Climate Change - Impacts, Part II


#521

The weakness of the hysterical leftist “mind.” Interesting that you appear to be supportive of certain corporations and business… the ones who appear to be engaged in mitigating the effects of climate change (SORRY!!! GLOBAL WARMING …deliberate) and they say there is no value in green washing products. I give you Exhibit A. The easily impressed activist. Thank you Finley.

Now that we have finished trashing the earth, heating it to unbearable conditions and killing the reefs oh yes and melting all the ice including the glaciers, I guess we can stop wetting our pants every other minute because the worst has happened… and I suppose in 7 years we will be re-examining yet another incident of some such weather or climate related event that killed the coral on the Great Barrier Reef. But at least we know now that it wasn’t acidic oceans :unamused: Next time it will ALSO be global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) oh but wait maybe I really do mean GLOBAL WARMING!!!


#522

Well, thanks for the confirmation. The denialist narrative is now complete.

“There’s no such thing as climate change”.
“Climate change is real but it’s not our fault”.
“Climate change is real and we caused it but it’s not a problem”.
“Climate change is real, we caused it, and we’re now irreversibly fucked, so we might as well stop worrying about it and carry on making money. Yee-haw!”.


#523

Dear Chicken Little:

Given that the Great Barrier Reef has already died twice, shall we consider ourselves third time lucky now? Truly, nothing has been resurrected more than Christ than this reef/issue.

You should start a new religion given the frequency of this amazingly miraculous event.

Epiphanically Yours,

Frederick P. Smith v.


#524

Oh yeah, I forgot that one.

“humans cannot possibly affect nature, so by definition anything we do to nature will recover anyway. Eventually.”


#525

[quote=“Fred Smith”]Dear Chicken Little:

Given that the Great Barrier Reef has already died twice, shall we consider ourselves third time lucky now? Truly, nothing has been resurrected more than Christ than this reef/issue.

You should start a new religion given the frequency of this amazingly miraculous event.

Epiphanically Yours,

Frederick P. Smith v.[/quote]

Having a little trouble understanding what we are reading?

And I posted a link about coral reef recovery. You ignored it, just like the point-by-point debunking of your rightwing think-tank tinfoil hat piece on ocean acidification.


#526

Well then, we will have to wait and see just like with regard to the much-predicted demise of the Arctic icecap.

Vay, Vay, Vay, turn around and run away. You are quickly falling back into Internet obsession. Run. Don’t look back. Thank me later!


#527

[quote=“fred smith”]Well then, we will have to wait and see just like with regard to the much-predicted demise of the Arctic icecap.

Vay, Vay, Vay, turn around and run away. You are quickly falling back into Internet obsession. Run. Don’t look back. Thank me later![/quote]

Wait and see for what? The whole thing to be dead? As I said before, even assuming there is a small but not non-existent chance that skeptics are right (well, the train seems to have left on the possibility of a sensitivity of 1 degree, but other than that): the future can never be known with certainty. How wise is it to uncertainty as an excuse to conduct a one-off, uncontrolled chemistry experiment on the atmosphere of our one and only planet?


#528

So let me get this right? You are worried about the destruction of our one and only planet NOW before that has ACTUALLY happened because IF it does happen, no doubt you will be unable to spend time with your wife or children or enjoy the park or walk the dog or take your kids to a movie. BUT that is what is happening RIGHT NOW as you waste time in front of the keyboard talking to people you don’t know about issues that ultimately none of us can affect. Thought for the day.


#529

Actually no, I’m not. After the last big runaway warming event, paleo-climatologists think the climate stabilized in a matter of minutes, geologically speaking. We would consider twenty thousand years very long, but in any case, eventually “the planet” will probably be okay. What I’m worried is about the shit we’re going to have to suffer through in the coming decades while I, the people I care about and particularly my daughter and maybe her children are alive. This may or may not include the collapse of modern civilization. I don’t think it’s probable, but it’s definitely possible. Think huge shortages of food and water leading to uncontrollable mass migrations having a domino effect. Or a resource war turning nuclear.

It’s a great thought, but I do this when I can’t be doing that stuff anyway - IE, I’m waiting for a bus, on a break at work, etc… though for sure I could be exercising or something more productive. Ah well, we all have our guilty hobbies.


#530

Speaking of the GBR:

[quote]Two days before this editorial, 56 climate and marine scientists, with more than 1200 years of collective experience between them, put their names to a statement in a full-page advertisement on page 6 of the newspaper. (A short piece about bleaching on the reef followed on page 13; one of the signatories, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, said the scientists were partially motivated by the paper’s poor coverage of the issue.)

The advertisement read in part:

As you read this a catastrophe is unfolding [original emphasis]. The reef is currently experiencing the worst coral bleaching event in its history. From Cairns to the Torres Strait, vast swathes of the once-colourful reef are now deathly white.

