The Reef Ain't Dead

[StuM]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I think Ridd is actually a physicist but was doing valuable climate science work

WHy the "but"?. "Climate science" IS essentially physics.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

There have been a couple of interesting occurrences in the press about the Ridd case lately:

The first was an opinion piece by Dr Jennifer Marohasey which provides some information about the process Ridd objected to. Apparently the orthodox method of defining coral growth was using cores from a particular coral to define annual growth rates and from this reliable estimates of long term health could be inferred.

The problem arose when this method was abandoned in favour of one where there was only visual inspection of the condition of a reef and this was used as a proxy to infer the condition of all reefs (The Great Barrier Reef is composed of thousands of small reefs spread over about one thousand miles of the Queensland coast) Unfortunately the study was done in 2016 and 2017 on reef which had just suffered a bleaching event and was recovering from cyclone damage, that is following events which lead to short term damage of particular areas only, and these short term observations were then applied to the entire reef system hence "THE REEF IS DEAD" type headlines.

According to people who regularly visit the reefs in the area containing those studied for the report they are now almost fully recovered. Ridd's objections to the studies leading to the adverse headlines appear to be around the lack of objectivity and short termism of the "proxy" system of reef health assessment.

In August Ridd lodged an application for special leave with the High Court of Australia for a review of his dismissal case. The court chooses which cases it will hear and decides on those it warrants as needing it's attention. Hopefully it will decide that intellectual freedom in the tertiary education sector is one of these cases.

These conspiro/denier attempts to confuse the issue at hand, holding up conspiro/deniers as proof of the conspiracies are themselves proof of the illegitamacy of such claims.

Your unreferenced opinion piece from 'Marohasey' [sic], a self-professed CC denier, industry-funded, barely-published, sold-out 'scientist', who is, if anything, a worse example of the case for deniers to being taken seriously than Ridd, is a perfect example of the, at best, tiring and dangerous lengths the pseudo-skeptical constantly go through to muddy the issues.

https://www.desmogblog.com/jennifer-marohasy

Without any verification to your spurious claims, here they get exactly the credit they deserve. Zero.

As for Ridd's failed lawsuit, which was never about 'free speech' (a fact which is easily verified), it is just further confirmation of his, in this case, literal sell-out, not only to the highest bidder, but to whoever he can cajole into sending him money. Latest gofundme has the profit up to about 3/4s of a million US gross. 'A fool and his money are soon parted' indeed.

Good to see that venal lobbyists are not an America-only phenomena...

Originally Posted by StuM

And then there's https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...dc06/&sid=0006

Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020

prompted in part by the Ridd case.

"Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:32): I move:
...
The Australian government is strongly committed to supporting academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian universities. Our universities are critical institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure they are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging. That is why, in November 2018, following reports of concerning incidents on university campuses across Australia, I announced the independent review into freedom of speech, undertaken by Mr French."

In an interview, Mr Tehan later said:

“[James Cook University] wouldn’t have been able to prosecute Peter Ridd if these laws had of been in place.”

Yeah, except JSU never 'prosecuted' Ridd. They fired him for well-documented and serial breaches of both scientific conduct and the standing policies in place at the university at the time.

Whether or not the policies were legal under Australian law was the reason for the lawsuit that Ridd brought against JSU.

Originally Posted by aqfishing

Take the comment in context of how it was said. Scientists are not always right and their views change as more knowledge is gained. What we know as fact today may well be proved different in 50 years time!

A classic demonstration of misunderstanding of scientific endeavour. "What we know as fact today" won't "be proved different in 50 years time!" simply because it is fact.

The difference is that what some people perceive to be 'fact' is usually just, at best, a combination of confirmation bias and laziness.

Originally Posted by StuM

According to the article:
"By late October, the spread of dying coral had abated, and larvae that had been spawned this season were found fixed to the bottom of the sea. Fujimoto, who plans to keep a close eye on the coral, said, "The massive die-off may have stopped, but it will take several years for the colony to return to the way it was."

Doesn't sound like it's "dead" to me.

