What will happen when our pets become critically endangered?

[biophilia]

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.

 

[biophilia]

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 like that idea. I'd love to see a sub-forum for issues related to reef conservation and ecology, and the footprint of the hobby on those macro issues. I can certainly understand why some people might feel uncomfortable having to view discussions related to the causes and scale of ecological crisis impacting reefs in the wild and potential impacts of our hobby on them. That doesn't mean that those issues don't deserve discussion, though. And -- at least in my opinion -- one of the most fruitful ways to bridge differences in ideology or worldview (and perhaps dampen misinformation) is to gather people who may have different backgrounds, but share some common ground by way of an intrinsic connection to the topic at hand. Clearly everybody on this message board shares a fascination with coral reefs and cares about their future.

Discussion is all we have to help shed light on these issues and work collectively towards solutions. If a forum for coral reef aquarists isn't an appropriate place for open, honest, and possibly painful discussions about the seemingly dark and looming future of wild reefs themselves, what forum out there is is? Granted these are issues that are not going to be outright solved by any amount of discussion on a reef hobby message board, but I'm sure there are plenty of R2R members who share some level of collective heartbreak when staring into their tanks and occasionally being flooded with the realization that those delicate and complex ecosystems we try so hard to replicate in our little glass boxes are facing problems that may mean their complete disappearance within our own lifetimes.

 

[MyReefRobbedMe]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I like that . BUT if you did research you would Know earth has been getting warmer since ice age ,so not sure where you think that there isn’t any evidence there is plenty

 

[4FordFamily]

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.....

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.

 

[Kremis]

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.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

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.

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 hope you watch it & understand the point I make in posting it here. Relax & enjoy the interglacial.

 

[PhreeByrd]

This certainly is a hot topic, and rightly so. I don't believe the OP's original post was intended to be inflammatory, but then again, how could it not be?

Climate change is real. It's true that it's a natural phenomenon. It's also true that human activity affects the progression of the natural phenomenon. These are proven facts with mountains of research behind them. I don't want to go there, into that futile debate, as there is no purpose. Those who refuse to see the facts are in denial for some reason that I can't fathom. But we are prone to dismiss things that don't happen in our own short lifetimes, and the earth's lifetime is something that is next to impossible for us to truly understand and appreciate.

But we can indeed observe changes in our planet's ecosystems during our own lifetimes. Extinctions continue to happen almost daily, and those we can most easily appreciate occur, for the most part, due to loss of habitat. Human beings are very often responsible for those sudden or accelerated losses of habitat. When we accelerate the rate of change due to our own presence and activities, higher forms of life generally cannot adapt quickly enough to survive the changing environment and perish. The sad fact is that once that happens, it is forever. There is no going back to the way things were before.

So yes, I think our hobby owes it to the world to carefully consider how we affect the earth. We definitely should not be dismissive or cavalier about it. In doing so, we need to be (painfully, sometimes) aware that we can affect how the businesses supporting our hobby carry out their work. We can refuse to support careless and destructive collection practices. We can make the decision to keep only animals that can be collected safely. We can choose to only keep corals and other marine life that are propagated in captivity. The greatest sin, IMO, is to not even consider these things when we have the opportunity... and to be so selfish that we stop caring about the background and letting the end justify the means.

 

[shred5]

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.....

Please no I am so sick of all the political bull.. I just wish people would use their brains on both sides instead of believing all the bull a political party hands them.. Funny how people can not think for themselves and need a party to tell them what to believe. Peole are so passionate about parties that do not even care about you, all they want is your vote and money.

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.

I hope it never happens but it has been tried once already by adding some key Acropora and lps to the endangered list. This would also make it impossible to propagate or sell these and require a permit to even own them and only if you had them prior to the ban. Since we cant tell the difference between most acropora no one would sell any acros. It is just a matter of time before they try a bill like this once again. Then more and more will be added till nothing is left.
I took a marine biology coarse and had to id acropora and almost no body got it. The carts are unbelievable. Thankfully it did not pass the last time.

Sad to say it may eventually happen because the hobby is unorganized. Once they ban all fish and Coral from collection they will come after the hobby.
The amount of bans this year is staggering and included maricultured corals which make no sense. Now there is talk of Australia corals being cut back or even completely banned and Caribbean fish being cut back or completely gone because of the lion fish pressures.


In the past new areas opened but there is not much left. Indonesia and Fiji was such a large hit on coral. Hawaii is already a hit but really we have not felt what it means till all the permits expire and no fish come out of there.

 

[Art2249]

People keep mentioning the "science" when they discuss climate change. But if it is being caused by humans, I believe it is more of a "math" problem.

 

[biophilia]

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.

 

[fish farmer]

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.

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.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

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.

 

[biophilia]

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.

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?

 

[biophilia]

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.

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.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

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?

here's a great example

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.

purily politically biased advocasy

 

[markfmvl]

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.....

 

[Gareth elliott]

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.....

In keeping a freshwater planted tank, surface level co2 has very little effect on dissolved co2 at least as far as the co2 required in my tank does not vary on days my windows are open compared to when i am home, windows closed, furnace on.

Also photosynthetic organisms in the ocean are not co2 limited due to the chemical reactions involving the ample amounts of carbonate in the ocean.

