Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You've brought up the Holocene a few times. Yes a period when the planet's climate was a bit warmer than the present (sans AGW).

But there are key differences:

• the Holocene wasn't caused by the release of sequestered carbon
• the Holocene changes came on over a much longer period than the ~150 years of the current warming from AGW. And the current rate of increase will not slow down without taking action.
• there's a few more of us than there was back then
• many parts of the planet's biosphere are already under stress from other causes

Hopefully, it's not that hard to see that, even though some warming might be seen as locally beneficial in some places, "instant" Holocene is going to be a net negative overall, causing or accelerating extinctions, more weather extremes and hardships... and for what - another few decades of cheap dirty fuel?

Maybe you'd like to find out what the Holocene is before pontificating.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

This is the abstract. It bears little resemblance to your edited fantasy-world claim "Which is absolutely normal behaviour for..."

That is neither edited nor fantasy and was not intended as a quote from the Abstract.

It is an observation based on personally gained knowledge of reef behaviour from decades of living around coral reefs.
How many decades have you been living around and observing extensive coral reefs?

[GordMay]

Even the coral reef at Bikini Atol has shown remarkable recovery, after 23 atomic bombs were dropped on it, during the 1950s.
Studies shows that coral reefs can recover from profound damage — when humans leave them alone.

'Quite odd': coral and fish thrive on Bikini Atoll 70 years after nuclear tests [2017]
The former island paradise of Bikini Atoll is slowing blooming back to life, 70 years after the United States dropped 23 nuclear bombs on it, including a device in 1954 that was 1,100-times larger than the Hiroshima atom bomb.
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-nuclear-tests

“Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing” ~ by Zoe T. Richards et al [2008]
➥ https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Vi...resilience.pdf

"What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today" [2017]
➥ https://stanfordmag.org/contents/wha...oks-like-today

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Even the coral reef at Bikini Atol has shown remarkable recovery, after 23 atomic bombs were dropped on it, during the 1950s.
Studies shows that coral reefs can recover from profound damage — when humans leave them alone.

'Quite odd': coral and fish thrive on Bikini Atoll 70 years after nuclear tests [2017]
The former island paradise of Bikini Atoll is slowing blooming back to life, 70 years after the United States dropped 23 nuclear bombs on it, including a device in 1954 that was 1,100-times larger than the Hiroshima atom bomb.
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-nuclear-tests

“Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing” ~ by Zoe T. Richards et al [2008]
➥ https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Vi...resilience.pdf

"What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today" [2017]
➥ https://stanfordmag.org/contents/wha...oks-like-today

Uh-oh . . . more good news. You must really enjoy pissing people off.

[boatman61]

https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_f...that_ACO2.html

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_f...that_ACO2.html

What percentage of CO2 emissions come from human activity? ~ by an anonymous blogger
“... Carbon Dioxide has NEVER stayed "still" at anytime in the history of the planet. Percentages have varied in the past 2000 years from 0.019% to as high as 0.04% (Beck 2008 [1] and Vostok record) ...”

180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Measurement By Chemical Methods ~ by Ernst-Georg Beck
➥ https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions...2_chemical.pdf

COMMENT ON "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC C02 GAS. ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" BY ERNST-GEORG BECK ~ by Ralph E. Keeling
➥ https://www.jstor.org/stable/44397310

[StuM]

Dayyum!
Once again, I've been sucked into trying to reason with the eternal doomsters who virulently reject any fact that conflicts with their apocalyptic vision.

It's like trying to reason with a believer in L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction disguised as religion. Only in this case, it's religion disguised as science.

Time for me to take a break again.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Maybe you'd like to find out what the Holocene is before pontificating.

It would certainly help, yes. My bad. Thanks for helping.

But the point stands. You're referring to a period of relatively recent geologic history in which the temperatures were a bit warmer... somewhat like what we're facing... and implying that it won't be so bad.

So... try #2 with this correction re the Holocene:

...there are key differences:

• [that past warming] wasn't caused by the release of sequestered carbon
• [that past warming] came on over a much longer period than the ~150 years of the current warming from AGW. And the current rate of increase will not slow down without taking action.
• there's a few more of us than there was back then
• many parts of the planet's biosphere are already under stress from other causes

Hopefully, it's not that hard to see that, even though some warming might be seen as locally beneficial in some places, the current, much more rapid warming is going to be a net negative overall, causing or accelerating extinctions, more weather extremes and hardships... and for what - another few decades of cheap dirty fuel?

[RaymondR]

Folks we've done the Great Barrier Reef to death pretty well in this thread and it's getting a bit repetitive so maybe we could move on to reefs in other parts of the world which are under stress and look at the situation is there in comparison to Australia.

East Asia perhaps.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by boatman61

https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_f...that_ACO2.html

Originally Posted by StuM

Dayyum!
Once again, I've been sucked into trying to reason with the eternal doomsters who virulently reject any fact that conflicts with their apocalyptic vision.

It's like trying to reason with a believer in L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction disguised as religion. Only in this case, it's religion disguised as science.

