The Reef Ain't Dead

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Countries can use their affluence to transition to cleaner and more sustainable practices. It's a choice that many have made.

Mostly it's a choice their govts have made, with the help of elites who can most easily afford the higher energy costs that everyone has to pay, regardless of income.

I've always been pro nuclear power. But also anti-gluttony when it comes to conservation (remember? - the actual root of 'conservative') and sustainability.

Maybe Shellenberger got it from me.

Clearly you're way ahead of your time. Fortunately for you, you can be anything you want on the internet, whether readers buy into it or not. Hate to keep bursting your narrow urban bubble, but conservation and environmentalism are hardly the exclusive province of your preferred political party. Many conservatives live modestly and well below their means, and probably spend far more time recreating outdoors than many urbanites with environmental science degrees. Despite being so forward thinking on nukes, you seem rather behind on this one. Maybe its those environmental partisan websites you confine yourself to?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Clearly you're way ahead of your time. Fortunately for you, you can be anything you want on the internet, whether readers buy into it or not. Hate to keep bursting your narrow urban bubble, but conservation and environmentalism are hardly the exclusive province of your preferred political party. Many conservatives live modestly and well below their means, and probably spend far more time recreating outdoors than many urbanites with environmental science degrees. Despite being so forward thinking on nukes, you seem rather behind on this one. Maybe its those environmental partisan websites you confine yourself to?

So many assumptions and straw-people, so little time.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Clearly you're way ahead of your time. Fortunately for you, you can be anything you want on the internet, whether readers buy into it or not. Hate to keep bursting your narrow urban bubble, but conservation and environmentalism are hardly the exclusive province of your preferred political party. Many conservatives live modestly and well below their means, and probably spend far more time recreating outdoors than many urbanites with environmental science degrees. Despite being so forward thinking on nukes, you seem rather behind on this one. Maybe its those environmental partisan websites you confine yourself to?

Wow, why the sarcastic and cynical attack? He was in no way making any liberal v conservative point. Nor was he making a urban v rural point. Do you see enemies around every corner?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Wow, why the sarcastic and cynical attack? He was in no way making any liberal v conservative point. Nor was he making a urban v rural point. Do you see enemies around every corner?

Only as far as I'm concerned, it seems. Echoes of past disputes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So many assumptions and straw-people, so little time.

So when you repeatedly attempt to stereotype political conservatives as people who oppose sustainability and other environmental priorities (among other things), you are not making assumptions?

Originally Posted by lestersails

Wow, why the sarcastic and cynical attack? He was in no way making any liberal v conservative point. Nor was he making a urban v rural point. Do you see enemies around every corner?

No, I don't consider anyone engaged in a forum discussion on CF as an "enemy." More likely well-intentioned people who would probably be friends if an opportunity presented to engage in person. There's a long history you apparently missed, however, of people in the CC debate (on both sides) using stereotypes and divisive labels that not only distort what is obviously a multi-faceted issue into a binary one, but also serve to deter if not suppress alternative points of view. Your fondness for the "Denier" label is the best example, especially since the vast majority of the controversy within the actual scientific community centers around impacts and remedies, and not whether or not AGW exists. There are certainly those who "deny" the latter, but that's a core issue that doesn't seem all that contentious amongst actual climate scientists. But this doesn't stop determined partisans from attaching the label to anyone who questions far more complex and nuanced issues that are equally part of the core issue, namely whether the socioeconomic consequences of sharp reductions in fossil fuel consumption are appropriate remedies for potential threats which are far less certain.

On another but related note, have you yet figured out the absurdity of attaching your Denier label to Jackdale? Yet another problem with labels . . . all based on the very "assumptions" posters like Lake-Effect now decry.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Only as far as I'm concerned, it seems. Echoes of past disputes.

Well, when it comes to partisanship, cancel culture, and the divisiveness it necessarily creates, nobody on CF does it better. Ready to get back to the health of the GBR, what sorts of threats it faces, and whether Prof. Ridd is correctly assessing it's health?

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I suspect that Raymond may have miss-read, what I wrote - but that's OK, because his observations, and some scientific studies, contradicts (or adds to) some of what I wrote.
It's complicated, and I'm certainly no expert, so I apologise, for any confusion I may be adding to the discussion.


"... Reefs grow best where there is lots of water movement (among other things). Hence, fringing reefs are usually better developed on the windward sides of islands, than on the leeward (sheltered) sides. Once sea level has risen to cover a low hill, material, eroded from the reef, is carried from its windward side, to the more sheltered side, where it builds up.
Thus, although corals grow best on the windward side of reefs, the reefs themselves grow fastest on their leeward side..."
See ➥ https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/project...-thousand.html

But, it’s much more complicated than that.

For instance, a study[1], into the recent history of the Great Barrier Reef, has shown how it responds to rapid sea-level rise, and other environmental stresses. The study, conducted at the University of Sydney's research station at One Tree Island, contradicts the established model of Holocene-era reef growth.

