Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-04-2019, 06:26   #346
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,010
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
I was pilloried by Exile for "suspecting" and "guessing". But, true to form, he gives fellow deniers a pass.

Tourists are flocking to locations threatened by climate change. That only makes things worse.
I realise you have little interest in boating or cruising, sailoar. But I suggest (lol) you take a look at some of the following you tube channel vloggers.

Free range sailing
Sailing sarean
Simon Carter

These all have recent episodes sailing to various GBR locations. There's no doubt a few other channels are out there, too.

Watch a while and perhaps you'll start realising that not everything you read can be believed.
__________________

Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:32   #347
Registered User
 
boat_alexandra's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: charleston
Boat: bristol 27
Posts: 3,616
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity. And, in many cases, complexity may initially arise when selection is weak or absent.
“If you don’t use it, you tend to lose it.” Evolution often takes away rather than adding. For instance, cave fish lose their eyes, while parasites like tapeworms lose their guts.
Such simplification might be much more widespread than realised. Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain.
Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity
https://www.newscientist.com/article...er-complexity/

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
Here is New Scientist’s guide to some of the most common myths and misconceptions about evolution.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...isconceptions/


* Some critics referred to the theory of punctuated equilibrium as "evolution by jerks", which reportedly prompted punctuationists to describe phyletic gradualism as "evolution by creeps."

You might think losing a brain is evolutionary step backward, but it might reach a different state which could always re-evolve a brain later.

It is interesting that our ancestors (bacteria) are the result of far more evolution before reaching earth, perhaps they decent from something with similar complexity to a brain.
__________________

boat_alexandra is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:38   #348
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Let's be gentle, kind folk.
“In disputes upon moral or scientific points” Arthur Martine counseled in his 1866 guide to the art of conversation, “let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”
Of course, this isn’t what happens most of the time when we argue, both online and off, but especially when we deploy the artillery of our righteousness from behind the comfortable shield of the keyboard. That form of “criticism” (which is really a menace of reacting rather than responding) is worthy of Mark Twain’s memorable remark that “the critic’s symbol should be the tumble-bug: he deposits his egg in somebody else’s dung, otherwise he could not hatch it.”
But it needn’t be this way — there are ways to be critical while remaining charitable, of aiming not to “conquer” but to “come at truth,” not to be right at all costs, but to understand and advance the collective understanding.
Let us remain mindful of those "nicer" ways.
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:59   #349
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,567
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
I realise you have little interest in boating or cruising, sailoar. But I suggest (lol) you take a look at some of the following you tube channel vloggers.

Free range sailing
Sailing sarean
Simon Carter

These all have recent episodes sailing to various GBR locations. There's no doubt a few other channels are out there, too.

Watch a while and perhaps you'll start realising that not everything you read can be believed.

Ok I see we're back to that trusted scientific journal TripAdvisor....

I'm happy, truly, that there are many spots of the GBR that are great to dive on. Yay! But I'd kind of expect that on a reef that big, if it wasn't totally destroyed. Apparently, it's the north part of the reef that's experienced the most damage, while the south side has been almost untouched?

There are also a bunch of videos out there showing areas of extensive damage. Do they cancel out the pretty videos on a one-to-one basis?

So again - it's good to know that there are still many spots on the GBR that can be enjoyed by visitors. Responsibly, we hope. (You're not in reef tourism, are you? ). But youtube videos of happy people pointing at coloured fishies is not that rigourous a survey.
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 07:03   #350
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 6,290
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

All is not lost:

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../02/1817812116
transmitterdan is online now  
Old 09-04-2019, 15:02   #351
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 137
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on why historical climate data and the survival of species is irrelevant
Ok.

which species are you referring too? Acropora, Porites, Duncanopsamia axifuga? It’s relevant if you want to talk about how population dynamics have and will probably change dramatically over time (and to be specific time here = between 80 years and 8000 years!).

I have on a number of occasions made my opinion very clear. I’m not sure if you missed it or are just choosing not to read it? I have no doubt corals as a group of animals will survive into the future. My interest is in how this group changes in the future and what it means for simpatric species and those animals that rely on them.

