The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our Reef is still Great, but the research isn't > Comments

Our Reef is still Great, but the research isn't : Comments

By Graham Young, published 8/1/2018

This week an infestation of starfish on Swain Reefs heralds the return of more 'reef in crisis' stories, as predictable as summer thunderstorms.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Excellent article Graham

The roots of the problem, I reckon, are that scientific researchers (be they at universities, other non-profit, or CSIRO etc) compete for scarce reseach funds.

This encourages researchers to say:

1. We have detected a big problem that will effect alot of people and risk embarrassing the Government,

2. Thus we need big research dollars to study "our" discovered problem in depth, and

3. Research money, sent to us, will ultimately solve the problem.

The reef and "global warming" tick all these boxes.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 8 January 2018 9:43:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We've always had some mining runoff. Farm runoff has been largely amilorated by ponded pasture and other practises which has served to keep most farm runoff on the farm.

Mining runoff often becomes the norm when mines are played out and the mining towns reduced to ghost towns. Even so, we're going to need even more mines, given the new era of electric cars soon to ply our roads, with their lithium/cobalt batteries.

Even so, I expect Australian miners to take all reasonable precautions, to as much as is humanly possible, prevent or restrict runoff.

If research isn't great, then neither is the essential funding that supports it!

Even so, that research would seem to indicate that the tourists stay away in droves from bleached and dead reefs all around the world.

Killed by hordes of reef loving tourists, who as they've invariably done elsewhere, too damned reliant on the tourist dollar! Destroyed the very thing they've travelled half a world away to see. Dramatically pushing up both local real estate price and sewage outfalls in the process.

Sewage outfalls being one of the principal causes of destroyed reef systems around the world!

What's to be done? Well the lunacy that makes folk dependant of hordes of humans visiting fragile areas! Needs to be replaced by a completely resuscitated manufacturing sector!

And we're never ever going to see that without significant common sense returned to a, for once, purely pragmatic energy policy!

Which as an enormous economic and environmental benefit, would be carbon free and relieve the reef of some of the effects of measured and reported, ocean acidification and warming.

And cheap enough to allow treated effluent, all of it, to be diverted to a tinder dry inland!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 8 January 2018 2:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you've been rolled by the Australian. The Australian that champions the installation of shark nets, in order to protect beach users against shark attack.
Shark nets are a discredited technology, causing environmental damage outside their catch-range of targeted species, and are universally condemned as ineffective and destructive.

The latest “Australian” scam, discrediting expert coral researchers conclusions on the slow death of the GBR, uses non coral experts to support the argument that the experts are wrong, and the reef is in top shape. It pushes the lie for what reason?

The three experts quoted as the authority on the condition of the GBR are: Peter Ridd, a sedimentologist, (not a coral biologist), Judith Curry a climatologist, and Jim Steele – a bird enthusiast who works in the Sierra Nevada.

The Australian chose these unlikely three outcasts, at a time when Australian coral biologists, are attending the International Coral Reef Symposium in Hawaii.

And it gets worse. Ridds’ research is mostly funded by work on construction of fossil fuel facilities along the Queensland coast, and close to the GBR. He fails the witness test!
Not hard to figure from this point on, the lack of credibility attached to the Australian newspaper.

I offer you my example of how to deal with ideological bias. Don't buy the Australian newspaper, a saving of a grand a year. Throw out your television, and turn off the ABC radio.

It's a pleasant and much more enlightened world in which to live; one without the brainwashing anxieties, that come from following the sheep herders!
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 8 January 2018 4:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Guardian recently had an article about how contrarian scientists articles when tried to be replicated were found to be wrong.

Written by a scientist with hyperlinks to the research and a supplement which displayed how they arrived at their conclusions:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

Quote:

" The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?"

Media Watch completed a fact check on whether the Great Barier Reef is being impacted.

Quote:

"Almost every single member of the conference of 2500 people stood up saying that they felt that bleaching and climate change pose a significant threat to the existence of coral reefs. There’s really no discussion about whether or not it’s serious. It is very serious. There is no debate about it.

— Professor Ruth Gates, President, International Coral Reef Symposium, 30 June, 2016 "

Professor Ridd found himself in trouble at his University for travelling promoting an IPA book on climate change. The IPA is a political Agency which denies anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by ant, Monday, 8 January 2018 5:39:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who continues to grovel to the thoroughly discredited "97% of scientists" scam deserves to be ignored.
Posted by calwest, Monday, 8 January 2018 8:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver: mostly right on the money. Except where you labeled Aunty among the sheepherders, when in fact they're the ones herding cats or trying to?

The last time I looked they weren't part of the Murdoch empire, nor do they suck up to that financial genius, 6 times bankrupt Trump!

Ant: Hear, hear and well said!

Heard this morning that New York was colder than Mars, and even as Sydney was setting new records for the hottest day since 39?

Now one could explain New york if the sun were in a normal cyclical waning phase and it is, and the planet was consequently well into an ice age and the planet over!

Whereas the Sydney phenomenal temperatures could be logically explained by a sun well into a waxing phase! And also explain heat related coral bleaching, but not simultaneously, ever!

However, climate change and consequent increased global convection would explain both events! Moreover, the only explanation that does!

More griddle scones? Cooked them myself on a Sydney pavement! Cream, Jam?

Lovely party isn't it? More iced tea anyone, Donald, Boris, Tony?

Delivered in a thermos direct from New York, by air this morning, while it was still ice! Not usual when it turns to ice midstream, as hot tea is poured, is it?

Nothing happening here! Situation normal. Shovel that coal and see how much profit there is selling the kid's inheritance to the highest bidding foreigners! Got to get the priorities right!

I'm all right Jack, you lot can go visit the nearest taxidermist.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 8 January 2018 9:09:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Dan I'm surprised at you, your post is emotive watermelon talk, with so little reality it is useless. I expected better from a diver.

I have to ask Alan, have you ever seen a coral reef? Anyone who can refer to a coral reef as fragile has very little grip on reality. Even the big cyclones that destroy the strongest efforts of man leave such a small mark on the reef, it is impossible to call it fragile.

I have considerable experience of coral, having hand built over 30 jetties on a few isolated high islands, but mostly on very isolated atolls through our near Pacific islands.

More importantly I explored much of the WW11 sights through the Solomons, New guinea & a few others. I have dived on Iron Bottom Sound shores, & reefs, & know that despite all the destruction & the tens of thousand of gallons of heavy fuel oil spilt from all those sunken ships, in the early 70s, less than 30 years later there was not a single bit of evidence of residual damage to any coral.

I have dived Rabaul Harbour with it's hundreds of Jap wrecks, which are now mostly reef themselves.

Coral is remarkable fertile stuff. Talk to anyone who has sailed through the great barrier reef in October after the spawning. They will tell you of sailing through hundreds of acres of brown & yellow dead coral spore, so thick it reduces wave action. They will also tell you of losing the battle to prevent staining of their topsides from this stuff, or the stinking drifts of it washed up on lea shores.

If global warming ever actually occurred, the coral would cover Moreton Island tidal zone in half a decade.

Stop worrying, the reef will still be thriving long after all these academic carpetbaggers, & those who cry for the reef today are long gone.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 8 January 2018 11:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.

In addition to your comments about New York and Sydney (nothing academic):

Alaska has had a very warm November and December 2017, the first dog sled race of the winter season Kuskokwim River, had to be postponed for a fortnight. Rivers when iced over create a route between communities, they have not had enough ice formed to make travel by ski doo safe.

Quote:

"The race in southwest Alaska had been scheduled to happen two weeks before. But warm weather — just above freezing — made the trails unsafe."

The worst fire in California's recorded history is still smouldering in some places.

JMA (Japanese Meteorological Agency) has indicated that 2017 was the third warmest year they had recorded, it was a non el nino year.