My first question to Melloy and Heywood is as follows: since it is their view that we need to rely on the science, would they say the views of these scientists are “hysterical claims by those on the fringes of the debate”?[/quote]

Whitewash - Queensland’s Courier-Mail still has plenty of questions to answer about its coverage of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef

About that allegedly-not-melting Arctic ice:

Arctic Sea Ice is Falling Off a Cliff and May Not Survive the Summer

But I suppose we’ll be hearing hysterical laughter from the, ok, let’s call them “non-alarmists” if some pathetic fragment of it does remain floating out there, warm and lonely, to see winter’s next arrival.

And then… there’s this:

Dash cam video shows harrowing drive out of Fort McMurray

So, Deniers, deny away, again.


#531

I also predict that somewhere this year there will be a flood and a plague of locusts, perhaps, a volcanic eruption and maybe an earthquake. God is angry at sinful humanity. Boils to follow.


#532

In other words, “People have gotten cancer before, therefore cigarettes have nothing to do with cancer.”

And yeah, unprecedented collapses of colonies of coral thousands of kilometers happen all the time. Along with the disappearance of Arctic ice.

:eh:


#533

A more detailed description of the GBR bleaching event can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-07/great-barrier-reef-report-next-government-will-seal-fate/7393188

For those not familiar with the scale, the reef is about 2,300km in length.


#534

Article is from 2014. Let’s see whether there is going to be another “miraculous recovery,” but I am sure “the end is nigh” will continue for decades more… especially after the Arctic is completely ice-free.

[quote]THE ABC was among the first to fall for it, of course. In 2002, it reported the Great Barrier Reef was as good as dead already. Host Kerry O’Brien groaned that our “once-spectacular” reef was “threatened by global warming” and “up to 10 per cent of the reef has been lost to bleaching since 1998”, turning it “bone white”. Up popped Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a Queensland reef researcher with a natty patter, to warn us to “change our lifestyles” or the reef would go — killed by hotter seas. My god, but journalists are suckers for warming scares. It’s like they actually want to be fooled — or to fool you. Hoegh-Guldberg is now arguably the world’s most influential reef scientist in global-warming circles, having got big government grants, chaired a $20 million World Bank study of warming, and worked as an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author. Last week, he bobbed up again, waving a report he’d just done for the WWF green group to help promote this month’s Earth Hour. Again journalists lapped it up, not bothering to check how all Hoegh-Guldberg’s other warnings had panned out. (Answer: terrible, as you’ll see.) Here is how the unquestioning Sydney Morning Herald reported Hoegh-Guldberg’s latest scare: “The Great Barrier Reef will be irreversibly damaged by climate change in just 16 years, according to leading reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

The Guardian Australia was no better: “The Great Barrier Reef will suffer ‘irreversible’ damage by 2030 unless radical action is taken to lower carbon emissions, a stark new report has warned,” it reported. “Co-author Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, (said) that current climate trends signal ‘game over’ for the Great Barrier Reef.” Like I said, Hoegh-Guldberg has a gift for the snappy line. But none of last week’s reports bothered to add that he also has a lousy track record in scaremongering. What does it say about media reporting of global warming that almost no journalist ever mentions it?
In 1998, Hoegh-Guldberg warned the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had been bleached white. In fact, he later admitted the reef made a “surprising” recovery.

In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg claimed warming would so heat the oceans that mass bleaching of the reef would occur every second year from 2010. In fact, the reef’s last mass bleaching occurred in 2006.
In 2000, Hoegh-Guldberg claimed “we now have more evidence that corals cannot fully recover from bleaching episodes such as the major event in 1998” and “the overall damage is irreparable”. In fact, he admitted in 2009 he was “overjoyed” to see how much the reef had recovered and the Australian Institute of Marine Science says “most reefs recovered fully” from the 1998 bleaching.

Indeed, an AIMS study found the previous 110 years of ocean warming were good for coral growth. In 2006, Hoegh-Guldberg warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact” and his team was “genuinely surprised/relieved about how quickly some of these coral colonies had recovered”.
In 2007, he warned temperature changes were again bleaching the reef. In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network the next year reported no net decline in coral cover over the previous four years.
Professor Peter Ridd, a James Cook University reef researcher, insisted the reef was in “bloody brilliant shape” and said unnamed scientists were “crying wolf” — and getting funding.

In 2011, Hoegh-Guldberg predicted a “large-scale mortality” of reef-building corals on West Australian reefs from Shark Bay to Exmouth within three months. In fact, he later admitted the famous Ningaloo Reef, the largest there, had actually “had a narrow escape”. Yes, the Great Barrier Reef can be damaged by seas made suddenly warm, giving coral no time to adapt. But Hoegh-Guldberg seems to have repeatedly underestimated coral’s ability to adapt — which is one reason the reef has already survived 15,000 years in its present form. Just last December, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority noted a bloom in coral growths since the devastation caused by Cyclone Yasi three years ago, with “quite good recovery” in fast-growing species particularly. (And, no, global warming hasn’t caused more cyclones but, if anything, fewer.) Yet, here comes Hoegh-Guldberg again, shouting: “Repent! For the end of the reef is nigh!” And see the journalists trailing behind their messiah, questioning nothing, repeating everything. How much of the warming scare is built on such “reporting”?[/quote]

heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio … 6849583753


#535

Typical spin.

You might find this stunningly-surprising, but marine biologists specializing in coral know a bit more about the subject than snarky political-spin journalists. Yes, given time, coral that survived a bleaching event can recover. But how is the reef going to continue to recover, when it gets hit but successively larger bleaching events each time? That time, it was 5% severe. This time, it’s 65% severe over the whole reef, over 99% severe in the north where the most pristine coral used to be. How about next time - what’s that gonna look like? It’s the question you never want to consider. But when it happens, we can be sure some oil-industry friendly, conservative rag will be there to try to try as they can to put a positive light on it.

When your article sits there spinning this story, it counts on the fact that most readers can’t go out and look at the reef themselves, just as they can’t go out and check the ice at the North Pole, experience what’s going on at Fort McMurray or literally note the rising of sea level by centimeter year per year.


#536

Ah… yes… spin…

Well, we have printed predictions of the demise of the Great Barrier Reef multiple times already. And now we are seeing that only the northern part of the reef has been “severely” affected not ALL of the reef nor is ALL of the reef DEAD. So weep your tears and let’s see what predictions we have the next time this happens. I guess we are scheduled for the next “weeping” in 2020 or 2022?


#537

[quote=“fred smith”]Ah… yes… spin…

Well, we have printed predictions of the demise of the Great Barrier Reef multiple times already. And now we are seeing that only the northern part of the reef has been “severely” affected not ALL of the reef nor is ALL of the reef DEAD. So weep your tears and let’s see what predictions we have the next time this happens. I guess we are scheduled for the next “weeping” in 2020 or 2022?[/quote]

Dude. That reality has nuance is not spin. Since you are too bored to bother actually educate yourself on the topic, here’s a little primer:

Here’s the current condition of more than half the 2000+ km Great Barrier Reef:

This is a whomping on coral like the world has never seen. Except it has. I saw it in the Andaman Sea in 2011. Have been back there since then, and most of what I saw bleached then is dead now. A tiny handful is starting to recover… or was, if the current El Nino hasn’t done that in. Like I said, it’s easy for you to sit there and laugh because you don’t have to look at it, and as long as a tiny handful remains alive, you can remain “skeptical” of “alarmism”. It’s the carrier pigeon all over again.

Now please answer my question: how is the coral supposed to survive, if El Nino’s keep getting stronger?


#538

Let’s take URGENT action now!!! We must act urgently without thinking!!! The coral is dead!!! The Arctic is melting!!! MORE MONEY FOR NGOS to study the problem and to raise awareness. Another treaty! just like the Copenhagen one! No the Paris one! No the Rio one! No the Durban one! Wait! I mean Kyoto! That’s what I mean!!! We need to support that and support it urgently!!!

*I understand that the coral is dead. Too bad. I also understand that you feel the need to hyperventilate about this. Perhaps, you need to ask yourself why this upsets you to such a degree psychologically and emotionally. But… your scientists weeping and the extent of the severe bleaching is not quite the same thing as the reality and we have heard this record a few times already. Like I said, you and your alarmists have predicted 353 of the last three crises. Great record! Keep it up! We want to hear more. WEEP. GNASH TEETH. EVIL CORPORATIONS. MUST TAKE ACTION NOW!!!


#539

Yeah like international treaties have never been used to address major environmental problems before :unamused: it’s such a pie-in-the-sky idea:

Ronald Reagan -Statement on Signing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances

As far as spending money on research, that’s funny. It’s you guys who claim that scientists are engaged in a big conspiracy to keep the money rolling in with this bogus environmental problem. Yet mainstream scientists are mostly saying, hey, there’s been little question about the need for action on this issue for a long time. Rather it’s conservatives always saying ‘the science isn’t settled’, ‘more evidence needed’, ‘better wait and see’. (You said that a few posts ago, come to think of it!)

You’ve shown no evidence at all for this claim. In fact, it is the conservative media which as usual is trying to whitewash the truth, as shown above. And you still havent answered my question about


#540

Yes, interesting how that ozone-depleting treaty worked out so well. We should look to that to solve the CO2 problem. Clearly action is needed and treaties have been successful except when they haven’t. Anyway, this is an issue that keeps you awake at night. I hope you find some kind of way to deal with the anxiety.