And the other side of the coin. The same coral species is thriving elsewhere:
Alveopora japonica is Taking Advantage of Warming Subtropical Reefs

https://reefbuilders.com/2020/03/16/...ropical-reefs/

More misdirection, based on a three paragraph blurb in a publication devoted to home aquarists.

Alveopora japonica (a species that is not important in the reef systems under consideration in this thread, and is more of a 'frontier' species; living on the edge of what is generally viable environment for typical stony corals) is "thriving elsewhere" not in spite of climate change, but because of warmer water expanding into more traditionally temperate zones.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...020.00012/full

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Although not relevant to the story of Ridd, I note that a coral reef in Nippon has been declared dead. No one talked about drilling cores, just bleached and dead.

Waters around the home islands of Nippon were quite warm this past summer and into early autumn. This particular reef is in Yamaguchi prefecture - more or less southwest from Hiroshima city.

Coral death was noted in September - October 2020.

See one media story: https://mainichi.jp/english/articles...0m/0na/020000c

Originally Posted by GordMay

As StuM noted, "Declared dead" is a gross misrepresentation of the linked article.
The article’s headline stated “dying off”, and the body said “beginning to die”; and went on to observe that: “By late October, the spread of dying coral had abated, and larvae that had been spawned this season were found fixed to the bottom of the sea. Fujimoto, who plans to keep a close eye on the coral, said, "The massive die-off may have stopped, but it will take several years for the colony to return to the way it was."

Ok, but what about 'free speech'? Doesn't Alan have a right to say whatever he wants?

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh but it is relevant to the story of Ridd. Highly relevant. Regardless of whether his firing is ultimately determined to be legally justifiable by the courts, the efforts to silence, marginalize, and discredit him personally only serve to deprive the science of a potentially important and maybe even critical source of dissent. If, for example, he is in fact a crackpot in the pocket of the coal industry, then the most effective way to demonstrate this is to challenge his scientific opinions, not hurl derogatory labels or unproven accusations by people who are obviously more motivated by their own political & personal opinions than they are about the "science." It's possible that the science will ultimately disprove Ridd's opinions and vindicate such laymen, but the best way of getting there is to disprove outlier and dissenting scientific opinions, not by suppressing the debate with patently un-scientific name-calling and unfounded accusations of corruption.

For e.g., and maybe I missed it, but in all these pages this is the first I've read that using core samples to determine reef health had been abandoned in favor of visual observation. Why is it that those non-experts in these threads who so boldly declare themselves believers in "THE" science (thus rendering those who disagree or even question as ignorant "Deniers") aren't even curious why the established methodology for determining reef health was apparently abandoned? Could it be that the best place to find out is Dr. Ridd?? After all, I'm not seeing any of our self-anointed "experts" question Ridd's scientific credentials or expertise. Only that he pushed back against the prevailing views amongst his peers, was paid for his expert services evaluating environmental compliance for a coal depot, and worst of all . . . has been deemed a "Denier" by those who profess scientific knowledge but actually appear to understand the scientific method the least.

Except that he has been proved to be in the pay of those with vested interests in protecting the status quo.

Except that his 'controversial' views have been reviewed and successfully challanged. Repeatedly.

And where, exactly, is this 'proof' that "the established methodology for determining reef health was apparently abandoned"? Likely in a cherry-picked opinion piece by an industry-funded denier, but hey, that's the advantage of conspiro-land; all you have to do is allude to something and, thanks to the beauty of electronic mindcontrol, it becomes 'true'...

Ridd hasn't been "deemed" a denier. His actions, associations and own admission has identified him as one.

Originally Posted by StuM

WHy the "but"?. "Climate science" IS essentially physics.

Yep, and I'm a neuro-surgeon because I can clip my toenails.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I think Ridd is actually a physicist but was doing valuable climate science work in evaluating heat transfer from the earths surface to the upper atmosphere by tropical thunder storms for it's more effective radiation into space. Since this would be a compensating system for CC/AGM that also would not make him popular with the CC/AGM zealots.

