• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fixation on CO2 results in bad science again. Corral reefs.

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
'Huge wake up call': Third of central, northern Great Barrier Reef corals dead



Professor Hughes said he did not advocate the reef being put on the "in danger" list by the World Heritage Committee, but it was time governments reconsidered their approval for massive new coal mines in Queensland's Galilee Basin and elsewhere.

"The key threat to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change – the government has recognised that many times," he said.

I could not get the map to copy. Please have a look at it.

The damage seems to be greatest around Cooktown. The hotter waters to the North seem less damaged.

The fixation on climate change and CO2 will stop decent research being done. The cause is obviously not warming/CO2, if this was the case then the hotter waters would show the trouble first. To research this with the culprit already chosen is to not do science but to follow the latest religion of AGW.

We should be looking closely at this, it is a significant problem, but with open minds which have not already chosen the answer.
 
Wow... did you even bother to read the article you linked to or did you just look at the pictures?

From the very beginning of that article:

More than one-third of the coral reefs of the central and northern regions of the Great Barrier Reef have died in the huge bleaching event earlier this year, Queensland researchers said.

Corals to the north of Cairns – covering about two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef – were found to have an average mortality rate of 35 per cent, rising to more than half in areas around Cooktown.
Researchers inspected 84 reefs and found coral mortality rates of 50 per cent or more in the north of the Great Barrier Reef.

The study, of 84 reefs along the reef, found corals south of Cairns had escaped the worst of the bleaching and were now largely recovering any colour that had been lost.

So... it is not obvious that warming/CO2 isn't the cause.
 
So... it is not obvious that warming/CO2 isn't the cause.

Is it obvious the CO2/warming is the cause?

No matter what happens, the alarmists blames it on CO2. Time and again, other causes were found to be the real reason.

What seems to apply is the story "The boy who called wolf." If it doesn't apply, well... the alarmists simply put themselves in that category.
 
'Huge wake up call': Third of central, northern Great Barrier Reef corals dead





I could not get the map to copy. Please have a look at it.

The damage seems to be greatest around Cooktown. The hotter waters to the North seem less damaged.

The fixation on climate change and CO2 will stop decent research being done. The cause is obviously not warming/CO2, if this was the case then the hotter waters would show the trouble first. To research this with the culprit already chosen is to not do science but to follow the latest religion of AGW.

We should be looking closely at this, it is a significant problem, but with open minds which have not already chosen the answer.

Some scientists consider bleaching a poorly-understood type of "stress" related to high irradiance; environmental factors like sediments, harmful chemicals and freshwater; and high or low water temperatures.[1] This "stress" causes corals to expel their zooxanthellae, which leads to a lighter or completely white appearance, hence the term "bleached".[2] Bleaching has been attributed to a defense mechanism in corals; this is called the "adaptive bleaching hypothesis", from a 1993 paper by Robert Buddemeier and Daphne Fautin.[3] Bleached corals continue to live, but growth is limited until the protozoa return.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

I ask you to pay particular attention to the words in RED
 
Wow... did you even bother to read the article you linked to or did you just look at the pictures?

From the very beginning of that article:



So... it is not obvious that warming/CO2 isn't the cause.

Have you looked at the map? If it was that corral could not thrive in warmer waters then the problem should be concentrated in the warmest waters surely?

That the cause has been decieded before any research has happened is totally unscientific.
 
Is it obvious the CO2/warming is the cause?

Not necessarily... at least to me. I'm not one of the people who collected and analyzed the data. But one of the scientists who did seems to think so.

No matter what happens, the alarmists blames it on CO2. Time and again, other causes were found to be the real reason.

While this may be the case with some situations, neither you nor Tim have shown that this is true here.

What seems to apply is the story "The boy who called wolf." If it doesn't apply, well... the alarmists simply put themselves in that category.

Some people who generally stick to real science might be called a skeptic. But what makes one a denialist is when they push and/or defend unscientific BS like what Tim is pushing here.

Have you looked at the map? If it was that corral could not thrive in warmer waters then the problem should be concentrated in the warmest waters surely?

Your making the assumption that the further north the water is the higher the water temp will be. While this is probably true for the most part in the southern hemisphere that doesn't mean it will be true everywhere. And even if it is the case here there could be other factors besides water temps that could have bleached more of the corals around Cooktown. Either way you don't have enough data to to claim that warming/CO2 is not the cause.

That the cause has been decieded before any research has happened is totally unscientific.

This story is based on a study. So research has been done. Your the one making declarative statements without doing any real research. Your the one making unscientific statements.
 
Your making the assumption that the further north the water is the higher the water temp will be. While this is probably true for the most part in the southern hemisphere that doesn't mean it will be true everywhere. And even if it is the case here there could be other factors besides water temps that could have bleached more of the corals around Cooktown. Either way you don't have enough data to to claim that warming/CO2 is not the cause.

I don't have any data to say that it's not CO2/warming except that it has not actually warmed up.

I also am unable to refute their mechanism where they explain how CO2/none-existant warming causes bleaching because they have not actually put forward that mechanism.
 
I don't have any data to say that it's not CO2/warming except that it has not actually warmed up.

If you don't have any data then how can you state there is no warming? Do you realize how stupid that statement is?

I also am unable to refute their mechanism where they explain how CO2/none-existant warming causes bleaching because they have not actually put forward that mechanism.

Again... did you read the article? It states that:
The El Nino of 2015-16 was among the three strongest on record but the starting point was about 0.5 degrees warmer than the previous monster of 1997-98 as rising greenhouse gas emissions lifted background temperatures. Reefs in many regions, such as Fiji and the Maldives, have also been hit hard.

Bleaching occurs when abnormal conditions, such as warm seas, cause corals to expel tiny photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae. Corals turn white without these algae and may die if the zooxanthellae do not recolonise them.

The article states that it has warmed and provides the mechanism that is important here. Now if you disagree why don't you prove it instead of just making incorrect assertions based on denialist propaganda.
 
If you don't have any data then how can you state there is no warming? Do you realize how stupid that statement is?

Well, I could have refered you to the standard temperature data sets but since that has obviously happened to you without it having any effect on your ideas there seems little point. Can you show any data that shows a significant warming since 1998? That is more than the error level of the data?



Again... did you read the article? It states that:


The article states that it has warmed and provides the mechanism that is important here. Now if you disagree why don't you prove it instead of just making incorrect assertions based on denialist propaganda.

But can they show that the areas that have warmed the most have seen the most bleaching?

And so what we all know it will grow back very quickly unless of course there is some other pollutant at work and we should actually be worried.
 
Well, I could have refered you to the standard temperature data sets but since that has obviously happened to you without it having any effect on your ideas there seems little point. Can you show any data that shows a significant warming since 1998? That is more than the error level of the data?

:wow: There is so much wrong with this statement that it is mind boggling.

First... you are trying to use global temps to determine local conditions. Second... the only two data sets that you used to be able to claim that there was no warming for 18 years are the two satellite temp sets RSS and UAH. And these satellites measure air temp. Not water temp. And thirdly both of these sets saw a huge increase in temps during the latest El Nino event so you can no longer claim there has been no increase for 18 years. As a matter of fact all the global temp data sets now say the planet has warmed especially during this bleaching event. And it was more than the "error level".

So... you are wrong yet again and for numerous reasons.

But can they show that the areas that have warmed the most have seen the most bleaching?

I don't know. Since you started this tread why don't you do some research and find out. I have already spent a fair amount of time showing how wrong you are. Now its your turn.

And so what we all know it will grow back very quickly unless of course there is some other pollutant at work and we should actually be worried.

O.K... I am now certain that you never did even bother to read this article you linked to. You just read the title and looked at the pictures and assumed you were smart enough to make a determination on whether or not it was valid based on that alone. The article address this point of yours in several ways but you obviously missed them like everything else.

Why don't you read the article for once?
 
Wow... did you even bother to read the article you linked to or did you just look at the pictures?

