Say Bye Bye to the Barrier Reef in a Few Decades

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#1
BYE BYE REEF

Reef 'facing extinction'

Liz Minchin
January 30, 2007
Page 1 of 2 | Single page

SPECIAL REPORT
The Great Barrier Reef will become "functionally extinct" within decades at the current rate of global warming, while wilder weather is set to affect property values and drive up insurance bills in many Australian coastal communities.

A confidential draft of a major international report, obtained by The Age, shows that without massive greenhouse gas emission cuts to slow global warming, damage to coastal areas, key ecosystems and the farming sector is likely to cost Australia's economy billions of dollars.

On Saturday, The Age reported that the world's authoritative body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was preparing to strengthen its findings in a scientific assessment being released in Paris this week.

In coming months, the panel will also release two more reports, summarising key research on global climate impacts and solutions to climate change.

The Age has obtained a draft of the climate impacts report ahead of its release later this year. It includes a chapter on Australia, which warns that coral bleaching in the Barrier Reef is likely to become an annual occurrence by as early as 2030 due to warmer, more acidic seas.

It takes at least a decade for coral to start recovering from severe bleaching. But that may not happen, with average temperatures now expected to increase by about 3 degrees this century, raising the risk that areas of coral will die outright.

Tourism accounts for 4.2 per cent of Australia's economy, with the Barrier Reef alone worth about $5.8 billion a year in associated tourist dollars and sustaining the equivalent of 63,000 full-time jobs.

The reef is one of several iconic areas of Australia identified in the report as "key hot spots' for climate vulnerability. Others include Kakadu National Park's wetlands, the Murray-Darling Basin and alpine zones in southern Australia.

Based on present trends, climate models indicate that the flow of water along streams in the Murray-Darling Basin - home to more than two-thirds of the country's irrigated crops and pastures - will fall by between 10 and 25 per cent by 2050.

Combined with a greater chance of salinity problems, the draft IPCC report estimates the cost to agriculture in the region at $780 million to $1.17 billion.

Climate change will also affect more suburban beaches. Even a moderate sea-level rise is expected to mean that topping up Adelaide's beaches with sand will cost an extra $1.2 million.

Continue to Page 2

Reef 'facing extinction'


Liz Minchin
January 30, 2007
Page 2 of 2

SPECIAL REPORT

The Great Barrier Reef will become "functionally extinct" within decades at the current rate of global warming, while wilder weather is set to affect property values and drive up insurance bills in many Australian coastal communities.

A confidential draft of a major international report, obtained by The Age, shows that without massive greenhouse gas emission cuts to slow global warming, damage to coastal areas, key ecosystems and the farming sector is likely to cost Australia's economy billions of dollars.

On Saturday, The Age reported that the world's authoritative body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was preparing to strengthen its findings in a scientific assessment being released in Paris this week.

In coming months, the panel will also release two more reports, summarising key research on global climate impacts and solutions to climate change.

The Age has obtained a draft of the climate impacts report ahead of its release later this year. It includes a chapter on Australia, which warns that coral bleaching in the Barrier Reef is likely to become an annual occurrence by as early as 2030 due to warmer, more acidic seas.

It takes at least a decade for coral to start recovering from severe bleaching. But that may not happen, with average temperatures now expected to increase by about 3 degrees this century, raising the risk that areas of coral will die outright.

Tourism accounts for 4.2 per cent of Australia's economy, with the Barrier Reef alone worth about $5.8 billion a year in associated tourist dollars and sustaining the equivalent of 63,000 full-time jobs.

The reef is one of several iconic areas of Australia identified in the report as "key hot spots' for climate vulnerability. Others include Kakadu National Park's wetlands, the Murray-Darling Basin and alpine zones in southern Australia.

Based on present trends, climate models indicate that the flow of water along streams in the Murray-Darling Basin - home to more than two-thirds of the country's irrigated crops and pastures - will fall by between 10 and 25 per cent by 2050.

Combined with a greater chance of salinity problems, the draft IPCC report estimates the cost to agriculture in the region at $780 million to $1.17 billion.

Climate change will also affect more suburban beaches. Even a moderate sea-level rise is expected to mean that topping up Adelaide's beaches with sand will cost an extra $1.2 million each year over the next 20 years.

