The future of the Marine Aquarium Industry?

[popsock]

I don't believe the reefs are disapearing through temp rise or the lowering of pH levels. It's far more likely to be something toxic. There was an instance recently of two lads in Indonesia being caught pouring mercury into a field (which apparently they used to extract gold from something or other). Anyway, pretty easy to figure where the mercury ends up and they'd been doing this for years.

You take an acropora from the sea. You ship it around the world. You put it in the tank where both the pH and temperature rise and fall is much larger amounts than we see in the wild. And they live perfectly well. We keep them in ranges far higher and lower than the wild, and they live perfectly. Doesn't make sense that a relatively-incredibly slow drop in pH and rise in temperature would suddenly make corals bleech.

In my opinion

 

[Anonymous]

Peter, I look for climate signals in the skeletal geochemistry of massive corals. In my former life, I cultured corals collected/rescued from the Florida Keys for Mote in closed systems at the Sarasota campus from 1998-2006.

 

[Anonymous]

You take an acropora from the sea. You ship it around the world.

And for everyone that lives, how many do you think where killed in the COC? 9 for every 1? 19 for every 1? 29 for every 1?

 

[PeterIMA]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0610122104
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0610122104v1

Model-based assessment of the role of human-induced climate change in the 2005 Caribbean coral bleaching event

Simon D. Donner*, Thomas R. Knutson, and Michael Oppenheimer*

Episodes of mass coral bleaching around the world in recent decades have been attributed to periods of anomalously warm ocean temperatures. In 2005, the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the tropical North Atlantic that may have contributed to the strong hurricane season caused widespread coral bleaching in the Eastern Caribbean. Here, we use two global climate models to evaluate the contribution of natural climate variability and anthropogenic forcing to the thermal stress that caused the 2005 coral bleaching event.

Historical temperature data and simulations for the 1870-2000 period show that the observed warming in the region is unlikely to be due to unforced climate variability alone. Simulation of background climate variability suggests that anthropogenic warming may have increased the probability of occurrence of significant thermal stress events for corals in this region by an order of magnitude. Under scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, mass coral bleaching in the Eastern Caribbean may become a biannual event in 20-30 years. However, if corals and their symbionts can adapt by 1-1.5°C, such mass bleaching events may not begin to recur at potentially harmful intervals until the latter half of the century. The delay could enable more time to alter the path of greenhouse gas emissions, although long-term "committed warming" even after stabilization of atmospheric CO2 levels may still represent an additional long-term threat to corals.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter, There is no data to back up the rise in Co2 affecting the ocean temp or the land.
The temperature rise of the 20th century is often cited in support of ''global warming''. Since, however, 82% of the CO2 rise happened after the rise in temperature had already happened (1780 to 1890). Its kinda silly to say the effect came before the cause was even invented.
Also explain how doubling the yearly man made Co2 out put from 1960 to present levels has seemed to have zero effect on current yearly atmospheric increases. Which have remained pretty constant at 2.5 GT C for the past hundred years.
Also , why has not the temperatures here in America increased?
The single largest contributor to atmospheric carbon and the temperatures in our country have actually decrease since the 1940s.

It makes more sense that the Oceans are out gassing, lowering the seas pH and releasing Co2.
it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3).

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C.

Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.

Just a five percent change in the Oceans out gassing would amount to 4.5 GT C .... or about the same as all the world humans combined.

To explain why CO2 levels are higher over the Pacific Ocean then levels in the middle of the USA , it seems that the oceans would have to be the source.

But what good can come from blaming mother nature!

Also nice record cold water off Sidney this week!

 

[Anonymous]

have you been talking to smiley ? :twisted:

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, You almost sound believable but you are still just expressing your uneducated opinion (blowing smoke). Try believing the scientists. Al Gore has published a book about inconvenient truth and got an award for producing a movie about global warming. I posted a reference to a serious scientific study. Pay the $10.00 get the paper and then we can discuss it intelligently.

Peter

 

[Caterham]

Peter,

Thanks so much for your comments here in this thread.

Could you please explain what you mean when you use the word "uneducated" as it relates to this thread. Many thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[PeterIMA]

Caterham, Kalk appears to do quite a bit of reading. I challenged him to substantiate his statements by citing the source(s) of his information. If the statements he made are scientiific facts then he needs to site his sources. In the present case, I think we should both read the paper I cited and express opinions about it's conclusions.



Peter

 

[Piero]

make a global warming thread and link it to this one. There are people who are actually qualifed on the subject, and I doubt they're here. And regardless..given uncertainty and possible risk, is not the most prudent move the safest one available?
_________________
blue moonshine plant

 

[PeterIMA]

Piero, I agree that climate change is a complex issue both with regard to the science and the politics. The Coral Reef List Server has presented quite a lot of information by experts. One such expert is Dr. Shinn at the University of South Florida. Apparently, the oil and gas industry has hired scientists who have been issuing propaganda (information not based on sound science) similar to some of Kalk's statements. The majority of scientists disagree with this and maintain that global warming is occurring and that some of it is related to the warming of the atmosphere related to the production of carbon dioxide. The oil and gas industry has a vested interest in oil and gas and hence does not want to be blamed for the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is producing carbon dioxide that is affecting world climate.

