Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

...Quick now, what could possibly be the (heavily documented) common global cause of tropical species (aquatic and terrrestrial, floral and faunal) expanding their ranges polewards in both directions?

Originally Posted by StuM

Emergence from the Little Ice Age?
Species returning to the ranges they occupied during previous Holocene climate optima?

La, La, La is exactly right, for this dangerous total misinformation is either a deliberate conflation or an example of an apparently hopeless failure to understand either the concept of time, logic, or even the scientific terms tossed blindly about.

A clue for the clueless. Both of the supposed 'explanations' are either local phenomena, have less warming happening over an exponentially longer period, are subject to interpretation bias (as always) and have nothing to do with the unprecedentedly rapid (and accelerating) global migration of tropical species poleward seen in the last few decades.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SailOar

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...

Scientists [at RSS & UAH etc.*] process NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] data [1], applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.

[1] Satellites are used to measure electromagnetic radiation, in the atmosphere, after which the temperature of the various layers of the atmosphere is derived, using a complex algorithm.

* Lower (TLT), where we live - and mid-troposphere temperature (TMT) estimates, from various groups:
Group: TMT Trend (°C/decade) - TLT Trend (°C/decade)
UAH: 0.05 - 0.14
RSS: 0.09 - 0.14
** et al: 0.13 - xx
V & G: xx - 0.20
Zou et al: 0.13 - xx
RATPAC: xx - 0.18

Dr. Roy Spenser, the University of Alabama in Huntsville [UAH], in his own words:
“... The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans*, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)...”
➥ https://www.drroyspencer.com/
➥https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-...-temperatures/

Only about 2%, of the global energy imbalance, goes into warming the atmosphere; whereas over 90% goes into warming the oceans.
* The Remote Sensing Systems [RSS], for instance, estimates the warming trend @ 0.089 C/Decade over oceans.

[Buzzman]

Raymond R your constant denial of facts, and wilful ignorance, are becoming tediously repetitive, and frankly, just boring.

So the French and Japan and US have some nukes. Whoopee do! Solar is already cheaper than them per kWh, so NO-ONE is going to build new nuke plants (except maybe China 'cause they do whatever the **** they like), so never mind the fact that nukes are NOT "renewable" - which is the KEY word - not just 'do not produce CO2'.

This is yet another 'red herring argument. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

So you've lived on a boat for 20 years and still haven't figured out how not to kill SLA batteries? Proper pin up boy you are.

Never mind that modern LFP tech is vastly superior, and once every house has one, we will barely need any overnight generation.

Virtual Power Plants will bridge the gap till everyone has one, so that your neighbours will provide the power you need at night, till you can afford to get your own battery set up.

Australia has something over 2 million domestic solar PV arrays - the fastest take up in the OECD - and it's not slowing. The 'smart money' is voting with its feet.

As to the claim 'Asia will keep building coal-fired power plants', the stats on this already show that the worst protagonist, China's, number of new and in pipeline coal-fired generators has slowed. Essentially they are completing what's part built, and have pushed their 'net zero' date out to 2060 so they can get ROI on those, but they are also the largest (and increasing) installer of new solar - in the world.

They may be the 'manufacturing hub' of the planet's economic system, but when EU implements it's 'coal ban' they will have to very quickly toe the line, or they will not be able to sell anything into the EU.

We have a unique opportunity here to get ahead of the curve and be a net exporter of 'green power' and we are squandering it thanks to dim-witted, slow-thinking effwits in Canberra who cannot see this is not a burden but an opportunity.

What we are about to enter is the 'transition phase' from fossil fuel generation to nuclear fusion generation.

Sadly, science hasn't got to grips with fusion right at the point we need it. So we must transition to alternate renewable energy sources until such time as this final bridge is crossed.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

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!

This coming from an Aussie has me rolling on the floor clutching my stomach..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Raymond R your constant denial of facts, and wilful ignorance, are becoming tediously repetitive, and frankly, just boring.

So the French and Japan and US have some nukes. Whoopee do! Solar is already cheaper than them per kWh, so NO-ONE is going to build new nuke plants (except maybe China 'cause they do whatever the **** they like), so never mind the fact that nukes are NOT "renewable" - which is the KEY word - not just 'do not produce CO2'.

This is yet another 'red herring argument. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

So you've lived on a boat for 20 years and still haven't figured out how not to kill SLA batteries? Proper pin up boy you are.

Never mind that modern LFP tech is vastly superior, and once every house has one, we will barely need any overnight generation.

Virtual Power Plants will bridge the gap till everyone has one, so that your neighbours will provide the power you need at night, till you can afford to get your own battery set up.

Australia has something over 2 million domestic solar PV arrays - the fastest take up in the OECD - and it's not slowing. The 'smart money' is voting with its feet.

As to the claim 'Asia will keep building coal-fired power plants', the stats on this already show that the worst protagonist, China's, number of new and in pipeline coal-fired generators has slowed. Essentially they are completing what's part built, and have pushed their 'net zero' date out to 2060 so they can get ROI on those, but they are also the largest (and increasing) installer of new solar - in the world.

They may be the 'manufacturing hub' of the planet's economic system, but when EU implements it's 'coal ban' they will have to very quickly toe the line, or they will not be able to sell anything into the EU.

We have a unique opportunity here to get ahead of the curve and be a net exporter of 'green power' and we are squandering it thanks to dim-witted, slow-thinking effwits in Canberra who cannot see this is not a burden but an opportunity.

What we are about to enter is the 'transition phase' from fossil fuel generation to nuclear fusion generation.

Sadly, science hasn't got to grips with fusion right at the point we need it. So we must transition to alternate renewable energy sources until such time as this final bridge is crossed.

You seem ignorant of other transitional sources of energy. Natural gas is the only proven one, and since the fracking boom it has resulted in the US lowering its overall fossil fuel emissions -- including CO2 -- more than any other single nation and at about the same percentage as the entire EU. (need a cite for this?) Still a fossil fuel, albeit a much cleaner one, but there's no magic bullet and every alternative has its trade-offs. It's much cheaper, of course, which is anathema to those who think we can further burden working people who will continue to have to rely on fossil fuels to earn a living until realistic alternatives come online.

As for your fantasy of a continent carpeted with solar panels from sea to shining sea, you should at least be aware of thoughtful environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger who take a more rational and therefore responsible approach. His views are, of course, not without criticism, some seemingly more justified than others, with the alarmists leading the charge to dismiss, ignore, label, bully, and otherwise suppress just like you're doing here. I'm not qualified to judge, but do believe he's one of several important voices worthy of a hearing in a world full of conformity, extremism, and non-critical thinking.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by 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.

AGREED! Okay, there's one.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Raymond R your constant denial of facts, and wilful ignorance, are becoming tediously repetitive, and frankly, just boring.

I'm trying to be patient with you but your lack of objectivity and continuous resort to personal vilification makes it tough.

So the French and Japan and US have some nukes. Whoopee do! Solar is already cheaper than them per kWh, so NO-ONE is going to build new nuke plants (except maybe China 'cause they do whatever the **** they like), so never mind the fact that nukes are NOT "renewable" - which is the KEY word - not just 'do not produce CO2'.

This is yet another 'red herring argument. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

So it's not about the manner of production and distribution of electrical power it's about praying at the alter of "renewables"

So you've lived on a boat for 20 years and still haven't figured out how not to kill SLA batteries? Proper pin up boy you are.

I'll offer you a clue about batteries mate, they don't have an infinite life they tend to have a limited number of cycles which means that if you charge/discharge them every day they wear out.

Never mind that modern LFP tech is vastly superior, and once every house has one, we will barely need any overnight generation.

Virtual Power Plants will bridge the gap till everyone has one, so that your neighbours will provide the power you need at night, till you can afford to get your own battery set up.

The "renewables" economics tend to rapidly go to hell in a hand basket once every householder start replacing $40,000 worth of batteries every five years.

Australia has something over 2 million domestic solar PV arrays - the fastest take up in the OECD - and it's not slowing. The 'smart money' is voting with its feet.

With rhe massive assistance of a massive amount of taxpayer money.

As to the claim 'Asia will keep building coal-fired power plants', the stats on this already show that the worst protagonist, China's, number of new and in pipeline coal-fired generators has slowed. Essentially they are completing what's part built, and have pushed their 'net zero' date out to 2060 so they can get ROI on those, but they are also the largest (and increasing) installer of new solar - in the world.

Wow, you believe a statistic out of China. Would you like to buy a bridge mate.

They may be the 'manufacturing hub' of the planet's economic system, but when EU implements it's 'coal ban' they will have to very quickly toe the line, or they will not be able to sell anything into the EU.

Aha, the old EU protectionism and tax grab rort.

We have a unique opportunity here to get ahead of the curve and be a net exporter of 'green power' and we are squandering it thanks to dim-witted, slow-thinking effwits in Canberra who cannot see this is not a burden but an opportunity.

Thank god there are folks in Canberra not yet completely sold on the "renewables" scam and you can't export dreams and get people to pay money for them (Well unless yoi'tr Walt Disney)

What we are about to enter is the 'transition phase' from fossil fuel generation to nuclear fusion generation.

Have they even achieved "break even"yet?

Sadly, science hasn't got to grips with fusion right at the point we need it. So we must transition to alternate renewable energy sources until such time as this final bridge is crossed.

Fusion is in the same place it was 50 years ago, 50 years in the future.

[GordMay]

Renewable energy brings environmental, social and economic benefits. According to a recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), if we double renewable energy's current share in the global energy mix, global gross domestic product (GDP) would increase by as much as 1.1 percent, or approximately $1.3 trillion, by 2030.

Thanks to a precipitous decline in generation costs, the last few years have seen much of the world undergo a concerted transition towards renewable-energy sources, and away from fossil fuels.
Indeed, the costs for renewable-energy technologies have continued to achieve new lows with every passing year. But it has only been recently that the likes of solar and wind have become cost-competitive with fossil-fuel-based power generation.
Renewable energy is now comparable with the cost of building new coal and nuclear capacity. Existing, older power plants already have the capital investment sunk, so they are cheaper, but many of these plants are reaching retirement ages.

Then, there’s also the inescapable cost[s] to bear, of not switching to renewable energy, that can’t be ignored.



See also:
“Faster Than You Think: Renewable Energy and Developing Countries” ~ by Channing Arndt et al [June 10, 2019]
➥ https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/**...-100518-093759

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Exclaiming that there's no pressure to conform in the climate science world doesn't make it true, and boldly stating there have been no firings, threats of firings, other means of suppressing indpt research, studies and ideas doesn't mean it's not happening.

One of the classics of denialism. As per my prior post, the hallmarks are
F.L.I.C.C.
Fake experts
Logical fallacies
Impossible expectations
Cherry picking
Conspiracy theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5...nce_denial.svg

Here we have a version of the Conspiracy theory - that there is a vast scientific conspiracy suppressing contrary views. It is utter paranoid nonsense.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your #2 is really odd. If you instead said "sufficiently established and significant", then I would be with you.

[Reefmagnet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wAzioGmV88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbdvI72ZbRc

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

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.

Good points, Buzzman. And lest we forget, the deniers are bizarrely and inexplicably confident about only one end of the uncertainty argument. They endlessly rant that climate science is possibly overestimating the anthropogenic impacts. But the most rudimentary knowledge of probability and the scientific method would lead them to recognize that it is equally possible that they are underestimating the effects. But this they never mention.

This rubbish about "the science isn't certain" has nothing do with science. It is instead their fundamental zealotry that AGW can't possibly be true. They wrap it into pseudo-scientific and statistical nonsense like a squid inks the water - hoping their opponent will get confused and misdirected.

It is the "I" of FLICC - Impossible expectations. Also known as the nirvana fallacy. A rhetorical trick - too clever by half - to compare reality to an abstract ideal to then conclude that it is inadequate. Nothing measures up to the ideal and thus it serves their purpose - which is to deny.

[Buzzman]

I totally agree.

Personally, I hope they are right, and the scientific modelling is completely wrong and, like the "Millenium Bug" this whole AGW debate ends up being a storm in a teacup...

Sadly, the evidence - and the probability - means this outcome is highly unlikley.


I not, again, the Cherry picking of a couple of short videos of the few remaining vibrant areas of the GBR.

I know people personally - actual real people - who work on the reef and they confirm that parts of it are stuffed, and that the bleaching events of a few years ago were devastating.

I wish they were wrong, but they arent. So very sad.

The problem is one of lack of moral authority.


It's like the church bureacrats who denied for years that there were any pedos in the church, while shuffling self-same pedos from district to district whenever a complaint was made...


Zero moral authority.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Please, keep posting this nonsense - it severely undermines any pretense that your arguments are in any way serious. You hit the jackpot! These newsreels hit all of the denier FLICC highpoints!

F. Fake experts and a grossly magnified minority view. As the commentator said - he looks forward to talking with Ridd again soon (he will need to, because so few scientists will smile and nod to the nonsense he spews).
L. Logical fallacies - because a few rich people fly in airplanes invalidates their views on AGW.
I. Impossible expectations - criticizing the IPCC report as not being a "proper scientific document". Of course it isn't - it is a policy document white paper.
C. Cherry picking - finding a few studies that might be incorrect, labeling them as being "100% wrong" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then ignoring the enormous body of rigorous science that supports AGW.
C. Conspiracy theories - there is a inexplicable conspiracy by Australian scientific bodies to suppress the truth and not support contrary views.

This is all so predictable and pathetic.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Elleroo

No-one's mentioned Greta Thunberg? Those pushing her need to be prosecuted for child abuse of an autistic teenager

Well, no, actually. No one on this thread has stooped so low as to do that.

Oops, I guess you just did.