The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Of course it does. Yet cold records still get broken, even during the "hottest year ever".

Huh. I didn't take you for a "there's no global warming; it was chilly last week" sort of guy.

Have one of your infant grandkids explain how an increase in weather extremes can give higher highs and lower lows while at the same time the average temperature can also be increasing.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Huh. I didn't take you for a "there's no global warming; it was chilly last week" sort of guy.

Have one of your infant grandkids explain how an increase in weather extremes can give higher highs and lower lows while at the same time the average temperature can also be increasing.

You took me wrong. I'm the anti "doom and gloom for profit" guy.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is not a peer-reviewed journal. There are links to explanations of the data, some which a peer-reviewed.

As to Fukushima and Chernobyl. https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-...-and-fukushima

Maybe I'm not trusting enough, but could it be that the same forces that suppress the realities of Chernobyl and Fukushima in the mainstream media might have had a finger on the data set you cite? *Hm!*

Let's put it this way, hydrocarbons are natural materials which nature has ways of dealing with. Some people still remember the ballyhoo about the BP rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico; where's the oil now?

Nuclear waste is not a natural product, you don't clean it off your clothes with solvents, bacteria don't eat it and it won't "go away".

I believe that's called a "cost-benefit analysis".

But the commonality of advocacy of AGW and nuclear power is clear enough: scientific hubris; an oxymoron if ever there was one.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Some people still remember the ballyhoo about the BP rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico; where's the oil now?

It's still around.

Even counting Chernobyl & Fukushima, nuclear safety is pretty good, compared to fossil fuel.

We don't have to replace every watt of fossil-fuel energy with nuclear, if renewables continue to become more reliable and cost-effective, and if there was genuine conservation going on. Something a tiny bit more proactive than buying LED lightbulbs.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's still around.

Even counting Chernobyl & Fukushima, nuclear safety is pretty good, compared to fossil fuel.

We don't have to replace every watt of fossil-fuel energy with nuclear, if renewables continue to become more reliable and cost-effective, and if there was genuine conservation going on. Something a tiny bit more proactive than buying LED lightbulbs.

Only people with a profound and probably wilful ignorance of the lessons of history could believe that the geo-political and economic forces who run our world have some great desire to "solve the problems" for the good of humanity etc. etc. A delusion that would be funny were it not simultaneously dangerous and pathetic.

Only the most resolutely obtuse could read through those dozens of examples of blindness and hubris in the links that Boatman61 posted, and come away thinking matters are any different today. Grade 10 Science should be enough to know we haven't "evolved" in a century or two.

The Western World is in the process of destroying itself that Spengler described a century ago, and the process nears completion. Those who want discuss how we might more attractively arrange the deck chairs for the final plunge are welcome to do so. Asia is not going to play along with this AGW charade, every gram of "carbon" the West drops, they will pick up and use against us with pleasure.

Of course, no one likes to admit they've been fooled, and the greater the intellectual hubris the greater the unwillingness. "Many people would rather die than think, and many of them do".

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Klyuchevskaya Sopka?

Nope.. Further South.. and the Atlantic not the Pacific...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I accept the overwhelming evidence

Let's be clear. You believe there is overwhelming evidence of what exactly? Which of the following?

1. Climate change.
2. Anthropogenic Climate chang
3. Climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
4. A severely negative effect of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
5. An existential threat resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

[StuM]

What has the pros and cons of nuclear energy got to do with the current state of the GBR?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

... Your advocacy of nuclear power as opposed to petroleum should I suppose be proof enough that further debate is pointless.
Studies suggest about a million people died from the effects of Chernobyl, and despite the mainstream media politely ignoring the matter, several reactors at Fukushima are in full meltdown, polluting vast quantities of water which will inevitably be dumped into the Pacific as so much as been already, and wash westwards, as huge amounts already have.
The death toll? We'll probably never know, not even the human death toll.

The Canadian government removed the radiation sensors on the west coast long ago, no doubt to prevent public alarm. LOL ...

I agree that governments, including Canada's, are often not as transparent, as they should be, on many matters.

But, where did you get the idea that “Canadian government removed the radiation sensors on the west coast”?

I don’t believe that neither, the Canadian, nor American governments EVER had seawater radiation sensors on the west coast. Canada has air monitoring radiation sensors, which all remain in place.

Radiation measurement
We have several measurement programs in place to protect the health of Canadians by continually monitoring radiation levels nationwide.
➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...surements.html

The Fixed Point Surveillance (FPS) network monitors public radiation dose due to radioactive materials in the atmosphere. ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...html#vancouver

Citizen & WHOI scientists have detected heightened levels of radioactivity in the waters along the west coast of Canada and the United States, which can be traced back to the Japanese nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011.
The radiation levels are relatively minute, and do not pose a threat to human or marine life, according to a statement from the U.S.-based Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
The WHOI says the results are based on more than 245 samples collected along the west coast since 2011, and are helpful in studying the way ocean currents circulate around the world.
Through a citizen science sampling effort, Our Radioactive Ocean, that he launched in 2014, as well as research funded by the National Science Foundation, Buesseler and his colleagues are using sophisticated sensors to look for minute levels of ocean-borne radioactivity from Fukushima.

“Higher Levels of Fukushima Cesium Detected Offshore” ~ WHOI December 3, 2015
➥ https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news...vels-offshore/

“How radioactive is our ocean?” ~ The Institution and the Center for Marine and Environmental Radiation (CMER)
➥ How Radioactive is Our Ocean?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You first....

Haha, nice try. You were ridiculing this work - it is up to you to read it, understand it, and demonstrate what is wrong with it.

This is a big part of the problem with the so-called climate 'debate'. It really isn't primarily about anyone's opinions. It is primarily about data. My opinion, your opinion, anyone else's opinion aren't worth diddly. It is about an enormous mass of data that support a robust hypothesis. The armchair quarterbacks have nothing of value to contribute.

It also bears emphasizing that poking holes in one paper - even if they were scientifically valid critiques - won't much weaken the enormous mass of data that support the AGW model.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Let's be clear. You believe there is overwhelming evidence of what exactly? Which of the following?

1. Climate change.
2. Anthropogenic Climate chang
3. Climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
4. A severely negative effect of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
5. An existential threat resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

3.5

But there's more reasons than imminent harm from CC to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Pollution is a big one. Geopolitics - eg Australia, China, and coal. Careful management of a finite resource.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

Let's be clear. You believe there is overwhelming evidence of what exactly? Which of the following?

1. Climate change.
2. Anthropogenic Climate chang
3. Climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
4. A severely negative effect of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
5. An existential threat resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Hi Stu
Great clarifying questions.
1. is a given - can't believe anyone could disagree with that. The climate changes over long periods of time. E.g., ice age.
2. Yes. It has oft been said "everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it" - but that is wrong. We are changing the climate.
3. Yes. While CO2 is not the sole cause of AGW, my understanding is that it is the largest.
4. Yes.
5. Probably not. I looked up the definition of 'existential' - the relevant one I think is 'Concerning the very existence of, especially with regard to extinction.' So if by that it is meant 'will AGW lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens?' Probably not. But I think it will be somewhere in between 'severe' and 'existential', which is a scenario that could be extraordinarily awful to live through. If instead by 'existential' you mean extinction of our current general level of civilization and way of life, then possibly yes.
You?
Les

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Haha, nice try. You were ridiculing this work - it is up to you to read it, understand it, and demonstrate what is wrong with it.



This is a big part of the problem with the so-called climate 'debate'. It really isn't primarily about anyone's opinions. It is primarily about data. My opinion, your opinion, anyone else's opinion aren't worth diddly. It is about an enormous mass of data that support a robust hypothesis. The armchair quarterbacks have nothing of value to contribute.



It also bears emphasizing that poking holes in one paper - even if they were scientifically valid critiques - won't much weaken the enormous mass of data that support the AGW model.

Ok. Here's what's wrong with it. I could write a paper on, let's say, the mating displays of bird species and conclude that the displays of these birds is a desperate action made by them in an effort to stave off extinction.

Whilst technically correct, the conclusion makes it no less junk science.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok. Here's what's wrong with it. I could write a paper on, let's say, the mating displays of bird species and conclude that the displays of these birds is a desperate action made by them in an effort to stave off extinction.

Whilst technically correct, the conclusion makes it no less junk science.

Glad you agree that it is technically correct. I think your misunderstanding is one of basic unfamiliarity of mechanisms of evolutionary biology. Of course, the birds are not sentient and have no concept of staving off extinction. Neither do you or me when our blood clots in a wound. Neither do the corals. But all of these mechanisms facilitate survival, which has the indirect consequence of reducing the probability of extinction.

The conclusions of the authors, in their own words are "We conclude that colorful bleaching is an emergency response of symbiotic corals driven by an optical feedback loop involving host and symbionts. This process may represent an adaptive mechanism to minimize high light stress due to increased light fluxes in the bleached host tissue caused by back scattering of the highly reflective coral skeleton and promote recolonization with symbionts after sublethal stress events."

Discussions in scientific papers include a mix of direct interpretations of data and speculative implications about what it might mean, which often form the bases of future hypotheses that can be tested. I think you have conflated the former with the latter. They said "...it may represent..." (my emphasis) which is standard scientific notation for a speculation or hypothesis. It is not a conclusion.

I would conclude that there is no basis for your accusation that this is 'junk science'.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Klyuchevskaya Sopka?

Its Pico in the Azores..