I’m not saying historic data doesn’t tell us anything, but if you’re able to, please be critical of the limitations.

The way SST is monitored and recorded has changed dramatically over recent years. Today in situ data loggers and satalites continually record temperature.

If you want to compare SST data from 2018 and 1900’s (when someone with a mercury thermometer and a clipboard would record a few temps at different locations) the more recent data is avaraged to make it comparable. Avarages iron out the upper and lower values, which are really important bits when looking at bleaching specifically.

SST can vary massively between different locations within the coral sea (a large area).I’m sure you’re aware of some of the local currents and their effect, particularly on temperature.

The avarage SST graph you posted shows a single temperature value for the coral sea in 2016.

Below is a pic from one of Ridds posters. It shows hugely variable bleaching within the coral sea in 2016.

Click image for larger version

Name:	E18C9663-2B2A-4140-A0AF-FBA9B3C5A36E.jpeg
Views:	24
Size:	188.4 KB
ID:	189731

If you were to overlap the avarage temp data with details of coral bleaching within the GBR they won’t give you a clear representation of what’s actually happening on the different reefs. And we know how variable bleaching can be even within a single location due to micro environments and other local variables.

I could easily say that the temp in 2016 caused 81% of corals to severely bleachwithin the northern GBR. You can say 2016 temp only showed 1% severe bleaching in the south and we’d both be right. Same temperature, very different results! I’m alarmist, your a denier, nothing moves forward.

The way corals are surveyed has also changed massively over time. Today we have high res satalite images, planes and a whole army of boats, scuba gear and qualified divers to I.D corals and evaluate reefs using agreed standardised methods. I’d be the first to concede there are limitations to these techniques and I’d be happy to share these if you’re interested BUT it’s the best we currently have at the moment and it’s not that the results are right or wrong, it’s just being aware of the limitations! Some of the ‘misunderstandings’ surrounding the subject are down to these ambiguities, some are due to the seemingly interchangeable use of the words Coral and reef, seemingly innocuous but very relevant. And some are down to people only reading a title or summary of a paper, not really understanding the ‘meat’ and picking a few words to draw their own conclusion.

Go back 30-40 years and the same applies to the quality and quantity of coral data. Go back 100 years, 500 years or 8000 years and again the same applies. Now overlay temperature data to any of these points in history if you like but be aware how the temp data is derived, how it relates to actual SST at that time and most importantly, what impact it had on the corals that lived there at that point in time. And if you know, please share.

Now start applying some of the other environmental variabls that we’re only just learning affect coral bleaching such as sea state, wind, water currents and flow velocity , light quality, cloud cover, water depth, chemistry etc.

Then there’s the effect on different coral species, growth forms, different species of zooxanthellea, different clades, feeding strategies and availibility of different foods, disease, predation, competition....and well you get the idea hopefully?

Quote:
Or why milder modern day SST yearly variations, on average, are worse than the more extreme variations "observed" a century ago? Or why the reef could survive similar temperatures for a longer duration in the past?
Temperature change, rate of change (and sustain) over hours, days and weeks are much more relevant to bleaching than yearly variations.

This graph is more vague
Click image for larger version

Name:	FF8EF54A-8D16-4AC0-BE41-EE1277E9D74D.gif
Views:	24
Size:	33.2 KB
ID:	189729

This graph is even more vague

Click image for larger version

Name:	2311654D-0DDE-4181-9AB5-018D8FCF391E.gif
Views:	25
Size:	26.5 KB
ID:	189730


Quote:
I suspect it's because it torpedoes the majority of your "serious reef scientist's" alarmist conclusions.
Any self reflective person can ask themselves why there’s a lack of any scientists talking about climate history and coral reefs at that point in time. Unless there’s possibly something I haven’t read yet?
Puddleduck is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 15:36   #352
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 137
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

And one with a high number of endemic species too.

The video is really useful. Looks like quite a shallow reef on a very calm day! Notice how nearly all branching and column forming species are bleached and the encrusting types are mostly unaffected?
Puddleduck is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 16:58   #353
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,010
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddleduck View Post
Ok.

which species are you referring too? Acropora, Porites, Duncanopsamia axifuga? It’s relevant if you want to talk about how population dynamics have and will probably change dramatically over time (and to be specific time here = between 80 years and 8000 years!).
I'm referring to those making up the ecosystem in general.

