Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Wallaby

Some time ago Global Warming became Global Climate Change. It is not a matter of semantics, btw. The reason is quite simple, actual warming stopped some years ago, possibly as a result of solar activity (eg sun spots as massive releases of radiation). We are currently in/going into a cooling phase in that respect. It is these solar effects/patterns that bring on such climate changes as ice-ages and warming trends, plus Earth's cycles (and events) as well.

Btw, it is much easier to 'prove' man-caused global warming--the temperature goes up, all other contributing factors held constant. The problem is the data does not support the hypothesis. There are significant warming periods (eg. 1922) without man's huge influence, and the recent slowdown/decrease in temperature.

Now, Climate Change covers all options, hot and/or cold, and even no change at all. Few hurricanes or more hurricanes, dry spells, wet spells, etc.; it's all climate change now. Anything becomes climate change. No wonder the progressive politicians jumped on board.

Of course, the 'scientific' problem with man-caused 'Global Climate Change' is what is the testable hypothesis. 'Change' has to do with variability. For example, should there be more change or less change from an established mean because man has caused the climate to change? The first question a reasonably informed person should ask is what is the statistical distribution of global climate change over a long period time? For the sake of argument, let's say 1,000 years.

Forget bleaching of the coral. It might be a perfectly normal, low probability event, whose time finally came.

In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.

You can thank the GOP for politicizing "climate change"
Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

[Barra]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Apparently the real problem in Australia at the moment is that foxes are overrunning Tasmania.


A few years ago a dead fox and some scat was found in Tasmania which supposedly does not have any native foxes (The rest of the country did not until the British bought them from the British Isles so they could have fox hunts, bloody unmentionables chasing the inedible)


The good old taxpayer leapt to the rescue and funded $50,000,000 of fox research and studies to eradicate the little devils and it has now come out that the original signs were probably a plant by someone in a government department who wanted to see more research funded.


The upshot of this for this particular over-privileged white male is that I am now going to have to carry the burden of guilt of also being a foxes-in-Tasmania sceptic.


Dunno if I can handle much more guilt??

It would be funny if it werent true. I think theres something in that for all of us dont you?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by MAJICDAN

One volcanic eruption does more damage than all of humankind ever did.

This one will suffice as an example of the inaccuracies you presented.

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere.

Published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

[jackdale]

Enough for tonight.

[Hearts Content]

Let's see, all of the continents were at one time joined together, present deserts were oceans, ice ages and all that. Inconvenient truth.

Better break out the Sun, Moon and other assorted gods to get this sorted. Human sacrifice may be required ... if you really want to fix this. Might be far more effective than carbon credits!

Those silly liberals are so much fun.

[buzzstar]

Just a casual look at the various graphs appears to show data fudging. Try drawing a straight line from 0.0 one the left to 0.0 on the right. To me, it appears the two otherwise similar graphs have had the graphed data jiggered upward when the two are compared. I might also mention the inconsistency of the number of data sources over the years. This is not to say that the "no warming" graph is any better, just that there is nothing for direct comparison, except the extracted segment as visible on the other graphs which are just not quite reliable as presented.

Added comments: the satellite measurement areas are not 80 N to 80 S, and the number of measuring satellites has increased over time, but not necessarily resulting in additional accuracy/consistency or less skewing of data. Just as the creation and congestion of cities acting as heatsinks is not a good method of demonstrating global warming if topographically similar open country is used as a comparison, more input data from satellite measurements can be misleading even if a legitimate attempt is made to avoid skewing in the direction of politics and/or the author's bias. Let us assume things are warming (not cooling, as was widely anticipated in my younger years), the question remains, is/are the cause(s) something we can change? Or not?

[elandra65]

Hi Tricolor and my commiserations for the flak you are getting but that was inevitable.

Unfortunately many people will cling to the doubt factor over climate change as it gives them an excuse for sitting on their hands, doing nothing about the problem and continue business as usual. Lazy way out but that is human nature. It is common practice for "merchants of doubt" to do this and has been used many times such as in the risk of smoking etc etc. As an example of this our lovely "Pauline Hanson" leader of our (Australia) "One Nation Party" dived on the Great Barrier Reef recently and declared it healthy. Thing is she chose a healthy section to do it but no doubt has alleviated many people minds on the issue.

