Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

The link indicates that table coral (Acropora) survives in Pacific waters around Midway and in the Red Sea.

Again, Acropora is a genus with more than a hundred species. And your link in the original post doesn't indicate that at all. Perhaps you mixed up sources.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Don't insist. It's mass.
You look like an irreflexive poster.

The source at the link calls it "weight". It doesn't matter, since the ratio of total weight of atmospheric CO2 to weight of CO2 emission will be the same as the ratio of atmospheric CO2 mass to emission mass. That gives us years to double, since weight or mass units cancel and we're left with units of time. Go read some post-modern literary criticism. I bet you're good at it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Again, Acropora is a genus with more than a hundred species. And your link in the original post doesn't indicate that at all. Perhaps you mixed up sources.

The link showed the range of Acropora hyacinthus, the table coral. Acropora hyacinthus

Distribution:

• Aldabra [details]
• Chagos [details]
• East Africa [details]
• Indo-West Pacific [details]
• Kenya [details]
• Madagascar [details]
• Mauritius [details]
• Mozambique (from synonym) [details] [view taxon]
• Red Sea [details]
• Reunion [details]
• Rodriguez [details]
• Seychelles [details]
• Somalia [details]
• South Africa (country) [details]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And you are still ignoring the science.

And you're ignoring direct evidence. Corals thrive in waters considerably warmer than the current tropical Pacific surface average.

 

[Reality Check]

And you're ignoring direct evidence. Corals thrive in waters considerably warmer than the current tropical Pacific surface average.

Actually you're ignoring direct evidence. Coral reefs are dying off: How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching

On a world scale coral reefs are in decline. Over the last 30-40 years 80% of coral in the Caribbean have been destroyed and 50% in Indonesia and the Pacific. Bleaching associated with the 1982 -1983 El-Nino killed over 95% of coral in the Galapagos Islands and the 1997-1998 El-Nino alone wiped out 16% of all coral on the planet. Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.

P.S.

Corals get around (as their reproductive strategy would suggest). Here.

Dead corals do not get around because they are ... dead!
It is possible that planula can arrive on a dead coral reef from distant sources. These will of course die for the same reason that the existing coral died.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The source at the link calls it "weight". It doesn't matter, since the ratio of total weight of atmospheric CO2 to weight of CO2 emission will be the same as the ratio of atmospheric CO2 mass to emission mass. That gives us years to double, since weight or mass units cancel and we're left with units of time. Go read some post-modern literary criticism. I bet you're good at it.

Sterile yada yada as usual, Malcolm. The ratio of both masses is not equal to the ratio of both weights. The figures may be pretty similar up to a point, but the problem is that weight implies a compromise of doing some estimations and operations that you didn't even notice.

In your ignorance you probably think this it to be a formality. In the end this exposes that you constantly throw irreflexive, uninformed and uneducated opinions and fabricated pieces of information.

 

[aleCcowaN]

And you're ignoring direct evidence. Corals thrive in waters considerably warmer than the current tropical Pacific surface average.

You continue the same litany. You're simply saying: "Mammals thrive in lands considerably warmer than the current tropical South America average.", that is, something half way a platitude and nothingness.

Of course, by your Duracell bunny stunt, you let aside the whole problem of acidification. Warming by CO2 escalation implies ocean acidification. You had a lot of lines of argumentation about that abandoned and unanswered from the previous hundreds of posts.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The link indicates that table coral (Acropora) survives in Pacific waters around Midway and in the Red Sea.

The link showed the range of Acropora hyacinthus, the table coral. Acropora hyacinthus

That species is listed as being around Johnston Atoll, not Midway, besides you forgot to tell it is a "near threatened" species.

It's also evident that you don't understand that today a warm Red Sea has not the carbonate ion content that a world with oceans as warm as the Red Sea today will have in a foreseeable future.

 

[CapelDodger]

The link indicates that table coral (Acropora) survives in Pacific waters around Midway and in the Red Sea.

I stand corrected, Acropora hyacinthus does indeed have a very wide range. It comes with its own problems ("However, the shade the plates cast means that few other corals can live underneath a table coral") but that's life.

On the same page (http://oceana.org/en/explore/marine-wildlife/table-coral) I also notice this :

'Charlie Veron and Table Coral

Born in Sydney, Australia, in 1945, Charlie Veron has been dubbed the “King of Coral” for his lifelong work on coral reefs. He has formally named and described over 100 new coral species, including many from the genus Acropora. His three-volume book Corals of the World is a classic text.'

One naturally wonders what his opinion is on this matter.

The end for coral reefs?
by Charlie Veron
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/02/16/3140465.htm

"You may well feel that dire predictions about anything almost always turn out to be exaggerations. You may think there may be something in it to worry about, but it won't be as bad as doomsayers like me are predicting."

Does that speak to you?

"Yet here I am today, humbled to have spent the most productive scientific years of my life around the rich wonders of the underwater world, and utterly convinced that they will not be there for our children's children to enjoy unless we drastically change our priorities and the way we live."

And he says that despite knowing about table corals.

