@BrianK

Quote:

In the last 150 years coral is down ~40%. So whatever the environmental factors coral's response at this point is not flourishing but death. So yeah we see a response. True. He goes on to describe how coral will evolve and become stronger. You were worried about the in situ.. The in situ is a net loss of coral. So the reaction to evolve is being outstriped by the reaction to die. Observations once again defeating unsupported pseudoscientific denialist claims. Case closed

Ah, only basing this on the past 400 years when it's been around for how many millions of years?

_________________
Dammy

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase I do note a number of easy flaws: 1/ humans does not reproduce by fissiparousness and human growth is far from being exponential (half of the world under sub-replacement fertility with the notable exception of the USA);

Excuse me, what are you talking about? Exponential growth isn't a type of growth but rather a way of measuring growth. How is 1.3% population growth per year not an exponential measure?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 2/ bacteria have no brain and thus regulate themselves by means which are not acceptable by most humans (except a few eco-fanatics in line with national socialist's doctrine);

Humans do not regulate their numbers, hence the problem. Your point is?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 3/ the calculation of the analogy is therefore grossly misleading.

The bacteria calculation is not grossly misleading, it's meant to point to the power of exponential growth.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: The main flaw is however still the same: the crippled and short-sighted underlying theory of raw material scarcity (finite resource). At this point I see nothing really different from the Ehrlichs' thesis or the recent scare of a "perfect storm" in 2030 by Beddington. But let assume it is for the sake of the argument.

Okay, I'm sorry, but you brought this on yourself. I'm going to end this non-resource scarcity argument once and for all. Forget about global warming, about fossil fuels, etc... we're going to talk about human population size and food, because if I can't illustrate using that simple example I'm giving up trying to convince you.

Let's say population does continue to grow at current rates, so that, as hinted at in the video transcriptions I've posted so far, human population will reach one person per square metre in 780 years. Let's assume to be generous to you that all land is equally fertile, and we don't have competition for food from animals, and we grow only the most nutritious food. Is 1m square enough land going to provide enough food to feed a person year apon year? No. So using your argument, we need space travel to keep the population going.

The reason that the bacteria example was useful in my opinion was that it showed a vessel can go from half capacity to full capacity in one doubling time. If population was to keep on increasing at current rates beyond 780 years, we would need more places to grow food. As we are light years away from the closest star (EDIT: other than the sun of course), and even further away from a solar system that might have planets able to support life, we will have to rely on what we can find in our own solar system, simply because we won't be able to build enough space ships for a high enough percentage of the population to escape our solar system (a handful of people is not going to put much of a dent in the population growth issue).

Let's say we successfully manage to master terraforming in the next 780 years, and transform the Moon, Mars and Europa (probably the three most likely places for human colonies in our solar system) into objects habitable not just for life but for human life in less than that time. Ignoring the fact that all of these bodies are smaller than the Earth, let's say they can all equally support the same amount of humans, how much extra time for the current rate of population growth have we given ourselves? Two doubling times, or approximately 108 years.

Do you see the problem now? If we don't control human population growth we are going to wreck society through lack of resources, even if our only desire was enough food to eat.

Last edited by HenryCase on 08-May-2009 at 06:26 PM.

@damocles

Quote:

Ah, only basing this on the past 400 years when it's been around for how many millions of years?

History of millions of years shows coral changes w/ changes in climate conditions.

But, if we're looking at the future of coral I think it more fair to view the current conditions. If we're worried about coral it is those conditions we have to deal with. We can look back the millions of years to see what factors appear to have a positive influence to the coral. Then we set about bringing those conditions around. For example the past had less polluted water than today so perhaps we should try reducing pollution and seeing if it has a positive impact.

