The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

> "It turns out, both the algae and coral examined here fail to thrive in our business-as-usual climate predictions."...

No, the didn't use "business as usual climate [s]predictions] projections

As usual with these "we're all doomed" papers, they used the extreme RCP8.5 model projection.

See https://static-content.springer.com/...OESM1_ESM.docx

For a discussion on the assumptions behind RCP8.5 see here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a...enario-rcp8-5/

Under an Obama-type presidency I think your skepticism would be justified. But under a Trump-type presidency I'm skeptical of your skepticism.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah, I just love it when you prove my point. A fresh dose of self-righteousness for a brand new morning! Got a Pew survey on this one too?

Look around. Overfishing is still a problem, pollution is still a problem, poverty is still a problem...they're not being tackled. Greenies and green policies are reviled by most of the right. The cause doesn't matter (pollution, CC, poverty, Black Lives Matter)... if someone holds a sign and raises their voice about it... boom, the right pounces. They even came up with a catch-all handle - Social Justice Warriors.

Climate change is just the easiest and most visible of green targets. And I agree it requires much more discussion and research. But at present, by successfully resisting and denying CC, most other green/social issues are being set back as well.

It's hilarious your trying to equate the Guardian with the Daily Caller, like they are equal but opposite.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... the problem with so much focus on AGW is that other causes which are potentially preventable get downplayed if not ignored.

So you do get it...

This is not a bug, it's a feature. Ecological action is seen as a "lefty" enterprise, just another excuse for socialism. It's all been restrained now.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

How about motive for all the grief & discord he's earned for himself for such sins? Swiss bank account? Cayman's? Koch brothers again? Evil fossil fuel interests? Religious fundamentalism? I'm new to the entire drama, so maybe you can inform about some sort of evidence other than a disagreement over scientific opinion.

Religious fundamentalism, hmmm what like ISIS and their extremist views based on text that the worlds largest religious group views differently. Should we not allow the kalafate freedom of speech too?

Like I said, I’m not really going to speculate on motive ....but if I had to I’d say he threw his toys out the pram and now has a vendetta.

I’m still waiting for Ridds evidence against the accepted wisdom and how he’s come to his conclusion, or did I miss it? Can only find his criticism of everyone else’s data and methodology. To quote “50% of science is wrong” (that makes half his 100 published peer reviewed paper wrong so I guess he just discredited himself). So anyway maybe the real question should be what’s the replication crisis all about when it comes to coral reef science?

I’m new to this drama too btw

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm no fish expert, but I'm going to take a wild stab and suggest that this is a photo of an aquarium fish.

Secondly, increased mucus??? Ask any kid that's seen "Finding Nemo" and they'll tell you, quick smart, that it's a requirement for a fish that makes its home inside a stinging anemone.

I’m disappointed in myself for not seeing the metaphor between a clown (fish) heading an article on Ridd and parasites.

But it’s funny, in a way your comments on aquariums...and finding Nemo, where life in a fish tank is very different from the wild might well be part of the real issue...the replication crisis and how things really work in the wild?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Mutually-assured destruction in heated coral-algae war

..."Coral and macroalgae principally compete through direct physical or chemical mechanisms, and more algae can mean an increase in coral bleaching and mortality," Dr Brown said.

"So far, our warming and acidifying oceans have led to a shift in competitive advantage between macroalgae and coral, generally in favour of algal species," she said.

"But in our experiments – using the branching coral Acropora and the green algae species Halimeda – we looked even further into the future, to see if macroalgal competitive mechanisms will increase at the expense of the coral.

"It turns out, both the algae and coral examined here fail to thrive in our business-as-usual climate predictions."...

More information: Kristen T. Brown et al. Temporal effects of ocean warming and acidification on coral–algal competition, Coral Reefs (2019). DOI: 10.1007/s00338-019-01775-y

Spooky, it’s a bit like my ramblings on 50million year old reefs in #22. Hope I’m not right

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Look around. Overfishing is still a problem, pollution is still a problem, poverty is still a problem...they're not being tackled. Greenies and green policies are reviled by most of the right. The cause doesn't matter (pollution, CC, poverty, Black Lives Matter)... if someone holds a sign and raises their voice about it... boom, the right pounces. They even came up with a catch-all handle - Social Justice Warriors.

Climate change is just the easiest and most visible of green targets. And I agree it requires much more discussion and research. But at present, by successfully resisting and denying CC, most other green/social issues are being set back as well.

