Global warming killing corals

[westwall]

International marine scientists say the worst coral bleaching in more than a decade has struck reefs across the South-East Asian and Indian oceans in recent months.

They say that the coral death could be the most damaging bleaching event ever recorded.

It has hit the area known as the Coral Triangle, which has more than 500 coral species making it the richest marine biodiversity zone on the planet.

But over the past six months, there have been some significant changes.

Andrew Baird, from the ARC Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, says the bleaching is far-reaching.

"A lot of reports have come in from the Andaman Sea - so Thailand down [to] Singapore, Malaysia - the scale is huge," he said.

"It probably extends from the Western Indian Ocean, right across into the Coral Triangle and also there's bleaching in the Philippines and it's starting to get hot in the Pacific.

"So it looks like this event will be as big as the last global bleaching event which was 1998."

Dr Baird has been working in Aceh on the boundary of the Coral Triangle. He says the impact there has been severe.

"What we've seen there is a bleaching event that was caused by hot water back in May and what we've documented is about 80 per cent of the Acropora, which is typically the most predominant coral species... are dead," he said.

Coral bleaching event 'worst since 1998' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Oh boy are these the same "experts" who claimed the Maldives would be under water by now? Why yes they are! With a track record like that we have nothing to be concerned about.

Who claimed the Maldives would be under water by now? Once again, you just seem to be making things up. Because you believe AGW proponents are doing it, do you feel that gives you the green light to do the same?

Once again you reveal either your extraordinary willful ignorance or complete lack of honesty, I will let you choose which one it is.

Why the Maldives aren't sinking | The Spectator

American Thinker: Sinking Islands or Stinking Islands?

Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise | Watts Up With That?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jOENwyklg[/ame]

Maldives? president all wet on sea level - FP Comment

I can go on and on and on. If you type maldives into any search engine you will find the typical alarmist claptrap warning about the impending doom of the Maldives. It just simply is not true, even though a whole host of "experts" will tell you it is so so they can take your money away from you.

 

[konradv]

I see things about how they're sinking, not how they should be gone by now. I was calling you on your hyperbole. Of course everyone knows they're disappearring and I'm not impressed with your "they're not sinking fast enough" red-herring.

 

[Old Rocks]

What causes Acid Rain?

Are there natural causes as well as manmade?

Yes, any volcanic eruption will create thousands of tons of acid rain. For almost every type of pollution that man causes there is a natural analog.

So that gives us the right to put orders of magnitude more pollution into the sky and water than nature? Very wonderful Conservative morals, that.

 

[westwall]

What causes Acid Rain?

Are there natural causes as well as manmade?

Yes, any volcanic eruption will create thousands of tons of acid rain. For almost every type of pollution that man causes there is a natural analog.

So that gives us the right to put orders of magnitude more pollution into the sky and water than nature? Very wonderful Conservative morals, that.

And please show me where I said that olfraud? The simple fact remains though that CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how much you scientific illiterates would have the world believe. CO2 is the gas of life. Without it there is no life...period. It is just as important to plants as O2 is to us.

 

[konradv]

Yes, any volcanic eruption will create thousands of tons of acid rain. For almost every type of pollution that man causes there is a natural analog.

So that gives us the right to put orders of magnitude more pollution into the sky and water than nature? Very wonderful Conservative morals, that.

And please show me where I said that olfraud? The simple fact remains though that CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how much you scientific illiterates would have the world believe. CO2 is the gas of life. Without it there is no life...period. It is just as important to plants as O2 is to us.

Water is important to us too, but that doesn't mean you can't have too much. Just ask the people of NOLA! You seem to be the scientific illiterate. Everyone knows CO2 is important, but no one suggests we eliminate it entirely. That's just denier hyperbole, intended to distract, rather than elucidate.

 

[westwall]

So that gives us the right to put orders of magnitude more pollution into the sky and water than nature? Very wonderful Conservative morals, that.

