'Huge Wake Up Call': Third of Central, Northern Great Barrier Reef Corals Dead (smh.com.au) 145
iONiUM quotes a report from The Sydney Morning Herald: More than one-third of the coral reefs of the central and northern regions of the Great Barrier Reef have died in the huge bleaching event earlier this year, Queensland researchers said. Corals to the north of Cairns -- covering about two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef -- were found to have an average mortality rate of 35 percent, rising to more than half in areas around Cooktown. Bleaching occurs when abnormal conditions, such as warm seas, cause corals to expel tiny photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae. Corals turn white without these algae and may die if the zooxanthellae do not recolonize them. "It is fair to say we were all caught by surprise," Professor Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said. "It's a huge wake up call because we all thought that coral bleaching was something that happened in the Pacific or the Caribbean which are closer to the epicenter of El Nino events." The report says, "The northern end of the Great Barrier Reef was home to many 50- to 100-year-old corals that had died and may struggle to rebuild before future El Ninos push tolerance beyond thresholds."
Re: News FLASH (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure if joke or you're ignorant of the fact that corals are actually animals and not rocks.
Re: News FLASH (Score:2, Funny)
Probably educated in the USA.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Or Australia
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm. Too close to call. I suggest an international spelling bee to decide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long live rock!
3 more years (Score:1)
until there is more plastic in the ocean than FISH
GM coral (Score:4, Informative)
Some corals tolerate heat much better than others. We should identify the genes that make that possible, and clone them into other coral species. Some research is being done [smithsonianmag.com].
Re:GM coral (Score:5, Informative)
For a slightly more balanced view on this see here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/0... [judithcurry.com]
One of the reasons that coral can adapt quickly is that their symbionts adapt quickly.
From the above reference "Although coral genomes may evolve slowly, their symbionts have extremely fast generation times, averaging every 7 days. Furthermore the symbiont community consists of hundreds of symbionts that have already adapted to a wide variety of temperature, irradiance and salinity variables within different microclimates over the past million years. Symbiont shuffling and shifting is an evolutionary masterpiece that circumvents plodding evolutionary mechanisms of most organisms with long generation times and enables immediate adaptation.
A good summary statement is provided by Baker et al. “flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms”.
"
Re:GM coral (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently these symbionts didn't adapt quickly enough; much of the coral is dead.
However, it's not unheard of for reefs to recover [scienceinpublic.com.au] faster than expected, if the water quality is good enough, so there's still some hope that any remaining symbionts will be more resilient in future. Unless they get hammered again [abc.net.au] too quickly...
Re: (Score:3)
Bleached coral is not always dead. Bleaching is caused by expulsion of the symbionts with the intent of acquiring new symbionts more able to produce nutrients under the current conditions.
Death occurs in situations like this only if symbionts do not arrive and the coral starves.
The media tends to overlook the details. As usual.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing Judith Curry says is balanced.
She's a professional apologist and skeptic for deniers, who keeps her head firmly in the sand and tries to explain how warming temperatures aren't actually warming temperatures. She barely escapes being an outright denier herself, by taking the "we need to know more" stance instead of "its not happening" stance.
Re:GM coral (Score:4, Interesting)
There's much more going on than "some research". Australia is actively breeding coral that is adapted to future conditions (lower pH, more CO2, higher temperatures) and is planning on releasing the results in the wild. I got this from the documentary about the Great Barrier Reef on Discovery Channel, but this article also describes it:
http://www.nature.com/news/cli... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Some corals tolerate heat much better than others. We should identify the genes that make that possible, and clone them into other coral species. Some research is being done [smithsonianmag.com].
Apparently the corals which tolerate heat better are already there, in 50 to 65% of the corals in that region.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in America (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cause that unlocked door they have today is going to stop them. This is least thought out attack on a group of people to date. Utterly stupid, much like building a wall between us and a country famous for tunnel digging, simply brilliant in the most painful way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If your dog or horse can tell me that themselves, so I know it's not merely a delusion of yours, then no problem! But remember: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. Also, no pissing or shitting on the floor. After all, trans-species humans will still have to follow the same rules as everybody else.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason you should be going into the ladies' room is if you are female by sex or identity. One assumes you are biologically male, so then we have to assume you've dealt with gender identity dysphoria and maybe are seeing a doctor or therapist.
If you're walking up to the door with a camera crew in tow or a chip on your shoulder, then you might just be a misguided attention whore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we are debating whether letting sex predators and perverts into the ladies room is a good idea or not.
I have grave news for ya Bucky - Sexual predators and perverts have been going into your ladies rooms for a long long long long time before you got to throw a little more hatred of gays and people who aren't the right type of people as you would have it. Google fu shows that as a fact.
And you could burn every transgernder person at the stake and the sexual predators and perverts will still go in to rest rooms. Why? Not many transgenders are that.
Don't for a minute pretend that this isn't just more of
Re: (Score:1)
Don't for a minute pretend that this isn't just more of the projection based hatred of people who think that restrooms equal sex, and that someone that changes gender is somehow a prevert. Some guy that had his weenie cut off is not much danger to our wimminfolk, considering s/he probably didn't cut it off in order to become a lesbian.
Many transgenders did not yet have a sex change operation. And indeed, quite a few transgenders are lesbians. If a dong grosses you off enough on your own body that you cannot stand it, chances are that you are not overwhelmed by it when stuck on others.
Wanting to sleep with men does not make you transsexual but gay. Transsexuality is about your own gender identity, not that of your partners.
Now that we have that out of the way, of course the laws are rubbish and a disgrace and will do nothing to curb "p
Re: (Score:2)
Some guy that had his weenie cut off is not much danger to our wimminfolk, considering s/he probably didn't cut it off in order to become a lesbian.
Dear God you're an idiot. Gender identity has jack shit to do with sexual preference; and yes, as a result a significant number of men who become women still prefer women. See Kate Jenner's most recent documented exploits for an example. None of this has anything to do with the heart of this issue which is whether a person should be assumed guilty without a trial, evidence of them planning a crime or any pattern established by previous behavior. Their reasons for denying entry into these facilities are all
Re: (Score:2)
Some guy that had his weenie cut off is not much danger to our wimminfolk, considering s/he probably didn't cut it off in order to become a lesbian.
Dear God you're an idiot. Gender identity has jack shit to do with sexual preference; and yes, as a result a significant number of men who become women still prefer women.
And the trap is sprung. You just made the argument for bathroom access by sexual preference. If a man who has changed themselves into a woman, and is now a transgender lesbian who preys on the wimminfolk, you now have to enact laws keeping lesbians and homosexuals out of bathrooms for straight folk.
And what about asexuals?
Re: (Score:1)
Dear God you're an idiot. Gender identity has jack shit to do with sexual preference; and yes, as a result a significant number of men who become women still prefer women. See Kate Jenner's most recent documented exploits for an example
these exploits?
http://www.eonline.com/shows/i... [eonline.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The transgender bathroom moral panic goes to show how malleable, or in this case ductile American public opinion is.
A tempest in a teapot and no doubt. Transgenders pretty much just want to be left alone, and given that in women's toilets - at least in America, there are stalls. No one even knows.
And it's a pretty safe bet that most of us have made tinkle in a rest room at the same time as someone who has changed gender. We just didn't know it at the time.
I wonder if the red states are going to have a pecker prodder or peen inspector appointed so that God's will is served? Imagine, they want this person to use a me
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, troll, I'll bite.
So where are these "sex predators" and "perverts" going to the bathroom now? Assuming they look like a man, they are probably in the boys bathroom. With your son. Why has that not been a problem? Are you standing in the bathroom making sure some "pervert" isn't doing anything? What about when your wife is out with him? Does she go into the bathroom with him too?
Please quit using "think of the children" to mask your homophobic bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, troll, I'll bite.
So where are these "sex predators" and "perverts" going to the bathroom now? Assuming they look like a man, they are probably in the boys bathroom. With your son. Why has that not been a problem? Are you standing in the bathroom making sure some "pervert" isn't doing anything? What about when your wife is out with him? Does she go into the bathroom with him too?
I would definitely go into a bathroom with my young son to prevent anything like that happening, how do you think child abductions happen?
Same with my wife.
