Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[Buzzman]

And here we go again, disappearing down the plughole of myth and unsubstantiated rumour...

Skeptical Science DOES reference the actual scientific papers on which it relies for it's debunking of denialist bumf.


Roy Shreyer is the LEAST credible so-called, self-determined 'expert' on AGW.


You might even say he was the Chief Denialist, and is not credible, in any reasonable assessment, as a believable commentator on AGW.


You WILL note that I said 'unaware readers' could learn something by reading the science and links to primary sources on the Skeptical Science website.


I am under no illusions that any denialist moron would gain anything from visiting it.



To be a denialist automatically self-describes one as of lower and lesser intelligence than the average.


There is NOTHING to deny.


The consensus is not 97% of credible sources, it is 100%.


Read the IPCC Report. It's all in there.


All that is left to argue over is what measures we WILL take, WHEN and WHO pays.


There is no point whatsover becoming bogged down arguing semantics.

I'm calling time on this ping pong game. Thanks for playing.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Absolute scientific certainty is, either, exceedingly rare, or non-existent; which was the point of my post.

I was glad to see this and I was going to ask if you thought you could explain this to all the people who think "the science is settled".

But then you posted this ...

Originally Posted by GordMay

" [...] there is no uncertainty that global warming is caused by human activity and the burning of fossil fuels,” said IPCC co-author Friederike Otto, a climatologist at University of Oxford.

... which is at direct odds with what you posted previously. Don't get me wrong, I understand that many think there is "enough" evidence. But how do you explain the above contradiction? And do you suppose that we will never gain a better understanding of climate which might change our opinions about how much we think we know?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fivecapes

A bit of levity

xkcd title text:
I was really impressed by the accuracy of some of the report's predictions about fossil fuel consumption. Then I realized, oh, right, of course.

Exxon doc - https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ment-About-CO2

Tomorrow: I read about satellite based atmospheric temperature gathering that's been recording since 1979, and learn that July 2021 was 0.2ºC above the 30-year average for July. Then I learn that the overall temperature rise -- recorded by NASA satellites over the past 40 years -- is significantly lower than the land & sea based temp records and therefore more consistent with a natural warming cycle, or at least one that some scientists opine is less influenced by human causes.

Reading further, I then learn that land and sea based temp records going back at least 100 years aren't considered all that reliable, just like records of cyclones, reef degradation, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, floods, extinctions, and all the other "unprecedented" events now being attributed to CC without a reliable basis of comparison.

Finally, I log onto CF where a bunch of people tell me I must be a "denier," and that to be an "acceptor" I should only look at information and websites that support the alarmist view of CC, in other words that they specifically approve of. And whatever I do, never look HERE!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

And here we go again, disappearing down the plughole of myth and unsubstantiated rumour...

Skeptical Science DOES reference the actual scientific papers on which it relies for it's debunking of denialist bumf.


Roy Shreyer is the LEAST credible so-called, self-determined 'expert' on AGW.


You might even say he was the Chief Denialist, and is not credible, in any reasonable assessment, as a believable commentator on AGW.


You WILL note that I said 'unaware readers' could learn something by reading the science and links to primary sources on the Skeptical Science website.


I am under no illusions that any denialist moron would gain anything from visiting it.



To be a denialist automatically self-describes one as of lower and lesser intelligence than the average.


There is NOTHING to deny.


The consensus is not 97% of credible sources, it is 100%.


Read the IPCC Report. It's all in there.


All that is left to argue over is what measures we WILL take, WHEN and WHO pays.


There is no point whatsover becoming bogged down arguing semantics.

I'm calling time on this ping pong game. Thanks for playing.

Sounds like it's either my way or the highway Buzz. Too bad. And it's Spencer, not Shreyer, which only proves what I figured -- you've never done your homework and learned about his important work. Instead, you've taken the easy path of accusing those who disagree with you as unworthy and worse. FYI, Spencer is a former high level official at NASA, and is now a university prof who now runs the highly respected satellite program which has recorded atmospheric temps since 1979. What did you say your credentials were again?

[Buzzman]

SeanPatrick - I use the term "settled" to mean "beyond reasonable doubt".


As Gord pointed out (and I agree) no science is ever "100% certain" (except for a few mathematical propositions, but let's not quible), but there is 'enough' certainty, and the body of evidence continues to grow, confirming the initial hypotheses, around AGW.


Quibbling over whether 'certainty' means one thing or another is mere semantics, and can fairly safely be ignored for the purposes of a general discussion.


Those who accept the science, accept the small possibility for errors. The 'uncertainty'.



Those who deny seek out only the miniscule 'errors' and 'uncertainties' and attempt to conflate those into a thesis of objection.


But having to constantly 'qualify' every statement or comment to make it 100% accurate as per scientific practice only plays into the hands of the denialists, who point to the 'ifs'; buts' and 'maybe's' as "evidence" the science is not 'settled'.


