The Reef Ain't Dead

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Hi Boatman
I think you are right that it may not be enough (though I would not agree that it is a red herring*). It will be important to model reforestation and other potential natural carbon sinks because there could be tradeoffs - we can use X amount of fossil fuels if we reforest Y acres. Costs and benefits and practical realities are important there.


*A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. I think both are important and you added one that I was not emphasizing.

Well it kind of is when you consider all the emphasis is being placed on Carbon whilst the robber barons continue to cheerfully destroy the rain forests..
I don't dispute CO2 levels increasing however is it because of fossil fuels or.. shrinking sinks.. I believe it is the latter and the so called Green Revolution of Renewable is just Glimmer in the Smoke..

Atmospheric Oxygen is decreasing world-wide, and has been verified by a number of institutions (also, you can measure it yourself). The rate is not yet catastrophic, but it's there. The Scripps O2 Program out of the University of California SanDiego is one of many places that has mapped this decline:...
New calculations made by marine chemists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggest that low-oxygen “dead zones” in the ocean could expand significantly over the next century. These predictions are based on the fact that, as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, marine animals will need more oxygen to survive.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well it kind of is when you consider all the emphasis is being placed on Carbon whilst the robber barons continue to cheerfully destroy the rain forests..

Fair enough - if your primary interest is forestation you can argue that the paper and lumber industries might be fomenting excess focus on fossil fuels so they can chop down as many trees as they want.

I would say they are both part of the bigger picture, both relevant and important. But that is a reasoned difference of perspective.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm having some trouble reconciling the bolded parts and what follows each of them. You acknowledge you're not an expert, so what exactly is the difference between your assessment of AGW and your (or others) opinions on AGW?



I agree with all of this, except that I would (and do) welcome opinions about my boat, yea or nay. They would either confirm my own opinions, or better inform them, whether the newbie sailor was being ridiculous or not. Who knows, perhaps that newbie sailor was an engineer in a former life and has something constructive to offer. The last thing I'd do is what you appear to be engaged in, namely laying claim to more knowledge than you've earned and having all the answers. I don't know about a "mountain" of evidence, but there is certainly plenty of science which supports your certainty over the severity of impacts and potential remedies, but I don't think it's even debatable that the collective body of science is unsettled. I understand your opinion on the matter, could see a case for being proactive (i.e. "just in case"), but please don't arrogantly claim it represents the "science" without at least doing some of your own homework. As you say, nobody cares about your opinion or mine.

Sorry exile, but I am not playing this pathetic game. If you don't understand the difference between opinion and scientific reasoning, I can't help you.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Fair enough - if your primary interest is forestation you can argue that the paper and lumber industries might be fomenting excess focus on fossil fuels so they can chop down as many trees as they want.

I would say they are both part of the bigger picture, both relevant and important. But that is a reasoned difference of perspective.

The paper industries and lumber industries have their own plantations of fast growing trees to harvest from.. so does the US boat industry, or so I have heard with a variety of teak.
Its the Palm Oil industries, cattle ranching and mining that are the biggest culprits..

Cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. In Brazil, this has been the case since at least the 1970s: government figures attributed 38 percent of deforestation from 1966-1975 to large-scale cattle ranching. Today the figure in Brazil is closer to 70 percent.

Today, a half of the forests are gone in Indonesia. From 1960, 82% of lands in Indonesia were forests. It decreased into 68% in 1982, 53% in 1995, and 49% today. This presents significant decrease of forest area.

Malaysia has received considerable financial gain from its logging industry. One statistic states this benefit is valued at US$2,150,000,000. Together with neighbouring Indonesia, Malaysia produces 85% of the global supply of palm oil, the chief cause of logging.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I see now. You're likely correct, but what's worse? Feeling stigmatized because you do understand the association with the Holocaust, or simply being ignorant of the negative association and going around blithely parroting it?

You missed one. The worst is pretending that you actually do understand a topic when you clearly do not, and relentlessly denying it's truth. Ring any bells?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

...I don't think it's even debatable that the collective body of science is unsettled.

Finally - we agree - it is not debatable!

It is wrong.

Per NASA:
"The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing."

Ref: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA JPL. Archived from the original on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2020.; Gleick, 7 January 2017.

But oh no! NASA did not ask Exile his personal opinion!!! So, that means that these national and international scientific bodies are all wrong!

I can't tell if this is getting hilarious or just pathetic...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well it kind of is when you consider all the emphasis is being placed on Carbon whilst the robber barons continue to cheerfully destroy the rain forests..
I don't dispute CO2 levels increasing however is it because of fossil fuels or.. shrinking sinks.. I believe it is the latter and the so called Green Revolution of Renewable is just Glimmer in the Smoke..

We can do both. I agree that deforestation and other ecological devastations are wrong, and for more reasons than just loss of carbon sink and O2 production. But we will never not need energy, and it would be nice to have enough energy for as long as we infest the place, so R&D on sustainable alternatives is also important, and it is delivering now, and they will likely keep improving.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We can do both. I agree that deforestation and other ecological devastations are wrong, and for more reasons than just loss of carbon sink and O2 production. But we will never not need energy, and it would be nice to have enough energy for as long as we infest the place, so R&D on sustainable alternatives is also important, and it is delivering now, and they will likely keep improving.

Agree with both of you - it is important and remediable!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Finally - we agree - it is not debatable!

It is wrong.

Per NASA:
"The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing."

Ref: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA JPL. Archived from the original on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2020.; Gleick, 7 January 2017.

But oh no! NASA did not ask Exile his personal opinion!!! So, that means that these national and international scientific bodies are all wrong!

I can't tell if this is getting hilarious or just pathetic...

Take a deep breath Lester. The issue being discussed has nothing to do with the human cause of climate change, or even whether the earth is warming. The past X no. of pages or so of the thread are about severity of impacts and the appropriateness of remedies. A couple of us even numbered them for you, and took a brief, informal poll, and it is why Boatie raised the possibility of reforestation. There are those who also question whether the planet has in fact been warming and whether AGW even exists, but no climate scientist that I'm aware does. Not even the most ardent skeptics. Next time you feel yourself hyperventilating, just keep repeating IMPACTS & REMEDIES, IMPACTS & REMEDIES, IMPACTS & REMEDIES. Can we assume you see the distinctions everyone else has been discussing for awhile now?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh really? There's LOTS going wrong. List here.

Not all directly caused by excessive use of fossil fuel... but many are, and they will be helped by a reduction in fossil-fuel use. And all require focus and effort and maybe some small sacrifice.

But as I just pointed out earlier - we're stalled on acting on CC, and on just about everything else too.

At least you'll get a few more years of coal sales to China
.... don't know what you mean there. That's the do-nothing scenario. Things will seem peachy right up until they aren't.

That's a hell of a bet. But still not much of a reason to not consider ANY changes, no matter how small. Being proactive doesn't mean feudal agrarian dystopia.

Your list is just another assembly of doom and gloom that doesn't counteract my argument at all.


The "candle" is an old proverb referring to things just getting better and better until they collapse. Stock market bubbles would be the definitive example in the modern era. Climate change disasters yet to fruit after 25 years probably not so much.



As for betting, I'm confident any bet on the world's societies of 2021 in general being better off had we dumped greenhouse gas emissions back in '96 would be a losing one.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We can do both. I agree that deforestation and other ecological devastations are wrong, and for more reasons than just loss of carbon sink and O2 production. But we will never not need energy, and it would be nice to have enough energy for as long as we infest the place, so R&D on sustainable alternatives is also important, and it is delivering now, and they will likely keep improving.

I think you'll find if the forests are left to thrive the rest will thrive naturally..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your list is just another assembly of doom and gloom that doesn't counteract my argument at all.

It's a list of things to fix, many of which get worse the longer we put off some meaningful changes to our energy mix.

btw, is the GBR's health getting better? worse?

The "candle" is an old proverb referring to things just getting better and better until they collapse. Stock market bubbles would be the definitive example in the modern era. Climate change disasters yet to fruit after 25 years probably not so much.

The only thing different is the time frame. You and I will be fertilizer before the fossil-fuel CC bubble 'bursts'.

As for betting, I'm confident any bet on the world's societies of 2021 in general being better off had we dumped greenhouse gas emissions back in '96 would be a losing one.

Again, time frame. And I don't think some gradual reductions started 20 years would have bitten very hard. Maybe some oil billionaires would have 200 ft yachts instead of 250 ft yachts. Energy alternatives would be further along, and a new crop of billionaires and growth industries.


To the readership: are RM's comments skepticism or denial? Curious to see where it lands with folks.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Take a deep breath Lester. The issue being discussed has nothing to do with the human cause of climate change, or even whether the earth is warming. The past X no. of pages or so of the thread are about severity of impacts and the appropriateness of remedies. A couple of us even numbered them for you, and took a brief, informal poll, and it is why Boatie raised the possibility of reforestation. There are those who also question whether the planet has in fact been warming and whether AGW even exists, but no climate scientist that I'm aware does. Not even the most ardent skeptics. Next time you feel yourself hyperventilating, just keep repeating IMPACTS & REMEDIES, IMPACTS & REMEDIES, IMPACTS & REMEDIES. Can we assume you see the distinctions everyone else has been discussing for awhile now?

This is like magic, or more like three card monte, because the goal is to con. Digress, distract divert. As soon as you are pinned in a fallacy you just change the subject. You asserted that there is no debate about AGW being unsettled. Utter nonsense - and so you change the subject.
How is it that you just take pot shots and never clearly and concisely lay out your answers to StuM in 803 or the IPCC conclusions in 920? Can you do that? Do you have coherent assessments of these questions or not? Please provide one sentence endorsements or denials of all 9 of these statements for us please.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's a list of things to fix, many of which get worse the longer we put off some meaningful changes to our energy mix.

Perhaps you can provide the cliff notes related to climate change, keeping in mind pollution and resource abuse/depletion isn't climate change.

btw, is the GBR's health getting better? worse?

Well, I did think that it was doing pretty good until I found out recently that you can't tell if coral is bleached by its colour anymore. So who the freak knows?

The only thing different is the time frame. You and I will be fertilizer before the fossil-fuel CC bubble 'bursts'.
Again, time frame. And I don't think some gradual reductions started 20 years would have bitten very hard. Maybe some oil billionaires would have 200 ft yachts instead of 250 ft yachts. Energy alternatives would be further along, and a new crop of billionaires and growth industries.

Well, they did indeed start. Solar panels, wind turbines, natural gas, EV's, fuel efficient cars, planes, ships etcetera. What else do you want?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I think you'll find if the forests are left to thrive the rest will thrive naturally..

Agree. But the chances of that happening are...

In other words, we have to make the changes that make it possible to stop screwing around so much with the forests, etc.