Genetic Rescue Efforts Could Help Coral Shrug Off Warmer Oceans 167
The Washington Post reports that research published last week in the journal Science indicates that coral reefs may be less vulnerable to ocean temperature changes than has been widely believed, especially given human intervention. A slice: Some corals already have the genes needed to adapt to higher ocean temperatures, and researchers expect those genes will naturally migrate and mix with corals under stress over time ... And that process could potentially be sped up artificially. ... Giving coral evolution a boost isn't an entirely new concept. Some scientists have already suggested genetically modifying corals through artificial breeding, or doing the same for the tiny microbes that live inside corals and are essential to reef growth.
Coral dies all the time (Score:3, Informative)
You know those islands made out dead coral? Yeah... how did those get there? The thing is that coral is really really sensitive and dies really really easily. But its a species with a survival strategy more like bacteria then barn owls.
Yes, they die... they die easily and they die in huge numbers. But there are huge numbers of them to die. And while some die, some also survive. And this means that coral actually evolves very quickly. Any adaptation tends to not make it less death prone but the new strain of coral is happy in the new ocean conditions.
Change the temperate of the water? Coral dies.
Touch the coral? The coral dies.
Change the ocean chemistry in anyway? The coral dies.
Its super sensitive. But that's okay. Because while some coral dies some lives. And the coral that survives won't die to whatever killed their sires.
This is Tuesday for coral. Nothing new.
Does that mean we should f' up the coral and not care about damage we do the environment? Of course not... that's f'ing stupid. However, we also need to be less ignorant in the way we respond to issues.
I'm seeing people freak out about tress being cut down to make paper for example and the morons complaining about this tend to not realize that the trees being cut down were literally planted like we plant corn to produce paper/lumber trees.
Paper is as renewable a resource as cucumbers. We're not running out of either.
And the coral situation is analogous in that people are not grasping that the resiliency of coral is not in that it doesn't die but that it dies and adapts.
We have this big wide open beautiful world and it is full of many diverse species that all have different survival strategies. The strategies of ground squirrels are not going to be the same as the strategies of honey bees or the strategies of pine trees or the strategies of coral.
Its the 21st century, chaps. Stop freaking out like a bunch of fucking peasants.
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't care about that, because that's going to take thousands of years. What I'm worried about NOW is whether the ecosystem in 20 years will be able to support another 500 million people. You didn't address that at all. And stop thinking your opinions make you better than others. It's arrogant and creates ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't take thousands of years. As I said, they have a survival strategy more akin to bacteria or algae. They die easily but they adapt very quickly.
You've seen the bacteria become resistant to anti bionics. it is a similar situation.
You kill 98 percent of the bacteria... and what remains is resistant. Eventually if you keep dosing the same bacteria with the same anti biotics... it will become immune.
Which doesn't mean you can't kill 98 percent of it again with something else. And of course, if you
Re: (Score:3)
If those structures come under attack, or if wringing calcium ions out of the water becomes more difficult and energy intensive, they may have larger problems. As might, unfortunately, a surprisingly large nu
Re: (Score:2)
Its nothing new. The "bleaching" people talk about is something coral just does when conditions fall out of the very narrow specs that permit it to live.
What is not understood by many is that these specs can and are adjusted. So yes... specs change and the coral dies. Possibly a lot of it. But that just means it has to change its specs to whatever the new standard is... and it does that... and new coral grows on top of the dead coral... which is how those islands in the Caribbean were formed.
This has been g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically to your question then, ocean pH has fluctuated over time... in some cases quite dramatically.
There was an expedition not long ago that was pulling up core samples to get a history of it... the cores went back something like 53 million years. And yeah... the pH moves about quite a bit.
Again, coral is a very ancient species. You don't get species that old unless they're tough sons of bitches.
We're talking about a species that survived vast changes in the earth's biosphere. We're talking about a s
Re: (Score:2)
... Sigh. Size is relative to the number of actors responding is it not?
If you knock a big building down and there's only one person there to rebuild it then it will take a long time to rebuild it. If there are lots of people then the building could be rebuilt rapidly.
So yes, the reef is large but the amount of coral that will survive will also be proportionally huge. What will likely happen is a certain layer of the coral will get trashed. Certain depths are going to have more or less favorable conditions
Re: (Score:3)
Coral is one of the oldest life forms in the world. It has seen worse than a minor temperature change.
The reefs survived the ice ages.
The coral is is only fragile in the sense that one of your skin cells is fragile while you as a larger organism are not as fragile. The coral can survive having large amounts of it killed by environmental changes... and that sort of thing is part of its normal life cycle. Coral goes through this all the time.
Your notion that all the coral will die or too much of it will die i
Re: (Score:2)
Coral cores prove, coral reefs are destroyed by changes in sea level. The last big change being a few hundred metres up. So they likley will suffer this time round to. Not really the biggest problem. All that stuff on land going through a rising surf zone will wash huge quantities of debris and pollutants into the sea, now that is the real problem.
