What will happen to the Great Barrier Reef?

[sde1500]

Also, wouldn't the ice melting make the oceans lower? When water freezes, it expands.

Ice caps and glaciers aren’t completely in water.

 

[Thales]

In a few ways.
Simply by penetration, which cosmic rays do very well, directly into oceans.
They penetrate up to 2 miles, that we know of, into earth/ground itself. Which would think reacts with mantle on some level, and ocean floors are closer to mantle by up to 7 miles in some places.They also help to seed clouds which as a result we would have more of. Clouds are moisture, and moisture/water vapor is a well known climate driver. Look to Arctic for proof of this. Wintertime lows are warmer, while summertime melt is within satellite era averages. Albeit on the low side, but with average. The colder it is the harder it is for air to hold moisture. While at the same time the more moisture there is the harder it is to get colder.
This can also cause more rain in some places, and less in others. Because the quicker clouds get seeded the quicker they precipitate.

Which is happening in front of our eyes, not too far from Australia, right now, yet man made global warming is all the talk.

Most GCR's pass through without interacting.
There are no long term trends that indicate the GCR's have increased since 1950
They have no causal relationship to global temperature
Though they induce aerosol formation, they don't form CCN, and they have negligible influence on cloud cover despite Svensmark's assertions
there are so many studies that support the above.

 

[sde1500]

What changed since then is centuries of hi solar activity. The end of the medieval warm period, which btw was lil over 800 years ago, hence 800 year lag, and we were coming out of a cold period known as lil ice age, that was brought on by, surprise, low solar activity.
Will also add that lower solar activity slows jet streams. And the opposite is true as well. Jet stream slows, and heat is not taken from sea surface as effectively.

What is apparent about every post you’ve made is the absolute glaring lack of data, or anything backing up what you state.

 

[H3rm1tCr@b]

Christian here also. While I also believe God will not let mankind ruin His earth, I still believe that we have to do what’s right for it. God set us responsible for it, right from our start.

Dumping human waste into the water and leaving trash on his beaches is a slap in Gods face, in my opinion.

God gave us resources to use to advance ourselves. He also gave examples about getting fat off His blessings. I don’t think He intends for us to use just carbon resources forever. We have uranium and a powerful sun that is plentiful and clean when used correctly.

I don’t think we are causing global warming, alone, but we sure aren’t helping it.

You are absolutely correct! I forgot to mention that point. It is our job to take care of our beautiful planet, similarly to our bodies. Like whenever you buy a six pack of Dr. Pepper (or drink of choice), cut the rings so seabirds don't somehow get stuck in them. This planet is a beautiful gift and do our best to preserve the delicate balance of life.

 

[H3rm1tCr@b]

Ice caps and glaciers aren’t completely in water.

Ah. That makes sense. That was a really simplified version of the mess of confusion in my brain.

 

[mattzang]

What is apparent about every post you’ve made is the absolute glaring lack of data, or anything backing up what you state.

idk, i thought the graph he tossed in there from the heritage institute was a nice touch

 

[theMeat]

I also have several kind of stupid questions, but I am genuinely curious. Phytoplankton absorbs co2 right? So if we were wrecking the planet with co2 emissions, wouldn't the phytoplankton reproduce to a large enough amount to accommodate? Then it could theoretically balance itself out with the coral growing and the food chain doing it's thing. Theoretically. Also, wouldn't the ice melting make the oceans lower? When water freezes, it expands.

Can tell you that plankton is in decline. Me thinks likely do to pollution and the general way we are wrecking food chains on every level.
Ice expands only when frozen...
As water warms it rises. As it cools is falls. Until it freezes, then it expands and floats. The one simple quality of water is a major reason we have life on this planet. Around 90% of an iceberg or glacier on water is underwater. We only see 10% of it. So if it was only this Ice that melted it wouldn’t be a huge increase but enough to do major damage. The big problem is ice that is on land. As most of Antarctica is, as well as Greenland to name some biggies.

 

[H3rm1tCr@b]

Can tell you that plankton is in decline. Me thinks likely do to pollution and the general way we are wrecking food chains on every level.
Ice expands only when frozen...
As water warms it rises. As it cools is falls. Until it freezes, then it expands and floats. The one simple quality of water is a major reason we have life on this planet. Around 90% of an iceberg or glacier on water is underwater. We only see 10% of it. So if it was only this Ice that melted it wouldn’t be a huge increase but enough to do major damage. The big problem is ice that is on land. As most of Antarctica is, as well as Greenland to name some biggies.

Okay didn't know that. Thanks! Btw I love how deep we are getting into this. It is fun to watch what happens.

 

[biophilia]

I also have several kind of stupid questions, but I am genuinely curious. Phytoplankton absorbs co2 right? So if we were wrecking the planet with co2 emissions, wouldn't the phytoplankton reproduce to a large enough amount to accommodate? Then it could theoretically balance itself out with the coral growing and the food chain doing it's thing. Theoretically. Also, wouldn't the ice melting make the oceans lower? When water freezes, it expands.

The ice that is in concern regarding sea level rise is land ice (locked up in glaciers). Sea ice doesn't cause change when it melts because the volume of water displaced as ice is the same amount added when melting occurs.

As for the phytoplankton, there are all sorts of issues that come into play. Extra large phytoplankton blooms mean extra large volumes of decomposition as the algae sink into the benthos leading to oxygen depletion for those deep ecosystems as well as even larger pH issues down there. There's also an issue of limiting nutrients in many cases. Some people have suggested seeding iron to encourage phytoplankton blooms as a means to mitigate atmospheric CO2 rise for this reason. Some (e.g. James Lovelock) even go as far as to suggest that seeding iron in areas that would encourage coccolithophorid blooms could lead to large releases of dimethyl sulfide which could help seed cloud cover to increase planetary albedo. It's all untested and a huge gamble, of course.

 

[LARedstickreefer]

One thing that I notice in every single discussion is that those in favor of man caused climate change seem to take it very personally. It’s like they are insulted that people don’t believe them.

Most people aren’t scientists, so stop throwing statistics and studies at them, it’s meaningless, as it should be. Instead, try to come up with ways that they can adjust their life to help the cause. The plastic bottles example is an easy habit to break, for example.

Im an engineer. When I get asked a question, they don’t need to know how I came up with the “answer” they just want to know what it’s going to take to work. If it’s too expensive or requires too much effort, it doesn’t matter, it’s not going to happen even if I think it’s the most intelligent idea yet.

Giving up SUVs and steak isn’t a viable solution. Same for giving up the ICE any time soon. Upping the middle class taxes to 50% also ain’t going to happen.

 

[theMeat]

What is apparent about every post you’ve made is the absolute glaring lack of data, or anything backing up what you state.

idk, i thought the graph he tossed in there from the heritage institute was a nice touch

Oh boy. Kill the messenger.
Are you arguing that co2 is not 400ppm, or that humans contribution to that is 3.4.% as the heritage chart displays.
Because even die hard climate change ambulance chasers would agree with those numbers. Or are you just arguing with math itself

 

[CuzzA]

Of course you can be both. Dont throw your plastic bottles in the trash for starters...I’m all for world markets and still care about the environment. I do my own part to limit my waste and my own pollution.

It’s this sort of attitude that causes division.

Nope. The problem with globalization is we will utilize every resource to sell, feed and grow our population to parasitic levels.

Everyone at every corner of the world should have a right to eat M&M's.

Chocolate industry drives rainforest disaster in Ivory Coast

Exclusive: As global demand for chocolate booms, ‘dirty’ beans from deforested national parks in Ivory Coast have entered big business supply chains

www.theguardian.com

From Africa to Indonesia, to South America. Everyone should get some Cadbury chocolate, right? This, my friend, is called Globalization. And these are only two small examples.

Chocolate giant Cadbury ‘still pushing orangutans towards extinction'

Destruction likely to be just the tip of the iceberg, campaigners warn

www.independent.co.uk

We will continue to clear every rain forest, catch every fish, suck every drop of water out of the ground until the environment collapses. We will be okay because we can produce food, but everything else will be dead.

You see, it's not just about plastic bottles. You have to have a macro view. Look at the current collapse of the Florida and Mexico reef systems. Once you clear that waterfront land, remove all the nutrient buffering mangroves, estuaries, dump all the sewage on the reefs and redirect all the affluent into rivers from farmland, and build buildings and roads to support an ever growing population fed by more and more food being produced all over the world, it really doesn't matter if you recycle your plastic water bottles.

Some people see these pictures as progress. I see what looks like the spread of a parasite.

Cancun Then and Now: Has Tourism Ruined Paradise?

By Brian McGee The Mexican beach resort of Cancun, with its white-sand beaches, coral reefs and nightlife, attracts more than 3 million tourists a year. “Cancun can be an attractive destination,” CEMDA’s Serrano says.

www.yahoo.com

Then and now
The coastline of Cancun in Mexico is seen in a combination of NASA satellite images taken in 1988 (left) and in 2015. (Photo: Reuters/NASA/Handout via Reuters)

Where have all the mangroves gone?
A house next to a mangrove swamp affected by a local construction in Cancun, August 12, 2015. (Photo: Reuters/Edgard Garrido)

 

[Phildago]

Can tell you that plankton is in decline. Me thinks likely do to pollution and the general way we are wrecking food chains on every level.
Ice expands only when frozen...
As water warms it rises. As it cools is falls. Until it freezes, then it expands and floats. The one simple quality of water is a major reason we have life on this planet. Around 90% of an iceberg or glacier on water is underwater. We only see 10% of it. So if it was only this Ice that melted it wouldn’t be a huge increase but enough to do major damage. The big problem is ice that is on land. As most of Antarctica is, as well as Greenland to name some biggies.

Yes but because the ice expands the ice in water has no effect at all actually. Ice displaces the amount of water that is equal to its weight, so when it melts it simply fills in that space. Look into archimedes principle. Really brilliant work that he did.

Yes, land ice is an issue, but only because we choose to make it one. I say this as someone who lives on the water. I wouldn't live anywhere else, and never will. I do my part as far as investing in rapidly renewable energy, but I accept that this will have no impact. I also accept that I Wil NEVER ask others to sacrifice their comforts in order to give me the privilege of living on the water. because in my eyes that would be Extremely stupid and selfish

 

[sde1500]

FYI: Here's the response to that critique that affirms the 97% figure. This was published a few years later.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Cook, John, Oreskes, Naomi, Doran, Peter T, Anderegg, William R L, Verheggen, Bart, Maibach, Ed W, Carlton, J Stuart, Lewandowsky, Stephan, Skuce, Andrew G, Green, Sarah A, Nuccitelli, Dana, Jacobs, Peter...

iopscience.iop.org

Would be interested in your thoughts on the validity of this. https://projectvesta.org/

 

[H3rm1tCr@b]

The ice that is in concern regarding sea level rise is land ice (locked up in glaciers). Sea ice doesn't cause change when it melts because the volume of water displaced as ice is the same amount added when melting occurs.

As for the phytoplankton, there are all sorts of issues that come into play. Extra large phytoplankton blooms mean extra large volumes of decomposition as the algae sink into the benthos leading to oxygen depletion for those deep ecosystems as well as even larger pH issues down there. There's also an issue of limiting nutrients in many cases. Some people have suggested seeding iron to encourage phytoplankton blooms as a means to mitigate atmospheric CO2 rise for this reason. Some (e.g. James Lovelock) even go as far as to suggest that seeding iron in areas that would encourage coccolithophorid blooms could lead to large releases of dimethyl sulfide which could help seed cloud cover to increase planetary albedo. It's all untested and a huge gamble, of course.

That is true. I don't have a degree in Climatology or whatever it's called so I don't know as much as I would like. All I know is that the world is a really crazy place at the moment.

 

[mattzang]

Oh boy. Kill the messenger.
Are you arguing that co2 is not 400ppm, or that humans contribution to that is 3.4.% as the heritage chart displays.
Because even die hard climate change ambulance chasers would agree with those numbers. Or are you just arguing with math itself

don't know, i'm not a climatologist. or a scientist at all. are you? or have you just put in some serious work on the wikipedia/youtube front?

 

[Thales]

I also have several kind of stupid questions, but I am genuinely curious. Phytoplankton absorbs co2 right? So if we were wrecking the planet with co2 emissions, wouldn't the phytoplankton reproduce to a large enough amount to accommodate? Then it could theoretically balance itself out with the coral growing and the food chain doing it's thing. Theoretically. Also, wouldn't the ice melting make the oceans lower? When water freezes, it expands.

I am not sure what you are looking for - earlier you said stuff like this would be "straightened out in the last days" and that "Everything will be okay! God loves us all unconditionally!", so I am not sure that giving you other explanations is something you are interested in.

 

[revhtree Verified Admin]

This thread has gotten way out of hand. Love you all but I think it’s best that we close this one. Have a good night and hope you understand.

 

[revhtree Verified Admin]

What you all can’t see is all the reports that we were getting about it being political, religious etc.

These types of discussions are best left for FB imo.