Quote:
I have on a number of occasions made my opinion very clear. I’m not sure if you missed it or are just choosing not to read it? I have no doubt corals as a group of animals will survive into the future. My interest is in how this group changes in the future and what it means for simpatric species and those animals that rely on them.
They'll survive as an ecosystem or they won't. You're saying they wont. I'm saying they will.

Quote:
I’m not saying historic data doesn’t tell us anything, but if you’re able to, please be critical of the limitations.
I'm kind of saying ground zero observational data tells us a lot. Lakey thinks Tripadvisor is a running joke. It is, but it it could be analyzed for historical changes and, let's be honest here, it's only since the alarmists were able to jump on the 2016 El-Nino and start declaring the GBR as being in it's death throes that all this rubbish started.

Come to think of it, we could also use Tripadvisor to see if Sailor's morbid tourism theory is actually a thing.

Quote:
The way SST is monitored and recorded has changed dramatically over recent years. Today in situ data loggers and satalites continually record temperature.

If you want to compare SST data from 2018 and 1900’s (when someone with a mercury thermometer and a clipboard would record a few temps at different locations) the more recent data is avaraged to make it comparable. Avarages iron out the upper and lower values, which are really important bits when looking at bleaching specifically.

SST can vary massively between different locations within the coral sea (a large area).I’m sure you’re aware of some of the local currents and their effect, particularly on temperature.


The avarage SST graph you posted shows a single temperature value for the coral sea in 2016.

Below is a pic from one of Ridds posters. It shows hugely variable bleaching within the coral sea in 2016.

Attachment 189731

If you were to overlap the avarage temp data with details of coral bleaching within the GBR they won’t give you a clear representation of what’s actually happening on the different reefs. And we know how variable bleaching can be even within a single location due to micro environments and other local variables.

I could easily say that the temp in 2016 caused 81% of corals to severely bleachwithin the northern GBR. You can say 2016 temp only showed 1% severe bleaching in the south and we’d both be right. Same temperature, very different results! I’m alarmist, your a denier, nothing moves forward.


The Australian BOM is the source of the SST anomaly chart. You might want to discuss with them rather than me as to why it's so wrong. However, if you dig deeper the data sets are available for further analysis.



But you have hit the nail on the head. It's NOT climate change causing bleaching. It's weather patterns. SST's are heavily influenced by water and air movement. THIS is why an area of reef in the most unpopulated part of the reef was so heavily bleached during the last el-Nino. Most of the advocates of the death of the reef also probably have no idea that the western side of Australia has a pretty reasonable system of reefs as well. 2016 el-Nino effects on that reef were negligible in comparison. Hardly what one would expect from global warming.


But, it is interesting that you mention the limitations of past measurements both above and below. Kind of puts statements like "The worst ever observed" into context.

Quote:
The way corals are surveyed has also changed massively over time. Today we have high res satalite images, planes and a whole army of boats, scuba gear and qualified divers to I.D corals and evaluate reefs using agreed standardised methods. I’d be the first to concede there are limitations to these techniques and I’d be happy to share these if you’re interested BUT it’s the best we currently have at the moment and it’s not that the results are right or wrong, it’s just being aware of the limitations! Some of the ‘misunderstandings’ surrounding the subject are down to these ambiguities, some are due to the seemingly interchangeable use of the words Coral and reef, seemingly innocuous but very relevant. And some are down to people only reading a title or summary of a paper, not really understanding the ‘meat’ and picking a few words to draw their own conclusion.

Go back 30-40 years and the same applies to the quality and quantity of coral data. Go back 100 years, 500 years or 8000 years and again the same applies. Now overlay temperature data to any of these points in history if you like but be aware how the temp data is derived, how it relates to actual SST at that time and most importantly, what impact it had on the corals that lived there at that point in time. And if you know, please share.

Now start applying some of the other environmental variabls that we’re only just learning affect coral bleaching such as sea state, wind, water currents and flow velocity , light quality, cloud cover, water depth, chemistry etc.

