The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Unprecedented

Over what time period?

And obviously you’re intitled to your own personal opinion

As are you

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Y2K was a big hoax or more correctly a semi-classic case of mass hysteria. There was no chance of things happening like nuclear plant meltdown and mass traffic jams.

Most governments bought into the hoax and mandated that all companies that sold to the government had to have Y2K compliant IT systems.

The progressive political movement latched onto AGW and are solely responsible for politicizing it. They simply failed to recognize the Y2K meme as a political opportunity. If it had occurred to them there would have been thousands of news stories about how Y2K was set to disproportionately affect specific ethnic or socioeconomic groups. The so-called "rich" people would be better able to cope with Y2K failures but poor people couldn't afford to stock up on supplies, buy new computers, etc. etc.

Y2K is just one example of how the so-called "experts" were wrong. And it is one reason that some remain skeptical of "experts" in other previously non-existent fields of study.

Wait until we get closer to 2038 for more mass hysteria similar to Y2K.

I would classify Y2K and AGW not as hoaxes but as orchestrated fraud.
A hoax is usually a humorous deception. A fraud is perpetrated with premeditation, using illegal means and has the objective of monetary gain, political power or both.

I believe that Y2K was a test case to then launch a serious assault using the gullible and the idle in search of a cause. The so called "environmentalist" are being used by a select minority who are raking in trillions from this new religion, using free labour in the form of militants and cheerleaders for this so called cause, milking the politicians who can see the votes in this mass of new believers.

Trillions upon trillions are being squandered on "renewable" forms of energy that pollute ten times more to be built than any coal fired powerstation, whilst ... as well pointed out by you, ... the real pollutants are being ignored. You pointed at some, I add pesticides and additives in our food.

Democracy is not the best form of government ... problem is there is nothing better.
The best case against democracy is a chat with an average voter. WC

If I was to launch a political party with a manifesto like the greens manifesto have in Australia, I would be thrown in gaol for inciting to violence, treason and attempting to sabotage the economy.

The sad part of the "green" types, is that they are sincere, generally good guys and truly think that they are doing "the planet" a favour.
What escapes them is the fact that they are but cannon fodder for those powerful in the background pulling the strings and raking in the billions with zero interest in the environment, busy using the environmentalist movement for their own agenda of redirecting traffic to their own interest and capturing power and influence for their own purposes.

Meantime, for the real pollutants and the real polluters it's business as usual.

We are in election mode in Australia and the opposition wants to be seen green, and talks up electric cars with statements like "In 2030 50% of cars will be electric".
Some rise the problem of how are we going to charge all this cars ... the answer was that it will take 8 minutes to charge them ... and to the cost question ... the answer with another question came fast ... "How much did the latest storm cost?"

The collective dementia of believing we can harness the weather and dial in perfect spring days just by using electric cars is just an example of things to come. One day we will laugh about this just like I laugh about my primary school teacher's statement that in the year 2000 all cars will fly.

I did see some porkers having a try but rather unsuccessful.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wishing government away is unicorn poop and putting ideology before reality. "Atlas Shrugged" was fiction...

So are stereotypes & strawmen. You consistently lower the level of debate and tenor of discussion.

Weren't we discussing the misleading nature of the "averages" being used as baselines for showing warming? Or is that too "low quality" an inquiry to make it into all those prestigious science journals?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

So are stereotypes & strawmen. You consistently lower the level of debate and tenor of discussion.

Weren't we discussing the misleading nature of the "averages" being used as baselines for showing warming? Or is that too "low quality" an inquiry to make it into all those prestigious science journals?

I consistently find that L-E makes such good comments that the deniers are forced to make ad hominem attacks due to lack of anything better to say

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

...We can pipe oil all over the continent but not water. How does that make any sense?...

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...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I consistently find that L-E makes such good comments that the deniers are forced to make ad hominem attacks due to lack of anything better to say

I consistently find that neither you nor the journals & publications that you unqualifiedly defend appear to have any interest in responding to frequent critique of the averages being used as baselines to conclude that an "alarming" amount of warming has occurred. L-E's comments are effective at detracting from this sort of useful discussion, so I can understand why you would endorse them.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I consistently find that neither you nor the journals & publications that you unqualifiedly defend appear to have any interest in responding to frequent critique of the averages being used as baselines to conclude that an "alarming" amount of warming has occurred. L-E's comments are effective at detracting from this sort of useful discussion, so I can understand why you would endorse them.

Not once have you responded to the actual points I made in the last 3 pages. It's just "you think this" and "you always do that".

A bunch of bored cruisers are not going to resolve the issue of climate change. You claim you wish to have an informative discussion on the topic, except there's not a crass, mindless denial comment you won't criticize or even disassociate yourself from, or a loner outlier (eg Spencer, Ridd) you won't rush to defend, or a poorly understood and misused concept like "average warming" you won't tease at.

It seems to me that you mainly just want to support the pretense that there are damaging scientific flaws or disagreements around the general idea of climate change and the human role in it. Which there really isn't, except where the uninformed but opinionated gather to expound on it.