Sea level, surface temperature, sediment in the water, nutrient influx and energy inputs into the reef system, all affect its vulnerability to environmental change. The reef system survives, because of a delicate balance of these environmental factors.

Three phases of growth

1. Clear water, fast growth
Between 1000 and 700 years after the continental shelf was flooded, corals started to grow, rebuilding the reef after a 100,000-year hiatus. Up to about 8000 years ago, the first corals to grow around One Tree Island were mostly shallow, clear-water and fast-growing, with a vertical reef growth of about 6 millimetres a year.

2. Slower, deeper growth
Between 8000 and 7000 years ago, reef growth slowed as waters continued to rise quickly. Temperatures rose and the quality of the water also changed in this period with an increase in sediment and nutrients. The types of corals were massive in form, sediment-tolerant and growth was deeper, at times up to 5 metres below sea level.

3. Catch-up growth
A slow-down and stabilisation of sea-level rise led to a fast (5 millimetres a year) vertical growth until the reef caught up to current sea levels about 6000 years ago. Growth in this period was mostly composed of shallow, branching coral assemblages.

New model of reef growth

A surprising result of the research is evidence that initial reef growth occurred on the low-energy, leeward side of the reef, ahead of growth on the high-energy, windward side.

This is contrary to established models of reef growth. In those models, the part of the reef exposed to higher energy inputs from waves and wind were thought to have been cleared of land-based ecosystems, clearing the way for reef development.

The paper proposes a new model, that needs further testing, in other regions of the Great Barrier Reef, and reef systems around the world.

What it seems to establish is, that the more protected parts of the reef might have been more suitable for early coral development.

“A new model of Holocene reef initiation and growth in response to sea-level rise on the Southern Great Barrier Reef”~ by Kelsey L.Sanborn et al
[1] ➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...37073819302088

See also ➥ https://coraloha.weebly.com/coral-re...-overview.html

This theory while good, and a decent explanation of coral reef development does not fit the observed facts of 5 - 8 FEET of coral growth on Ft Jackson in Dry Tortugas on a structure built 100 years ago.

This is in cooler water well north of usual coral atolls.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Exile

So when you repeatedly attempt to stereotype political conservatives as people who oppose sustainability and other environmental priorities (among other things), you are not making assumptions?



No, I don't consider anyone engaged in a forum discussion on CF as an "enemy." More likely well-intentioned people who would probably be friends if an opportunity presented to engage in person. There's a long history you apparently missed, however, of people in the CC debate (on both sides) using stereotypes and divisive labels that not only distort what is obviously a multi-faceted issue into a binary one, but also serve to deter if not suppress alternative points of view. Your fondness for the "Denier" label is the best example, especially since the vast majority of the controversy within the actual scientific community centers around impacts and remedies, and not whether or not AGW exists. There are certainly those who "deny" the latter, but that's a core issue that doesn't seem all that contentious amongst actual climate scientists. But this doesn't stop determined partisans from attaching the label to anyone who questions far more complex and nuanced issues that are equally part of the core issue, namely whether the socioeconomic consequences of sharp reductions in fossil fuel consumption are appropriate remedies for potential threats which are far less certain.

On another but related note, have you yet figured out the absurdity of attaching your Denier label to Jackdale? Yet another problem with labels . . . all based on the very "assumptions" posters like Lake-Effect now decry.

A couple years ago an oil barge filled with light distillates collided with a shrimper spilling thousands of gallons of petroleum in Galveston bay.

There followed air quality warnings, (it was like putting your head in a full gas tank), and a significant fish kill.

Apparently I'm a "denier" for saying the fish were killed by an oil spill instead of "global warming".

Same for several reefs that suffered bleaching over similar incidents.

When I see similar species living happily in latitudes with temps in the 90's in summer, I have difficulty believing a temperature increase of 78 to 79 degrees over 100 years is the sole reason for reef deaths.

Does that make me bad person?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

A couple years ago an oil barge filled with light distillates collided with a shrimper spilling thousands of gallons of petroleum in Galveston bay.

There followed air quality warnings, (it was like putting your head in a full gas tank), and a significant fish kill.

Apparently I'm a "denier" for saying the fish were killed by an oil spill instead of "global warming".

Same for several reefs that suffered bleaching over similar incidents.

When I see similar species living happily in latitudes with temps in the 90's in summer, I have difficulty believing a temperature increase of 78 to 79 degrees over 100 years is the sole reason for reef deaths.

Does that make me bad person?

I doubt it would be blamed on GW but it would be used to highlight one of the hazards of our reliance on fossil fuels, namely its transportation over water. This is not without justification, but the more rational answer is improved safeguards rather than elimination. Not unlike how pipelines are statistically much safer than trucks and trains, but that doesn't stop people from opposing the Keystone pipeline (or the Alaskan pipeline when it was being built). I guess it's just part of this vilification (more cancel culture) of fossil fuels generally and the industry that produces them. Pointing out the obvious and many downsides of FF as our dominant energy source is essential, but I never understood how the highly personalized hate-on for it informs rational discussion or debate.

