Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there's anyone being hustled, it's the people who have been duped by the oil and gas industry's massive disinformation and propaganda campaign to doubt good science. As has been noted many times before, oil and gas corporations are using the same strategy that the tobacco companies used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer. If there's a bright side to the climate debate it's that Big Tobacco lost and medical science won -- virtually everyone today acknowledges and believes cigarettes cause cancer. The same will happen with AGW: as the weather extremes become more frequent, more and more people will accept the obvious science and reject the deniers.
And even assuming you're right about extremes becoming more frequent, you really think looping a lot of money through governments is going to change anything?
None of that has anything to do with the points I raised, maybe you could directly answer my question and issues raised. Start with the 2 Australian reefs, are you telling me increased temperatures are good for the Great Barrier Reef?
yes warmer temps are good for the reefs
“Coral Reefs
September 2004, Volume 23, Issue 3, p 444
“Low temperatures cause coral bleaching”
O. Hoegh-Guldberg, M. Fine ”
=====================
Abstract – 1983
A dead Central American coral reef tract: Possible link with the Little Ice Age
…..Coral growth in the Gulf of Papagayo consisted mainly of dead reefs that died from 150–300 years B.P. The 18O records revealed that most of the dead reefs were exposed to relatively cool water immediately preceding death. We propose that during the latter part of the Little Ice Age there was probably an equatorward shift of the Northern Trade Wind system, which caused an intensification of upwelling at lower latitudes. This increased upwelling was the likely cause of the demise of coral reefs in the Gulf of Papagayo. A dead Central American coral reef tract: Possible link with the ...: ingentaconnect
New Scientist – 1 January 2014
“Pacific coral happy as acidity of the ocean rises”
“This suggests that the corals have a way to calcify in more acidic waters, says Philip Munday at James Cook University in Brisbane, Australia, or that they have adapted to low carbonate levels.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ean-rises.html
————–
Abstract – 16 JAN 2014
“Diverse coral communities in naturally acidified waters of a Western Pacific reef”
“Here we report the existence of highly diverse, coral-dominated reef communities under chronically low pH and aragonite saturation state (Ωar). Biological and hydrographic processes change the chemistry of the seawater moving across the barrier reefs and into Palau’s Rock Island bays, where levels of acidification approach those projected for the western tropical Pacific open ocean by 2100. Nevertheless, coral diversity, cover, and calcification rates are maintained across this natural acidification gradient.” Diverse coral communities in naturally acidified waters of a Western Pacific reef - Shamberger - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
==================
‘Scientists shocked to find coral reef in murky waters off Iraq’
9 March 2014 Gulf News
Seems like the science isn’t settled……..
“These conditions were thought to make the waters inhospitable to coral. But it appears marine biologists had underestimated the adaptability of these invertebrate underwater creatures”
“We were entirely surprised to find living coral reef under such harsh conditions,” the research team reported on Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports. “Extensive coral reefs do not typically develop under conditions where nutrient and suspended sediment concentrations are acutely or chronically very high.”
The reef they found covers an area of nearly 28 square kilometres and is seven to 20 metres beneath the surface, according to the study. The temperature and salinity of the waters there change rapidly, and visibility is low.
According to NOAA the corals found in tropical reefs prefer temperatures between 73F and 84F (23C-29C) and can tolerate temps as low as 64F(18C) or as high as 104F (40C) for brief periods. In what types of water do corals live?
Yes, which is why I ignore the science-denialists.
Do you deny that over the past thirty years the Stratosphere has experienced cooling, that over the same time period more UV rays have been reaching the Earth`s surface or that the simple ****ing laws of physics indicate the real cause of the slight warming (and this according to verifiable satellite data, not that made up **** IPCC is pushing) we have experienced in the lower Troposphere is directly attributable to CFCs depleting the Ozone layer?
If there's anyone being hustled, it's the people who have been duped by the oil and gas industry's massive disinformation and propaganda campaign to doubt good science. As has been noted many times before, oil and gas corporations are using the same strategy that the tobacco companies used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer. If there's a bright side to the climate debate it's that Big Tobacco lost and medical science won -- virtually everyone today acknowledges and believes cigarettes cause cancer. The same will happen with AGW: as the weather extremes become more frequent, more and more people will accept the obvious science and reject the deniers.
Hmm, where have I heard a similar admonition before............
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such a time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and military consequences of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State".
“Coral Reefs
September 2004, Volume 23, Issue 3, p 444
“Low temperatures cause coral bleaching”
O. Hoegh-Guldberg, M. Fine ”
=====================
Abstract – 1983
A dead Central American coral reef tract: Possible link with the Little Ice Age
…..Coral growth in the Gulf of Papagayo consisted mainly of dead reefs that died from 150–300 years B.P. The 18O records revealed that most of the dead reefs were exposed to relatively cool water immediately preceding death. We propose that during the latter part of the Little Ice Age there was probably an equatorward shift of the Northern Trade Wind system, which caused an intensification of upwelling at lower latitudes. This increased upwelling was the likely cause of the demise of coral reefs in the Gulf of Papagayo. A dead Central American coral reef tract: Possible link with the ...: ingentaconnect
New Scientist – 1 January 2014
“Pacific coral happy as acidity of the ocean rises”
“This suggests that the corals have a way to calcify in more acidic waters, says Philip Munday at James Cook University in Brisbane, Australia, or that they have adapted to low carbonate levels.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ean-rises.html
————–
Abstract – 16 JAN 2014
“Diverse coral communities in naturally acidified waters of a Western Pacific reef”
“Here we report the existence of highly diverse, coral-dominated reef communities under chronically low pH and aragonite saturation state (Ωar). Biological and hydrographic processes change the chemistry of the seawater moving across the barrier reefs and into Palau’s Rock Island bays, where levels of acidification approach those projected for the western tropical Pacific open ocean by 2100. Nevertheless, coral diversity, cover, and calcification rates are maintained across this natural acidification gradient.” Diverse coral communities in naturally acidified waters of a Western Pacific reef - Shamberger - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
==================
‘Scientists shocked to find coral reef in murky waters off Iraq’
9 March 2014 Gulf News
Seems like the science isn’t settled……..
“These conditions were thought to make the waters inhospitable to coral. But it appears marine biologists had underestimated the adaptability of these invertebrate underwater creatures”
“We were entirely surprised to find living coral reef under such harsh conditions,” the research team reported on Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports. “Extensive coral reefs do not typically develop under conditions where nutrient and suspended sediment concentrations are acutely or chronically very high.”
The reef they found covers an area of nearly 28 square kilometres and is seven to 20 metres beneath the surface, according to the study. The temperature and salinity of the waters there change rapidly, and visibility is low.
According to NOAA the corals found in tropical reefs prefer temperatures between 73F and 84F (23C-29C) and can tolerate temps as low as 64F(18C) or as high as 104F (40C) for brief periods. In what types of water do corals live?
seems science says warmer is better
You are all over the place.I asked you a question about the 2 reefs in Australia and as usual you are just googling and posting things that have nothing to do with the question. You posted an article claiming that cold is good for reefs, particularly the Great Barrier Reef yet in the article it indicates warming is destroying the reef. Maybe you could correct yourself before you head off to the Gulf of Papagayo or Iraq.
Quote:
Climate change is affecting coral reefs Climate change is now acknowledged as one of the most serious threats to the long-term health of coral reefs. Already, in many places around the world such as the Maldives, Seychelles and Palau, coral bleaching has effectively destroyed over 50% of reefs. This loss of corals, triggered by unusually high sea temperatures, has far-reaching implications for reef ecosystems. Corals provide the ecological foundations that underpin enormous biodiversity and productivity, and provide food and income to hundreds of millions of people throughout the tropical world. There will also be a range of other effects of climate change on reef ecosystems, many of which may be equally destructive but are only just beginning to be understood. http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/...actionplan.pdf
Do you deny that over the past thirty years the Stratosphere has experienced cooling, that over the same time period more UV rays have been reaching the Earth`s surface or that the simple ****ing laws of physics indicate the real cause of the slight warming (and this according to verifiable satellite data, not that made up **** IPCC is pushing) we have experienced in the lower Troposphere is directly attributable to CFCs depleting the Ozone layer?
Yes, I deny your nonsense. Is the greenhouse effect not "simple physics"?
In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?
Unlike the CO2 theory, the CfC theory matches what we have observed.
The temperature chart in that study is all wrong, it only shows +0.5 C warming in 2013. The correct temperature anomaly is nearly 1.0 C as of today. In fact, if the correct temperature anomaly is plotted on Lu's chart, it fits the CO2 curve very well and not the CfC curve, thus disproving Lu's hypothesis.
This chart reflects the true state of affairs, with temperatures rising in concert with CO2, exactly as one would expect from simple physics:
Last edited by Elliott_CA; 12-16-2015 at 08:54 PM..
Unlike the CO2 theory, the CfC theory matches what we have observed.
Nonsense....
A new paper (2013) by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past.
Critics point out that Lu’s paper fails to make the leap from correlation to causation, one of the most basic and most common scientific failings. This error is simply illustrated in the classic fable of the rooster who believes the sun rises because he crows. Qing-Bin Lu revives debunked claims about cosmic rays and CFCs | Climate Science Watch
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