Want change, easy, target people's greed. Start running around tagging builds with "UNDERWATER FRONT - PROPERTY VALUE ZERO" stickers and signs, all for sales s
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you would just started thinking before you write something, just for once.
Yes, corals die easily, and some survive and adapt. But only if the change is small enough to allow the survival of some. If the change is strong enough or happens too quickly, there won't be any survivals.
And as for trees, sure the trees were planted. But they were planted where the trees used to grow and were cut in first place.
It is the same in every post you write. You accuse others of being stupid but you yourself are un
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh this should be good... *gets more popcorn and lube*
No, coral has adapted to extreme changes in the past. Coral is killed very easily by almost any tiny change. A small change in temperature kills coral. Introducing almost any chemical that it isn't familiar with will kill it. Any kind of abrasion by anything but water will often kill it.... Really it just goes on and on.
And yet it is one of the most ancient species on this planet. Why don't you actually think about that for a change? How has such an anci
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who can refer to "coral" as a species clearly has such a strong grasp on biology as to not be worth paying attention to.
I'm not a biologist in any significant form, but I didn't spend a large chunk of a year learning to identify different classes and genera of coral as fossils (for dating the rocks in which their fossils are found) without getting the message that there have been many, many different species of coral. And I didn't get horrible sunburn the first time I snorkelled on
Re: (Score:2)
... that's more than a little pedantic. I use the term species instead of class and so you get to discount the rest of my position regardless of whether it was valid or not?
That type of rhetoric is interested not in honest evaluation but in political domination and censorship.
Your attitude has no credibility in a scientific discussion.
Adjust your stance to one that is not designed for politics and we can continue. If you refuse to alter your tack then you're simply admitting a lack of intellectual curiosity
Re: (Score:3)
If you want a scientific discussion, then get used to pedantry, and saying precisely what you mean using precisely the technical terminology of the field, unless you want people to think that you mean what you say, instead of what you mean.
For example, you say Change the temperate of the water? Coral dies. / Touch the coral? The coral dies.
Re: (Score:2)
You're really having a hard time processing general statements as general statements.
I could be specific, use all the scientifically accurate terms, and go through the various processes... but that is contextually unnecessary because I was making a GENERAL point.
Simply sitting there and being pedantic is not a refutation of my point. It is at best a personal confession on your part as to the context of the discussion... the first point being that this is an internet chat forum and a certain amount of latitu
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong.
read what the site's sub-title is : News for Nerds.
I don't see any reason to lower the expectations I've placed on other users for the last 17 or so years (I've forgotten when I signed up. I know I was still on dial-up ; Slashdot was one of the things that persuaded me to get an automatic dial up account instead of manually dialling up). If you're a nerd (which you self-identify as
Re: (Score:3)
Projecting your daydreams, eh? Whatever - that's your your hearts desire.
You need to go and get some experience in dealing with the complexities and variabilities of the natural world, not the sterile and extraordinarily delicate artificial systems that live in human-friendly environments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The jury is more out on those matters than the progressive activists would like to have people believe.
The 98 percent consensus for example arrived at that number by collecting a big sample of published papers and citing any paper that referenced climate change as the author supporting the most extreme predictions of climate change.
This included papers that argued against climate change.
The issue with climate change is that its too political to be scientific at this point. People aren't being rational on th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a matter of fact, CO2 does not work to capture heat in a greenhouse, there is just not enough room
Re: Coral dies all the time (Score:4, Interesting)
"Adds heat" is a woefully inadequate simplification of whether or not it's an issue to be concerned with. When temperature goes up, other things change as a result of the relevant phsyics. For instance, the evap/precip cycle accelerates, carrying more warm air and moisture up, and more cool air and moisture down. CO2 in the upper atmosphere reduces radiation by a factor, but more heat up there, more often, increases radiation. More CO2 almost universally implies conditions better for plants. More and healthier plants means more of all sorts of things and less of others.
Dire predictions: Warming moves the zone(s) within which plants and animals flourish north. There's plenty of room to go, a great deal of northern area is frozen wasteland at this point. More CO2 is good for plants. People might have to move. They do that all the tiime. Coastlines may change and infrastructure may need to maintained, adapted, moved or replaced. That happens all the time. Currently estimated timescale for sea level changes: inches per year. Totally yawn-worthy.
In short, the issue is complex beyond any possible "on noes, warming" assessment -- hysteria is entirely uncalled for.
Science is a method. When facing something new, it involves formulating a hypothesis, testing that to validate or disprove it, and then drawing conclusions. We have not seen and do not know what happens when CO2 increases by large amounts due to our production of it. In the historical record, CO2 increases trail warming, not lead it -- which is another way of saying that historically speaking, CO2 increases herald cooling, so that is not any kind of adequate confirmation of the idea that human-caused CO2 increases will lead to significant climactic warming. Doesn't mean it won't -- it just means that this is a new thing and that drawing conclusions either requires flawless modeling that takes everything significant to the process into account (which we don't have... not only in re natural processes, but in re unanticipated technology), or actually seeing what happens. Without one of those - which again, we don't have -- it's not settled science. It is unvalidated hypothesis.
o Yes, we should be trying to figure this out.
o No, we have not figured it out.
When will we know when we have figured this out? When we have a model that accurately predicts climate change as known to have occurred in the historical record.
PS: coral does not "die when you touch it." I have multiple coral reef tanks. I touch my corals (hard ones and soft ones) all the time to move them around, frag (subdivide and transplant) them, brush them when I'm reaching for something else. I cut colonies of soft corals with a razor in order to divide them into more than one instance and place them in multiple places and/or share them with other coral reef owners. Certainly doesn't kill them (doesn't even seem to hurt them.) For hard corals, you break them into separate instances (frag them) with tools that are basically smallish hammers and chisels. You even do this out of the water. Again, doesn't kill them. They don't die because they were bothered or touched. I've never, ever seen that happen. Some of them don't react at all or very much, but the most I've ever seen them do is pull away or retract, dependably to return to their original extension and condition within minutes of the disturbance that caused it ending. Fish touch them all the time as well. Doesn't hurt a thing.
The things that I have seen be directly and immediately detrimental to corals are Ph changes, temperature changes, salinity changes, very large and sudden changes in lighting, and the actions they engage WRT each other (chemical warfare among corals has to be seen to be believed. They are nasty to each other at times.)
Climate change panic bores me. Climate change dismissal bores me. But, like a lot of other induced hysteria, it's a major component of pop culture and the media's slavish devotion to fanning same, so I have to actually work to avoid both. :)
Re: Coral dies all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
The atmospheric studies used to make this argument are based on the planet Venus where CO2 is not a trace gas but is actually one of the dominant gases in the Venusian atmosphere. On earth, CO2 is a trace gas.
Its impact on climate heat trapping is unlikely to be relevant beyond its relative atmospheric concentrations which are tiny.
As to CO2 being a green house gas... Every gas is a green house gas in that every gas absorbs certain spectrums of light.
CO2's distinct absorption specturm is also very small. Nearly all of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is already absorbed by water vapor and there is far more water vapor in the air than there is CO2.
Thus you're talking about a trace gas with a sliver of the EM spectrum.
The argument that a relatively small change in the percentage of the atmosphere that is made up of CO2 will lead to run away global warming is asinine.
And to further back up my position, the climate models that keep being heralded as proving the theory keep failing to predict anything accurately requiring them to be retroactively altered and past mistakes white washed.
Listening to the climate change lobby reminds me of listening to the old Soviet Politburo in that "the future is always the same... it is the past that keeps changing". That is a bit of dark humor from the Cold War. That is, the future prediction always remains the same... but you have to keep changing what you said in the past and white washing out of the bogus predictions.
Behold the bright communist future... never mind that we said we'd already be living in paradise by now 30 years ago. Keep working comrades for the brave new world.
And your point is "beware climate change, the world is going to go through these changes... never mind that we said New York City would already be under water by 2015."
This whole AGW argument has been going on long enough that your far out predictions are catching up with present time. And without exception they're all wrong.
I mean... you've been wrong about EVERYTHING. And yet you presume to claim you can predict a future you've thus far utterly failed to predict with any accuracy... even in gross terms. I'm not asking you to predict what temperature it will be on any given day. But you can't even get your graphs straight.
A little humility would go a long way from you people. You don't have the track record to justify this arrogance.
Re: (Score:2)
Your link equated the concentrations of CO2 with that of a poison.
That stupid.
First, lets go over the only spectrum that CO2 even absorbs... now overlay that with the spectrums of other compounds in the atmosphere like water vapor and you're left with a tiny sliver of UNIQUE spectrum that it blocks.
The painted window analogy is also stupid because CO2 isn't analogous to opaque paint. Its if you like analogous to basically transparent paint. And a thin layer of it at that.
The climate models that that started
Re: (Score:2)
We know exactly how much effect CO2 has on incoming and outgoing radiation, because we can measure it in the lab, and via satellite. We know beyond doubt that it allows broad-spectrum energy in, but blocks much of the Earth's black-body radiation from escaping again.
We have measured precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and we can calculate accurately how much effect it should have. That's how we know that CO2 is such a significant problem; see this page [skepticalscience.com] for empirical measurements, a discussion of th
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is not unique in its ability to absorb energy or radiate that energy.
You can do comparisons to every other planet in the solar system and what you'll find is that the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference.
what makes a difference is distance from the sun and density.
Do you want me to cite the temperature of Venus by pressure? We have graphs. I can do the same for Jupiter and mars... I'm not sure about Uranus but I can probably find good figures for that.
Tell me if you want those graphs c
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is not unique in its ability to absorb energy or radiate that energy.
Of course; there are other greenhouse gases too.
You can do comparisons to every other planet in the solar system and what you'll find is that the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference.
Citation most definitely needed for that claim.
what makes a difference is distance from the sun and density.
Obviously, but distance from the sun only affects the level of incoming energy, not outgoing radiated energy. And it's also obvious that pressure affects temperature. This goes back to the 1700s [wikipedia.org]. But this doesn't trap heat.
Where greenhouse gases make a difference is because they allow most of the incoming radiation to pass (which from our sun is primarily in the optical spectrum, and CO2 is invisible to optical li
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus... fine.
Earth's temperature by pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I can probably find a better graph but lets go with that for now.
Venus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There is this table in that wiki:
I assume X Earth means the unit is atmospheres.
Height(km) Temp.(ÂC) Atmospheric pressure (x Earth)
0 462 92.10
5 424 66.65
10 385 47.39
15 348 33.04
20 306 22.52
25 264 14.93
30 222 9.851
35 180 5.917
40 143 3.501
45
Re: (Score:2)
comparing at equal pressures gives more of an apples to apples comparison. Since you can clearly see how radically the temperatures fluctuate based on pressure.
Um, well yeah. The temperatures on different planets are very different, even at the same pressure - as you'd expect, given all the other differences, like distance from the Sun, cloud cover, chemical composition and who knows what else. I'm really not sure where you're going with all this. It certainly doesn't show that "the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference." It just shows that there are a lot of factors that determine temperature. The pressure may be "apples to apples" but nothing el
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 climate models were based on Venus... that is the relevance.
Everything blocks outgoing energy. Water vapor, CO2, Nitrogen, Oxygen... everything.
You're saying that that little sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 is the only frequency that energy is radiated away from earth on? That's nonsense.
As to CO2, its taken up by plants as well. It might take longer but we are seeing plants respond to the increase in CO2. Will the plants sink the carbon in the ground the way it was when it was oil... event
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that that little sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 is the only frequency that energy is radiated away from earth on? That's nonsense.
Of course I'm not saying that. Please re-read what I did say. Water vapour blocks much of the outgoing energy, and CO2 blocks some of what's left. Their effect is added.
we are seeing plants respond to the increase in CO2.
Sure, and the ocean has increased its CO2 uptake too (hence the acidification). But it's not nearly enough, hence our CO2 levels are still rising. Plant uptake would have to increase enormously to make a substantial difference, especially as it's a relatively small fraction of the total.
Therefore, radiative heat transfer is not how heat flows through our atmosphere. It isn't possible.
Heat moves through our atmosphere with both radiative a
Re: (Score:2)
As to the added effect of CO2, you'll still talking about a very thin spectrum of the EM band and I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
Also, I've found some indication that this notion of heat trapping assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. Because after all, heat can move freely through the atmosphere simply by one gas touching another.
Lets say I had something that was hot... and I put that hot thing in a transparent bubble of CO2... are you sug
Re: (Score:2)
I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
It's only "special" because we're pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the air every year. That makes its effects relevant to us.
Regarding the earth's energy fluxes (in and out), we can measure those accurately with satellites (not just the less-accurate surface measurements you cite further down). See this picture [wikipedia.org] for figures, and details [nasa.gov], particularly Fig 2 - the energy imbalance is +0.58±0.15 W/m^2, even during a solar minimum (and you'll note the error levels are perfectly reasonable).
just because you publish something and it gets peer reviewed, it doesn't mean anything in the paper is valid or that the underlying conclusions of the paper are beyond criticism.
It's not an absolut
Re: (Score:2)
As to how much CO2 we put out... I think I did a rough calculation of that. Roughly 1 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere currently is emitted each year by humans. So... if there 100 units of CO2 in the air... the humans are emitting 1 unit in a given year... as of 2015. By the calculations I did the actual rate of increase in CO2 shows that about 2/3rds of that is absorbed by the biosphere at least because the rate of change in the atmosphere has been less than 1/3rd our emissions.
I find that to be intere
Re: (Score:2)
By the calculations I did the actual rate of increase in CO2 shows that about 2/3rds of that is absorbed by the biosphere at least because the rate of change in the atmosphere has been less than 1/3rd our emissions.
Humans emit around 26 Gt/year of CO2. Annual atmospheric CO2 increase is currently about 2.1ppm, which works out to about 15 Gt. The difference is being absorbed, primarily by oceans (causing acidification), but clearly it's not enough.
Volcano eruptions are a tiny blip on this process, as I pointed out in the other post.
So this covers 5 years during a solar minimum.... and the imbalance figure is significantly lower than previously thought.
Is it? It's still a significant imbalance - and the overall imbalance figure is of course higher, when the sun is not at a minimum.
An imbalance I would point out does not prove causation
A measurable net influx of energy is precisely what's causi
Re: (Score:2)
first, did you look at my calculations? I'm seeing something closer to 35 G/t.
What are your calculations based on? Mine are admittedly a worst case. I counted all oil as being burned effectively even though a certain amount is turned into plastic or lubricants or something.
I did not count natural gas emissions though... so frankly I think my numbers are not far off.
As to the increase... around 30 G/t is about 1 percent of the total in the atmosphere at this point.
Regardless the increase is linear. You can s
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.populartechnology.n... [populartechnology.net]
Wrong. The consensus myth is based on fallacious statistical studies of published papers.
Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.
