I disagree with you on the comparison between the two subjects studied. One has an average life span of 78 years the other has been around for billions of years. We have had fairly accurate data for the last 30 years on studiying lung cancer and cigarette smoking. As recently as the 40's doctors smoked cigarettes and encouraged patients to smoke. We have about 40 years worth of accurate temperature data for planet earth.
Chasing coral
- Thread starter Reef man 89
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I disagree with you on the comparison between the two subjects studied. One has an average life span of 78 years the other has been around for billions of years. We have had fairly accurate data for the last 30 years on studiying lung cancer and cigarette smoking. As recently as the 40's doctors smoked cigarettes and encouraged patients to smoke. We have about 40 years worth of accurate temperature data for planet earth.
So I ask all of you. What the heck are we going to do to stop the next ice age? Put huge Eiheim heaters in the water? Earth will get warmer and low areas will flood before it gets colder again. I live in south Florida. 25 miles inland if you dig 3 feet you hit shell rock. We were underwater. With fish and scallops. Last I checked we didn't have factories and man made heat 20,0000 years ago.
To say that the earth will never warm up on its own is ludicrous.
To say that the earth will never warm up on its own is ludicrous.
Probably longer than 40 years, they have somewhat comprehensive records back to about 1850, but in the scale of billions of years, still anything in a 150 year set, makes calling for averages or trends problematic.
PSLReefer
Active Member
Considering it's the sun that warms the earth, your right, it is ludicrous to think earth will warm up on its own.
Do you all remember the ozone hole issue of the 80's.? According to science we were all going to be dead of skin cancer. And the ozone layer should be gone by now because of mans usage of cfc's. Poison, Motley Crue, and Cinderella were killing us with hair spray.
Guess what. They were wrong. Why because they did not have data on the last 10000 years worth of ozone hole activity.
Guess what. They were wrong. Why because they did not have data on the last 10000 years worth of ozone hole activity.
How accurate do you think the instruments were? Would you trust keeping your reeftank using their thermometers? I know I wouldn't. Heck to this day we can't buy two different brands of heaters and expect them to be accurate.
Gigo
Garbage in
Garbage out.
How do we know we are not in a heating trending cycle that naturally occurs every 300 or 500 years? No one know. Because we do not have records of reefs from 500 years ago. We don't know proper land areas because maps were highly inaccurate
Uhmm... they weren't wrong, the eliminated for the most part what was causing it, and its healing.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/ozone-layer-mend-thanks-chemical-ban
Might want to read to the bottom of the where they are again using models and they can't account for 50% of the shrinkage.
From the article: "Still, Paul Newman, who runs NASA’s Arctic Ozone Watch website at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is puzzled by Solomon’s finding that only half of the 4-million-square-kilometer shrinkage trend was due to a reduction in chlorine and bromine. The other half appeared to be due to weather. Weather effects ought to cancel out on average, resulting in no trend, he says. “If we can’t explain half the signal, then can we really explain the 50% of the signal we think we know?” Newman says the finding could point to a problem with Solomon’s model."
Oops very end also said the weather abnormality that is closing the ozone hole might be related to climate change, but they don't know
ShinyRobot
Community Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 12
It's an interesting topic, I will need to check this documentary out! I'm not one to watch documentaries usually, but this looks interesting. One thing I try to remember when seeing coral die off like this is the ocean's amazing ability to repair itself from any sort of calamity. I remember being in the Caribbean right when the BP oil spill happened, and everyone said that it would be devastating for ocean life for years and years. I just read that scientists are now completely baffled because the ocean's ecosystem and micro-organisms that eat oil cleaned it up entirely naturally, as if it had never happened. Oil is always seeping up from the ground as it is naturally. If you think about it, we spend countless hours trying to replicate the ocean's perfect blend of base elements, temperatures, wave patterns and other parameters that all work together to provide an ecosystem that allows these corals to grow and thrive. If the earth is constantly changing and "breathing" then I would imagine that shifts and swings in certain areas would inhibit and even cause a recession of coral growth in certain areas, while enabling the perfect ecosystems for similar coral in other areas that we've perhaps not yet discovered (or rediscovered). The overall temperature of the ocean hasn't really changed so it's still not entirely known what exactly is causing some of the coral die-off, either.
