I came across this and thought it might make for some interesting discussion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5053812.stm
Reefs adapting to warming ocean temps?
- Thread starter skylsdale
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
shallowreef
Well-known member
Cool Article!
Very nice link. SR nice to see another Illini here. My parents are out by you.
Here is my beef: We were all taught in grade school earth science, that the great lakes were made by glaciers. Glaciers do not grow feet and walk off after they've done their bidness. Something had to fill these rather large depressions that were cause by the floes. Ah, can we all say together class, global warming is a normal process.... Every million years or so the great mother fine tunes herself and certain conditions that we have grown accustomed too change? We get scientists who have an agenda and they start skewing things to fit their theories. Global warming caused the massive melt and thus created the largest bodies of fresh water anywhere. So, when Al Gore tells you we are really fubaring the earth....remember, he also thinks he invented the internet and won the election. Peace brothers and sisters, Mike.
Here is my beef: We were all taught in grade school earth science, that the great lakes were made by glaciers. Glaciers do not grow feet and walk off after they've done their bidness. Something had to fill these rather large depressions that were cause by the floes. Ah, can we all say together class, global warming is a normal process.... Every million years or so the great mother fine tunes herself and certain conditions that we have grown accustomed too change? We get scientists who have an agenda and they start skewing things to fit their theories. Global warming caused the massive melt and thus created the largest bodies of fresh water anywhere. So, when Al Gore tells you we are really fubaring the earth....remember, he also thinks he invented the internet and won the election. Peace brothers and sisters, Mike.
ScottT1980
Well-known member
I'll bite...but again, everything to this point is an opinion.
In all the *peer-reviewed* scientific publications observing the effects of global warming, it has yet to be discredited and to my knowledge, most believe that global warming is a legitamite phenomenon perpetuated by human endeavors. The only data that contradicts this, again, to my knowledge, has been produced by the various energy companies' own R&D people. So I ask, who really has an agenda? This information was reported in Science or Nature in the past couple of weeks, and was discussed in Terry Gross's interview with Al Gore (but, NPR, Science, and Nature all too perhaps have an agenda).
Al Gore has an agenda (and his hypocracy was shown), no doubt. Oil comapines likewise have an agenda. However, scientists, while containing their own biases, I find to be the most reliable source of information regarding global warming. In fact, what do the scientists really have to gain by bringing into light the issues of the human contribution to global warming? Another grant? I guess I just don't see your point re: the conspiracy theory with the scientific community. However, I also don't believe in the "doom-and-gloom" scenario that some scientists forsee.
So perhaps it is semantics? Global warming is a normal process, no? However, altering this "normal process" by human actions (i.e. speeding up) could prove to be more destructive to the human race.
Just some thoughts. I am rcounting the above information from memory, so if you want to double check me please do.
Take er easy
Scott T.
In all the *peer-reviewed* scientific publications observing the effects of global warming, it has yet to be discredited and to my knowledge, most believe that global warming is a legitamite phenomenon perpetuated by human endeavors. The only data that contradicts this, again, to my knowledge, has been produced by the various energy companies' own R&D people. So I ask, who really has an agenda? This information was reported in Science or Nature in the past couple of weeks, and was discussed in Terry Gross's interview with Al Gore (but, NPR, Science, and Nature all too perhaps have an agenda).
Al Gore has an agenda (and his hypocracy was shown), no doubt. Oil comapines likewise have an agenda. However, scientists, while containing their own biases, I find to be the most reliable source of information regarding global warming. In fact, what do the scientists really have to gain by bringing into light the issues of the human contribution to global warming? Another grant? I guess I just don't see your point re: the conspiracy theory with the scientific community. However, I also don't believe in the "doom-and-gloom" scenario that some scientists forsee.
So perhaps it is semantics? Global warming is a normal process, no? However, altering this "normal process" by human actions (i.e. speeding up) could prove to be more destructive to the human race.
Just some thoughts. I am rcounting the above information from memory, so if you want to double check me please do.
Take er easy
Scott T.
Excellent points Scott. However, since homo sapien sapien was not even a pipe dream when the GL's were formed, we will never really know how the weather patterns were back then. It sounds plausible that global warming did in fact occur in some form. Just like you mention, I'm not pulling this from thin air but the EPA contends that the "Greenhouse effect" is a natural process, though we are not helping the matter. I submit that through our efforts as an occupant of earth we have been more destructive once it comes to species extinction, destruction of natural habitat and the likes, that global warming, within moderation actually sustains life on earth. Can we practice better habits once it comes to energy use and pollution control? Absolutely. Yet, these have gotten better then they were through the advent of the industrial revolution till the later half of the 20th century. We are our own worst enemy. Science has developed ways for us to live longer. While not a bad thing at first glance has A. raised the population B. forced governments to shift money out of "lesser essential" grants and programs, to be used in subsidizing social programs that are sorely needed by the elder, infirmed and poor. C. Development of natural habitat for housing. I would love to see alternative fuel sources become the norm. Less dependence on fossil fuel based energy. Overpopulation of the earth is what will lead to our eventual demise, not an overall increase of global temp by a degree or two. I was just venting, tend to do that after I do 8 hours as a public servant. Peace, Mike.
Anthony Calfo
Well-known member
and playing devil's advocate I will say too (sadly) that I have found no higher percentage of academics IMO that are greatly inspiring than well-read/experienced hobbyists (regarding reef animal husbandry). Sad but true.
I for one have trouble swallowing the dooom and gloom papers from scientists that love to stir the pot and MUST stir the pot in some/many cases to maintain their tenure (getting published) to keep their jobs. Do consider that few of these researchers would continue to get monies and grants to revisit tropical reefs if they came home year after year and said, "nope... you don't need me. Everything looks fine!)
Also, they are always and most only studying the reefs that are near enough to airports, dive shops that you can get fear, boats, O2, etc from. Read: near massive populations of people! So yes, indeed there are many badly damaged reefs near the high population areas that these scientists fly to. But what about the other 1000 islands in the Indonesian chain that are too far or too inconvenient to explore? What about the submerged reefs in locales that are inaccessible. Undiscovered reefs? Like the enormous barrier reef (?!?!?) that they recently "discovered" on the Western side of Australia?
Puh-lease.
About all we can admit to at this point is the obvious... the reefs near high population densities are badly stressed. Just biotopes impinged by/like smog in the Rockies... drinking water along the Missippi, etc.
Dive some seriously remote reefs and see just how untouched and magnificent they still are Just be prepared to rough it on accomodations to get and stay there. No Club Med
I for one have trouble swallowing the dooom and gloom papers from scientists that love to stir the pot and MUST stir the pot in some/many cases to maintain their tenure (getting published) to keep their jobs. Do consider that few of these researchers would continue to get monies and grants to revisit tropical reefs if they came home year after year and said, "nope... you don't need me. Everything looks fine!)
Also, they are always and most only studying the reefs that are near enough to airports, dive shops that you can get fear, boats, O2, etc from. Read: near massive populations of people! So yes, indeed there are many badly damaged reefs near the high population areas that these scientists fly to. But what about the other 1000 islands in the Indonesian chain that are too far or too inconvenient to explore? What about the submerged reefs in locales that are inaccessible. Undiscovered reefs? Like the enormous barrier reef (?!?!?) that they recently "discovered" on the Western side of Australia?
Puh-lease.
About all we can admit to at this point is the obvious... the reefs near high population densities are badly stressed. Just biotopes impinged by/like smog in the Rockies... drinking water along the Missippi, etc.
Dive some seriously remote reefs and see just how untouched and magnificent they still are
Just be prepared to rough it on accomodations to get and stay there. No Club Med Similar threads