The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that c
Critical Thinking FAIL (Score:2)
http://www.populartechnology.n... [populartechnology.net]
You're linking to a site that doesn't list the names of it's publisher, editors, writers, or contributors. The listed editor of the site, one "Andrew K" is a "Computer Analyst" sporting a Gmail address - and he appears to have written ALL of the content on the site. I could not find one single article written by anyone other than "Andrew" on populartechnology.com. But I suppose these things don't represent red flags for you.
Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.
The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.
Popular Technology lists seven scientists who have objected to the classificatio
Re: (Score:2)
You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.
Since you're addicted to ad hominem, I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]
That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.
Also noted in that article is that Cook submitted another paper along the same lines and this time his paper did not even pass
Re: (Score:2)
You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.
If there was another source challenging the validity of the Cook et al paper, you didn't provide one. If you did provide one, I would've taken a hard look at the source and made a judgement as to it's trustworthiness. But since the only source you provided was populartechnology.com, I took a hard look at the quality of the information there and found it lacking.
BTW, I've made no claims about the validity of the Cook et al paper. To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anythin
Re: (Score:2)
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.
What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.
The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way. You need to address the argument. If you can't do that, then you are not competent to have a discussion of this nature. It is a prerequisite that you have t
Re: (Score:2)
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.
Yeah, I was able to find the abstract on my own. What I asked you for was a link to the full paper.
What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.
Hardly. Like I said, my problem is with you citing opinion pieces in financial magazines as having some kind of scientific authority.
The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.
...yet it's taken you so very very long to find ONE legitimate rebuttal of the Cook paper. Christ, the thing was published in 2013. Yet you, a self-proclaimed authority on the subject, only became aware of the rebuttal within the last few hours.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way.
I don't dismiss all criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't just cite one source, half wit.
I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.
Choke on it.
Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... [populartechnology.net] (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... [nature.com] (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] (
Re: (Score:2)
So... more ad hominem?
Ugh. I'm not in an argument with "Andrew" of Popular Technology. I'm in an argument with YOU, and I'm claiming that your citation of such an untrustworthy source demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on your part. I've bolstered my contention that Popular Technology is untrustworthy by stating FACTS about the nature of the site, and FACTS about the weaknesses of "Andrew's" supposed debunking of the Cook et al paper. You are deluding yourself if you think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discu
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of value... oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
quote where I said I was trying to win over AC trolls?
Doesn't matter whether you said it or not. The amount of time and effort you've spent on ACs in this thread speaks for itself.
Kill yourself. Slowly and painfully.
My my, aren't we testy today. Oh wait, judging by the frequency of insults, profanity and homoerotic imagery in your posts, you're testy *every* day. Maybe you should consider working with a therapist.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Which position of yours do you think I've misrepresented?
Since you don't know what constitutes an ad hominen attack, it comes as no surprise that you don't know what forms a strawman argument. So let's add "false accusations of logical fallacies" to the list of your testy behaviors.
Keep posting. I look forward to another public demonstration of your ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
... so you're illiterate?
What is your first language? If it isn't English this will be more understandable. I'll help you out here with all due humility and patience if English is not your first language.
If it is your first language... then you have no excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
link?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try... I was not talking about papers that said X was skeptical.
I was instead talking about a paper that said X was pro the UN climate change position.
And just as you were able to find scientists that said they were not in fact skeptical, a lot of the scientists cited in the 97% figure were equally baffled.
If you look at the data, what you find is that the scientific community is actually SPLIT. You have no grand consensus and I don't have to prove that there is a consensus for my opinion to refute you
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no response to the peer reviewed paper that showed your 97% paper was bullshit?
So... I predicted that you actually have no legitimate position and you're only capable of making the same sad ad hominems over and over again?
How could I have called you so perfectly like that. I mean, I clearly wasn't even trying and I still pegged you.
Could it be that you're that fucking transparent? Seems so.
Better luck next time, cupcake. Your cargo cult science is going down.
Look at the trends. I know you don't
Re: (Score:2)
Its difficult to keep all the anon cowards straight... which is probably why you fucks don't log in.
Anyway:
http://link.springer.com/artic... [springer.com]
Boom shaka laka.
Re: (Score:2)
Your attempt to strawman my entire position as being based on a single source that I frankly picked out of a fucking hat when asked to back up my position is not valid.
Even if for the sake of argument I entirely surrender that source which would rob you of any further ability to use that link ad hominem against my position in any way... EVEN if I did that... I have so many other independent sources saying the same thing that it doesn't matter.
You're attacking one head of a hydra. You want to take that head?
Re: (Score:2)
If striking down one data source meant someone was a liar then everyone in science would be liars.
You're an idiot.
Re: Coral dies all the time (Score:4, Informative)
And yet it happened:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... [forbes.com]
Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... [nature.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
http://articles.mercola.com/si... [mercola.com]
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... [the-scientist.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... [nytimes.com]
As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.
These studies are getting busted all the time for making things up or using really sloppy methodology that could be "interpreted" to mean anything... often transparently the author had a conclusion they wanted before even starting the study.
