Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Good article, thanks Gord.

People believe it when they see it.
Scientists believe when they see data
Car dealers believe it when they hold the cash.
Non scientists believe it when you show floating trash and smell stinky stuff.

If scientists want us to believe, then its stupid for them to force more 'data' down our throats because we never believe data. Show us the Stinky stuff!




(Ps, I do believe there's global warming. I just think its been exaggerated. If it were really really bad and really really true scientists would be bringing out feasible solutions instead of only blaming the White Males of the Western World.)

The scientific method is and has been continually tested and proven to be valid throughout history. Anyone who says they dont believe data is not well versed in the scientific method.

Two fundamental tenants of science is that the data we use as an input to proving or disproving any hypothesis is immutable. Extrapolation of results is the scientist's krypronite.

The second is that any experiment or test we conduct shall be consistent in terms of its output. It shall be repeatable. Adding data will violate the results but gives you a new experiment.

Science is never done or finished.

Opinion on the other hand is highly variable. As a mentor once said. "Opinions are like aholes. Everyone has one. But there can only be one set of facts. Don't confuse them. One will make you look like an idiot. You know which is which. Those that dont know the difference need to be educated."

Those scientists blaming white males (your statement) are clearly not scientists but they clearly have opinions..

I do agree that those of us who apply the scientific method need to be able to communicate to those that don't. But this is persuasiveness and not about the validity of science.

BTW it is not the responsibility of most scientists to solve problems. That is the domain of engineering, applied science and clever folks. The scientist's role is to understand the world around us and to publish that knowledge objectively. Ie without having an opinion.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Sun and Moon]

Originally Posted by tuskie

If you, or any of the right wing, Gore hating, Trump voting, climate change denying, White Males wish to see the actual damage for themselves. Any takers? Didn't think so.

Now there's a strategy for winning friends and influencing people. Better include white women too, since according to 538 they chose Trump over Clinton 53% to 43%. It really goes back to what jtSailjt and leftbrainstuff said ages ago; insulting people and telling them how smart you are will get you nowhere.

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women | FiveThirtyEight

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Just how miserable are you willing to make these peoples lives in order to accomplish your goal of decreasing the amount of CO2 being released?

CO2 is plant food.

Plants gotta eat in order to make O2 which is what we breath.

We gotta breath otherwise... we die.

[MLOI]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

CO2 is plant food.

Plants gotta eat in order to make O2 which is what we breath.

We gotta breath otherwise... we die.

Let's just imagine for a second that a few hundred years ago, the number of trees, and the amount of CO2 that was in the atmosphere was in balance. There was enough CO2 that all the plants were living their happy little planty lives, soaking up sunlight, binding CO2.

Then imagine someone came along and chopped down a bunch of trees, plus almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Does than mean we are now surrounded by a bunch of obese trees as they eat all the extra CO2?

I'm gunna go make me a big canoe from one of dem dare fat trees!

Mike

[Bill-R]

NorthSea is correct, and the information shared is pertinent. 25,000 year cycles? Oh come on, cite some evidence from credible sources, not from...where did you get that?

Warm temperatures cause reefs to dispel algae, causing them to bleach. You won't see it everywhere, since currents affect the ocean temperature in various areas.

The problem is real. Joking about it with no scientific understanding and a dismissive attitude won't help when your grand kids feel the consequences. Thousands of scientists versus--sorry, what are your credentials?

This isn't a joke. Read something about it from sources with some knowledge of the situation.

[Bill-R]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

CO2 is plant food.

Plants gotta eat in order to make O2 which is what we breath.

We gotta breath otherwise... we die.

There is WAY too much CO2. That CO2 dissolves in the oceans and becomes carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the oceans (more acidic) which eats shells, and kills the stuff higher in the food chain that we eat.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Sun and Moon

Now there's a strategy for winning friends and influencing people. Better include white women too, since according to 538 they chose Trump over Clinton 53% to 43%. It really goes back to what jtSailjt and leftbrainstuff said ages ago; insulting people and telling them how smart you are will get you nowhere.

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women | FiveThirtyEight

Both Trump and Clinton are manifestations of the same disease, general public apathy and ignorance exacerbated by affluence and a corporate-controlled constitutional c(k)leptocracy.

From the same 538 website:

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump

Clinton’s margin surged in the 50 most-educated counties

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump | FiveThirtyEight

A vote for either is essentially the same thing, the only (inadvertently) good thing about a vote for the Trumpster is that it will likely bring things to a head more quickly. Not sure how many of those 'least educated' voters are counting on that one...

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by tuskie

Most definitely! There is still a great environment to enjoy, north of Cairns. 44C's assessment is accurate; the coral is in better condition south of Cairns. However, the fish, islands and bird life are better to the north. Hopefully the corals in the northern section will recover over the next few years.

It is very important to have cruisers go to these areas, especially those who dive and can reliably report what is actually happening. These accurate, first hand reports will balance those of climate change deniers who refuse to see and acknowledge the "bloody obvious".

thanks tuskie. getting better picture. we may head there next dry season. Studying Lucas now.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

We found stunning reef south of Cairns. As far north as Sudbury cay was still beautiful. North there was bleaching. It's still worth going to Lizard, but the coral was nicer south of Cairns this year.

thanks, noted. with all these shark attacks lately in AUS, more unfriendly encounters now on the reef?

