Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Roy 9121]

Earths climate has always been changing, but it has been changeing over the course of thousands/ millions of years. Man has accelerated climate change by pollution, burning fossil fuels etc. Global warming is man made and real and not some hoax by the Chinese lol. I don't know how people can go against the data gathered by scientists.

I believe the planet is warming, and that we may be a factor. But when you tell me we cant eat beef because of cow farts, you kind of lose me

 

[Maacc]

People who challenge the consensus of expert scientists without a clear reason that can be evaluated are just expressing unsubstantiated opinions. It isn't of scientific value to say 'I don't believe that prediction" without giving a reason. The reason is the scientific discussion.

The reason is that the predictive models showed a continuous temperature increase that, in fact, did not happen. There was a pause in temperature increases for 15 years that people are working to try to explain. I don't attribute this to bad faith, however this is a very complex system and when the models miss and people are advocating policy changes based upon the data of said models, it seems to be reasonable to question the assumptions within the models.
Not that nothing needs to be done, but are we doing the right thing for the least cost that benefits the most people and the planet itself.

 

[ReeferBob]

You realize why the ozone "stuff" is less of an issue now is because countries around the world banned what was contributing to it?

Man contributes a minimal amount of "cfcs". Nature has us beat on that one.

 

[Centerline]

My wife just read through this whole thing and commented "If nothing else, Reef Keepers are certainly an opinionated bunch". LOL - she really doesn't know the half of it.

 

[SPSREEFS]

When the sun heats up, the earth heats up. END OF STORY! ;Yawn Dont sweat it! God is in complete control. Humans are out of control........as usual;Nailbiting;Nailbiting. Read your Bible.Dust if off and read it. ALL the answers are in it!;Bookworm

 

[jgvergo]

I'm surprised at the commentary from the R2R community. I had (incorrectly) assumed that, given the nature of our hobby (pun intended), the vast majority of people on this forum would be strongly inclined to adopt a "pro environment" position. But there are clearly many different perspectives here. Maybe so many of us are scientific and/or technical (engineering, chemistry, plumbing, woodworking, electrical, etc.) that the old addage of "God We Trust, All Others Must Bring Data." seems to be the predominate thought pattern?

 

[ReeferBob]

I'm surprised at the commentary from the R2R community. I had (incorrectly) assumed that, given the nature of our hobby (pun intended), the vast majority of people on this forum would be strongly inclined to adopt a "pro environment" position. But there are clearly many different perspectives here. Maybe so many of us are scientific and/or technical (engineering, chemistry, plumbing, woodworking, electrical, etc.) that the old addage of "God We Trust, All Others Must Bring Data." seems to be the predominate thought pattern?

Interesting that you would call someone that doesn't blindly believe in unproven science "anti environment". Perhaps "pro environment" doesn't = "pro-common sense"?

 

[jgvergo]

Interesting that you would call someone that doesn't blindly believe in unproven science "anti environment". Perhaps "pro environment" doesn't = "pro-common sense"?

I didn't say that anyone is anti-environment. I do believe that environmentalism, as a movement, has a lot of people who err on the side of caution. On many occasions, I've heard people express the idea that it causes no harm to support renewable energy sources. I happen to believe it does cause harm, in the form of opportunity cost. That is, spending billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars on renewables comes with the cost of diverting those funds from other endeavors such as healthcare and education.

 

[Mattrg02]

I didn't say that anyone is anti-environment. I do believe that environmentalism, as a movement, has a lot of people who err on the side of caution. On many occasions, I've heard people express the idea that it causes no harm to support renewable energy sources. I happen to believe it does cause harm, in the form of opportunity cost. That is, spending billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars on renewables comes with the cost of diverting those funds from other endeavors such as healthcare and education.

Err on the side of caution eh? Just asking us to downgrade the quality of life via increased taxes, energy bills, and population control?

I think this thread has runs its course.

Let's talk about pro life and pro choice next, eh? How about we also talk about single payer health care?

This thread has only gone to show that there isn't enough evidence, from either side, to convince the sides stance on global warming.

-Matt

 

[ReeferBob]

I didn't say that anyone is anti-environment. I do believe that environmentalism, as a movement, has a lot of people who err on the side of caution. On many occasions, I've heard people express the idea that it causes no harm to support renewable energy sources. I happen to believe it does cause harm, in the form of opportunity cost. That is, spending billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars on renewables comes with the cost of diverting those funds from other endeavors such as healthcare and education.

So when you say this (referring to those that believe in man-made global warming):

.....people on this forum would be strongly inclined to adopt a "pro environment" position.

To me the implication is that those that don't believe in man-made global warming are the opposite (anti-environment). Not so?

 

[Humblefish]

I'm surprised at the commentary from the R2R community. I had (incorrectly) assumed that, given the nature of our hobby (pun intended), the vast majority of people on this forum would be strongly inclined to adopt a "pro environment" position. But there are clearly many different perspectives here. Maybe so many of us are scientific and/or technical (engineering, chemistry, plumbing, woodworking, electrical, etc.) that the old addage of "God We Trust, All Others Must Bring Data." seems to be the predominate thought pattern?

We live in a day and age where many things we think we know are being called into question, and IMO they should be. I'd rather live in a free-thinking society than one controlled by data points, manipulated by someone's agenda. If I really wanted to, I could convince you not to QT by coming up with hundreds of reasons why you shouldn't. Best to always hear both sides of the argument, and then decide for yourself which path to follow/what to believe. :)

 

[Mattrg02]

We live in a day and age where many things we think we know are being called into question, and IMO they should be. I'd rather live in a free-thinking society than one controlled by data points, manipulated by someone's agenda. If I really wanted to, I could convince you not to QT by coming up with hundreds of reasons why you shouldn't. Best to always hear both sides of the argument, and then decide for yourself which path to follow/what to believe. :)

I agree. I don't think we can have a valid argument without hearing both sides.

Once you start trying to guilt someone into a behavior or choice, you've lost credibility.

 

[jgvergo]

So when you say this (referring to those that believe in man-made global warming):



To me the implication is that those that don't believe in man-made global warming are the opposite (anti-environment). Not so?

Not so at all. As reef enthusiasts, we all want to see healthy thriving reefs around the world. If a reef enthusiast does not believe in global warming, that does not mean they want to destroy reefs (or any other part of the environment). It means they think the data don't support anthropogenic global warming, that's all.

 

[Lasse]

In an earlier thread I wrote

Every reefer has the truth in his/hers living room. Everyone can see the effect in the aquarium of rising temperature and rising of CO2 in the room. There is a lot of threads here at reef2reef about low pH and use of CO2 scrubbers.

Everyone in here can do the experiment to rise the temperature over 30 degree C and invite all neighbors, close the doors and windows and look what’s happen with the corals. You do not need a university degree to understand this, or study books – it’s just in front of your eyes.

And if you see this in your own living room - you will act - or not.....?

Every single rise of the CO2 in the history has been linked to different events like very large Volcano outbreak, meteorite hits and other events that have released stored (in the earth) CO2 to the atmosphere. And released them at a paste that have been higher than the uptake from primary producers like plants and algae. When the concentration of something in air (or in a solution) increase – it means that the production of it is higher than the uptake (or depletion) of the same substance.

Nobody can´t denies that the CO2 concentration in the air has risen the last 150 years. Fact shows a stable concentration of around 250 -300 ppm from year 0 to 1900 and after that an increase from around 300 ppm to more than 400 ppm nowadays. The great rise start around 1950 (around 320-330 ppm CO2) Today it exceed 400 ppm. And I have not seen any main natural events that can be responsible for the rise from 1950

However, for the moment – it seems that the curve has planned out a little due to restrictions, change of behaviour, change of technics (the LED revolution) and the finance crises that lower the production for a couple of years.

One of the main objections against the CO2 as an important greenhouse gas has been that the oceans will serve as a carbon sink. That’s true but – everyone in this forum knows what happen with the saltwater pH in that case – and it’s exactly what’s happens - the Oceans pH getting lower and lower.

I´m old enough to remember acid rain, silent spring and ozone hole – and have also seen that the threats can be defeated.

Large part of the world has start the change from oil and coal to more renewable energy forms. Because of this – solar energy is sometimes a cheaper option compared with other energy sources. The price of solar panels have gone down, and they are still going down. Europe, China and India is changing energy systems very fast – and energy saving techniques like LED lighting will be more common.

