The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its Pico in the Azores..

That photo, of Mt. Pico, certainly proves that the reef is/isn't dying, at least, in the event that Mt. Everest does not move.

“... It was clear as mud but it covered the ground
And the confusion made the brain go 'round
I went and ask a good friend of mine
Known to the world as Albert Einstein
He said "Son, from the beginning of time and creativity
There existed the force of relativity
Pi r square and a minus ten means a routine only when
The solar system in one light year
Make the Hayden planetarium disappear
So if Mt Everest doesn't move
I am positive that it will prove ...”
➥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC66IVexkug

“The Quake that Moved Mt. Everest”
➥ https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/201...t-everest.html

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Glad you agree that it is technically correct. I think your misunderstanding is one of basic unfamiliarity of mechanisms of evolutionary biology. Of course, the birds are not sentient and have no concept of staving off extinction. Neither do you or me when our blood clots in a wound. Neither do the corals. But all of these mechanisms facilitate survival, which has the indirect consequence of reducing the probability of extinction.



The conclusions of the authors, in their own words are "We conclude that colorful bleaching is an emergency response of symbiotic corals driven by an optical feedback loop involving host and symbionts. This process may represent an adaptive mechanism to minimize high light stress due to increased light fluxes in the bleached host tissue caused by back scattering of the highly reflective coral skeleton and promote recolonization with symbionts after sublethal stress events."



Discussions in scientific papers include a mix of direct interpretations of data and speculative implications about what it might mean, which often form the bases of future hypotheses that can be tested. I think you have conflated the former with the latter. They said "...it may represent..." (my emphasis) which is standard scientific notation for a speculation or hypothesis. It is not a conclusion.



I would conclude that there is no basis for your accusation that this is 'junk science'.

I observe you failed to comprehend the word "may" within the conclusion. That particular word is a mainstay of junk science.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I observe you failed to comprehend the word "may" within the conclusion. That particular word is a mainstay of junk science.

You are right that “may” is an imprecise term, which implies something, without defining it’s likelihood. There are more precise ways to express degree of certainty, but the use of an imprecise word, does not prove that all that precedes it, is “junk science”.

Certainty vs. Uncertainty: Understanding Scientific Terms About Climate Change
“... To most of us, uncertainty means not knowing.
To scientists, however, uncertainty is how well something is known.

And, therein lies an important difference, especially when trying to understand what is known about climate change...
... Taking into account the many sources of scientific understanding, climate scientists have sought to provide decision-makers with careful language regarding uncertainty. A "very likely" outcome, for example, is one that has a greater than 90 percent chance of occurring. Climate data or model projections in which we have "very high confidence" have at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.
However, in this culture of transparency where climate scientists describe degrees of certainty and confidence in their findings, climate change deniers have linked less than complete certainty with not knowing anything. The truth is, scientists know a great deal about climate change. We have learned, for example, that the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. There is no uncertainty about this. We have learned that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat through the greenhouse effect. Again, there is no uncertainty about this...
... Scientists are uncertain, however, about how much global warming will occur in the future (between 2.1 degrees and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100). They are also uncertain how soon the summer sea ice habitat where the ringed seal lives will disappear. Curiously, much of this uncertainty has to do with—are you ready?—humans. The choices we make in the next decade, or so, to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gasses could prevent catastrophic climate change...”
More ➥ https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/und...climate-change

Uncertainty Terminology ➥ https://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/26

Language Adopted by the IPCC to Describe Confidence About Facts or the Likelihood of an Outcome [2007]

Terminology for Describing Confidence About Facts
Very high confidence: At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence: About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence: About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence”: About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence: Less than 1 out of 10 chance

Terminology for Describing Likelihood of an Outcome
Virtually certain: More than 99 chances out of 100
Extremely likely: More than 95 chances out of 100
Very likely: More than 90 chances out of 100
Likely: More than 65 chances out of 100
More likely than not: More than 50 chances out of 100
About as likely as not: Between 33 and 66 chances out of 100
Unlikely: Less than 33 chances out of 100
Very unlikely: Less than 10 chances out of 100
Extremely unlikely: Less than 5 chances out of 100
Exceptionally unlikely: Less than 1 chance out of 100

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

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

2005 was an epic hurricane year. Heavy waves, and millions of gallons of fresh water dumped on these reefs.

