Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

I think one of the scientists was Steve.  He stopped wearing his foil hat.

 Nuke the Whales

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Reference
Osborne, K., Dolman, A.M., Burgess, S.C. and Johns, K.A. 2011. Disturbance and the dynamics of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995-2009). PLoS ONE 6: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017516.According to Osborne et al. (2011), "coral decline is frequently described as ongoing with the integrity and persistence of the reef system threatened by a number of different stressors," citing Bellwood et al. (2004); and they note, in this regard, that "climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems." Therefore, and further noting that "the scale and extent of bleaching on the GBR [Great Barrier Reef] since 1998 is unprecedented (Oliver et al., 2009)," and that "coral disease is an emerging stressor that was first recorded on the GBR in the early 1990s (Willis et al., 2004; Lough, 2007)," as well as the fact that various hurtful environmental disturbances "appear to be increasing in frequency and severity," they decided to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR over the critical temporal interval of 1995-2009, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet to that point in time over the past millennium.

As part of the ongoing research of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, coral communities were surveyed annually between 1995 and 2009 on 47 reefs in six latitudinal sectors across 1300 km of the GBR, where between two and five reefs were surveyed in each sub-region. This was done at three sites on the north-east flank of each reef, where each site consisted of five 50-m transects marked by steel rods at depths between six and nine meters, and where "percent cover of live hard coral was estimated from a randomly selected sequence of images taken along the transects using a point-sampling technique in a quincunx pattern (Adbo et al., 2004)."

The four researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub-regions," with some of the changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." But with respect to the entire reef system, they report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."

In spite of all of the purportedly unprecedented negative influences arrayed against them over the past decade and a half, GBR corals appear to have held their own, maintaining a stable presence over the totality of their 1300-km linear expanse.

Additional References
Adbo, D., Burgess, S., Coleman, G. and Osborne, K. 2004. Surveys of Benthic Reef Communities using Underwater Video. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.

Bellwood, D.R., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C. and Nystrom, M. 2004. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429: 827-833.

Lough, J. 2007. Climate and climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. In: Johnson, J.E. and Marshall, P.A. (Eds.) Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Townsville, Australia, pp. 15-50.

Oliver, J.K., Berkelmans, R. and Eakin, C.M. 2009. Coral bleaching in space and time. In: van Oppen, M.J.H. and Lough, J.M. (Eds.) Coral Bleaching: Patterns, Processes, Causes and Consequences. Springer, New York, New York, USA, pp. 21-39.

Willis, B.L., Page, C.A. and Dinsdale, E.A. 2004. Coral disease on the Great Barrier Reef. In: Rosenberg, E. and Loya, Y. (Eds.) Coral Health and Disease. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 69-104.

 

Archived 29 June 2011

 

 

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Also, we fish but haven't "gone fishing" like you and your ilk.

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

That's a bunch of blah blah blah and words, Big1.  He may understand this.  I BELIEVE he's still pissed about the time he got out of bed on Christmas Eve to get a drink of water.  Santa gave Mommy the presents because he was in a hurry...

 Nuke the Whales

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Fishmahn,
Apparently the thing that is hard to drive home with you is OVER 31,000 SCIENTISTS in the United States ALONE DISAGREE with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They represent MIT, STANFORD, HARVARD, USC, UCLA, ASU, and many other reputable institutions and you can see all their names at this website.   http://www.oism.org/pproject/
That is not a small percentage and you can not discredit them by smearing them as you have other experts. They are not nameless, faceless, or gutless. Their names and reputations are at stake by signing the petition and the website does not receive any funding from energy groups etc. Please go forth with an open mind.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

svnmag Said:
I think one of the scientists was Steve.  He stopped wearing his foil hat.

Neat

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

I almost started another thread.  The POWER of CO2...

Hunting for Trees

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2011-06-30-tree-hunter-competition_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

 

 Nuke the Whales

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]
fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Review the petition. It uses catastrophic heating and disruption rather then global warming If you look they also said in the 1997 version of this petition that "over the past two decades when co2 has been its highest global temperatures have cooled. This was untrue as there most definite warming. The even admit that in there latest version.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

snvmag,
I'm pretty sure their main scientist was a guy named Eddy.
BTW I'm not racial biased but I am culture biased.

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
 

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
 

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
 

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
 

Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
 

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
 

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
 

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
 

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
 

2. General Science (269)


bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

7. Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an "*" is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
tuffrdog-I'd like to see those scientists names that were previously under grant and now feel it necessary to tell the truth you spoke of. I'ts probably no one I work with but it would be interesting if these names ring a bell.

Jinkies  Shaggy. I think we have a clue.

Fish if you are asking others to provide information, perhaps it would be somewhat appropriate to provide the information you have been asked to. 

You know that 10 year snapshot/blink scientific basis deal ,  providing an "educated science climatologist" that will claim they can identify 10 specific years within a time frame 650,000 years ago and tell you what the earths temps were in this  specific 10 year period to back up your claim the Earths temps have never been where they have been since 1998 before?????
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
A LITTLE GIRL ON A PLANE

A congressman was seated next to a little girl on an airplane sohe turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights goquicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the congressman. "How about global warming?" as he smiled smugly.
"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is ?

The legislator, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

fish, perhaps you would have better luck researching this!

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

How come I can't do what fishmahn is doing? Is it because I am on the other side of the fence? I can't say things wrong. I am supposed to back everything up. That's not fair.  I think someone should pay for my time spent on here. It's not my fault I read the wrong info. It was my school teachers and college professors fault. My parents taught me wrong. My dad spanked me when I was young so now I have a complex. I think the government should come up with a program to make sure everyone is well informed.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

PikePits's picture
PikePits
Offline
Joined: 10/16/09

Before I scribed the body of my most recent post; I felt a business opportunity, and may have nipped a fat hog in the ass.Out of work  and desparate; the thought of a non-emission casket seemed to solve all of the debate in my mind. After researching the gases emitted by the corpse; I settled on the fact that CO2 and O2 aren't  present at death. Apparently Daises don't grow where the sun shines w/o CO2 or Oxygen. That being said, Nitrogen appears to benefit the process.  Until I cracked another beer and realized that it was carbonized; I had no idea the effect it had on society. The CO2 in the cigarette after I endorsed my post to myself surely could have not helped either. The point is that you could sell a Green casket and profit or be a prophet. If so; I thought of it first. Unfortunately; it appeared to be a canidate of false advertising, Kinda like every thing else that is Versed these days.

One step at a time...Be careful.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Do a thick charcoal liner for your caskets?  Problem is:  How do you obtain the charcoal without offending Earth and harming the Tree? 

I grew up around streams which ran bright orange due to mining run off.  Instead of catching crayfish, minnows, sculpin and brook trout; I used to collect mosquito larve in discarded jars.  It was nirvana to visit folks who lived along a clean creek. When you walked up on a hole, you'd see the brook trout scatter under rocks.  It wasn't until I was 10 or so until I learned what those flashes of light were.  I learned to catch crayfish(crawcrabs) and minnows by submerging an aforementioned jar behind the "prey" and gently persuading it to capture with my free hand.  My kids will never know this joy and it makes me sad.

People had to live then and they have to live now.  Many of these streams have been fixed by research and copious, efficient placement of limestone.  

These orange creeks etc, have sparked a religion for the agnostic and atheist.  

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

We used to call sculpin "mullet".  You can hold an earthworm, slowly pull it around the rocks and lift one out of the water if the worm can hold it's own.

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Go to fullsize image

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Go to fullsize image

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Go to fullsize image

 Nuke the Whales

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

and again:

 Nuke the Whales

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fish since you view NASA as the know all that ends all! I thought this piece of info would be beneficial to you in understanding the fact that the computer models used to promote AGW are bull crap science!

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

scary man's picture
scary man
Offline
Joined: 4/23/11

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
I just found this on the drudge report, it probly is the same one as the one above it, but what the heck. I would love to see the look on al gourds face when he sees this!

free thinker = no thinker

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman, ron...

Why do you continue to hover around things like the Heatland Institute?  Can you say skewed data?  As you, and probably didn't think, I know, the Heatland instiute is a Chicago based industry funded rt. wing conservative think tank that has received grants form the likes of Koch Industries.  They are simply a highly funded propaganda machine and are connected to the tea party.  You know,  the rational group,  that would rather let our country default if it meets their political agenda.    Have a great day guy!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

ron and scary-n the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

Pages