Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I haven't seen the word 'idiot' until your post. Ignorance has been posited, which is not an ad hominem attack.

See post #54

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

>No mention of the 53 (14.4%) new species that have populated the reef over the last 10 years.
> Coral populations on specific reefs change over time, depending on local conditions - always have, always will.
Until you provide a link to support your assertion I will assume you pulled that factoid out of your keister.

Typically of your posts, you didn't take the time to actually read the research paper that your so gleeful, selective quotes are based on.

Here it is:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-021-02144-4

From the Abstract:
Fifty-three species are recorded from Lizard Island for the first time in the 2011–2020 surveys,

And later they say:
At a site level, species diversity has been in a state of flux over the 2011–2020 period with significant declines in species richness notable from 2011 to 2017, and significant recovery from 2017 to 2020.

Which is absolutely normal behaviour for any section of a large reef system that is subject to ongoing condition changes in different locations caused by COT infestations, cyclones, multi-year EL Nina/La Nino sea level and temperature fluctuations etc, etc. Coral spawning of different species from adjcent areas will alway colonise areas that are locally degraded for some reason or another. It certainly didn't just start to fluctuate in 2011.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Typically of your posts, you didn't take the time to actually read the research paper that your so gleeful, selective quotes are based on.

Here it is:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-021-02144-4

From the Abstract:
Fifty-three species are recorded from Lizard Island for the first time in the 2011–2020 surveys,

And later they say:
At a site level, species diversity has been in a state of flux over the 2011–2020 period with significant declines in species richness notable from 2011 to 2017, and significant recovery from 2017 to 2020.

Which is absolutely normal behaviour for any section of a large reef system that is subject to ongoing condition changes in different locations caused by COT infestations, cyclones, multi-year EL Nina/La Nino sea level and temperature fluctuations etc, etc. Coral spawning of different species from adjcent areas will alway colonise areas that are locally degraded for some reason or another. It certainly didn't just start to fluctuate in 2011.

Dead on. Cyclone Yasi in 2011 and the 2016 ish el Nino a.k.a. "undeniable proof of global warming" did do temporary damage to the reef. What they also did was prove the short memories of humans as a collective. Neither of these events were "unprecedented" in any way, shape or form.

[RaymondR]

One of the things to be mindful of in respect of the Great Barrier Reef is that The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park extends from the outer reef in the east all the way to the shoreline of the Australian coast.

A short time ago I read something about coral cover around Stone Island. The island is within the limits of Bowen harbour. Similarly there was a lot of controversy about dumping dredge spoil on the Great Barrier Reef during the expansion of Gladstone harbour. So much so that the harbour authorities eventually built a levee around an area of mangroves within the harbour to dump the spoil. It will probably end up with a chemical works or something else industrial on it. The offshore spoil ground is situated many miles away from the nearest reef and there was an extremely low probability of any silt ever making it out that far.

It is a similar situation with the agricultural run off where it might effect the near shore reefs and put them under stress but is entirely undetectable in the waters of the reef proper even with the most sensitive instrumentation available.

The entire reef from it's northern to it's southern extremity is zoned with fairly strict controls as to the activities which might take place in each zone. some of the most vigilant and merciless of the people monitoring activities on the reef are the private sector operators and particularly those who operate tourist facilities.

These folks are also those most intimate with the health of the reef because they are there very regularly and you can be certain that in Australia endangering a tourist operators business by damaging the reef is going to get you into the TV news and a visit by a GBRMPA official.

An example of the seriousness with which these folks approach their work would be to be caught fishing in a Green Zone. It might only be a single low breaking strain hand line with a small hook for say whiting but in addition to it's financial ramifications the penalty for fishing in a Green Zone will include a criminal record and try getting a visa into say the US with that on your record.

The Great Barrier Reef is one of, and might be the most effectively, intensely managed reef system in the world and I doubt that there is anything more than is already being done by Australia to protect it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

... I'm staying skeptical and agnostic to AGW/CC until it's proponents put forward a practicable replacement for the existing power system.