And as you stated this warm water came from the south where the majority of this planet's coral lives happily.

I'll give the same answer that gets me an immediate ban from every "scientific" global warming forum.

Post 100 years of raw temperature data from ANY equatorial weather station.

If the planet is really warming, "it's getting warmer because it's getting colder", Al Gore.

Then a long term temperature plot on the equator should show it without seasonal fluctuations.

So far I've only been able to see "normalized" weighted data that has been processed through a model.

The websites, and sources that once posted actual temperature, (not feels like temperatures) have been removed.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/color-and-temperature-perception-is-everything/

If rhe planet is truly warming, why lie?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I'll give the same answer that gets me an immediate ban from every "scientific" global warming forum.

Post 100 years of raw temperature data from ANY equatorial weather station.

If the planet is really warming, ...Then a long term temperature plot on the equator should show it without seasonal fluctuations.

So far I've only been able to see "normalized" weighted data that has been processed through a model.

Links? What have you looked at?

Modelling has been required to help align different temperature measuring methods (thermometers of different types, manual readings of mercury thermometer vs automated solid-state temperature devices, satellite vs surface readings, etc). It's not like we have measured every temperature using the same 100 year old thermometer.

And just the equator is hardly the whole story, for many reasons. The only way you can truly determine if there's abnormal planetary warming going on is to measure temperature in as many places on the planet as possible and do the math. And more important than air temperature is ocean temperature, since it has such a massive thermal inertia.

So your equatorial challenge wouldn't be meaningful. One could as easily just look at polar temps or conditions in isolation. The Arctic has had a temperature rise that's twice the global average over the last 100 years. The Antarctic hasn't seen as big a change, but the warmer ocean is likely responsible for undercutting some Antarctic ice shelves and causing the increased calving of very large sheets. That much ice is going to have an effect as it melts.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Links? What have you looked at?

Modelling has been required to help align different temperature measuring methods (thermometers of different types, manual readings of mercury thermometer vs automated solid-state temperature devices, satellite vs surface readings, etc). It's not like we have measured every temperature using the same 100 year old thermometer.

And herein lies one of the problems.

Are we supposed to believe that all previous thermometer manufacturers were incompetent in that they could not build and calibrate simple mercury thermometers and that those then using them were consistently negligent in leaving them out in the sun prior to taking and recording the temperature.

The Bureau of Meteorology in Australia has already made two downward "normalizations" of temperature records which is resulting in a big slew of new record temperatures.

Snake oil in spades.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That photo, of Mt. Pico, certainly proves that the reef is/isn't dying, at least, in the event that Mt. Everest does not move.

“... It was clear as mud but it covered the ground
And the confusion made the brain go 'round
I went and ask a good friend of mine
Known to the world as Albert Einstein
He said "Son, from the beginning of time and creativity
There existed the force of relativity
Pi r square and a minus ten means a routine only when
The solar system in one light year
Make the Hayden planetarium disappear
So if Mt Everest doesn't move
I am positive that it will prove ...”
➥

“The Quake that Moved Mt. Everest”
➥ https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/201...t-everest.html

Difference is Mt Everest has snow all year every year if you've noticed, whereas Pico having snow to sea level is pretty special..
Must be the AGW..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

And herein lies one of the problems.

Are we supposed to believe that all previous thermometer manufacturers were incompetent in that they could not build and calibrate simple mercury thermometers and that those then using them were consistently negligent in leaving them out in the sun prior to taking and recording the temperature.

The Bureau of Meteorology in Australia has already made two downward "normalizations" of temperature records which is resulting in a big slew of new record temperatures.

Snake oil in spades.

OK, for giggles, please tell us what is going on and why.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Difference is Mt Everest has snow all year every year if you've noticed, whereas Pico having snow to sea level is pretty special..
Must be the AGW..

Must be local weather.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

enormous mass of data that support a robust hypothesis.

What exactly do you believe this "robust hypothesis" states?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Must be local weather.

If you can tie in Madeira as local..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJlWC4rUUD0

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Hi Stu
Great clarifying questions.
1. is a given - can't believe anyone could disagree with that. The climate changes over long periods of time. E.g., ice age.

Yep we keep on hearing people being given the derogatory epithet: "climate change deniers" or even "climate deniers"!

2. Yes. It has oft been said "everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it" - but that is wrong. We are changing the climate.

OK, so we are still in 100% agreement

3. Yes. While CO2 is not the sole cause of AGW, my understanding is that it is the largest.

And the basis for your understanding is?
As far as I am concerned, there is insufficient knowledge about natural climate variability to be able to determine the relative weight of various factors (primary doubts being the estimated ECS, which after 30 years of climate research still has a huge range, and previous instances of rapid warming and cooling).

4. Yes.

This is where we start to diagree. I see little or no evidence to support this contention (I say again, computer models are not evidence).
I do see plenty of evidence of the benefits of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
And that is what makes me a "denier" according to certain alarmists here

5. Probably not. I looked up the definition of 'existential' - the relevant one I think is 'Concerning the very existence of, especially with regard to extinction.'

And yet a vast range of politicians are taking drastic action based on the fallacy that there IS an existential threat. We are constantly bombarded by things like:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1009782
Climate change: An 'existential threat' to humanity, UN chief warns global summit


and just last month:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...at-of-our-time
Biden Calls Climate Change ‘Existential Threat of Our Time’

So if by that it is meant 'will AGW lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens?' Probably not. But I think it will be somewhere in between 'severe' and 'existential', which is a scenario that could be extraordinarily awful to live through. If instead by 'existential' you mean extinction of our current general level of civilization and way of life, then possibly yes.
You?
Les

And this is where we have our major disagreement. Again I ask for your reasons (prefereably evidence) for your "I think".


There is little doubt that the drastic measures being proposed in the name of "fighting climate change" WILL adversely affect our general level of civisation and way of life" if implemented.

All in return for what even the climate models show will be a miniscule decrease in projected temperatures by the end of the century.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

3.5

So you don't believe in "4. A severely negative effect of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?"


You denier you!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The only way you can truly determine if there's abnormal planetary warming going on

First thing you need to do is determine what "normal" is.

And comparing daily/monthly/annual termperature variations to proxy data with resolutions of decades to centuries can't do that.

The best we can do as far as normal is concerned is compare apples to apples. How does the warming over the most recent "climate period" 1991 - 2020 compare to the climate period 1911-1940 (pre AGW? )?

And what cause the warming in that earlier period.
(Let's not mention the rates of warming and cooling during the Younger Dryas )

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

First thing you need to do is determine what "normal" is.

And comparing daily/monthly/annual termperature variations to proxy data with resolutions of decades to centuries can't do that.

The best we can do as far as normal is concerned is compare apples to apples. How does the warming over the most recent "climate period" 1991 - 2020 compare to the climate period 1911-1940 (pre AGW? )?

And what cause the warming in that earlier period.
(Let's not mention the rates of warming and cooling during the Younger Dryas )

By 1911 anthropogenic CO2 emissions per annum were already 278 times higher than per industrial levels. By 1940 they were 433 times higher. By 2013 (the last year for which I have data) emissions were3224 times higher per annum. The data is some I rescued from CDIAC before the previous US administration took it down.

As for the Younger Dryas:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-cli...ounger%20Dryas