The Reef Ain't Dead

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I need a little clarity, here.

Are the reefs under stress, due to:
A) A communist plot
B) Capitalist exploitation?
Or, is it just that "saying" the reefs are under stress is due to A, or B?

Are they under stress tho'... local sailors are divided.. some say yes, others no.
Makes for a long thread and passes the time when not sailing, and really, billions could not care less.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

An innovative numerical model developed by researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution demonstrates the distinct impact of ocean acidification -- separate from ocean warming -- on coral growth.
The model shows that ocean acidification has caused a 13 percent decline in the skeletal density of Porites corals in the Great Barrier Reef,

Correction: The model postulates that there has been a 13% decline. Models don't "demonstrate" or "show" anything in the real world.


There have been many core samples of porite corals taken on the GBR. Do they support the model conclusions?

[StuM]

While looking for answers I came across yet another indication that recent GBR events are not "unprecedented":


Two hiatuses in coral skeleton growth, associated tissue death and subsequent regrowth, were discovered while dating eight multi-century Porites coral cores collected from the central Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. Cross-dating of characteristic annual luminescent lines visible in the coral core slices under UV-light (Hendy et al. 2003) accurately dated the two events to 1782–85 and 1817a.d.. Die-off scars were observed in only one core for each event. X-radiographs and photographs taken under UV-light show the pattern of regrowth and the period taken by the coral to recover. Bioerosion, predominately by boring sponges ( Cliona spp.), of the exposed coral surface following the 1782–85 event caused a hiatus of up to 14years' growth, with the coral taking 7–8years to reclaim the whole surface contained within the 9-cm-diameter core. Contemporary historical and proxy-climate records indicate that El Nio climatic conditions occurred at the time of both growth discontinuities. Intense luminescence observed in corals growing continuously during the 1817 event suggests that low salinity from river runoff was a contributing factor, analogous environmental conditions to those that were associated with the 1998 bleaching event in the GBR.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And here we have the nub of it.. took a while but we got there..
As for Wall Street.. in a way it does as it is the measure of markets however it is not the driver.. that goes to the Soros, Rothschilds, Gates, Bezos and others in the world..
As for the Secretary of the Treasury.. he has about as much power as the Chancellor of the Exchequer if someone like Soros decides to start a run on the pound.. tho' in the case of the US dollar that's still unlikely (just) as there is no currency to take over.. Yet.

You're almost there... what force do you think it is that impels nations of hundreds of millions to hand over their reins of power to a tiny coterie of global bankers?


Curious indeed.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

You're almost there... what force do you think it is that impels nations of hundreds of millions to hand over their reins of power to a tiny coterie of global bankers?


Curious indeed.

Freemasons.. What else..

[Tillikum]

No, I don't think so. Still we have travelled this little distance together friend, but now the path narrows and you must go on alone...

Vaya con Dios!

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I find the ease of the 'Denier' label is much like the Racist card... the easiest disparagment a believer can throw out that if one denies instantly confirms one as a 'Denier'..
Cancel Culture at its best..
Its like the time when I was still a FB member and some folk jumped on me saying I was a Racist.. when I responded that everyone regardless of race is racist to some degree either consciously or sub consciously one shot back with.. "I'm not a racist I have a black girlfriend"... I was tempted to say "So did most slave owners" but instead came to the conclusion it was a waste of time and would just go nowhere but lead to more abuse.
On GW we keep being called 'Deniers' because we are outside the 'Status Quo' and subjected to countless links to 'esteemed scientists' and their work pointing to man's consumption of fossil fuels being the root of all evil
What I do see very little of apart from people like Attenbrough is the more realistic fact that capitalism is destroying the very lungs of the planet.. not by the burning of fossil fuels but by constantly scarring them irreperably through deforestation of ancient jungles for palm oil plantations, cattle ranches, strip mining for gold and other metals and minerals yet Science points us the other way.. not terribly surprising when one considers how science is funded, you don't bite the hand that's feeding you.
So to call me a 'Denier' is akin to you believing Organic Farming is a new science..
The subject has many facets and not focusing on your particular facet does not make me a denier any more than you focusing on the single facet makes you a blinkered fool.
This is not a personal attack by the way, just a view from a more 'centre ground' seeing as many choose to make this a Left Right political thing.. its not, it's a Life thing.