"A decade ago, my increasing concern for the plight of reefs in the face of global temperature changes led me to start researching the effects of climate change on reefs, drawing on my experience in reef science, evolution, biodiversity, genetics, and conservation, as well as my profound interests in geology, palaeontology, and oceanography, not to mention the challenging task of understanding the climate science, geochemical processes, and ocean chemistry.

When I started researching my book, A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End (Harvard, 2008), I knew that climate change was likely to have serious consequences for coral reefs. But the big picture that gradually emerged from my integration of these disparate disciplines left me shocked to the core."

Perhaps you could give him the benefit of your insights and put his mind at rest? I'm sure they'd be a valuable addition to his experience in reef science, evolution, biodiversity, genetics, and conservation.

"In a long period of deep personal anguish, I turned to specialists in many different fields of science to find anything that might suggest a fault in my own conclusions."

Understandable. It's not as if anybody wants this to be true, and it does sound a bit apocalyptic.

"But in this quest I was depressingly unsuccessful. The bottom line remains: Science argues that coral reefs can indeed be utterly trashed in the lifetime of today's children. That certainty is what motivates me to spread this message as clearly, and accurately, as I can."

The whole thing's worth reading, especially forthose who lack any clue as to what the problems are.

 

[CapelDodger]

That species is listed as being around Johnston Atoll, not Midway, besides you forgot to tell it is a "near threatened" species.

The distribution map goes nowhere near that far north. It would have been a lucky day for the Imperial Japanese Navy if they'd made the same mix-up in '42.

"It's also evident that you don't understand that today a warm Red Sea has not the carbonate ion content that a world with oceans as warm as the Red Sea today will have in a foreseeable future.

A telling point.

Charlie Veron again :

"In my book, I examined the events that led up to each of the five mass extinctions in Earth's history. Corals offer a unique insight into the past, both because they have been around for most of the history of life on Earth and also because they readily fossilise. I examine the theories offered to explain these global extinctions and find that ocean acidification is the only explanation which fits the evidence well. Ocean acidification has played a major part in the marine devastations which took place in those ancient times.

A particularly galling aspect of the past four mass extinction events (very little is known about the first) is that, following them, reefs disappeared — not just for a few tens of thousands of years, but for millions of years — long after adverse climatic conditions may have returned to benign levels. One of the characteristics of acidification is that while it can be initiated by high CO2 levels over relatively short periods, there are no short-term geochemical fixes to reverse the process. Reversal can take place only through the immensely slow weathering and dissolution processes of geological time, processes that take hundreds of thousands to millions of years."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Sterile yada yada as usual, Malcolm. The ratio of both masses is not equal to the ratio of both weights. The figures may be pretty similar up to a point, but the problem is that weight implies a compromise of doing some estimations and operations that you didn't even notice.

In your ignorance you probably think this it to be a formality. In the end this exposes that you constantly throw irreflexive, uninformed and uneducated opinions and fabricated pieces of information.

Sterile post-modern yada yada as usual from Alex.

Anyone else here agree with this? Alec asserts:

NOT[weight (x)/weight =mass(x)/mass].

Sorry, this is false. Weight is the force that a mass exerts in a gravitational field (or an accelerated reference frame). If you assess this force for all your x and y in the same field (e.g., on Earth), weight (x)/weight = mass(x)/mass since the only variables are x and y. All units cancel. All physical constants cancel. In your ignorance you probably think this it to be a formality. It isn't.

 

[CapelDodger]

Sterile post-modern yada yada as usual from Alex.

Anyone else here agree with this?

Yes.

Alec asserts:

NOT[weight (x)/weight =mass(x)/mass].

Sorry, this is false. Weight is the force that a mass exerts in a gravitational field (or an accelerated reference frame). If you assess this force for all your x and y in the same field (e.g., on Earth), weight (x)/weight = mass(x)/mass since the only variables are x and y. All units cancel. All physical constants cancel. In your ignorance you probably think this it to be a formality. It isn't.

If weight/weight is equal to mass/mass why did you insist that "it's weight"? Pure reflex?

You speak of the gravitational field "on Earth", but one of those things you didn't even notice is that the gravitational field varies with height. To avoid that problem go with mass.

Frankly I can't see what the point is. Atmospheric CO₂ has gone up by 40% and is rising by about 2ppm a year. It really doesn't matter what it weighs.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The distribution map goes nowhere near that far north. It would have been a lucky day for the Imperial Japanese Navy if they'd made the same mix-up in '42. A telling point.

It definitely goes as far north as French Frigate Shoals. Here. I might be wrong about Midway (was going from recollection of a photograph) and am surprised since I have not seen any around Oahu and the'yre not common around Hawaii island. That linked distribution has a tongue of occurance (I suppose it's warm water) that extends East from coastal Asia into the northern Pacific.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually you're ignoring direct evidence. Coral reefs are dying off: How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching

Next you'll be telling us it's not all about models .

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes. If weight/weight is equal to mass/mass why did you insist that "it's weight"? Pure reflex?

No. I rebutted a mistaken objection.

You speak of the gravitational field "on Earth", but one of those things you didn't even notice is that the gravitational field varies with height. To avoid that problem go with mass.