There has been a steady increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere especially since the period of the inception of the automobile. Air temperatures have increased but because of winds etc the areas areas where this has occurred are localized. The oceans act as a sink for both carbon dioxide (that forms carbonic acid in water and affects the bicarbonate-carbonate equilibrium-hence a causing a reduction in pH worldwide) and by taking up heat into the water causing areas with warmer water. Many of these hotspots in the ocean have been affecting coral reefs.

In my opinion, the water temperature changes while small (less than 1 degree centrigrade in most cases) are having marked effects on marine life (especially coral reefs).

There are equillibria between the oceans and the atmosphere. Katrina is a case where a tropical storm became a major hurricane after it picked up heat from the water while it passed over the Gulf of Mexico.

Much of Kalk's statements about there being long-term climate cycles with colder and warmer periods prior to the modern era are correct. But the frequency of El Nino events have increased and I don't believe this is due to natural events over the past two decades. I am not an expert on climatic modeling of the atmosphere, but we can all see the increase in the frequency of anomalously warm summers (zones of air temperatures exceeding 100 degrees F) over North America and Europe over the past decade. The frequency of hurricanes have increased. The fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic have not recovered and part of this is due to the fact that fish have moved and aggregated in response to ocean temperature changes (where they were then overfished). There are many other examples that indicate that humans are at greater risk due to increased frequency of forest fires, crop failures, tornadoes, hurricanes, from coastal flooding etc.

Where I disagree with Kalk is his assertion that the oceans are the source of the carbon dioxide that is increasing in the atmosphere. My understanding is the opposite. The oceans largely absorb carbon dioxide rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. There is gas exchange in both directions but the net effect is more carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean than what is released into the atmosphere.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

There is far more data showing that the Earths atmosphere is actually cooling over the past fifty years, then there is of a long term warming.
lower tropospheric temperatures are steadily declining and this debunks the Green house idea entirely. The atmosphere is not warming consistently around the globe, rather only in certain spots.
this is the results of bad data keeping from unskilled unqualified third world temperature readers over the past hundred years. Do we really think third world temperature takers during the 1920s (imagine looking at at thermometer and accurately reading it within one tenth of a degree?
Is it not odd that
Countries with the best equiptment and thousands of daily professional weathermen like in the USA and Europe show no such warming trend?
In fact temperatures here in the USA have been decreasing since the 1970s.
Did you know that 1997 and 1996 were the 42nd 60th coldest years on record (last 120 years)
Its not that there were record low temps those years , its that the average temperature for the year was low.
See there are different ways to react to a lack of record cold temps.
Some call this lack of deep low temps as "Global Warming".
But what is should be called is "climate stability".(less record highs and fewer record Low temps)
There seems to be less deep low Winter temp world wide . And this is were scientists come up with Global Warming.( I kinda like less extreme Winters.)
Do we really miss the below zero temperatures so much as to wish them back?
During the American Civil War, Winter temperatures in the 1860s were recorded at below zero for weeks on end as far south as GEORGIA!
I kinda like the mild winters, and in fact if winters were not so mild during the past twenty years ....imagine how much more Fossil fuel we would have burned to keep warm.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Where I disagree with Kalk is his assertion that the oceans are the source of the carbon dioxide that is increasing in the atmosphere. My understanding is the opposite. The oceans largely absorb carbon dioxide rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. There is gas exchange in both directions but the net effect is more carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean than what is released into the atmosphere.

Peter Rubec

Well how about you look up the amount of CO2 out gassed per year from the deep oceans, then compare that figure to the tiny 5.5 that mankind adds. ( you can also compare how much CO2 Greenland is releasing per year)
Next look up the CO2 readings from middle America over the past hundred years. Then compare that to the readings in Hawaii. as well as reading taken from Ocean vessels.
If the levels are lower in Middle America... ask your self how can that be?

 

[Piero]

Believe me Peter, I hear ya. My point is, since we're not climatologists, any debate beyond the one about the credibility of current reports (from climate scientists) seems out of our area of expertise. After everyone acknowledges that they're not actually climatologists, we move onto the obligatory 'this source of information is more credible than yours" debate. And that's often another merry-go-round. But the first challenge is getting people to stop pretending they're climatologists.

If you guys really want to get some answers to details though, I'd suggest posting your questions on a forum in which actual climate scientists participate. There are links to some in that thread I provided.

I listen to the cumulative advice of the 100s of climate scientists over the past 40 years in the worldwide scientific community, among which there is a general consensus - according to the UN report just released.

