Earth has been getting warmer since ice age . Nothing to do with man unless you wanna debate how man changed the core temperature to make it look more dramatic
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Earth has been getting warmer since ice age . Nothing to do with man unless you wanna debate how man changed the core temperature to make it look more dramatic
Hey R2R moderators and owners. It would behove you to have a sub-forum for political issues like this thread. I for one don't want to see threads like this in the the Reef Discussion Forum. It never ends well and people get upset and banned.
Carry on.....
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
We actually don’t allow political discussions. This discussion is teetering on the edge of political. Political posts will be removed. We need to stay on topic and keep politics out of it. Personal attacks, political discussion, and overall disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated and will result in this thread being locked and further action for serious offenders.Hey R2R moderators and owners. It would behove you to have a sub-forum for political issues like this thread. I for one don't want to see threads like this in the the Reef Discussion Forum. It never ends well and people get upset and banned.
Carry on.....
Hi Kremis; I was also sincerely worried about the planet we live on, back when I was a little younger than you (the late 1970S), because of documentaries like the following.I am currently 17 years old. I often do worry about the future of the oceans, and I believe I will see the end of most coral reefs in my life time. I am worried about the future of the hobby, if it will still be legal when I am older. If corals are even found in the wild when I am older. With coral reefs bleaching more and more frequently, it is likely that I will at some point in my life live in a world where 90%+ of coral reefs are dead.
Maintaining reef aquariums is the thing that has brought the biggest joy in my life. I especially love the corals. I firmly believe that there are people making decisions not thinking in the long term that will pollute the planet. Those people most likely also won't live to see the consequences of those actions. But me, as a teenager, I believe that my generation is most likely going to be the one that has to deal with the consequences of carbon emissions, with one of the biggest ones being the destruction of coral reefs.
This makes me pretty sad and fearful of the future. I love keeping reef tanks, I have been doing it for more than a third of my life. I grew up with having all these amazing animals around me. I even started a reef tank at my school to help get other people interested in the hobby because I understand how much joy it brought me.
I fear that in the future, people will no longer be able to do what I am doing now. its not just aquariums, I also went snorkeling in Hawaii. Seeing massive coral colonies the size of cars was pretty awesome for me. I went back 2 years later, and guess what? Almost all the antler coral was dead or half dead. In just two years, a major coral species in hawaii died back by over 50% from my observations on the reef. We are already starting to see the consequences of pollution.
So yes, I worry very much about the future of the hobby and the effects decisions made by older folks now will have on my generation in the future.
Hey R2R moderators and owners. It would behove you to have a sub-forum for political issues like this thread. I for one don't want to see threads like this in the the Reef Discussion Forum. It never ends well and people get upset and banned.
Carry on.....
I would hate for someone to say that we are all outlaws for having corals in our tanks at home because they are all endangered.
Would any of the people who keep saying this discussion is “political” or “teetering on the edge of political” mind pointing out what element of politics is actually being discussed in this thread? That well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exert approximately 2.5 W/m^2 radiative forcing relative to 1750 baseline is not a statement of politics or ideology, but one of physics. With some very basic fundamental laws behind it and an extremely high confidence interval. That those gasses have a human fingerprint measured by identification of particular carbon isotopes is not a political statement. That present warming is outside of what would be expected within the bounds of the Milankovitch cycle and the present solar output is not a political statement.
That loss of habitat and connectivity due to human influence exerts additional stressors on coral reefs is not a statement of politics, but one of conservation biology. Quantifying whether there may be some level of impact exerted by the hobby is a question of science, not politics. Whether or not hobbiests or wholesalers themselves bear some responsibility in mitigating those impacts is a question of ethics, not politics.
That people are seeing these fundamental discussions as political is in itself an indication that people are experiencing some sort of bizzare glitch in critical thinking — and framing in terms of group identity issues that would be fundamentally true whether or not the concept of politics even existed. I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around it. But that bizzare glitch in cultural cognition is really at the root of what is holding society back from finding meaningful, pragmatic solutions — and is why the reefs we all love are struggling and why the future of the hobby is at risk.
Ok, I’ll have a stab at this part.Would any of the people who keep saying this discussion is “political” or “teetering on the edge of political” mind pointing out what element of politics is actually being discussed in this thread? That well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exert approximately 2.5 W/m^2 radiative forcing relative to 1750 baseline is not a statement of politics or ideology, but one of physics. With some very basic fundamental laws behind it and an extremely high confidence interval. That those gasses have a human fingerprint measured by identification of particular carbon isotopes is not a political statement. That present warming is outside of what would be expected within the bounds of the Milankovitch cycle and the present solar output is not a political statement.
Ok, I’ll have a stab at this part.
Firstly, as an analogy; people gathering to worship God, in a church, synagogue or mosque, is a religious act. But gathering to pray & taking over public spaces, blocking traffic etc. & interfering in the daily lives of all others is a political statement.
Yes, humans are increasing the atmospheric content of greenhouse gasses, primarily CO2.
The very basic fundamental laws of physics you speak of, & which I highlight in my post #115, in regards to the radiative forcing impact of CO2, states -
Radiative forcing due to doubled CO2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2
CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed….
Now, anyone suggesting that a doubling of CO2 would result in more than 1°C of warming can only do so by applying the hypothesised net positive feedback to the forcing of increasing atmospheric CO2, & this is NOT basic fundamental physics with any confidence level supporting it. In regards to the only two hypothesised positive feedbacks that matter, positive water vapor feedback, & positive cloud feedback, the first has been disproven by the data, & the second has no supporting evidence at all, & is a ridiculous proposition to begin with.
So, rather than the public being made aware of the known facts –
1. that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in only 1°C of warming,,, and
2. for every 1°C of additional warming, atmospheric CO2 would require a doubling yet again from each new level of concentration reached from the previous doubling. Meaning, to get another 1°C, twice as much CO2 is necessary than for the previous doubling.
Instead, various organisations of all sorts push the lie of dangerous global warming, & insist on government regulations to control carbon dioxide emissions, & other regulations to control & interfere in everyone else’s lives.
This topic is political not scientific, never was.
And the present climate is not outside the bounds of natural climate cycles of any kind at all.
It is not possible to attribute any of the warming of the last few hundred years to anything but natural variability, & to suggest it can be is not science, but political advocacy.
Here's how I see it teetering on being political.
Left leaning folks tend to be "tree hugger", resource conservationists that want everyone to live in a yurt and drive a tiny car.
Right leaning folks tend to be business friendly, lax pollution laws, build more, make money on real estate by the beach.
I'm sorry if I typecast anyone or offended anyone, but I do live in Vermont, one of the most liberal states out there.
Would any of the people who keep saying this discussion is “political” or “teetering on the edge of political” mind pointing out what element of politics is actually being discussed in this thread?
Thanks for your input. IMO that caricature may represent some minute portion of the American population, but it certainly doesn't represent the countless reasonable people that I've met on either side of the political divide. It also doesn't represent the remaining 7+ billion on Earth, who have mostly moved past the "debate" and are working on solutions across the political spectrum. Also keep in mind that a majority of young people on either side of the aisle list climate change as a significant concern. They'll be living with it, and my hunch is that self-preservation is one of the few forces powerful enough to encourage reason over tribal dogma.
Plants thrive on co2. Green house growers pump CO2 into green houses to increase growth rates. so here is a thought and a question. Algae, being a plant, also likes CO2, and those growing phytoplankton inject CO2 into their cultures to get them to grow faster to feed their pods. So wouldn't the CO2 at the ocean surface also increase the growth of phyto spurring also zooplankton growth and on down the food chain to make the oceans more productive. More food more life! Hmmmmm.....
You’re arguing from various angles there, all politically advocacy based, beside the point, & the last sentence especially, totally imaginary.You just made a long series of claims there, but I don't see any reference to associated literature. They mostly seem inaccurate or a gross simplification of positive feedbacks like albedo -- and ignore CH4 (and CH4 hydrate feedbacks) as well as the various halo-carbons and short-lived aerosols -- at least from what I remember from climate science courses I've taken. Would you mind linking something peer-reviewed that I can read? It's certainly possible that you've just outsmarted 10,000 actively-publishing PhDs, but seems relatively unlikely just as a matter of statistical odds, no?
I love science. Always have. Just not that good at it. I'm better at math. So I'll go back to what I said earlier. It's a math problem. Conceding that CO2 causes climate change how do we reduce it. Here is my formula: where x=population, y=per capita emissions and z= total CO2 emissions. (x)(y)=z . Lowering y without accounting for x is at best a zero sum game. You say most people have moved past the debate, but they haven't even began to debate the root cause.Thanks for your input. IMO that caricature may represent some minute portion of the American population, but it certainly doesn't represent the countless reasonable people that I've met on either side of the political divide. It also doesn't represent the remaining 7+ billion on Earth, who have mostly moved past the "debate" and are working on solutions across the political spectrum. Also keep in mind that a majority of young people on either side of the aisle list climate change as a significant concern. They'll be living with it, and my hunch is that self-preservation is one of the few forces powerful enough to encourage reason over tribal dogma.