What co2 that does enter the water the water though does have an effect on ocean ph. There is a published study on how different corals handle decreased ph levels. Porites being the least susceptible of the stony corals due to an internal ph control mechanism. But in general did find that as ph levels drop from increased co2 there was an acute negative effect on stony corals.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

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?

You’re arguing from various angles there, all politically advocacy based, beside the point, & the last sentence especially, totally imaginary.

It’s quite simple.

The IPCCs estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, as deduced from climate models, is based on an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2. This is equal to, & based on a doubling of CO2, because no matter what the atmospheric content of CO2 happens to be, doubling it only ever results in an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2, due to the diminishing effect of CO2 as it increases in the atmosphere. This is just basic knowledge, as stated in the wiki link I provided, quote “a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2), end quote.

It is also basic knowledge that the range of model projections for a doubling of CO2 is based on the direct increase in forcing from CO2, plus hypothesised positive & negative feedbacks.

The direct effect of doubling CO2 is just 1°C. Again to quote wiki “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. end quote

And from the IPCC, quote “In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating, the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).” End quote.

Now the IPCC’s estimate for an increase in global average temperature, based on climate model projections for an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 (2 x CO2) is 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

The reason for the significant disagreement between the individual model projections (model spread, of 1.5°C to 4.5 °C) is the same reason for why they all project more warming, & not less warming, than for the direct effect of CO2,,,, because they all hypothesise >>>net positive feedback!

Net positive feedback is based on the hypothesis that hypothesised positive feedbacks, primarily water vapour & cloud feedback, not only dominate negative feedbacks, but, quote IPCC “multiple positive feedbacks mutually amplify each other’s impact on climate sensitivity” end quote.

If in reality (not IPCC climate models) feedback was net negative, equilibrium climate sensitivity would be less than the direct effect of CO2.


IPCC 8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

The IPCC states “In AOGCMs (climate models), the (positive) water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback”

And

“Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere, models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback”

“The (positive) water vapour feedback, operating alone on top of (the direct effect of CO2), would at least double the response”


So, no doubt that the hypothesised positive water vapour feedback in the IPCC models is not only adding a lot more warming to the model projections, but is partly to blame for the “spread” of estimates depending on its computed strength.

As I said in a previous post, the data has disproved the hypothesis of positive water vapour feedback.

The hypothesis says clearly & simply that the rate of warming in the tropical mid/upper troposphere will be significantly faster than the rate of warming in the atmosphere below, down to the surface. Radiosondes & both satellite data sets show the opposite to be true – reduced humidity at that altitude, & a faster rate of warming at the surface than the mid troposphere – the opposite of the models, & in fact, indicating negative water vapour feedback.


Back to the IPCC: “(Positive Cloud feedback) amplifies the basic response (CO2) by 10 to 50% depending on the GCM.”


So the IPCC models say that the (disproved) positive water vapour feedback, & the hypothesised positive cloud feedback, which are responsible for a reduction in the albedo effect, will be even worse than their individual contributions because the IPCC models again hypothesis ““multiple positive feedbacks mutually amplify each other’s impact on climate sensitivity”


So hypothesised cloud feedback says that total cloud cover will reduce due to warming (even though evaporation will increase), and allow more shortwave radiation (sun light) to reach the Earth’s surface, warming it more, increasing longwave radiation to the atmosphere to be intercepted by greenhouse gasses?

I learnt that the precipitation cycle works like this: - evaporation of water into the sky, forms clouds, rains. Not only are we expected to believe that more evaporation won’t result in an increase in clouds, but a decrease in clouds. Some models do have negative cloud feedback (an increase in total cloud cover) & they’re the only half decent models.

So, the models not only disagree with each other on the strength of water vapour feedback, the data proves they got the response wrong (negative feedback not positive) They also, not only disagree on the strength of cloud feedback, but disagree on whether it’s positive or negative.


It cannot be proven that any warming occurring in the last 300 years or so, or even recent warming, can be attributed to increased greenhouse gasses. Some of the warming probably is, but it cannot be proven that it is anything other than natural variability. One can suggest that is attributable to co2, because it has increased. But correlation does not prove causation, & there are too many other factors & unknowns & uncertainties involved. But, even if all the (assumed) recent warming was attributed to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses that has occurred, all that would show is, that, the climate is not as sensitive to those gasses as the models project.

 

[Art2249]

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.

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.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Just looking at transpiration and respiration cycles you have to wonder why we are not seeing explosive growth in plants in areas of higher C02 levels in the tropics and temperate forest around urban areas. It seems a question that should be studied. Are their other factors that could affect those cycles we are unaware of? How does methane affect these exchanges? What other factors are contributions to the assumptions we are making about the impact of Carbon and C02 levels? Is fear mongering at the core? I remember in my lifetime a news report that we were entering the next ice age in a 10-20 year span. That was over 40 years ago!

The bad thing about science is you can start out with the wrong assumptions and arrive at a wrong conclusion. You should start with an open mind and allow the observation and repeatable results to guide you to a conclusion. My father was a scientist and researcher who showed me many examples of this in his area of study. His conclusions led to the Surgeon General finally accepting the fact that smoking is hazardous to your health! He started in a time when some doctors prescribed smoking as a health benefit to their patient's. The science did not lead to the conclusion many had already accepted as settled science!