It's enough to make you cry...

[spectrum]

Back to the OP, yes it is a shame.

Sure, nature is an ever evolving collection and nothing lasts forever. There is no doubt that the actions of mankind are contributing to the morphing of our world. Our very existence (or exticntion) are modifiers in and of them selves.

Having grown up hearing of the wonders of coral reefs and all that can be enjoyed underwater is is very sad to hear of the ecalating damage just as we get into the diving game. Nothing lasts forever but you do have to wonder if anyting as magnificent will replace what is lost in our diving lifetimes, probably not.

Pete

 

[LavaSurfer]

you didn't upset me. not sure how you got that idea.
if you are aware of the relationship, then i'm not sure how can you post that
coral reefs have managed to survive parrot fish all this time.
ah well... more proof we're just wasting time arguing about global warming.
it's here, it's a fact, it's gonna hurt

IT WAS A JOKE. Just like every time I am on a reef I hand a handful of sand to someone and they admire its beauty, white, clean, pristine. Then I tell them its Parrot fish poop.

Your right, its gonna hurt. In some areas and not so bad in others.
I am not so sure I would want to be in Canada or Europe. My plans are to live in the tropics but who knows, maybe I won't sell my Skis quite yet. Maybe I will start my development plans for Moana Kea Ski Resort. (Another Joke)

 

[Skull]

an upside, then...didn't figure all the impacts would be negative.

Just curious, which cereal boxes are you getting your scientific data from...?

Jezzz I don't know just from observation the majority of plants on earth reside in the warmer climates .... but hey I could be wrong. We assume that GW will create larger deserts, famine, plague, death, destruction ...dogs and cats living together. In reality plants will probably trive due the increases in CO2 and really folks the amount of polutants we are pumping into the atmosphere are reflecting the more and more of the suns radiation (energy) since the earth isn't warming as fast as the models predict ...

Point is nobody can accurately predict what the effect of global warming will be with the exception that parts of the world will be underwater and masses will move inland ....possibly back to Iowa,N& S Dakota et al where we have a surplus of unused land ...

 

[bradshsi]

Another point I think is worth making (as a followup to my previous post #58)

Even major cuts will only marginally change warming. The Kyoto protocol, proposing 30 per cent carbon cuts in 2010, will only postpone warming in 2100 by six years.

Thus, the real policy question is: "How much are we willing to spend on postponing (not avoiding) global warming for six years?" The computer models show that Kyoto will cost $150-350 billion annually. But even if we pay this amount throughout the 21st century, we will still have to pay the costs associated with global warming, a mere six years later.

The cost of Kyoto for just one year could permanently solve the single biggest problem on Earth: we could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the planet, saving 2m lives every year. Should we be focusing only on carbon emissions and not on other equally worthy causes ?

 

[Skull]

LOL

oh man... what a waste of time to have taken you seriously.

i was right the first time around: Skull's One Man Show coming to town soon.
tickets are free. step right up![/QUOTE]

Andy I assume you have never enjoyed the winter months on the great lakes during a deep and heavy winter season ... joking... yes! but really Andy the science of GW is run aground on the shoals of the politics of GW ... and that is why it is a joke.

See its like the evangelical christians who are waiting for the Rapture ...if you get hit by a car today and died while waiting for the end of the world .... guess what, you just got it! No Rapture no return of the King .... just a long wait for the resurrection which could take as long as the next ice age-eh??

The corals will survive GW provided the earth doesn't slip into a global ice age ...

 

[LavaSurfer]

Another point I think is worth making (as a followup to my previous post #58)

Even major cuts will only marginally change warming. The Kyoto protocol, proposing 30 per cent carbon cuts in 2010, will only postpone warming in 2100 by six years.

Thus, the real policy question is: "How much are we willing to spend on postponing (not avoiding) global warming for six years?" The computer models show that Kyoto will cost $150-350 billion annually. But even if we pay this amount throughout the 21st century, we will still have to pay the costs associated with global warming, a mere six years later.

The cost of Kyoto for just one year could permanently solve the single biggest problem on Earth: we could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the planet, saving 2m lives every year. Should we be focusing only on carbon emissions and not on other equally worthy causes ?

If True, A very good point.

 

[Storm]

Point is nobody can accurately predict what the effect of global warming will be with the exception that parts of the world will be underwater and masses will move inland ....possibly back to Iowa,N& S Dakota et al where we have a surplus of unused land ...

I can't believe this. This is exaclty WHY GW scientitsts are winning the battle of propaganda. Have you not been paying attention to this discussion...

Here's the Cole's notes: every square inch of the Northern floating polar cap could metl tomorrow, take the glaciers on Greenland with them and only increase the ocen by less that one thousandth of an inch. It wold take a planetary meltdown to thaw the southern polar region.

So just why would people leave the coastal regions.

 

[H2Andy]

The cost of Kyoto for just one year could permanently solve the single biggest problem on Earth: we could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the planet

why is this a fallacious argument? anyone? anyone?

bueller?

anyone?

ok... i'll bite:

1. the "costs" of Kyoto will not result in a neat pile of cash that can be used.
rather, this will be mostly cost-over-time to improve emissions, etc.

2. even if we could collect that cash (which simply won't exist, since it
will come from additonal costs of doing business), there's no infrastructure
in place to allow the "help" to use reach those who need it.

It wold take a planetary meltdown to thaw the southern polar region.

ah, ignorace, how sweet is thy bliss:

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

 

[LavaSurfer]

why is this a fallacious argument? anyone? anyone?

bueller?

anyone?

ok... i'll bite:

1. the "costs" of Kyoto will not result in a neat pile of cash that can be used.
rather, this will be mostly cost-over-time to improve emissions, etc.

2. even if we could collect that cash (which simply won't exist, since it
will come from additonal costs of doing business), there's no infrastructure
in place to allow the "help" to use reach those who need it.

But diversion of funds to other projects would yield the same cash. If the money doesn't exist now it never will.

BTW, you bit before I could answer...

I bet if "OIL" was involved the money could be found.
There would be some Bush whacking to find money then.

Oh Oh, Don't get me started on Government and OIL!
I will not be found guilty of hijacking here for a political rant.

 

[Storm]

The cost of Kyoto for just one year could permanently solve the single biggest problem on Earth: we could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the planet, saving 2m lives every year. Should we be focusing only on carbon emissions and not on other equally worthy causes ?

Kyoto was more about stopping globalization than global warming. I applaud the US for not signing on board, and hope the new Canadian government will drop out of the "treaty".

The accords are more about spreading wealth to the third world than about stop or reducing gas emissions. If not then why can any Country that cannot meet it's quota BUY quota from countries that are not producing green house gasses.

Once of the major gases we are concern about is carbon dioxide, which is produced in mass quantities by both tropical and arboreal rainforests. That be one of the reason why my country, is vastly unpopulated forest and hinterland, is a large scale producer of CO2. Think about it. We have a population of 35 Million, in the second largest land mass country on the globe. We use primarily hydro and nuclear power for electricity and out of our population 1/3 live in 5 cities along the Canada US border. Yet according to Kyoto and GM scientist we are accused of being over quota on our emissions.

Just how does that compute? I've asked several times, and have been told, by some scientist that my meager 160 IQ is insufficient to grasp the math or the concept. They merely smile and say that it’s okay; we just need to send a few hundred million to any number of third world countries and buy up their quota. Please….if Somalia is not producing CO2, and Canada buys up their quota just how, exactly, does this REDUCE the amount of CO2?

This is why I rank GW scientists and activists to right up there with big oil companies; at least the big oil companies are honest about their true intentions.