The global temperature IS rising. It IS largely being driven by anthropomorphic forcings (human greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation).


Equally CERTAIN is that, while 'largely' being driven by anthropomorphic forcings, there are also certain natural forcings that are in feedback loops with the AGW forcings.


Equally CERTAIN is that without the AGW forcings, the *natural* forcings would not be contributing the rate of rise we are seeing. Historical climate change horizons (i.e. geological time scale climate change events) occurred over millenia, multiple millenia, thus enabling earth's organisms to adapt via natural selection.


What we will create (if we don't wake up to ourselves and do something about it) is most probably a catastrophic species extinction event to rival that of the dinosaur extinction event.


It will probably wipe us out as well. The very LEAST we can expect is for the world to look, very, very different, in ways we can only - thus far - imagine.


It will be interesting to see the reaction of Africa and her peoples, to the forced southern migration of the Europeans, if the worst case scenarios do, indeed, come to pass.

I look at Brexit and the attitudes to migrants in Europe today and ruminate on the possibilities.


Just glad I'll be long gone by then!

[SeanPatrick]

I think that if everyone could agree on the following:

1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans play an uncertain but non-negligible role in that.
3. We need to try to find more responsible energy sources.
4. Our responses need to be reasonable, viable and continually adjusted to accommodate new data.

... then we could call that at least a "semi-consensus". And I think [hope] that very few people here would disagree with any of that.

[jordanbigel]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I'm staying skeptical and agnostic to AGW/CC until it's proponents put forward a practicable replacement for the existing power system.

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard from a science-denier, you are literally saying that you won't agree to say you believe in the cause of the problem until someone (proponents? proponents?) - someone, anyone, comes up with a solution.

In your own words. What kind of person says this with a straight face? Are you seriously that unaware? Do you just pour words into the keyboard without thinking about what you are saying?

[jordanbigel]

Originally Posted by Elleroo

The reef problems started way before the global warming situation became an issue with people trying to make headlines and money.

Wrong again. Like everything you have said in this thread.

Global warming started decades and decades ago. The fact that you have never recognized that fact is meaningless. Scientists have been measuring and tracking global warming since I was a teenager in the 70s. You may not have memories of that.

Also, there is only 1 reason anyone wants to make headlines about global warming, to try to convince people to take this **** seriously.

You are also mistaken that there is any financial motive behind scientists who try to raise awareness about climate change. Your whinging nonstop about it is also meaningless, you know nothing about what motivates scientists, climate or otherwise, you don't even know any scientists and have never bothered to try and learn what motivates them beyond your facile, childish, absurdist theory that its all about the money. I find people who only think about how to scam other people often believe that everyone in the world is trying to scam each other, so why would they believe scientists are any different? Well if this sounds like you, you are also wrong about that - everyone is not out to scam each other (some are) and scientists are not motivated by money.

Have a nice day.

[Buzzman]

To add insult to injury, he's not saying until someone comes up with a solution to AGW, he's specifically saying when someone comes up with a replacement for the exsiting power system.

Now, given that several organisations have posited that we can be 100% renewable, and that science and industry keeps putting into place the very infrastructure that is required to achieve that, then it becomes clear this is just a 'stalling ploy'.

"Do nothing" is no longer an option, as the latest IPCC report makes abundantly clear. If we don't get the 'net zero by 2050 target' a long way forward before 2030, it will not be possible to limit the temp rise to 1.5degC.

In other words, we can't wait till 2025, or 2030, or 2045 to begin to make these deep cuts.

We need to do it NOW.

I started 10 years ago......when will YOU start..???

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by jordanbigel

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard from a science-denier, you are literally saying that you won't agree to say you believe in the cause of the problem until someone (proponents? proponents?) - someone, anyone, comes up with a solution.

In your own words. What kind of person says this with a straight face? Are you seriously that unaware? Do you just pour words into the keyboard without thinking about what you are saying?

I'm a heavy ponderer and a big range of issues mate although I will admit to succumbing to the imp of the perverse occasionally and a resultant turning over of the ordure.

Perhaps there is no CO2 driven greenhouse effect at work and any discernible atmospheric heat rise is purely because we are pouring massive amounts of heat into it with our power stations, IC engines, air conditioning systems, blast furnaces etc and the radiation of all this extra heat into space has not yet stabilized.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Perhaps there is no CO2 driven greenhouse effect at work and any discernible atmospheric heat rise is purely because we are pouring massive amounts of heat into it with our power stations, IC engines, air conditioning systems, blast furnaces etc and the radiation of all this extra heat into space has not yet stabilized.

Ummm, actually, no.

While the additional heat produced by pygmy human efforts is not inconsiderable, it pales into insignificance compared to the volume of radiation from the Sun that hits (and warms) the Earth constantly.