Alaska, dated 5/01/2018:

http://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/575905776/while-the-eastern-us-freezes-its-too-warm-in-alaska

Thomas Fire (winter), the estimated containment of the fire is 20 January 2018:

http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/5670/

JMA:

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 6:40:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems like the heat is now hiding in the warmist fried brains. Snow again in the Sahara. Of course its all part of the modelling. Just keep fleecing the public and brainwash the kids. How dumb can the elite make the getup clowns.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 8:55:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen

I'd like you to actually address the points I raised in my post. So far, you haven't addressed one of them!

But here is another. The science is in. Global coral reefs are stuffed, on two major grounds.
One, is coral bleaching caused by rising sea temperatures, and the change in ocean currents.

Two, is the outcome of rising sea temperatures on the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The effect is to acidify surface layers of the ocean.
Ocean acidification prevents corals from regenerating, after bleaching events.

If you can disprove this theory, than you become one of the three percent of disbelievers with a brain. As for the rest, I don't give a tinkers damn.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 10:19:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner

Just making rude put down comments without providing any evidence for your opinion, is meaningless, and not a Christian thing to do.

You are not able to pull apart the science which is investigating jet streams as you do not have the appropriate data. Dr Barber, a Canadian climate scientist, certainly says that the polar vortex is having an impact on lower latitudes weather wise.

It is greenhouse gases that maintain the temperature of Earth, an increase in greenhouse gases creates a warmer atmosphere. Try investigating what's happening between the Troposphere and Stratosphere in relation to greenhouse gases. Collection of data has occurred.

There is no doubt that CO2 can take up warmth and hold it, experimentation has shown this to be the case.

The argument that deniers use is that very little CO2 is exhausted into the atmosphere; and so, climate change is wrong. Metaphorically, try injecting a quarter of a ml of insulin (25 units), an extremely small amount in relation to a healthy adult person; but, it would be deadly. A type 1 diabetic might inject 4 units, or 4/100ths of a ml which could put them in a coma.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 11:29:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

I believe your claim that the IPA is a political Agency which denies anthropogenic climate change is completely false, primarily because I have yet to see any statement from them along those lines. In fact the book that they published on climate change does not claim that global warming is divorced from human activities, but challenges the semi-religious dogma that the only solutions are renewable energy.

Engineers have for more than a decade been predicting that unreliable wind and solar would need to be backed up by at least 90-95% equivalent dispatchable generation which was ignored by south Australia with predictable results.

I am happy to combat global warming with nuclear and Hele plants that will give guaranteed massive CO2 emission reductions without nearly the same cost and unreliability of wind and solar.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 2:15:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

The HELE coal powered stations are a joke, their cost is prohibitive and they are not particularly efficient in reducing CO2.
Likewise, standard nuclear power stations would require huge capital to build. I'm not sure how expensive a thorium reactor would be.

Meanwhile, the cost of renewals is coming down, economies of scale would suggest many people will be able to go off grid once batteries become more affordable.

The IPA promotes HELE power stations which is a clear indication they are not believers in anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 3:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ant

An even less Christian thing to do is to ruin Australias power supply based on lies causing pensiors to freeze in winter and fry in summer. The lies of the gw movement is evident to anyone wanting yo use 100th of their brains.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 5:58:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Dan lets deal with a couple of those.

I built 30 jetties on coral atolls & high island fringing reefs. To do this I used old 44 gallon drums welded together to form poor in place cement piles. These had to be hand grafted into the coral. I spent a lot of time up close & personal with coral. I learnt quite a bit about the 35 or so predominant corals in those latitudes.

These were all with in 450 miles of the equator, where the water temperature is 2 to 3 degrees C higher than any area of our reef south of Thursday Island. Amazingly the coral grew, & did not bleach.
Bleaching is caused by more than temperature, or the Red sea, 4 C hotter would not have coral, a discussion for another time if you wish.

That acidification is another furphy put out by the academics, looking for grants, to try to support the global warming myth. Just look at the story logically for a moment.

No amount of CO2 bubbling through the water can effect the PH at all. If it did those big fish tanks at AIMS that have had large volumes bubbling through them for years would by now be so strongly acidic, they would have dissolved the buildings. Noticed there is no evidence to support the story, they have tried very hard, & failed to produce any.

So any CO2 gas given off by a warmer ocean actually reduces the level dissolved in the water, which is of course, the only way it can effect the PH of the water.

If there were any permanent warming, it would result in a less acid ocean.

These stories are put out to fool those who can't be bothered trying to understand the facts, or do some research themselves & of course for fools like Ant, who want to believe them, no matter how bazar.

As I said, I am surprised to think of you in either category.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 10:15:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Guardian recently had an article about how contrarian scientists articles when tried to be replicated were found to be wrong."

Struth, a paper by Cook (of the faked 97% consensus fame. and Nazi admirer), Lewandowsky (the fool who did a survey of 1145 people, found 3 who denied both climate change and the moon landing and decided that ths proved that all climate deniers denied all science - quite possible the worst and funniest paper this millennium) and Dana Nuccitelli (4 Hiroshima propaganda). And what do they breathlessly discover. That some papers they don't like use data they don't like. Wow, hold the presses.

Meanwhile, in 2017 alone, over 120 papers were presented that examined the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays and climate finding various strong correlations back into the 17th century. Hilariously these papers would form part of Cook's 97% because they don't explicitly reject 'the consensus' and the scientist would be excluded from Doran 97% because all Solar scientists were excluded.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 7:16:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi runner

You say "... The lies of the gw movement is evident to anyone wanting yo use 100th of their brains."

How does your comment fit in with:

. permafrost thawing
. rain bombs
. fish moving North and South of Equator as waters warm
. sunny day flooding
. glaciers melting

Without global warming these matters would not be happening, the points are based on empirical data, not opinion.

It is possible to show through expermentation that CO2 traps warmth. I've seen such an experiment 3 times with the same result each time.

Without greenhouse gases, none of us would be alive, Earth would be too cold.

It would be totally heroic and wrong to suggest any of those points above are lies.

Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases; there is nothing controversial about that statement. Greater amounts of water vapour can be held in the atmosphere as it warms; hence, rain bombs. There should not be anything controversial about water vapour increasing with a warmer atmosphere.

Scientists tell us what is happening in relation to climate change; it is up to policy makers to use the information to create policies beneficial to citizens. Ensuring pensioners live in safe circumstances is part of the role of policy makers. Turnbull keeps saying that it is the role of government to ensure the safety of citizens in relation to terrorism. Surely, that should be a universal view encompassing the well being of pensioners and other citizens.

There are large corporations which utilise infra-structure built by governments such as roads, schools, and hospitals etc, but they pay no tax.

The costs of climate change is increasing; views being presented by the LNP will ensure those costs increase.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 8:43:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen:

Oceans are acidifying. That is an undisputed scientific fact. The chemistry behind this change, involves CO2 uptake from the atmosphere by ocean water.

All the rest is hollow debate!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 11:43:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To start with Dan, that is actually lying by the selection of terms.

There is some very slight reduction in the alkalinity of the ocean. They have so far to go before they even get near to neutral, to talk of acidification is choosing to try to use scare tactics to exaggerate a totally non problem. The whole argument is one developed by carpet baggers, looking to justify research grants to prove a fallacy, & is totally dishonest.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 12:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

So you reckon that the German government are climate deniers as well as they are building HELE coal generation to balance out the renewables? The Chinese and Japanese too?

The cost of renewables is coming down, but still needs huge subsidies and back up. While batteries are becoming cheaper, they are still a long way from being viable on a large scale.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 11 January 2018 2:58:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There needs to be a war fraught for the ownership and control of the oceans.
The motivation for that war must be set in its salvation from abuse!

Chinese have declared the war in the South China Sea. They among all contenders must be roundly defeated, or we all die a death with the dying oceans!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 11 January 2018 11:26:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant

I see that the word of the 'scientist' is infallible to you. Unfortunatley thinking people question. The numerous false, inaccurate, failed false model reveals your faith as non scientific and untrustworthy. Since creation the climate has always been changing. We have had a massive flood and towns wiped out by fire. IN fact man's morals or should I say immorality has affected the climate more than your mythical perception.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 11 January 2018 12:40:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

Cosmic rays and sun activity has been posited many times in the past influencing climate and shown not to be the case.

I'm aware that a particular denier site has spruiked the role of the sun and cosmic rays.
Are you able to provide a reliable source, I used Google Scholar and came up with one study, though it took some effort to find it.

Deniers argue that there is comparatively little CO2 in the atmosphere; Carbon 14 is extremely rare in comparison to CO2.

mhaze, you are abusive towards Cook et al, and misrepresented their study; they provided a supplementary document to show how they arrived at their conclusions.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112017/thanksgiving-family-climate-denial-global-warming-science-answers?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=e3b8abd787-Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-e3b8abd787-327850601

Quote:

"Some of the misinformation that creeps into the doubters' discussions are the lingering leftovers of years of deliberate peddling of misinformation, often by fossil fuel interests."

Also,

"The national climate report found "no convincing evidence" of this. Solar fluctuations "have been too small to explain the observed changes in climate" in the past 60 years."

The National Climate Report was a very major report published at the end of 2017.

A scientist comments on Svensmark's latest paper:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/12/no-supernovae-arent-changing-earths-climate/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

Quote:

"A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere."
Posted by ant, Thursday, 11 January 2018 5:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point of the thread is that there are a plethora of bogus studies being published with respect to global warming with dire predictions and the media laps this up.

The consequence of this is that as the more extreme predictions fail to occur, many people simply stop listening. The other consequence is that electrical power is becoming vastly more expensive, and less reliable which for most people reduces disposable income, and destroys jobs.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 12 January 2018 6:46:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

The US experienced over $300 billion in costs from extreme conditions in 2017. In 2018, they have already been hit by catastrophic wild fires. To put that in context, the Californian wild fires in 2018 have happened in their winter period. What is the probability of bushfires in July in Melbourne, Sydney or even Queensland? The advice in Queensland in July, is to prepare for the bushfire season.

http://www.noaa.gov/news/2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-us

Quote:

"Last year, the U.S. experienced 16 weather and climate disasters each with losses exceeding $1 billion, totaling approximately $306 billion — a new U.S. record."

Moodys, Credit Rating Agency, has stated people living in Maine and Clifornia along low coastal plains need to move. Google can provide information for the reason.
Miami has spent $500 million on infra- structure to adapt to sunny day floods, lots of information can be found also through Google.
Communities in Alaska also have to move, Newton being an example of many. A few communities have already moved.

More than 3 months after hurrican Maria pummelled Puerto Rico, there are still areas without power. The population had been over 3.68 million in 2017, many people have now left.

The The National Climate Report is no bogus report; it encapsulates what has happened in the past year.

We are experiencing the impact of privatising energy producing sources in relation to energy costs.
Posted by ant, Friday, 12 January 2018 10:53:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The devastated state of the ocean environment on this planet has nothing to do with emissions of CO2.

Note:
Presently I am in Solomon Islands without internet except when I go to town, thus I have been missing this thread and comments.
Maybe I can respond further next week.
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 12 January 2018 11:00:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

Regarding ExxonMobil:

"ExxonMobil's funding of anti-climate lobbying groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the message is getting through. When ALEC drafted a resolution last month calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its science-based finding that global warming emissions are endangering the planet, Exxon opposed the resolution, distancing itself publicly from ALEC's anti-climate stance. The resolution was eventually dropped."

From

Union of Concerned Scientists

The other aspect is that ExxonMobil, Chevron and a number of the fossil fuel companies are about to be hit by further legal action.
Posted by ant, Friday, 12 January 2018 12:20:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

"And you thought it was hot now? How a 24-DAY heatwave on Australia's east coast in January 1896 saw temperatures climb to 49 degrees and killed 437 people

An extreme 24-day heatwave in January 1896 saw temperatures hit 48C. It saw people fleeing cities and killed 437 people including many children. The maximum temperature was above 38.9 degrees for over three weeks. Hospitals were overcrowded and people were dropping dead in the streets"

Arbitrary factoids don't really help. As property values climb, populations increase etc, the losses suffered from identical weather incidents increase over time, and when you start including droughts etc, the figures become dubious.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 12 January 2018 2:05:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

I followed up on your claim about high temperatures in 1896; were those temperatures measured using a Stevenson Screen? For example, if the standardised temperature is 20C, it would be possible to gain a much higher temperature or lower temperature depending on site chosen close by in many situations. A fact check discusses the problems with early temperature recordings:

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742

What is quite evident is that long term trend lines have been going in the wrong direction.
Those trend lines include ENSO, storm activity, and temperature. At the recent AGU meeting held in December, it was stated very clearly that some of the storms experienced in 2017 could not be explained without taking into account climate change. Those comments coming from the American Meteorological Society.
Posted by ant, Friday, 12 January 2018 4:29:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the Great Barrier Reef is still there, its made of stone.

Does anyone have any evidence the amount of dead coral now is about the same as 50 years ago?

Is there any evidence sewage nutrient overload-pollution dumped daily is not feeding algae that crown of thorns juvenile starfish thrive on?

Has Adani addressed the nutrient load in land spoil runoff likely to flow into the GBR lagoon and east Australia coast sediment dispersal system that flows to Cape York and beyond?
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 12 January 2018 6:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.newsweek.com/oxygen-disappearing-worlds-oceans-alarmingly-rapid-pace-771406

An article in Newsweek comments on new research just completed in relation to depletion of oxygen in Oceans and Estruaries. Warming water does not hold as much oxygen as colder water.

Quote:

"Updated | The ocean is running out of oxygen at a rapid speed—and the depletion could choke to death much of the marine life these waters support. A sweeping review published Thursday in Science documented the causes, consequences and solutions to what is technically called “deoxygenation.” They discovered a four-to-tenfold increase in areas of the ocean with little to no oxygen, which researchers say is alarming because half of Earth’s oxygen originates from the ocean."

The research was published in:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240

Also, in relation to coral bleaching:

http://www.newsweek.com/coral-bleaching-warming-ocean-temperatures-starving-reefs-771104
Posted by ant, Sunday, 14 January 2018 6:48:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This might seem tangential. But it raises questions for me.
Who reviews books? Should a gay man review a book about a gay man's life? OR should it be done by a woman? And should feminists review each others' works? Seems to me there's a cosy plot at work: you say nice things about my book, and I'll do the same. Check out the reviews in The Guardian, or Sydney Morning Herald and Age.

Academia these days is very cosy, with everyone wanting more grants and more approval from Grants Offices, and peers. That might be good in some cases. But who makes sure that the academics tell the truth? How many Departments of Men's Studies are there? Who is game to say "no, I don't agree with some of the things some of the feminists say?" And no, I don't agree with the far-out ideas of Mark Latham and others, often asserted in a a wild angry way.Who is game to say , e.g., archaeology is a waste of public resources? (or any other discipline, for that matter). I'm aware that something arcane, like Pure Maths or Philosophy, may have powerful importance that we can't measure today. Worth a thought.
Posted by Waverley, Sunday, 14 January 2018 10:13:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waverley

Climate science goes back to the 1820s with Fourier.
Climate scientists employ Physics and Chemistry, and research is based on empirical evidence; apart from modelling. Glaciologists, Marine Scientists etc regularly do field work collecting data; for example, ice cores, photographs taken from satellites.

In 1856, Eunice Foote presented a paper in relation to experiments she had completed in relation to CO2:

http
://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tyndall experimented with various gases a few years later.

Can you prove there are no greenhouse gases?
What temperature would Earth be showing without greenhouse gases?
Can you show that CO2 does not pick up radiated warmth?
What gases are expelled through using fossil fuels?

Go through denier arguments against anthropogenic climate change and you will find some of the views posited are mutually exclusive.
Opposition to climate scientists by lay people is a recent phenomena fuelled by opinion being presented by denier Agencies. Fossil fuel companies came to a realisation that their profits would be impacted by climate science and began to fund denier Agencies just a few decades ago. There is quite a lot of research that has been carried out in relation to the funding of denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies.

Spencer Weart (Physicist and Historian) provides a very extensive history in relation to climate change, which has been very extensively referenced:

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents
Posted by ant, Sunday, 14 January 2018 12:26:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

You still haven't addressed the issue of the bogus reports!

Perhaps all the temperatures weren't collected 100% properly but the measurements are not likely to be that far out. Considering nearly 500 people died of heat when Sydney was only 500 000 people shows that it was not simply a measurement error.

Again, I am not disputing that there is climate change, the dispute is how much it is changing and the methods required to counter it
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 14 January 2018 7:59:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Ministry

Medical science has developed since the 1890s in relation to dealing with heat stroke.
The Victorian era attitude to dress code could have been a factor.
We are now given warnings in relation to heat extremes and take precautions.

The accuracy of temperature recording was also a matter.

When Penrith had a reliably measured temperature of 47.3 C, was there a big jump in deaths or hospitalisations through heat stroke?
Lower temperatures can be more deadly when associated with high humidity ... wet bulb temperature.

What was the humidity rating in relation to the 1896 heat wave (wet bulb temperature)?
Posted by ant, Monday, 15 January 2018 6:33:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

For starters, Penrith was not considered part of Sydney and even Parramatta was mostly farm land, so the temperature would have been measured closer to the coast which makes the 1896 temperature far higher. Secondly, I saw no figures for humidity in Penrith which is likely to be lower than closer to the coast. Any way you twist it, the 1896 event was far more extreme than the latest hot spike
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 15 January 2018 9:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

You make a categoric statement for something you have no proof of.
Posted by ant, Monday, 15 January 2018 11:06:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

Your petulant response is groundless. The facts are:

1 In 1896 nearly 500 people of a population of 500 000 died of heat related issues, and even if your whimsical presumption that early Sydney was burdened with invalids, this was the worst weather related event in Sydney's history.
2 The closer one is to the coast the more temperate the climate, and the highest temperature in Sydney is usually measured in Penrith. This means that excluding Penrith and the Western suburbs would reduce the temperature measured.
3 You try and dismiss the event because of some inconsistencies in measurement but also have no proof that the measurements weren't completely accurate.

The IPCC just recently doubled the time it estimated to reach a certain theshold which clearly indicates that the science is not nearly as settled as most claim.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 15 January 2018 8:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

You stated " ... The IPCC just recently doubled the time it estimated to reach a certain theshold which clearly indicates that the science is not nearly as settled as most claim."

I rather doubt what you stated in relation to the IPCC.

From Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-draft/warming-set-to-breach-paris-accords-toughest-limit-by-mid-century-draft-idUSKBN1F02RH

Quote:

"OSLO (Reuters) - Global warming is on track to breach the toughest limit set in the Paris climate agreement by the middle of this century unless governments make unprecedented economic shifts from fossil fuels, a draft U.N. report said.
The draft, of a report due for publication in October, said governments will also have to start sucking carbon dioxide from the air to achieve the ambition of limiting temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times."

And:

"The draft, by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of leading scientists and obtained by Reuters, says average surface temperatures are about 1C above pre-industrial times and that average temperatures are on track to reach 1.5C by the 2040s."

There are factors that we do not know how fast they are going to progress; the thawing of permafrost is one of those factors, there is objective evidence that it is happening. The cryosphere was hardly dealt with in the last IPCC Report:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/

Quote of first sentence:

"In Bethel, Alaska, walls are splitting, houses are collapsing, and the main road looks like a kiddy rollercoaster. In the coastal town of Kongiganak, sinking cemeteries prevent Alaskans from burying their dead in the ground."

Other references:

http://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/575905776/while-the-eastern-us-freezes-its-too-warm-in-alaska

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYTQJ6gCwMw
Posted by ant, Monday, 15 January 2018 9:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

What I have been pointng out in relation to measuring temperature in 1896 is that it was not done in a standardised way; hence, the accuracy of the measured temperatures is in doubt.
I have no doubt that if I take temperature around my home at different spots that I would get a number of different temperatures. Even something as mundane as a garden hose shows how temperature varies; a hose in a sunny spot will initially provide quite warm water, while a hose in a shady spot will not provide such warm water.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 6:41:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

I know that you would like to ignore events that conflict with your dogma, but the people measuring temperatures in 1896 were not cavemen. They didn't leave the thermometers in the sun. They measured the temperatures in the shade, and while they did not all use the screen, the difference would be in fractions of a degree, enough not to meet the rigorous standards applied later, but sufficiently accurate for the man on the street and this debate.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/extreme-heat-in-1896-panic-stricken-people-fled-the-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/

"Thermometers were non-standardized in 1896. Some of the extraordinary temperatures come from thermometers with descriptions like (“under passion tree vine.”) There it got to 123 in Ultimo in Sydney on January 14. Though some thought the vine thermometer was actually more accurate “ namely, that what is known as the true shade is the shade afforded at the Observatory by one of the loveliest little summer-houses, almost buried in foliage, but with lattice-work all round, so that the breeze may play upon the thermometers, but where the sun’s rays can by no means be admitted.”
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 5:15:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

Many weather stations were/are operated by lay people.

A reference I provided clearly indicates that temperature was not measured in a standardised way in 1896. The reference provides experiences of people involved with taking temperature in the 1890s.

The Bureau of Meteorology was not created until after Federation.

Standardised measure of temperature in the 1890s is not supported by comments from Clement Wragge:

"… are hung under verandahs and over wooden floors; others are placed against stone walls and fences. Such exposures (not to mention the several remarkable instances of thermometers being placed and observed indoors) give results which are not only not intercomparable and so valueless to meteorology, but which are affected by artificial and secondary conditions, giving misleading values."

The reference also commented that in the early years the Stevenson Screens were not properly maintained and gave inappropriate temperature measures which were too high through too much sun entering them.

So, we have the experience of people in the 1890s, set against speculation.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 10:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant,

You need to look up the word speculative, most of the measurements might not have complied to the new standards, but, as I showed previously most included measures to avoid radiation, the measurements would not differ significantly from standard measurements, so to try and dismiss them is somewhat mendacious.

What is speculative is the predictions most make on the results of climate change.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 1:08:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

It is hard to argue against views expressed in the 1890s made by people with a Meteorological background.

I do not doubt there was a heat wave and sadly many people died. But, neither you, nor I can state absolutely that the temperatures measured were accurate.

What I can say with certainty is that our Arctic thermostat is not functioning properly. Permafrost thawing, erosion and slumping is occurring as a consequence; and methane blow outs are definitely happening.
There are many other observable factors displaying climate change.

With regard to the state of coral reefs, who do you gain advice from; a scientist such as Charlie Veron, a scientist who has identified a great number of corals; or, people without any professional experience.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 2:10:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL,
From Rendova Island I just drove a canoe across the Blanche Channel and entered Roviana Lagoon through a reef passage where all the coral is dead and covered with algae.

Coral is already dead or is being killed or damaged by nutrient over-load feeding over abundance of algae.
Is there any scientist with evidence to prove otherwise?

The GBR limestone reef is still there but living coral that once virtually covered that limestone base is not there.

Lies and BS are allowing nutrient over-load pollution to feed more algae and kill more coral.

The BS and lies are also killing GBR tourism.
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 19 January 2018 11:02:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy