Scientists Declare End to Global Coral Reef Bleaching Event (phys.org) 156
Scientists in the U.S. have announced Monday that a mass bleaching of coral reefs worldwide has finally ended after three years. "About three-quarters of the world's delicate coral reefs were damaged or killed by hot water in what scientists say was the largest coral catastrophe," reports Phys.Org. From the report: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a global bleaching event in May 2014. It was worse than previous global bleaching events in 1998 and 2010. The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean, so the event loses its global scope. Bleaching will still be bad in the Caribbean and Pacific, but it'll be less severe than recent years, said NOAA coral reef watch coordinator C. Mark Eakin. Places like Australia's Great Barrier Reef, northwest Hawaii, Guam and parts of the Caribbean have been hit with back-to-back-to-back destruction, Eakin said. University of Victoria, British Columbia, coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years. While conditions are improving, it's too early to celebrate, said Eakin, adding that the world may be at a new normal where reefs are barely able to survive during good conditions.
So, how can they can they declare it ended? (Score:1)
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
Re:So, how can they can they declare it ended? (Score:5, Informative)
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
That is probably because the scientists don't actually say such a thing at all. I think, if one were to search through to a more trustworthy source, it would say something like 'The coral bleaching event that has unfolded over the last 3 years seems to be less severe this year, and this may be a sign that it is coming to an end, if this trend continues.' - and then a lot of explanations about what observations and expectations they base this on. Science is almost never startling or sensational; and in the very rare cases when it is, it will get ignored for a long time as being speculative. Just the way of the world; so when you see an sensational headline about a scientific discovery on a pop-sci website, it can probably be safely ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if a huge deal of corrals are now 'bleached', obviously the amount of corrals left to be bleached gets smaller ... It is like saying: from a population of 10,000 we lost 5000 over the last 2 years to plague. But this month only 30 died to the plague. So we are assuming over next months the amount of dead to decrease.
In the end we have 1000 survivors with a decrease of death per month from 30 over 20 to 10 and finally 0.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the source article [noaa.gov] instead, and you will see that it is not the message TFA is delivering. TFA is a junk!
Re: (Score:2)
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
Perhaps the coral is all FUBAR, therefore the destruction should be near its end.
Re: (Score:2)
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
Because TFA cited for /. is junk! I hate journalist this day... They don't deliver the information, but rather spin it to something that gives a different message!
TFA is just a rephrase from the article written on NOAA [noaa.gov] site. The site talked about the end of "the third global event" of coral bleach event. That meant there could be another bleach event occurred in the future, so we can't be celebrating yet. However, TFA rephrase it as if the whole bleach event is now over (and no more)! Such a BS!
Climate always changes (Score:1)
Regardless of the actions of man. Yawn. Film at 11.
Re:Climate always changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. But 100 million years ago, nobody gave a shit about temperatures being 5 degrees warmer. We didn't have to survive in that climate. And certainly not 7 billions of us.
Climate always changes. And life always finds a way to adapt. Not all life forms do, though. And if history is any indicator, being the apex predator during one of the big shifts in climate usually really, really sucked.
Hint: That would be us this time around.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Change is real, there's no denying that. But the apocalyptic predictions are transparently political and detract from more effective response
Re: (Score:2)
But 100 million years ago, nobody gave a shit about temperatures being 5 degrees warmer.
Climate changed in the past, but not at current rate. The timeline is quite shocking [xkcd.com]
And the problem is that the ecosystem that supports human being is not likely to adapt in such a short time.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put it that way, whether we frogs get boiled fast or slow isn't the question, the question is whether we manage to get out of the pot in time.
Re: (Score:3)
Please. I don't believe you're so dense, if you try to derail an argument, at least try to make it less blatantly stupid.
We're the dominant life form on this planet. And so far, all of the major catastrophes on this planet had a devastating effect on whatever animal was the top dog back then. Simply due to them needing vast amounts of resources for survival, and resources being scarce during catastrophic times.
In other words, it doesn't look good for us. But that's ok. The planet will survive our demise.
Re: (Score:2)
Those vast amounts of resources were prey animals, which we don't require. We are not like those animals. We, for instance, have technology. If we ran around on all fours killing things with our teeth I would agree with you, but we are nowhere near that type
Re: (Score:3)
Right, we'll probably take the rest of life down with us. At least we have the ability to.
Feeding and sheltering 7 billion people is still something you can't do easily. Hell, we can't even do it now that we don't have to deal with a crisis, you think we'll be more capable of doing it when things get worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can live on plant matter alone.
I really don't want to get into a big debate on the subject of whether humans are omnivores or herbivores, but you might want to check whether that statement is really as accurate as it could be; while humans can 'survive' on a vegetarian diet, I'd argue against the idea that they can 'thrive' or have 'optimal health' on a vegetarian diet alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, you want to promote a vegan lifestyle. Allright: Meat is evil, evil, evil. So, with this out of the way, can we get back on topic?
But like I said somewhere else, science is not a democratic process and doesn't really give a fuck whether you like it or not. Human IS the apex predator. Actually, we prey on other predators and even use other predators to do our dirty work. We kill about 14 times more adult animals than the other predators together [sciencemag.org]. No, sadly I didn't find a more approachable source,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think I want to help whatever cause? Some people just want to watch the world burn, and I want to dance in front of the fire.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as we've been able to tell, it changes much more slowly than it is now.
Re: (Score:1)
They'd LOVE to be questioned with actual science. Would make such a pleasant change from the irrelevant nonsense that gets spouted instead.
Still waiting for that to happen, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, he singled me out, I feel special.
Ok, I won't ever be as special a kid as you, but hey, I'm above name calling. Mostly 'cause you provided none, but it lets me feel smug, so I feel great.
But back on topic. You are cordially invited to question anything I say with actual science. It would be a welcome change to the usual drivel used to "prove" either side of the argument. But then again, it's always funny to see people wave statistics about when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about but
what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, and the general trend is still very firmly warming (Its basic physics really). However within the warming climate systems various cycles as well as other less periodic phenomena are still at play desspite the increased energy being absorbed by the atmosphere.
There should be no surprises here, it all falls out of the math, but remember ; less energy here means more energy somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Christmas Island (Score:1)
The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean...coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years.
She might want to consult a map before she sets off.
So, wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
...you're saying that one of the oldest eukaryotes on the planet, one that has survived and flourished in much warmer and much colder earth climates, and which has likewise survived much more sudden ecological changes like massive globe-altering meteorites and sustained volcanism, maybe won't be as badly affected by a trivial warning as feared?
Do tell.
Re: (Score:3)
You misspelt warming in the last sentence and were quite insightful in the process. Coral is fundamentally an animal and it can move from place to place. So what's different now? Could it be the rate of temperature change is unprecedented throughout the history you described and that is causing massive death to these animals which previously would simply migrate?
That wasn't a question by the way.
Any comment that mentions the past as a model for what is happening now and draws some kind of conclusion deserve
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be the rate of temperature change is unprecedented throughout the history you described
Probably not. Look at this reconstruction, for example [tinypic.com]. You'll see there were times in the past temperature changed just as quickly. Here's another one [wordpress.com].
You can see more if you do a search for "temperature reconstruction graph." Of course I picked two graphs that show my point most dramatically, but in many (not all) of the reconstructions you will see dramatic swings of temperature over time.
I don't know anything about coral, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
RE: something later evolves to take their place (Score:2)
"then something later evolves to take their place"
Exactly. Why do you hate the evolutionary winners? Things come and go, including humans. We don't have to save everything. Though bringing back the mammoth does sound tasty.
How/why did the bleaching stop? (Score:3)
I am not a coral-ologist, and the article wasn't much help. Why, or how, did the bleaching stop? Was it something the biologists/oceanographers did to curtail this or did, ah.. uh.. ah.. nature find a way?
