The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a ridiculous fear, if true, don't you agree? It's like saying Lipitor has caused people to eat more bad cholestorol.

More like a disincentive to reduce bad cholesterol consumption because you're on Lipitor. At least that's how I heard it.

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?

This was only late last week so it's probably not hard to find on the BBC website if you're interested.

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.

You seem to know an awful lot about the auto industry, and it's obviously from your own urban perspective. Your predictions may or may not prove to be correct, but I suspect there's some personal wishful thinking influencing them.

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.

Again, your perspective appears quite narrow, and heavily influenced by partisanship. Relatively few identify & conform so heavily with one side to the point of not being able to see "fair & honest evidence" from another perspective. In fact, they only see conclusions that confirm to their own particular agenda. If this weren't so, then there'd be an effort to address evidence that coral reef degradation may have much less to do with AGW than is thought. Whether that evidence entails previous periods which were warmer than they are now, or the observation transmitterdan just recounted. There would also be more questioning by all those prestigious science journals about the averages climate scientists are using for their baselines. But I know, such questioning is from scientists who are "outliers" or do "low quality work," so why bother?

As for "responsible" environmental solutions, they first & foremost have to be ones that are separated from socialist-type socio-economic policies or the needed consensus will never be achieved. You can have a hate-on all you want about this reality but that won't change anything. Change requires finding realistic & pragmatic common ground, and there's nothing realistic nor pragmatic about policies such as the GND which advocate, among other doomed ideas, for the abolition of fossil fuels before alternatives become available.

But you don't (and won't) believe me, so ask someone like Michael Shellenberger about it. As a lifelong (real) environmentalist and resident of Berkeley, he may even conform to all your superficial labels even if you may want to suppress his ideas too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&t=2s

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You seem to know an awful lot about the auto industry, and it's obviously from your own urban perspective. Your predictions may or may not prove to be correct, but I suspect there's some personal wishful thinking influencing them.

Of course you "suspect". Because it would be too much effort to read up on those things. How many auto companies have dropped entire lines and brands? Heard of Uber and Lyft? Tesla, Leaf? Self-driving vehicles? Current trends among young urban dwellers on car ownership? Heard what Shell has said recently? Or what Exxon has known for years?

There would also be more questioning by all those prestigious science journals about the averages climate scientists are using for their baselines. But I know, such questioning is from scientists who are "outliers" or do "low quality work," so why bother?

You're just teasing at another loose thread like a kitten with a ball of yarn. You do know what an average is, I assume. Building on that, it should follow naturally that some areas may experience over the average temp, and some under. Yes? Some details about who's gonna get the over. Thanks a bunch.

As for "responsible" environmental solutions, they first & foremost have to be ones that are separated from socialist-type socio-economic policies or the needed consensus will never be achieved. You can have a hate-on all you want about this reality but that won't change anything. Change requires finding realistic & pragmatic common ground, and there's nothing realistic nor pragmatic about policies such as the GND which advocate, among other doomed ideas, for the abolition of fossil fuels before alternatives become available.

About what I expected... nothing. No solutions, no ideas, no concern. Prince Charming MUST ride up on a spotlessly white charger or you ain't gonna get outta bed.

There's no common ground possible with people who won't deal honestly with the entirety of the information available.

But you don't (and won't) believe me, so ask someone like Michael Shellenberger about it. As a lifelong (real) environmentalist and resident of Berkeley, he may even conform to all your superficial labels even if you may want to suppress his ideas too.

For a guy who can see into the depths of my soul, you seem to have forgotten my stated support for nuclear. Less psychology, less categorizing, more facts, maybe?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

They'll survive as an ecosystem or they won't. You're saying they wont. I'm saying they will.

No, I’m saying that the different coral species which make up coral reefs are changing at an unpressidented rate! Your saying they’ll remain unchanged....like the last 8000 years But you can’t tell me what reefs looked like specifically 200 years ago, let alone 8000. I’m guessing from the way you argue your cause you’re probably of an ‘older’ generation so maybe you’ve got some historical ground zero observational data from a few points in history?...yep she’ll be alright!

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.

They are not wrong, the way you’re interpreting their data is! But maybe you know better? See below from the Aussie BOM

What caused record warm ocean temperatures in 2017?
Two factors led to the high ocean temperatures on the Reef:
1. Global warming
2. Local weather patterns
Global warming
The global ocean is warmer than at any time since 1900 when the instrumental record began. Of the heat being gained from enhanced greenhouse warming, 93% is going into the oceans.
Summer (January–March) sea surface temperatures over the GBR have risen substantially over the past century due to climate change. Summer 2017 was the third hottest since 1900.

http://http://www.bom.gov.au/environ...e-heatwave.pdf

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.

