Coral Reef Protection & Restoration

[boatman61]

Another thing that makes me chuckle is all these folks on boats going on about their near zero footprint and how AI is going to solve humanities problems..
Yet AI while still in its relative infancy has a carbon footprint equal to Brazil and increasing every day, every Google Search you do has a massive carbon footprint relative to the trivia being searched, God knows Gords carbon footprint when one takes account of what he posts..
No offense Gord..
At the moment all the renewable energy currently in the world can barely maintain existing data centers required to manage the online demands,let alone all the new ones being created every day.
Climate change is here for an indefinite period so best learn to live with it and the ******** from the politicians and self serving 'experts'.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

... every Google Search you do has a massive carbon footprint relative to the trivia being searched, God knows Gords carbon footprint when one takes account of what he posts..
No offense Gord..

Thanks, for your concern, Phil.

According to Google [1]: “... the energy used per Google search is minimal. In fact, in the time it takes to do a Google search, your own personal computer will use more energy than Google uses to answer your query...”

A typical search returns results, in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

[1] “Powering a Google search” [2009]
➥ https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009...le-search.html

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Thanks, for your concern, Phil.
According to Google [1]: “... the energy used per Google search is minimal. In fact, in the time it takes to do a Google search, your own personal computer will use more energy than Google uses to answer your query...”

I suspect that Fact Checking [/w 'Google'] myself, prior to posting, probably consumes less energy, than does apologising, when I am wrong.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Thanks, for your concern, Phil.

According to Google [1]: “... the energy used per Google search is minimal. In fact, in the time it takes to do a Google search, your own personal computer will use more energy than Google uses to answer your query...”

A typical search returns results, in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

[1] “Powering a Google search” [2009]
➥ https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009...le-search.html

Gord.. that is a 14yr old answer and likely made by a promo team tasked to minimise any concerns.
The reality is Google, Microsoft etc have little idea of energy consumption and little motive to research it, it's not in thier interest to publicise it even if they did as it would blow up their green washing..
Watch Inside Story on Al Jezeera, AI and Energy, the truth about Data Centres.

Should say I misquoted re Google search, it should have read Chatgpt search uses 10+ times more energy than the old smaller servers.. add to that all the E-mails, movie & music streams and the demand rises.

Data centres will be consuming 1000 terawatts hrs by 2026.

[SailOar]

Highest ocean heat in four centuries places Great Barrier Reef in danger

Abstract

Mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia between 2016 and 2024 was driven by high sea surface temperatures (SST). The likelihood of temperature-induced bleaching is a key determinant for the future threat status of the GBR, but the long-term context of recent temperatures in the region is unclear. Here we show that the January–March Coral Sea heat extremes in 2024, 2017 and 2020 (in order of descending mean SST anomalies) were the warmest in 400 years, exceeding the 95th-percentile uncertainty limit of our reconstructed pre-1900 maximum. The 2016, 2004 and 2022 events were the next warmest, exceeding the 90th-percentile limit. Climate model analysis confirms that human influence on the climate system is responsible for the rapid warming in recent decades. This attribution, together with the recent ocean temperature extremes, post-1900 warming trend and observed mass coral bleaching, shows that the existential threat to the GBR ecosystem from anthropogenic climate change is now realized. Without urgent intervention, the iconic GBR is at risk of experiencing temperatures conducive to near-annual coral bleaching, with negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems services. A continuation on the current trajectory would further threaten the ecological function and outstanding universal value of one of Earth’s greatest natural wonders.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Gord.. that is a 14yr old answer and likely made by a promo team tasked to minimise any concerns.
The reality is Google, Microsoft etc have little idea of energy consumption and little motive to research it, it's not in thier interest to publicise it even if they did as it would blow up their green washing..
Watch Inside Story on Al Jezeera, AI and Energy, the truth about Data Centres.

Should say I misquoted re Google search, it should have read Chatgpt search uses 10+ times more energy than the old smaller servers.. add to that all the E-mails, movie & music streams and the demand rises.

Data centres will be consuming 1000 terawatts hrs by 2026.

And on to purely non-productive stuff like Bitcoin mining ... on a sailing forum. Important, though.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by thinwater

And on to purely non-productive stuff like Bitcoin mining ... on a sailing forum. Important, though.

That consumes masses of energy as well, and currently that's mainly provided by fossil fuels which is what is allegedly causing the global warming that is driving climate change which is 'harming the reefs'..
Funny no one assesses the pollution caused by the explosives expended in 'war games' around the world, or the actual wars come to that.. All that oxygen being burnt off.

If your worried about non productive stuff on a sailing site take conversations about Reefs to a scuba and snorkeling site, sailors try to avoid Reefs.

[OutOfControl]

https://www.cfact.org/2024/06/30/aft...year-in-a-row/

[GordMay]

Joanne Nova, the author of “After a trillion tons of CO2, the Great Barrier Reef hits record coral cover third year in a row” [linked by OutOfControl] seems to base her unsupported opinions [& misrepresentations] on her own previous [bolog] writings [1] [circular reasoning], and those of [discredited] Peter Ridd [tho’ she doesn’t cite any specifics].

Apparently, she [& OutOfControl in post #23] believes that, simply, repeating climate denial claims makes them seem more credible.[3 a & b]

Although Joanne Nova has not published any research, in peer-reviewed journals, she is often presented as an expert, in the area of climate science.
Joanne Nova [real name Joanne Codling, AKA: JoNova] has been described as “one of Australia’s more prominent ‘climate change sceptics’.” She believes that carbon may have “little effect” on the atmosphere. JoNova is known for publishing “The Skeptic’s Handbook [2 a & b]” which asserts global warming is not caused by greenhouse gases, “the world has not warmed since 2001,” and any global warming is a natural process.

[1] ➥ https://joannenova.com.au/2023/04/gr...217;t-know-it/

[2a] “Skeptic’s Handbook” ~ by Joanne Nova
1. ➥ Wayback Machine
2. ➥ Wayback Machine

[2b] ““A Scientific Guide to the ‘Skeptic’s Handbook” ~ by John Cook
➥ Wayback Machine


[3a] “Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers” ~ by Yangxueqing Jiang et al
➥ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0307294

[3b] “A reproducible systematic map of research on the illusory truth effect” ~ by Emma L. Henderson
➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...23-021-01995-w

[OutOfControl]

"Apparently, she [& OutOfControl in post #23] believes that, simply, repeating climate denial claims makes them seem more credible."

You are assuming I believe something without proof. I am merely pointing out a fact that doesn't align with your AGW stance.
Research the GBR's current status and make your argument about the reef's current rebound and vitality.

[GordMay]

For context [ignored in the linked #23 JoNova blog], the Australian Institute of Marine Science [AIMS] media release*, announcing, and describing the LTMP report [1], says:
* ➥ https://www.aims.gov.au/information-...ching-cyclones

Originally Posted by AIMS

Coral cover has increased in all three regions on the Great Barrier Reef and is at regional highs in two of the three regions, according to a report [1] by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). But the results come with a note of caution.

Most of the underwater surveys contributing to these findings published today, were conducted before and during the recent mass bleaching event, one of the most extensive and serious on record, and have not yet captured how many corals survived or died following the bleaching.

Surveys in the Central region were also completed before the passage of tropical Cyclone Jasper in December 2023.

AIMS’ Long-Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) leader Dr Mike Emslie said coral cover increases were a positive sign but did not reflect the potentially destructive consequences of the 2024 mass bleaching event ...”

[1a] About the Long-Term Monitoring Program ~ by the Australian Institute of Marine Science [AIMS]
➥ https://www.aims.gov.au/research-top...toring-program

[1b] "Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition 2023/24" ~ AIMS
➥ https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-g...ummary-2023-24
Full Report: “Coral cover remains high while impacts of mass coral bleaching yet to be determined”
➥ https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/defaul...2024_final.pdf

Originally Posted by AIMS

“... In 2024, hard coral cover has increased across the GBR, but regional hard coral cover remains similar to that reported in 2022 and 2023. Importantly, most surveys were conducted prior to the mass coral bleaching event and passage of two cyclones, and the full impact of these events is yet to be determined. It's also important to note that bleached coral is still recorded as live coral during surveys, and the fate of these corals is not yet known.
Of the 94 reefs surveyed, only two reefs had hard coral cover <10%, 36 reefs had hard coral cover between 10% and 30%, and 35 reefs had coral cover between 30% and 50%. The remaining 21 reefs had hard coral cover between 50% and 75%...
... The high coral cover reported this year is good news but does not mean all is fine on the GBR as it continues to face cumulative stressors. 2024 saw the fifth mass coral bleaching event since 2016 with the largest spatial footprint of coral bleaching yet recorded, coupled with the impact of two tropical cyclones. The impacts on coral cover from these events are partially captured in this year's report. A full assessment of changes in coral cover following these disturbances will be recorded during the next survey season.
It is important to note that recent increases in hard coral cover can be quickly undone, as many corals are susceptible to elevated heat stress, wave damage and crown-of-thorns starfish predation, all of which impacted the GBR this year.
The results presented here are our best understanding of reef condition before the impact of summer’s disturbances...”

[Johan Leopard51]

Whatever the cause was, in places like Seychelles and Maldives the fact of the devastation comparing now to 40y ago is undeniable.

The good news we’re observing in Sey is coral recovery following extensive “replanting”, even if it is not always the same types as before. I’m seeing especially the lettuce type in large dense fields, those mushroom / brain shape VERY big as in 2 meters by 2 meters and the finger type (staghorn?). Not so much fan coral recovery and not much of the soft types that change shape at night.

Yachts can help a lot by not anchoring at all in coral fields - stick to sandy bottoms or dead bleached bottoms. Besides helping prevent carnage from a chain swinging in wind change, you can save money : we often recover abandoned anchors. Often enough that I am going to carry a hoist bag we can inflate from scuba tanks to make it easier.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Johan Leopard51

Whatever the cause was, in places like Seychelles and Maldives the fact of the devastation comparing now to 40y ago is undeniable...

I believe that, science should inform opinion, and politics - not prescribe action.
Science can identify problems, and the potential impacts,; but it shouldn’t dictate solutions.
The role of science is to say, “If you do this, this is the [likely] outcome.”
It should not say, “This is what you ought to do.”

I wonder if, the debates on climate change, are far too politicized, and that may be doing a disservice to making progress.
I see this, on both sides.
I think we might agree that, when it comes to climate, the left tends to be more for climate action, and the right tends to be more against it.

But, that breaks down, when you look at data [in the US], on which states are deploying solar and wind, the quickest.
The top states in the U.S., that have the biggest share of wind, in their electricity mix, are all conservative Republican states.
The top four states, in terms of wind-power capacity, are Texas [R], Iowa [R], Oklahoma [R], and Kansas [mostly R.
California [D], Texas [R], Florida [R], and North Carolina [mostly R] are at the top, for solar-power capacity.

So, this notion that, for climate action to happen, everyone needs to be convinced that climate change is a big problem, and the leaders [in office] also need to believe it, just doesn’t seem to be true.

I suspect that people like clean energy, across the board.
What people on the right don’t like, is people telling them, they have to have solar and wind. They don’t like imposed requirements or mandates. What they also don’t like, is being told that they have to do it, on the basis of climate change.

But, if the [clean, green] technologies are there, they’re cheap, and they’re ‘good’; then people like them, they tend to deploy them, and, we might not even have to bring climate change into it, at all.

[boatman61]

Places like the Seychelles etc should look more toward the massive increase in tourism and the resulting high pollutant effects before climate change methinks..

[Johan Leopard51]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I believe that, science should inform opinion, and politics - not prescribe action.
Science can identify problems, and the potential impacts,; but it shouldn’t dictate solutions.
The role of science is to say, “If you do this, this is the [likely] outcome.”
It should not say, “This is what you ought to do.”

I wonder if, the debates on climate change, are far too politicized...

I’ve long since given up convincing people about the environmental benefits. At work I have MW solar and MWh battery systems and I just explain that I now have cheap, reliable energy. That it has lower emissions is the cherry on top. That it annoys the heck out of the climate change deniers, is the icing on top of the cherry