78-79º temp increase over 100 years? Surely this is a typo??

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

??? Science studies nature and tells us about it, and when tasked, helps us solve problems. Very few of our present problems were caused by science; the vast majority are excesses committed by us in spite of scientific warnings of the problems this will cause.Seriously? The bottom line of the warnings about AGW is that our current patterns of fossil fuel use are overwhelming nature's regulating mechanisms. In addition to squandering a finite resource, and killing people and ruining parts of the environment by its extraction and consumption.

Can you be specific about what new technologies concern you? Its my understanding that they are mostly less polluting and more sustainable than the current technologies they are intended to replace.

The lockdowns have demonstrated how even a small reduction in destructive activity has caused a 'nature' bounceback. Better air quality in cities (reduction in deaths from air pollution), more walking and cycling, increase in some animal populations.... I share your belief that we should let nature do its thing as much as possible, and I also think that we can live happy healthy lives and have robust economies WITHOUT using fossil fuels as much, and without making the sort of mess we continue to make.

The bounceback shows the problem is not as serious, and "irreparable" as advertised.

As we develop new forms of energy (nuclear?) The Earth will rebalance itself likely WITHOUT human intervention, and a host of new taxes, and regulations.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

"Strawmannery" would be one description of your comparing what are now orthodoxies, but when first proposed were heresies, (when not merely ridiculed or ignored by the scientific consensus of their times), with the current "consensus" purchased with massive amounts of public and private money and concerted suppression of dissent in a media now far more pervasive and powerful than at any previous time in history, and with ownership concentration similar to totalitarian societies.

Your suggestion is, I suggest, a simple inversion of the historical reality, and of course the perpetual facts ("Laws??") of human behaviour so painfully exposed in the scientific histories that Boatman61 linked to.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

I recently read a theory that gravity is the mathematical result of the time equations. no additional force needed.

Since mass causes time dilation any vectors of movement will be toward the slowest moving time, hence towards the greatest mass.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The bounceback shows the problem is not as serious, and "irreparable" as advertised.

As we develop new forms of energy (nuclear?) The Earth will rebalance itself likely WITHOUT human intervention, and a host of new taxes, and regulations.

Nuclear, cutting back on our mess-making ARE human interventions.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

This theory while good, and a decent explanation of coral reef development does not fit the observed facts of 5 - 8 FEET of coral growth on Ft Jackson in Dry Tortugas on a structure built 100 years ago.
This is in cooler water well north of usual coral atolls.

Perhaps, you could explain exactly how you believe (the observed facts of) this shipwreck site, falsifies conventional coral growth theories.


The Windjammer Wreck
The most popular spot for snorkeling or diving in the park is Windjammer, a shipwreck that was originally named Avanti, and wrecked in 1901 (± 120 years ago).
The Avanti, located within Dry Tortugas National Park, rests at a depth of 22 ft. some 1,100 yards southwest of Loggerhead Key. Although part of the structure is shallow, and even sticking out of the water, a majority of the wreck is in 20 feet of water. Stony and gorgonian coral, including brain coral, along with colorful tropical fish, permeate the wreck site.
➥ https://www.nps.gov/articles/windjammer.htm
➥ https://blueturtletrawler.com/windja...-dry-tortugas/
➥ https://www.nps.gov/drto/learn/histo...windjammer.htm

“Assessment of Natural Resource Condition in and Adjacent to the Dry Tortugas National Park”
“... In the past 28 years, extremely warm sea surface temperatures (30−32oC[86−90°F]) have resulted in bleaching events followed by disease outbreaks that contributed to a decline in coral cover in the Florida Keys, and the same may have occurred in the Tortugas region (Causey 2001, 2005, Precht and Miller 2007, Jaap et al.2008) ...
... The most recent Caribbean-wide bleaching event occurred in 2005 when unusually warm waters were also detected in Tortugas region. Miller et al., (2006) observed signs of a severe bleaching event in the Florida Keys associated with high surface and bottom seawater temperature (31.1−32.2oC[88−90°F]), but found little evidence of bleaching in the Tortugas region. Coral bleaching may have been minimal in the Tortugas region because the reefs occur in deeper waters than reefs of the Caribbean (Miller et al.2006) ...”
Assessment (Large File) ➥ https://nccospublicstor.blob.core.wi...TO_Coastal.pdf

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

78-79º temp increase over 100 years? Surely this is a typo??

Read that as a temperature increase from 78°F ot 79°F over 100 years.
i.e. about 0.5°C rise per century in "proper" units

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So when you repeatedly attempt to stereotype political conservatives as people who oppose sustainability and other environmental priorities (among other things), you are not making assumptions?

We can pursue this digression of yours, or we can do 'reef' as you have suggested.