Re: (Score:3)
Bleaching isn't a continuous thing, but kind of fluctuates. Take a look here
http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/re... [aims.gov.au]
Each one seems to be getting worse than the previous, so we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back that this one is over.
HRC would say: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WTF are you talking about? You're absolutely free to go and do some research yourself, it's not like you can't. Stop pretending that religion has any scientific merit, or that science is nothing but bullshit voodoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple factors are likely - including human caused global warming, which is an established fact.
Rather than panicking or useless attempts to roll back the clock, start adapting. Plant coral that thrives in warmer water.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, it's probably not the actual warming but the common cause of CO2 emissions that's affecting the corals. A couple degrees won't usually kill corals but a small pH swing will, and some of the CO2 that isn't staying in the air is doing so by forming carbonic acid .
Re: (Score:2)
"a small pH swing will, and some of the CO2 that isn't staying in the air is doing so by forming carbonic acid ."
Enough carbonic acid that ion concentration in the oceans has changed by about 30% in the last 200 years. Apart from coral bleaching the oceans are getting acidic enough to start preventing shells/coral reefs from forming and that's a likely precursor to an axnoic event (look that one up and start worrying)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you plant an animal?
Coral isn't a plant.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP should also bear in mind that the initial bleaching is caused by the animal part ejecting its algae passenger due to the heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about the OP, they probably think coral bleaching is caused by bleach being dumped in to the ocean.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Interesting)
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
Re: (Score:1)
But you made sweet, sweet grad school money I imagine (what, $35 or maybe even $40k a year!) off the government tit. Sorta. Other than when it was funded by companies and private individuals.
The people who own the coal mines are blue collar folks who work tirelessly for only tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. They're literally keeping several thousand jobs open for people, with all that profit while you suck it off like a leach to tell them they're murdering people. Seriously, stop being so
Re: (Score:3)
40k a year! Wow! Maybe I should quit my job, go to university again, get a master's degree, get a doctorate, publish a few dozen scientific articles so I can get noticed and finally get that sweet, sweet 40k grant money!
Re: (Score:2)
A slacker interested enough in FOURTY K A YEAR to get an advanced degree, get a doctorate and publish paper after paper to even as much as get noticed in the scientific community, well, at least noticed enough to actually have a chance running for grant money...
Screw this. I bet I can land 100k a year at least pushing out a "everything's fine, sponsored by Exxon" report every couple months.
Re: (Score:2)
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
But you made sweet, sweet grad school money I imagine (what, $35 or maybe even $40k a year!) off the government tit.
Is this intended as irony? I honestly can't tell.
When I was a grad student, my take-home pay was $667 a month. That was a long time ago, though.
The politics are easy to understand (Score:5, Informative)
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed.
This one is easy. First follow the money. Oil and gas companies have a vested and huge financial interest in avoiding any science that might point a finger at them and they support and fund conservative politics that lead to that might lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This is simply money interests protecting the status quo. Second, look at the ideology. Conservative's purport to like small government and many of the environmental issues we have are best solved through regulation which to various degrees means larger government. So this makes an easy target for conservative pundits who want to make a buck on the backs of credulous people who inherently distrust government. It's little different from a preacher to tells people that the bible says homosexuality is bad. People listen to the preacher even when what he says is ridiculous. Third is simply tribalism. A lot of liberals are concerned about the environment and so the conservatives simply treat them as The Other. Because the opposition likes it then it must be bad. Whether or not this is contrary to their own self interest becomes irrelevant.
Ironically the republicans used to be rather forward thinking about environmental issues. The EPA and NOAA came into existence under republican administrations. It is a fairly recent development that conservatives started using the environment as a political punching bag. I find it hugely irritating that the notions of clean water and a hospitable climate could possibly be items of contention but it's amazing what some people will do to make a buck and gain power.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you only followed the money one way.
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades.
Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
To say otherwise is ignorance or lies.
Fossil fuel subsidies cost trillions (Score:4, Insightful)
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades.
And what exactly is your point? The evidence CLEARLY points to the climate research being useful. I'm fine with spending that money as long as the evidence supports further investigation. The only people seemingly opposed to further climate research are people who make money from opposing it. Don't tell me you are one of these conspiracy theorists who thinks scientists actually en-mass are trying to scam you out of your tax dollars. If scientists really wanted to make money in a corrupt fashion the real money would be in opposing climate research.
Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
TRILLIONS are spend on fossil fuel subsidies annually. Again, what exactly is your point? Clean energy is an unambiguously good thing and subsidies are necessary for a time to get the technology to the point where the economics work. In many cases they have already succeeded. This is true for all kinds of new technology. Not sure why you seem to have a beef with subsidizing clean energy when fossil fuels in 2016 were $5.3 Trillion [wikipedia.org] globally. That is 6.5% of global GDP for an industry that is wildly profitable and clearly does not need subsidies.
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
Bullshit. First off, fossil fuel companies collectively make TRILLIONS, not billions. The amount of money in clean energy currently is positively dwarfed by the amount of money currently in fossil fuel production and sales. It's not even remotely close. Second, "AGW agenda"? Spare me your nonsensical ravings. When you want to have a fact based discussion then we can revisit. Until then you are just spouting vague conspiracy theory bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably half of what you pay at a gas pump is tax
People in North Carolina pay the highest in state and federal gas taxes, at 57.55 cents per gallon. [bankrate.com]
Current NC gas price: $1.83 [northcarol...prices.com]
So currently, the highest anyone is paying at the pump is 31% in tax.
If you are unwilling to tell the truth about obvious facts, I have to conclude everything you posted is a lie. Sorry you suck at debating so badly that you resort to easily disproven points to make your arguments.
Yup.
Re: Fossil fuel subsidies cost trillions (Score:2)
Taxes at the pump are not the only taxes paid by a consumer on a gallon of gasoline. Keep digging, rube.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but it looks like you didn't understand the point I was making. Perhaps that was my fault, because I see now that I could have made it even simpler. Let me try again.
half of what you pay at a gas pump is tax
That is wrong, because at most you currently pay $1.83 per gallon [northcarol...prices.com] at the pump, of which $0.58 is tax [bankrate.com], and that is much less than half.
Sorry if my previous post confused you. I hope I made myself clear this time.
Re: Fossil fuel subsidies cost trillions (Score:2)
My point is that taxes paid all along the supply chain are passed along to be paid by the consumer. It ends up being significantly more than just the direct gasoline taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Your 31% figure is spot on for Pennsylvania average prices, though the figure does rise to 35.3% if you compare against the cheapest price.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The tax is on the consumer, subsidy on the producer. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a source for that? Are you sure it's not a matter of Mann-led research projects getting $6 million, with Mann getting paid much less out of that? Mann is an eminent scientist, and can be expected to get grant money for his research.
I find nothing you say obviously factual. Got a cite for the Mann claim? The oil tax claim? Anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Er, whoosh? No?
Re: (Score:2)
Making off of me?
I exchange money for a service. That service provides me fuel.
Fuel = energy.
Energy allows me to move my vehicle and its content about much faster and further than I could on foot.
It also allows me to transport items that are much heavier than I can on my own person.
This allows me to live further away in a more peaceful area that is cheaper.
It always allows me to make a living, because I can transport goods I normaly couldnt.
This is one of the problems you guys have. You cannot understand th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the conspiratorial mind will immediately jump to the conclusion that what you just said is yet another proof of the imagined conspiracy. "Of course the powers that be want us to think there is no conspiracy, and they trot out such arguments to make us believe there is none ... no?"
Re: (Score:3)
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
Because demented it is. Don't think of it as left vs right, but more as batshit crazy that has succeeded in denial of what is in front of it's eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we'll just wish that away too when we're done with that climate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
4 words: Berkeley Earth Surface Report. Touted as a totally independent look into climate change and AGW. Funded by the Koch brothers; looking at independent data sets; using raw data and so on; WUWT talked about how this is the definitive study to prove AGW or not.