And please show me where I said that olfraud? The simple fact remains though that CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how much you scientific illiterates would have the world believe. CO2 is the gas of life. Without it there is no life...period. It is just as important to plants as O2 is to us.

Water is important to us too, but that doesn't mean you can't have too much. Just ask the people of NOLA! You seem to be the scientific illiterate. Everyone knows CO2 is important, but no one suggests we eliminate it entirely. That's just denier hyperbole, intended to distract, rather than elucidate.

If everyone knows it's so important why did the EPA classify it as a pollutant?

 

[konradv]

And please show me where I said that olfraud? The simple fact remains though that CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how much you scientific illiterates would have the world believe. CO2 is the gas of life. Without it there is no life...period. It is just as important to plants as O2 is to us.

Water is important to us too, but that doesn't mean you can't have too much. Just ask the people of NOLA! You seem to be the scientific illiterate. Everyone knows CO2 is important, but no one suggests we eliminate it entirely. That's just denier hyperbole, intended to distract, rather than elucidate.

If everyone knows it's so important why did the EPA classify it as a pollutant?

It's a matter of degree. Water filling up my bath tub, good. Water coming up the stairs to the second floor of my house, bad. You're just trying to fool the unsophisticated into thinking that the goal is to eliminate all CO2. I can't put much stock in your saying scientists are dishonest, when you can't be honest, yourself!

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes has never been honest. He has used every half truth and outright lie out there to attempt to denigrate people in the scientific community, all the while claiming to be part of that community.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes has never been honest. He has used every half truth and outright lie out there to attempt to denigrate people in the scientific community, all the while claiming to be part of that community.

Your whole life is a lie. I have challenged you many times to produce one lie I have ever told. You have never been able to rise to the challenge, of course I can present MANY times you have told untruths but why bother...you no longer matter.

 

[westwall]

Water is important to us too, but that doesn't mean you can't have too much. Just ask the people of NOLA! You seem to be the scientific illiterate. Everyone knows CO2 is important, but no one suggests we eliminate it entirely. That's just denier hyperbole, intended to distract, rather than elucidate.

If everyone knows it's so important why did the EPA classify it as a pollutant?

It's a matter of degree. Water filling up my bath tub, good. Water coming up the stairs to the second floor of my house, bad. You're just trying to fool the unsophisticated into thinking that the goal is to eliminate all CO2. I can't put much stock in your saying scientists are dishonest, when you can't be honest, yourself!

Here is a list of the original EPA pollutants, please show me one area of commonality between any chemical compound on theis list and CO2.
Original list of hazardous air pollutants | Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site | US EPA

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes has never been honest. He has used every half truth and outright lie out there to attempt to denigrate people in the scientific community, all the while claiming to be part of that community.

Your whole life is a lie. I have challenged you many times to produce one lie I have ever told. You have never been able to rise to the challenge, of course I can present MANY times you have told untruths but why bother...you no longer matter.

LOL. Then why do you always answer?

You had best face the facts, Walleyes, I have been presenting article after article from real scientists and scientific sources. And you have been presenting nonsense from Watts and political rags.



Will global warming cause a mass extinction event? BraveNewClimate

Human are transforming the global environmental. Great swathes of temperate forest in Europe, Asia and North America have been cleared over the past few centuries for agriculture, timber and urban development. Tropical forests are now on the front line. Human-assisted species invasions of pests, competitors and predators are rising exponentially, and over-exploitation of fisheries, and forest animals for bush meat, to the point of collapse, continues to be the rule rather than the exception.

Driving this has been a six-fold expansion of the human population since 1800 and a 50-fold increase in the size of the global economy. The great modern human enterprise was built on exploitation of the natural environment. Today, up to 83% of the Earth’s land area is under direct human influence and we entirely dominate 36% of the bioproductive surface. Up to half the world’s freshwater runoff is now captured for human use. More nitrogen is now converted into reactive forms by industry than all by all the planet’s natural processes and our industrial and agricultural processes are causing a continual build-up of long-lived greenhouse gases to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years and possibly much longer.