We both know how the last few threads have unravelled and what sort of comments unravelled them. My help was not required.

[SailOar]

Bleaching has struck the southernmost coral reef in the world

This month corals in Lord Howe Island Marine Park began showing signs of bleaching. The 145,000 hectare marine park contains the most southerly coral reef....

Lord Howe Island [which is an Australian island in the Tasman Sea east of Port Macquarie] was named a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1982. It is the coral reef closest to a pole, and contains many species found nowhere else in the world....

One surveyed reef location in Lord Howe Island Marine Park is severely impacted, with more than 90% of corals bleached; at the next most affected reef site roughly 50% of corals are bleached, and the remaining sites are less than 30% bleached. At least three sites have less than 5% bleached corals....

However, this heatwave has not equally affected the whole reef system. In parts of the lagoon areas the water can be cooler, due to factors like ocean currents and fresh groundwater intrusion, protecting some areas from bleaching. Some coral varieties are also more heat-resistant, and a particular reef that has been exposed to high temperatures in the past may better cope with the current conditions. For a complex variety of reasons, the bleaching is unevenly affecting the whole marine park.....

This is now the third recorded bleaching event to have occurred on this remote reef system.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=7Hd70VBbU8c

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

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...

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?

[Lake-Effect]

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, this article, while highlighting another of the US administration's attacks on science, also reports that some of those attacks have been rebuffed by Congress, which confirms that at least some conservatives have been supporting or defending "green" efforts. So it is not fair to say or imply that ALL US conservatives automatically oppose green initiatives.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I see my first graph was a dynamic page that disappeared. Because this completes the picture, I'll attach a screenshot.


I'm explaining that compared to what the alarmist self interest groups are saying and actual data, the carpets don't match the drapes.

all those graphs are really showing is why no serious reef scientist uses that kind of historic temperature data to speculate on specific historic coral bleaching events...unless you have a link I haven’t seen yet?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

all those graphs are really showing is why no serious reef scientist uses that kind of historic temperature data to speculate on specific historic coral bleaching events...unless you have a link I haven’t seen yet?

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on why historical climate data and the survival of species is irrelevant?



Or why using LIA temperatures as a baseline is somehow relevant? 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? Or why the tourists continue to come to see and interact with a dead and dying reef?


I suspect it's because it torpedoes the majority of your "serious reef scientist's" alarmist conclusions.


BTW, attached is the the summer SST's for the GBR (Coral Sea) region. I'm surprised you didn't notice the discrepancy during your obvious detailed analysis of my posts.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by StuM

What I am resisting is the implication that it a "disastrous" decline.

I’d be interested to hear what your un-disastrous reef decline looks like? Just a general reduction in % coral cover, coral and sympathetic species reduction? Nothing happens, just less reef? Maybe you can define this???

Originally Posted by StuM

Over what time period?

Yes, time is relative. Frequency is also crucial long term!

I guess most relative would be over the lifespan of a coral but that’s a whole other can of worms ....

so for arguments sake let’s say the average human life span as that’s something tangible in the relative short term and maybe 8000 years as that’s the age of the GBR ecosystem in its current form which I’m guessing your alluding to. Either!

Unprecedented! Hope that helps?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on ..... why the tourists continue to come to see and interact with a dead and dying reef?

I suspect it's because it torpedoes the majority of your "serious reef scientist's" alarmist conclusions.

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.

The cloud of destruction that looms over the Keys hovers over many tourist destinations affected by climate change: the Great Barrier Reef, the Galapagos, Montana’s National Glacier Park. And in recent years, these sites’ anticipated disappearance has been a large part of their draw. Labeled “last-chance tourism,” this is the practice of visiting a location before it vanishes or is irreparably changed....

Their 2010 study, done in Churchill, Manitoba, a city that offers dozens of tours of the dwindling polar bear population, found that the increasing vulnerability of polar bears motivated a majority of visitors to travel there. Sixty percent of visitors said they would still want to see polar bears even if they looked emaciated, and 71 percent said that if the polar bear population in Churchill were destroyed, they would simply go somewhere else to view them.

Since its introduction, the phenomenon has been identified at other destinations. In a 2016 study of the Great Barrier Reef, researchers found that almost 70 percent of visitors wanted to visit the reef “before it was gone.” For $1,500, tourists go gorilla trekking in Rwanda’s Volcanoes National Park, which houses 880 of the 100,000 to 200,000 gorillas left in the world. Lauren Alley, a representative from National Glacier Park, told E&E that many visitors tell her they want to see the glaciers before they melt away. In the mid-1800s, the park had 150 glaciers; only 26 are left....

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

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.

This is the most ridiculous piece of reporting I’ve seen in a while. It is exactly why people who actually travel and see some of these destinations don’t buy the alarmism espoused in this “report”. I’ve been to the Keys, GBR and some other spots mentioned. The Florida Keys is not the only tropical reef in the US. It’s not in danger of being suffocated by tourists. This is an obvious crass attempt to hurt business in the Keys and other destinations. Nothing more.

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.

Why oh why do some people believe every alarm raising report like this?