It's hilarious your trying to equate the Guardian with the Daily Caller, like they are equal but opposite.

I don't know what you mean by "equal," but what I meant is that both publications are closer to the fringe than the center, and both use a lot of "click-bait" to get people to visit their sites and, for some, actually read their articles. That you can't see this speaks more to how insulated you've become in your own world of conformist lefty politics. It's sorta like The Economist -- it depends where the reader him or herself is on the political spectrum when asked if it is left, right or centrist. There is a whole world out there of like-minded people who care as much as you profess to care about the environment and a whole host of other issues. They just don't buy into what they view as ideologically-driven partisanship -- often from both sides.

The credibility of the environmental movement has suffered, not on account of a lack of "caring," but because it too has become overtly ideological, with all the impulsive, emotionally driven policies that inevitably result, often from people with no scientific background themselves. You can try and console yourself by blaming the right-wing for spreading "misinformation," but the reality is the CC movement mainly has itself to blame for claiming more certainty than actually exists, for vilifying scientists with differing views, and for being intolerant of laymen who look at the issue differently from the preordained script.

I agree with you that partisans from the Right tend to lump many "lefty" issues together and tend to be dismissive because of the source and not necessarily the merits. But partisans from the Left engage in the exact same behavior, even to the point of objecting to the same policies of a Republican administration that were also implemented by a Democrat one (separating parents & children at the border anyone?). But there's a vast middle of the population that either can't be bothered with petty partisanship, or just believe that the ideology that usually drives it is simple-minded and a matter of personal preference if not identity, and not objectively reasoned policy choices. (how about No-Discharge Zones?). You and other partisans consistently fail to recognize that it's that vast middle who you need to persuade to get your polices actually implemented. I fail to see how false stereotyping, name calling & bogus accusations about their motives could possibly win them over.

What's actually hilarious is your trying to shift the blame for the environmental movement putting so much emphasis on CC at the expense of other serious issues. Or co-opting valid scientific concerns over CC into their wildly unpopular wealth redistribution/socialist agendas. Is it the right-wing who just introduced the Green New Deal? Have you seen how much of the text is devoted to CC as opposed to other social engineering agendas? Kindly look within before being so quick to blame others.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Religious fundamentalism, hmmm what like ISIS and their extremist views based on text that the worlds largest religious group views differently. Should we not allow the kalafate freedom of speech too?

Like I said, I’m not really going to speculate on motive ....but if I had to I’d say he threw his toys out the pram and now has a vendetta.

I’m still waiting for Ridds evidence against the accepted wisdom and how he’s come to his conclusion, or did I miss it? Can only find his criticism of everyone else’s data and methodology. To quote “50% of science is wrong” (that makes half his 100 published peer reviewed paper wrong so I guess he just discredited himself). So anyway maybe the real question should be what’s the replication crisis all about when it comes to coral reef science?

I’m new to this drama too btw

So maybe don't be so quick to judge before you've answered some of the good questions you've raised.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

What's actually hilarious is your trying to shift the blame for the environmental movement putting so much emphasis on CC at the expense of other serious issues.

This one's tough to parse. It's the environmental movement's fault that not enough attention is being paid to other causes besides CC? So it's not the fault of those who oppose any action towards CC AND haven't exactly done much with the other problems either... Huh.

Is it the right-wing who just introduced the Green New Deal? Have you seen how much of the text is devoted to CC as opposed to other social engineering agendas?

"Climate change" is one of the problems caused by irresponsible use of fossil fuels, and other carbon-releasing activities, and not a social engineering agenda. You can hate on someone for bolting that agenda onto their CC advocacy, but it doesn't change the reality or importance of the problem.

The Green New Deal as a complete package is impossibly idealistic, but if you analyze each component in isolation... most are simply a bolder restatement of solutions that are already on the table. Jobs, healthcare, infrastructure, energy efficiencies, incentivizing greener technologies. Crazy, crazy stuff.

I am reminded of a similar group, who coalesced around a similarly ideologically absolutist position on the things they believed in. As a package, they didn't have a chance. But their ideas caught on and they attracted some backing, and lawmakers started to pay attention to them, and this gave them significant influence. Today, many of their ideas and champions are now mainstream. I'm talking of course of the Tea Party.

