The Reef Ain't Dead

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

While it’s true that, at the time when European emission rates started to significantly increase (after 1870), and prior to a significant anthropogenic temperature rise, and the majority of Alpine glaciers had already (1850 - 1870) experienced more than 80 % of their total 19th century length reduction, it’s untrue that it occurred prior to the age of coal.

The first industrial revolution took place from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840, especially in England & Europe. From 1700 to 1750 coal production increased by 50%, and nearly another 100% by 1800. During the later years of the first revolution, as steam power really took a firm grip, this rate of increase soared to 500% by 1850. Don’t let America’s relatively later entry into the industrial (coal-burning) world (±1830s?) fool you. By the 1890s, the US coal industry stretched from the Appalachian Mountains, across the Midwestern prairies, to the Cascades and Rockies, making the U.S. the largest coal producer in the world.

Glaciers and ice sheets are complex structures, that form when snow accumulates, and is compressed into ice, by new snow, over many years.
The processes that cause glaciers and ice sheets to lose mass (or size) are also more complex, than simply exposure to warm (ambient) air.
And while warm air certainly melts the surface of glaciers and ice sheets, they're also significantly affected by other factors including the ocean water that (sometimes) surrounds them, the terrain (both land and ocean) over which they move, snow-albedo feedback (carbon soot), their own meltwater, and (I’m sure) even more, of which I am unaware.

Glaciers were much larger and more numerous during the Little Ice Age (LIA). The LIA was a cold period (1250–1850) of global extent, with the nature and timing of reduced temperatures varying by region.

Scientists (glaciologist & climatologists) provide ample evidence, and explanations (often competing) regarding the extent, timing, and climatic significance for glacier change, since the Little Ice Age - none of which falsifies anthropogenic climate change models. Seek, and you shall find.

1. What’s your alternate theory? Or, don’t Anthony Watt, and cohort, feed you that.
2. What does your linked article have to do with the coal de-glaciation issue?

So what we now need is a graph of ice depletion since the end of the last ice age to see whether the rate is still on trend.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3


At the most generous estimate humans produce less than 5% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, and CO2 is a similarly low component in so-called greenhouse gasses. Therefore, humans reducing their output by +/-5% of +/-5% of +/-5% ain't going to change much.

This group really needs to be renamed "enemies of science". Argue all you want about the motivations of scientists - they are really clear about their goals, which is to overturn evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Their honesty is refreshing - they start with their conclusions and then search for data to support it. This is not science - it is public relations for the fossil fuels industry.
They are funded by laundered contributions from oil companies. If you believe this garbage you should have taken up smoking based on studies from the Tobacco Institute.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by lestersails

This group really needs to be renamed "enemies of science". Argue all you want about the motivations of scientists - they are really clear about their goals, which is to overturn evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Their honesty is refreshing - they start with their conclusions and then search for data to support it. This is not science - it is public relations for the fossil fuels industry/
They are funded by laundered contributions from oil companies ...

Indeed.

Friends of Science - About Us
Our Goal:
To educate the public about climate science and through them bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and the various policies that intend to address the issue.
Our Opinion:
It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.
➥ https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1
➥ https://friendsofscience.org/assets/...0Statemen1.pdf

A look into the Friends of Science connection to the University of Calgary [Funding]
➥ http://www.archive.thegauntlet.ca/st...ducation-funds

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by lestersails

This group really needs to be renamed "enemies of science". Argue all you want about the motivations of scientists - they are really clear about their goals, which is to overturn evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Their honesty is refreshing - they start with their conclusions and then search for data to support it. This is not science - it is public relations for the fossil fuels industry.
They are funded by laundered contributions from oil companies. If you believe this garbage you should have taken up smoking based on studies from the Tobacco Institute.

What is striking is how few people on your side of the spectrum are willing to admit their own obvious financial and professional stakes, and how totally unwilling to admit any intellectual honesty on the part of those few who oppose their "consensus"

$7,000,000,000 in US government funding apparently guarantees honest, objective science and disagreeing with the resulting "consensus" apparently guarantees dishonesty.

Very scientific conclusion that.


"Methinks they do protest too much."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

What is striking is how few people on your side of the spectrum are willing to admit their own obvious financial and professional stakes, and how totally unwilling to admit any intellectual honesty on the part of those few who oppose their "consensus"

Oh bullsh1t. List those "obvious financial and professional stakes". Have you ever seen the staff parking lot of a university?

It's insane that anyone would claim that people who've chosen the frankly sh1tty-paying world of academia and research are the ethically-challenged group, while a handful of rent-a-scientists working for industry lobbyists are the untainted ones.

There's valid scientific points to be presented on both sides of the AGW argument, but if any part of your argument depends on painting the majority of the people in a particular scientific field as being less ethical than the fossil-fuel industry... just stop; you've lost already.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

$7,000,000,000 in US government funding apparently guarantees honest, objective science and disagreeing with the resulting "consensus" apparently guarantees dishonesty.

