Global Reef Record

[Reefer503]

Came across this and thought I would just share it for those who haven't seen it. Very cool use of video, too bad it's to show the world what devastation has and is happening to the reefs of the world. Hoping that communities and scientists can use the data to help turn this around.

 

http://globalreefrecord.org/home_scientific

[Fisher15]

How does C02 play into this?

[Lexinverts]

How does C02 play into this?

Two main ways.

 

1) Climate change. An enhanced greenhouse effect due to 100% higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than observed in the last 800,00 years has led to warming in the oceans, which stresses corals and leads to bleaching.

 

2) Ocean Acidification. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causes more to dissolve into the ocean, which forms carbonic acid and causes the ocean's pH to drop. This is the same thing that happens when you let too much CO2 dissolve from your Ca reactor into your tank. Ocean acidification reduces the ability of stony corals to form their skeletons.

[milesmiles902]

Look under the "Map" and "Data" tab. You can literally go and see images at multiple reef spots and the percentage of different species of corals in those areas. This is a great website.

[badxgillen]

I was looking at the image analysts from a site that had a 2.6% coral coverage, soft coral 6.6%, and algae 79.6%. Some of the categories have to be lumped into a slightly more general category so the algae subcategory reads "Turf" and crustose "Coraline" algae. Certainly a great asset for people studying and sharing information in the various marine fields.

[AcanLord]

Two main ways.

 

1) Climate change. An enhanced greenhouse effect due to 100% higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than observed in the last 800,00 years has led to warming in the oceans, which stresses corals and leads to bleaching.

 

2) Ocean Acidification. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causes more to dissolve into the ocean, which forms carbonic acid and causes the ocean's pH to drop. This is the same thing that happens when you let too much CO2 dissolve from your Ca reactor into your tank. Ocean acidification reduces the ability of stony corals to form their skeletons.

*jaw drops and immediately hits the friend request button*

[Fisher15]

Why has the correlation coefficient for the C02 vs. world temperature been negative for the last 20 years?

[Lexinverts]

Why has the correlation coefficient for the C02 vs. world temperature been negative for the last 20 years?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I will say that climate science is extremely complicated, since many factors are involved.

Climate scientists use computer models with many parameters to explain current temperature patterns. The most important parameter in their models is carbon dioxide. Let me take a moment to walk you through some of the basic science behind the scientific consensus on climate change and CO2.

 

Firstly, let's take a look at pre-historical patterns of C02 and temperature. The data come from ice cores. You can drill down deeper into glaciers and retrieve bubbles in the ice and directly measure the % of C02 in this preserved atmosphere. You can also reliably estimate the global mean temperature by looking at the ratio of isotopes of H20 in the ice. Heavy water is more prevalent in the ice in warm years.

 

 

What we see is every 150,000 years or so is an oscillation of temperature and C02. Temperature and C02 are related by something called the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap IR radiation and keep the earth warm. In fact, it is a good thing we have some greenhouse gases, since without them, our planet would be too cold for life.

 

 

We have a problem when humans release large amounts of greenhouse gases like C02 into the atmosphere, on top of what is already there. This causes an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming / climate change.

 

Now, what is responsible for the 150,000 year oscillations in temperature in C02 before humans were driving around in cars? There are small changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun that happen every 150,000 yrs or so that are called Milankovitch cycles. Because of a slight shift in the orbit, the earth will receive more solar radiation, which initiates warming. This causes the ocean to warm and release dissolved C02, and the tundra to melt, which releases stored C02, which thickens the C02 blanket in the atmosphere. This enhanced greenhouse effect then causes more warming, and subsequent more release of C02 from sinks in the ocean and arctic and this increases warming still more. Eventually an equilibrium is reached for some time (100,000 years or so). Then the Milankovitch cycle reduces the amount of solar radiation that gets to the earth, this causes the ocean to cool and absorb C02 from the atmosphere, this thins the atmosphere and reduces the greenhouse effect, leading to still more cooling.

 

Now, if you look at where we currently are in the global historical cycle, we are near the end of a warming period. This is why scientists in the 70's were concerned that we were headed into an ice age.

 

People who would argue that we are simply in a current natural cycle of warming should look to see if we are actually getting more solar radiation as a result of the Milankovitch cycle---We are not. In fact, because of a phenomenon called "global dimming" we are getting less solar radiation now. This is because of particulate pollution in the atmosphere that reflects solar radiation back into space before it even reaches the earth.

