http://www.realclearlife.com/science/gre...ger-saved/

Warming in the seas has bleached much of Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Never went there, but I have dived. I wonder if I was in a small window where the diving technology and thriving coral reefs coexisted. Will be quite sad if true. Reefs are dying around the globe.

Warmer water and pollution are killing off reefs at a fast pace it seems.

Reefs harbor a ton of life that filters up the food chain and through the broader ocean. I wonder how severely reef die offs will impact total marine life.

(05-30-2017 05:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Warmer water and pollution are killing off reefs at a fast pace it seems.

Reefs harbor a ton of life that filters up the food chain and through the broader ocean. I wonder how severely reef die offs will impact total marine life.

Reefs are critical in some places.

(05-30-2017 05:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Warmer water and pollution are killing off reefs at a fast pace it seems.

Reefs harbor a ton of life that filters up the food chain and through the broader ocean. I wonder how severely reef die offs will impact total marine life.

It is a tragedy, since this reef is such a gem on our planet. My guess? I will have very little impact in the grand picture.
It is the type of occurrence that has happened countless times on this planet long before humans made our entry. Suddenly since WE can witness it? We seem to think there is something we can do about it. We can't. The good news is life will go on. Differently..but it will go on...and..probably long after we are gone.

How much damage has Fukushima caused this reef?

(05-30-2017 07:37 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  How much damage has Fukushima caused this reef?

The number one environmental problem in the world.

Surprised Bullet came up with the op. We are over 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere year round now. It's no longer a question of reversal but mitigation. Will we have the sense to plateau it, by our current President's actions that is a resounding no.

We know CO2 traps long wave radiation. A proven scientific phenomena. We can show that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere. I don't understand the controversy.

Not our fault.

(05-31-2017 06:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We know CO2 traps long wave radiation. A proven scientific phenomena. We can show that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere. I don't understand the controversy.

I think two areas of controversy are 1) The reliability of predictive models, which haven't been good, and 2) Which government-mandated changes would actually be effective.

(05-31-2017 06:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We know CO2 traps long wave radiation. A proven scientific phenomena. We can show that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere. I don't understand the controversy.

That's not where the controversy lies. The controversy is over two issues:

1) Are the long term implications as dire as the pessimistic projections, particularly considering how many of those projections from a few years back (New York under water, polar ice caps gone) have failed to materialize, and how unreliable existing climate models have been?

2) Given the magnitude of the alleged impacts, why have the proposed solutions been both so damaging and impractical in the short run, and of so little impact in the long run, as to fail badly any kind of cost-effectiveness test? Solar and wind, the darlings of the AGW movement, are simply not yet ready for prime time. So why force them before they are ready? What we need to do is to continue to develop those sources to increase reliability and applicability (improved storage being a key to both) while doing as much as possible--worldwide--to implement things that do work and are practical now. We're going to kill all coal plants in the US, with significant current economic harm, mostly to those who can least afford it, in order to achieve a 0.1 degree reduction 100 years from now? Is that really cost-effective? We should kill the XM and other pipelines, moves that will probably increase CO2 emissions because the oil will move by less environmentally friendly means? Why are we insisting on doing stupid stuff when there are other and better alternatives available?

If global temperatures are going to rise 2 degrees in the next 100 years, and that is going to be catastrophic, then we need to figure out how to knock 2 degrees off that increase, not 0.1 degree. Don't do stupid stuff that makes us feel good. Do stuff that has a chance to have a material impact. They exist. And get the whole world onboard. Even if the US and Europe strangle their economies, but if the developing countries keep growing their appetites for fossil fuels, then we are fighting a hugely losing battle. The US and Europe can't keep the Maldives above sea level. China and India can.

Get some real models that actually work, use them to plan the next 100 years, start going after BHAGs instead of doing stupid crap that makes us feel good, and manage this on a worldwide basis.

(05-30-2017 10:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 07:37 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  How much damage has Fukushima caused this reef?

The number one environmental problem in the world.

When was the last time Fukushima was mentioned by the MSM? Japan isn't even acknowledging it nor ever really did. This is bad.. real bad

(05-31-2017 06:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Surprised Bullet came up with the op. We are over 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere year round now. It's no longer a question of reversal but mitigation. Will we have the sense to plateau it, by our current President's actions that is a resounding no.

You don't have to be a member of the Cult of Climate Change to see that, for whatever reason, the earth is on a warming trend.

(05-31-2017 06:57 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 06:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We know CO2 traps long wave radiation. A proven scientific phenomena. We can show that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere. I don't understand the controversy.

I think two areas of controversy are 1) The reliability of predictive models, which haven't been good, and 2) Which government-mandated changes would actually be effective.

And the 3rd is how much of the warming is natural. Scientists understand very, very little about the long term changes in climate that occur over vast cycles, some probably longer than humans have been on this planet.

Let Europe and China be held accountable for their C03 then.. hmm

(05-31-2017 08:38 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 10:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 07:37 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  How much damage has Fukushima caused this reef?

The number one environmental problem in the world.

When was the last time Fukushima was mentioned by the MSM? Japan isn't even acknowledging it nor ever really did. This is bad.. real bad

Surf's up. Sushi for everyone.

(05-30-2017 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearlife.com/science/gre...ger-saved/

Warming in the seas has bleached much of Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Never went there, but I have dived. I wonder if I was in a small window where the diving technology and thriving coral reefs coexisted. Will be quite sad if true. Reefs are dying around the globe.

Since it looks like we are going back to burning coal and getting away from wind and solar, it's probably a foregone conclusion.

Does this mean that Belize can now claim it has the worlds largest barrier reef instead of the second largest?

Its the Ozone hole

(05-30-2017 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearlife.com/science/gre...ger-saved/

Warming in the seas has bleached much of Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Never went there, but I have dived. I wonder if I was in a small window where the diving technology and thriving coral reefs coexisted. Will be quite sad if true. Reefs are dying around the globe.

There are coral reefs in the deepest darkest recesses of the worlds oceans that make the Great Barrier Reef look like a mini-Cooper in comparison. Still a damn damn shame though. I wonder if the destruction is anthropomorphic or just the result of earths natural rhythmic cycle of weather.