The Reef Ain't Dead

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your right. I've decided it's best to give up on Tripadvisor. I've opted to become a self appointed expert in the effects of climate change on Lake Ontario's water levels. Sure, I know it's a half a world away, but I've already heavily invested into Facebook and Guardian research on the topic so there's that.

Sounds like someone with an agenda.

[bcguy]

There are no scientists without grants pointing out that "the emperor has no clothes" homo sapiens mass consumer poulation is a planetary wrecking ball makes covid a comparative bare sniffle.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your right. I've decided it's best to give up on Tripadvisor. I've opted to become a self appointed expert in the effects of climate change on Lake Ontario's water levels. Sure, I know it's a half a world away, but I've already heavily invested into Facebook and Guardian research on the topic so there's that.

Self-appointed expert? Then that would make... one of us. As I mentioned, I don't do Facebook. I do think that regardless of what way you might think they lean, the Guardian has some good journalists and they usually get their facts straight.

But I'm happy to let you Australians duke it out. You are the ones closest.

It is nice that tourists including those staying in your properties enjoy their day-trips to the reef. But I don't think the average tourist knows what a healthy reef looks like from seeing just 50 sq meters of it.

[Exile]

For those half a world away who believe they have expertise from relying on The Guardian and the BBC.

https://www.tropicalsnorkeling.com/l...ead-coral.html

This one's not quite as pessimistic, claiming only that 25-50% of all the world's reefs are already dead. Think of it as a companion guide to TripAdvisor, and don't forget to follow the advice at the bottom to like, thank, donate, and vote for "good" policies.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

]https://www.tropicalsnorkeling.com/live-vs-dead-coral.html

Great link. Thanks. We've been lucky enough to snorkel on a few Mexican and Caribbean reefs. Even a crappy beat-up reef is usually fun, if you haven't seen many.

This one's not quite as pessimistic, claiming only that 25-50% of all the world's reefs are already dead.

So this is good news?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Great link. Thanks. We've been lucky enough to snorkel on a few Mexican and Caribbean reefs. Even a crappy beat-up reef is usually fun, if you haven't seen many.
So this is good news?

Why would you suggest it's good news, even comparatively speaking? But shouldn't we at least know what time frame is being referred to? For example, humans routinely harvested coral for building materials, a practice that has long since been banned in much of the world. I'm sure there have been countless other destructive practices that caused coral death worldwide, both before and after scientists discovered how integral they are to the planet's ecosystems, and that some of that destruction continues as we all know.

I just don't see how politicizing the issue helps the reefs. Or worse, trying to suppress healthy debate about the various theories, including demonizing those who express skepticism when direct observations don't seem to comport with dire estimates and predictions.

[jimbunyard]

What 'healthy debate'?

"The reef ain't dead"? Who said it was? Which reef?

Direct, quantified and qualified observations are the reason for these "dire estimates and predictions" --- whose general accuracy continue to be confirmed.

Comparing the real issue to the pseudo-skeptical (denier-conspiro) manipulating, half-truth, logical fallacy-laden, undocumented unquantified or qualified anectdotal 'evidence' labeled here as 'direct observation', and labeling it 'politicization' accomplishes what, exactly?

Direct observation without context is worth nothing; it is worse than useless, for many reasons.

'Demons', such as those that, deliberately or not, work to the detriment of all, deserve for their actions whatever scorn they draw down on themselves.

Even when they've not yet figured out the reasons behind such scorn.

[AndieKay]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No one really denies climate change. The issue is the dismissal of climate science. No scientific institution in any country on the entire planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. Yet there are individuals who do so. Some such as Roy Spencer and Judith may be counted as lukewarmers or as genuine skeptics. I have used the data and conclusions of both.

I am prepared to discuss the science; I am not prepared to discuss conspiracy theories.

Let's discuss the science then? Convince me that C02 doesn't cause an increase in global average temperatures? Convince me that the correlation between human CO2 output and the increase in temperature that exactly fits the chemical and physical processes isn't real?

(Disclosure, I am Research Chemist).

[AndieKay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

There is money and agenda on both sides. Lots of money in solar panels and other alternatives power sources...if they can kill coal, their backers stand to make a lot of money.

So not buying that they "work to protect and preserve".

The coal guys and the solar panel guys are the usually one in the same, it's just the mark up on the former dwarfs the later.