Then there’s the effect on different coral species, growth forms, different species of zooxanthellea, different clades, feeding strategies and availibility of different foods, disease, predation, competition....and well you get the idea hopefully?
No I don't. Because I fail to understand how a ten thousand year old reef extending a couple of thousand kilometres across latitude can be killed of within 50 years because of a weather pattern that has been around well before AGW became popular.
Quote:

Temperature change, rate of change (and sustain) over hours, days and weeks are much more relevant to bleaching than yearly variations.
Good for you. You did take up my suggestion to switch to "rate of change" to argue your point

Quote:
This graph is more vague
Attachment 189729
It shows the area most destroyed by alledged climate change induced SST's in 2016 is in the the least affected by rising SST's over time, hence casting dispersion the "it's caused by global warming" claim.

Quote:
This graph is even more vague

Attachment 189730
It shows modern temperature similar to past temperatures that persisted for thousands of years. In fact, around 90% of the last ten thousand years has been above the 1961 to 1990 average. And yet average Coral Sea summer SST's (corals don't bleach in winter) presently show a +0.25 deg C anomaly.



As an aside, this chart is from the ground zero of climate change fanaticism. There are plenty of other charts floating around that illustrate periods of the last ten thousand years much hotter than those of the present day.



Quote:
Any self reflective person can ask themselves why there’s a lack of any scientists talking about climate history and coral reefs at that point in time. Unless there’s possibly something I haven’t read yet?
Perhaps they need to put bread on the table and bad news sells. That's why the reef has died off 30%, 50% and even 95% depending on what you read. I even read an article claiming the GBR coral coverage was "down to 14%". I had to scratch my head on that one until I realised that it was a twist on total ocean sea bed area versus healthy coral reef area.
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 17:07   #354
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,010
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Ok I see we're back to that trusted scientific journal TripAdvisor....

I'm happy, truly, that there are many spots of the GBR that are great to dive on. Yay! But I'd kind of expect that on a reef that big, if it wasn't totally destroyed. Apparently, it's the north part of the reef that's experienced the most damage, while the south side has been almost untouched?

There are also a bunch of videos out there showing areas of extensive damage. Do they cancel out the pretty videos on a one-to-one basis?

So again - it's good to know that there are still many spots on the GBR that can be enjoyed by visitors. Responsibly, we hope. (You're not in reef tourism, are you? ). But youtube videos of happy people pointing at coloured fishies is not that rigourous a survey.

I do own one of the of best AirBnB's in the area and I also have a commercial marine license if that counts as being a reef tourism operator .



And my boat ends up with it's stern a handful of metres away from bona fide coral reef every time a south westerly squall blows across the mooring field, so I've enjoyed the opportunity to observe coral in it's natural environment once or twice.
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 10-04-2019, 04:41   #355
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 619
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
Here is a synopsis from TransmitterDan's link:
Quote:
Increasing atmospheric methane concentrations contribute significantly to global warming. The only known biological sink for atmospheric methane is oxidation by methane oxidizing bacteria (MOB). Due to the lack of pure cultures, the physiology and metabolic potential of MOB that oxidize atmospheric methane remains a mystery. Here, we report on isolation and characterization of a MOB that can grow on air and utilizes methane at its atmospheric trace concentration as a carbon and energy source. Furthermore, this strain has the potential to utilize five additional atmospheric gases, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen to supply its metabolism. This metabolic versatility might be the key to life on air and this discovery is essential for studying the biological methane sink.
Entrepreneurs (and oil companies) are working on methods of economically extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.

Blamed for Climate Change, Oil Companies Invest in Carbon Removal
Quote:
....Chevron, Occidental Petroleum and the Australian mining giant BHP this year have invested in Carbon Engineering, a small Canadian company that claims to be on the verge of a breakthrough in solving a critical climate change puzzle: removing carbon already in the atmosphere....

But some businesses have signaled that they are changing. A few companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and BP, are linking compensation to emissions reductions. Equinor, the Norwegian oil company, plans to increase spending on clean energy to 15 to 20 percent of its capital investment by 2030, up from 5 percent now....