@HenryCase

Quote:

Let's say we successfully manage to master terraforming in the next 780 years

Sorry this won't work. TMTisFree has provided strong scientific evidence that the atmosphere has no impact on absorption or reflection of heat to/from a planet.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @HenryCase Quote: Let's say we successfully manage to master terraforming in the next 780 years Sorry this won't work. TMTisFree has provided strong scientific evidence that the atmosphere has no impact on absorption or reflection of heat to/from a planet.

Let's say for the sake of ending the argument that terraforming is possible. TMTisFree, I await your response.

@BrianK

Quote:

History of millions of years shows coral changes w/ changes in climate conditions.

Great, now plot out the growth/death cycle over those hundred of millions of years with CO2 PPM and estimated average surface temperatures.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

Great, now plot out the growth/death cycle over those hundred of millions of years with CO2 PPM and estimated average surface temperatures.

Definitely one of many ways to understand this relationship. This has been studied by others and is available. Here is one Coral, similar to tree rings, is one indication of the environmental records of their time. If you want more here's a good place to start.

That something is around million of years so therefore can't die out is not good thought. There are LOTS of examples in the history of the earth that show this to be untrue. For example , dinosaurs existed for 150Million years. And yet Jesus didn't get to ride bearback on a T-Rex

Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2009 at 04:24 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2009 at 04:24 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2009 at 04:23 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2009 at 04:18 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2009 at 04:14 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

I disagree. There is no indication of a full recovery but there is indication of an improvement.

Care to provide a quote from a paper supporting this claim? Even if true, you have stated it was caused by better water ("better controlling soil run off from farming and controlling fishing") and not by AGW ("Within the evidence it's fairer to say GW effects were not tested.")

Quote:

Coral growth slowest in 400 years.

Normal. Ocean temperatures are declining slightly since 2003. This observation itself falsifies AGW hypothesis for the second time (the first falsification was the absence of troposphere fingerprint).

Quote:

Now if we provided cooler water and less acidic would conditions improve further? The observed science says yes.

Non real-world lab experiments (HCl acid) showed that, not in situ observations as demonstrated in the first and second threads (to which you should refer) and reviewed in Vézina and Hoegh-Guldberg, 2008 and Lough, 2008.

Quote:

The scientists studying these conditions see death in coral with temperature changes.

Not correct, no simple binary link. Bleaching is an adaptive phenomenon indicating coral reacts to environment changes. Nothing new. You appear to have not read the book. Quote:

"There is no simple linkage between high temperatures and coral bleaching."

You then have to check your pseudo-science because real world observations are refuting your unsupported claims. There is no observation AGW has any negative effect, just the opposite. Coral adapts (bleaching/recovery) to changing environment since millions of years when temperatures/CO² levels were far higher than today.

Quote:

Yeah I posted reading from science done and produced by climatologists, NOAA.

Which has no relationship with AGW.

Quote:

You produced a reading that was an opinion hit piece masquerading as journalism.

Sure. A scientific review by a scientist quoting more than 300 scientific papers and demonstrating no negative effects of hypothesized AGW can not be more convincing than a BBC article.

Quote:

Because the linkage is not simple does not mean there is no linkage. History, in situ, and labs have shown impacts of warmer water and pH changes negatively impact coral.

Incorrect on all counts. Check only the 2 papers provided above.

Quote:

In the last 150 years.... Case closed

I agree. No relation between coral adaptation and hypothesized AGW. Case closed.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

I find it interesting you find an author valid that's opposed to your take on GW and against your agreement that the only resource that limits man is his imagination. Isn't Hulme here showing us his limits on resources by saying he can't think of a way man can solve this?

It is your interpretation of Hulme's claim. I don't care much because I was only pointing to him condemning consensus in Science.

Quote:

"To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining both politics and science"

I think his point has a more epistemological interest (relative to your low level understanding that is) in line with his rejection of consensus in the climate field.

Quote:

We accepted Einstein's Equations for gravity, the leading most widely accepted paradigm, and got to the moon

A theory which has been unsuccessfully falsified. Not like AGW.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Quote:

Excuse me, what are you talking about? Exponential growth isn't a type of growth but rather a way of measuring growth. How is 1.3% population growth per year not an exponential measure?

