Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16
Send Topic Print
Climate Change Debate (Read 26252 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #60 - Aug 21st, 2008 at 3:22pm
 
pjb05 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2008 at 9:32am:
I would point out though that everyone has a stake in the economy. Those of lefty-green bent seem to forget (or don't care) that the ordinary worker cops it in the neck first when the economy turns pear shaped.


Well since you prefer to attach dollar signs, how much is the Great Barrier Reef worth to the Australian Economy?

The figures I've seen suggests that the Great Barrier Reef alone is worth about $5.8 billion a year in associated tourist dollars and sustains the equivalent of 63,000 full-time jobs.


Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #61 - Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:24pm
 
No. I don't prefer to attach a dollar sign - I have a concern for human welfare. You know that boring stuff like having a job, putting a roof over your head etc.

I take it you are implying that if Australia doesn't curtail our emissions the GBR will disappear. Firstly if your subscribe to the AGW theory its thw World's emissions that matter (of which we contribute 1.5%).  Secondly its by no means certain that warming of a few degrees will actually harm the reef.

PS those tourist dollars will go anyway if some get their way as cheap air travel is a significant source of CO2 emissions.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #62 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 10:28am
 
It's not exactly some outrageous theory that nobody can agree upon, PB.

The main issues are ocean acidification when it comes to the reef. It will be the combination of the increase in global temperatures peaking around 2030 and ocean acidification which reduces calcification in shallow water tropical corals. There are of course natural cycles superimposed on the anthropogenic warming, and failing a major stratospheric volcano occurring around 2030, that will be the time that reef systems will start to fail due to this 'double whammy' effect.

Quote:
Firstly if your subscribe to the AGW theory its thw World's emissions that matter (of which we contribute 1.5%).  


The 1.5% is a total strawman. The world's CO2 emissions have been in balance for millions of years. The fact that atmospheric CO2 have been  building inexorably since the beginning of Industrialisation is due almost entirely to anthropogenic factors, which include the changes in tropical land use, the burning of fossil fuels and the production of cement. Those are the major factors concerned.

It's not due to changes in solar activity. It's not due to volcanoes, so why deny the inescapable conclusion?

Just because air transport is largely non sustainable today does not mean that it will continue to be non sustainable.

Times change. They always have done. The technology of 2050 will be different to that of today.  The factors that will drive the economy in the future will be different to those of today.

We're not talking about sudden changes either. It's sudden change that will cause downturns in the economy.

It doesn't matter what skeptics believe or say. The momentum is there. Solar Thermal Energy and Geothermal energy are already big business in the US, and they will be equally big in Australia.

Solar Themal is already more cost effective than natural gas based power generation, so why would you subsidise inefficient technology that is about to become obsolete anyway?

As far as jobs are concerned. People can be retrained. There is currently a skills shortage in Australia, and that's not going to end any time soon.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 22nd, 2008 at 10:34am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #63 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 10:33am
 
pjb05 wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:24pm:
I take it you are implying that if Australia doesn't curtail our emissions the GBR will disappear.


Even my 14 year old nephew realises that it's a global issue. Substitute 'the world' for "Australia' and you're on the ball.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #64 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 12:25pm
 
muso wrote on Aug 22nd, 2008 at 10:28am:
It's not exactly some outrageous theory that nobody can agree upon, PB.

The main issues are ocean acidification when it comes to the reef. It will be the combination of the increase in global temperatures peaking around 2030 and ocean acidification which reduces calcification in shallow water tropical corals. There are of course natural cycles superimposed on the anthropogenic warming, and failing a major stratospheric volcano occurring around 2030, that will be the time that reef systems will start to fail due to this 'double whammy' effect.



Will they. It's nice to be so sure of everything. The evidence is that corals have been increasing their calcification rates over the past 50 years.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #65 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 6:19pm
 
Here's some more on coral reefs. Yes I know it comes from a sceptics site and you will tell me that it is funded by profit crazy fossil fuel companies. But it refers to a published peer reviewed study on the GBR:

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science.org.), however, has drawn attention to a study by Lough and Barnes, published in 2000 in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, that assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized corals of Australias Great Barrier Reef. It found that increasing CO2 would increase, not decrease, the calcification of coral reefs. Their study notes that, "This increase of ~4% in calcification rate conflicts with the estimated decrease in coral calcification rate of 6-14% over the same time period suggested by Kleypas et al. (1999) as a response to changes in ocean chemistry."


The Center comments, "In light of these real-world empirical-based calculations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world's climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes thus conclude that coral calcification rates may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change.  And they are likely to increase even more, we would add, if the air's CO2 content and temperature continue to rise in the years ahead."



