Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by StuM

That'll be a perfect thread for km.
The Real Odour Leaks Lots.

Thanks Stu. See you there.

[outremer]

Originally Posted by MAJICDAN

Al Gore admitted that his research was fraudulent, and the results were politically funded by George Soros.

Very interesting Link please.

[outremer]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Nice to see people jump down my throat for a 1 line gag.

The truth behind the joke is not about Global Warming, but WHITE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Because its the Great Barrier Reef Australians blame Australians where as most of the CO2 emmissions are from Indonesia, China, India and the test of smoggy Asia.

Yes, Australians do cause a proportion of bleaching from agricultural water runoff.

Anyway, I shall amble off to my corner whilst the zealots accuse anyone who isn't a GreenPeace member of being the problem.

Sorry you are only accounting for present emissions at this time. In regard to total emissions Historically developed countries have made the majority of emissions and continue to make significant amounts. Undeceveloped countrirs are on increasing their emissions because they are seeking to attain the lifestyles we already have. Please clear your argument facts before you present it. http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...arming_pollute

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

All talk. Show me one bi-partisan solution.

A revenue neutral carbon tax.

Carbon taxes: Practicalities and prospects - AEI

AEU is a conservative think tank

https://ecofiscal.ca/carbon-pricing/

The Ecofiscal Commission runs the whole political spectrum

Carbon Pricing: A Useful Cautionary Tale – Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions

James Hansen supports the carbon tax.

It is multi-partisan.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If the friends if science (as opposed to acquaintances or even family members we'd prefer not to talk about) say that global warming is a myth, that's good enough for me.



https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Well then I suggest you read their 'mission statement' here

file:///C:/Users/owner/AppData/Local...0Statemen1.pdf

though I'd much rather post it for everyone here to read its'--uhh--unusual
conclusions.

Rather than retype the whole thing, let's just give a sample;

"Variations in solar activity and cosmic rays correlate to temperature better than CO2. This may be because an electromagnetically active sun diverts cosmic rays from hitting the atmosphere. Cosmic rays have been shown experimentally to assist in cloud formation. Fewer cosmic rays result in reduced low cloud cover, which allows more sunlight to warm the earth."

Now this paragraph immediately strikes me as strange just because of what I've read and think I remember. So let's list my questions with it and then use Al's invention to check and see how good my memory is.

""Variations in solar activity and cosmic rays correlate to temperature better than CO2."

Solar activity and cosmic rays have little to do with each other, as might be guessed from their names; i.e.cosmic would imply 'from the cosmos' while 'solar activity' would imply 'solar activity'.

A cosmic ray is a high-speed particle--either an atomic nucleus or an electron--that travels throughout the Milky Way Galaxy, including the solar system. Some of these particles originate from the Sun, but most come from sources outside the solar system and are known as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). Cosmic-ray particles that arrive at the top of the Earth's atmosphere are termed primaries; their collisions with atmospheric nuclei give rise to secondaries.

Source: Cosmic Rays

"This may be because an electromagnetically active sun diverts cosmic rays from hitting the atmosphere."

We'll leave aside the structural issues with this sentence and assume the author means either that 'an electromagnetically active sun varies in the amount of cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere (forgetting of course that most cosmic rays don't originate from the sun), or that the magnetosphere of the earth diverts 'cosmic rays' which they're confusing with electromagnetic radiation from the sun.

"Where the solar wind intersects with a planet that has a well-developed magnetic field (such as Earth, Jupiter and Saturn), the particles are deflected by the Lorentz force. This region, known as the magnetosphere, causes the particles to travel around the planet rather than bombarding the atmosphere or surface. The magnetosphere is roughly shaped like a hemisphere on the side facing the Sun, then is drawn out in a long wake on the opposite side. The boundary of this region is called the magnetopause, and some of the particles are able to penetrate the magnetosphere through this region by partial reconnection of the magnetic field lines."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

Well here I'm a bit adrift in that I'm not sure if the 'solar wind' is electromagnetic in nature or not. But it does seem clear that it is the magnetosphere of the Earth that does the deflecting.

"Cosmic rays have been shown experimentally to assist in cloud formation."

Seems like I recall seeing that somewhere, though it might have been that they had something more to do with inducing lightning, so it kinda sounds reasonable to me.

" For well over a decade Svensmark has studied how the energetic particles reaching Earth from deep space, known as cosmic rays, can influence the planet's climate as a result of changes to the Sun's output. The idea is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth's atmosphere that draw in other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapour can condense to form cloud droplets. The low-lying clouds that result then have the effect of cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunshine back out to space. Since the Sun's magnetic field tends to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low."

Source: Physicists claim further evidence of link between cosmic rays and cloud formation - physicsworld.com

Well here we have something of a double-barreled surprise. It seems that the sun's magnetic field diverts cosmic rays from the Earth, which sort of validates part of the 'mission statement' from FOS; unfortunately the last sentence is not in accordance with observation; Solar activity is currently rather low, and yet the global temperature averages are at record highs.

