SkepticLance

The effect of global warming in causing coral bleaching is largely a myth. Sure, temperature bleaching occurs. It happens when a 'hot spot' hits a region of ocean, and causes the problem. However, global warming is not the cause of those 'hot spots'. Localised hot spots and bleaching has probably been a part of coral reef ecology for thousands of years. The long term, overall rise in temperature of the ocean is way lower than the warming of the atmosphere. While the oceans accept a lot of heat energy, they can do so without much temperature rise. The actual rise varies a bit according to depth, but is about 0.12 C in the regions coral grows. This is insufficient to cause coral bleaching. The proposed coral bleaching problem is, therefore, like many other global climate change 'problems' purely theoretical. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-112 "Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean increased by 0.09 degrees Celcius (0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.03 degrees Celcius (0.055 degrees Fahrenheit) from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003." On the other hand, even a small average increase in ocean temperature will extend the northern and southern limits for coral growth.

Coral reefs will probably spread. As a keen scuba diver, I have observed coral reefs and other corals in a wide range of places. If the oceans warm to a significant degree, we can expect coral reefs to spread well north and south of the equator. Climate change will result in some places becoming warmer and dryer, and other places becoming warmer and wetter. In the latter, it is quite possible that tropical plants will thrive.

To swansont If you remember our earlier arguments, you will remember I have argued for correlation, and admitted that the mechanism was still not known.

I agree with both aardvark and alanrocks. The loss of animal life is a tragedy, because it has all sorts of value scientifically, aesthetically, and in many practical ways. However, humans are adaptable, and a world with no animals will still have a wealth of plants, fungi, bacteria and archaeans. I have no doubt that we could find a way to survive and even build a life worth living.

Possible not pertinent to the current thread, but I was interested to see the following reference. http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/07/080717224333.htm This item states that, even though recent warming is due to human activity, the main driver of climate change over the past few hundred years is variations in solar activity, and especially solar magnetic effects.

Swansont In a debate like this, it is really difficult to avoid misunderstandings. I am not so much trying to tell a story as to point out the weakness in other people's ideas. The basic point I am trying to get across is that the twin concepts of 'tipping points' and 'runaway positive feed-back' are theories, and are not demonstrated to be correct. I have seen enough descriptions of theoretical negative feed-back mechanisms, to believe that they are equally likely as positive. Both are theory, and we simply cannot predict with any degree of surety. However, these theories are taken by those with political agendas to generate alarm. I am against alarmism, as I have repeatedly said, because it leads to wrong remedial actions. I have described how some of these 'remedial' actions have actually made matters worse (palm oil for biodiesel leads to rainforest destruction etc.). It is vital that we avoid alarmism, and carry out remedial action correctly. They may mean slowly - which is a damn sight better than panic led action that causes more harm.

To Mr Skeptic Actually I agree with your last post. I have said all along that there are two factors determining the number of people who kill themselves. 1. The number of attempts 2. The fraction of attempts that are successful. Of course the first factor is related to psychological state, and probably due to depression, and of course if you reduce the depression you will reduce the rate of suicide. These days there are drugs that provide some relief from depression, and so attention by doctors is a very good thing, and undoubtedly reduces suicide rate. None of which alters my thesis in any way whatever. Because there are two factors. If you ignore the second factor, you are condemning a heap of people to death. This is shown by the statistics that demonstrate that states with stronger gun control have lower rates of successful suicide. To concentrate only on one of the two factors is stupidity itself. Attending to depression is an excellent action. However, there are always a heap of people who 'fall through the cracks' and do not get treated. Restricting access to firearms gives them a better chance of surviving, as my references show most clearly. So accept that good medical attention is one excellent tactic in reducing suicide. Also accept that strict gun control is an excellent second tactic to supplement the first. Both need to be implemented.

Edtharan I don't know if you realise this, but a good part of your last post is just paraphrasing things I have said. We are arguing semantics, not science.

ParanoiA said "So then I'm left to infer that you must believe that banning guns will achieve more than a minor extent." I don't believe I have ever said ban guns. When a gun is needed for a legitimate purpose such as hunting, and the real need exists - then fine. And yes!! Reducing access to firearms will cut suicide deaths very substantially. You might be interested in what Harvard University says. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html "In the United States, suicides outnumber homicides almost two to one. Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths—about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts—is that so many could be prevented. Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms. " That is pretty straightforward. Access to firearms = death No access = life. Note the large number of failed attempts - 44 out of 45. Yet the success rate when using firearms is 90%. And you still think reducing access to firearms will not reduce suicides deaths, and to a substantial degree????? Read on... "The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.” But few can survive a gun blast. "

Swansont If your comments in your last post were directed at what I have been saying, then you are misquoting. I used the pre-historical data to point out that a positive feed-back, runaway warming, tipping point did not happen last time - at least to the point of 2 C warmer than now. Not to try to say that temperatures must stop increasing and fall again. I fully recognise the difference between now and 120,000 years ago. However, I am saying that there is no reason to believe in that kind of tipping point until after we get warmer than last time. It may be true, but at this point in time it is only someone's pet theory - not a demonstrated reality.

Tighter gun control reduces suicide rate. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w58181164l7412lt/ The conclusion from this article in the Atlantic Economic Journal is below : "Paul M. Sommers1 (1) Middlebury College, USA Conclusions This paper has analyzed a number of gun control laws in different states and found that as a group the laws were significantly correlated with the suicide rates in those states. In other words, strict gun control may have a preventive effect on suicidal behavior, a conclusion supportive of Boyd's view. "

To ParanoiA The problem with your argument is that the statistics support my thesis. My earlier reference showed that states in America with tighter gun control have lower suicide rates. Suicide attempts by non-gun methods have a much lower death rate. And a sizeable percentage of those who attempt suicide and survive never try again. In other words, because they did not use a firearm in their attempt, they lived. Now, I would love there to be an effective system of preventing suicide attempts (and homicides). But, in spite of all kinds of systems, and all sorts of theories put to work, nothing works to any significant extent. If we could stop people getting depressed and attempting suicide, that would be a very desirable outcome. No method has been discovered that can achieve this to more than a minor extent. However, restricting access to guns, and especially hand guns does lower death rate from suicide.

Edtharan I am trying to point out the difference between that which is known to be true, and that which is merely theorised. Sure, the global climate system is non linear. This is part of something I have been saying for years - that the climate is governed by numerous variables, some of which are not at all predictable. These variables lead to a non linear system. And due to the unpredictable nature of some of these variables, the future of Earth's climate is not predictable. 120,000 years ago, the world warmed to 2 C more than today, and after that cooled into another glacial period. Whether that was a kind of 'tipping point' or merely a periodic change in an important climate variable, we cannot judge for sure. As I understand it, it is normally ascribed to cyclic variables such as orbital. If it was a 'tipping point', then it was a negative feed-back rather than the positive feed-back systems you are so fond of.

Taktiq Your final comment is an ad hom attack and is offensive in the extreme. I am asking you, please, to refrain from such. What am I getting from this? It is a subject I have always found of interest. I am definitely in favour of strict gun control. My country has much stricter gun control than yours, and I still think it is not tight enough. I am strongly in favour of human freedom and freedom of choice, as long as it carries no strong detriment. I have a number of liberalist friends, and a strong sympathy for their views, but I have a stronger belief in proper balance. Everything in life is balance. Liberalist ideals must be balanced against the rights of society to be protected against irresponsible action. The ownership of hand guns with the intent of using them against people is a pretty good example of irresponsible action. If you use a hand gun to shoot at targets as a sport, then no problem. However, the hand guns should never leave the secure environs of the gun club. I find the widespread ownership of hand guns by general citizenry to be foolish in the extreme. Even if most such owners are responsible and caring, a smaller irresponsible minority is sufficient to make restrictions sensible. I am arguing this viewpoint from a strong personal conviction. Guns are dangerous. Guns that are designed as sporting rifles are dangerous enough. Those, like hand guns, that are specifically designed to kill humans are more so. The suicide issue is only one aspect of this, but the statistics make it fairly clear cut, in spite of the strongly emotional arguments being levied against me. There is no good reason why average citizens should own hand guns, and that point is one I want to make, and feel strongly about.

To Deja Vu Re the 47% average death rate for jumping off high places. That is an average for all attempts to suicide by jumping off high places. It is not an average height - it is an average death rate. For every 100 attempts to suicide by jumping, 47 will result in the person dying. It seems to me that those who jump from higher points will die, and those who jump from lower points will live. They may be maimed, but they live. It may even be that maiming is the desired result in many cases, since that would result in gaining attention, which many would-be suicides are seeking, more than seeking death. Your comment about survival of an attempted gun suicide by missing is probably correct. Of course, a miss with a hand gun may still cause enormous facial damage, or even brain damage. The death rate is 90%, though, so those misses are infrequent. As far as saving suicides is concerned, I would have little concern if the intent was total. That is, if a would-be suicide was utterly determined to kill him/herself. In that case, removing guns from them would only mean they suicided by another means. And I would not want to take away their freedom to kill themselves. However, that is not the case. Research into suicide, as I have pointed out earlier, shows that the majority of attempts are a result of people crying for help, rather than seriously trying to top themselves. If a person really does not want to die, but needs help, then providing them with a hand gun is not exactly doing them a favour! In terms of helping people to achieve what they really want, preventing would-be suicides from getting a 90% lethal means is absolutely the best thing to do.

To Edtharan I do actually understand the basics, and oversimplified examples using black grills are seriously unnecessary. You seem to have ignored my point. That is, the world has been significantly warmer than today and did NOT suffer from a 'tipping point' leading to runaway warming. Until we have something better to go on, you are discussing theory that remains dubious.

To Edtharan I think you misunderstand my position. I am not a global warming denier. I accept that the world is warming, and that human actions, via greenhouse gases, are the primary cause. I also accept that action is needed to reduce or reverse this. However, I am sceptical of certain parts of the global climate change picture. Mostly I am sceptical of those who think they can predict the future. My statement about current sea level rise having little to do with the melting of land bound ice at or near the poles remains correct. Sea ice is vulnerable to melting when the sea warms. In the Arctic, there has been considerable sea ice melting, and recent studies have suggested a northerly oceanic current is a major cause, bringing in warmer water. Ice on land in these areas, though, does not appear to be contributing to any significant degree to sea level rise. Precipitation is close to equal to melting. The main body of Antarctica is actually cooling, albeit to a minor degree. However, ice in warmer climes, such as the Himalayas, is melting. This, plus thermal expansion, appears to be the bulk of the 3 mm per year sea level rise. I should say something about the hypothetical 'tipping points'. These are purely theoretical. There is no empirical evidence to 'prove' they exist, or are a threat. The world has warmed many times in the past. In the last interglacial period, 120,000 years ago, the world warmed to about 2 Celsius more than it is today, and no 'tipping point' caused runaway warming. On the other hand, despite ten interglacial warmings, each warming period has come to an end and reversed. Looks like there is a good chance that negative feed-back systems took over. It is also interesting to note that the long term trend over the ten interglacial warmings, is for each successive warming to get a little warmer than the one before. If this trend was typical for the current interglacial, the world would have to warm a further 3 Celsius or thereabouts to fit the graph. And this warming would be entirely 'natural'. OK, the warming of the past 30 years is not natural - but driven by AGWs. However, I hope you see the point. The time for panic is not here.

To Sayonara Sorry to mistake your humour for sarcasm. If Taktiq was referring to me as Kiwi, I do not mind. I am a New Zealander and proud of it, and the unofficial name for NZers is Kiwis - so that is fine. I think he got confused, though, and was addressing Mr. Skeptic when he should have been addressing me. Taktiq said : "You claim that gun control works? How so? All you have to go on is a handful of statistics. Do you even understand how this country of mine works? I'll answer that for you...NO. You claim that just having a gun in the home allows one to be more successful. What about the guns that are responsibly locked away in those homes? Do your statistics account for that? Other than reading a few bits and pieces of this or that, do you have any real world experience with firearms or suicide in general?" Assuming Taktiq was addressing me, I will make a couple of comments. Do I understand how the US works? No. But I doubt that any American can make that claim either. The US is an enormous place, with numerous cultures and systems and often the entirely unexpected. I know enough about the US, both from reading and from personal visits, to know that there is too much for anyone to get a real understanding of the complex interactions. Guns locked away? Sure. If everyone acted responsibly, there would be no problem. Does everyone act responsibly? Absolutely not! Personal experience with firearms? Fortunately not much with hand-guns, for the reason that they are tightly restricted in my country. With shotguns and hunting rifles, yes. I was raised on a farm, and we used them to shoot pests. I have shot my share. None of which has any bearing on my arguments anyway.

Sayonara said, with much sarcasm.... "Sell much smaller guns to those people who want less death from their weapon." The attitude of would-be suicides to the chosen method of attempting their own death appears to be a function of their psychology. I am not and never have been suicidal, so I have a real problem trying to understand the attitude. There seems to be a degree of 'double-think' as in ... "I will try to kill myself. I will try to survive." I do not understand it, but it appears to be real. The thing about guns is that, even if the would-be suicide is not truly trying to kill himself, it's gonna happen anyway. If he cannot lay his hands on a gun, and tries a less lethal means, he is far more likely to survive. As pointed out, even jumping off a high place results in survival more often than not. The really determined suicide will probably succeed, even without guns, but tragically, the less determined person will die if a gun is used, even if they really want to live.

