The Reef Ain't Dead

[boatpoker]

OK, don't jump on me, I am not a "denier" I do firmly believe the climate is changing and mankind has played an obvious and significant part however ... the climate has been changing since day one, sometimes in dramatic and quick fashion long before man or mans effects.

Is there any reliable information on how much of our current situation is man made and how much is just natural progression ?

I write this sitting in a spot that has been under a mile of ice, a tropical jungle, the bottom of an ocean and a desert.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The warming causing bleaching is suspect for several reasons.

One of the reasons it is suspect is that it isn't correct. It is warming and reduced pH (from dissolved CO2).

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

OK, don't jump on me, I am not a "denier" I do firmly believe the climate is changing and mankind has played an obvious and significant part however ... the climate has been changing since day one, sometimes in dramatic and quick fashion long before man or mans effects.

Is there any reliable information on how much of our current situation is man made and how much is just natural progression ?

I write this sitting in a spot that has been under a mile of ice, a tropical jungle, the bottom of an ocean and a desert.

Hi boatpoker
Good question. My understanding is that IPCC has determined that the human contribution is the single largest factor, larger than any changes explainable by natural processes. While it is a good question, it can misdirect one's thinking. The planet is going through a rough time and it is highly likely to get rougher. If anthropogenic effects are primary, major, or even just significant doesn't matter - that is the component that is under our control, which we can reduce, which will make what is coming less bad. Probably* a lot less bad.
Also, a lot of the 'natural change' arguments ignore time scale. Evolutionary mechanisms have undoubtedly responded to such historical changes. But the rapidity of the current change is faster than most evolutionary mechanisms can account for. As well, please remember that evolution doesn't care a whit about survival of our species - it is only life it 'cares' about. I rather care about humans!

*Not directed to you - but the deniers always seem to gravitate toward 'it might not be nearly as bad as they are predicting'. Important to remember - most such predictions have an equal chance of being wrong on the other end. It is similarly likely it might be much worse than current predictions.

[Exile]

Takes 4-500 posts (since StuM's graph) to come back around to a discussion of potential contributors to GBR degradation other than AGW. Contributors which are scientifically known or strongly suspected, and some which may potentially be amplified by AGW while others not. Much of the remainder of the posts are variants on the theme that AGW is to blame for it all and anyone who suggests otherwise are "deniers," with such non-expert advocates citing the "science" in support (of course).

This level of simplicity and emotion can only derive from personal politics, not any sort of objective interest or even curiosity about the science itself. Not to worry though . . . we're only 7 more days from our (next) "climate crisis," scheduled to commence @17:01GMT on 20/1/21.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Takes 4-500 posts (since StuM's graph) to come back around to a discussion of potential contributors to GBR degradation other than AGW. Contributors which are scientifically known or strongly suspected, and some which may potentially be amplified by AGW while others not. Much of the remainder of the posts are variants on the theme that AGW is to blame for it all and anyone who suggests otherwise are "deniers," with such non-expert advocates citing the "science" in support (of course).

This level of simplicity and emotion can only derive from personal politics, not any sort of objective interest or even curiosity about the science itself. Not to worry though . . . we're only 7 more days from our (next) "climate crisis," scheduled to commence @17:01GMT on 20/1/21.

Awesome - George Orwell would be proud of you! You are asserting that there are two groups: 1) 'AGW is to blame for it all' 2) those who think there are other factors, who are victimized by being labeled deniers. A too-clever-by-half attempt to paint the deniers as the more sophisticated truth tellers and falsely portray those who accept AGW as fools. Black is white, up is down, bad is good.
All that matters is what anthropogenic factors are relevant. The deniers are folks who deny that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary, main, or significant cause and thus should be reduced. First and foremost among them the fossil fuel industry.

At the risk of bringing in another facet of this, I find it bizarre to find such rabid apologists for the fossil fuel industry in a sailing forum. While no human activity generates zero carbon, sailing is one of the most carbon neutral sports or lifestyles that one can enjoy. I just don't get it. I have generally found sailors to be extraordinarily conscious of their environment and to minimize their footprints. It would be expected in readers of Yachting magazine - blows my mind to read about boats that burn multiple gallons of fuel per mile. Once chatting up the guy at the Charlotte Amalie fuel dock I asked him what his biggest fill-up was. He told me he filled Larry Ellison's yacht and the tab was north of $250,000. Didn't think that would even be possible.

[goboatingnow]

I have friends who are serious environmental scientists at two universities. They all say the AGW science question is settled , what’s not settled is what’s likely to happen as a result. Theories and their models range from “ manageable” to “ run for the ( high ) hills “

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Is there any reliable information on how much of our current situation is man made and how much is just natural progression ?

Yes, there is.

Start here: Climate Change - Evidence & Causes: An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Roy...nce-causes.pdf

This is plain English

Also good Climate Science and Climate Risk: A Primer
By Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/defaul...ate_Primer.pdf

For attribution:

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

It's Official: There's Only 1-In-A-Million Chance Climate Change Is Not Caused By Humans
https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

[Davidla]

How did the reef fair, when we were all going to freeze to death back in the 1970's. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8

I'm sure most of you would remember Leonard Nimoy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Davidla

How did the reef fair, when we were all going to freeze to death back in the 1970's. See:

I'm sure most of you would remember Leonard Nimoy.

In the 1970's, science was 6:1 warming :cooling.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...bams2370_1.xml


The MSM got it really wrong.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/m...ientists-wrong

[Davidla]

I care more about pollution, than I do climate change, why? Because climate change causes governments to grow and seek to impose new taxes (carbon charges) on humans. Growing governments are a very bad thing and only provide for more restrictions on freedom.

Fix the pollution problems in this world (and I don't mean fossil fuels alone) and you will solve your global warming problem. Trouble is no government I know of has a pollution change taskforce.

Take a look at the third world and examine the level of pollution, most treat the oceans as a garbage and sewage dump.

How come everybody is pleased when China's GDP grows at 7% a year? At that rate their GDP output doubles every ten years. What is that going to do to pollution levels? How many more cheap products will you buy from China, wrapped in plastic and then disposed of a year later during that period. Please stop focusing on the effects and focus on the causes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I have friends who are serious environmental scientists at two universities. They all say the AGW science question is settled , what’s not settled is what’s likely to happen as a result. Theories and their models range from “ manageable” to “ run for the ( high ) hills “

I think this is probably an accurate statement. Certainly within the climate science specialty, and even amongst that specialty's well-known "skeptics." As you say, they're not skeptical about the existence of AGW, but rather how much influence it is having and is likely to have. I imagine the same is true about impacts on the world's coral reefs, most notably the GBR. Those that are blaming the usual bogeymen, labeling, name-calling, censuring, suppressing, or citing only one side of the science they happen to prefer, are really only misrepresenting the science and thus casting doubts on their own credibility. This does nothing to promote the needed consensus amongst the public to take stronger action.

[capn_billl]

Proving global warming isn't the main cause of why the chickens won't eat, or the coral is bleaching is an entirely different story than long term planetary temperature changes.

I hear daily "anecdotal evidence isn't science", and that statement is correct, EXCEPT in the case of global warming in which anecdotal evidence is not only irrefutable proof, but applied in even the most specious circumstances. Like coral bleaching. Or the 22 year hurricane cycle.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Davidla

How many more cheap products will you buy from China, wrapped in plastic and then disposed of a year later during that period.

Hi David
Don't quite agree with your overall argument but I sure do agree with this point. And you are underestimating this problem - how many cheap products will you buy at the convenience store and throw away the plastic within 15 minutes of buying them?

[Reefmagnet]

That article is the typical watermelon con job anyway.

• Climate change and a lack of typhoons within the season are stated to have contributed to the bleaching.
• The all to familiar cries about cutting greenhouse gas emissions right now are part and parcel of the summary.

I also really liked the bit about 34 degree water temperatures. Reminded me of when Fonzie jumped the shark in Happy Days.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

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.

Best post in this thread for a while now.

I read somewhere a while back that the near shore reefs on the Great Barrier Reef were the most stressed by industrial and agricultural run off and that the offshore reefs are mostly unaffected.

Every year since 2003 I have transited six or seven hundred miles north and south inside the reef. I day sail so I've used pretty well every anchorage inside the reef many of which are around offshore islands. Without exception the lee, from the prevailing SE winds for most of the year, have extensive coral free areas and the many bays on the southern sides, which could provide good protection from lighter, northerly summer winds are mostly coral infested foul ground.