Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack you forgot the part about the Canadian coast guard ice breaker that was leading the way for it.

Because that would be another inconvenient truth.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Because that would be another inconvenient truth.

Yep and I knoticed there was no comment to the post I did about the carbon sequestering of second growth tropical forests. I realise the paper was about 15 pages long with lots of serious math numbers but it also had a couple great pie charts that showed a near 200% sequestering of man caused carbon sequestering of the1995 to 2006 man caused emissions within the next 20 or so years. Of the member countries. Have to read it f more specifics ( not doing others homework I did my own first). It flies in the MMGW warmists face.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yep and I knoticed there was no comment to the post I did about the carbon sequestering of second growth tropical forests. I realise the paper was about 15 pages long with lots of serious math numbers but it also had a couple great pie charts that showed a near 200% sequestering of man caused carbon sequestering of the1995 to 2006 man caused emissions within the next 20 or so years. Of the member countries. Have to read it f more specifics ( not doing others homework I did my own first). It flies in the MMGW warmists face.

hey newhaul, I started to type a response to that after you posted it, but got distracted with something I was actually supposed to be doing. It is an interesting paper and I am glad you posted it.

I am not sure why you believe that it "flies in the MMGW warmists face". if you look at proposed carbon mitigation plans, many include sequestration through reforestation as part of the solution. The paper mentions several, and the upcoming CMIP6 modeling experiments include a much larger emphasis on land-use change including natural forest regeneration. There is a lot of ongoing research into the potential to offset some of our carbon emissions through changes to land use. And this study adds to that, obviously. I can point you to more if you are interested.

Some context that I think is useful: regrowing forests can sequester an amount of carbon essentially equivalent to what was emitted due to deforestation. i.e. they are only regrowing because we cut them down in the first place. (It will depend somewhat on future climate, CO2 concentration, nutrient loss from erosion when deforested, etc. whether the new forest stores more or less than the original as I am sure you saw in their discussion)

Some of the carbon removed during deforestation is currently sequestered in furniture, or houses, or ThirdDay's teak decks, but much of it, especially in the tropics, was emitted to the atmosphere through slash-and-burn clearing. So whereas they make a useful comparison to fossil fuel emissions for context, it is also important to include the carbon emissions from ongoing deforestation.

The paper you posted finds that over 40 years, regenerating forests in Latin American could sequester an amount of CO2 equivalent to 21 years of fossil fuel and industrial process emissions for the same region (but notably not including emissions from deforestation, i.e. they are looking at how much potential carbon sequestration could happen if all deforestation stopped.)

Over 40 years, these lands can potentially accumulate a total aboveground carbon stock of 8.48 Pg C (petagrams of carbon) in aboveground biomass via low-cost natural regeneration or assisted regeneration, corresponding to a total CO2 sequestration of 31.09 Pg CO2. This total is equivalent to carbon emissions from fossil fuel use and industrial processes in all of Latin America and the Caribbean from 1993 to 2014.

For comparison, 10 Pg C was emitted through tropical deforestation from 2000-2010 globally (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1354.html) roughly half of which occurred in Latin America. So deforestation currently emits more in 20 years than this study finds could be sequestered through existing secondary regrowth over 40 years in Latin America.

Another way to look at these numbers is that stopping all deforestation in Latin America for 40 years could offset roughly 1 year of global fossil fuel emissions.

None of my comments are intended to say the potential for sequestration is not important. It will never be the whole solution, but it could be an important part of carbon mitigation plans, and this paper helps clarify how much. But it certainly won't happen without some incentive to reduce deforestation and increase reforestation.

[GordMay]

[QUOTE Reefmagnet]From a source without a dog in the fight ...
... So if you think coral bleaching is caused purely as a result of climate change ...[/QUOTE]

None of my cited sources, and certainly not I, claimed that coral bleaching is caused purely as a result of climate change. When causes were named, they invariably included El Nino.

My purpose was to indicate that there is an unusually wide spread coral bleaching event, as also substantiated by your linked sources; and to refute Kenomac’s assertion that “... The sea life didn't die... It moved to a different location ...”, and yours that “... there's strong evidence to suggest it is/was a regional phenomenon...”

All as mr_f has done much more elegantly than I.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Gord,
Did you go down and see for yourself? Or, are you just cutting and pasting stuff off the internet?