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #66 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 6:21pm
 
Did it take acidification into account?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
imperial
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 268
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #67 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 6:23pm
 
Quote:
Here's some more on coral reefs. Yes I know it comes from a sceptics site and you will tell me that it is funded by profit crazy fossil fuel companies. But it refers to a published peer reviewed study on the GBR:


anything that is not of mainstream will attract this sort of accusation. alternate views are fine by me..
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #68 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 6:32pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2008 at 6:21pm:
Did it take acidification into account?


I'd say so seeing it refered to increased CO2 levels and changes in ocean chemistry.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #69 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 8:00pm
 
Here's some more:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/calcification.php

Another major blow to the Kleypas et al. model was provided by the work of Lough and Barnes (2000), who assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized massive colonies of Porites corals obtained from 29 reef sites located along the length, and across the breadth, of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR), which data spanned a latitudinal range of approximately 9° and an annual average sea surface temperature (SST) range of 25-27°C.  To these data they added other published data from the Hawaiian Archipelago (Grigg, 1981, 1997) and Phuket, Thailand (Scoffin et al., 1992), thereby extending the latitudinal range of the expanded data set to 20° and the annual average SST range to 23-29°C.

This analysis revealed that the GBR calcification data were linearly related to the average annual SST data, such that "a 1°C rise in average annual SST increased average annual calcification by 0.39 g cm-2 year-1."  Results were much the same for the extended data set; Lough and Barnes report that "the regression equation [calcification = 0.33(SST) - 7.07] explained 83.6% of the variance in average annual calcification (F = 213.59, p less than 0.00)," noting that "this equation provides for a change in calcification rate of 0.33 g cm-2 year-1 for each 1°C change in average annual SST."

With respect to the significance of their findings, Lough and Barnes say they "allow assessment of possible impacts of global climate change on coral reef ecosystems," and between the two 50-year periods 1780-1829 and 1930-1979, they calculate a calcification increase of 0.06 g cm-2 year-1, noting that "this increase of ~4% in calcification rate conflicts with the estimated decrease in coral calcification rate of 6-14% over the same time period suggested by Kleypas et al. (1999) as a response to changes in ocean chemistry."  Even more stunning is their observation that between the two 20-year periods 1903-1922 and 1979-1998, "the SST-associated increase in calcification is estimated to be less than 5% in the northern GBR, ~12% in the central GBR, ~20% in the southern GBR and to increase dramatically (up to ~50%) to the south of the GBR."

In light of these real-world observations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world's climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes concluded that coral calcification rates "may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change."  But in spite this compelling evidence, as well as the similar findings of others, claims of impending coral doom caused by rising air temperatures and CO2 concentrations have continued to rear their ugly heads ... on a regular basis ... and in the usual places.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 27th, 2008 at 6:56pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #70 - Aug 22nd, 2008 at 9:38pm
 
How do they get the historical calcification rates?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #71 - Aug 23rd, 2008 at 6:34pm
 
Not sure FD, you would have to look at the original paper.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #72 - Aug 27th, 2008 at 3:55pm
 
pjb05 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2008 at 6:19pm:
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science.org.), however, has drawn attention....


More slight of hand from Idso and Idso
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxid...

Sorry, I don't have much free time to post here these days, but some of the commentary on that site  is quite laughable. Of course the calification process has a biological basis, but calcification should be considered from an empirical viewpoint, not just the secretion of aragonite by marine organisms. We all know that warmer conditions are condusive to increased calcification, but the crux of the problem is the acidity. It doesn't matter how quickly these clever little polyps can secrete the stuff, the overall determining factor is the pKa of the bicarbonate/carbonate system in seawater. If the stuff is going to simply dissolve away then the increased activity is to no avail.

It's interesting that they should attack an obscure early paper on the subject published in 2000, and don't go after the paper that made the frontispiece of Nature late last year.


Well you can believe me, or you can enjoy watching CO2 Science's new DVD "contrasting the fantasy world of Al Gore and James Hansen with the factual findings of real-world science". Go on - you know you want to buy it. It's only $20 - a small price for increasing your calcitrant rate. 

There have been a large number of papers published since that paper in 2000.

Have to go.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #73 - Aug 27th, 2008 at 4:37pm
 
So what are you saying by putting up the Source Watch on Idso and Idso - have they been bought off by Exon? Craig Idso seems to be rather well qualified in the field:


Biographical information
A biographical note states that Craig Idso "received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. Dr. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges."[1]

It states that Idso was "Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri and is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi."[1]

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.
Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #74 - Aug 27th, 2008 at 5:39pm
 
LOL, thanks Muso. You always have to be cautious about 'scientists' who go after people like Gore and Hansen rather than their peers, then try to pretend they are being objective or contributing to science. Maybe the 2000 paper was the first one they came across. Or maybe it was a deliberate deception.

So effectively they did not take acidification into account, because they were looking at changes to the rate at which polyps lay down structure and ignoring the rate at which it is dissolved?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16
Send Topic Print