From the very beginning of that article:



So... it is not obvious that warming/CO2 isn't the cause.

They did a story on that here a couple of years ago and found that the pollution from farmers coming down the rivers from inland were the main cause of the reef dying...
 
Let me guess... you didn't bother to read the article either. It does mention that runoff from farms is a problem.

But if you actually have a link to something that says runoff is the main cause I would love to see it. It would be a hell of a lot more than Tim the plumber has come up with(which was absolutely nothing).
 
[h=2] Spot the problem: Man-made emissions flat, but global CO2 hits record high[/h]
Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…
The Guardian trumpeted the rise of renewables as the reason man-made emissions of CO2 have stopped rising. Oh Bravo.
Graph — IEA

Note the success and grand achievement of trillions spent on expensive electricity and carbon trading programs — record global CO2.
Here’s the newest Mauna Loa figures showing an unprecedented high of 408 evil ppm, a tipping point, a sign of numerical doom. Run, run ye heathens!


Why are CO2 levels so high — A record El Nino in 2016 perhaps?
We need global anti-ENSO programs. Give us more money. Save the tradewinds!
Chinese Emissions? Take the emissions figures with a pound of salt. Carbon accounting is hopelessly inaccurate, China can’t be trusted, and everything else is a guess. How can we run a global market on figures so prone to corruption. Is China artificially elevating figures now so they can make cheap “reductions” in future, or are they underestimating figures to reduce the pressure on them to sign up? Could it be that they just can’t account due to the sheer difficulty of it in such a vast and varied economy?
Keep reading →
 
[h=2] Spot the problem: Man-made emissions flat, but global CO2 hits record high[/h]
Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…
The Guardian trumpeted the rise of renewables as the reason man-made emissions of CO2 have stopped rising. Oh Bravo.
Graph — IEA

Note the success and grand achievement of trillions spent on expensive electricity and carbon trading programs — record global CO2.
Here’s the newest Mauna Loa figures showing an unprecedented high of 408 evil ppm, a tipping point, a sign of numerical doom. Run, run ye heathens!


Why are CO2 levels so high — A record El Nino in 2016 perhaps?
We need global anti-ENSO programs. Give us more money. Save the tradewinds!
Chinese Emissions? Take the emissions figures with a pound of salt. Carbon accounting is hopelessly inaccurate, China can’t be trusted, and everything else is a guess. How can we run a global market on figures so prone to corruption. Is China artificially elevating figures now so they can make cheap “reductions” in future, or are they underestimating figures to reduce the pressure on them to sign up? Could it be that they just can’t account due to the sheer difficulty of it in such a vast and varied economy?
Keep reading →

LOL. So wait.... you think that CO2 levels cant rise because man made CO2 emissions have been flat?

Jesus. The basics of equilibrium are hard, arent they?

Thats why you should probably stick with people who know science.. and thats clearly *not* 'Joanne Nova'.
 
LOL. So wait.... you think that CO2 levels cant rise because man made CO2 emissions have been flat?

Jesus. The basics of equilibrium are hard, arent they?

Thats why you should probably stick with people who know science.. and thats clearly *not* 'Joanne Nova'.

Oh, CO2 levels can certainly rise while man made CO2 is flat. That's the point.
 
Oh, CO2 levels can certainly rise while man made CO2 is flat. That's the point.

Except the point she was trying to make is that the CO2 is rising from non anthropogenic sources, because man made CO2 is flat.

That's blatantly ignorant.
 
Because you say so?

No, because it is. That's like saying a bucket won't fill with water if you turn the tap slightly lower, or a person won't gain weight of you drop his calorie intake from 6000 calories a day to 5000.
 
No, because it is. That's like saying a bucket won't fill with water if you turn the tap slightly lower, or a person won't gain weight of you drop his calorie intake from 6000 calories a day to 5000.

Not persuasive.
 
Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels.

Sorry, but we are driving the increasing levels. The natural carbon cycle has an added component of CO2 that we add. We are adding it faster than the system can equalize.
 
Back
Top Bottom