"Fewer cosmic rays result in reduced low cloud cover, which allows more sunlight to warm the earth."

Well this is an area that actually is in debate with climate scientists, as it appears that the albedo effect of clouds versus the insulating properties is very difficult to quantify.

"Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation. "

Source: ISCCP: Cloud Climatology

This is by far the most intricate issue raised in the 'mission statement". For a beginning to understanding try reading the nasa article linked to above...

So the point is, Thanks Reef, we actually can use the internet to verify or confirm an opinion, and also to form one...

(And no, I didn't forget that my premises about the 'mission statement' were wrong. The point is that the premise of the mission statement itself is not in agreement with observations: "Fewer cosmic rays result in reduced low cloud cover, which allows more sunlight to warm the earth" versus "the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low"; again, current solar activity is low, and yet global average temperatures are at record highs...)

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Sorry but it's not wrong. The one out of six scientist were looking for grants to study global cooling. Grant money was given to study both warming and cooling. We don't expect much from our government but we get a whole lot less.

Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a..._rogers_2.html

[Tricolor]

Originally Posted by chris95040

Oh boy. How many more hours will this thread last? .............

Still going strong..

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Trump is a dangerous demagogue.

Now back to the GBR or climate change.

Now careful Jack...Weavis should be climbing out of the coffin any hour now.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

My brother worked in Calgary for a while. He got sick there and had a hard time getting an appointment with a doctor. Typical third world.

....and how much did he have to pay?
I had my 2nd Myocardial Infarction and the bill was $70,000 while I was in Hawaii. Typical American health system

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Now careful Jack...Weavis should be climbing out of the coffin any hour now.

weavis was looking at this thread many posts ago. weavis is trying to be Switzerland on many things. weavis is now drinking Cortado and having tostado with tomate and a fried egg on a wet morning (10 am Spain time). weavis was going sailing this weekend but plans got changed. weavis will go buy a new coffee machine instead.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by weavis

weavis was looking at this thread many posts ago. weavis is trying to be Switzerland on many things. weavis is now drinking Cortado and having tostado with tomate and a fried egg on a wet morning (10 am Spain time). weavis was going sailing this weekend but plans got changed. weavis will go buy a new coffee machine instead.

Methinks Weavis should have watched a David Attenborough on TV about the GBR rather than taking his world girdling world curdling flight just to do a bit of snorkeling....

OK... hands up anyone who has actually done anything at all to stop the world stewing in its own juices...... Not using supermarket bags and sorting your garbage before putting it by the roadside in 3 separate bins ( so they can send round three separate Unimogs to collect it) does not count.

A few brownie points will be awarded to those who have stopped buying tap water in 600ml bottles...

PS edit... I trust the Spanish cortados are as good as the Chilean..

[Juho]

This message was quite constructive. I'll try to construct an equally constructive reply.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not and it doesn't matter what might be causing it. We are not going to do anything about it even if it does exist.

That is quite possible. We are in a new historical situation where we have reached the limits of what our earth can take from us. Maybe humans can not agree on new ways of thinking and acting before it's to late.

On the other hand, we have come a long way from the laws of jungle. We are not eating each others any more, and usually we don't even kill each others every day. We have invented good manners, laws, science and democracy. Therefore it is also possible that we will solve this problem. We might learn to control our behaviour so that we stop carrying all that dirt to our living room.

I am getting the feeling that some of you think "if we can just convince the old white guys it's true" the problem will go away. Try to look past that fallacy and look at what the solution would be. Is society willing and able to stomach that? Of course not.

I agree that society is not very willing to take the medicine. People hate the idea of having to give up some toys and bad behaviour that they are already used to. But I think we might well be able to change our behaviour. You pay taxes even if you don't like it. And most of us agree that it is a good idea to sometimes force people to do something they don't personally like to do, in the interest of the well-being of the whole society.

Are you trying to sell me the idea that since it is possible that I might get away with letting our children deal with the mess that we created, I should do so? I don't support that idea. It is not easy to change the course because of the usual problems in politics, complacency, resistance to change and selfishness. But there are no technical problems. We can change the course in two years if we just want to.

Go sailing!!!!

That's a good approach. Sailing is a relatively non-polluting hobby. I'll go sailing (next spring). That doesn't conflict with my interest to stop us destroying the planet. Let's do both.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is like putting on your seat belt as you have an accident. Try a little foresight sometime.

OK, here's "a little foresight."

The scientific concensus on GW you so covent, will begin to vanish on January 20, 2017 when the funding begins to dry up.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

My favourite climate scientist, Katherine Hayhoe (Canadian Christian Evangelical at Texas Tech University) just has a great FB post.



Exile (and others) read this! https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libe...limate-change/

Your fav scientist does communicate well, and the article you linked to was worthwhile reading. It's possible that if I subscribed more closely to libertarian principles or was a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party (not!) it might be more persuasive.

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, svYikes.