[Bill-R]

Originally Posted by Sun and Moon

Now there's a strategy for winning friends and influencing people. Better include white women too, since according to 538 they chose Trump over Clinton 53% to 43%. It really goes back to what jtSailjt and leftbrainstuff said ages ago; insulting people and telling them how smart you are will get you nowhere.

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women | FiveThirtyEight

Sun and Moon, politics are not OK here. This is a science discussion about oceans.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The whole idea of a global economy is killing the planet. Spreading the wealth and the associated fossil fuel consumption that entails to the entire world will destroy the planet. I don't claim to know how to fix the problem and it's not going to kill me anyway. It's our children's problem to deal with. Now lets get out and get some much needed sailing done.

Originally Posted by buzzstar

I am about to follow you advice. Thanks.

Don't forget to send us a postcard...

[seandepagnier]

global warming? debt? addictions?

All of these are good things.

Don't forget to pray.

God will give you a brand new world, you don't need to worry so much about this one.

[Bruce K]

Google "Dunning Kruger Effect" explains most things.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

One of many possible explanations that the "grant-whores" (your words not mine) have difficulty dealing with is the changing contribution of the sun itself. It could explain most or even all the claimed changes.

Having said that I really prefer to focus on the original topic, the Great Barrier Reef. I see little evidence that explains the segmented die off. "Cooked" just does not do it as a stand alone. There seem to be many theories and hypotheses, but little real data on cause. Historical data is missing except in scattered anecdotal rather than scientific form. I recognize that global warming (aka climate change) is an easy target, but even accepting that it is occurring, and putting its cause aside, placing the blame as to the GBR does not make sense as far as the location are concerned. I'd much prefer to see facts as they exist than multi paragraph rants about politics and Al Gore and lying money hungry "scientists" no matter what their credentials or anyone's opinions of them, including my own. To the extent I can determine such things the pro-climate folks are satisfied with the "cooked" explanation, maybe augmented by runoff, but I, and I think others, do not think the available facts fit the explanation, and vice versa. Unfortunately, for me, I depart tomorrow for a place with doubtful to non-existent reception by my equipment, so I will miss developments and can fly hope for future enlightenment.

Though one certainly shouldn't draw any conclusions from a single graph, since, from your second paragraph above, it appears that you might have issues with actual answers and countervailing proofs to your questions and assertions, I append this as a rebuttal to your first paragraph.

From the self-proclaimed 'most viewed (skeptical-denialist) website on the internet':




The literature is full of information about the effects of solar output on climate. With the convenience of the internet, these data are available to anyone with the desire to find them and sort through the results to reach a conclusion.

And, since you bring it up,

"For anyone familiar with the internet, the idea that any single individual 'created' it, or that someone as versed in the technology leading up to it as Gore was would claim to have created it, is ludicrous at best. The actual statement, "I took the initiative in creating the internet" is quite accurate; without the legislation that Gore 'initiated', (or 'sponsored' as how it is more commonly referred), and the funding that that provided, the internet as we know it today would likely be very different, if it existed at all. Though given the (mis)-uses it's put to today I'll reserve whether or not if that's a good thing..."

was the extent of my 'rant'. The remainder was 'data' or 'facts' refuting the erroneous assertion that Gore said he invented the internet...

Does anyone else see a trend here? "Show me the data". 2+2=4 "Well that doesn't agree with what I believe, so prove it to me" Ok, you are familiar with the abstract concept that a single object can be represented by the figure '1'? Good. And that another object in combination with the first object can be abstractly represented by the figure '2'? Good. Well then, we can assign an abstract figure to represent any combination of objects. And we can manipulate these objects and combinations of objects with a variety of procedures to arrive at conclusions. So if we put a combination of an object (1) and another object (1) together we get another object called 2. I'm only repeating because it may be a difficult concept to grasp. You got it? Good. OK, so we take these initial object/object combinations (2) and put it with another object/object combination (2) and get a new object/object/object/object combination we abstractly call 4. "Well, I don't understand, and I don't think you know what you're talking about and I just can't be bothered to find out someone who does, and even if I did and they do, if it doesn't agree with what I think it is or should be it's obviously wrong or a conspiracy against me...so there."

Sigh......

[weavis]

NO.

Its not happening folks. A rehash of previously run and closed threads that got got nasty over 'Science vs Luddites?' Already in this thread religion and God has been trashed, non compliance with the program of 'Politically accepted stance regarding Global warning' and the vilefication of those that do no comply or agree is in evidence.

This is a SAILING FORUM. It is impossible for the sailing community on CF to have a polite discussion on this matter-a scientific fact based on the deleted posts and closed threads over the last 2 years.

There is one last chance for this thread: Keep the politics out, do not trash people or religion and be nice to those that dont agree with you. Moderators are watching this thread closely.

Have a simply wonderful day. (Its raining here in Seville Spain)