The air will be pushed through honeycombed plastic channels coated with potassium hydroxide that attaches itself to carbon dioxide. More chemicals will be added to produce tiny white pellets containing carbon. The pellets will then be heated to more than 1,600 degrees to form carbon dioxide gas.

In one kind of plant the company hopes to build, the captured carbon dioxide could be injected underground, where it would be harmless unless some of it leaked back into the atmosphere. Mr. Oldham asserts that each such installation could eventually take as much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere annually as 40 million trees.

In another kind of facility, captured carbon dioxide would be combined with hydrogen extracted from water to make synthetic fuel that can be processed into gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. The energy needed to produce hydrogen would come from wind turbines and solar panels to limit emissions.....

“There is no way we are beating oil from the ground in a head-to-head competition without regulation,” Mr. Keith said, referring to carbon taxes and other environmental policies. If there is sufficient political will to deeply cut emissions, he added, “I think you will see a large amount of this technology in the next decade or two.”
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 10-04-2019, 04:56   #356
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 2,180
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
...We can pipe oil all over the continent but not water. How does that make any sense?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
This statement alone indicates that the concept of scale is lacking from your interpretations, and, for any reasonably thoughtful, cautious and conservative person, should be grounds for taking any of your pronouncements on the issues in discussion with, at minimum, a rather large grain of salt.

Hint: Irrigation water is measured in acre-feet, 1 a-f = 8150 (oil) barrels. Oil pipeline capacity is measured in barrels.

Caveat emptor...

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
Man, that’s quite a leap you made there superman. Of course I know the units of measure between water and oil. I also know oil and water don’t mix. I also know the amount of energy in a barrel of oil (1.7 megawatt-hours). Oil is many times more difficult to pump than water. And much less safe to the environment as well.

But so what? You’re just trying to infer I’m an idiot. How does that help a discussion?
Don't be silly. What I was 'trying to do' is exactly what I did, which is to point out that someone who makes such an obviously out-of-scale suggestion as an apparently serious response to an honest question should have their credibility regarding that line of discussion examined and taken into account before attributing much value to it.

I know for a fact that you're not an 'idiot' because I've seen many instances in which you make perfect logical sense. For reasons unclear to me (though I have some ideas), discussions on climate change are not usually one of those instances.

Perhaps it is needless to point out, but affecting a wounded posture is a tactic straight out of the denialist's playbook.

Quote:
As I said earlier, the single biggest impact over the last 50 years is algae choking the reef. It’s from on shore pollution leaching into the water. And only in some places, not everywhere.
This statement appears to reinforce my observation. Do you have any data to back up this claim? What about the reefs that are far from any 'on shore pollution leaching into the water'?

https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc...138826&org=NSF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717098/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...8.2006.00937.x (costs 7.00)

Coral indicators to assess reef health
jimbunyard is offline  
Old 10-04-2019, 06:30   #357
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Increasing atmospheric methane concentrations contribute significantly to global warming...

“Is Pasture Grass the Solution to Methane from Cows?”
Research shows fish oil supplements can reduce methane from cows, but why go to the trouble when pasture grass gives the same benefit?
https://www.motherearthnews.com/home...s-zmaz10djzraw
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 10-04-2019, 06:36   #358
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,802
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Entrepreneurs (and oil companies) are working on methods of economically extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.

Blamed for Climate Change, Oil Companies Invest in Carbon Removal
Didn't read the NYT article in detail but just listened to a lengthy piece on carbon extraction technology from the BBC on my recent long drive out to my boat. The BBC piece didn't have the "guilty oil company/reparations" slant of the NYT, but did include a critique of the technology by an "environmentalist" who expressed concern that, if viable, it might encourage complacency and therefore increased fossil fuel consumption.