Fair enough.
I haven’t dived in many years, so must rely on experts students of the subject for information.
I do the same with many technical/scientific subjects, in which I am not expert.

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Cutting and pasting... and only the stuff that supports his desired result while ignoring anything that might contradict it.

Show me something that contradicts it (serious coral bleaching), and supports Kenomac’s assertion that there is offsetting new growth & coral migration.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Good argument, bro. I'll remember that for the next polar vortex.

"We", as in I and most other people living along the coastline facing the GBR, would happily take the 0, zip, zero, nada cyclones we had this season along the east coast in exchange for bleached coral which is actually proven to have high resiliency and recovery rates.

Coral Reefs Show Remarkable Ability to Recover from Near Death - Scientific American



I'd suggest those scientists wept because it just about elevates them to guaranteed funding despite cut backs at the CSIRO.

Published April 22 (which is actually your April 23)

No Cookies | The Courier Mail
THE Great Barrier Reef’s most popular tourist sites show just two per cent of coral has died off, with the rest in “positive” signs of recovery, despite the world’s biggest mass coral bleaching event on record.
New research found about 68 per cent of reefs from Cairns to Lizard Island had varying levels of coral bleaching, but most of it likened to sunburn on a human body where the coral glows pink before fully recovering.
Latest findings by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre give hope about the resilience of the living wonder after scientists this week revealed 93 per cent of the 2300km-long reef system was in the grip of a mass bleaching event.
“It’s the Great White Lie,” said Col McKenzie, chief executive of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators. “It’s not dead, white and dying. It’s under stress but it will bounce back.’’

yes, I know tourist operators have vested interests unlike researchers . But ask yourself where are the tourist complaints? Why hasn't tourism been decimated? Why isn't fishing decimated? Why isn't coral extinct? Why, as a resident, with a boat, in a major tourist area am I not overly concerned?

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't defend anti-AGW. You should read more and cut and past less. I take particular offense to propoganda, doom and gloom and other stupid "sky is falling" climate change articles like your idiotic "93%" article post.

The headline:
‘And then we wept': Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached

The supporting graphic:


Call me stupid, I can't see 93% in that, can you?

The fine print:


Other notable points:
+Many more reefs in the bleaching prone areas were surveyed than those in the less prone areas biasing results.
+ENSO has caused coral bleaching throughout time. Perhaps it's "worse in the last 20 years" because it's been more actively studied in this time.
+When one scientist claims another scientist "is not an alarmist" you can pretty much take that as a given that they're both alarmists. Especially considering they "wept".

Well worth a read:
http://coral.aims.gov.au/info/bleaching-environment.jsp

Best to read this entire document, but in reference to the "93%" article, there is good news on the horizon:

Originally Posted by GordMay

[QUOTE Reefmagnet]From a source without a dog in the fight ...
... So if you think coral bleaching is caused purely as a result of climate change ...

None of my cited sources, and certainly not I, claimed that coral bleaching is caused purely as a result of climate change. When causes were named, they invariably included El Nino.

My purpose was to indicate that there is an unusually wide spread coral bleaching event, as also substantiated by your linked sources; and to refute Kenomac’s assertion that “... The sea life didn't die... It moved to a different location ...”, and yours that “... there's strong evidence to suggest it is/was a regional phenomenon...”

All as mr_f has done much more elegantly than I.


Fair enough.
I haven’t dived in many years, so must rely on experts students of the subject for information.
I do the same with many technical/scientific subjects, in which I am not expert.



Show me something that contradicts it (serious coral bleaching), and supports Kenomac’s assertion that there is offsetting new growth & coral migration.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring SailOar's attempts to divert discussion to future what if scenarios, I think I've already covered this ground today.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Show me something that contradicts it (serious coral bleaching), and supports Kenomac’s assertion that there is offsetting new growth & coral migration.

Gord,

Think about it.... If the water temperature rises up to a point where it forces sea life to migrate and the local coral to bleach (which is actually caused by the sun), isn't it logical that a new location where the water temperatures had a previous history of being too cold to support a reef, would warm up slightly to a point where it could now support a reef?

If global warming it truly taking place as many assert (rather aggressively in some cases), wouldn't the warming be taking place everywhere? Including locations that previously were just a little too cool for reef development?

The fishies and coral didn't die off.... They moved, just like people will do if the sea level ever rises. Watch a nature show sometime on coral reefs, you'll learn how choral can also migrate via the currents.

Here's another picture I took seven months ago in an area where most people claimed scuba diving would be a waste of time, "there's nothing to see down there." Not far from our anchorage.

Sometimes my friend, you just have to go down and see for yourself.

Ken

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

hey newhaul, I started to type a response to that after you posted it, but got distracted with something I was actually supposed to be doing. It is an interesting paper and I am glad you posted it.

I am not sure why you believe that it "flies in the MMGW warmists face". if you look at proposed carbon mitigation plans, many include sequestration through reforestation as part of the solution. .

The part about the MMGW warmist was directed specificly at the time frames mentioned in the report. The times are much less to sequester x amount of carbon vs the hundreds of years that others are stating for the same quantity in their what if scenarios . ( This paper is actual/ boots on the ground data. )
Also the statement was meant to elicit a response from people. But to respond and not sound like an idiot they would have to read the paper or at least the abstract. Thereby gaining some insight .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Gord,

Think about it.... If the water temperature rises up to a point where it forces sea life to migrate and the local coral to bleach (which is actually caused by the sun), isn't it logical that a new location where the water temperatures had a previous history of being too cold to support a reef, would warm up slightly to a point where it could now support a reef? ...

... The fishies and coral didn't die off.... They moved, just like people will do if the sea level ever rises. Watch a nature show sometime on coral reefs, you'll learn how choral can also migrate via the currents.

That coral can bleach in a matter of days/weeks, and die within months; and it takes thousands of years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae; suggests (to me) that this migration to newly habitable regions will be unsustainable.
The reefs may die faster than they can regenerate.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

...Think about it.... If the water temperature rises up to a point where it forces sea life to migrate and the local coral to bleach (which is actually caused by the sun)...

Ken

Just to make sure we are on the same page, would you mind defining "coral bleaching"?
Thanks

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack you forgot the part about the Canadian coast guard ice breaker that was leading the way for it.

Escorting, not ice breaking, for 36 hours.



See much ice?

[newhaul]

I knew you would post that picture Jack. How was the mini working vaca. The weather was cooperative.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I knew you would post that picture Jack. How was the mini working vaca. The weather was cooperative.

If you knew I would would post that that photo, why would you imply that the Louis St Laurent was ice breaking?

Successful trip. Not enough wind.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That coral can bleach in a matter of days/weeks, and die within months; and it takes thousands of years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae; suggests (to me) that this migration to newly habitable regions will be unsustainable.
The reefs may die faster than they can regenerate.

We both look at the same glass. I see the water half full on its way to being completely full, you see the glass half empty on its way to being completely empty with no more water available to fill it.

That's a very depressing way to look at things Gord, it would take quite a lot of Prozac for someone to come out of that funk. I prefer to enjoy what we have and seek out new areas of coral growth, kinda like an undersea Captain Kirk.

Anther thing: It doesn't take a thousand years for a reef to grow, again a complete distortion. It may take a thousand years for one to grow as large as a one thousand year old reef, but I've seen many that were most certainly less than a thousand years old.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack's higher authority?

Nope. And I have never seen the movie.


Kenomac invokes Gore's Law

As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.


Here's a hint. Al Gore could be short, evil and fond of child sacrifice. He could emit more CO2 snoring at night than Christopher Monckton does all year. And his movie could be even more inaccurate than the Great Global Warming Swindle. But this wouldn't change a thing. What matters is not Al Gore's character but science. And, in the case of climate change, it's awfully compelling.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Methinks you do not think.

Did you bother to read his Nobel speech?



Maslowski was the Navy researcher to whom he was referring.

Appeals to authority are legitimate when the appeal is to a recognized authority like Maslowski.

Current Arctic sea ice levels are at record lows.



Cruise ships are planning transits.

I just listened to what the moron said in the video I posted, which you clearly did not.

Maintaining ignorance apparently requires you to carefully filter the information you consider. For example, you would no doubt be uninterested in quite recent prior periods when the NW passage was easily navigated. For the warmist, history begins in 1979.