Now that’s starting to sound alarmist. Remember I’m talking about 3000 reefs within the GBR not ‘A Reef’ and unprecedented change, not total extinction?

Good for you. You did take up my suggestion to switch to "rate of change" to argue your point

Yes, because that’s most relevant as to what stresses corals, is it finally sinking in?

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.

Crap charts are crap charts, it’s why I don’t refer to them other than to say they’re crap

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.

Got a link?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Of course you "suspect". Because it would be too much effort to read up on those things. How many auto companies have dropped entire lines and brands? Heard of Uber and Lyft? Tesla, Leaf? Self-driving vehicles? Current trends among young urban dwellers on car ownership? Heard what Shell has said recently? Or what Exxon has known for years?

You're just teasing at another loose thread like a kitten with a ball of yarn. You do know what an average is, I assume. Building on that, it should follow naturally that some areas may experience over the average temp, and some under. Yes? Some details about who's gonna get the over. Thanks a bunch.

About what I expected... nothing. No solutions, no ideas, no concern. Prince Charming MUST ride up on a spotlessly white charger or you ain't gonna get outta bed.

There's no common ground possible with people who won't deal honestly with the entirety of the information available.
For a guy who can see into the depths of my soul, you seem to have forgotten my stated support for nuclear. Less psychology, less categorizing, more facts, maybe?

Uber & Lyft don't make it out to the hinterlands where I live, and electric cars don't have the range. Maybe they will one of these days. Either way you're certainly free to believe whatever you're convinced will happen in 2030.

I gave you my suggestion and expressed my concern. Decouple environmental issues from unpopular lefty politics. I already predicted you wouldn't like it, but if you believe environmental issues, and especially CC, are the biggest threat then it's the only way.

From your comment it doesn't sound like you understood the recent discussion/debate over baselines & averages.

I didn't forget your stated support for nuclear. Congrats. I hope it's as enthusiastic as your support for No Discharge Zones. Now that CO2 has supplanted nuclear as the enemy of mankind, some environmentalists are finally seeing the obvious. And now that others have made it OK, it's good to see you're following along. What I also didn't forget, however, was your longstanding & unqualified support for renewables as the panacea for a world without fossil fuels. Maybe if a thoughtful guy like Shellenberger can convince a few more how unrealistic that is then you'll follow along with that idea too.

Apparently all of these nonconformist opinions are unsettling for you. No need to fret -- I'm sure SailOar will have another alarmist tidbit all too soon. That way you can rest assured there is yet another calamity befalling the planet -- more likely than not to (hopefully) be blamed on conservatives -- that you and your white horse can save. Sorry, would love to join, but after a few more days of boat projects I think I might just go sailing.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

No, I’m saying that the different coral species which make up coral reefs are changing at an unpressidented rate! Your saying they’ll remain unchanged....like the last 8000 years But you can’t tell me what reefs looked like specifically 200 years ago, let alone 8000. I’m guessing from the way you argue your cause you’re probably of an ‘older’ generation so maybe you’ve got some historical ground zero observational data from a few points in history?...yep she’ll be alright!

Actually I was saying the exact opposite to what you're accusing me of, making your point null.

Definition of "ecosystem":
"a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment."

Unless "unpressidented" is your own word for "waxing and waning", you're wrong.

They are not wrong, the way you’re interpreting their data is! But maybe you know better? See below from the Aussie BOM

I didn't say they are wrong, you did. And you are changing the subject. Averages are averages. Difficult to interpret them any other way. FYI, I used the same kind of "interpretation"used to tell us that every year is the "hottest ever". And, as I previously wrote, the data sets are available for download if you're really wanting to drill down.

http://http://www.bom.gov.au/environ...e-heatwave.pdf

Now that’s starting to sound alarmist. Remember I’m talking about 3000 reefs within the GBR not ‘A Reef’ and unprecedented change, not total extinction?

Firstly, it's the "Great Barrier Reef", not "Great Barrier Reefs". There are indeed many barrier reefs world wide but only one Great Barrier Reef.

Yes the BOM is alarmist. That's what happens when a whole bunch of bored meteorologists get to play in the CC sandpit.


The order of precedence should have at least been reversed.

Yes, because that’s most relevant as to what stresses corals, is it finally sinking in?

I'm guessing (sorry, SailOar!) it's mostly due to the recent influx of johnny come lately marine scientists trampling all over the reef, err, reefs

Crap charts are crap charts, it’s why I don’t refer to them other than to say they’re crap

You really didn't follow the link to the source of that chart did you?

Got a link?

Sure.

The central section “sustained significant coral loss due to coral bleaching and the continued southwards spread of the current wave of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks”. Total coral cover decreased from 22% in 2016 to 14% in 2018.

As an example of the excellent scientific research being conducted, or maybe it's the standard of msm reporting, that one paragraph forgot to mention the effects of Cyclone Debbie that decimated the central GBR region in March 2017. I guess that's what happens when observations are made from the opposite side of the planet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I gave you my suggestion and expressed my concern. Decouple environmental issues from unpopular lefty politics.

Ok, while hardly constructive, it is confirmation that I was correct; you're against or unconcerned about any environmental issue, and that's your excuse for why. Thanks for clarifying.

From your comment it doesn't sound like you understood the recent discussion/debate over baselines & averages.

And you don't seem to get that quibbling over averages doesn't count for sh!t when the polar caps are warming rapidly.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

As an example of the excellent scientific research being conducted, or maybe it's the standard of msm reporting, that one paragraph forgot to mention the effects of Cyclone Debbie that decimated the central GBR region in March 2017. I guess that's what happens when observations are made from the opposite side of the planet.

Maybe that explains why I couldn't find reference to cyclone activity in the National Academy study either. If they're going to miss what's happening due to being on the other side of the world, the least they could do is consult TripAdvisor.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

....I'm guessing (sorry, SailOar!)....

No worries, mate!

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

....(SailOar - have you read the GND yet??). ...

From Wikipedia:

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey released a fourteen-page resolution[40] for their Green New Deal on February 7, 2019. According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be:[41]

1. "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
2. "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
3. "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
4. "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
5. "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
6. "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
7. "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
8. "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
9. "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
10. "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

[my numbering]

Off hand, they look like worthy goals to me. I still think a progressively increasing carbon tax should be implemented ASAP.

Is AOC running for President?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm sure SailOar will have another alarmist tidbit all too soon.

Well, I was going to post something about countries that have implemented carbon taxes, but that didn't seem alarming enough...


Melting glaciers contribute a third of sea-level rise

Last January, a study in Nature Climate Change showed the world's glaciers are the smallest they've been in human history, revealing radiocarbon material that hasn't been exposed for 40,000 years.

Now, new research published in Nature quantifies how much the world's lost glaciers have contributed to rising sea levels.

From 1961, when reliable record keeping began, to 2016, the ocean crawled up 27 millimeters as a result of ice sloughing off the world's non-polar glaciers. Scientists had known that melting glaciers contribute to sea-level rise, but the new study takes a comprehensive look at how much and how quickly they're melting.

They found mountain glaciers contribute roughly a third of measured sea-level rise—the same contribution to sea-level rise as the Greenland ice sheet and more than the contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet. Their research also highlighted that many of the world’s glaciers may disappear in the next century....

[Marc1]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...vel-rising.php

IS SEA LEVEL RISING?
Climate change alarmists portray a catastrophic rise in sea level as one of the chief dangers of global warming. They draw pictures of the Statue of Liberty up to her chest in water, and so on. I doubt whether many people actually believe these dire predictions, however. If they did, prices for oceanfront property would be collapsing. That isn’t happening, which suggests that a lot of people pay lip service to global warming hysteria who don’t actually think it has any scientific basis.

If they don’t believe it, they’re right. Here, as in so many instances, global warming alarmism is built on a skinny foundation of truth. Sea level is indeed rising, as it has been for something like 15,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. At one time, sea level rose rapidly, as the giant glaciers that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere melted. For the last 6,000 years, the melting and consequent sea level rise has been relatively constant and modest:




Geophysicist Dennis Hadke compared the claim of drastic sea level rise with what is actually occurring in ten coastal cities with long and reliable records of rise (from tidal gages). He calculates linear fits, regression lines, for each of the ten cities. Not surprisingly for TWTW readers, he finds:

There has been no dramatic and consistent sea-level rise in the past century, and projections show no dramatic rise is likely to occur in the coming century.

There is no correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and sea-level rise.

The work of Hadke concurs with retired NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller discussed in the January 28 TWTW. Wysmuller explored the correlation between CO2 and sea level rise and found no measurable linkage between Sea Level and CO2. As Wysmuller stated:

For the past 2,000 years, Sea Level rise was unchangingly linear, increasing between 1 & 1.5 mm/yr. The maximum rise is about 6 inches per century. This has continued for the past 135 years, even though CO2 concentrations have increased by 38%.

It must be remembered that in addition to the ocean rising gradually–very gradually–as ice continues to melt, slowly, the Earth also subsides. But subsidence is local, depending on soil conditions in a particular place. Cities that are built partly on landfills, like Miami, are especially likely to sink. When you read in the newspapers about alarming conditions caused by rapidly rising sea levels, it is almost certain that what is mostly happening is that the land is subsiding.

So, unless the prices paid for beach properties suddenly plummet, you can be confident that hysteria over rising sea levels is just one aspect of financially-motivated global warming hysteria.

One last thing about the Statue of Liberty sinking beneath the waves, a common theme on the left: every now and then, we encounter a meme that is so stupid that we can’t let it pass. Like this one:



This meme is a collector’s item because it is dumb on multiple levels. First, there is no prospect of the sea overtaking the Statue of Liberty; not in the next few millennia, anyway, and by then we may be well into the next Ice Age, with sea level falling once again.

Second, the claim that there “[aren’t] any gun background checks” is idiotic. Millions of such background checks are done every year. I myself have gone through five of them. Whoever wrote this has no idea what he is talking about.

And finally, the meme is a non sequitur. There is zero relationship between rising sea levels and gun laws. There is, in other words, no point to the point. It is typical of global warming hysteria that it causes liberals to argue really, really badly.

[Marc1]

Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century. Peak-panic is behind us. « JoNova

After years of research it turns out that talking about “global” sea level rise is nearly meaningless to real people who live in one place. The ocean rise varies locally from beach to beach from as little as 5cm per century to as much as 16cm per century. The variations are mostly due to different rates of land subsiding or rising.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Well, I was going to post something about countries that have implemented carbon taxes, but that didn't seem alarming enough...

I dunno SailOar, for many people any sort of increase in taxes is extremely alarming!

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Well, I was going to post something about countries that have implemented carbon taxes, but that didn't seem alarming enough...

You may find this shocking but a revenue neutral carbon tax is a great idea. For one, it tends to shift the tax burden away from people who get proportionally less from government than they are asked to pay. Property taxes are particularly insidious for the elderly whose carbon footprint shrinks as they age but their taxes often increase as their home value increases.

It would be so simple to sell the revenue neutral carbon tax to everyone. I think every oil company in the world is already in favor of the concept. It would give them a level playing field in regards to the tax and they could compete on the basis of reducing GHG emissions during all phases of production. The most profitable would be the lowest GHG emitters. How great would that be?

But too many politicians see a way to siphon off new revenue for all manner of programs unrelated to the GHG issue. If those on the left were truly concerned about GHG they would build a multi-party coalition to get the revenue neutral carbon tax done across the world. But I don’t see it happening. It sure would be nice to have the ability to live in a tax free society simply by living GHG free or close to it. As people age their taxes would drop. Companies that consume large amounts of fossil fuels would pay more. Those that use none would pay none. GHG emissions would fall like a rock in no time at all.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

You may find this shocking but a revenue neutral carbon tax is a great idea. For one, it tends to shift the tax burden away from people who get proportionally less from government than they are asked to pay. Property taxes are particularly insidious for the elderly whose carbon footprint shrinks as they age but their taxes often increase as their home value increases.

It would be so simple to sell the revenue neutral carbon tax to everyone. I think every oil company in the world is already in favor of the concept. It would give them a level playing field in regards to the tax and they could compete on the basis of reducing GHG emissions during all phases of production. The most profitable would be the lowest GHG emitters. How great would that be?

But too many politicians see a way to siphon off new revenue for all manner of programs unrelated to the GHG issue. If those on the left were truly concerned about GHG they would build a multi-party coalition to get the revenue neutral carbon tax done across the world. But I don’t see it happening. It sure would be nice to have the ability to live in a tax free society simply by living GHG free or close to it. As people age their taxes would drop. Companies that consume large amounts of fossil fuels would pay more. Those that use none would pay none. GHG emissions would fall like a rock in no time at all.

There's a huge chasm of middle ground on this and many, many other issues. But between the winner-take-all mentality and demonization of the "other side" -- at least in American politics these days -- there's no longer any trust and so compromise becomes impossible. The marriage of socio-economic zealotry with environmental causes is but one example that is anathema to achieving broad consensus on climate change issues. It has nothing to do with what any one of us may be for or against, what we may approve or disapprove, or whether someone believes the GND has "worthy" goals or completely unrealistic ones. It's instead all about what is achievable consensus-wise. The only people who gain from the divisiveness are the politicians and their naive sycophants who never question actual motivations.