I noticed that that doesn't make a difference to the point. Most of the atmosphere is within a few miles of the surface and two or three miles out of 4000 won't make much difference to g = m₁m₂/r².

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Actually you're ignoring direct evidence. Coral reefs are dying off: How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching
...
Dead corals do not get around because they are ... dead!
It is possible that planula can arrive on a dead coral reef from distant sources. These will of course die for the same reason that the existing coral died.

Beware unsigned articles from Skeptical Science. Reef-building corals like acropora grow pretty fast. Bleaching is a normal event, whenever the year's lowest tide coincides with midday sun, the top of the reef gets exposed. The effect is the same as grazers cropping grass. Table corals, for example, on Johnston occur from within a foot of the surface down to twenty feet or so. Corals do not have to migrate from reefs hundreds of miles distant. They just have to move a few feet up.

 

[Mikemcc]

Beware unsigned articles from Skeptical Science. Reef-building corals like acropora grow pretty fast. Bleaching is a normal event, whenever the year's lowest tide coincides with midday sun, the top of the reef gets exposed. The effect is the same as grazers cropping grass. Table corals, for example, on Johnston occur from within a foot of the surface down to twenty feet or so. Corals do not have to migrate from reefs hundreds of miles distant. They just have to move a few feet up.

That SkS page links to twelve different papers. How about responding to the paper that I linked to in post #6280?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sorry, this is false. Weight is the force that a mass exerts in a gravitational field (or an accelerated reference frame).

And you also ignore than 1kg of CO2 weights 995 grams at 16km height on the equator, and 1003 grams sea level at the pole. It's not a "neeteepickie-pickie" (<---with strong Spanish accent) numeric thing, but your lack of acknowledgement of two different concepts, one of them suitable for the issue discussed and the other one not.

I have to thank you for stating so clearly your utter ignorance on everything that matters to the AGW topic (logic, concepts, information and ways to deal with that) in a so eloquent and repetitive fashion. You are wrong about the same thing not only once but three or ten times. You are the dreamed opponent in this thread, one that shows a buffo way to defend the wrong side of it. To that effect you are extremely useful here and hereby you're welcome to go on with your posts.

 

[Reality Check]

Beware unsigned articles from Skeptical Science.

Beware your continued ignorance about Skeptical Science's commitment to describe a little thing called climate science and actually includes citations to the science that you are ignoring.
How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching

Without symbiotic algae, the coral can die from starvation, or become so weakened by a lack of food, that it succumbs to harmful bacteria (Mao-Jones 2010), and/or seaweeds which can poison and kill coral on contact.
...
As coral reefs operate very near to their upper limit of heat tolerance (Glynn & D'Croz 1990), bleaching en masse happens when the surface waters get too warm above their normal summer temperature, and are sustained at this warmer level for too long.
...
The huge mass bleaching in the Caribbean in 2005, a non El-Nino year, and again this year is a prime example of this (Eakin 2010) .
...
Over the last 30-40 years 80% of coral in the Caribbean have been destroyed (Gardner 2003) and 50% in Indonesia and the Pacific (Bruno & Selig 2007). Bleaching associated with the 1982 -1983 El-Nino killed over 95% of coral in the Galapagos Islands (Glynn 1990),
...
Studies from around the world show no signs of bleaching dating back many thousands of years, until recent decades (Abram 2003), (Aronson 2003). In the Caribbean there are no signs of previous mass bleaching dating back 220,000 years (Pandolfini & Jackson 2006)
...
However this a only small proportion, major reef-building coral species seem incapable of forming long-lasting partnerships with these heat tolerant algae (Coffroth 2010), and the coral polyp themselves have a very poor genetic ability to adapt to warming (Csaszar 2010).
...
Goods and services derived from coral reefs are very roughly estimated to be between $172 to $375 billion dollars per year (Martinez 2007).
...
Ocean Acidification in particular is a large looming threat (Veron 2009).

P.S. Unsigened or just ignored by you Malcolm Kirkpatrick ?
"Last updated on 13 January 2011 by Rob Painting"

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And you also ignore than 1kg of CO2 weights 995 grams at 16km height on the equator, and 1003 grams sea level at the pole. It's not a "neeteepickie-pickie" (<---with strong Spanish accent) numeric thing, but your lack of acknowledgement of two different concepts, one of them suitable for the issue discussed and the other one not.

The units cancel. All you are left with is the ratio of two numbers. Latitude and altitude are common to both numerator and denominator and cancel out.
Rude, doncha think, to call this guy...

The highlighted bit...

ignorant? Considering that we use units rounded to two significant digits, like5.3 x 10^18, don't you see that the difference between weight at r=4000 mi and r=4005mi or between 0⁰ and 90⁰N don't matter?

Go write a post-modern literary review somewhere. You'd be good at that.

I have to thank you for stating so clearly your utter ignorance on everything that matters to the AGW topic (logic, concepts, information and ways to deal with that) in a so eloquent and repetitive fashion. You are wrong about the same thing not only once but three or ten times. You are the dreamed opponent in this thread, one that shows a buffo way to defend the wrong side of it. To that effect you are extremely useful here and hereby you're welcome to go on with your posts.[/QUOTE]