[Hardhead]

I believe the younger generations prefer to err on the side of caution with regard to our environment. The composition of the electorate will be much different 10 years from now.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I am reminded of a similar group, who coalesced around a similarly ideologically absolutist position on the things they believed in. As a package, they didn't have a chance. But their ideas caught on and they attracted some backing, and lawmakers started to pay attention to them, and this gave them significant influence. Today, many of their ideas and champions are now mainstream. I'm talking of course of the Tea Party.

Not before they were vilified for being racist and all sorts of other fun stuff. Unfortunately, I'm not sure they or their ideas ever became mainstream. They got more people elected to Congress for sure, but their core principles -- a return to balanced budgets & constitutional govt -- certainly haven't been achieved. Not under the last administration and certainly not the present one.

Thus far all I've seen from the ideologically absolutist factions from both sides in the US is more divisiveness & stagnation, and it long predates the current administration. I fear this level of discord isn't amenable to getting much done given the way the US democratic system is structured, and all the less so since the discourse has become so personalized. We need moderate, statesman-like voices willing to compromise more than ever right now, but that requires some profiles in courage which are sorely lacking.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

So maybe don't be so quick to judge before you've answered some of the good questions you've raised.

It doesn’t take long to realise there is no science behind Peter Ridds sensationalised click bait headlines...you know the ones that everyone in the “it’s just fine” camp seem to refere too.

Subscribing to these ‘views’ because they just came from the horses mouth is just blind loyalist and somewhat hypocritical by your own standards. Again, unless of coarse you can point me to some credible science?

I’ve already stated that I agree with his more robust views that stand up to scientific scrutiny on the direction of species specific corals (not the more generalised reductionist views on what is a massively complex subject) due to sea surface temperatures.

But the surveys only looked at the shallowest and most susceptible species at water depths of <2 m where water got hottest.

Ok a balanced view might be...the surveys aren’t “wrong”, but you need to be clear what they tell us and the limitations of the data, something I admit some papers I’ve read seem to exclude. Weather it’s coordinated and intentional or just an eager newly graduated student who’s forgotten something, yes the quality control needs to be better. No reason to have a hissy fit and start releasing crap material to prove a point. Won’t do you any favours in the long run.

•We still have no idea what happened in the deeper water.

So how can you then come to the conclusion it’s all fine?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I believe the younger generations prefer to err on the side of caution with regard to our environment. The composition of the electorate will be much different 10 years from now.

Yes. It will be OLDER.

“The aging of baby boomers means that within just a couple decades, older people are projected to outnumber children for the first time in U.S. history,” said Jonathan Vespa, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau. “By 2035, there will be 78.0 million people 65 years and older compared to 76.7 million (previously 76.4 million) under the age of 18.”

In Canada, the proportion of seniors within the population has been steadily growing since 1960, increasing from 8% at that time to 14% in 2009. According to all population projection scenarios, seniors are expected to comprise around 23% to 25% of the population by 2036, and around 24% to 28% in 2061.
In 1971, the median age of the population was 26.2 years—it was 39.5 years in 2009. The population's median age is projected to continue rising to between 42 and 45 years by 2036, and then to between 42 and 47 years by 2061.
Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world, partly to counter population ageing.

Most countries have rising life expectancy, and an ageing population, trends which are now seen in virtually all developed and developing countries.

Why Are Older People More Conservative?
Older and younger generations have always clashed about values (you can test yours here). Typically, these clashes result from younger people being more liberal, and older people more conservative. This is somewhat ironic since older people were also quite liberal when they were young, and younger people will become more conservative when they grow old. So what explains age differences in conservatism, and why do people become more right wing, authoritarian, and rigid as they age?
➥ https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...e-conservative

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I believe the younger generations prefer to err on the side of caution with regard to our environment. The composition of the electorate will be much different 10 years from now.

Yep, it will be constituted by persons who have been thoroughly indoctrinated by their schooling and the media and increasingly ignorant of the processes by which our material wealth is produced.

They will be the product of societies wherein the concept of balance in public affairs has been entirely discredited.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Yep, it will be constituted by persons who have been thoroughly indoctrinated by their schooling and the media and increasingly ignorant of the processes by which our material wealth is produced.

They will be the product of societies wherein the concept of balance in public affairs has been entirely discredited.

And yet somehow, magically, the current generation has managed to avoid becoming indoctrinated by their schooling and their media?

Yeh, right!