I´m an optimist – the world will make this change with success because we need to do it and we have started. With or without the US – your choice.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Mattrg02]

In an earlier thread I wrote




Every single rise of the CO2 in the history has been linked to different events like very large Volcano outbreak, meteorite hits and other events that have released stored (in the earth) CO2 to the atmosphere. And released them at a paste that have been higher than the uptake from primary producers like plants and algae. When the concentration of something in air (or in a solution) increase – it means that the production of it is higher than the uptake (or depletion) of the same substance.

Nobody can´t denies that the CO2 concentration in the air has risen the last 150 years. Fact shows a stable concentration of around 250 -300 ppm from year 0 to 1900 and after that an increase from around 300 ppm to more than 400 ppm nowadays. The great rise start around 1950 (around 320-330 ppm CO2) Today it exceed 400 ppm. And I have not seen any main natural events that can be responsible for the rise from 1950

However, for the moment – it seems that the curve has planned out a little due to restrictions, change of behaviour, change of technics (the LED revolution) and the finance crises that lower the production for a couple of years.

One of the main objections against the CO2 as an important greenhouse gas has been that the oceans will serve as a carbon sink. That’s true but – everyone in this forum knows what happen with the saltwater pH in that case – and it’s exactly what’s happens - the Oceans pH getting lower and lower.

I´m old enough to remember acid rain, silent spring and ozone hole – and have also seen that the threats can be defeated.

Large part of the world has start the change from oil and coal to more renewable energy forms. Because of this – solar energy is sometimes a cheaper option compared with other energy sources. The price of solar panels have gone down, and they are still going down. Europe, China and India is changing energy systems very fast – and energy saving techniques like LED lighting will be more common.

I´m an optimist – the world will make this change with success because we need to do it and we have started. With or without the US – your choice.

Sincerely Lasse

Sorry, but this is a poor argument. I can disprove this right here:

My pH has been 7.8 for some time now. It was 7.8 when I lived in an apartment with my wife, a dog, and a cat, and all electric appliances.

I moved into another apartment with GAS appliances and added a cat. pH still 7.8

I moved into a very large house with electric appliances, still 7.8 pH.

So, increases on c02 concentration didn't affect my pH, nor did decreases.

Matt

 

[Lasse]

What did you measure your pH with? Do you have a calcium reactor?

Sincerly Lasse

 

[jgvergo]

@Lasse, you said "Every reefer has the truth in his/hers living room."

For years, I kept freshwater planted aquariums. The secrets to success are 1) good lights 2) good substrate and 3) injecting CO2. Injecting CO2 results in explosive plant growth. It is a controlled experiment that I have witnessed with my own eyes. The point is that CO2 is GOOD for plant growth. That means crops and food benefit. A lot. We are already seeing increases in the total biomass of the planet due to increased CO2. This rarely gets reported along with the doom and gloom of global warming news.

 

[jgvergo]

We live in a day and age where many things we think we know are being called into question, and IMO they should be. I'd rather live in a free-thinking society than one controlled by data points, manipulated by someone's agenda. If I really wanted to, I could convince you not to QT by coming up with hundreds of reasons why you shouldn't. Best to always hear both sides of the argument, and then decide for yourself which path to follow/what to believe. :)

I love it. To me, freedom is critically important. Unfortunately, many who believe in AGW don't simply "decide for themselves". They want to decide for everyone. That's when it gets contentious.

 

[Lasse]

@Lasse, you said "Every reefer has the truth in his/hers living room."

For years, I kept freshwater planted aquariums. The secrets to success are 1) good lights 2) good substrate and 3) injecting CO2. Injecting CO2 results in explosive plant growth. It is a controlled experiment that I have witnessed with my own eyes. The point is that CO2 is GOOD for plant growth. That means crops and food benefit. A lot. We are already seeing increases in the total biomass of the planet due to increased CO2. This rarely gets reported along with the doom and gloom of global warming news.

Yes there will be more plant growth witt risings level of CO2 (if there are the other nutrients plants need) but if the concentration still rise (as it has done since 1950) - it means that the uptake is not enough - the measurements shows the surplus. The surplus CO2 level has rise with 1/4 the years between 1950 - 2017 - compared with a stable level from year 0-1950!

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Mattrg02]

What did you measure your pH with? Do you have a calcium reactor?

Sincerly Lasse

Salifert pH test. No reactor, don't have the need.

Matt