[AndieKay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Why would you suggest it's good news, even comparatively speaking? But shouldn't we at least know what time frame is being referred to? For example, humans routinely harvested coral for building materials, a practice that has long since been banned in much of the world. I'm sure there have been countless other destructive practices that caused coral death worldwide, both before and after scientists discovered how integral they are to the planet's ecosystems, and that some of that destruction continues as we all know.

I just don't see how politicizing the issue helps the reefs. Or worse, trying to suppress healthy debate about the various theories, including demonizing those who express skepticism when direct observations don't seem to comport with dire estimates and predictions.

There's no such thing as a "non-political" issue and I think you're being a might disingenuous to claim your politics aren't the source of your "Skepticism".

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AndieKay

Let's discuss the science then? Convince me that C02 doesn't cause an increase in global average temperatures? Convince me that the correlation between human CO2 output and the increase in temperature that exactly fits the chemical and physical processes isn't real?

(Disclosure, I am Research Chemist).

Arguing with a fellow believer and bad grammar to boot. The education system sure aint what it used to be.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AndieKay

Let's discuss the science then? Convince me that C02 doesn't cause an increase in global average temperatures? Convince me that the correlation between human CO2 output and the increase in temperature that exactly fits the chemical and physical processes isn't real?

(Disclosure, I am Research Chemist).

As a scientist yourself, it's good to read you are also convinced of two conclusions that climate scientists themselves agree with, including the two prominent skeptics mentioned in the post you were responding to. Now how about convincing me, for e.g., that other human-caused factors such as agricultural run-off aren't causing more significant damage to the reef than increased water temps due to CO2. Do you recall the chart StuM posted awhile back suggesting this?

Originally Posted by AndieKay

There's no such thing as a "non-political" issue and I think you're being a might disingenuous to claim your politics aren't the source of your "Skepticism".

When did I claim that? What part of the complex science surrounding the health of the GBR have you concluded I am skeptical about? Most of us have some degree of political bias, but the problem arises when it is allowed to completely subsume any modicum of objectively, for example completely dismissing an acknowledged expert such as Professor Ridd because his scientific positions are contrarian. Agree or disagree, but suppressing, labeling, stereotyping in an effort to persuade is ludicrous.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AndieKay

Let's discuss the science then? Convince me that C02 doesn't cause an increase in global average temperatures? Convince me that the correlation between human CO2 output and the increase in temperature that exactly fits the chemical and physical processes isn't real?

(Disclosure, I am Research Chemist).

Andie.

I support the science of climate change.

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3252424

[outbound_308]

It always appears that people would rather argue abt something as large and nuanced as climate change, than discus what can we do to help the reef today. Yelling at people on a forum abt one side of climate change or the other will not improve the reef. It's just an exercise in people's self righteousness making them feel better about who they are, meanwhile the reef keeps deteriorating.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Half the corals on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef have died, over the past 25 years, scientists said Wednesday, warning that climate change is irreversibly destroying the World Heritage-listed underwater ecosystem.
A study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal found an alarming rate of decline across all sizes of corals since the mid-1990s.
Larger species, such as branching and table-shaped corals, have been worst affected; almost disappearing from the far northern reaches of the reef, researchers found.
They’re typically depleted by (up to) 80 or 90 percent compared to 25 years ago.
On top of long-term ocean warming, and associated bleaching, the reef has been battered by several cyclones, and two large outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish (which eat the coral) since 1995.
➥ https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-re...alf-its-corals

"Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef” ~ by Dietzel A, Bode M, Connolly S, Hughes T.
➥ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2020.1432

Photos are available for media use here.
➥ https://www.dropbox.com/sh/61pfc52mj...S2eT0O_Fa?dl=0

Does anyone have an explanation for the starfish increases?

"Global warming?"

Of course the sewage discharged by coastal cities, and trash, and other pollution have NOTHING to do with it, no it's global warming.

A 2 degree temperature increase over the last 100 years is solely the cause, even in the northern areas that are typically more than 10 degrees cooler.

Global warming is now blamed on everything from more hurricanes to the milk turning.

"Anecdotal evidence is not science", I hear that from global warming zealots everyday, followed by "freak 100 year storm is the direct proof of global warming".

And the solution of course is MORE TAXES.

TIL Global warming is caused by the tax cut.

Global warming skeptics occur because of the deliberate misinformation, propaganda, and outright lying.

You want to have your theory taken seriously? Then stop lying.

If global warming was really solely the result of man's actions then it should be easily proven.

Why hide the data?

Why "adjust" the data to make it fit the theory?

Why is it asking the thermal mass of the polar ice caps gets me immediately blocked from global warming discussion groups?