Of course many politicians and fossil fuel sponsored contributors of junk science have to have more credibility than the thousands of non paid scientists who contribute to the reports put out by the IPCC. See:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Sadly the future generations will mostly reap the results of this behaviour but at least we can have a good time while it lasts. Now if only I can do something about my conscience!

Andrew

[billgewater]

Originally Posted by MAJICDAN

Global warming is a fact.

Global warming started about one million years ago the day after, the coldest day, that marked the end of the Ice Age.

The earth will do what it wants. We have little to do with it.

The earth quake in Chile about 10 years ago, changed the earth's tilt about a degree. This caused part of the gulfstream to turn north from england into the Arctic causing greenland waters to become a few degrees warmer.

The Antarctic Ice is thicker than ever.

One forest fire sets everything we can do about CO2 levels, back 10 years.

One volcanic eruption does more damage than all of humankind ever did.

All that Gore, George Soros, and President Obama did, they did for political and monetary gain only.

By the way, scientists have said California is going to slide into the ocean if they secede.

The last ice age finished roughly, over a few thousand years about 17 000 yrs ago. Not a million years ago. Is this a reflection of your accuracy?

If the earth's axis tilted by 1 degree we would have to change the latitude lines for the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer. Better let Google Earth know about that. I am sure your help would be appreciated.
They would also have to reposition all the geo stat satellites. gee, no wonder my wife gets lost when using her gps. and no wonder the satellite pictures are full of bad advertisements. Now it's all clearly explained!
.
The observed spread of surface ice in the Antarctic was essentially caused by excessive melting of surface ice further inland. The water flows to the sea reducing the salinity of the water. Lower salinity means it freezes to form at a higher temperature. Basic High School Physics. You did do some science?
"One forest fire sets everything we can do about CO2 levels, back 10 years.
" gee, Australian aboriginals have burning off country for what? About 40 000 years. Gee, did we miss something?

"One volcanic eruption does more damage than all of humankind ever did.
" Aha! Here we have the answer! It's all caused by the spewing of absolute rubbish along with some serious flatulence like noises.' and we know by whom.

However, back to the GBR where I actually have lived nearby for over 8 years. Yes the damage is clear and conspicuous. Yes it is mainly in the north from Lizard Island down. The damage does correspond to higher water temperatures and increasing acidity, but also much of the northern damage is also associated with land clearing. The consequent run off silt which is absolutely enormous in both depth and area has simply choked much of the already weakened reef life forms. And yes, the higher temperature profile does contribute to cyclone frequency and severity which can't be good for any choral reef.
Also the GBR has much hoopla sprouted because it supports a large tourism industry. The charter operators can only deny the problem does not exist. but they are scared sh.....ess as they can do little. We also have some nut case right wing politicians who against all the conspicuous evidence, deny any problem and blame the "climate change industry".
Finally, the collapse of the GBR is dramatic and there is little evidence of regrowth in spite of claims. But the GBR problem is a symptom of a much greater extinction event. Check out the "anthropocene".

[jackdale]

Since the topic is warming oceans, one more link

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Enough for tonight.

There ya go again Jack...confusing people with facts again...

[arsenelupiga]

So, is it worth sailing up there to Lizard Island or only up to Cairns or even less ?

I am keen free diver.

[Bruce K]

Climate and sea levels have always changed, are changing now, and will continue to change while Earth exists. Just because Homo Sapiens is so full of its own importance we worry. Sapiens has only been on earth for the smallest part of the blink of an eye. It is unlikely we will exist for as long as Erectus did.
Earth abides, with and without Sapiens

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Bruce K

Climate and sea levels have always changed, are changing now, and will continue to change while Earth exists. Just because Homo Sapiens is so full of its own importance we worry. Sapiens has only been on earth for the smallest part of the blink of an eye. It is unlikely we will exist for as long as Erectus did.
Earth abides, with and without Sapiens

yeah but if 1/2 of animal species were destroyed in this short period, and seas poisoned, homo sap matters long term. And all bad seem to radiate from religeous fricks that is why h/s does feel like cancer to the nature. Hope earth not to die nasty/painful death but not much hope with another 5b consumers coming on board.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Nonsense. If it is real the only things that matters are, is it man caused, if so, to what extent, and can something be done about it that makes a meaningful difference? Another choice is to spend our money on creating a new nest elsewhere.