Some real world data illustrations from US Census will explain the fallacy:


"The world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, a doubling that occurred over 40 years. The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2040, an increase of 50 percent is expected to require 41 years."


"The world population growth rate rose from about 1.5 percent per year from 1950-51 to a peak of over 2 percent in the early 1960s due to reductions in mortality. Growth rates thereafter started to decline due to rising age at marriage as well as increasing availability and use of effective contraceptive methods. Note that changes in population growth have not always been steady. A dip in the growth rate from1959-1960, for instance, was due to the Great Leap Forward in China. During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half."

You can also read this PDF from UN: I am sure the exponential population's scare will be a bad joke to you after doing so.

Quote:

Humans do not regulate their numbers, hence the problem. Your point is?

Humans do regulate their numbers already. Just not with the same means as bacteria.

Quote:

The bacteria calculation is not grossly misleading, it's meant to point to the power of exponential growth.

What power? ln is only a mathematical tool which has per se no power. The power you attribute to it only relies to its application by you to a real world problem. If this problem appears to not be described accurately by this tool, this tool you choose has no power.

Quote:

Okay, I'm sorry, but you brought this on yourself. I'm going to end this non-resource scarcity argument once and for all. Forget about global warming, about fossil fuels, etc... we're going to talk about human population size and food, because if I can't illustrate using that simple example I'm giving up trying to convince you.

The very video transcript you provide explicitly states the resource scarcity argument many times, both with the bacteria example:
Quote:

it's in the finite environment of one bottle

Quote:

the bacteria realize that they are running out of space

Quote:

at what time would you realize that you were running out of space

Quote:

this quadrupling of the proven resource

and with the human case:
Quote:

increasing our rates of consumption of fossil fuels

Quote:

against a finite source

Quote:

some of these finite sources

But I have no problem to put aside AGW, fossil fuels or whatever you want. But this limits the usefulness of your video transcripts.

Quote:

Let's say population does continue to grow at current rates, ...

I fully agree, given your premises.

Quote:

Do you see the problem now? If we don't control human population growth we are going to wreck society through lack of resources, even if our only desire was enough food to eat.

I also agree, according to your premises. But I also want to stress out that you are surreptitiously reintroducing the resource scarcity argument here...

Edit: typos
Edit2: corrected a quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-May-2009 at 08:06 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-May-2009 at 07:39 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

TMTisFree has provided strong scientific evidence that the atmosphere has no impact on absorption or reflection of heat to/from a planet.

Ah! the BrianK's Physics of heat's absorption or reflection...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Quote:

TMTisFree, I await your response.

It seems that the population problem is ill-defined if not linked with the problematic of resources, as your video transcript shows and yourself admits in your last post, isn't it?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: Excuse me, what are you talking about? Exponential growth isn't a type of growth but rather a way of measuring growth. How is 1.3% population growth per year not an exponential measure? Some real world data illustrations from US Census will explain the fallacy: "The world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, a doubling that occurred over 40 years. The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2040, an increase of 50 percent is expected to require 41 years." "The world population growth rate rose from about 1.5 percent per year from 1950-51 to a peak of over 2 percent in the early 1960s due to reductions in mortality. Growth rates thereafter started to decline due to rising age at marriage as well as increasing availability and use of effective contraceptive methods. Note that changes in population growth have not always been steady. A dip in the growth rate from1959-1960, for instance, was due to the Great Leap Forward in China. During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half."

Growth is still growth, even if that rate of growth is currently slowing (I am grateful for the information you've posted though). Though I dislike the 'nature is taking care of the problem' argument (think it's more accurate to say 'ignorance is taking care of the problem') your chosen quote backs up what the professor the video transcriptions is saying, if we don't choose nature will choose for us. Let me remind you of the list of the video professor drew up (I am not saying these are the only causes of population decrease, but they certainly have a big impact):

Quote:

Now in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population, and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well there's abstention, contraception/abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents, now smoking clearly raises the death rate, now that helps solve the problem.