As more Australians move closer to the coast, the number of people living in areas exposed to "climate hazards" such as storms and flooding is expected to double over the next 50 years.

"Climate change is very likely to affect property values and investment through disclosure of increased hazards, as well as affecting the price and availability of insurance," the draft panel report states.

The average damage bill from weather-related disasters in Australia already tops $931 million a year, not including droughts. Such disasters are predicted to become more common and severe due to climate change.

Yet there are a few notes of optimism buried in the report's 20 chapters. Referring to dozens of initiatives that have sprung up in cities across the world, the draft report says that government strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions with better building standards and energy-saving programs can have added benefits of improving people's quality of life.

And global warming may boost a few countries and industries in the short term, with parts of northern and central Europe potentially able to grow more crops in warmer weather.

But on every continent, climate change is expected generally to make life tougher - and not just for people.

Since the previous IPCC assessment report in 2001, the outlook for many ecosystems has worsened, with growing evidence that about a quarter of all species could face extinction by the end of the century.

The draft report includes projections for how warmer temperatures will affect animals and plants around the world.

Average global temperatures have already risen about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees since 1900. The report says this has contributed to increased bleaching in coral reefs in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. It may also have affected Antarctic ecosystems, including reductions in penguin populations.

At 1.8 degrees above 1900 levels, there is expected to be extensive loss of wetland habitat in Kakadu due to rising sea levels. At 2 to 3 degrees higher, it predicts the "complete loss" of Australia's alpine zones and the possible collapse of the Amazon forest system, causing a "huge loss of biodiversity".

While wealthy countries such as Australia will be able to cope much better with problems such as drought and coastal damage, some people will be more at risk than others, including farmers and some indigenous Australians. The report suggests that some Torres Strait Islanders may eventually have to relocate to mainland Australia if severe coastal flooding continues.

In the United States, efforts to rebuild New Orleans after hurricane Katrina could be badly undermined by climate change and subsidence.

Elsewhere, the human and economic costs of climate change are likely to be highest in poor countries, which have typically contributed least to climate change because of their much lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Water shortages will further cripple many African nations, while coastal flooding is already affecting low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and many Pacific islands.

The draft report estimates that by 2080, between 1.1 billion and 3.2 billion people will be suffering from water scarcity problems, between 200 million and 600 million more will be going hungry, and up to 7 million more homes will be at risk from coastal flooding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet Al Gores jumping in his shoes. He sort of reminds me of Bush, in that whenever he gets a sentence full of facts out, he feels as if he was fulfilled his purpose.

FRANK CALIENDO'S IMPRESSION OF BUSH!!!(Watch the 1:10 mark)
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#2
are we going to do anything about it?

no...

BTW I don't really care what the situation will be in 2080 because the way things are going on now there will be hardly anybody to see it
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#7
HERESY said:
What causes global warming? Religion? All that hell stuff?
I'll tell you what:

human ignorance caused by false beliefs enforced on people over centuries of reign of the religious dogma

scientists have been warning that global warming is a major threat since the middle of the 20th century

yet, it is still "debated" whether it's a real issue or not, even now when it's an observed fact and reality all over the world

Because nobody ever believes scientists...

Why? I'll leave it for you to explain it...
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#8
ThaG said:
I'll tell you what:

human ignorance caused by false beliefs enforced on people over centuries of reign of the religious dogma

scientists have been warning that global warming is a major threat since the middle of the 20th century

yet, it is still "debated" whether it's a real issue or not, even now when it's an observed fact and reality all over the world

Because nobody ever believes scientists...

Why? I'll leave it for you to explain it...
its a fact that the earth has recently been getting warmer, its also a fact that we have had accurate temp records for less than 200 years. please show me some facts that say the recent climate change is due primarliy from humans. thanks.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#9








The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis


world energy consumption:

 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#10
ThaG said:












world energy consumption:

NONE of these "facts" say that humans are the primary cause, except maybe for the little paragraph thing you inserted. the rest of these mean nothing except correlation. and in response to the only real piece of evidence you submitted along with all the other meaningless crap...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

this is an artilce by a prof. of meterology at MIT examining the history and political motives for the puported "concensus". so even if there is a concensus amonf scientists, can you show me some concrete evidence of the human role in global warming. cause if its out there id surely like to read it.