I'm pretty sure all parents are over protective with their kids whether it is warranted or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I would definitely go into a bathroom with my young son
As would I. But what about your daughter, you going into the ladies room with her?
Same with my wife.
She headed into the men's room with your son, then?
I'm pretty sure all parents are over protective with their kids whether it is warranted or not.
Protecting your children is one thing. Vilifying a group of people because of the possibility that there may be a pervert among them is quite another.
Re: (Score:1)
i would go to the door and stand outside it. are you not a parent? you ask questions like someone who has never raised kids. (not an insult, just an observation). most stores have a family room now where you can be in the room regardless of gender.
maybe the thing here isn't vilifying it's being able to tell who is different easily. before you wouldn't know who is a pervert, but now transgendered people stand out like a sore thumb?
pervert
verb
prvrt/
1.
alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or sta
Re: (Score:2)
I have 4 kids and a grand child. All of which were raised with respect and tolerance, not bigotry and fear. They understand that there different kinds of people out there. They understand that there are good people and bad people. They understand that just because someone looks different than them doesn't make them a bad person.
I, too, would be standing outside the door if one of my daughters or grand daughter (or nieces) was in the bathroom. (or using the family room, as you suggested) But I'm not going
Re: (Score:2)
No, only delusional RWNJ's who don't understand what reality is are debating that.
Australia had the UNESCO report censored. (Score:5, Interesting)
UNESCO had drawn up a list of world heritage sites that were in danger from climate change, and Australia had the reefs removed [theguardian.com] because it would hurt tourism.
Between this and WHO saying there's no real risk to spreading zika so please go the the Olympics, it's obvious that it's all about the money [youtube.com].
Re:Australia had the UNESCO report censored. (Score:5, Informative)
UNESCO had drawn up a list of world heritage sites that were in danger from climate change, and Australia had the reefs removed [theguardian.com] because it would hurt tourism.
To top it off, Australia has just gutted the research arm that studies this. [scientificamerican.com]
See no evil. Hear no evil. [wikia.com]
Re:Australia had the UNESCO report censored. (Score:5, Informative)
It's just appalling.
To further highlight the farce, 3 months ago the Australian environment minister Greg Hunt was awarded "Best Minister in the World".
Meanwhile under his watch we've:
- Abolished the Carbon Tax
- Increased our Carbon emmissions
- Approved the biggest coal mine in the country
- Approved additional dredging to allow for increased coal exports
- Passed legislation to prevent environmentalists from legally challenging his rulings.
- Did nothing whilst big chunks of the Great Barrier Reef died.
- Called out the opposition leader on not offering support for communities that depend of reef tourism. I mean, WTF??
Re:Australia had the UNESCO report censored. (Score:5, Funny)
But everyone know Jesus loves oil and would never make CO2 harmful, and anyone who says otherwise is an evil Communist out to destroy capitalism.
Re:Australia had the UNESCO report censored. (Score:5, Insightful)
A carbon price is a proxy for the missing external costs of coal power, so it helps raise the wholesale price to better reflect its true cost (which is around double [theconversation.com] current wholesale prices). This alone encourages alternatives - both demand for carbon-neutral alternative power, and investment in further renewable generation.
But of course, the revenue from that didn't vanish; it was funneled back into industry adaption schemes [wikipedia.org] and consumer tax cuts [wikipedia.org]. And it worked, driving emissions down [theaustralian.com.au] significantly, until it was repealed in 2014 (at which point they immediately [reuters.com] started rising again.
Re: (Score:2)
But of course, the revenue from that didn't vanish; it was funneled back into industry adaption schemes [wikipedia.org] and consumer tax cuts [wikipedia.org].
I'm all for a carbon tax but I absolutely HATE this line of thought. The government coming out and telling us that people won't be out of pocket because the cost of carbon will be instead transferred to savings in the budget with the view of pricing polluting technologies out of the market. So what happens when it works? You can't put a price on the green alternatives so where is the revenue from the now defunct dirty polluters going to come from, the revenue that was promised to the people to offset the co
Re: (Score:2)
so where is the revenue from the now defunct dirty polluters going to come from, the revenue that was promised to the people to offset the costs of going green?
