The Reef Ain't Dead

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Reefmagnet;3301554
Aside from the pro CC community, that isn't a universally held opinion.

And the regional theory has a number of holes. Not least is that a 300 year period of "regional" warmth is somewhat difficult to explain, even with today's knowledge of the climate; Especially in an era when two or three regions experiencing summer forest fires or coral reef bleaching is considered conclusive evidence of global climate change by that same pro CC community.


[/QUOTE]

692 data sets from 648 locations worldwide beg to differ.

"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age"

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

[downunder]

i would like to give some support to the locals suggesting that the GBR is not as critically endanger as many would suggest.

I have worked my whole life (now 70) in the sugar industry and diving industry covering the whole length of the GBR and coral sea and there have been major positive changes in the sugar industry in that time.

The Sugar industry is often a soft target for the plight of the reef.
The southern area to the GBR is over 25NM offshore and alleged coastal waters pollution doesn't make it that far with the coastal currents. As others have said coastal inshore reefs can be impacted by river rainfall runoff plumes but rarely is the GBR proper impacted.

The Mossman/Cairns/innisfail areas are an interesting case study re the sugar industry. I the mid 1970's when i was working in the sugar industry every suitable area from north of Cairns through Edmonton to Gordonvale was sugar cane harvested burnt with weed control managed by mechanical cultivation. For many years now green cane trash blanket harvesting and chemical weed control has massively reduced soil runoff into waterways.

The biggest change however for that area is that sugar mills have closed and it is nearly solid housing developments along the highway. Tourism in Cairns was in its infancy and nothing like today.

There is certainly much more fishing pressure as GPS plotters have allowed all boat owners access to the reef with little navigational skills.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

692 data sets from 648 locations worldwide beg to differ.

"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age"

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

Well that's interesting. What was used for Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Antarctica and so on circa 950 to 1250AD in which to collect the data for all these datasets? Mann's tree rings?

[stark]

It surprises me that people think that climate scientists are just "following the money", because there is so much more money in the oil industry that could love to find scientists that would disprove anthropogenic climate change

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well that's interesting. What was used for Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Antarctica and so on circa 950 to 1250AD in which to collect the data for all these datasets? Mann's tree rings?

There is a link to databases at the end of the website, if you care to look.

And here: PAGES - Past Global Changes - PAGES Databases

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stark

It surprises me that people think that climate scientists are just "following the money", because there is so much more money in the oil industry that could love to find scientists that would disprove anthropogenic climate change

There are fossil fuel funded climate scientists. Many are associated with the Heartland Institute, CO2 Science, CO2 Coalition, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc..

https://climaterealityproject.org/bl...climate-action

They are well funded. (from Robert Brulle of Drexel University)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is a link to databases at the end of the website, if you care to look.



And here: PAGES - Past Global Changes - PAGES Databases

Hmmm. I notice the word "proxy" appears a lot within the various descriptions. Not sure what that means. Perhaps you can explain?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmmm. I notice the word "proxy" appears a lot within the various descriptions. Not sure what that means. Perhaps you can explain?

I am surprised with your vast knowledge that you lacked a comprehension of "proxies".

Since thermometers were invented until 17th century, proxies are used to determine temperature.

In paleoclimatology, or the study of past climates, scientists use what is known as proxy data to reconstruct past climate conditions. These proxy data are preserved physical characteristics of the environment that can stand in for direct measurements. Paleoclimatologists gather proxy data from natural recorders of climate variability such as tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals and historical data. By analyzing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the instrumental record.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmmm. I notice the word "proxy" appears a lot within the various descriptions. Not sure what that means. Perhaps you can explain?

I think in the instance Ridd objected to it was inferred that all the reef was the same condition as couple of cyclone and bleaching damaged reefs towards the northern end of the reef. The damaged reefs served as proxies for all the reef.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am surprised with your vast knowledge that you lacked a comprehension of "proxies".

Since thermometers were invented until 17th century, proxies are used to determine temperature.



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data

I see. So we could say regions with societies that were capable of compiling written records of harvests, weather and migration experienced the MWP whereas other regions with no such historical records have been deemed to have not experienced warming based on analysis of proxies?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I think in the instance Ridd objected to it was inferred that all the reef was the same condition as couple of cyclone and bleaching damaged reefs towards the northern end of the reef. The damaged reefs served as proxies for all the reef.

There is, imo, a pattern of bias when it comes to climate science. I reckon it's similar to commercial research rather than pure science. In commercial research, the focus is on a predetermined outcome, and all tests and trials naturally, if even subtlety, get bent towards that desired result.


A quick inspection of Jack's dataset sources reveals that it is heavily weighted by contributions from climate organisations. Even M. Mann, the guy that inadvertantly revealed the difference between proxies and real data via his (in)famous hockey stick graph, is in the list.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

A quick inspection of Jack's dataset sources reveals that it is heavily weighted by contributions from climate organisations.

Who did you expect them from? Climate data from climate organizations. Whoda thunk it? What next medical data from medical organizations?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Even M. Mann, the guy that inadvertantly revealed the difference between proxies and real data via his (in)famous hockey stick graph, is in the list.

Mann's hockey stick has been replicated over dozen times.
Enough hockey sticks for a team

Replication is a cornerstone of science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I see. So we could say regions with societies that were capable of compiling written records of harvests, weather and migration experienced the MWP whereas other regions with no such historical records have been deemed to have not experienced warming based on analysis of proxies?

Nope. Unless you cherry pick the data.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope. Unless you cherry pick the data.

Which is something I'm sure you're more than familiar with.


From me:

Aside from the pro CC community, that isn't a universally held opinion.

And the regional theory has a number of holes. Not least is that a 300 year period of "regional" warmth is somewhat difficult to explain, even with today's knowledge of the climate; Especially in an era when two or three regions experiencing summer forest fires or coral reef bleaching is considered conclusive evidence of global climate change by that same pro CC community.

From you:

692 data sets from 648 locations worldwide beg to differ.

Can hardly be universal when 6+% of the zealots don't agree. So I guess I was wrong. Not even the pro climate change community universally agree. Thanks for putting me straight.