Judging by the responses I received (and some of them quite “hostile”) from my 2 posts on this board, it seems that the possible conclusion reached by all who replied to me was that I am pro-Global Warming and, by implication, that I am against those who are anti-Global Warming.
That is NOT the case. I have no desire to place myself in either camp.
I would like to think that the following comment I made in my second post, especially the underlined part, would have indicated that ...
”The fact that it has come about in a relatively short period of time, in terms of the age of the earth itself, may indicate to some that it's more likely man-made .... but that doesn't necessarily make it a given”.
What I, personally, would like to see is an eventual end to this antipathy expressed by the pro- and anti- lobbies and, hopefully, a final conclusion, that is derived by pure science, that informs ALL of us as to what is actually happening in the environment around us.
Now I have no doubt that the response from many on this board will be that, as far as they are concerned, the answers are already there and that those answers have nothing to do with “Global Warming”.
Well, that’s fine. That’s their opinion and, it goes without saying, that they are entitled to it.
Of course, there could very well be others who may not, entirely, agree with them.
But let’s hope that the spirit, as expressed in the Header of this board, viz.
” ..... disagreeing with me or anyone else is definitely allowed and encouraged. Personal attacks toward any member of SI are not allowed. Debate vigorously, argue passionately, but no personal attacks”
... will prevail.
However, it also goes without saying that there are, very likely, many earnest and dedicated scientists, who one may not necessarily find by “following the money”, who have spent large parts of their professional careers, for pure science reasons, pursuing answers to this complicated global environment of ours and who are inclined to believe, based on their observations, that some form of man induced influences are affecting our climate and our habitats in some way or the other.
And it could very well be the case that what we see happening in our environment is possibly a COMBINATION of BOTH “man induced” as well as “nature taking its course”.
I was interested to read your following constructive comments, Hawkmoon, especially that which I’ve underlined ....
” Coral reefs die off for a lot of other reasons than warmer sea temperatures. We all know that the temperatures of the oceans vary from place to place. And if the seas warm sufficiently to kill off coral, then another part of the ocean that was too cold for coral growth would now become viable.
But part of the problem that is being overlooked is the breakdown of the marine food chain. Corals feast on phytoplankton and Zooplankton. But phytoplankton levels have declined by up to 50% since 1950, according to secchi disk and satellite data.”
Because in that article you referenced from the “scientificamerican” was the statement ...
”Their identification of a connection between long-term global declines in phytoplankton biomass and increasing ocean temperatures does not portend well for [ocean] ecosystems in a world that is likely to be warmer," they wrote. "Phytoplankton productivity is the base of the food web, and all life in the sea depends on it."
... which seems to support the possible conclusion that if sea temperatures are rising then a vital component of a coral reef’s food chain is being compromised by that very rise in sea temperature.
Needless to say, rising sea temperature may not be the only negative factor, but it seems to have an important part to play in the breakdown of what once was a flourishing coral reef.
In my second post I was somewhat taken to task for using the plural of “ice cap”.
Well, maybe the contents of the following links may exonerate me, to some extent ...
ehow.com
en.wikipedia.org |