Except evaluating "heat transfer from the earths surface to the upper atmosphere by tropical thunder storms" is integral in understanding CC/AGM, and is taken into account by all global models of both climate and weather.

More typical whiney-baby rhetoric about perceived (false) persecution by the 'swamp' of 'Big Science'.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Except that he has been proved to be in the pay of those with vested interests in protecting the status quo.

All I've read so far is that he received fees for services rendered by evaluating environmental compliance at a coal depot. What evidence can you cite that his scientific opinions on the GBR have been corrupted by "vested interests in protecting the status quo?" Accusations and innuendo in a forum thread aren't all that persuasive, except for those who share your obvious biases.

Except that his 'controversial' views have been reviewed and successfully challanged. Repeatedly.

What does this mean? That the science now knows with a sufficient degree of certainty that all/most/some of the GBR is "dead" and that AGW is the only/predominant/probably/possible cause?

And where, exactly, is this 'proof' that "the established methodology for determining reef health was apparently abandoned"? Likely in a cherry-picked opinion piece by an industry-funded denier, but hey, that's the advantage of conspiro-land; all you have to do is allude to something and, thanks to the beauty of electronic mindcontrol, it becomes 'true'...

You mean like alluding without evidence that the change in established methodology for evaluating reef health didn't happen, but was instead the result of "a cherry-picked opinion piece by an industry-funded denier?" Sounds like a vast, right-wing conspiracy funded by the coal industry. Is this the "conspiro-land" you mean?

Ridd hasn't been "deemed" a denier. His actions, associations and own admission has identified him as one.

Only if you have trouble overcoming personal bias. Otherwise I'd say that Ridd's actions, associations and own admission "identifies" him as an acknowledged expert who disagrees with other acknowledged experts in his field.

Yep, and I'm a neuro-surgeon because I can clip my toenails.

Because your brain is in your feet?? I wouldn't be so hard on yourself, although it could be worse.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by StuM

WHy the "but"?. "Climate science" IS essentially physics.

Dunno, but I seem to recall that the 10,000 "scientists" who signed the pro CC/AGM petition a year or two ago included an astrologer or two and a couple of tea leaf readers so I included the reference to differentiate Ridd from this branch of the so called "climate scientists".

Also I think the high priests of the AGM/CC religion, say Al and Greta for instance, have now achieved the status of being of their own branch of science and that physics and it's professional practitioners, such as the heretic Ridd, are now just accompanying acolytes who should just bow down and pay homage to the words of the high priesthood.

I'm expecting to see a petition to bring back the rack placed before parliament at any moment. We already have a number of Grand Inquisitors of various flavours in Australia so an appropriate organizational structure is already in place. I'm confident that somewhere there's a wall of "Public Enemies No 1" headed with Galileo's image with a red cross through it and including Ridd's image with a "pending" sticker on it. That's how they work bro.

It's quiet pleasing to see that Ridd is being successful in his finance raising efforts for his High Court of Australia challenge, it demonstrates that there are still many people willing to contribute to the defense of the integrity of the scientific method in Australia, I doubt if there will be much change from the 3/4 mill raised though, these things are not cheap at that level.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's understandable. Real "climate science" IS essentially physics.

Yet all I see are statistics diluted by "adjusting" the raw data, and very little hard proof.


A more Northern reef dies because of "global warming", but a more southerly one is doing just fine.

Disregard the increased pollution, and fishing pressure on the more Northern reef.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Yet all I see are statistics diluted by "adjusting" the raw data, and very little hard proof.

People who close their eyes to everything that contradicts their wishful thinking never do 'see' truth. It really is hilarious to watch people twist themselves into pretzels like this.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

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

Well, the 'to fit the theory' assault is an obvious provocation, a baseless accusation or conspiracy theory.

But hopefully even you recognize that raw data essentially always has to be adjusted for confounding factors. If two sailors anchor over the same spot and one says it reads 20 feet deep and the other said it reads 25 feet deep you would not want to adjust for the tides? Or for the calibration of their sonar or probe placement? Nope, you would say that the need for adjusting the data proves their data are bogus?