 

Below is a graph that shows declining surface solar radiation (global dimming) while at the same time global warming.

 

 

Here is another graph of historical and recent C02 levels.

 

 

See how high our current C02 levels are?

 

Now take a look at recorded temperatures below.

 

 

We are going up and up. (The red bars are mean annual temperatures above the overall mean since 1880.)

 

Why isn't there a simple plot of temperature and C02 like you referred to? The reason is that the relationship is not so simple. There are dozens of other parameters besides C02 in the climate change model. C02 is the most important "driver" of current warming, but it is not correct to just plot temperature on C02 because it oversimplifies the model.

 

Now, why hasn't temperature gotten as high as we would expect based on the current levels of C02? The ocean. The ocean has absorbed most of this excess C02, and this is what is causing the current critical issue of ocean acidification. Without the help of the ocean, our current temperatures would certainly be much higher than they are today. The ocean can only absorb so much C02, however, and there are other side effects of this on corals, as we should all recognize in this forum.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Lexinverts

[Fisher15]

Well since you didn't answer my question, I will try and explain.  If two variables are related they may be in correlation.  The correlation coefficient is kind of like the product.   If C02 goes up x amount, world temperature will go up y.  The original developer of the correlation between C02 and Temperature was Michael Mann, who then worked for NOAA.  He used tree rings to estimate past temperatures.  His methods and data have been proven wrong.  Mr. Mann sued his detractors and lost when he refused to divulge his data, which by law should be available to the public.  Having lost his lawsuits, he was countered sued and is no going into bankruptcy, because he refused to show the court his data, and of course the court ruled against him.

So there is no correlation.  That was the reason for my original question.  If the correlation coefficient is negative, it means that when C02 goes, temperature goes down.

I believe in environmental actions, but not when they are made up by activists.

 

I believe the demonization of C02 is in the same class as religious fervor.

 

Enough said.

[Lexinverts]

Well since you didn't answer my question, I will try and explain.  If two variables are related they may be in correlation.  The correlation coefficient is kind of like the product.   If C02 goes up x amount, world temperature will go up y.  The original developer of the correlation between C02 and Temperature was Michael Mann, who then worked for NOAA.  He used tree rings to estimate past temperatures.  His methods and data have been proven wrong.  Mr. Mann sued his detractors and lost when he refused to divulge his data, which by law should be available to the public.  Having lost his lawsuits, he was countered sued and is no going into bankruptcy, because he refused to show the court his data, and of course the court ruled against him.

So there is no correlation.  That was the reason for my original question.  If the correlation coefficient is negative, it means that when C02 goes, temperature goes down.

I believe in environmental actions, but not when they are made up by activists.

 

I believe the demonization of C02 is in the same class as religious fervor.

 

Enough said.

 

I did answer your question. The reason that it is not meaningful to talk about a correlation coefficient for C02 and Temp is because the model is much more complicated than that. There are dozens of parameters in addition to C02 that explain current temperatures. You cannot perform a simple regression or correlation analysis on those data.

 

By the way, did you read any of my post? Do you really think that 1,000s of climate scientists are all activists that have made up their data? Enough said.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Lexinverts

[Fisher15]

Tens of thousands of scientists deny it.  How do we judge experts??  If doctors claimed cancer had been defeated, how can a average joe know if its true?  He isn't a doctor!  But if people keep dying of cancer, maybe something is wrong.  How many missed predictions of catastrophe do we have to see fail before we recognize something is wrong with climate Science(Religion).  New York was supposed to be under water by now.  The poles were to be devoid of ice by now.  Instead the Antarctic is at record levels.  How about the 500 million climate change refugees??  Oh, and no more ski resorts or winter snow.  When the pile is that deep, you better hold your nose.

 

Remember Climate change is more dangerous then terrorism. 

[Lexinverts]

Tens of thousands of scientists deny it.  How do we judge experts??  If doctors claimed cancer had been defeated, how can a average joe know if its true?  He isn't a doctor!  But if people keep dying of cancer, maybe something is wrong.  How many missed predictions of catastrophe do we have to see fail before we recognize something is wrong with climate Science(Religion).  New York was supposed to be under water by now.  The poles were to be devoid of ice by now.  Instead the Antarctic is at record levels.  How about the 500 million climate change refugees??  Oh, and no more ski resorts or winter snow.  When the pile is that deep, you better hold your nose.

 

Remember Climate change is more dangerous then terrorism.

 

Pretty much everything you have posted is incorrect, so it isn't really worth responding to.

 

I'm curious if you 'believe' in coral bleaching, and if so, why you do?

[Fisher15]

Your curiosity does not concern me.

[milesmiles902]

Tens of thousands of scientists deny it.  How do we judge experts??  If doctors claimed cancer had been defeated, how can a average joe know if its true?  He isn't a doctor!  But if people keep dying of cancer, maybe something is wrong.  How many missed predictions of catastrophe do we have to see fail before we recognize something is wrong with climate Science(Religion).  New York was supposed to be under water by now.  The poles were to be devoid of ice by now.  Instead the Antarctic is at record levels.  How about the 500 million climate change refugees??  Oh, and no more ski resorts or winter snow.  When the pile is that deep, you better hold your nose.

 

Remember Climate change is more dangerous then terrorism. 

I really like your point about "How do we judge experts??  If doctors claimed cancer had been defeated, how can a average joe know if its true?" I think this is a very valid thing to say. Extrapolation is difficult, look at your local weather channel.

 

In general, there are a lot of scientist that don't believe Climate Change (Global Warming) is happening. I think with many things (even with this hobby) there is a consensus and agreement about what the facts (or experiences) are showing, and when a model is correct, predictions can be made. There are countless predictions or extrapolations that happen in science that are wrong and are usually because we because we just don't have enough data points to come to a solid conclusion. I think that is what happened with some of the global warming models. I know from experience that data can be convoluted, where variables overlap and influence each other, making a model unjust.

 

I will say that if someone is an expert in something and they are trying to explain a concept to me. I hope they would be able to lay out the facts clear enough for anyone to understand. Sometimes we don't get it, sometimes we do, but in the end...it's just a model. The facts LexInverts seem to suggest a strong relationship between the increase of CO₂ and the rise in temperature. I don't know if CO₂ is the only thing playing the role here, but we have a lot of data points.

 

I wrote this after personally getting my model rejected by my advisor.

[Lexinverts]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#.V6KqOa3ZXys

 

You'll see from the above link that 97% of climate scientists agree with the argument that I posted above.

 

The disagreement is no longer regarding whether it is happening and if humans are responsible, but is more focused on what we should do about it.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lexinverts

[Fisher15]

Yes, don't worry about the facts....just believe because your leaders say so.  How do you  know?... the climate bible says so.  When will the heat-up take place.  I want to go skiing one last time.

[fishboys]

Would we still be in an ice age without global warming?

[Lexinverts]

Would we still be in an ice age without global warming?

 

No, we are currently in an interglacial or warming period, and we have been for 20,000 years or so, which is long before humans disrupted the natural C02 balance in the atmosphere. The pre-historical oscillations in temperature and C02 that we can see in the ice core records---ice ages and warming periods---are due to small deviations in the orbit of the earth around the sun call Milankovitch cycles.

[Fisher15]

Tell me more about the C02 disruption.

[Lexinverts]

Tell me more about the C02 disruption.

 

Why certainly.

 

Below is a graph that shows increasing C02 levels for the past 40 yrs from 4 different monitoring stations around the world.

 

 

Next is a graph of pre-historical C02 levels from ice core data, along with current levels superimposed on the graph. You can see how much higher atmospheric C02 is relative to anything in the last 800,000 years on this graph, but we actually have data going back 1 million years.

 

 

 

When I say that humans have "disrupted" the natural C02 cycle I mean that we have brought levels up far above anything that is observed as part of the pre-historical cycle. Does that make sense?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lexinverts

[Fisher15]

And they still can't predict anything with accuracy.

[Fisher15]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mEICI4XUAU

[Lexinverts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mEICI4XUAU

 

Of course, this guy is not a climate scientist, and is 87 years old. He is a novice when it comes to climate science, and he didn't start his contrarian effort until he was 79, and long retired from research. But, he technically makes up part of the 8% of all scientists (not just climate scientists) that do not believe in the science behind climate change.

 

http://time.com/4051338/climate-change-scientists/

 

Here is a detailed response to Igor's claims in the video:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lexinverts

[Fisher15]

Can you show me the data for the 97% claim?  Does science require a consensus or data?

[Lexinverts]

Can you show me the data for the 97% claim?  Does science require a consensus or data?

 

I already did, Fish. Scroll to the top of the page.