That's a ways off yet, but by then, the industry adaption schemes will be done with, the renewables early-investment subsidies won't be needed any longer (as the market will have matured to cover the whole energy sector), and the consumer tax cuts can be slowly scaled back, if needed.
Remember also that getting off coal will save hundreds of billions [reuters.com] annually in the US alone, mostly in avoided health costs ($1.7 trillion [oecd.org] over the whole OECD). So overall we'll be significantly better off.
Re: (Score:2)
(as the market will have matured to cover the whole energy sector)
My point exactly. We priced the cheap out of the market and then we're left with only expensive options while we scale back the cuts. Let's not beat around the bush, we pollute the environment because it's really cheap to do so. And by cheap I mean cheap in my wallet. People in general don't calculate external costs that appear somewhere in the tax code to pay for some government medical subsidy as a result of what we do.
I still see this as a perfect example of a government that is dishonest and a species t
Re: (Score:2)
Has it occurred to you that the main reason existing fossil energy is cheap is mostly just because of scale and infrastructure?
After all, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal etc all have zero fuel costs - no mining, no fuel storage and transport, just maintenance (and even that's usually a lot less). The great majority of the cost is construction - and that always gets cheaper with scale (just look at solar's price curve for the last few years). There's also still plenty of room for technological efficiency impr
Re: (Score:2)
It has, and it's right, partially, but not for the reasons you think. They are cheap because of scale, but individual scale and output at a point. E.g. compare coal to wind: A single turbine in a building producing 800MW with a purpose built maintenance structure available, vs Many turbines each with a tiny output accessible only by crane and a handful of employees at a time.
We have 40MW of wind generation on our site. In 2 years we're replacing it with a natural gas turbine due to maintenance cost, and man
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting to hear your perspective. Do you have any references that show more general examples? I'm going on the various LCoE studies [industry.gov.au] that all show onshore wind to be already competitive with coal and gas, even without any carbon price, which would appear to contradict your experiences. These tables [eia.gov] show that while wind maintenance is indeed more than coal or gas, this is more than offset by the savings on fuel and other variable costs.
Solar PV is not far behind, and is already considerably cheaper than s
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon price is a proxy for the missing external costs of coal power, so it helps raise the wholesale price to better reflect its true cost (which is around double [theconversation.com] current wholesale prices). This alone encourages alternatives - both demand for carbon-neutral alternative power, and investment in further renewable generation.
But of course, the revenue from that didn't vanish; it was funneled back into industry adaption schemes [wikipedia.org] and consumer tax cuts [wikipedia.org]. And it worked, driving emissions down [theaustralian.com.au] significantly, until it was repealed in 2014 (at which point they immediately [reuters.com] started rising again.
You mention industry adaption schemes like that's a bad thing. It's a required thing. You can't legislate someone out of business and not provide an exit strategy. That's a good way for them to fight you tooth and nail the entire way. People will lose their jobs if/when coal goes away. As a coal/natural gas worker, I've been to many former coal towns and poverty, drug abuse, and crime are very quick to creep in when the coal money runs out. We're talking about intentionally destroying lives and commun
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree - you can't shut down big polluters overnight; as you say, it's the workers that suffer the most. Adaption schemes are essential to a stable economy, and any reasonable approach will take years to slowly phase in any big changes to the rules.
We can't keep heedlessly burning coal now that we know so much more about what it's costing our health, let alone environmental impacts, so those workers are just going to have find new jobs, if they can - but we can and certainly should make the tran
Re: (Score:3)
Couple of points. The abolishment of the carbon tax was the primary election promise of the Liberal National Coalition, so you would expect that to happen.
Our carbon emissions have actually decreased during this current government - See page 3 for a simple graph https://www.environment.gov.au... [environment.gov.au]
You might disagree with the Adani coal project and the Gladstone upgrade but many many people do not. The fuss around the dredging was stupid. You are not going to stop ships going in and out of the harbour, so ma
Re:Australia had the UNESCO report censored. (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm, is that why the Australia government quietly released a report on Christmas eve 2015 showing a 1% increase. I'm sure they were hoping no-one was watching.
http://www.theguardian.com/aus... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget that that dredging also involves the dumping of the material removed near enough to the reefs that it will negatively impact the water clarity that coral depends on to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that even had the most stringent Kyoto measures been enacted back in the 90's it would have had virtually no impact on current climate according to the computer models? So this still would have happened. But keep fucking the chicken of 'didn't do anything to stop it'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And then instead of being ashamed about getting references to the reef removed from the UN's report on climate change, Australia's (Anti) Environment minister then gloated about it on Twitter [twitter.com]:
"Under Labor the U.N. put the Great Barrier Reef on the In-Danger 'Watch list'...Thanks to the coalition it came off"
I wish this was satire but unfortunately it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a quote on sports radio, i've changed it a bit (since i don't have the original anyway):
If you're looking at something that doesn't make sense, and you're wondering "Why the hell...?" the answer is probably "money"
Re: (Score:2)
UNESCO had drawn up a list of world heritage sites that were in danger from climate change, and Australia had the reefs removed [theguardian.com] because it would hurt tourism.
It looks like they spent 400,000 in lobbying efforts to keep the reef off the list. Money well spent? The environment minister recently tweeted: "Under Labor, the Great Barrier Reef was on-track to be listed as 'in danger'. It came off the 'watch list' under us."
Responses were on the order of "are you fucking high mate?" - The https://www.buzzfeed.com/robst... [buzzfeed.com]
That's a known issue (Score:3, Informative)
So:
- why is it happening? ...
- why are the individuals/groups pulling the strings and the press allowing this to happen without yelling and screaming?
(are the "protesters" considered lunatics?)
Maybe dreamland: nothing happens to us, we can afford it... elysium-style
Or - afraid of taking risks to go outside the "normal", loosing the comfort zone
- does not concern me
- too busy making ends meet
It's really bad - one just can wonder what's causing it in human brains to let this happen.
I recently met a guy: global warming does not exist and a huge waterfall of words arguing for why this is the case, impossible to even touch the subject - extremely determined.
I just classify it as religious believe system - no real proof, continuous repetition burns the PROM and it runs forever, if you touch it, it may explode.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rushing off and blaming every adverse environmental outcome on climate change is in itself a religious belief system.
All sorts of stressors on environment such as polluation from agricultural/catchment runoff. Land surface temp increase of around 0.7c over last 60 years or so + recent El Nino, may or many not be a contributor but no shortage of people falling over each other to lay blame principally at the feet of AGW
Re: (Score:1)
Rushing off and blaming every adverse environmental outcome on climate change is in itself a religious belief system.
All sorts of stressors on environment such as polluation from agricultural/catchment runoff. Land surface temp increase of around 0.7c over last 60 years or so + recent El Nino, may or many not be a contributor but no shortage of people falling over each other to lay blame principally at the feet of AGW
Ah - AGW - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] - take your pick.
Everything is illusion since it's based on your "instrument" - body/mind system and there is always a "computational" delay by the time the sensory impulse goes through your filters and reaches your response circuits.
Other than that, nothing in your post answers or solves the issues - just mind-fuck, it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Mind. Blown. You trolling but just forgot to logout?
I never intended to provide a fix for the problem. Although, generally speaking, the first step to fixing a problem is to correctly diagnose/attribute causes.
Re: (Score:2)
... correctly diagnose/attribute causes.
See how far you are behind the curve, not even close - go pray to your spaghetti-monster or whatever it is you have....
Re:That's a known issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Rushing off and blaming every adverse environmental outcome on climate change is in itself a religious belief system.
Which is why no-one listens to people like that.
But we do listen to actual scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the climate science deniers listen to them if only to try and shoot them down. It's like the only ones who bring up Al Gore are the same deniers.
Re: (Score:1)
The causes of coral bleaching are known. Temperature stress causes the colorful symbiots to start leaching toxic chemicals, the host ejects them in response, then starves to death if things don't cool down in time for them to stop producing the toxins and resettle.
The current El Nino is not as strong as ones in the past, but due to rising base temperatures the amount of heat it adds causes it to be the worst one we've seen.