Now look at your quote:

Quote:

During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half.

Natural disasters = accidents, decreased agricultural output = (in this case, but not always) famine/lack of food, see the links? These are just growing pains for China, as the standard of living for citizens of the world increase so too does life expectancy (if developed countries value health, and healthy living is seen as more of an issue in the Western/developed world nowadays).

The two factors at work in population size are births and deaths. Prolonging average life expectancy is going to lead to more people on the planet, more giving birth to new life is going to increase the number of people on the planet. This goes beyond statistics, which may show rising or falling population growth at any one time, it's just common sense.

Quote:

You can also read this PDF from UN: I am sure the exponential population's scare will be a bad joke to you after doing so.

Hahahahahahahaha, I read the PDF, it doesn't disprove anything at all. The key point is this:

"World population is projected to cross the 7 billion mark in 2013; the 8 billion mark in 2028; the 9 billion mark in 2054. World population nearly stabilizes at just above 10 billion after 2200."

So what do you propose are the causes behind this population stabilisation? Are we going to see enforced population control within this time, are adults going to stop having more than 2 kids out of choice, are resources going to be too scarce to support any more people? Just what is it that you imagine is going to stabilise the population? What else could they be referring to?

Quote:

Quote: Humans do not regulate their numbers, hence the problem. Your point is? Humans do regulate their numbers already. Just not like bacteria.

Humans do not consciously regulate their numbers, there are factors at play in the world which have the effects of increasing or decreasing population numbers, but that is not the same as regulation. How do you think humans regulate numbers (P.S. Side affects of war, disease, etc... do not count as regulation. Even genocide in it's most common form does not count because it is not concerned with world population numbers)?

Quote:

Quote: The bacteria calculation is not grossly misleading, it's meant to point to the power of exponential growth. What power? ln is only a mathematical tool which has per se no power. The power you attribute to it only relies to its application by you to a real world problem. If this problem appears to not be described accurately by this tool, this tool you choose has no power.

I stand by my use of the word 'power', as the bacteria example shows how a fairly modest percentage growth number has more impact when examined over a prolonged period of time.

Quote:

Quote: Okay, I'm sorry, but you brought this on yourself. I'm going to end this non-resource scarcity argument once and for all. Forget about global warming, about fossil fuels, etc... we're going to talk about human population size and food, because if I can't illustrate using that simple example I'm giving up trying to convince you. The very video transcript you provide explicitly states the resource scarcity argument many times, both with the bacteria example: Quote: it's in the finite environment of one bottle Quote: the bacteria realize that they are running out of space Quote: at what time would you realize that you were running out of space Quote: this quadrupling of the proven resource and with the human case: Quote: increasing our rates of consumption of fossil fuels Quote: against a finite source Quote: some of these finite sources But I have no problem to put aside AGW, fossil fuels or whatever you want. But that limits the usefulness of your video. Quote: Let's say population does continue to grow at current rates, ... I fully agree, given your premises. Quote: Do you see the problem now? If we don't control human population growth we are going to wreck society through lack of resources, even if our only desire was enough food to eat. I also agree, according to your premises. But I also want to stress that you here are surreptitiously reintroducing yourself the resource scarcity argument... Bye, TMTisFree

The video transcription I have posted covers more than just the implications of population growth, it is true that my arguments 'limits the usefulness of your video', but quite frankly if we can't come to some conclusions on a simple matter like population size and food resource then why bother discussing the more complex issues (scientifically) like AGW, especially as the population issue affects the AGW discussion that will hopefully follow.

I picked food as the example of resource to focus on because it's sustainable and absolutely essential to life, so by focusing on food rather than other resources we can see the population growth issue for what it really is. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp, maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough, I don't know.