Guess what: Same conclusion as all the other climate scientists.
WUWT also deleted any mention of this report. This is precisely what the deniers asked for but because the conclusion didn't match their expectations they just ignored the report
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific method proved your claim wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of a Google query to verify that claim haha. Probably would have to use the wayback machine or something.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is a junk. It didn't even cite the source article [noaa.gov]. TFA cited the original image with some infos but never gave the link to the article. What does this say to you? What is the intention of the author?
Re: (Score:2)
Actual arguments against the science of climate change: 0.
You are literally no better than creationists, anti-GMO activists, anti-vaxxers. You're barely better than flat earthers and breatharians.
Climate change - the vast hippy conspiracy of all powerful environmentalists. lol. You fucking twat.
Re:Denier trolls will spam this article (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like it matters. Reality is not a democratic process, it will happen whether people like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality may be what it may be but interpretation of reality will always be adjusted to suit the ego and greed of those doing the interpreting and they simply censor the truth to protect the lie. They will lie about global warming and sea level rise, right up until the water crosses your threshold and then blame you for it. You built where you shouldn't have, you were warned (even if they were telling you the opposite) and you did nothing, it's a normal cycle, you made happen by stopping the increase of carb
Re: (Score:3)
And no matter how high the sea levels rise, we won't change a thing.
First, the narrative was "there is no rising sea levels, so we needn't change our behaviour". Today we have "yeah, but it's normal and nothing we can influence, so we needn't change our behaviour". And we'll eventually end up with "yeah, we pretty much fucked up, but it's too late to do anything anyway, so we needn't change our behaviour".
So no matter what you do, you can still drive your SUV.
Re: (Score:2)
Me? Nothing. I live more than 500m above sea level and I have a gun to fend off those that try to escape the (of course never coming) flood.
Now, please get out of my way, my SUV needs gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Flooding isn't what you need to worry about.
How well can you (or your grandchildren) survive in a 16% oxygen atmosphere?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm less concerned about the 16% oxygen than the 4% CO2.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013). Also, the previous interglacial (the Eemian) was warmer than ours.
What happened with the coral reefs then?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably haven't formed yet. But hey, if we wait another few million years, I bet they come back. Or something else. Ok, in the meantime it probably ain't such a good idea to swim there, but hey, life on this planet has survived worse catastrophes than humanity, it will overcome this one, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Coral reefs are indeed very old. The timing I referenced in my post was ~8000 years ago (feel free to read the scientific paper I sourced) and ~115000 years ago.
Apparently coral reefs have no problem surviving warmer temperatures than what we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Provided nothing else comes in, probably.
Life is quite resilient. There have been quite a few events during this planet's existence where life was on the brink of elimination and very obviously it bounced back. There had even been a time when our ancestors were reduced to a few 1000s individuals in a fairly small area, any halfway decent event could have wiped our species from existence before it had time to become that apex predator we are today.
Coral reefs are rather delicate, though. They react very poor
Re: (Score:2)
I paraphrase George Carlin when I say, "The Earth will be fine. The people are fucked."
Re:Denier trolls will spam this article (Score:4, Funny)
There is absolutely no science whatsoever that indicates any climate effects that will support a statement like "the people are fucked".
(IPCC AR5 WGII is a good start for more information on the subject)
Re: (Score:1)
The entire length of the current Great Barrier Reef was dry land about 8000 years ago. Coral is ancient. but the reefs are dynamic and are in a continuous process of movement, growth, decay and adaptation. I've walked along swathes of ancient coral reefs over 150 miles inland from the current coast. I don't have an age on those formations, but they sure as hell were bleached!
Re: (Score:3)
True, of course (maybe with some slight adjustment to the exact timing). The idea that the globe is ever static is a problem when talking about "survival" of species.