Remember, when it's nightime here, the sun is stillbeaming down on the other 'side' of the planet, so we get it 24/7/365.

The whole point of the 'greenhouse' hypothesis (now confirmed) was that the reason life was ABLE to occur on this planet was due to that very same 'greenhouse' effect - caused, it was posited in the mid 19th Century, by the CO2 in the atmosphere reflecting back some of the radiation and thus warming the planet and it's atmosphere, making life possible.

What has since been confirmed (and re-confirmed ad infinitum) is that there is more than one 'greenhouse gas', that CO2 is the dominant one, that methane is 20 times worse (but thankfully not as long lived as CO2) and that it is our 'human activities' (i.e. burning fossil fuels) that has drastically increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which, in turn, has dramatically increased the rate at which the earth's temp is rising.

I suspect the main problem for most deniers is they simply can't get their heads around the scale. One-point-five degrees? Pah. Daily temps vary by ten times that. She'll be right! Or, waddya mean 100mm of sea level rise? How's that going to hurt anybody?

The issue is one of scale. 1.5degC temp rise, all the time, has a 'forcing effect' on weather and climate. The more we go over 1.5, the worse this will become. Droughts will be longer, if that's possible! Storms more severe. Etc etc etc...

If we were already seeing 1m sea level rises in, say Sydney Harbour, Circular Quay would be under water every high tide, like Venice's St Marks Square. This is a possibility if we don't get the temp rise under control, or at least limit it.

So what, the deniers say, they cope, so will we! But millions of people won't, as a 1m sea level rise would inundate much of the most densely populated parts of the world, especially in the Asia and the Pacific, leading to mass migrations to higher lands, thereby displacing the people already there.

It's not like we have a Planet B we can send all these 'climate refugees' to!

If only it were that simple.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

To add insult to injury, he's not saying until someone comes up with a solution to AGW, he's specifically saying when someone comes up with a replacement for the exsiting power system.

We've had a non CO2 producing power generation system for decades now, the French get most of their power from it.

Now, given that several organisations have posited that we can be 100% renewable, and that science and industry keeps putting into place the very infrastructure that is required to achieve that, then it becomes clear this is just a 'stalling ploy'.

I've lived on a boat for 20 years now with wind and solar as my primary power source and spent a small fortune on batteries. Sit down and do the maths. We would not be 1/4 of the way to building enough storage before we had to start replacing it. And I've removed the wind generator because it's useless and I don't want to worry about what it's up to on the are occasions when the wind really blows.

"Do nothing" is no longer an option, as the latest IPCC report makes abundantly clear. If we don't get the 'net zero by 2050 target' a long way forward before 2030, it will not be possible to limit the temp rise to 1.5degC.

Whilst Asian countries will go on burning coal and building soal fired power systems to cancel out any reductions western countries might achieve whilst putting wrecking balls through their economies.

In other words, we can't wait till 2025, or 2030, or 2045 to begin to make these deep cuts.

We need to do it NOW.

I started 10 years ago......when will YOU start..???

And I started living on the boat twenty years ago so I started twice as long ago as you.

Get real mate, it's a giant scam, as the bloke said "follow the money" and you'll see what it all about.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Took me no more than 5 mins to find the articles & studies catalogued in WUWT. Read any? Care to post, analyze, find contrary opinions, and then argue which opinions are correct and why? No, didn't think so. You just find what best suits your personal opinion and agenda, and then berate anyone who challenges. You can still advocate for what you believe is right without ignoring, dismissing, or otherwise trying to suppress anything to the contrary. Again, if your evidence is beyond any possible dispute then what are you afraid of?

This thread is supposed to be about the GBR, or at least about reef ecology in general. Why don't you post a sampling from WUWT that pertains to coral ecology? Preferably recent, and preferably not by Ridd -- just so that we'll know there is more than one reef expert in the world that feels all is well.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

...But rather than endorse or denigrate one publication over another, why not go right to the [primary sources] articles & studies written by scientists themselves that are contained therein? ...

Indeed.


When we do, we see that: It's warming. It's us. We're sure.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sounds like it's either my way or the highway Buzz. Too bad. And it's Spencer, not Shreyer, which only proves what I figured -- you've never done your homework and learned about his important work. Instead, you've taken the easy path of accusing those who disagree with you as unworthy and worse. FYI, Spencer is a former high level official at NASA, and is now a university prof who now runs the highly respected satellite program which has recorded atmospheric temps since 1979. What did you say your credentials were again?

NO, Spencer does not run ANY satellite program. NASA operates the satellites and provides the raw data. Spencer (as well as other groups) analyze the data.

And NO, he is not "highly respected." Early in his temperature analysis career he made a number of significant mistakes, which the scientific community had to correct.


More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates