The Reef Ain't Dead

[Exile]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Hopefully the Ridd case will proceed to the High Court and we'll see whether it takes a narrow legalistic or a broad support of free speech approach.

Didn't GordMay provide us a link early on indicating that the High Court already had, and the ruling was in favor of the university?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't GordMay provide us a link early on indicating that the High Court already had, and the ruling was in favor of the university?

Nope, that was the appeal court which took a legalistic position.

About three decades ago a government tried to place limits on the amount of advertising which could take place in relation to an election, the High Court found that even though there is not a word regarding free speech in the Australian Constitution, Australians have an implied right of free speech in relation to political matters. In some respects it's a roll of the dice but if the Court considers the advance of science requires rights of free speech in it's practitioners it might find this aspect requires overarching status.

[fgd3]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

The majority of scientists also thought the earth was flat!

What a ridiculous statement. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes (276 BC-195/194 BC) calculated it's dimensions pretty accurately.


There have been many ignorant and superstitous folks who thought the earth was flat but none of them could remotely be described as scientists.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Of course. Anyone who has spent time in the tropics with the weather knows that wind would have much more effect on SST's then water vapour ever (or even, if) would.

Having said that, computer models similar to those used to forecast climate warming also predict that increased cloud cover caused by higher atmospheric temperatures will raise SST's in a positive feedback cycle. Fortunately the Earth has seasons, so it has been easy enough to perform real world research that proves this isn't the case...

That's a bold, but unsupported, or explained, statement that vastly oversimplifies the relevant science. Incidentally, it's also (mostly) wrong.

"Cloud feedback—the change in top-of-atmosphere radiative flux resulting from the cloud response to warming—constitutes by far the largest source of uncertainty in the climate response to CO2 forcing simulated by global climate models(GCMs)...
... Global-mean cloud feedback in GCMs results from three main effects:
(1) rising free-tropospheric clouds (a positive longwave effect);
(2) decreasing tropical low cloudamount (a positive shortwave [SW] effect);
(3) increasing high-latitude low cloudoptical depth (a negative SW effect).

These cloud responses simulated by GCMs are qualitatively supported by theory, high-resolution modeling, and observations...

CLOUD-RADIATIVE EFFECT AND CLOUD FEEDBACK
The radiative impact of clouds is measured as the cloud-radiative effect (CRE), the difference between clear-sky and all-sky at the top of atmosphere. Clouds reflect solar radiation (negative SW CRE, global-mean effect of−45 W m−2) and reduce outgoing terrestrial radiation (positive LW CRE, 27 W m−2), with an overall cooling effect estimated at−18 W m−2 (numbers from Henderson et al.33). CRE is proportional to cloud amount, but is also determined by cloud altitude and optical depth. The magnitude of SW CRE increases with cloud optical depth, and to a much lesser extent with cloud altitude. By contrast, the LW CRE depends primarily on cloud altitude, which determines the difference in emission temperature between clear and cloudy skies, but also increases with optical depth. As the cloud properties change with warming, so does their radiative effect. The resulting radiative flux response at the top of atmosphere, normalized by the global-mean surface temperature increase, is known as cloud feedback. This is not strictly equal to the change in CRE with warming, because the CRE also responds to changes in clear-sky radiation—for example, due to changes insurface albedo or water vapor.34 The CRE response thus underestimates cloud feedback by about 0.3 W m−2on average.34,35Cloudfeedback is therefore the component of CRE change that is due to changing cloud properties only.Various methods exist to diagnose cloud feedback from standard GCM output. The values presented in this paper are either based on CRE changes corrected for non-cloud effects,30 or estimated directly from changes in cloud properties, for those GCMs providing appropriate cloud output.31 The most accurate procedure involves running the GCM radiation code offline—replacing instantaneous cloudfields from a control climatology with those from a perturbed climatology,while keeping other fields unchanged—to obtain the radiative perturbation due to changes in clouds.36,37 This method is computationally expensive and technically challenging, however."

Excerpted from:
“Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models” ~ Paulo Cepp et al
➥ https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis...ate_Change.pdf

See also:
“Clouds and Aerosols” ~ by Olivier Boucher & David Randall et al
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...07_FINAL-1.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That's a bold, but unsupported, or explained, statement that vastly oversimplifies the relevant science. Incidentally, it's also (mostly) wrong.

"Cloud feedback—the change in top-of-atmosphere radiative flux resulting from the cloud response to warming—constitutes by far the largest source of uncertainty in the climate response to CO2 forcing simulated by global climate models(GCMs)...
... Global-mean cloud feedback in GCMs results from three main effects:
(1) rising free-tropospheric clouds (a positive longwave effect);
(2) decreasing tropical low cloudamount (a positive shortwave [SW] effect);
(3) increasing high-latitude low cloudoptical depth (a negative SW effect).

These cloud responses simulated by GCMs are qualitatively supported by theory, high-resolution modeling, and observations...

CLOUD-RADIATIVE EFFECT AND CLOUD FEEDBACK
The radiative impact of clouds is measured as the cloud-radiative effect (CRE), the difference between clear-sky and all-sky at the top of atmosphere. Clouds reflect solar radiation (negative SW CRE, global-mean effect of−45 W m−2) and reduce outgoing terrestrial radiation (positive LW CRE, 27 W m−2), with an overall cooling effect estimated at−18 W m−2 (numbers from Henderson et al.33). CRE is proportional to cloud amount, but is also determined by cloud altitude and optical depth. The magnitude of SW CRE increases with cloud optical depth, and to a much lesser extent with cloud altitude. By contrast, the LW CRE depends primarily on cloud altitude, which determines the difference in emission temperature between clear and cloudy skies, but also increases with optical depth. As the cloud properties change with warming, so does their radiative effect. The resulting radiative flux response at the top of atmosphere, normalized by the global-mean surface temperature increase, is known as cloud feedback. This is not strictly equal to the change in CRE with warming, because the CRE also responds to changes in clear-sky radiation—for example, due to changes insurface albedo or water vapor.34 The CRE response thus underestimates cloud feedback by about 0.3 W m−2on average.34,35Cloudfeedback is therefore the component of CRE change that is due to changing cloud properties only.Various methods exist to diagnose cloud feedback from standard GCM output. The values presented in this paper are either based on CRE changes corrected for non-cloud effects,30 or estimated directly from changes in cloud properties, for those GCMs providing appropriate cloud output.31 The most accurate procedure involves running the GCM radiation code offline—replacing instantaneous cloudfields from a control climatology with those from a perturbed climatology,while keeping other fields unchanged—to obtain the radiative perturbation due to changes in clouds.36,37 This method is computationally expensive and technically challenging, however."

Excerpted from:
“Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models” ~ Paulo Cepp et al
➥ https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis...ate_Change.pdf

See also:
“Clouds and Aerosols” ~ by Olivier Boucher & David Randall et al
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...07_FINAL-1.pdf

You googled the wrong thing, Gord.


For example....
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/ar...dFrom=fulltext

Abstract

Cloud radiative effects (CREs) are known to play a central role in governing the long-term mean distribution of sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Very recent work suggests that CREs may also play a role in governing the variability of SSTs in the context of El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Here, the authors exploit numerical simulations in the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model with two different representations of CREs to demonstrate that coupling between CREs and the atmospheric circulation has a much more general and widespread effect on tropical climate than that indicated in previous work. The results reveal that coupling between CREs and the atmospheric circulation leads to robust increases in SST variability on time scales longer than a month throughout the tropical oceans. Remarkably, cloud–circulation coupling leads to more than a doubling of the amplitude of decadal-scale variability in tropical-mean SSTs. It is argued that the increases in tropical SST variance derive primarily from the coupling between SSTs and shortwave CREs: Coupling increases the memory in shortwave

[GordMay]

And how does “A Basic Effect of Cloud Radiative Effects on Tropical Sea Surface Temperature Variability” support your simple hypothesis?

[GordMay]

“A Basic Effect of Cloud Radiative Effects on Tropical Sea Surface Temperature Variability”
The authors argue that coupling between cloud radiative effects (CREs) and the atmospheric circulation have a much more general and widespread effect on tropical climat,e than that indicated in previous work.
They show that cloud/circulation coupling leads to robust increases in sea-surface temperature (SST) variability, on timescales longer than a month throughout the tropical oceans. It is argued that the increases in tropical SST variance derive, primarily, from the coupling between SSTs and short-wave CREs:
Coupling increases the memory in shortwave CREs, on hourly and daily timescales, and thus reddens the spectrum of shortwave CREs, and increases their variance, on timescales spanning weeks to decades. The results indicate the basic but critical role of CREs in governing climate variability throughout the tropics.

FWIW: Your link offered free access to the Abstract only.

The entire paper is available (free) at several sites:
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...re_variability
➥ file:///C:/Users/gorda/AppData/Local/Temp/jcli-d-19-0298.1-1.pdf
➥ https://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~yin...LI_revised.pdf

In order to predict the climate several decades into the future, we need to understand many aspects of the climate system, one being the role of clouds in determining the climate's sensitivity to change. Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks, in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances.
Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling (negative feedback) or warming (positive feedback) effect of all clouds on Earth.
This is not a simple calculation, where a single (set of) observation(s) can provide a simple answer - as comforting as many of us would find such simplicity.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

And how does “A Basic Effect of Cloud Radiative Effects on Tropical Sea Surface Temperature Variability” support your simple hypothesis?

The one that clouds reduce SST's?


Real world observations....



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23894649/

Do clouds save the great barrier reef? satellite imagery elucidates the cloud-SST relationship at the local scale

Abstract

Evidence of global climate change and rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is now well documented in the scientific literature. With corals already living close to their thermal maxima, increases in SSTs are of great concern for the survival of coral reefs. Cloud feedback processes may have the potential to constrain SSTs, serving to enforce an "ocean thermostat" and promoting the survival of coral reefs. In this study, it was hypothesized that cloud cover can affect summer SSTs in the tropics. Detailed direct and lagged relationships between cloud cover and SST across the central Great Barrier Reef (GBR) shelf were investigated using data from satellite imagery and in situ temperature and light loggers during two relatively hot summers (2005 and 2006) and two relatively cool summers (2007 and 2008). Across all study summers and shelf positions, SSTs exhibited distinct drops during periods of high cloud cover, and conversely, SST increases during periods of low cloud cover, with a three-day temporal lag between a change in cloud cover and a subsequent change in SST. Cloud cover alone was responsible for up to 32.1% of the variation in SSTs three days later. The relationship was strongest in both El Niño (2005) and La Niña (2008) study summers and at the inner-shelf position in those summers. SST effects on subsequent cloud cover were weaker and more variable among study summers, with rising SSTs explaining up to 21.6% of the increase in cloud cover three days later. This work quantifies the often observed cloud cooling effect on coral reefs. It highlights the importance of incorporating local-scale processes into bleaching forecasting models, and encourages the use of remote sensing imagery to value-add to coral bleaching field studies and to more accurately predict risks to coral reefs.

The climate industry fantasy...


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049961/

Observations of Local Positive Low Cloud Feedback Patterns and Their Role in Internal Variability and Climate Sensitivity


Abstract

Modeling studies have shown that cloud feedbacks are sensitive to the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies, while cloud feedbacks themselves strongly influence the magnitude of SST anomalies. Observational counterparts to such patterned interactions are still needed. Here we show that distinct large‐scale patterns of SST and low‐cloud cover (LCC) emerge naturally from objective analyses of observations and demonstrate their close coupling in a positive local SST‐LCC feedback loop that may be important for both internal variability and climate change. The two patterns that explain the maximum amount of covariance between SST and LCC correspond to the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, leading modes of multidecadal internal variability. Spatial patterns and time series of SST and LCC anomalies associated with both modes point to a strong positive local SST‐LCC feedback. In many current climate models, our analyses suggest that SST‐LCC feedback strength is too weak compared to observations. Modeled local SST‐LCC feedback strength affects simulated internal variability so that stronger feedback produces more intense and more realistic patterns of internal variability. To the extent that the physics of the local positive SST‐LCC feedback inferred from observed climate variability applies to future greenhouse warming, we anticipate significant amount of delayed warming because of SST‐LCC feedback when anthropogenic SST warming eventually overwhelm the effects of internal variability that may mute anthropogenic warming over parts of the ocean. We postulate that many climate models may be underestimating both future warming and the magnitude of modeled internal variability because of their weak SST‐LCC feedback.

[GordMay]

Indeed.
I don't believe that the authors explicitly claim to directly answer their (own) question.

"Do clouds save the great barrier reef? satellite imagery elucidates the cloud-SST relationship at the local scale” ~ by Susannah M Leahy, Michael J Kingsford, Craig R Steinberg
Links to the complete article.
➥ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0070400
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722189/
➥ file:///C:/Users/gorda/AppData/Local/Temp/Leahyetal2013_cloudsonGBR.pdf


“Evidence of global climate change and rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is now well documented in the scientific literature. With corals already living close to their thermal maxima, increases in SSTs are of great concern for the survival of coral reefs. Cloud feedback processes may have the potential to constrain SSTs, serving to enforce an "ocean thermostat" and promoting the survival of coral reefs...
... This work quantifies the often observed cloud cooling effect on coral reefs. It highlights the importance of incorporating local-scale processes into bleaching forecasting models, and encourages the use of remote sensing imagery to value-add to coral bleaching field studies and to more accurately predict risks to coral reefs. ”



As I previously claimed:

Originally Posted by GordMay

... Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks, in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances.
Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling (negative feedback) or warming (positive feedback) effect of all clouds on Earth.
This is not a simple calculation, where a single (set of) observation(s) can provide a simple answer - as comforting as many of us would find such simplicity.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The BBC has been highlighting the dire state of the GBR for years.

As does all the relevant local organizations and the government in Australia.

You good now, or would you prefer to hash this one out further rather than discuss whether the GBR is in fact dead, dying, in serious trouble, A-OK, or if not what the primary causes may be?

If you'd rather look for semantic hairs to split, that's ok.

[Budawang]

Depressing to see so much climate science denial on a sailor's forum. Doubly sad to see so many deniers are from Australia given the obvious impact climate change has already had on this continent. Unfortunately the ruling conservative political party and the near monopolistic Murdoch media here encourages this.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As does all the relevant local organizations and the government in Australia. If you'd rather look for semantic hairs to split, that's ok.

Maybe you'd get more satisfaction discussing your objections over how the OP titled the thread via a direct pm to him. In the meantime, I sorta doubt many readers are confused or feel misled.

Most of us non-scientist types get our information about the health of the GBR through conventional media sources, so whether the media is accurately representing the true condition of the reef seems rather central and hardly just semantics. I don't think anyone disputes the negative impacts from human sources, whether it's climate change/warming waters, agriculture, large storms, tourism, invasive species, or suntan lotion (yes, there is some evidence). My understanding is that Prof. Reid doesn't dispute negative impacts either, only the extent of their impact and their source.

Try and resist the urge to simplify another complex issue into a mere billboard that demands fidelity to AGW or we're all deniers sinners who are also in favor of single-use plastics, fish factories, and increased fossil fuel consumption. We always have the nightly news for that level of information and discourse. Ready to move along now??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Most of us non-scientist types get our information about the health of the GBR through conventional media sources, so whether the media is accurately representing the true condition of the reef seems rather central and hardly just semantics.

Even with your substitution of 'dying' for 'dead', it's not been shown that the responsible media outlets are distorting the facts about threats to the GBR. Pointing to twitter, Facebook, or one intentionally hyperbolic article in 'Outside' magazine isn't much of a case.

If the implied thesis of the thread title (confirmed above by you) is to be defended, it's gonna take more than that. Or maybe you can curb your obsession just a little bit so that we can continue to let other posters, especially those with first-hand knowledge of the GBR, provide us with more relevant info.

Try and resist the urge to simplify another complex issue into a mere billboard that demands fidelity to AGW or we're all deniers sinners who are also in favor of single-use plastics, fish factories, and increased fossil fuel consumption. We always have the nightly news for that level of information and discourse. Ready to move along now??

You funny!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Even with your substitution of 'dying' for 'dead', it's not been shown that the responsible media outlets are distorting the facts about threats to the GBR. Pointing to twitter, Facebook, or one intentionally hyperbolic article in 'Outside' magazine isn't much of a case.

. . .

Or, as you yourself just posted but have now curiously left out, a consistent campaign of what is arguably alarmism from the BBC about the GBR over at least the past decade, including at least two articles listed in your same post claiming a 50% coral loss over 10 years. If this is correct, and since the reef is what, millions of years old(?), then the reader is left with the impression that the reef is certainly DYING, doing so fast, and given the claimed rate of degradation is most certainly soon to be DEAD. What else do you suggest it means?? Or do you put the BBC in the same category as the mainstream social media outlets and Outside magazine? (some certainly do)

Actually, I initially thought the thread title was a bit off, but thanks to you I now realize it's most relevant. Thanks RaymondR!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't GordMay provide us a link early on indicating that the High Court already had, and the ruling was in favor of the university?

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Nope, that was the appeal court which took a legalistic position.

About three decades ago a government tried to place limits on the amount of advertising which could take place in relation to an election, the High Court found that even though there is not a word regarding free speech in the Australian Constitution, Australians have an implied right of free speech in relation to political matters. In some respects it's a roll of the dice but if the Court considers the advance of science requires rights of free speech in it's practitioners it might find this aspect requires overarching status.

OK, got it. Presumably the crux of the legal issue is not just whether the firing relied on legitimate disciplinary violations, but whether such violations were used as a mere pretext for violating the implied right of free speech under Australian law. Iow, Reid could have legitimately been found to have violated the university's rules, but the firing could still be deemed unlawful since it violated his rights to free speech and academic freedom. I'm pretty sure the latter is how the lower court ruled.