That isn't real science. That's what creationists do. You have to do your study with an open mind and accept whatever the study might say. No forming your theory before the data comes in and no shaping the data to fit your theory. It is FINE to have a hypothesis before you start the study. But it can't go beyond that until you've actually got the data in... and then you base the theory on the data... you do not shape the data to equal your hypothesis.
And that is frequently what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it happened:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... [forbes.com]
You either didn't read the Forbes article you linked to, or you didn't comprehend it.
The article's author, James Taylor, claims that the survey conducted by the paper's researchers didn't ask the right question:
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.
Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the crank site Popular Technology [populartechnology.net] to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore th
Re: (Score:2)
You cited no link to this phase 1 versus phase 2.
The forbes article said nothing about it and neither did your subsequent citations.
Cite your source please.
Absent this information your argument boils down to ad hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
You cited no link to this phase 1 versus phase 2.
I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org]
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
The forbes article said nothing about it and neither did your subsequent citations.
Thereby demonstrating the folly of relying on opinion pieces written by lawyers masquerading as scientists to support your arguments.
Cite your source please.
See above.
Absent this information your argument boils down to ad hominem.
It comes as no surprise that you don't know what constitutes an ad hominem attack.
Re: (Score:3)
http://link.springer.com/artic... [springer.com]
And your phase 2 point only got to that number by citing any credence to the notion of AGW even marginally as being evidence of 100 percent approval of the IPCC position.
Never mind that only about .3 percent actually held that actual view.
All the other positions were more nuanced. And by that definition most 'deniers' are supporters of your position because most "deniers"... a sad attempt to equate people that question your premise with holocaust deniers... but the thing is
Re: (Score:2)
Your paper is bullshit.
Is this supposed to be a reply to my post? I'm not defending any paper, I've not called anyone a "denier", and I don't care about someone's paper that wasn't accepted.
What I am doing is calling into question the claims of the author of the Forbes piece you cited.
I'm also challenging your apparent contempt for peer review. If there's a better way to get good science, you haven't identified it.
I'm also calling you out on your insinuation that scientific misconduct/fraud/sloppiness/whatever is rampant in
Re: (Score:2)
you're defending cook's paper... so... yes.
Re: (Score:2)
you're defending cook's paper
LOL, please quote what I said in support of Cook's paper.
so...yes.
so...yes..you're taking a break? That's probably a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org] ""
quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org] ""
quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.
Sigh.
First, I was simply providing an example in support of Namarrgon's [slashdot.org] admonition to review source documents rather than strictly relying on popular media sources.
Second, I used the Cook abstract because it contained a citation YOU ASKED FOR.
Third, how anyone can claim with a straight face that this sentence: "I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:" represents an endorsement of the paper's conclusions is beyo
Re: (Score:2)
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
So my crime if you can call it that was assuming that you were taking a side since everyone else was... if I am in error there and you have no opinion and do not wish your statements to be taken in any way as an endorsement of either side then so be it and I apologize for assuming otherwise.
So... I accept your statement that you're not takin
Re: (Score:2)
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
I do try to avoid politically charged discussions, although I am sucked into them every once in a while. : )
and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.
I certainly won't disagree with you on that point.
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
All those links, and not one published paper among them. Seems like you completely missed my point.
Your Forbes link illustrates precisely what I'm talking about. It is not a peer-reviewed analysis, it is not subject to any stringent scientific standards, it is merely one layman's opinion, and judging from the language it's a highly biased opinion at that. *Exactly* the sort of reporting that only muddies the waters. What makes you believe he didn't "form his theory before the data came in" - or that the sci
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals?
Done:
http://link.springer.com/artic... [springer.com]
Your man actually tried to publisher another paper that corrected some of his errors while reasserting the same position... his paper didn't even make it past peer review this time because unlike before... people were paying attention.
His methodology was shit and his entire process was more akin to what you see out of creationists.
This is why this field of science has gotten a bad reputation. Its been polluted with political interests
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a rant there - assumptions, ad hominems, sweeping declarations, invective, ironic projection, the lot. In fact, pretty much everything except data.
Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals? Done:
Science & Education, really? Remember what I said earlier about crap publications that would publish anything? Yeah. It's not exactly Nature, is it? Where is its peer-review policy anyway?
Shame the article is paywalled so we can't examine it, but these guys did [springer.com]. And if it's the article I think it is, applying Monckton's own peculiar standards fo
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing you said in there that was relevant was your assertion at the end that the temps are going up.
Lets look at that.
First, the surface temperature is based on increasingly smaller numbers of stations. By the own rating system of various people that compile these into ONE global temperature number they're mostly not very accurate. And even when they are, the majority of the cited warming occurs in places there are no stations or very very few. Nearly all the warming for example is supposed to be a
Re: (Score:2)
to clarify, the sea ice number I cited was the estimated volume of sea ice not the loss or gain there of.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you took the time to write all that out, so I'll do you the courtesy of a response, but I will point out that none of it is worth saying without citations (which was the entire point of this thread).