Trying to divert into arguments about labels and cancel culture is just to distract.
The question of where you sit is pretty simple.
Either you accept the scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 is significantly altering our climate and that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, or not.
Yes or No are the only acceptable answers I am interested in.
For me, the answer is yes. I might argue about this or that, but in the end it boils down to that simple question.
You?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Either you accept the scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 is significantly altering our climate and that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, or not.
Yes or No are the only acceptable answers I am interested in.
For me, the answer is yes. I might argue about this or that, but in the end it boils down to that simple question.
You?

That's two separate questions. Don't conflate them.

If you answer Yes to the first and No to the second, are you a denier?

If you answer to the second part is Yes, what is your evidence for the need to reduce CO2 emissions apart from dubious computer models.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

No, I don't think so. Still we have travelled this little distance together friend, but now the path narrows and you must go on alone...

Vaya con Dios!

Oh.. You mean that was an actual serious question and you honestly believe the political whores of the world give a damn about the millions they alledgedly govern.???
Your naivety is awesome indeed..
Obviously a graduate of the Semper Fi program.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Trying to divert into arguments about labels and cancel culture is just to distract.
The question of where you sit is pretty simple.
Either you accept the scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 is significantly altering our climate and that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, or not.
Yes or No are the only acceptable answers I am interested in.
For me, the answer is yes. I might argue about this or that, but in the end it boils down to that simple question.
You?

The question of where I sit is I think pretty obvious..
However methinks we differ on the method.. I choose nature over modern science.
Its what created the perfect conditions for our species to form in and thrive not science.
Or has science discovered how to reduce CO2 and turn it into Oxygen to restore the balance.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

... I choose nature over modern science.
Its what created the perfect conditions for our species to form in and thrive not science ...

I think, in this context, 'science' represents what we know about 'nature'.
Science is, therefore, (a fraction of) nature.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

While looking for answers I came across yet another indication that recent GBR events are not "unprecedented":

“Two hiatuses in coral skeleton growth, associated tissue death and subsequent regrowth, were discovered while dating eight multi-century Porites coral cores collected from the central Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia ...
... X-radiographs and photographs taken under UV-light show the pattern of regrowth and the period taken by the coral to recover. Bioerosion, predominately by boring sponges ( Cliona spp.), of the exposed coral surface following the 1782–85 event caused a hiatus of up to 14years' growth, with the coral taking 7–8years to reclaim the whole surface contained within the 9-cm-diameter core ...”

The “natural” coral growth hiatus, cited in the paper StuM quoted[1] is not directly analogous to the current “ACC-driven” decline in coral growth/survival.

Coral reefs are endangered by a variety of factors, including:
- Historical Natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, El Niño-ENSO, altered salinity, predation, and diseases.
- Local threats [mostly post-industrial], such as overfishing, destructive fishing techniques, coastal development, pollution, and careless tourism.
- Global effects of climate change, such as warming seas, increasing levels of CO2 in the water, acidification, and rising sea levels.

All of these factors act in concert, on coral reefs, and complex interactions, between the threats, leave coral reefs even more vulnerable.

The impact of anthropogenic climate change, ADDS to those, from other human activities, AND natural variations, that are already impacting water quality, coastal erosion and biological systems. The combined effects of elevated warming, and acidification from climate change, along with declining water quality, appear to be significant drivers of the rapid changes currently observed (an environment that is changing faster than any time in the past 65 million years if not 300 million years).

[1] StuM quoted the abstract from:
“Historical mortality in massive Porites from the central Great Barrier Reef, Australia: evidence for past environmental stress?” ~ by E.J. Hendy et al
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nmental_stress
Here’s the Full Text ➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nmental_stress

Quoting the authors’:
“... Conclusions:
Long coral cores from massive Porites colonies contain information about past growth disturbances, and with an independent dating method, such as the process of cross-dating characteristic luminescent lines, ages can be assigned to these biotic responses.
We document two incidents of partial mortality from a study of eight Porites coral cores from the central GBR.
Growth ceased in 1817 for a period of less than a year in one core.
In another core, 3 years of coral skeleton is lost on one side of the 9-cm core between 1782 and 1785 and, over the 7- to 8-year period taken by the coral to reclaim the surface, bioerosion produces a hiatus of 14 years on the other side. –Skeletal scars can be caused by a wide range of processes, leading to tissue death; however, contemporary evidence suggests that the two growth hiatuses could be linked to unusual climatic conditions associated with historical ENSO events.
Detailed information from contemporaneous high-resolution paleoclimate tracers in coral is needed to confidently attribute any cause, but thermal stress is a possible candidate for the partial mortality in 1782–85.
The 1817 event at Pandora Reef also coincides with very high river discharge according to coral UV-luminescence records. –Identifying the scale of a coral mortality event or producing a chronology of environmental stress events from Porites colonies requires sampling of a much larger number of cores than studied here.
Probability analysis is used to demonstrate the limited chance of coring through a growth hiatus caused by an event of equal severity to the 1998 bleaching event in the GBR.
The absence of evidence for growth disturbances in a long coral record cannot, therefore, be interpreted as absence of environmental stress to a reef. Similarly, historical evidence from only one core does not exclude a large reef-scale impact because the likelihood of sampling multiple examples of the same partial mortality event are exceedingly low.”

I think that a perusal of some the authors’ other writings will evidence their opinions, that reefs are under unique pressure, due to anthropogenic stressors, which occur in addition to ‘natural’ variability.
See ➥ https://openresearch-repository.anu....6275?mode=full

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I think, in this context, 'science' represents what we know about 'nature'.
Science is, therefore, (a fraction of) nature.

Kinda hair splitting here Gord.. I am talking about solutions to problems created by science.
Seems kinda funny that natural science is discarded as a remedy in favor of the carbon producing technology being suggested as the 'New Green Way'
Oh.. I forgot, there's no profit in the former..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I am talking about solutions to problems created by science.

??? Science studies nature and tells us about it, and when tasked, helps us solve problems. Very few of our present problems were caused by science; the vast majority are excesses committed by us in spite of scientific warnings of the problems this will cause.

Seems kinda funny that natural science is discarded as a remedy in favor of the carbon producing technology being suggested as the 'New Green Way'

Seriously? The bottom line of the warnings about AGW is that our current patterns of fossil fuel use are overwhelming nature's regulating mechanisms. In addition to squandering a finite resource, and killing people and ruining parts of the environment by its extraction and consumption.

Can you be specific about what new technologies concern you? Its my understanding that they are mostly less polluting and more sustainable than the current technologies they are intended to replace.

The lockdowns have demonstrated how even a small reduction in destructive activity has caused a 'nature' bounceback. Better air quality in cities (reduction in deaths from air pollution), more walking and cycling, increase in some animal populations.... I share your belief that we should let nature do its thing as much as possible, and I also think that we can live happy healthy lives and have robust economies WITHOUT using fossil fuels as much, and without making the sort of mess we continue to make.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

??? Science studies nature and tells us about it, and when tasked, helps us solve problems. Very few of our present problems were caused by science; the vast majority are excesses committed by us in spite of scientific warnings of the problems this will cause.Seriously? The bottom line of the warnings about AGW is that our current patterns of fossil fuel use are overwhelming nature's regulating mechanisms. In addition to squandering a finite resource, and killing people and ruining parts of the environment by its extraction and consumption.

Can you be specific about what new technologies concern you? Its my understanding that they are mostly less polluting and more sustainable than the current technologies they are intended to replace.

The lockdowns have demonstrated how even a small reduction in destructive activity has caused a 'nature' bounceback. Better air quality in cities (reduction in deaths from air pollution), more walking and cycling, increase in some animal populations.... I share your belief that we should let nature do its thing as much as possible, and I also think that we can live happy healthy lives and have robust economies WITHOUT using fossil fuels as much, and without making the sort of mess we continue to make.

Your last para. is a given, enjoys strong public consensus, and there's already been a decade's worth of such reductions achieved by Western countries pre-Covid, most significantly by the substitution of cleaner burning natural gas vs. coal in the U.S.

As for the rest, it appears you haven't read much into a growing group of environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger who agree with the basic premise of AGW and other obvious ills derived from consuming fossil fuels, but reject much of the alarmism and disagree that solar & wind are realistic answers.

So curious minds may ask . . .

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Should we put that down to denial or indifference? The end result's much the same.