The Great Barrier Reef is about 500,000 years old, but it hasn't always looked as it does today. Reefs on Australia's continental shelf have taken on many forms, depending on the sea level, and the current formation is about 6,000 to 8,000 years old.
According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science and other scientific research, the curre
Re: (Score:2)
From the paper:
Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of
the Holocene temperature history.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit. CO2 has more than three times [wikipedia.org] the impact of methane, because there is over 200x more CO2 in the atmosphere (403ppm vs 1.84ppm). The US emits eight times as much [epa.gov] CO2 each every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and sulfur dioxide has an even more devastating effect.
Luckily we have even lower amounts of that in the atmosphere than we have Methane. Sadly the same cannot be said for CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and sulfur dioxide has an even more devastating effect.
Luckily we have even lower amounts of that in the atmosphere than we have Methane. Sadly the same cannot be said for CO2.
If you are talking about the sulfur dioxide aerosols, they have a cooling or anti-greenhouse effect. It's been proposed by a few that it be used as a counter-agent to the greenhouse gases, but like sowing the oceans with iron is not a very good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters: acid rain.
Re: (Score:2)
I give it about an hour before somebody comes ranting about how water is the greatest greenhouse gas of all, and somehow oddly forget to mention that the average water molecule spends 11 days in the atmosphere while the average CO2 molecule spends up to 80 years there.
Re: (Score:2)
Has methane emission increased globally during the last 150 years? How many times more methane is emitted today compared to 150 years ago?
The answer is probably has increased, based on measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It is being released constantly via natural processes, and is illustrated when it gets trapped, as when people drill holes in frozen lakes and ignite methane trapped under the ice. And yeah, people and cows fart.
The wild cards in the methane issue are permafrost melt, and methane clathrates. We've seen methane releases as permafrost melts http://www.sciencealert.com/7-... [sciencealert.com] and are looking at that issue.
Then th
Re: (Score:2)
"But there is a lot of that stuff in the ocean. Ice with a lot of methane trapped in it. Hopefully the stuff in the ocean is stable."
four words which should give you the answer you need "Laptev Sea Methane emissions"
There's somewhere between 1 and 5GT in that area and the keyword for probable effects is "Storegga"
Re: (Score:2)
"But there is a lot of that stuff in the ocean. Ice with a lot of methane trapped in it. Hopefully the stuff in the ocean is stable."
four words which should give you the answer you need "Laptev Sea Methane emissions"
There's somewhere between 1 and 5GT in that area and the keyword for probable effects is "Storegga"
Yeah, that's not good. http://arctic-news.blogspot.co... [blogspot.com]
While I don't care for the use of "Horrific", that isn't a particularly encouraging map. Interestingly, Greenland shows a pretty high amount of methane over the glaciated land, which I find troubling.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2016 global methane survey couldn't account for a significant amount of methane in the atmosphere and the surveyors postulated that it was coming from farming (rice paddies and cow farts), but the sensors weren't tuned for emissions over water (apparently it's a lot harder to detect this) and they weren't looking at the Laptev sea because they weren't aware of it. The processing software only looked for methane over land (not even sea ice).
They're now aware of the emissions and their possible size - whi
Re: (Score:2)
And the most effective way to reduce methane levels is to stop burning fossil fuels, which has the advantage of reducing CO2 levels AS WELL - so it's a win-win there.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm - right, so we'll just forget about that time the Koch Brother (a fossil fuel company remember) paid for research to disprove AGW...
Oh it turns out that research not only ended up confirming the theory - but it's data set is now the prime data set used by most researchers as it's the best quality dataset available.
Plenty of money get's spent on the 'other' side - they just never find anything the other side LIKES - in fact, the best science from money spent on disproving AGW has ended up confirming it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Dammit, I work for the wrong company. Our management hired local people to do that job.
H1B really is a one way street.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure you can tell me how to get rich from saying that the coral reefs turn white. I've heard crazy shit before, but this one sure is new.