Non sense.

That the CO2 and methane being emitted by human activities is causing the current, accelerating warming is unequivocal. Something can and will be done about it, either by those creating the problem or by the system of physical laws that ultimately control the climate.

The question comes down to who will be the 'winners' and who will be the 'losers' in this 're-equiliberalization'. Given that western civilization developed in a very specific range of temperature and climate stability, and that the size of the population is directly a result of the use of a quickly disappearing, highly dense energy source, the one/two punch of destabilized climate and the lack of energy to support a (massively out of synch [in respect to the size of the rest of the biosystem]) population, it seems clear who these 'winners' and 'losers' will be, and I doubt very seriously that anyone posting on this forum is going to like it...

As for "spending our money on creating a new nest elsewhere", just where is this 'elsewhere'? Do you mean another planet or maybe solar system?

If so, that is worse than nonsense, it's ridiculous, Kinda like Columbus saying 'I think I can get to India by traveling west" and then trying to prove it by swimming across the Atlantic, because boats hadn't been invented. (Though from a numbers standpoint that would make more sense.)

We are currently using basically the same type of rocket propulsion pioneered by Robert Goddard in the early part of the 20th century (which, by the way, are ultimately powered by fossil fuels). After 100 years of development we've managed to boost the launch capacity to an astonishing 16 tons, or less than the capacity of a single 40 foot container. No laws-of-physics-defying solutions for the propulsion problem are on the drawing board or are even entertained, except in the minds of SF enthusiasts, authors and movie producers.

So what you appear to be recommending is, like our fictional Spitzian Colombus above, that we invest money on a pie-in-the-sky solution, that at current levels of technology does not (and likely cannot) exist. Weak as gravity is, it's just too much for an impulse engine to deal with. And that doesn't address the 'time' problem in case you're thinking even intra-galactic planets...

More to that 'new nest' idea, leaving aside the oft-repeated denialist mantra that 'lowly humans are too insignificant or small to have an effect on an entire planet' (Mars' atmosphere is extremely thin and mostly CO2), what are we gonna do when we get there? Unless the socio-politico-econo-biological problems are addressed (here or there) first, ultimately the same problem we have here will at some point be reached.

So what's this got to do with the Great Barrier Reef? I dunno, maybe the idea of the vast hordes migrating via rocket ship from one planet they've made uninhabitable to another currently uninhabitable planet, then making it inhabitable, will somehow save the GBR (if it needs 'saving'), if it doesn't kill it first? Kinda like the way chemo (sometimes) works in fighting cancer?

[aclmck]

Ive seen a lot of damage to the GBR, 30- 40 years ago it was crown of thorn starfish killing off the reef (and it did a good job where it went everything died) but a few years latter the reef was back just picture perfect.

After a lot of monies spent in the last 2 decades on the GBR the govt's of the day started imposing rules on how the Runoffs into creeks and rivers were to be treated, some of these are proving to be successful (less fertiliser into the reef from the cane fields)

At the same time they started to impose differing zones where in some cases we are not even allowed to fish to help preserve the reef, but in any case this is also helping greatly (or so we are lead to believe)

Yes Cyclones do a lot of damage to reef's but so does the land clearing etc etc,

One area that the scientists have not yet explained to everyone is why certain reef areas die off completely and others live without any signs of distress and they are only a few Kilometres apart.

I think Global Warming is real and present but the weather is also cyclic so a lot of confusion exists for the lay person such as myself.

Many of the experts from both sides seem to follow in the footsteps of our politicians and give us selective truths, as do the reporters, the ones (in the global warming camp) always doing the talking keep say that nothing is working while the James Cook university say that some things are working at least in protecting the Reef. We Australians and in particular Queenslanders are spending millions to help protect the reef i'd hate to think that all that money was wasted

If the science community want lay people to understand they should learn to communicate in a way most of us can understand,currently we have one side giving us a chart showing no Global warming (see above posts) and the other side coming out to say that there is using the same chart with a different baseline, how is a "lay person" supposed to make an informed decision on the facts when they are always (or nearly alway's ) distorted depending on what camp they come from and if this is a real and present issue they have to convince the lay person , after all it is us that vote in our representatives that spend our money on this stuff.