Skeptics are also government funded. Spencer and Christy get all of their research money from DOE, NASA and NOAA.

Richard Lindzen collected $3,000,000 in National Science Foundation Funding in his pursuit of his Iris Theory.

David Legates, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke (both Sr and Jr) have had NSF funding.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

So what we now need is a graph of ice depletion since the end of the last ice age to see whether the rate is still on trend.

Of you think we need "a graph of ice depletion since the end of the last ice age", please provide one.

BTW - Out of curiosity, what is your null hypothesis to Anthropogenic Global Warming? What evidence supports that hypothesis.

[GordMay]

Global average relative glacier length change, based on the glaciers included in three versions of the dataset of worldwide glacier length fluctuations as used in Oerlemans et al. (2007, 197 records, red), Leclercq et al. (2011, 349 records, black) and Leclercq et al. (2014, 471 records, green)


Figure 1, From:
“Observation-Based Estimates of Global Glacier Mass Change and Its Contribution to Sea-Level Change” ~ B. Marzeion et al
“Glaciers have strongly contributed to sea-level rise during the past century and will continue to be an important part of the sea-level budget during the twenty-first century. Here, we review the progress in estimating global glacier mass change from in situ measurements of mass and length changes, remote sensing methods, and mass balance modeling driven by climate observations. ...”
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5283499

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh bullsh1t. List those "obvious financial and professional stakes". Have you ever seen the staff parking lot of a university?

It's insane that anyone would claim that people who've chosen the frankly sh1tty-paying world of academia and research are the ethically-challenged group, while a handful of rent-a-scientists working for industry lobbyists are the untainted ones.

There's valid scientific points to be presented on both sides of the AGW argument, but if any part of your argument depends on painting the majority of the people in a particular scientific field as being less ethical than the fossil-fuel industry... just stop; you've lost already.

You seem to be very, let's just say "less than objective"

Actually no, "my" argument doesn't depend on anything do with with the fossil fuel industry, but since you apparently have a compulsion to conflate those who disagree with your "consensus" with the said industry - a strawman you apparently cannot do without - it does seem a trifle silly for people whose whole lifestyle and level of comfort is based on fossil fuels to spend their time ranting and raving about the evils thereof.

Maybe ask the folks in the history department what life was like for most people before big, bad oil came along.

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.

Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

You seem to be very, let's just say "less than objective"

Actually no, "my" argument doesn't depend on anything do with with the fossil fuel industry, but since you apparently have a compulsion to conflate those who disagree with your "consensus" with the said industry - a strawman you apparently cannot do without - ...

Interesting. Because you can't begin to challenge the scientific evidence, you resort to attacking the scientists. I point this out; you have no argument except to go after me.

At least you're consistent.

[Rjt]

Difficult to believe this thread is still going. Here’s a nice piece of authoritative information the “flat earth/climate deniers/Trump was robbed” clan can also refuse to believe.

https://theconversation.com/severely...0as%20critical

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rjt

Difficult to believe this thread is still going. Here’s a nice piece of authoritative information the “flat earth/climate deniers/Trump was robbed” clan can also refuse to believe.

https://theconversation.com/severely...0as%20critical

The reef is dead, and it's getting deader. Or so they say. To bad this graphic appears deep within their "sky is falling" bs.


It would seem that a lot of fossil fuel and associated emissions are being wasted by the gravy trainers flying to and fro in their helicopters as they pursue a literal wild goose chase of a natural phenomenon across the width and breadth of the reef.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The reef is dead, and it's getting deader. Or so they say. To bad this graphic appears deep within their "sky is falling" bs.


It would seem that a lot of fossil fuel and associated emissions are being wasted by the gravy trainers flying to and fro in their helicopters as they pursue a literal wild goose chase of a natural phenomenon across the width and breadth of the reef.

It appears the bleaching is the getting worse. The authors of the study from the graphic is taken are interviewed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...idespread-ever

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

What is striking is how few people on your side of the spectrum are willing to admit their own obvious financial and professional stakes

Excuse me? You are arguing I have a stake in this? That is just looney. I have nothing to gain by AGW being proved true - in fact I really, really wish it wasn't. But, unfortunately for me, facts and evidence matter more than my desires. I go with facts and evidence, contrary to my self interests.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It appears the bleaching is the getting worse. The authors of the study from the graphic is taken are interviewed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...idespread-ever

The point is, green turning red and red turning green would appear to be naturally occurring in time frames of less than a handful of years. Just because helicopter junket fly overs of the reef undertaken at great public expense are in vogue doesn't necessarily mean that this is all something new and unprecedented.



And when it comes to alarmism, as we all know, everything is always getting worse. Hence why the article is dooming and glooming about the green to red whilst ignoring the red to green.