If there are legitimate challenges to the interpretations of data and predominant theories, I'm guessing they are not coming from reefkeeping forums. here's a climate science forum link.
_________________
full melt hash

 

[PeterIMA]

Subj: [Coral-List] The Great Global Warming Swindle
Date: 3/21/2007 6:34:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]


UK Channel 4, on March 8 aired a documentary arguing a contrarian line. I've
not seen it but have heard from people who have, usually citing it to
rationalize their business as usual philosophy. For more information visit
this link:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... swindle/in
dex.html?intcmp=docpage_box3

Bill

 

[Piero]

here's my most recent post on that thread I linked. This movie was discussed as well.

here's the more Digg entry. link

some of the interesting Digg comments:
-----------------------------
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2355956.ece
-----------------------------
George Monboit's response to the film: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007...-with-science/
-----------------------------

I am stunned that the majority of reactions here are in support of a sensationalist/tabloid polemic pseudo-documentary with faked evidence and quotes from either disreputable scientists or in the case of Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (as the program loved to say), quoted and edited completely out of context to the point of reversing the point of what he actually said!
At least check his own comments on the matter. Someone who was involved with the documentary and isn't too happy with the result.
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
I am not a believer or a denier. I was completely open-minded when I watched this and I am ashamed to say now, I was almost duped by it but decided to do some hard reading.
there is no debate or dispute.
As little as the CO2 is in the atmosphere, that doesn't make it nothing to think about.
Man is doing harm.
Think otherwise then you are just stupid, uneducated or maybe lazy and refusing to take the time to study the real facts.
-----------------------------
"Oh great a scientist that gets his funding from major energy companies.

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-compan...nds-of-science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07 ... _by_to.php"
-----------------------------

I still have to see even one SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION which disproves global warming!
So infact we can't attack the global warming deniers science, because it has never been published! And don't refer me to blogs and newspaper articles.
-----------------------------

The Denial machine
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

-----------------------------

There are so many fun analogies we use to make sense of what is a mind bogglingly complex science. Instead of contributing another analogy for the science, let me add an analogy of the scientists.

The science and controversy behind global warming is as if you had a stomachache. 12,000 Doctors say you have an appendicitis and need an operation immediately, 100 say it is just gas.
-----------------------------

Here's the Gaurdian article today with a thorough thrashing of the Channel 4 misinformation special.
"Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...026124,00.html
-----------------------------

Well, well, well this latest news on the programme comes as no real suprise that controversial film maker Martin Durkin once again has been up to his old tricks!

" The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

- The Independent

Full article here :

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2347526.ece
---------------------------------------

Misrepresentations of the facts and lack of joined-up thinking abound here!

If I may, I'll try to clear a few points up and remind the climate change sceptics of the current situation:

1. The basic physics and chemistry connecting 'greenhouse gasses' (e.g. water vapour, CO2, methane etc.) to warming of the atmosphere is rock solid and had been known about since 1824. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas
2. We (industrial humans) have been putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the biosphere can dispose of since just before the Industrial Revolution started in England. We have been emitting more of other greenhouse gasses from industry, agriculture and construction too.
3. No one is saying there haven't been significantly hotter or cooler periods; plenty of research is ongoing into how the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere were set up during these periods and how that relates to the various orbital and solar cycles.
4. The recent IPCC report says YES there is a large effect due to solar activity. They also say they are 95% certain that there is an effect that they cannot account for without human-created atmospheric changes.
5. YES, models can and are wrong. NO, that doesn't mean you can't actually learn from and use them to make broad predictions. (I'd argue that if complex interrelated models can't be trusted, then most of economics beyond the basics is similarly flawed)
6. CO2 is both the cause _and_ the effect of warming: Cause as a greenhouse gas (see above) and effect because warming can cause the release of greenhouse gasses due to many factors including decreasing glaciation and increased microbial action in once frozen areas.
7. CO2 does both follow and precede warming because of factors mentioned in 7 above and also because, in the example given in the film, the increase in CO2 came from volcanic activity which added lots of dust and sulphur particulates into the atmosphere. These particulates reflect heat back into space, hence causing what is called Global Cooling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
8. EVEN if you can argue (wrongly) CO2 doesn't cause climate change, or man hasn't changed the atmosphere (he has), we do know CO2 DOES cause ocean acidification which has the potential to destroy the base of the food chain in the oceans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Given the Sun is the primary cause of the recent warming - and obviously as the primary heat source in the solar system, it must be - then to mitigate the damage to human economies, lives and wildlife we get two choices:

1. Reduce the greenhouse effect by reducing the proportion of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere;
2. Reduce the output from the Sun.

We clearly have a degree of control over the former, whereas the latter is basically sci-fi for now.

In summary: CO2 matters. So does other stuff. We don't get to control the other stuff.
--------------------------------------

more here...
Again, given uncertainty and risk, isn't the most logical course of action the safest option available?
_________________
joint rolling

 

[Piero]

good stuff from a WIRED blog on the subject of GW debate.

How the Internet Is Not Like Science

How to Argue About Global Warming
_________________
Mercedes W125

 

[Piero]

good stuff from a WIRED blog on the subject of GW debate.

How the Internet Is Not Like Science
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... terne.html

How to Argue About Global Warming
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... ue_ab.html
_________________
Mesothelioma Forum