The Reef Ain't Dead

[AndieKay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

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

This might be the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time.

[GordMay]

Reefmagnet’s numbers are not all “way out of whack”, just his conclusions are (whacked).

At Earth’s average distance from the Sun (about 150 million kilometers), the average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter.
At the Earth's surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays (equator) at sea level on a clear day.

Recent research indicates that global albedo is fairly constant, and having no material effect on global temperatures. Local effects may be more pronounced.

We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet, is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change (positive or negative) it may make.

Excerpted from NASA:
Sunlight is the primary driver of Earth’s climate and weather. Averaged over the entire planet, roughly 340 watts per square meter of energy from the Sun reach Earth. About one-third of that energy is reflected back into space, and the remaining 240 watts per square meter is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere. Exactly how much sunlight is absorbed depends on the reflectivity of the atmosphere and the surface.
Changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.
Albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though.
Here ➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...-earths-albedo

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Reefmagnet’s numbers are not all “way out of whack”, just his conclusions are (whacked)


....

Recent research indicates that global albedo is fairly constant, and having no material effect on global temperatures. Local effects may be more pronounced.


We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet, is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change (positive or negative) it may make.



...

Serves me right for answering someone else's question I guess.


But that's an interesting remark about albedo considering a supposed global warming positive feedback is reduction of albedo due to polar ice sheet decay. There's even a wiki on the subject so it must be true.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AndieKay

This might be the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time.

It might be a little off track but an interesting factoid is that if one were to describe Earth's typical climate over the eons, it would be a description that included ice free poles. Even within the last 100 million years, the planet has been ice free for around two thirds of that time.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It might be a little off track but an interesting factoid is that if one were to describe Earth's typical climate over the eons, it would be a description that included ice free poles. Even within the last 100 million years, the planet has been ice free for around two thirds of that time.

I wonder what the flora and fauna were like before, during, and after those times. And what else was going on?

I don’t believe anyone disbelieves climate doesn’t change irrespective of people but maybe I’m wrong about that

[GordMay]

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.

You give the impression that the scientific community was/is making alarmist predictions of sea ice loss, that have not come true. This is a completely false impression, and a misrepresentation of the fact(s).

The vast majority of experts disagreed with Profs. Wadhams and Maslowski, about the future of Arctic sea ice, when their forecasts were made.

In 2007, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski reported that his latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free, in summers, within just 5-6 years (2012 - 2013). He was mistaken.

However, the consensus of sea ice researchers, THEN and now, was/is that the Arctic Ocean will become functionally “sea ice free”, in the summer, within several decades (perhaps less), as it continues to decline. Wadhams and Maslowski extreme predictions had been routinely challenged, by the rest of the scientific community, for many years.

Arctic sea ice has declined by an average of 27,000 square miles a year since 1979.
In July during the 1980s, the ice covered an average of about 3.8 million square miles, roughly the area of the U.S. or Canada.
This July (2020), sea ice covered only about 2.8 million square miles, and at the end of July, Canada’s last intact ice-shelf collapsed. The Northern Sea Route became ice-free earlier than previously recorded.
The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, meaning that average temperatures have increased by about 3.5 to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 degrees Celsius), since the preindustrial period, compared to roughly 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) for the planet as a whole. The change is accelerating, too: 0.75 degrees C of that warming have happened in the last decade.


Indeed, "Arctic Ice Free Day has been postponed"

Recent studies suggest the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer by 2050 — or as early as 2035 — if nothing changes, and global warming cannot be stopped.
Sea-ice-free Arctic during the Last Interglacial supports fast future loss
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...geographic.com

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You give the impression that the scientific community was/is making alarmist predictions of sea ice loss, that have not come true. This is a completely false impression, and a misrepresentation of the fact(s).

* * *

Could it be that this "false impression" and "misrepresentation of the fact(s)" has been created not by the actual science as your post suggests, but by an alarmist media being fed by politicians? No? See Reef's link to others.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Could it be that this "false impression" and "misrepresentation of the fact(s)" has been created not by the actual science as your post suggests, but by an alarmist media being fed by politicians? No? See Reef's link to others.

It could be that this "false impression" and "misrepresentation of the fact(s)" has been created by an alarmist sensationalist media, being fed by ideologues, such as Anthony Watt (WUWT), Jonathan DuHamel, et al.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It could be that this "false impression" and "misrepresentation of the fact(s)" has been created by an alarmist sensationalist media, being fed by ideologues, such as Anthony Watt (WUWT), Jonathan DuHamel, et al.

Sure, generally speaking ideology often goes hand-in-hand with zealous partisanship, and they both employ "means justify the ends" rationales to subvert the truth. I wouldn't suggest either side has much credibility. But in this instance, are you suggesting that the quotes from the BBC, Sierra Club, Huff Post, ABC News, John Kerry, etc. cited in this particular sensationalist media are all fabricated?

[barnakiel]

Where I have been, damage to the reef is obvious. It takes no smelly scientist, Alt-R activist, nor tree hugger of any sort to tell this.


All it takes is a pair of fins and plain diving goggles.


Of course, you must also get out of the armchair and into wet water.


b.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by lestersails

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.

Historical temperature records for Australia have been "homogenized" (adjusted down) twice in about twenty years, which is why so many "hottest" days, months, years, decades etc. are appearing in the media.

"In 1924 Marble Bar set a world record of the most consecutive days of 100 °F (37.8 °C) or above, during an incredible period of 160 days starting in 1923. It was legend — but thanks to the genius homogenized adjustments, we now find out all along it was wrong."

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You give the impression that the scientific community was/is making alarmist predictions of sea ice loss, that have not come true. This is a completely false impression, and a misrepresentation of the fact(s).

The vast majority of experts disagreed with Profs. Wadhams and Maslowski, about the future of Arctic sea ice, when their forecasts were made.

In 2007, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski reported that his latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free, in summers, within just 5-6 years (2012 - 2013). He was mistaken.

However, the consensus of sea ice researchers, THEN and now, was/is that the Arctic Ocean will become functionally “sea ice free”, in the summer, within several decades (perhaps less), as it continues to decline. Wadhams and Maslowski extreme predictions had been routinely challenged, by the rest of the scientific community, for many years.

Arctic sea ice has declined by an average of 27,000 square miles a year since 1979.
In July during the 1980s, the ice covered an average of about 3.8 million square miles, roughly the area of the U.S. or Canada.
This July (2020), sea ice covered only about 2.8 million square miles, and at the end of July, Canada’s last intact ice-shelf collapsed. The Northern Sea Route became ice-free earlier than previously recorded.
The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, meaning that average temperatures have increased by about 3.5 to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 degrees Celsius), since the preindustrial period, compared to roughly 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) for the planet as a whole. The change is accelerating, too: 0.75 degrees C of that warming have happened in the last decade.


Indeed, "Arctic Ice Free Day has been postponed"

Recent studies suggest the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer by 2050 — or as early as 2035 — if nothing changes, and global warming cannot be stopped.
Sea-ice-free Arctic during the Last Interglacial supports fast future loss
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...geographic.com

I wasn't giving any impressions at all. I simply named names in the context of the original statement and the fact is there has been a litany of "climate experts" declaring the end of Arctic polar ice. No mention was made of scientists or the scientific community.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Where I have been, damage to the reef is obvious. It takes no smelly scientist, Alt-R activist, nor tree hugger of any sort to tell this.


All it takes is a pair of fins and plain diving goggles.


Of course, you must also get out of the armchair and into wet water.


b.

Without you specifying the locations of your observations, I'd suspect you may be confusing cyclone or El Nino damage with that caused by "a heating planet". Of course some might suggest that cyclones and el Nino's are evidence of climate change but I would suggest that cyclones and el Nino's were around long before climate change came into vogue. And I'd also suggest both natural phenomena will continue to persist regardless of efforts made by society to release us from the cosy grip of the current inter-glacial period.

[capn_billl]

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-years-...ral-reefs.html


Toxic sunscreen Britanica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/coral-bleaching

Saharan dust, (for Caribbean area).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-caribbean/

"Sensationalist media exaggerating scientific findings", Finaly Gord May, and I are on the same page.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You give the impression that the scientific community was/is making alarmist predictions of sea ice loss, that have not come true. This is a completely false impression, and a misrepresentation of the fact(s).

The vast majority of experts disagreed with Profs. Wadhams and Maslowski, about the future of Arctic sea ice, when their forecasts were made.

In 2007, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski reported that his latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free, in summers, within just 5-6 years (2012 - 2013). He was mistaken.

However, the consensus of sea ice researchers, THEN and now, was/is that the Arctic Ocean will become functionally “sea ice free”, in the summer, within several decades (perhaps less), as it continues to decline. Wadhams and Maslowski extreme predictions had been routinely challenged, by the rest of the scientific community, for many years.

Arctic sea ice has declined by an average of 27,000 square miles a year since 1979.
In July during the 1980s, the ice covered an average of about 3.8 million square miles, roughly the area of the U.S. or Canada.
This July (2020), sea ice covered only about 2.8 million square miles, and at the end of July, Canada’s last intact ice-shelf collapsed. The Northern Sea Route became ice-free earlier than previously recorded.
The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, meaning that average temperatures have increased by about 3.5 to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 degrees Celsius), since the preindustrial period, compared to roughly 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) for the planet as a whole. The change is accelerating, too: 0.75 degrees C of that warming have happened in the last decade.


Indeed, "Arctic Ice Free Day has been postponed"

Recent studies suggest the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer by 2050 — or as early as 2035 — if nothing changes, and global warming cannot be stopped.
Sea-ice-free Arctic during the Last Interglacial supports fast future loss
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...geographic.com

I don't think the words "ice free" mean what you think they mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline