Coral Reef Status

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Says the person with a convenient memory (zero), laziness and an addiction to fear mongering.
You have caught no one out because you have no idea of my views, you have no argument apart from Dr Blank says this and Dr Bobby agrees so it must be so..
Meanwhile all the other possible causes of coral reef decline etc goes unchecked because it would hurt shares and profits.
Micro fibres from plastics are everywhere from the oceans to in our blood, plastics absorb and store heat (you all love your fleeces for this reason) so it's feasible that this could be having an effect on ocean temperatures, also on the reefs in more ways than one.
If a turtle can mistake a plastic bag for food causing eventual death so can a filter feeding coral consume drifting fibres.
Only a 'specialists' tunnel vision fails to see the larger
picture.
But hey.. I'm a denier.. WTF do I know in comparison to your encyclopedic knowledge..

C'mon boatman - own it. This is a debate and you are again refusing to state a position.

Ah yes - the technique known as "whataboutism" - when one's position is weak or lost, raise some other issue and try to distract people. Nice try.

I appreciate that you tacitly admit that you have no clue about the scientific consensus on ACC. You liken it to gossip heard from a couple of people. Just to put some reality on this nonsense, I am aware of four reviews of ACC science. They range from 97-100% of studies supporting ACC, based on evaluating thousands of scientific studies. This is based on actual science, not opinion pieces (either pro or con). Worth saying again, scientific truth is not based on anyone's "opinions". One or two studies can be wrong. Statistical principles predict this. However, one can do what is called meta-analysis, which is secondary analysis of published studies. When you see >95% of study results supporting a hypothesis, when that number is high (hundreds are adequate, thousands are much more than needed), it is proven. There is no debate about this. Zero.

And you don't need to keep insulting me - it won't work. This is not my science or my "opinions". It is scientifically valid. If you can't accept it, I am sorry, but that does not change the fact that it is true.

Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266.
^Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.

[Bycrick]

Consensus isn’t proof. Lots of people who all believe the same thing can ALL be wrong. If one wants to decide what to do by consensus, that’s called politics, not science.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

You? Debate?
Just repeatedly saying "I'm right, the science is settled and you are all deniers" is NOT a debate. I've never seen you actually produce any evidence (or even tropes) here to support your beliefs.

Please clarify, you want me to produce evidence to support my acceptance of the scientific process?
- if so, I can't help you with that. Maybe you could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Or do you want some evidence for ACC? Here you go:

https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/

Summarized here for your convenience:
"Oceans cover more than 70 per cent of Earth’s surface and they have been one of the dominant themes in IPCC reports throughout this cycle.

What happens with our oceans will profoundly and inevitably influence what happens to our planet and how livable it will be in the not-so-distant future.

It is clear that man-made climate change is a threat to the health of our planet and to the wellbeing of all species inhabiting it.

The scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal and open ocean marine ecosystems.

The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments. Widespread deterioration of ecosystem structure and function, resilience and natural adaptive capacity, as well as shifts in seasonal timing have occurred due to climate change, with adverse socioeconomic consequences.

Continued and accelerating sea level rise will encroach on coastal settlements and infrastructure and commit low-lying coastal ecosystems to submergence and loss. If trends in urbanisation in exposed areas continue, this will exacerbate the impacts, with more challenges where energy, water and other services are constrained. The number of people at risk from climate change and the associated loss of biodiversity will progressively increase.

Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes, as well as mass mortality events on land and in the ocean and the loss of kelp forests.

Some losses are already irreversible, such as the first species extinctions driven by climate change. Other impacts are approaching irreversibility, such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw.

Near-term warming and increased frequency, severity and duration of extreme events will place many terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems at high or very high risks of biodiversity loss. Near-term risks for biodiversity loss are moderate to high in forest ecosystems, kelp and seagrass ecosystems, and high to very high in Arctic sea-ice and terrestrial ecosystems and warm-water coral reefs.

Climate change causes the redistribution of marine fish stocks, increasing risk of transboundary management conflicts among fisheries users, and negatively affecting equitable distribution of food provisioning services as fish stocks shift from lower to higher latitude regions, thereby increasing the need for climate-informed transboundary management and cooperation.

Marine heatwaves, including well-documented events along the west coast of North America (2013–2016) and the east coast of Australia (2015– 2016, 2016–2017 and 2020), drive abrupt shifts in community composition that may persist for years, with associated biodiversity loss, the collapse of regional fisheries and aquaculture and reduced capacity of habitat-forming species to protect shorelines.

Some habitat-forming coastal ecosystems, including many coral reefs, kelp forests and seagrass meadows, will undergo irreversible phase shifts due to marine heatwaves with global warming levels above 1.5°C and are at high risk this century."

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

You? Debate?
Just repeatedly saying "I'm right, the science is settled and you are all deniers" is NOT a debate. I've never seen you actually produce any evidence (or even tropes) here to support your beliefs.

And worth clarifying, my position is not "I'm right." My position is "Climate scientists are right."

