The Reef Ain't Dead

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

I wonder what the flora and fauna were like before, during, and after those times. And what else was going on?

I don’t believe anyone disbelieves climate doesn’t change irrespective of people but maybe I’m wrong about that

Most people agree the climate is changing.

The biggest disagreement is how much, which direction IE Global warming, and what is the cause.

IE Milankovitch cycles, too many SUV's, sunspot cycle.

And the politics come from the proposed cure. IE higher taxes, global Socialism.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by AndieKay

This might be the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time.

So smartass, post the thermal mass of the poles, and total incident energy.

While you are at it post thermal mass of oceans, and how much sea level will rise if the oceans heat 1 degree.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Most people agree the climate is changing.
The biggest disagreement is how much, which direction IE Global warming, and what is the cause.

IE Milankovitch cycles, too many SUV's, sunspot cycle.

And the politics come from the proposed cure. IE higher taxes, global Socialism.

Until the recent anthropogenic disruptions, the Holocene has been a relatively stable climate period, during which (and perhaps the cause whereby) human civilisation has flourished.

If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth's current orbital positions, within the Milankovitch cycles, predict our planet should be cooling (perhaps heading into another ice age within the next 1,500 years or so), not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend, that began about 6,000 years ago.
We have been in a cooling phase, that was decreasing the global temperature by 0.1 C every 1,000 years. This stopped abruptly about 100 years ago, when we started adding massive amounts of CO2, and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, causing a 1.15 C (2.07 F) per century increase.

Milankovitch cycles provide a strong framework for understanding long-term changes (slow changes over very long timespans) in Earth’s climate, including the beginning and end of Ice Ages, throughout Earth’s history.

An unpalatable medicine, doesn't falsify an accurate diagnosis - that would just be Denial, the first stage of grieving (followed Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance).

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

...

If there were no human influences on climate ... (perhaps heading into another ice age within the next 1,500 years or so).

...

Sounds like we managed to dodge ourselves a bullet.

[Tillikum]

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


At the most generous estimate humans produce less than 5% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, and CO2 is a similarly low component in so-called greenhouse gasses. Therefore, humans reducing their output by +/-5% of +/-5% of +/-5% ain't going to change much.



However, the show must go on, and it will.

[capn_billl]

https://www.livescience.com/56219-ea...declining.html

Since humans burn carbon to make co2, we use 2 oxygen for every carbon.

Increased co2 levels should correspond to decreased oxygen levels.

Volcanic co2 is released from under the Earth's crust without burning atmospheric carbon.

The amount of o2 reduction after subtracting the rate of reduction per industrial should give the actual ratio of human vs natural co2.

This is likely to be a number not palatable to either side. IE somewhere in the middle.

[jackdale]

Carbon isotope analysis of C14, C13 and C12 indicates that the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. It is called the Suess effect. (not that Dr Suess)

It's Our Fault | Science and Global Warming

[Tillikum]

Pity so many glaciers started to recede about 1830 before even the age of coal had got under way.



https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I don't want to drift the thread but I found this whilst researching a comment I found on another site and it struck be that if it's true it demonstrates just how resilient coral reef ecosystems are."

This is a very different kind of selective pressure. Most radioactivity is a low-probability/high-consequence effect. On an atomic level this is the famous Rutherford gold foil experiment - when you fire alpha particles at a piece of thin gold foil, nearly all go right through, but once in a while, one reflects back toward the source.
On a more macro level, we have observed this with nuclear weapons. The thermal insults are pretty uniform and predictable. For radiation, if you got a high dose, it killed the bone marrow and gut lining, with high lethality. The lower dose radioactivity effects were low probability, random events. If you got a low dose, you had a chance to get cancer, but if not, you survived, and probably have a normal life expectancy. Most did not get cancer, most did not seem to have DNA mutations that affected the next generations.
Climate change (thermal, pH, etc.) will have a more uniform effect on organisms. It is not like a low-probability/high-consequence event where a minority of the population is harmed and the majority of the population bounces back.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Pity so many glaciers started to recede about 1830 before even the age of coal had got under way.

Oops, fails Introduction to Logic 101. Climate change can occur naturally. Therefore, it can't be changed by humans.

Reminds me of a wonderful witticism from an Anthropocene podcast. 'Humans have been complaining about the weather for eons but not doing anything about it. Well, now we are doing something about it."

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

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


At the most generous estimate humans produce less than 5% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, and CO2 is a similarly low component in so-called greenhouse gasses. Therefore, humans reducing their output by +/-5% of +/-5% of +/-5% ain't going to change much.

Did a little research on the source you use. To say their "opinions" are biased and lack credibility is an understatement.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Pity so many glaciers started to recede about 1830 before even the age of coal had got under way.



https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

According to the CDIAC CO2 emissions in 1830 were 8 times higher per annum than those of pre-industrial emissions.

Coal fired steam engines had been in use for half a century prior to 1830.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by jackdale

According to the CDIAC CO2 emissions in 1830 were 8 times higher per annum than those of pre-industrial emissions.

Coal fired steam engines had been in use for half a century prior to 1830.

Primarily for industrial and transport by steam engines and consequently miniscule compared to what would have been generated for the electrification of industry and home use particularly after WW2.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Pity so many glaciers started to recede about 1830 before even the age of coal had got under way.
https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

While it’s true that, at the time when European emission rates started to significantly increase (after 1870), and prior to a significant anthropogenic temperature rise, and the majority of Alpine glaciers had already (1850 - 1870) experienced more than 80 % of their total 19th century length reduction, it’s untrue that it occurred prior to the age of coal.

The first industrial revolution took place from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840, especially in England & Europe. From 1700 to 1750 coal production increased by 50%, and nearly another 100% by 1800. During the later years of the first revolution, as steam power really took a firm grip, this rate of increase soared to 500% by 1850. Don’t let America’s relatively later entry into the industrial (coal-burning) world (±1830s?) fool you. By the 1890s, the US coal industry stretched from the Appalachian Mountains, across the Midwestern prairies, to the Cascades and Rockies, making the U.S. the largest coal producer in the world.

Glaciers and ice sheets are complex structures, that form when snow accumulates, and is compressed into ice, by new snow, over many years.
The processes that cause glaciers and ice sheets to lose mass (or size) are also more complex, than simply exposure to warm (ambient) air.
And while warm air certainly melts the surface of glaciers and ice sheets, they're also significantly affected by other factors including the ocean water that (sometimes) surrounds them, the terrain (both land and ocean) over which they move, snow-albedo feedback (carbon soot), their own meltwater, and (I’m sure) even more, of which I am unaware.

Glaciers were much larger and more numerous during the Little Ice Age (LIA). The LIA was a cold period (1250–1850) of global extent, with the nature and timing of reduced temperatures varying by region.

Scientists (glaciologist & climatologists) provide ample evidence, and explanations (often competing) regarding the extent, timing, and climatic significance for glacier change, since the Little Ice Age - none of which falsifies anthropogenic climate change models. Seek, and you shall find.

1. What’s your alternate theory? Or, don’t Anthony Watt, and cohort, feed you that.
2. What does your linked article have to do with the coal de-glaciation issue?

[pbmaise]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

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


At the most generous estimate humans produce less than 5% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, and CO2 is a similarly low component in so-called greenhouse gasses. Therefore, humans reducing their output by +/-5% of +/-5% of +/-5% ain't going to change much.



However, the show must go on, and it will.

This graph shows a clear relationship between man and rising CO2 levels.