EDIT: if you say this guy fro mMIT is not a good source of infrmation, then you should also know he widely misquoted by proponents of your view as suppoting your view. pretty funny.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#11
OK, Lindzen is known to be a critic of global warming, but he's one of the few

most scientists don't doubt it and his claims about how they try to keep him silent are greatly exaggerated as a number of scientists who believe in global warming have had their funding cut or have been forced to keep their mouth shut (I remember a Harvard professor that had serious problems with it, I just can't find the article right now), especially during the current administration mandate

the other thing you should not forget and which even he mentions is that this is an issue of extreme importance for the industry so you have to be very careful abotu what you hear and who you hear it from, a lot of interests are invloved and the scientific truth obviously isn't the top priority

the facts are: average temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees over the last century and this correlates very well with the increase in CO2 concentrations

you cannot explain the rise of CO2 with anything else other than human activty

you can not even think of trying to explain the rise in CFCs levels with "natural reasons", thus ozone depletion is entirely cause by human activity
(and yes, ice is metling faster than ever)

thse are the facts

what he says is that current models didn't predict exactly today's levels ov CO2, citing difference between 355 (observed) and 400 (preicted)

a few sentences later he mentions models are 50% inaccurate...
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#12
ok, so you have no real evidence and are still relying only on correlation and the basis that we havent found any other answer yet so it must be true. thats all i wanted to know.

moving on from this, what are your suggestions to remedy the situation? what of developing nations? what of leading industrialized nations? what impacts on the global and regional economies do you forsee? why did al gore fly around in jets and ride in stretch limos touring across the country to promote his movie about energy conservation? and finally, if the situation demands as much action as you claim, what have you done?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#13
the soultion is very harsh, but if we don't take care about the situation, it will take care about us is the not that distant future:

the necessary measures are:

1. decrease in population; yes, not just birth control, but a drastic decrease in population; the current estimates point that the Earth can support only 1.5 billions people if they consume as much as the average person in USA and we're already using over 30% more resources than the palnet can renew

the problem gets only worse when you consider that China and India are being rapidly industrialized and consumption levels there are only going to rise

add to the equation the out of control birth rate in Muslim countries, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (where's HERESY to tell us what the bible says about it?) and the picture looks really grimmy

I don't just talk about global warming here, obviously more people means more cars, more factories, more emissions, but also more highways, more homes, larger cities, less forests, decreased biological diversity (I know nobody gives a fuck about it but it is also a big problem) increased rate of desertification, etc., problems, problems, and more problems

a decrease in population can be achieved by several ways: the first is to start killing people as terrible as it might sound; granted, AIDS is here and we won't find a cure soon, but it's not an efficient way to reduce population by any means, so we need some very deadly disease that can kill 5 billions in a matter of 15-20 years or we have to do the job ourselves and we'll start doing, no matter if we want or not (anybody remember Darfur?)

a less drastic measure has been proposed some time ago and it is to start "licensing birth"; to drive a car, you need a license, to built a home, you need a permission, but you're free to have as many babies as you want, so why don't we stop allowing people to do it?

this is a particularly attractive idea, the criteria will include financial and educational status and previous history of child abuse, drinking, smoking, etc.

if apllied stringently enough, such measure could not only quickly reduce population (in just a few generations) but they will also reduce poverty, illiteracy, crime, and a number of other social problems which tend to reproduce themselves, generation after generation

2. Only after we have taken care of population size, we can start thinking of other measures which include: big $ invested in alternative energy sources research, environmentally friendly technologies, recycling, etc.

BTW it is not only fuels that are problematic - all the major resources the industry uses will be over by the end of the 21st/the middle of 22nd century if used at the current rate (which will only increase in the future)- metals, coal, everything

so it is especially stupid to worry about industry and economic growth - modern industry the way we know it will be dead in just 50 years because of lack of resources

the only way civilization can survive is to take care of its own uncontrolled growth, its internal conflicts and problems, and build a new society based on efficient use of the available resources

will this happen - of course no
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#14
Capitalism is the main force behind environmental damage. When profit is the highest priority, everything else including the environment is irrelevant.

Capitalism cannot protect the environment. The only solution is a fully socialist society, where the wealth is shared equally, which means no one section, class or caste would have interests separate from others. There would be no corporate interest to exploit and push for quick profit which in turn is environmentally hazardous. What possible reason would such a society have to wreck the medium or long-term common good through short-term and short-sighted policies that make a quick profit?
 
Aug 23, 2002
1,283
2
0
#16
ThaG said:
the soultion is very harsh, but if we don't take care about the situation, it will take care about us is the not that distant future:

the necessary measures are:

1. decrease in population; yes, not just birth control, but a drastic decrease in population; the current estimates point that the Earth can support only 1.5 billions people if they consume as much as the average person in USA and we're already using over 30% more resources than the palnet can renew

the problem gets only worse when you consider that China and India are being rapidly industrialized and consumption levels there are only going to rise

add to the equation the out of control birth rate in Muslim countries, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (where's HERESY to tell us what the bible says about it?) and the picture looks really grimmy

I don't just talk about global warming here, obviously more people means more cars, more factories, more emissions, but also more highways, more homes, larger cities, less forests, decreased biological diversity (I know nobody gives a fuck about it but it is also a big problem) increased rate of desertification, etc., problems, problems, and more problems

a decrease in population can be achieved by several ways: the first is to start killing people as terrible as it might sound; granted, AIDS is here and we won't find a cure soon, but it's not an efficient way to reduce population by any means, so we need some very deadly disease that can kill 5 billions in a matter of 15-20 years or we have to do the job ourselves and we'll start doing, no matter if we want or not (anybody remember Darfur?)

a less drastic measure has been proposed some time ago and it is to start "licensing birth"; to drive a car, you need a license, to built a home, you need a permission, but you're free to have as many babies as you want, so why don't we stop allowing people to do it?

this is a particularly attractive idea, the criteria will include financial and educational status and previous history of child abuse, drinking, smoking, etc.

if apllied stringently enough, such measure could not only quickly reduce population (in just a few generations) but they will also reduce poverty, illiteracy, crime, and a number of other social problems which tend to reproduce themselves, generation after generation

2. Only after we have taken care of population size, we can start thinking of other measures which include: big $ invested in alternative energy sources research, environmentally friendly technologies, recycling, etc.

BTW it is not only fuels that are problematic - all the major resources the industry uses will be over by the end of the 21st/the middle of 22nd century if used at the current rate (which will only increase in the future)- metals, coal, everything

so it is especially stupid to worry about industry and economic growth - modern industry the way we know it will be dead in just 50 years because of lack of resources

the only way civilization can survive is to take care of its own uncontrolled growth, its internal conflicts and problems, and build a new society based on efficient use of the available resources

will this happen - of course no
REAL TALK^^^^^^^^ The earth is so overpopulated as it is...
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#17
2-0-Sixx said:
Capitalism is the main force behind environmental damage. When profit is the highest priority, everything else including the environment is irrelevant.

Capitalism cannot protect the environment. The only solution is a fully socialist society, where the wealth is shared equally, which means no one section, class or caste would have interests separate from others. There would be no corporate interest to exploit and push for quick profit which in turn is environmentally hazardous. What possible reason would such a society have to wreck the medium or long-term common good through short-term and short-sighted policies that make a quick profit?
so you dont have a viable solution? worldwide socialism seems pretty unreasonable at this point unless global war creates one superpower willing to implement it across the planet. many of these developing nations are experienceing prosperity in certain circles that hasnt been seen for a long time, id think theyd be more resistant than established nations.
 
Nov 7, 2005
2,601
20
0
43
#19
Anyone concerned about or just want to learn about global warming should check out "An Inconvenient Truth".

Plot Summary for
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

Director Davis Guggenheim eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Mr. Gore's personal history and lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a thoughtful and compelling way. "Al Gore strips his presentations of politics, laying out the facts for the audience to draw their own conclusions in a charming, funny and engaging style, and by the end has everyone on the edge of their seats, gripped by his haunting message," said Guggenheim. An Inconvenient Truth is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry to protect the one earth we all share. "It is now clear that we face a deepening global climate crisis that requires us to act boldly, quickly, and wisely," said Gore.