Sheesh, really? That is the best you can come up with?

[capn_billl]

And that is a very dishonest reply.

Every chart is marked at mean low water.

Post a climate science fact.

Thermal mass of polar ice caps that were supposed to melt last year according to climate experts.

"Annecdotal evidence isn't science", yet above average hurricanes during a La Nina year is "absolute proof of global warming".

Do the math. Post it.

The sun radiates 1000 watts per sq meter at noon at the equator.

Calculating actual energy received by incident angle is simple trig.

The Earth's albedo is .39

Polar ice caps reflect a larger percentage than grass, or ocean.

400 parts per million co2.

Calculate the IR absorption of 10 miles of atmosphere at that concentration.

Current North pole temp.
-27 degs C. A regular heat wave.

It will take a thousand years and an average planet temperature increase of 40 degs, not 1 deg to melt the poles.

Global warming my a$$.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Global warming my a$$.

And that is the crux of your argument...
Or is it the butt of the joke?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The sun radiates 1000 watts per sq meter at noon at the equator.

Your number is way out of whack.

At the upper reaches of our atmosphere, the energy density of solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter).

Because the earth is a sphere that equates to 342 watts per square meter.

Here is the earth's energy balance. More energy is being retained, hence global warming.



What is retaining the heat? Greenhouse gases.

Why is there an energy imbalance? Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are retaining additional heat energy.

Not a hard concept.

Much of that heat energy is being taken up by the oceans. Warming oceans are affecting marine ecosystems, including reefs.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Thermal mass of polar ice caps that were supposed to melt last year according to climate experts.

Names please.

[StuM]

And thus another thread on a specific topic (the reported versus actual status of the GBR) gets taken over and diverted by irrelevant posts from the usual FUD spreading AGW alarmists .


I'm out of here!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Names please.

Here's some names...

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Professor Peter Wadhams


Others


Mark Serrez, Bernt Balchen, Jay Zwally, John Kerry, Maurie Trewhella


Of course the above are older links. Arctic Ice Free Day has been postponed to sometime between 2030 and 2050 at present.

[RaymondR]

I don't want to drift the thread but I found this whilst researching a comment I found on another site and it struck be that if it's true it demonstrates just how resilient coral reef ecosystems are. Bikini Atoll was a nuclear weapon test site with about 40 tests carried out:

"Stanford University professor Steve Palumbi led a study in 2017 which reported on ocean life that seems highly resilient to the effects of radiation poisoning.[10][48] The team described substantial diversity in the marine ecosystem, with animals appearing healthy to the naked eye. According to Palumbi, the atoll's "lagoon is full of schools of fish all swirling around the living coral. In a strange way they are protected by the history of this place, the fish populations are better than in some other places because they have been left alone, the sharks are more abundant and the coral are big. It is a remarkable environment, quite odd."[10] Both corals and long-lived animals such as coconut crabs should be vulnerable to radiation-induced cancers,[49] and understanding how they have thrived might lead to discoveries about preserving DNA. Pambuli notes that the Bikini Atoll is "an ironic setting for research that might help people live longer".[50][51] PBS documented field work undertaken by Palumbi and his graduate student Elora López on Bikini Atoll for the second episode ("Violent") of their series Big Pacific.[49][52] The episode explored "species, natural phenomena and behaviors of the Pacific Ocean" and the way that the team is using DNA sequencing to study the rate and pattern of any mutations.[51] López suggested possible explanations for the health of the marine life to The Stanford Daily, such as a mechanism for DNA repair which is superior to that possessed by humans, or a method of maintaining a genome in the face of nuclear radiation."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Here's some names...

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Professor Peter Wadhams


Others


Mark Serrez, Bernt Balchen, Jay Zwally, John Kerry, Maurie Trewhella


Of course the above are older links. Arctic Ice Free Day has been postponed to sometime between 2030 and 2050 at present.

Oh good. Plenty of time for others to chime in who are always wrong yet never in doubt.