chipmunkofdoom2
Always Making Something
The article to which you link only cites one published scientific paper. The paper's main argument appears to be that a well-respected deep ocean temperature model does not match the actual climate data from 1955 to 2011. However, the authors explicitly state that the variance they see could be explained entirely by small energy imbalances when they initialized their model. From the paper:
This suggests the possibility of energy conservation issues in the CMIP3 models (Gupta et al., 2012), although small energy imbalances at model initialization could also result in this behavior
How much data is acceptable then? How do we know that 40 years is enough data to prove that smoking causes lung cancer? How can we know that these people weren't simply predisposed to lung cancer, and that any number of other things (aside from smoking) could have caused the cancer? How do we know that genetically, these people wouldn't have just developed lung cancer anyway, even with no outside cause? You can't just look at a pile of lung cancer deaths and notice that they all smoked and say that one caused the other. You need the scientific process. You need to conduct studies, you need to collect data, and you need to prove causation. The scientific process is required to exclude all noise, to minimize all variables, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the smoking actually caused the lung cancer. When the methodology used for research is sound and the results confirm the hypotheses, the scientific community tends to support such findings.
This is how consensus is formed. And this is my point. The scientific process is how we determine how our complex world works. The amount of time you have been observing data is not the only determining factor to how accurate your research is. Data alone are not enough. As I said to Maacc, if you have published peer-reviewed papers, I'd love to read your work. Please be sure to include your academic and scientific experience, as well as that of your co-authors, when you post your work.
A Toadstool Leather
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2017
- Messages
- 911
- Reaction score
- 638
Actually the ozone layer is projected to fully recover in the next few decades simce cfc's have been banned. NASA has been collecting atomspheric data which demonstrates the previous loss of ozone and that its now coming back.
http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm
They're not drawing these conclusions from records we kept but from what's been recorded in the oldest places on earth especially Antarctica. Core samples from ice that's been there for longer than anything else on earth holds bubbles from earlier atmospheres which shows how the climate is changing compared to how it ever has before.
Climate change is political haha
Suspect
Community Member
Parts of the documentary were interesting visually, but overall it lacked science and data. So much time was spent on their failure to engineer a proper underwater rig. Their expert interviewees didn't seem knowledgeable at all. I was pretty hyped for this to come out, but it was disappointing and forgettable.
You are right, let's put cfc's back in the mix, see what happens... cause you know, the other half of that change (if those numbers are valid) just isn't good enough... if we can't immediately solve the WHOLE problem, let's throw our hands up and enjoy watching it burn.Might want to read to the bottom of the where they are again using models and they can't account for 50% of the shrinkage.
From the article: "Still, Paul Newman, who runs NASA’s Arctic Ozone Watch website at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is puzzled by Solomon’s finding that only half of the 4-million-square-kilometer shrinkage trend was due to a reduction in chlorine and bromine. The other half appeared to be due to weather. Weather effects ought to cancel out on average, resulting in no trend, he says. “If we can’t explain half the signal, then can we really explain the 50% of the signal we think we know?” Newman says the finding could point to a problem with Solomon’s model."
Oops very end also said the weather abnormality that is closing the ozone hole might be related to climate change, but they don't know
The idea that you refuse the data, or are confused by it, simply does not invalidate it.
Cfc were banned in most developed countries but continued to spew from multiple sources. It could very well been due to the reduction (but not elimination) of cfc. The bottom line people are still trying to figure it out.
Why because science uses models built on hypotheses to predict earth's changes.
Want to see a good place where lots of really smart people put a lot of proven science to correctly predict earth?....
Look at hurricane models. There are multiple models by all different countries and using the most powerful super computers they cannot predict where a hurricane lands.
It's why our models cannot predict earthquakes or very accurate weather activity. So we are to assume that all of the models based on hypotheses are correct?
Once again no one wants to address the elegant in the room:
Could this very well be a warming trend that naturally occurs?
It doesn't matter, because we ARE contributing to it. The data on that is in no way in question. So, we have choices. We can curb our contributions and hope its enough, or we can argue about things that aren't worth our breath.
When your grandkids ask you what coral reefs used to look like, which choice would you like to say you made?
dankreef
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately people picking up some cans won't do anything when China has like nuclear waste going in every day 100x every other country . But no one likes cans so you should pick them up for sure .
PSLReefer
Active Member
And this is exactly why the oceans are the state they are in.
all people want to do is argue and place blame on why it is happening, instead of doing their part to help.
Simple steps to take: go clean up trash from the beaches/waterways, don't dump oil and crap in the water, recycle, etc.
Common sense goes a longggg way....
all people want to do is argue and place blame on why it is happening, instead of doing their part to help.
Simple steps to take: go clean up trash from the beaches/waterways, don't dump oil and crap in the water, recycle, etc.
Common sense goes a longggg way....