Clearly, this planet-wide domination by human society will have implications for biological diversity. Indeed, a recent review on the topic, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (an environmental report of similar scale to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports), drew some bleak conclusions – 60% of the world’s ecosystems are now degraded and the extinction rate is now 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time. For instance, a study I conducted in 2003 showed that up to 42% of species in the Southeast Asian region could be consigned to extinction by the year 2100 due to deforestation and habitat fragmentation alone.

 

[Meister]

The sky is falling...The sky is falling

 

[Old Rocks]

A beautifully erudite answer, Meister, thank you.

 

[elvis]

A beautifully erudite answer, Meister, thank you.

You tell him, Chicken Little.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes has never been honest. He has used every half truth and outright lie out there to attempt to denigrate people in the scientific community, all the while claiming to be part of that community.

Your whole life is a lie. I have challenged you many times to produce one lie I have ever told. You have never been able to rise to the challenge, of course I can present MANY times you have told untruths but why bother...you no longer matter.

LOL. Then why do you always answer?

You had best face the facts, Walleyes, I have been presenting article after article from real scientists and scientific sources. And you have been presenting nonsense from Watts and political rags.



Will global warming cause a mass extinction event? BraveNewClimate

Human are transforming the global environmental. Great swathes of temperate forest in Europe, Asia and North America have been cleared over the past few centuries for agriculture, timber and urban development. Tropical forests are now on the front line. Human-assisted species invasions of pests, competitors and predators are rising exponentially, and over-exploitation of fisheries, and forest animals for bush meat, to the point of collapse, continues to be the rule rather than the exception.

Driving this has been a six-fold expansion of the human population since 1800 and a 50-fold increase in the size of the global economy. The great modern human enterprise was built on exploitation of the natural environment. Today, up to 83% of the Earth’s land area is under direct human influence and we entirely dominate 36% of the bioproductive surface. Up to half the world’s freshwater runoff is now captured for human use. More nitrogen is now converted into reactive forms by industry than all by all the planet’s natural processes and our industrial and agricultural processes are causing a continual build-up of long-lived greenhouse gases to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years and possibly much longer.

Clearly, this planet-wide domination by human society will have implications for biological diversity. Indeed, a recent review on the topic, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (an environmental report of similar scale to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports), drew some bleak conclusions – 60% of the world’s ecosystems are now degraded and the extinction rate is now 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time. For instance, a study I conducted in 2003 showed that up to 42% of species in the Southeast Asian region could be consigned to extinction by the year 2100 due to deforestation and habitat fragmentation alone.

Because while you certainly don't matter there are people who actually wish to learn. I am addressing them and every time you lie I win. Every time you call people names and post your drivel I win. So thank you!

I love how you consistently whine when we post something from a blog and then here you are posting from a exceptionally biased alarmist blog You crack me up. Now to your
link, I highlighted the pertinent sentences for easy viewing. You do realize (well actually you probably don't) that when you leave out oh I don't know...most of the important information about how critters live and only use that which supports your biased opinion...well...you know it's pretty much useless. And when you ignore evidence from the fossil record...well, once again it's pretty much useless.

That is not science, that is the very definition of propaganda and only true believers actually give it any creedence. Certainly no scientist would. So if this is the kind or "evidence" you think is compelling...well, all I can say is thank you...

"Global warming to date has certainly affected species’ geographical distributional ranges and the timing of breeding, migration, flowering, and so on. But extrapolating these observed impacts to predictions of future extinction risk is challenging. The most well known study to date, by a team from the UK, estimated that 18 and 35% of plant and animal species will be committed to extinction by 2050 due to climate change. This study, which used a simple approach of estimating changes in species geographical ranges after fitting to current bioclimatic conditions, caused a flurry of debate. Some argued that it was overly optimistic or too uncertain because it left out most ecological detail, while others said it was possibly overly pessimistic, based on what we know from species responses and apparent resilience to previous climate change in the fossil record – see below."