This only reinforces the conclusion of many that responsible solutions are being drowned out by advocates with fantasies about "zero-emissions" and, even worse, those who see the AGW movement as a vehicle for radical socio-economic changes. (SailOar - have you read the GND yet??). I'm fine with people having such beliefs and voicing them, but I fail to see how they have any chance of achieving a broader consensus that actually improves the environment. And no L-E, people who don't share your unquestioning faith in govt action are not all conservative Ayn Rand types, and neither are they generally people opposed to rational environmental causes. At some point I would think that constantly trying to occupy the high ground for yourself, along with those who think exactly like you do, could only produce a frustrated, resentful, and insular place. Finding consensus is harder but always more rewarding in the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Perhaps it is needless to point out, but affecting a wounded posture is a tactic straight out of the denialist's playbook.
Definitely not needless to point out, and I'm glad you did. Particularly since the wounded posture, whether real or merely tactical, is hardly confined to the "denialist's" playbook! Or have you not been following along lately . . . .
Exile is offline  
Old 10-04-2019, 06:39   #359
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 6,290
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

On the island of Bonaire is a large fringing reef. Algae (red and green) has been crowding out and suffocating corals since about 1980 and probably earlier. Even so, the reefs are pretty good and I have been there many times. One year (1999 I think) instead of hiding out of fear of Y2K we visited Bonaire. Because of a strange weather front preceding what later became known as hurricane Lenny, we could dive the windward side of the island. Imagine my surprise when we discovered a reef system with hardly any algae and was much healthier than the leeward side. In those days very few people lived on the windward side.

These reefs were in the same water at the same temps with the same sunlight and so on. I would really like to go back and see how the two sides compare today. But the windward side simply isn’t safe enough.
transmitterdan is online now  
Old 10-04-2019, 07:29   #360
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,567
Re: The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Didn't read the NYT article in detail but just listened to a lengthy piece on carbon extraction technology from the BBC on my recent long drive out to my boat. The BBC piece didn't have the "guilty oil company/reparations" slant of the NYT, but did include a critique of the technology by an "environmentalist" who expressed concern that, if viable, it might encourage complacency and therefore increased fossil fuel consumption.
That's a ridiculous fear, if true, don't you agree? It's like saying Lipitor has caused people to eat more bad cholestorol.

Besides, given the increased sales of bigger vehicles and bigger homes and low-cost fossil fuels... how could one possibly incentivize the consumption of fossil fuels even more? Free vehicles?

And the oil companies know very well what continued high use of their primary products is doing and will do. AND they can see that this can't and won't continue. As I've mentioned, there's maybe a decade left of the dominance of the internal combustion engine in vehicles; by 2030, personal vehicle ownership will be in decline and the majority sold will be electric. The car companies know this too and are already shedding car lines.

Quote:
This only reinforces the conclusion of many that responsible solutions are being drowned out by advocates with fantasies about "zero-emissions" and, even worse, those who see the AGW movement as a vehicle for radical socio-economic changes. (SailOar - have you read the GND yet??). I'm fine with people having such beliefs and voicing them, but I fail to see how they have any chance of achieving a broader consensus that actually improves the environment. And no L-E, people who don't share your unquestioning faith in govt action are not all conservative Ayn Rand types, and neither are they generally people opposed to rational environmental causes. At some point I would think that constantly trying to occupy the high ground for yourself, along with those who think exactly like you do, could only produce a frustrated, resentful, and insular place. Finding consensus is harder but always more rewarding in the end.
WHAT 'responsible' solutions?? WHAT 'rational' environmental causes?? Show a few, please.

The GND is sober and rational compared to the fantasy that environmental problems will ever be effectively addressed without governments directing it.

And consensus can never be found with people who refuse to weigh all the evidence fairly and honestly.
__________________

Lake-Effect is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
coral, Great Barrier Reef

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crew Wanted: Whitsunday Islands along Great Barrier Reef then to Coral Sea Nations micky Crew Archives 1 22-02-2014 20:04
Crew Wanted: Coral Sea and Great Barrier Reef micky Crew Archives 0 02-03-2013 22:28
The Great Barrier Reef - Australia SurferShane Pacific & South China Sea 17 25-11-2009 19:51
Coral Spawn and Water Visibility - Great Barrier Reef SurferShane Pacific & South China Sea 1 24-11-2009 08:34
Wanted - Great Barrier Reef and Pacific Islands Cruise graeme_caesar Crew Archives 0 21-09-2004 04:08

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.