Climate change is completely to blame for this. And we are primarily to blame for cli
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason New York isn't buried in straw men like yours; no scientist ever predicted any such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they continue the work that had been done looking at sunscreen effects [time.com] on coral? Were these areas particular favorites for snorkeling and scuba? I understand temperature is a part of it, but if we are looking for other environmental factors, hydrocarbons would be one to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
The only one waving away the risk to the Reef is this guy [aefweb.info], who just happens to be the "science coordinator" for a business-funded denialist group [wikipedia.org]. I think it's clear from TFA how real the risk is.
Wake up call for who? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone else is already awake.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean climate science proponents. Maybe those techniques are used because they're the only thing you would understand. Science appears to be a foreign language to you,.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change proponents arent much better, turning to name calling and poo flinging to get their point across.
I am willing to throw any amount of shit at the enemy, which is throwing any amount of pollution my way.
Re: (Score:2)
So much for the wake-up call.
Re: (Score:2)
Long before that happens, the sun will transform itself to a red giant and balloon out to about Saturn's orbit. Even though most of the volume of a red giant is simply a red-hot vacuum, it's unlikely that the Earth will survive until the sun collapses into a white dwarf.
Re: This is bad but the environment is not homeost (Score:1)
We know exactly what is causing it. Rising average temperatures mixed with a short term heat wave.
Average temperatures = climate change.
Short term heat wave = El Niño.
This particular El Niño wasn't so bad, or very long lasting, but the increase in the baseline tipped its effects into the catastrophic bucket.
Ps. Congratulations on getting me to read your whole comment. Next time I won't pay attention to your clearly fallacious assertion that it wasn't going to be an anti science rant.
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile the corals adjust their symbiotic alga.
I would be very interested in a cite to show that corals can do this, and the mechanism by which you claim corals perform this adjustment.
port (Score:2)
And yet, China's emissions will grow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"allowed"? Seriously?
Who the hell do you think has the authority to tell the Chinese what is or is not "allowed" in terms of their domestic energy policy?
Re: And yet, China's emissions will grow (Score:2)
Let's blame global warming and CO2 (Score:2)
Let's ignore the fact that the earth has been significantly hotter, by several degree; had significantly higher CO2 levels, by several times. And TOTALLY IGNORE...the fact that we are leaching tons and tons of pesticides and herbicides into the water. Which have already been shown to cause harm to many micro-organisms and arthropods.
Pesticides and Herbicides are the likely true reason our reefs are dying. These reefs have endure far greater temperature and CO2 variances over the millions of years.
http://ww [wwf.org.au]
Re: (Score:3)
Let's ignore the fact that the earth has been significantly hotter, by several degree;
What did the coral reefs look like then?
had significantly higher CO2 levels, by several times.
What did the planet look like then? Hint: NOT GOOD FOR US EITHER
Pesticides and Herbicides are the likely true reason our reefs are dying.
Herpes Virus is also killing reefs. However, this report is about reef damage which required a new explanation, not an old one. Those other things are causing steady dieoff, not catastrophic events.
But we'd rather blame CO2 and Global Warming for every environmental problem,
It is a fact that CO2 causes acidification, a fact that this causes reef erosion, and a fact that the ocean cannot sink this acidity as fast as we are causing it. What part of this do you find confusing?
Re: (Score:2)
The earth for much of the last several million years had CO2 levels that fluctuated between 280ppm to 220pm (220 was roughly when ice ages happened). This level has held since humans evolved until the industrial revolution. Since then C02 levels have gone above 400pm (as of a few years ago).
CO2 levels are also increasing at a rate that's higher than any recorded event in the history of this planet, roughly 10 times the rate that caused the fastest climate change this planet has ever seen (Paleocene–Eo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
nonsense. if the water rose one foot in tuvalu it should have risen the same one foot across the entire planet which it clearly has not.
Right, just like the tides raise by the exact same amount (2 feet) all over the world. Oh, wait, they raise by up to 50 feet in the bay of Fundy and by close to zero feet in other locations... Maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: Truly ironic (Score:1)
The force of gravity is not equal across the planet, which is also spinning and subject to ocean currents which means that sea level rises are not the same on all points of the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But the satellite measurements say sea level is rising. Aren't satellites the gold standard? They appear to be when it comes to temperatures.