You call it "common knowledge", but when it contradicts the published, peer-reviewed results from any number of studies, which are compiled, published and endorsed by organisations like NOAA, CRU, CSIRO, and the IPCC in numerous countries, then your "common knowledge" doesn't seem to be all that common at
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is common knowledge to people familiar with the subject. That you are unaware of it undermines your claims to actually being familiar in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Some of the corrections in there look like they're putting upwards of a .6 C temp bias on the sat data.
Again, this is common knowledge. There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. This is common knowledge. Admit that and move on.
As to the oceans, I have a b
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to point out that I really enjoy these types of discussion. Please don't take my aggressiveness as something emotional.
I am challenging you.
If my aggressiveness puts you off then know that isn't intentional. I don't want to silence you or censor you or shut you up or shut you down.
I want to engage you in an intellectual investigation where we both pool our knowledge of an issue and try try to enlighten each other through this sharing.
Even if I don't agree with you about a lot of things, I lear
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org]
Some of the corrections in there look like they're putting upwards of a .6 C temp bias on the sat data.
Sorry, you'll have to explain to me where in that link you're seeing hard figures for satellite corrections. You're not assuming "Global Temperature Anomaly" is a correction factor, are you? (it's the difference in temperature results from a mean value). All I see is that graph of those results, and some figures for trends. I followed some of the source links, but the methods they use are complex, and some of them only have abstracts available.
I have a big problem with the units you're using in that graph... Zeta Joules? Why aren't you citing this as temperature?
It's NOAA's graph, not mine, and they use joules because it's a
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, it's a refreshing change to have an actual rational discussion :-)
Luckily the sea ice calc was easy to debug, and does get you into the ballpark. Most of the climate papers are much harder to work through (kinda why you need to have all that study and experience under your belt); while many of the principles can be grasped by laymen like ourselves, it quickly becomes clear from reading the papers that there can be a lot of subtleties and counter-intuitive effects that we just don't realise, and I'm
Re: (Score:2)
As to debugging the sea ice... you didn't correct my math though. I'd like to actually see that corrected so I can see where I messed up. I don't learn anything if I don't see the correction.
As to peer review doing X or Y... I can cite a lot of things that made it through peer review where none of those things happened.
I mean... there was that guy that had gotten over 150 papers through peer review that were apparently all bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the link, I think I cited the wrong link...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As to zeta joules, I can't process that information. The issue is that we're trying to audit each other's information and you're citing something that can't be audited because the units are odd and there is nothing I can compare this against. That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.
As to the corrections on my math, thank you. I think this back of the napkin calculation actually does a bette
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I thought the error was clear - you converted cubic metres to cubic kilometres incorrectly. I'll spell it out:
200 gigatons is 200 billion tons ice is ~ 200 billion tons of sea water.
200,000,000,000 tons per year
convert tons of sea water into cubic meters
195,698,545,959 cubic meters of water
convert to cubic kilometers
195,698,546 cubic kilometers of water
It should be 195.699 cubic kilometres of water, because there are 1000x1000x1000 cubic metres to a cubic kilometre, not 1000.
Thus, over 20 years this would be 3,913.97 cubic kilometers of water, and as the surface of the world's oceans is ~361,740,000 square kilometers, you would see a rise of 0.0000108198 km, or 10.81 mm.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the link, I think I cited the wrong link...
The new link does show corrections to a single satellite dataset - but there's nothing there even faintly close to the 0.6 degrees/year you were claiming. There are both positive and negative corrections that are a fraction of that, as they discover and account for factors like orbital decay.
There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. Admit that and move on ;-)
As to zeta joules, I can't process that information... That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.
Perhaps you should engage in further study, then - and until then, you'll have to accept tha
Re: (Score:2)
As to the citation, that is fair. I'll accept that but I do remember something else. I think my primary problem is that I can't find the source.
Even from that data though you're seeing an overall divergence of about 0.132 C in total. Which is still pretty big. If you're saying the temps went up .4... the sats are effectively showing 0.268 C... that's still a problem. What is more, the stats are not showing the high polar warming that the ground data is ASSUMING. Keep in mind, the ground stations have almost
Re: (Score:2)
For polar temperature measurements - don't forget we have satellites too. We're not relying solely on a handful of ground stations, but their measurements help confirm our satellite results.
I can't believe you're still confused about "the zeta joules". Earth has an energy budget, right? A near-constant amount of energy from the sun comes in (about 700 terawatts from memory), and a variable amount goes out. The difference in energy remains on the earth - in the atmosphere, but mostly in the oceans. Energy un
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the sats are calibrated with ground data. You don't take raw sat data and say "the reading from the sats is X". The sats have their information calibrated by the ground stations. And there has been the adjustments to the sat data is all an increase in temperature. The raw data from the sats shows a much lower temperature... I think they were actually showing global cooling. Every year their numbers are adjusted up...
I find that to be problematic because the output from the sats is then only as good
Re: (Score:2)
More of my shoddy back of napkin math:
7823Mt coal year
7,823,000,000 tonnes of coal per year
2.86 tonnes of co2 per ton of coal
22,373,780,000 tonnes of CO2 per year from coal
22,373,780,000,000 kg of CO2 per year from coal
87,310,923 barrels per day
31,868,486,895 per year
433 kg co2 per barrel
13,799,054,825,535 kg co2 from crude per year
~36,200,000,000,000 kg co2 from oil and coal per year
total mass of atmospheric carbon is supposed to be around
2.996 x 10^12 tonnes
2,996,000,000,000,000 kg Total atmospher
Re: (Score:2)
the sats are calibrated with ground data... Every year their numbers are adjusted up...
No, they're not. The measurements are going up, not the adjustments. The citations you yourself provided show only tiny adjustments to the trend, every few years, going both up and down - while the measured temperature trend is ever upwards.
The calibration is not re-done from scratch every year. That would be meaningless, as you say. The satellite data obviously must be kept comparable, both to itself and to ground measurements, so that any trends can be determined. Give these people some credit, would you
Re: (Score:2)
The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate.
Some of the recalibration were obviously valid. Others are not as clear cut. For example, the orbital decay correction was entirely valid.
Regardless, even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
http://data.remss.com/msu/mont... [remss.com]
The whole "pause" thing which is argued started in 1998 and what caused people to start looking for where the heat went. You're saying into the ocean... because it isn't in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate
Please cite data that shows that.
even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
What was that you were saying about cherry-picking trends?
In any case, surface temperatures are only one symptom of climate change - and we know they're quite variable over decadal periods. Others, like ocean heat content, ice melt, and sea level rise, are still rising. And that table you cited looks to me like mostly negative anomalies in the 70s, and mostly positive anomalies in the current time - how is that not a warming trend? Perhaps a graph [remss.com] would make it clearer?
The sea rise is linear.
No, i
Re: (Score:2)
As to the corrections... this is common knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As to graphs... did you look at the spread sheet I sent you? There are two datasets for sat temperatures. The RSS and the UAH
Anyway... the point of my cherry picking was to point out the pause is in the data.
And while you accuse me of cherry picking that hasn't stopped you from doing it. I mean... is that what we're just going to do to each other?
Find the portion of any graph that agrees with our premise and then cite it out
Re: (Score:2)
What's this? An anonymous coward commenting on the posting history of someone that actually logs in?
Do tell us, sir... what is your posting history?
Because if that isn't exposed to everyone on the site like mine is... then you're a fucking hypocrite.
The question is of course rhetorical... I point that out because on top of being a hypocrite you're also stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't stalk anyone, you complete fucking retard.
Look at my posting history. I basically never post in response to someone else's posts.
What i do is make my own post to a topic and then people post in response to that and then I respond to them.
That means people come to ME. I don't stalk anyone. Go through my posting history. I don't even read other people's comments outside of my own threads. I see an article I want to comment on... and I comment on.
People only get responses from me when they respond TO M
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well you have a feeling. I guess the scientists can pack up and move on to some other topic then.
Re: (Score:3)
If I were some paid shill, wouldn't I be posting as an AC like you? After all, your account type is perfect for sock puppeting and trolling.
Where as I actually logged in.
AC's have no grounds to criticize the posting history or conduct of people that ACTUALLY log in.
If you have something to say about the issue. Fine. But you don't get to talk about me or anyone else that logs in. For all anyone knows you're advocating pedophilia in other threads. No one would know because you're too chicken shit scared to po
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you troll as AC because you're afraid of other AC trolls?
I don't troll people, idiot. Did I post in response to your comment? Who is the original poster of this thread? Oh that's right... I am.
Which means YOU engaged me not the other way around.
And just FYI, I get trolled by at least one fucktard AC all the time. I call him Bingo... Bingo the clowno.
And he can be relied upon to respond to every thread I create with something along the lines of "you're stupid" or "you're a bad person"... he uses ha
Re: (Score:2)
what does profanity have to do with anything, fucktard?
I never claimed I didn't use profanity and using or not using it doesn't make someone right or wrong.
As to bingo, he admits it. I've talked to him about it a few times. He's been following me for months.
His posts are really distinctive... I don't think i've ever miss addressed him... he's that obvious. And as I said, I've talked to him about it. He has reasons... bordom apparently that compel him to troll someone and I got picked.
If it were just him I w
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll have to channel my inner Leonidas and say:
"Try me."
Re: (Score:2)
Find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the AC?
Your name is literally anonymous coward. You're literally too chicken shit to even use a fake name. And you presume to judge me?
You're garbage. Another AC waste of oxygen.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, its a snarky AC who rather than having an intelligent comment decides to front baseless insults and sarcasm as a position.
There is a reason people like you post AC... its because you're stupid... and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Of course (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that all the coral will go completely extinct, yes. Some small percentage will doubtless adapt and survive. But sudden drastic changes to the environment will certainly result in massive diebacks, of the coral and the ecosystems that depend on them.
It'd also suck for the local tourism & fishing trades, and the many livelihoods that depend on them, not to mention losing at least one of the natural wonders of the world, but hey, at least the coral won't be completely extinct.