Deja Vu asked "How were the statistics collected among jumping off high places? Were they stratified between those that were jumping into water as opposed to concrete? Jumping from the 2nd floor vs jumping off the 5th floor? You can't just simply take the statistics at face value. " The only way that statistic could be obtained is as an average. Obviously, if someone were very serious about topping themselves, the place they chose to jump off would be rather high, and they would have a much higher chance than 47% of killing themselves. However, as I have said before, the vast majority of suicide attempts are not serious - more in the nature of cries for help - and jumping would often be from lower heights. The tragedy with gun suicide is that most of those killing themselves with guns would also not be truly serious about wanting to die - but because guns are so damn lethal, they die anyway. There is a relevent book : 'Evaluating Gun Policy' ; http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Q05iNEB7egQC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22gun+suicide%22&source=web&ots=Mi2Z54shHi&sig=5tuKRt6ZCOfzVFgqbrwpLsi9ARQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA41,M1 This book makes it clear that there is a strong relationship between gun ownership and suicide rate. Even to the extent that states with higher gun ownership also have higher rates of suicide. The conclusion that tighter gun control would lead to lower suicide rates is inescapable.

Swansont I accept that I made an error ascribing Hansen's ridiculous claim to GCMs. However, that only makes it worse. When a scientist with Hansen's influence makes such claims and has them taken seriously on the basis of what seems to be a genuine 'back of the envelope' calculation, we are in real trouble! The real point is that shabby predictions lead to alarmist outcries, and panicky calls for action. As I said before, that is exactly what the world does not need. We need carefully researched, managed, monitored, and rational action.

To the Capn I agree. That is a big potential problem. The government organisations and private companies that deal in electrical generation and distribution need to be cranking up their capacity right now. Preferably non carbon emitting methods like nuclear. It takes 20 years for a nuclear power station to go from conception to commission. Right now is a good time for that conception.

Edtharan First, I do fully understand the distinction between heat and temperature. However, the discussion related to storms, and non-hurricane storms are drive by temperature differentials. Re melting. Current sea level rise has very little to do with ice melting at or near the poles. It is partly to do with thermal expansion of the oceans, and partly to do with melting of ice and glaciers in mountainous areas away from the poles - such as the Himalayas, Andes etc. The melting of polar sea ice has no effect on sea levels, and very little land bound ice near the poles has yet melted. As the Earth warms further, sea level will rise further. However, to suggest that the rate of sea level rise will double each decade is quite unjustified. You mention positive feed-back mechanisms. Did it occur to you that there are negative feed-back mechanisms also? I will not go into detail since that has already been discussed. I am not arguing against action to slow or reverse global climate change. I am arguing against alarmist rhetoric that leads to stupid panic reactions. Every year, there are further idiot suggestions for ways to engineer climate globally that are more likely to lead to massive global environmental disaster. Let's cool the alarmist statements and work through the changes in a sane manner.

To Deja Vu Jumping off high places has 47% fatal success, versus 90% for firearms. Just another statistic, even though Pangloss hates them. In spite of that, statistics are vital for moral decisions. The reason is that most morality works on the basic principle of 'thou shalt not harm others' and statistics (especially in this case) quantifies the harm, permitting good moral decisions. However, in response to Deja Vu's statement, I have to say that utility has to be taken into account. Hand-guns can be banned with pretty much zero negative impact, since almost their sole use is to kill humans. The other minor uses could be achieved in other ways. We can hardly ban things, like bridges, that have other, very vital uses. The things we use for transport, for example, are essential to modern civilisation. If we banned them, we would all starve to death.

A rapid recharge car would make all the difference. Current electric car developments allow for up to 350 km range. That is fine for everyday driving, but lets you down for longer distance. However, to be able to drive a large fraction of that 350 km and then recharge in 10 minutes will permit these same electric cars to travel large distances. That is the main limitation with modern electric cars. In spite of that, we can expect a range of electric cars to enter the market in the next few years, even before the new rapid recharge technology. Their running costs compared to petroleum powered vahicles are much lower. Their smaller range, and overnight recharge requirements are OK if they are simply commuter or shopping vehicles.