Check out the temp. record for the last 1000 yrs.
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg

Best,

Chris

MCary

04/20/2006, 05:11 PM

Firstly, a few years, even a decade, are not enough to predict a change in climate

natural forcing (including fluctuation in solar radiation) can explain some of the observed warming for the early part of this century, though it cannot explain the warming that has occured more recently.

MCary

04/20/2006, 05:29 PM

"Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada. "

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/mwcary/untitled3.jpg

"Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]

Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions."

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/mwcary/untitled4.jpg

MCsaxmaster

04/20/2006, 09:08 PM

I'm afraid you're mistaken about the satelite measurements, as explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements)

Check out a dataset here (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2)

The following organizations have officially endorsed the conclusions of the third assesment by the IPCC

Academia Brasiliera de CiÃªncias (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
AcademiÃ© des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

See also http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf and http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

Additionally, the following institutions officially endorse the same view

NASA's GISS (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)
NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)
The National Academy of Sciences (http://fermat.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html)
The EPA (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html)
The American Geophysical Union (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html)
National Center for Atmopsheric Research (NCAR) (http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html)
American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html)
The Royal Society (UK) (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html) here (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2)

Best,

Chris