The Reef Ain't Dead

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Nope. That is "normalized" ie massaged to make a political point, and confirm preconceived expectations on global warming.

Remember the "pause", where scientists were scrambling to find out where the global warming went during a 15 year period of declining global temperatures?

Please provide evidence for your assertions.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I expect temperature data from meteorological organizations, NOT political "climate" organizations.

Please indicate the political orientation of of Pages2k.

http://pastglobalchanges.org/science...-network/intro

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please indicate the political orientation of of Pages2k.
http://pastglobalchanges.org/science...-network/intro

In their own words:
“The past 2000 years (the "2k" interval) provides critical context for our understanding of recent anthropogenic forcing of the climate, as well as baseline information about Earth’s natural climate variability ...”
Must be a climate religion propaganda machine.
They seem to believe the “party line” (sic: evidence), that there is such a thing as anthropogenic climate change. They're probably secretly controlled by their puppet-masters, Bill Gates & George Sorros. This is self-evident from their apparent absence from a public leadership role in the organization.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In their own words:
“The past 2000 years (the "2k" interval) provides critical context for our understanding of recent anthropogenic forcing of the climate, as well as baseline information about Earth’s natural climate variability ...”
Must be a climate religion propaganda machine.
They seem to believe the “party line” (sic: evidence), that there is such a thing as anthropogenic climate change. They're probably secretly controlled by their puppet-masters, Bill Gates & George Sorros. This is self-evident from their apparent absence from a public leadership role in the organization.

C'mon Gord - the first rule about Secret Climate Religion Club is - don't talk about Secret Climate Religion Club!


(btw George and BillG said to say hi, and you're shortlisted for Supreme Leader of everything N of Superior, from the Soo to Kenora. Congrats)

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hey, maybe you're right. Just not sure how the feasible and economical part of it will work out.

Great point Exile. Thank goodness that gas cars never run out of gas.
You would have gotten along great with all the folks in horse-drawn carriages who said those infernal automobiles break down all the time and have to be towed by horses.
C'mon man - this whole argument is based on
1. I don't believe the data
2. If it were true, it is hopeless, we can't fix it.

Must be a tortured and depressing place to live.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by 75Driver

*sigh* I wish my Canadian brethren would quit engaging here. It’s embarrassing to read such petty discrepancy issues when there is no point or course of agreement on these issues. It’s never as Black or White when it comes to climate change arguments. Most would agree that something is going on but most would also disagree as to the reason. It’s a no win situation yet both sides engage as if they have the “trump card”, pardon my pun, when the reality is there is no trump card that wins the hand. Let’s go back to the land of being the friendliest people on the planet and save our reputation from this muck fest.

Hi Driver
Mostly a good idea, except for Edmund Burke. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." CC deniers probably don't qualify as 'evil' but they are wrong and they are naive and gullible puppets of industries who probably do qualify as 'evil', to the extent that they do realize that ACC is real but spew disinformation in order to continue to profit from carbon. The evidence for anthropomorphic CC is overwhelming and all of us need to get on with doing what we can to mitigate the damage. And that includes arguing against the deniers. Especially our good hearted Canadian brothers and sisters!

[Alan Mighty]

At least 31% of the coral reefs around Taiwan are bleached, likely to death. See:

https://taipeitimes.com/News/front/a.../13/2003750473

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

At least 31% of the coral reefs around Taiwan are bleached, likely to death. See:

https://taipeitimes.com/News/front/a.../13/2003750473

I will bet you $1000 cash, right here, and right now the Coral bleaching around Taiwan was caused by industrial runoff, not climate change.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I will bet you $1000 cash, right here, and right now the Coral bleaching around Taiwan was caused by industrial runoff, not climate change.

Have you any such evidence?

