Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[GordMay]

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 ...

Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is causing climate patterns to change. However, global warming itself represents only one aspect of climate change.

Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.

So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term.

Global Warming's Great Hiatus Gets Another Debunking
➥ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...FQsIaQodvjoNvg

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Does anyone remember the days when......
If you wanted to avoid conflict....
....You would talk about the weather.[emoji4]

Indeed.

[Reefmagnet]

This guy sums it up


https://youtu.be/VQlbiQj_49o

[jtsailjt]

A lot of folks would probably be more receptive to the message of climate change worriers if their solution of choice wasn't mostly to add yet another tax to people are barely getting by as it is. Easy for elites like Gore and Soros, etc. but pretty tough for working people who can barely keep up with their current bills without adding yet another one.

They could also do themselves a favor by ONLY using data that was gathered via a scientifically rigorous process rather than gathering and using more easily procured masses of data that must be "adjusted" to fit their agenda. Also, when we see these high profile people traveling to climate change conferences in private jets, using convoys of big black SUV's, and living in huge homes, with their own carbon footprint many times larger than those of us they are telling to change our ways and pay up in the form of carbon taxes, it's no wonder that they don't have the credibility on this issue that they'd apparently like to have and feel like they deserve to have.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

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

I am keen free diver.

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.

[Blue Stocking]

If you want to see some un-biased data, ( albeit in the top half of the world ) read the BREAM project in Bermuda.

[MarkJ]

L i z z a r d!

And every time the Trades drop head out to the moorings on the Ribbon Reefs. Magic!

Just the bay at Lizzard is a snorklers paradise.

The research station a dinghy ride away does talks for cruisers each week and their bay is wonderful too.

[Kenomac]

Who cares if our world is warming...

We like warm weather, besides... the coral wll simply move to areas with suitable water temps and the correct amount of sunlight, just as it's done since time began.

[kmacdonald]

Heat loss due to radiation is a function of the temperature cubed. If the temperature rises slightly a lot more heat is given off by radiation. That being said, if the temperature of the earth is rising we must have REALLY messed it up. By the way, it is too late to save the reefs. In fact it's WAAAAAAAAAAY too late.

[GordMay]

Perhaps the reef just needs a few more seabirds.

Thousands of tonnes of seabird feces deposited in the Canadian Arctic help keep the Arctic climate cooler in the summer, according to this study.
➥ Contribution of Arctic seabird-colony ammonia to atmospheric particles and cloud-albedo radiative effect : Nature Communications

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This guy sums it up

[fixed link]
https://youtu.be/VQlbiQj_49o

After the millenial- and greenie-baiting, the first thing that jumps out is

Scientifically illiterate people are not entitled to an opinion on this - not one that can be validated.

Well, amen. Of course that should eliminate many of the arguments here and other places, but it apparently hasn't.

Unfortunately, much of the rant is devoted to erecting then taunting this colossal strawman that anyone advocating for proactive action to reduce our fossil-fuel dependence is:

1. ignorant of the role of energy in our recent development and society, and
2. advocating for some sort of poorly thought-out oilless agrarian dystopia

Both of those are demonstrably wrong, even in the science-light backwater of CF.

Anyway, scrape out all the greenie-strawman-baiting and you have a succinct, factual, accurate (and shorter) summary of the role of hydrocarbons in our development.

Quoting from about the 21 and a half minute mark:

Climate change is a huge moral, ethical and technical challenge. To suggest otherwise is to be a f*@kwit.

... We don't need windbags full of empty rhetoric and no grasp of science to participate in this discussion. We need the best minds in the business, collaborating. We need to find a solution where energy remains prolific and cheap, where human advancement continues exponentially.

He goes on to state that the best minds should be engaging with the problem of climate change, and that governments should

fork out the big bucks to support pure research.

Well again...amen to all of that.

To recap, his main thesis is that hydrocarbons have been and will continue to be essential to the advancement of humanity. Few would disagree. Oh, and that he hates greenies. About the only thing he didn't mention or acknowledge was the also obvious fact that many of us are consuming too much hydrocarbon, too quickly, and for many frivolous uses, that we could cut back on, without plunging back into the dark ages.

So, he seems to disagree with you on a number of significant points. I'm wondering why you linked it, other than the catharsis of hearing someone rave against greenies.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

A lot of folks would probably be more receptive to the message of climate change worriers if their solution of choice wasn't mostly to add yet another tax to people are barely getting by as it is. Easy for elites like Gore and Soros, etc. but pretty tough for working people who can barely keep up with their current bills without adding yet another one.

They could also do themselves a favor by ONLY using data that was gathered via a scientifically rigorous process rather than gathering and using more easily procured masses of data that must be "adjusted" to fit their agenda. Also, when we see these high profile people traveling to climate change conferences in private jets, using convoys of big black SUV's, and living in huge homes, with their own carbon footprint many times larger than those of us they are telling to change our ways and pay up in the form of carbon taxes, it's no wonder that they don't have the credibility on this issue that they'd apparently like to have and feel like they deserve to have.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for denier bingo! Get out your cards.

• it's a tax grab. check.
• Al Gore! check.
• Soros, elites. Check
• Fudged data! check.
• Rich guys! Limos and jets! Actually this is the Al Gore square again.

So, nobody's completed a row. Where's the other chestnuts? (hint -conspiracy!)

[kmacdonald]

I'm not giving up any of my amenities for any cause. Hopefully enough people will so that it doesn't have to be forced down their throats.

[MarkJ]

If scientists don't believe in global warming they don't get grants


That's a conflict of interest.

It's also why they have been ineffectual in 'selling' their message.


If 'we' don't believe it, its not our fault. Its scientists.


Mark

[Prairie Chicken]

Originally Posted by NoahTreat

You gotta ask yourself 2 questions.

What if global warming is myth?

What if global warming is the real deal?

If it's a myth, then what? You save a little energy and no don't use as much plastic.

If it's the real deal, then all the things we love won't be around for generations to come.

If it's a myth, jobs are lost for no reason, taxes are raised & the proceeds go into the bottomless pit of government, perhaps preventing many from being able to afford much they need or want. Governments spend money on a myth rather than on services for their citizens.

If it's the real deal, we're screwed anyhow. The best we can do is slow the decline, promote green tech development, and advance space exploration in hopes of a new home. We are a hydro carbon civilization; we simply cannot do without it.

As another poster said, Mother Nature will look after herself. It may mean killing off all of the humans which have harmed her, but she will survive, even if we do not.

[jtsailjt]

And yet another reason why those concerned about climate change seem to lack the credibility they wish they had, engaging in attempts to.belittle rather than actually listening to what the other side has to say and addressing those concerns. All the things I listed, whether or not you agree with them, contribute to the American people's reluctance to embrace the ideas and proposed solutions being offered up by your side. Keep right on ignoring, belittling, etc.i really don't care. But in case you haven't noticed, those giving top priority to climate change aren't exactly dominating in recent elections or in surveys asking average people about things that concern them most. If you are truly worried about climate change and possibly saving things like the GBR, you need to learn how to talk about this much more effectively than you have been. Or you can keep right on with your superior "I'm smarter than everyone else and everyone who disagrees is a redneck idiot" attitude. Your choice.