Last edited by HenryCase on 08-May-2009 at 08:57 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: TMTisFree, I await your response. It seems that the population problem is ill-defined if not linked with the problematic of resources, as your video transcript shows and yourself admits in your last post, isn't it?

My strategy was to artificially limit the resources we discussed to make the population problem clearer, of course the two are linked, if humans did not require resources like food and air we could of course carry on expanding our numbers much more freely. This is not the case though is it.

@BrianK

Quote:

Definitely one of many ways to understand this relationship. This has been studied by others and is available. Here is one Coral, similar to tree rings, is one indication of the environmental records of their time. If you want more here's a good place to start.

That is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a good chart that dates back hundreds of millions of years that will show CO2 level, mean earth temp and coral population. If CO2 is what doing this, there should be solid evidence when CO2 was 10x the current PPM plus the staggering warmth that is suppost to happen and coral die off.

_________________
Dammy

@HenryCase

Quote:

Growth is still growth, even if that rate of growth is currently slowing (I am grateful for the information you've posted though)

Sure, but in natural systems growth usually stabilizes at some point. This is why the exponential function, while theoretically useful, can not really apply. Plotting data of growth usually lead to a S-shaped curve:


Quote:

Natural disasters = accidents, decreased agricultural output = (in this case, but not always) famine/lack of food, see the links? These are just growing pains for China, as the standard of living for citizens of the world increase so too does life expectancy (if developed countries value health, and healthy living is seen as more of an issue in the Western/developed world nowadays).

The quote also said: "1959-1960". Generalizing from 2 years is not sensible practice.

Quote:

So what do you propose are the causes behind this population stabilisation? Are we going to see enforced population control within this time, are adults going to stop having more than 2 kids out of choice, are resources going to be too scarce to support any more people? Just what is it that you imagine is going to stabilise the population? What else could they be referring to?

I presume they will not be so different that they are today. But it is just speculation as is the projection of population in 2050.

Quote:

Humans do not consciously regulate their numbers, there are factors at play in the world which have the effects of increasing or decreasing population numbers, but that is not the same as regulation. How do you think humans regulate numbers (P.S. Side affects of war, disease, etc... do not count as regulation. Even genocide in it's most common form does not count because it is not concerned with world population numbers)?

Consciously or not, regulations appear whatever they are when living standards increase. And clearly resource scarcity is not the driver.

Quote:

I stand by my use of the word 'power', as the bacteria example shows how a fairly modest percentage growth number has more impact when examined over a prolonged period of time.

Except that, as I wrote above, modelling natural system growth with exponential function, while theoretically interesting, does not always mimic real world situation. Given that bacteria appeared long time before us, how do you explain, if the exponential function is the ideal and only model describing growth, that bacteria had not colonized the entire planet yet? The response is that exponential growth of bacteria is just 1 phase of growth (the 2nd) from 4 which are (from memory of microbiology lab work at University):
1/ the start phase: bacteria adaptation to environment with no growth;
2/ the log phase: bacteria growth mimicked with exponential function;
3/ the plateau phase: stabilization which gives the S-shaped curve;
4/ the lethal phase: as the name suggests, if nutrients are not renewed.
Btw do not take my words for granted. I think it is common knowledge and easy to be found in a microbiology book or somewhere. This paper reviews the bases of growth regulation of bacteria in natural system. Not a single exponential function or plot.

Quote:

if we can't come to some conclusions on a simple matter like population size and food resource then why bother discussing the more complex issues (scientifically) like AGW, especially as the population issue affects the AGW discussion that will hopefully follow.

Well, as demonstrated both with theoretical Physics calculations (see thread 2) and 2 observational falsifications (no troposphere fingerprint in thread 2 and slight decrease in oceanic temperature and heat storage in this thread), support for AGW hypothesis is currently lacking (at best). But we can discuss population problematic alone. I think we agree on population size as given by Census data. About the model chosen by the video lecturer, perhaps he gives an explanation of why he chooses it and also evaluates the food resources in the following parts to calculate at which point in time, according to the model, the 2 curves cross?