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Consensus isn’t proof. Lots of people who all believe the same thing can ALL be wrong. If one wants to decide what to do by consensus, that’s called politics, not science.

With all due respect, this post suggests a total lack of understanding of the scientific method. If you do one study that is consistent with a hypothesis, that is supportive, not proof. If you do a modest number that are consistent, the hypothesis is considered provisionally proven. If you have hundreds consistent and a few contradictory, it is for all practical purposes proven. Thousands consistent and dozens or a hundred or so inconsistent is overwhelming. These latter are considered scientific consensus. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone's opinions and completely distinct from subjective consensus on opinions about things like values and priorities in politics.
It is like saying all drums are the same. An oil drum and a bongo drum are not the same thing.

[boatman61]

So.. You state that the burning of fossil fuels is the sole threat to nature..
Whereas I believe that Wall Street is and will continue to be so into the future..
The problem is much bigger than your narrow politically designed view.. you really need to get out of your bubble and into the real world.
If my electricity gets to expensive to stay warm in winter I'll burn wood, same with gas for cooking.. I will chop down a tree.. along with 8 billion other people.. something a few billion people have to do today.
Rant on mate, you'll not change my opinions.
Yes man is destroying the planet, but you don't own the silver bullet anymore than your much vaunted scientists.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So.. You state that the burning of fossil fuels is the sole threat to nature..

Nope. Never said it.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Just flat wrong. This is not about anyone's opinion. The scientific question regarding the impact of our emissions of gasses leading to climate change has been answered and it is affirmative. Having an opinion about this is as reasonable as having an opinion about gravity. And it is false that "people from both sides have significant knowledge". There is an overwhelming number of scientists who endorse ACC and a tiny, vocal, lunatic fringe who do not. This is a false equivalency and one of the five foundations of denialism - amplifying fringe voices. Don't fall for it.

This is just the "did-didn't" argument. I believe people can have opinions. Do you really believe because you believe in something that from that point on, no one can have an opinion on the subject, that's it, case closed?

I agree the MMGW has more support than just GW, that is not evidence of anything, but, interestingly, the balance seems to be swinging back.

P.S. Gravity isn't fully understood yet.

The key point to your position seems to be that anyone who doesn't see things your way is the "lunatic fringe" and is summarily dismissed to the "you are not allowed an opinion" corner. Did you think All Gore was a "lunatic fringe".... it turns out, he is. His predictions were either the rantings of a lunatic or he was just making money (massive wealth) by fabricating lies.

Originally Posted by lestersails

You are right - the truth is manipulated, and a number of people on this thread are victims of this. Oil companies have spent decades and tons of money ginning up exactly this confusion to delay the transition from fossil fuels. I really appreciate the latter part of this - I suspect that no one on this thread is a climate scientist and thus none of us have a solid understanding. The question is, what do you do when you do not have a solid understanding? The only rational answers are to either rely on those who actually do have a solid understanding or become a climate scientist yourself. Anticipating the idiotic "doing my own research" response - no. I mean actually going out, getting the PhD in climate science and practicing science.

I assess the comments made and the reasons for the comments and draw my own conclusions. It is not in my nature to blindly follow where it doesn't make sense. It is for this reason I don't get drawn into conspiracy theories and rarely form an immoveable opinion.

Originally Posted by lestersails

Your lean is based on - what? A tendency to conspiracy theories? Based on the observation that since Y2K was exaggerated by the media, ACC is probably not valid? The sloppiness of this kind of thinking is really incredible.

No conspiracy theories, well not as good as your one about the oil companies in the paragraph above. (although, I do think the Tasmanian Tiger may still exist somewhere :-))

I have looked at a large amount of information, just like everyone here, probably not unlike yourself. But I don't believe I can accept any information that has been processed or only looks at a slice of the whole picture. I also have only seriously considered information that is not disputed by either side. Hahahaha, doesn't leave much.

I have accepted to the satisfaction of myself that the information is not conclusive, so my opinion is, the truth could go either way. I lean away from the Man Made GW for a few reasons but I like the historical ice core samples going back 400,000 years and cross reference this information with the arguments in support of MMGW and it doesn't fit nicely in every instance as it should if they were completely right. So my opinion is, they don't have it right and my experience in life tells me with human nature, that people will fill in the blanks and over look or excuse the shortfalls to produce a jigsaw puzzle fit. I'm not saying they are, but it seems more probable to me and this behaviour often gives poor results but easily believed because of the elements of truth.

Y2K, love it or hate it, it is a perfect example of how easily fooled the world can be by something that sounds plausible but doesn't exactly fit. I didn't believe that much either, but the government made us get certificates of compliance before we could continue doing business with them. Now that's some lunacy.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Micro fibres from plastics are everywhere from the oceans to in our blood, plastics absorb and store heat (you all love your fleeces for this reason) so it's feasible that this could be having an effect on ocean temperatures, also on the reefs in more ways than one.
If a turtle can mistake a plastic bag for food causing eventual death so can a filter feeding coral consume drifting fibres.
Only a 'specialists' tunnel vision fails to see the larger picture.

The larger picture is... it's all ONE problem. AGW, pollution, plastics and microfibres, direct and indirect ecological damage, extinctions... at heart , they are all a result of refusing to consider consequences, a failure to appreciate that there's now enough of us, with technology that greatly amplifies our our reach and impact, that we can no longer act like the world can simply absorb, dilute and neutralize our effluvia and waste.

This year, I lost most of my optimism. I'm now convinced that we - especially the ones (us) who have economically benefitted the most from the wealth generated from unchecked expansion - aren't going to acknowledge, let alone address, the mess we've made. Lots of reasons and excuses for why. Possibly the most pernicious one is a secret Darwinism: the individual belief that our own particular success was because we are simply better than other people - smarter, more capable, more determined - and so, while the environment and many of the weaker people around us, may suffer, we and our kind will survive and flourish. Therefore there's no point to sharing, or putting limits on our growth; that's wealth redistribution (boo, hiss) and preventing our best and brightest from being justly rewarded.

As long as we, who claim to care, simply bicker about what's the biggest and baddest problem, not much will really get done. I expect however that we'll muddle through in great enough numbers, with museums to show our descendants the incredible planet that we once had, but chose to sacrifice.

[boatman61]

A Hail Solyent Green..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Did you think All Gore was a "lunatic fringe".... it turns out, he is. His predictions were either the rantings of a lunatic or he was just making money (massive wealth) by fabricating lies.

if you believe that All Gore got rich from lying or hyping AGW, you've been drinking from a sewer, and I now question the validity of your conclusions on AGW.

Y2K, love it or hate it, it is a perfect example of how easily fooled the world can be by something that sounds plausible but doesn't exactly fit. I didn't believe that much either, but the government made us get certificates of compliance before we could continue doing business with them. Now that's some lunacy.

Y2K was a real issue, whose consequences were overestimated, but it still needed to be addressed... and it was. You should maybe be a little less impressed with your current opinions.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

This is just the "did-didn't" argument. I believe people can have opinions. Do you really believe because you believe in something that from that point on, no one can have an opinion on the subject, that's it, case closed?

You missed the distinction. Differing opinions can be held on questions of priorities, values, tastes, etc. It is nonsensical to suggest one can have differing opinions on objective scientific reality. It would be completely reasonable (though I do not agree) to hold the opinion that ACC is real, that reducing emissions could reverse/ameliorate it, but that you think that near term economic benefits of ignoring it are more important than the longer term benefits of addressing it. An interesting debate to have on an opinion.

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I agree the MMGW has more support than just GW, that is not evidence of anything, but, interestingly, the balance seems to be swinging back.

I cannot make sense of this. Please clarify. What is not evidence of anything? No idea what is swinging back to where.

Originally Posted by Dave_S

P.S. Gravity isn't fully understood yet.

As Ronald Reagan said, "now there you go again", this is the classic denialism trope of impossible expectations. A factually correct statement that is intended to suggest that because knowledge is not perfect or complete, the question is still open. It is a pathetic argument. And, you would not jump out of a 10th story window because gravity isn't fully understood. Because (I assume) you are a sane person, you would reason that the knowledge is not perfect or ideal, but it is WAY better than what is sufficient to convince you to act (not act, in this case).

Originally Posted by Dave_S

The key point to your position seems to be that anyone who doesn't see things your way is the "lunatic fringe" and is summarily dismissed to the "you are not allowed an opinion" corner. Did you think All Gore was a "lunatic fringe".... it turns out, he is. His predictions were either the rantings of a lunatic or he was just making money (massive wealth) by fabricating lies.
(stuff deleted - trying to deal with a limited amount of nonsense at one time)

See above re opinions. You can spout your opinions on objective reality - won't change a thing. It's nonsensical and does not demonstrate rational thinking. Denial of ACC is lunacy - sorry, but them's the facts. I wouldn't have paid any attention at all to Al if he was the source of information on ACC. What does he know, he is just a politician. You try to dodge the overwhelming reality of climate science by trotting out one politician who trumpeted and perhaps exaggerated what was known at that time? Fuggedaboudit. Probably the tenth time someone on this forum dodges reality with a paper tiger caricature. Come on, seriously?
And of course, you could not resist stirring in a bit of the other denialism trope - conspiracy theories. Massive wealth by promoting the truth about ACC? Laughable.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

A Hail Solyent Green..

I guess when one has lost a debate, they just post sarcastic swipes?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

All Hail Solyent Green..

You're not far wrong. Or for the less squeamish, A Modest Proposal.

(and hey, people are so quick to judgement. How do we know that Soylent Green, or that other other white meat - aka long pig - isn't actually delicious? People should step out of their comfort zones once in a while.)

"Meat" for the masses will in future probably be vat-grown tissue, or bugs.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I guess when one has lost a debate, they just post sarcastic swipes?

FFS.. Grow up and get a sense of humour, and take that stick outa yer ar$E while your at it.
There is no debate.. just a recurrent trope of the latest political deflection.