So, denying the disease, because you don’t like the medicine.
In medicine, it’s a condition called anosognosia.

In general, people tend to deny facts, that threaten their ideologies, left, right or center.

A 2016 study [1], from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence, based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable.
The goal was to test, in a scientifically controlled manner, the question: Does the desirability of a solution affect beliefs in the existence of the associated problem?
The answer was yes.
If they don't like the solutions, , then they tend to deny the problem even exists.
Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation, or an extension of the free market, should not influence one’s belief in the problem.
However, they find it does. The more threatening a solution is to a person, the more likely that person is to deny the problem.

[1] “Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief” ~ by Campbell, Troy H. And Kay, Aaron C.
➥ https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?d...037%2Fa0037963

Download full study ➥ https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/9256

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Typically of your posts, you didn't take the time to actually read the research paper that your so gleeful, selective quotes are based on.

Here it is:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-021-02144-4

From the Abstract:
Fifty-three species are recorded from Lizard Island for the first time in the 2011–2020 surveys,

And later they say:
At a site level, species diversity has been in a state of flux over the 2011–2020 period with significant declines in species richness notable from 2011 to 2017, and significant recovery from 2017 to 2020.

Which is absolutely normal behaviour for any section of a large reef system that is subject to ongoing condition changes in different locations caused by COT infestations, cyclones, multi-year EL Nina/La Nino sea level and temperature fluctuations etc, etc. Coral spawning of different species from adjcent areas will alway colonise areas that are locally degraded for some reason or another. It certainly didn't just start to fluctuate in 2011.

Wouldn't want to read anything that counters the delusions suffered from our own opinions.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Dead on. Cyclone Yasi in 2011 and the 2016 ish el Nino a.k.a. "undeniable proof of global warming" did do temporary damage to the reef. What they also did was prove the short memories of humans as a collective. Neither of these events were "unprecedented" in any way, shape or form.

Anyone who believes frequency & intensity of cyclones provide "undeniable proof of global warming" should read some of the science links provided by GordMay in this thread.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, denying the disease, because you don’t like the medicine.

How about questioning the severity of the disease in order to balance the harmful side-effects of the medicine?

Perhaps no study to cite since it's too pragmatic to be informed by simple ideology. Also too nuanced to justify silly labels and uncivil name-calling. Nah, better to stick with one-size-fits-all ideology.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

How about questioning the severity of the disease in order to balance the harmful side-effects of the medicine?
Perhaps no study [for deniers] to cite since [the results, invariably, refute their position] ...

That's what scientific studies do, and in the VAST majority of [climate study] cases, they suggest that the disease is much worse than the medicine [which is, of itself] often beneficial.


Did you here about the ACC denier [or anti-vaxer] with legitimate scientific evidence?
Yeah, me neither.

[RaymondR]

Interesting stuff on today's TV in Australia.

Someone has convinced the electrical supply folks down south that their big Tesla battery can keep the lights on when the sun goes down and the wind don't blow. And, it probably will for about 15 seconds if the one in South Australia is anything to go by.

Anyway the thing burst into flame whilst they were commissioning it and is now spewing a dirty great cloud of chemical smoke into the sky. Given my druthers in the matter I think I'd prefer the CO2 to the toxic chemical smoke.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That's what scientific studies do, and in the VAST majority of [climate study] cases, they suggest that the disease is much worse than the medicine [which is, of itself] often beneficial.


Did you here about the ACC denier [or anti-vaxer] with legitimate scientific evidence?
Yeah, me neither.

Yes, I did. Just recently in fact. In your own thread . . . about cyclones, etc.

This is why the feel-good "denier" label is so misleading. For most (certainly amongst climate scientists), it's not a question of denial or affirmance, but rather the impact of (accepted) human-caused influences and the cost/benefit of their potential remedies. Reasonable minds can agreeably disagree() by properly framing the issue accordingly. But making it a binary question only produces the sort of unproductive and alienating bickering we see in these threads. Most of the science on severity and remedies remains unsettled, yet we consistently see non-scientists angrily denouncing anyone who dares to point this out. I don't see how this approach is persuasive and therefore productive.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Typically of your posts, you didn't take the time to actually read the research paper that your so gleeful, selective quotes are based on.

Here it is:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-021-02144-4

From the Abstract:
Fifty-three species are recorded from Lizard Island for the first time in the 2011–2020 surveys,

And later they say:
At a site level, species diversity has been in a state of flux over the 2011–2020 period with significant declines in species richness notable from 2011 to 2017, and significant recovery from 2017 to 2020.

Which is absolutely normal behaviour for any section of a large reef system that is subject to ongoing condition changes in different locations caused by COT infestations, cyclones, multi-year EL Nina/La Nino sea level and temperature fluctuations etc, etc. Coral spawning of different species from adjcent areas will alway colonise areas that are locally degraded for some reason or another. It certainly didn't just start to fluctuate in 2011.

So you ponied up the 40.00 to read the paper? Didn't think so.

Of course what you did do was typical denier fluff, cherry pick an abstract for the things that you thought would support your position and take them out of context to enhance that effect.

This is the abstract. It bears little resemblance to your edited fantasy-world claim "Which is absolutely normal behaviour for..."


Abstract

The Great Barrier Reef is a diverse ecosystem of outstanding universal value that is under an increasing level of cumulative threat. The status of biodiversity, particularly that of habitat-forming taxa is not known, and more data are needed to evaluate this. Here, we summarize scleractinian coral distribution records in the Lizard Island reef system from 1976 to 2020 to explore the persistence of the local species pool across 44 years. By undertaking replicated spatio-temporal biodiversity surveys (2011, 2015, 2017, 2020) at 14 sites and compiling published species records from this location (1976–2020), we determine that 368 species of hermatypic scleractinian coral have been recorded from Lizard Island and/or nearby reefs over the last 44 years. Two hundred and eighty-four of those species (77.2%) have ongoing records across this time period indicating temporal persistence at the local scale. However, 28 species (7.6%) that were reliably recorded prior to 2011 have not been recorded in subsequent years and may be at risk of local extinction. A further 31 species (8.4%) may be at risk of local range reduction as they have not been recorded at Lizard Island and/or at nearby reefs since 2015. The remaining 25 species (6.8%) were deemed taxonomically unreliable records. Fifty-three species are recorded from Lizard Island for the first time in the 2011–2020 surveys, however, further integrated taxonomic research is required to verify some of these records. At a site level, species diversity has been in a state of flux over the 2011–2020 period with significant declines in species richness notable from 2011 to 2017, and significant recovery from 2017 to 2020. Overall, this dataset indicates local extinction or local range reduction is a tangible risk for 59 species (16% of the species pool) in the Lizard Island region. Additional targeted searching for these species along with temporal monitoring of species abundance and size structure is warranted to better understand the status of coral biodiversity at this globally significant location.

(My emphasis)

https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-021-02144-4

Originally Posted by Exile

Wouldn't want to read anything that counters the delusions suffered from our own opinions. ...

Indeed. Baaa.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Emergence from the Little Ice Age?
Species returning to the ranges they occupied during previous Holocene climate optima?

You've brought up the Holocene a few times. Yes a period when the planet's climate was a bit warmer than the present (sans AGW).

But there are key differences:

• the Holocene wasn't caused by the release of sequestered carbon
• the Holocene changes came on over a much longer period than the ~150 years of the current warming from AGW. And the current rate of increase will not slow down without taking action.
• there's a few more of us than there was back then
• many parts of the planet's biosphere are already under stress from other causes

Hopefully, it's not that hard to see that, even though some warming might be seen as locally beneficial in some places, "instant" Holocene is going to be a net negative overall, causing or accelerating extinctions, more weather extremes and hardships... and for what - another few decades of cheap dirty fuel?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

So you ponied up the 40.00 to read the paper? Didn't think so.

Of course what you did do was typical denier fluff, cherry pick an abstract for the things that you thought would support your position and take them out of context to enhance that effect.

This is the abstract. It bears little resemblance to your edited fantasy-world claim "Which is absolutely normal behaviour for..."


Abstract

The Great Barrier Reef is a diverse ecosystem of outstanding universal value that is under an increasing level of cumulative threat. The status of biodiversity, particularly that of habitat-forming taxa is not known, and more data are needed to evaluate this. Here, we summarize scleractinian coral distribution records in the Lizard Island reef system from 1976 to 2020 to explore the persistence of the local species pool across 44 years. By undertaking replicated spatio-temporal biodiversity surveys (2011, 2015, 2017, 2020) at 14 sites and compiling published species records from this location (1976–2020), we determine that 368 species of hermatypic scleractinian coral have been recorded from Lizard Island and/or nearby reefs over the last 44 years. Two hundred and eighty-four of those species (77.2%) have ongoing records across this time period indicating temporal persistence at the local scale. However, 28 species (7.6%) that were reliably recorded prior to 2011 have not been recorded in subsequent years and may be at risk of local extinction. A further 31 species (8.4%) may be at risk of local range reduction as they have not been recorded at Lizard Island and/or at nearby reefs since 2015. The remaining 25 species (6.8%) were deemed taxonomically unreliable records. Fifty-three species are recorded from Lizard Island for the first time in the 2011–2020 surveys, however, further integrated taxonomic research is required to verify some of these records. At a site level, species diversity has been in a state of flux over the 2011–2020 period with significant declines in species richness notable from 2011 to 2017, and significant recovery from 2017 to 2020. Overall, this dataset indicates local extinction or local range reduction is a tangible risk for 59 species (16% of the species pool) in the Lizard Island region. Additional targeted searching for these species along with temporal monitoring of species abundance and size structure is warranted to better understand the status of coral biodiversity at this globally significant location.

(My emphasis)

https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-021-02144-4

Some sort of baseline for your highlighted portion would be helpful here JimB. In other words, is a certain amount of decline/extinction "normal" and, if so, does this show an acceleration based on AGW? Not sure this info is available w/o paying the $40. Not a loaded or rhetorical question . . . just asking.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Originally Posted by lestersails:
I haven't seen the word 'idiot' until your post. Ignorance has been posited, which is not an ad hominem attack.

Originally Posted by OutOfControl

See post #54

OoC - I think that was just GordMay using a little bit of humor to lighten the mood. He was not maligning anyone - but he should speak for himself.

Technically, you are correct, so I will refine my post: I haven't seen anyone attacked using the word "idiot" in this thread. There have been robust attacks and tough rebuttals of the nonsensical positions, data, logic, etc. posted herein. All fair play.
The attempt to wrap deniers in the cloak of victimhood rings hollow. Again, a classic strategy to deflect a substantive attack on the issues by changing the topic to imagined victimhood.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You've brought up the Holocene a few times. Yes a period when the planet's climate was a bit warmer than the present (sans AGW)...

The Holocene IS the present epoch, of the Quaternary Period.

The Holocene [AKA: Anthropogene, or age of man] is the name given to the last 11,700 years of the Earth's history — the time since the end of the last major glacial epoch [Pleistocene Epoch, 2,580,000 to 11,700 years ago, spanning the world's most recent period of repeated glaciations].
Since then, there have been small-scale climate shifts, notably the "Little Ice Age" between about 1200 and 1700 A.D., but in general, the Holocene has been a relatively [moderately] warm period in between ice ages.
In the entire history of human civilization [Holocene/Anthropogen, CO2 levels have never been this high.
For a 2009 study [1], scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now, for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.
A 2011 study [2] found that atmospheric CO2 levels may have been comparable to today’s, as recently as sometime between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, which saw the arrival of Homo habilis, a possible ancestor of modern homo sapiens. Modern human civilization didn’t arrive on the scene until the Holocene Epoch, which began about 12,000 years ago.

[1] “Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years” ~ by Aradhna K. Tripati et al
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...5958/1394.full

[2]“Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciations” ~ by Gretta Bartoli et al
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2010PA002055