From the linked article:
“... The coral bleaching, the worst since the government began keeping such records in the 1980s, was a result of global warming and a low incidence of typhoons in the country last summer, he [Kuo Chao-yang] said.
Average sea temperatures around the nation last year rose to the highest in two decades, Kuo said, citing an average 30.5°C in waters off the north coast last summer, about 1°C above normal.
The optimal water temperature for coral growth is 18°C to 29°C, and in unfavorable conditions, most corals expel their symbiotic algae, causing bleaching or even death, Kuo said.
The areas around Taiwan where the worst bleaching occurred last year were Liouciou Island , Kenting, the northeast coast, Penghu and Green Island, he said.
Mingo Lee, a diver who helps document the condition of Taiwan’s coral, said the underwater temperature near uninhabited Siji Island in Penghu County was about 34°C when he dove there last year ..."

He/they may be wrong, about the causes, but I'll need some convincing evidence to believe it.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I will bet you $1000 cash, right here, and right now the Coral bleaching around Taiwan was caused by industrial runoff, not climate change.

Industrial, human waste and freshwater run off...
Commercial tourism and growing populations has greatly contributed to the destruction of many if not all the reefs in the Caribe when I compare places like Antigua today to the abundance of life in the Sixties..
One of the reasons for breaks in reefs so lagoons could be accessed was streams running down from high ground..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Industrial, human waste and freshwater run off...
... One of the reasons for breaks in reefs so lagoons could be accessed was streams running down from high ground..

INDEED.
There are about six major factors, that limit coral reef development; water temperature and salinity[1], depth, light, sedimentation[2], and emergence into air.
[1] Corals are intolerant of salinities, that deviate significantly from that of seawater, and gaps will occur in reefs where, for example, freshwater from a river enters the sea.
[2] Corals also require clear water, as sediment clogs their feeding structures, and smothers them. For this reason, corals usually grow most actively in areas of strong wave action, such as the windward side of a reef, where sediment is prevented from settling on the colonies. Since rivers and streams can contribute sedimentary runoff, they will also inhibit coral growth, creating gaps in the reef.

This doesn't even address the direct "poisoning" effect of some of the pollutants, found in run-off.

[Exile]

^^^^^^^

Is this not consistent with what Dr. Ridd is saying? I'm not sure he even rules out the claim/theory that warmer waters -- potentially due to AGW -- are stressing some reefs so they are more vulnerable to the factors you identified above. His principal position seems to be that the GBF is healthier than most of his colleagues claim. Since there doesn't seem to be scientific agreement on even the best way to survey the reef, why is disagreement on its condition amongst laymen so controversial?

I doubt the actual scientists dedicated to researching these issues frame these questions as simplistically as laymen who believe it all comes down to "believers" or "deniers," the latter merely being naive puppets of the fossil fuel industry. In fact, I don't recall coming across any actual climate scientists from the skeptic camp who do not believe AGW exists and was having an impact. Yet the entire issue has become so politicized that we still see posts that frame it as some sort of "battle" between "good & evil." This is what causes many fair-minded people to question the credibility of expert opinion, and not necessarily based on what the experts themselves are saying.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I will bet you $1000 cash, right here, and right now the Coral bleaching around Taiwan was caused by industrial runoff, not climate change.

No need to bet. Why don't you just show us the data that would prove this?

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by lestersails

No need to bet. Why don't you just show us the data that would prove this?

Why don't we do some science.

Get me a few decades of water temps from areas with, and without bleaching.

I'll either get water sample reports, or go get some myself from the bleaching areas.

And we'll see who's right.

The warming causing bleaching is suspect for several reasons.

1. Coral grows primarily in warmer water, "global warming" should expand its area.

2. The bleaching events are spotty, not evenly distributed by latitude which is what you would expect.

3. The. Bleached areas are located near developed areas with industrialization, and over fishing, (even using actual bleach to fish).

4. Coral bleaching has multiple causes including Saharan dust.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/05/11/how-dust-from-the-sahara-fuels-poisonous-bacteria-blooms-in-the-caribbean/

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Why don't we do some science.

Odd to start by denying the science that has already been done. Handy and convenient, but entirely irrational.
And please, do go out and do your own research and disprove AGW. I, for one, would love for it to be wrong. Please loop back to us when you have accomplished that.
But uniformed pet hypotheses aren't worth diddly. It's just not how science works.