Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[jgvergo]

Are sea levels rising now? Yup.
Home values in the great coastal cities will give the banking industry a whole new meaning for "underwater" - and people will want to head inland, if the trend continues.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of whether enough people really believe in AGW is whether the market for ocean front real estate is depressed. If enough people truly believed that the oceans were going to rise, property values would fall. They have not fallen. QED.

 

[Lasse]

The pH change between 400 ppm (as it in the outside air) and 600 - 800 ppm is around 0.2 pH units - rather difficult to see with a Salifert pH test. i have 4 years of meauserments with a pH electrode. I can go back and see on th pH-levels when we was 4 in the apparment (compared with the normal 2) and I can also se wich time my grandchldren awake in the morning when they visit us. There is a lot of threads here at R2R that also show this.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[SPSREEFS]

Statue in front of Cern in Cern, Switzerland.

 

[Tristren]

I guess the fish disease forum can make me cynical sometimes, and I apologize for coming off that way. Most people aren't interested in QTing until they get hit with a fast killing disease (like velvet) in their DT. It's the whole proactive vs. reactive behavior thing. I feel people (and thus society as a whole) will always be more inclined to do the latter.

Indeed, but that doesn't stop you advocating QT as a necessary process to ensure the long term health of a tank. Now imagine that we all shared the same system, and you knew that if people weren't QTing they were adding parasites and disease to our shared system, and all of the fish disease experts (like yourself) were saying that we were very clearly heading for a crash at some point as the load was getting unsustainable.

 

[SPSREEFS]

I hope thats large enough for everyone to read the plaque. Its no coincidence this demon is trampling humanity in the statue.You want to look evil straight in the face, there you go.

 

[Lasse]

Perhaps the greatest indicator of whether enough people really believe in AGW is whether the market for ocean front real estate is depressed. If enough people truly believed that the oceans were going to rise, property values would fall. They have not fallen. QED.

Most people did not either believe in a crash of the property market back in 2008 even if there was a lot of warnings for it. :)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ReeferBob]

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.

But as written, the statement implies otherwise.

 

[Tristren]

Climate change is obviously real. But where is the raw data for the variable sets used to suggest the out of control warming trends. I'm having a tough time find anything other than article after article of hyperbole from both sides of the issue. I would like to get my hands on the actual data.

Somewhere in here perhaps:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/

 

[Tristren]

Perhaps the greatest indicator of whether enough people really believe in AGW is whether the market for ocean front real estate is depressed. If enough people truly believed that the oceans were going to rise, property values would fall. They have not fallen. QED.

That may well be a measure of how much people believe that sea levels are rising. What people believe doesn't change the water line though.

 

[SPSREEFS]

We have many homes built IN THE OCEAN right here is Southern California on timbers buried deep into the ground. I have seen the ocean take many of them. If I built another home it would not be too close to the water. Common sense tells me to not do that.

 

[1.0reef]

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

Matt

Couldn't water changes and oxygenation through flow and skimming change the pH?

 

[Tristren]

NASA has a nice site up that summarizes things here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

For those so inclined, the IPCC has its data available here for anyone to review:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/

Something on this that is interesting to me. And I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to be critical, even though that is usually what people say before they criticize someone... But I'm not, as I have seen a lot of really wonderful discussions on this site in particular. Everyone seems to be genuinely dedicated to taking care of their "little slice of the reef" and sincere in wanting to help others out and to promote sustainable practices and the like. Just in the context of this discussion I wanted to raise something that has struck me as an oddity given that focus I have seen on sustainability.

But I have been struck by how little climate change has featured in reefing community discussions that I have read. Even those that discuss sustainability and environmental concerns are talking about wild caught vs captive breeding and the like. I was interested to see that in those threads some have stated that catching fish and harvesting corals from the reef is a minor impact compared with coral bleaching, but have not gone on to talk about how to address that issue as well. The discussions on MH vs LED that comment on the energy consumption of the former haven't (again just from what I've seen) used the environmental impact as an argument for or against.

Cheers, Tony

 

[Humblefish]

Indeed, but that doesn't stop you advocating QT as a necessary process to ensure the long term health of a tank. Now imagine that we all shared the same system, and you knew that if people weren't QTing they were adding parasites and disease to our shared system, and all of the fish disease experts (like yourself) were saying that we were very clearly heading for a crash at some point as the load was getting unsustainable.

Let's say we are the fish - all living together in the ocean, where QT doesn't happen but pathogens only exist in (relative) low numbers. Overall, we are fine unless our population grows to the point where we are fueling disease to an unmanageable level (fyi, this is also what typically happens in a closed system.) Humans have been damaging the environment for a long time now, but our exploding population has caused a tipping point.

What's the solution? To reduce the "surface nuisance" population back down to non-offending levels. Sounds harsh, but one of the things I admire about Mother Nature is how quickly she recovers after she seemingly destroys herself. We probably won't bounce back as quickly. So, the balance will shift back in her favor. Not a perfect solution (for us), but it will restore the planet back to a healthy state for any lucky survivors.

 

[Lasse]

Couldn't water changes and oxygenation through flow and skimming change the pH?

Flow and skimming can change the pH. But not through oxygenation. It effect the pH through degassing of CO2 - if the content of CO2 in the water is higher than the equilibrium point between Air and water - or dissolving CO2 - if the content of CO2 in the water is lower than the equilibrium point between Air and water. In the first case – pH will raise – In the second – pH will decrease.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Tristren]

Let's say we are the fish - all living together in the ocean, where QT doesn't happen but pathogens only exist in (relative) low numbers. Overall, we are fine unless our population grows to the point where we are fueling disease to an unmanageable level (fyi, this is also what typically happens in a closed system.) Humans have been damaging the environment for a long time now, but our exploding population has caused a tipping point.

What's the solution? To reduce the "surface nuisance" population back down to non-offending levels. Sounds harsh, but one of the things I admire about Mother Nature is how quickly she recovers after she seemingly destroys herself. We probably won't bounce back as quickly. So, the balance will shift back in her favor. Not a perfect solution (for us), but it will restore the planet back to a healthy state for any lucky survivors.

That does seem a bit harsh. I suppose I am a little more confident that we will pull back from the brink before it comes to that. I'm a lot more confident that we are capable of making the shift in terms of our understanding and technology, though worried that we won't decide to until it's too late.

And while I don't think that we will wipe out all life on the planet, it does seem clear that if for whatever reason we just kept going the way we have gone, we will destroy a lot of it, and a lot of us as well. Which doesn't seem like an acceptable option to me.

I suppose I'm just surprised that for a hobby like ours with such a passionate group and that is so intimately tied to a leading edge indicator of this problem, that there is not more of a movement around it.


Tony

 

[lerch]

People always want more,faster turning a blind eye to the consequences. This time with the actions taken to speed up life, it has caused a fast forward on the circle of life. Just my thoughts

 

[Stlouphil]

Co2 levels are a lagging indicator to temperature. Like 800 years lagging. In other words the climate 800 years ago was pretty hot. An the oceans released a lot of Co2. Oh, no. I think it is a cottage industry created by Al Gore. Lol reaserchers have to play the game in order to get research funding. You have to believe in climate change order to be a card carrying progressive. Sorry, first post is going to makesome people mad.
:(

 

[Tristren]

Co2 levels are a lagging indicator to temperature. Like 800 years lagging. In other words the climate 800 years ago was pretty hot. An the oceans released a lot of Co2. Oh, no. I think it is a cottage industry created by Al Gore. Lol reaserchers have to play the game in order to get research funding. You have to believe in climate change order to be a card carrying progressive. Sorry, first post is going to makesome people mad.
:(

Looking at that NASA website they note that CO2 levels absolutely did follow temperature rise (not sure where the 800 years comes from though, that seems odd) before the industrial age. Because pre industrial revolution natural sources of CO2 were the most prevalent.

The problem is that now manmade sources of CO2 are what is driving the increase, which is a completely different dynamic.

Climate change was an issue before Al Gore. He didn't invent it any more than he invented the internet.

 

[Humblefish]

And while I don't think that we will wipe out all life on the planet, it does seem clear that if for whatever reason we just kept going the way we have gone, we will destroy a lot of it, and a lot of us as well. Which doesn't seem like an acceptable option to me.

If a "correction" occurs, billions might die but billions could also survive. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a sudden thing. It could happen over a period of years/decades and be the "wake up call" which forces change. Bad for man, good for mankind.

 

[Tristren]

If a "correction" occurs, billions might die but billions could also survive. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a sudden thing. It could happen over a period of years/decades and be the "wake up call" which forces change. Bad for man, good for mankind.

I think I'm going to stick with hoping for a solution that doesn't involve billions dying though. I have to believe that something short of that can serve as a wake-up call.
Or at least that enough people working towards a non-catastrophic solution will make it so that we avoid that. On the energy front for example, once storage gets effective enough, solar will be the cheapest source by a ways and once that happens there will be a lot of switching over regardless of what people believe.