Quote:

I picked food as the example of resource to focus on because it's sustainable and absolutely essential to life, so by focusing on food rather than other resources we can see the population growth issue for what it really is. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp, maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough, I don't know.

Food is a resource amongst others. I have no problem you choosed it.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Quote:

My strategy was to artificially limit the resources we discussed to make the population problem clearer, of course the two are linked, if humans did not require resources like food and air we could of course carry on expanding our numbers much more freely. This is not the case though is it.

So, logically, how is it possible to discuss your population problem if the required 'limiting factors' are not fully exposed?

I note at this point that the model the video discusses does not fully described neither the growth of the theoretical example (bacteria) nor the real world population curve (line).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@damocles & BrianK

Quote:

damocles wrote: @BrianK Quote: Definitely one of many ways to understand this relationship. This has been studied by others and is available. Here is one Coral, similar to tree rings, is one indication of the environmental records of their time. If you want more here's a good place to start. That is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a good chart that dates back hundreds of millions of years that will show CO2 level, mean earth temp and coral population. If CO2 is what doing this, there should be solid evidence when CO2 was 10x the current PPM plus the staggering warmth that is suppost to happen and coral die off.

Too much work for poor BrianK. I can help for free. The temperature and CO² data from the last 600My are located here.

Will BrianK be able to plot this time (still waiting to NoelFuller's plot of Vostock ice cores btw)? I have it already done, don't thank me BrianK:


The data for coral population can be found in these core papers:
COHMAP Members. 1888. Climatic changes of the last 18,000 years: observations and model simulations. Science 241: 1043-1052.
Reaser, J.K., Pomerance, R. and Thomas, P.O. 2000. Coral bleaching and global climate change: scientific findings and policy recommendations. Conservation Biology 14: 1500-1511.
Delcourt, H.R. and Delcourt, P.A. 1991. Quaternary Ecology - a Paleoecological Perspective. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 50: 839-866.
Pandolfi, J.M. and Jackson, J.B.C. 1997. The maintenance of diversity on coral reefs: examples from the fossil record. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium 1: 397-404.
Dahlgren, T.G., Weinberg, J.R. and Halanych, K.M. 2000. Phylogeography of the ocean quahog (Artica islandica): influences of paleoclimate on genetic diversity and species range. Marine Biology 137: 487-495.
Veron, J.E.N. 1992. Environmental control of Holocene changes to the world's most northern hermatypic coral outcrop. Pacific Science 46: 405-425.
Balsam, W. 1981. Late Quaternary sedimentation in the western North Atlantic: stratigraphy and paleoceanography. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 35: 215-240.
Precht, W.F. and Aronson, R.B. 2004. Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 307-314.
Vargas-Angel, B., Thomas, J.D. and Hoke, S.M. 2003. High-latitude Acropora cervicornis thickets off Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Coral Reefs 22: 465-474.
Lighty, R.G., Macintyre, I.G. and Stuckenrath, R. 1978. Submerged early Holocene barrier reef south-east Florida shelf. Nature 276: 59-60.
Ruddiman, W.F. and Mix, A.C. 1991. The north and equatorial Atlantic at 9000 and 6000 yr P.P. In: Wright Jr., H.E., Kutzbach, J.E., Webb III, T., et al. (Eds.). Global Climates Since the Last Glacial Maximum. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, p. 94-124.
Wells, J.W. 1956. Scleractinia. In: Moore, R.C., Ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Volume F, Coelenterata. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS, pp. 353-367.
Chadwick-Furman, N.E. 1996. Reef coral diversity and global change. Global Change Biology 2: 559-568.
Pandolfi, J.M. 1999. Response of Pleistocene coral reefs to environmental change over long temporal scales. American Zoologist 39: 113-130.
Muhs, D.R., Simmons, K.R. and Steinke, B. 2002. Timing and warmth of the Last Interglacial period: new U-series evidence from Hawaii and Bermuda and a new fossil compilation for North America. Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 1355-1383.
Herbert, T.D., Schuffert, J.D., Andreasen, D., Heusser, L., Lyle, M., Mix, A., Ravelo, A.C., Stott, L.D. and Herguera, J.C. 2001. Collapse of the California Current during glacial maxima linked to climate change on land. Science 293: 71-76.

or in the more than 5200 references about coral available here. Good luck BrianK.

Edit: added some more historic references for poor BrianK.

Bye,
TMTisFree


MOD NOTE: In regard to the "Poor BrianK" comments. From the TOS:

Quote:

Flame/Attacks: Do not flame! Flaming refers to derogatory, abusive, threatening, sarcastic, rude, or otherwise mean-spirited messages directed at members/users. Be cautious when using sarcasm and humour. Without facial expressions and tone of voice, they do not translate easily over the Internet in posts and may be perceived as flaming.

Quote:

Site Netiquette: We share one common ground, we are all Amiga users! Respect other opinions, even though you may not agree. Everyone is entitled to their say, but please do so in a courteous manner

Please consider this a warning. Thank you.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 11-May-2009 at 06:08 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 11-May-2009 at 06:07 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 11-May-2009 at 06:06 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 09-May-2009 at 09:45 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Now reducing your problematic by taking into account your own 2 premises only:
(1) natural population growth follows an universal exponential function;
(2) focusing on food (production);

one can note that:
1/ ultimately, food is produced from natural organisms whose populations, according to your (1), obey the exponential function. From which it is deduced that food production is also exponential;
2/ doubling time for food production (Tf) is far lesser than doubling time for human population (Tp);

Therefore:
1/ if your (1) is true, it applies to (2) and as Tf << Tp, then at any time Food >> Population;
2/ if your (1) can not be applied to (2), then your (1) is wrong per definition.

Feel free to correct and/or add any comment(s).

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 09-May-2009 at 01:14 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Even if true, you have stated it was caused by better water ("better controlling soil run off from farming and controlling fishing") and not by AGW

There's a subtle difference in my statement which you are neglecting. An experiment tests for the items being controlled for and tested. We saw cleaner water improve the situation. This experiment didn't test warmer water or pH changes that are predicted to occur from GW. Thus any conclusion, positive or negative, concerning the impact of GW is not valid.

Quote:

Ocean temperatures are declining slightly since 2003

How do you conclude this fairly? Last I remember discussing this point with you your claim was we simply hadn't done enough sampling to truly say if the ocean was warming or cooling.

Quote:

Bleaching is an adaptive phenomenon indicating coral reacts to environment changes. Nothing new.

IMO you've proved the point to yourself. Here we see you agreeing that as the environment changes so will coral bleaching. Therefore as the climate gets warmer and increases CO2 we expect to see bleaching. We can therefore measure such changes and the rate of bleaching to try to build the relationship. If it's a simple or complex relationship is meaningless to the question.

Quote:

There is no observation AGW has any negative effect, just the opposite.

Wrong.

Quote:

A scientific review by a scientist quoting more than 300 scientific papers

Nice try to move the target. We have been discussing the original article you posted. This article makes no reference to the later work you include to try and make your point. The only comment I made about that later work is that the agenda of the author has been one of denial. We of course see you cry this foul. Yet a few posts later we see you use the same tactic against NOAA. Again turn about is fair if you get to do it then others can too.

Quote:

No relation between coral adaptation and hypothesized AGW

You told us before that coral is a natural adaption to changing environmental conditions. Clearly the oceans have warmed in the last 150 years. The net effect to coral in the last 150 years is negative. Somehow these have no relation? Your posts here conflict themselves.