Time for me to take a break again.

It's not clear what point Boatman was attempting to make in posting this link, nor can I discern the source of StuM's self-righteous smugness -- though I do agree with him that it is past time for him to take a break.

The link that Boatman posted is part of an article by Ralph Keeling (son of the famous scientist Dr Charles Keeling of the Keeling Curve -- see below) arguing that Ernst-Georg Beck was mistaken in claiming that the variability of CO2 measurements in various places around the world implied that CO2 levels have not been rising since the start of the industrial revolution.



One of the links that GordMay posted (thanks, as always, Gord), which was from someone's blog, suggested that the Antarctic Vostok ice cores showed wildly varying CO2 levels in the last 2000 years. I've not been able to corroborate those assertions, and therefore consider them suspect.


http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice...-co2-time-lag/


https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trend..._core_co2.html


https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"The Keeling Curve is a graph of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii from 1958 to the present day.... The Keeling curve is one of the most important scientific works of the 20th century.[2] Many scientists credit the Keeling curve with first bringing the world's attention to the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Mauna Loa was chosen as the primary site for taking samples of atmospheric CO2 because it is very isolated from point sources of CO2, and thus represents a good average of CO2 levels globally. The Keeling Curve shows how CO2 levels have risen very steadily over the past 60+ years.

This figure shows the history of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as directly measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii since 1958. This curve is known as the Keeling curve, and is an essential piece of evidence of the man-made increases in greenhouse gases that are believed to be the cause of global warming. The longest such record exists at Mauna Loa, but these measurements have been independently confirmed at many other sites around the world [1]. The annual fluctuation in carbon dioxide is caused by seasonal variations in carbon dioxide uptake by land plants. Since many more forests are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, more carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere during Northern Hemisphere summer than Southern Hemisphere summer. This annual cycle is shown in the inset figure by taking the average concentration for each month across all measured years. The red curve shows the average monthly concentrations, and blue curve is a smoothed trend.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Even the coral reef at Bikini Atol has shown remarkable recovery, after 23 atomic bombs were dropped on it, during the 1950s.
Studies shows that coral reefs can recover from profound damage — when humans leave them alone.

'Quite odd': coral and fish thrive on Bikini Atoll 70 years after nuclear tests [2017]
The former island paradise of Bikini Atoll is slowing blooming back to life, 70 years after the United States dropped 23 nuclear bombs on it, including a device in 1954 that was 1,100-times larger than the Hiroshima atom bomb.
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-nuclear-tests

“Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing” ~ by Zoe T. Richards et al [2008]
➥ https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Vi...resilience.pdf

"What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today" [2017]
➥ https://stanfordmag.org/contents/wha...oks-like-today

Oh please, be serious. Recovery of a reef from atomic testing has nothing to do with ACC reef damage. This is just a gratuitous provocation to detract from a climate debate.
Or maybe you are making a more general point - that atomic blasts are really fine for the environment after all and we should be as blasé about them as you are about ACC?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

Dayyum!
Once again, I've been sucked into trying to reason with the eternal doomsters who virulently reject any fact that conflicts with their apocalyptic vision.

It's like trying to reason with a believer in L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction disguised as religion. Only in this case, it's religion disguised as science.

Time for me to take a break again.

Really sad post. Stu seems to be telling us he can't distinguish climate science from religion. OK, I can accept that that is what he thinks, but if so, he is completely unqualified to have opinions on it.
Completely.
Unqualified.

I'll say it again: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Oh please, be serious. Recovery of a reef from atomic testing has nothing to do with ACC reef damage. This is just a gratuitous provocation to detract from a climate debate.
Or maybe you are making a more general point - that atomic blasts are really fine for the environment after all and we should be as blasé about them as you are about ACC?

Originally Posted by lestersails

Really sad post. Stu seems to be telling us he can't distinguish climate science from religion. OK, I can accept that that is what he thinks, but if so, he is completely unqualified to have opinions on it.
Completely.
Unqualified.

I'll say it again: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion."

Gord blasé about climate change and Stu unqualified. Huh. I can certainly see why you believe your opinions are so much better informed than others. I sure wish other people would heed your's and Leonardo's advice and stop allowing their obviously uninformed opinions to deceive them.

Speaking of which, is it really true that CC is responsible for the Delta variant? I thought now that we were beyond the Holocene Epoch we wouldn't have to worry. Hopefully it will become extinct like all those other species so obviously suffering from cheap, dirty fossil fuels. Should we ask Professor Rudd Ridd these issues about AGM AGC ACC MMGW MMCC climate change, or is he not a real scientist?

Thanks Lester, for bringing such entertainment informed opinion to this debate.

[Reefmagnet]

Did I read that right? Was Gord just accused of being a climate denier?



The temperature in Hell must have just dropped below zero!

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I'll say it again: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion."

You left off the end of the quote, not sure if it was intentional or not, but it does add context.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."

Here's another by the same author that seems apropos.

“In my ugly, elitist opinion we are not all entitled to voice our opinions, we are entitled to pass along our informed opinions.”