Great Barrier Reef news

[bruno3047]

Bruno, I doubt that climate change is real.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said, there is no “settled science“ on this question. From my perspective, the earth has gone through many cold/hot cycles in its existence. This IS settled science. When I say climate change is real, I’m not talking about children’s nightmares where the planet is hurtling through space as a ball of fire. My perspective is that the planet is always changing, therefore, climate change is real.

 

[jabberwock]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said, there is no “settled science“ on this question. From my perspective, the earth has gone through many cold/hot cycles in its existence. This IS settled science. When I say climate change is real, I’m not talking about children’s nightmares where the planet is hurtling through space as a ball of fire. My perspective is that the planet is always changing, therefore, climate change is real.

Science is never settled. In fact, it asks more questions than it answer's.

 

[jabberwock]

There are 3 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide on the earth, its environs and atmosphere. At the latest count, humans "emit" about 50 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is just a little under 2% of the total. We are not moving the needle.

 

[bruno3047]

Science is never settled. In fact, it asks more questions than it answer's.

Touché. But some science is settled.

 

[Rmckoy]

opinions are great . Nothing like a healthy debate

I believe climate change is real .
I also believe as the population increases there needs to be many changes to allow many of our resources to remain beneficial .
Not only are the reefs in danger . I was reading a article on bees
Imagine all the fresh produce we enjoy now
Who or what is pollinating everything ?

 

[MoshJosh]

Yes the planets climate changes "naturally" and will continue to do so, man or no man. The rate at which that change is occurring is the problem, the effects humans have on that rate is the problem, the possibility of causing irreversible damage (irreversible by man or nature) is the problem.

 

[ReefEco]

Source: NOAA. I love data.

 

[bruno3047]

opinions are great . Nothing like a healthy debate

I believe climate change is real .
I also believe as the population increases there needs to be many changes to allow many of our resources to remain beneficial .
Not only are the reefs in danger . I was reading a article on bees
Imagine all the fresh produce we enjoy now
Who or what is pollinating everything ?

Bees are in trouble. Their numbers are declining dramatically. We better figure out how to fix that.

 

[jabberwock]

Source: NOAA. I love data.

View attachment 2777742

An increase of 1000 parts per million is infinitesimal. Data are nothing without context.

 

[monkeyCmonkeyDo]

More fish in the water than humans on the ground. Lol.
Think they got it figured out over us. Here before us and prob after us.

I posted about this yesterday trying to open some eyes but got shot down. Lol.

 

[MoshJosh]

There are 3 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide on the earth, its environs and atmosphere. At the latest count, humans "emit" about 50 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is just a little under 2% of the total. We are not moving the needle.

Maybe apples to oranges, but 0.4% blood alcohol level can be fatal. . . I can't image how detrimental 2% would be.

Again apples to oranges, but my point is, in the right context, small changes can have fatal consequences.

 

[jabberwock]

I am bowing out of this thread, and the other one out of respect to the platform and the mods. I humbly reckon that this is not the place. Keep on reefin' Ya'll!

 

[ReefEco]

An increase of 1000 parts per million is infinitesimal. Data are nothing without context.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the graph. So, in general in this graph, for some context, the valley's correspond to drops in atmospheric C02, which can be correlated with ice ages and drops in global temperature. The opposite is also true, with higher CO2 corresponding to higher historic global temps. You can see the general and natural heating and cooling of the earth before humans over the last 800,000 years. Then starting with the industrial revolution you see the massive increase in Co2 concentrations. We are currently at about 419ppm and rising, so 1000ppm would be, well, likely catastrophic.

 

[wareagle]

Stop spreading misinformation on here. This is the 2nd time I have seen a user share Breitbart information. That organization is boldly biased and political. Sharing environmental "information" from Breitbart is the same as asking a flat earther if the moon landing was fake. If you want to read science news, get it from journal publications or google scholar (i.e. the article itself)

It's literally not misinformation, and the same story ran in Yahoo News, Reuters, and several other MSM outlets. There is record growth, as the annual report states, and the Southern section with a 4% decline was because of the Crown of Thornes star fish. All three news outlets had the exact same line, because the news quotes things. All three even had the same warning, because again, the news uses quotes from their sources, and they all used the same source and even named it. If this news story got you this triggered, please don't read the USA Today story, that outright celebrates the resiliency of nature.

The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS) said in its annual report the reef is vibrant and flourishing although challenges do remain for such a “resilient system” that “still maintains that ability to recover from disturbances,” AIMS monitoring programme leader Mike Emslie confirmed.

“But the worrying thing is that the frequency of these disturbance events are increasing, particularly the mass coral bleaching events,” he continued.

 

[bruno3047]

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the graph. So, in general in this graph, for some context, the valley's correspond to drops in atmospheric C02, which can be correlated with ice ages and drops in global temperature. The opposite is also true, with higher CO2 corresponding to higher historic global temps. You can see the general and natural heating and cooling of the earth before humans over the last 800,000 years. Then starting with the industrial revolution you see the massive increase in Co2 concentrations. We are currently at about 419ppm and rising, so 1000ppm would be, well, likely catastrophic.

You were doing so well right up until that last comment. This one:

“We are currently at about 419ppm and rising, so 1000ppm would be, well, likely catastrophic”

You have absolutely zero proof of that. And neither does anyone else. OK. I’m out. Back to trying to decide whether I should buy these 2 corals that I’m looking at at Aqua SD. Later.

 

[Gatorpa]

Source: NOAA. I love data.

View attachment 2777742

Trouble is they are using measurements from ice cores, that they are estimating how old they are. It’s not like the cores came with a made on stamp.
The graph also doesn’t address that millions of years ago the CO2 levels were far higher than even now and animal life flourished(at least per the fossilized records).

We really only have good temp measurements for about the last 80-100 years. Yes there are measurements before then but not nearly the volume of accuracy, never mind heat sink effects that raised the measurements in cites etc.

The whole more tropical systems is a joke also, 40 years ago we didn’t name half of the systems we name now, both due to no ability to measure distant systems and no vested interest in naming a storm 1000 miles from land with no effect(other than a surf event)

 

[ReefEco]

You were doing so well right up until that last comment. This one:

“We are currently at about 419ppm and rising, so 1000ppm would be, well, likely catastrophic”

You have absolutely zero proof of that. And neither does anyone else. OK. I’m out. Back to trying to decide whether I should buy these 2 corals that I’m looking at at Aqua SD. Later.

Hence the use of the word likely : ) 1000ppm would mean global temperature rise of, say 15 degrees F or more (just roughly extrapolating linearly from current predictions of 4-8 degrees F), and a concentration of C02 in the atmosphere that would be roughly triple the historic high as measured in ice cores. I don't think anyone has imagined what that would look like that high, and I wouldn't really want to. I supposed if you increased to 1,000ppm over millions of years things would adapt, but only if they have the time to do so. I'm just putting forward the data, which, while it seems clear to me, you can take from it what you want : )

 

[MaxTremors]

You read the news you like to read. And I’ll read the news I like to read. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and all the rest of the alphabet news organizations including the AP and Reuters are all fake. Russia Russia Russia. Too funny. They gave out a Pulitzer Prize for fake news. I can’t….

You can’t what? Tell the difference between journalism and propaganda? Breitbart isn’t news. They don’t conform to any standard of journalistic integrity or ethics and have extreme bias. There’s a lot more I would like to say, but I’m sure it would be deemed political (though IMO stating facts isn’t political). All I’ll say is that the coverage you mentioned that won the Pulitzer was not fake news.

I think the problem with this type of statement is when looking at the history of the planet through a secular lens then humans are just another natural development in the timeline of earth. That means whatever humans do to the planet is natural. Do we look at mass extinctions in the past as right or wrong? Or just as something that happened on the timeline. Each and every extinction event just opened the door for new species to rise. Some day, millions of years into the future there will be animals specifically evolved to live off nothing but our garbage or whatever other crap we leave behind. The way we leave the planet will be just what the creatures of the future need to thrive.

Now if one views through a non secular lens then the argument that we need to do better certainly becomes more interesting. That’s when the morality of our treatment of the planet really comes into play.

I think this is really flawed thinking, and that its actually the opposite that is true (theist vs atheist. First, the idea that morality is only derived from theism is just patently wrong. Second, most of the monotheistic religions on the planet, which cover the vast majority of religious people, are human-centric, meaning that the theology puts humans at the center of the universe and that the natural world exists for human to exploit. When you don’t believe that this plain of existence is a weigh station on the way to some other, more true spiritual dimension, you have more of a vested interest in observing a sustainable relationship with the natural world, and I think, a closer and more holistic relationship with it.

While I agree with you that evolution has no goal or meaning, that human morality is ultimately irrelevant, and that whatever species go extinct is technically ‘natural’, the whole point of trying to stop climate change and to preserve the natural world is that it ultimately serves out own best interests, it’s not altruistic, it’s self-serving. I don’t think humans are going to extinct from climate change, but it is going to cause massive, widespread, never before seen levels of human suffering.

It's literally not misinformation, and the same story ran in Yahoo News, Reuters, and several other MSM outlets. There is record growth, as the annual report states, and the Southern section with a 4% decline was because of the Crown of Thornes star fish. All three news outlets had the exact same line, because the news quotes things. All three even had the same warning, because again, the news uses quotes from their sources, and they all used the same source and even named it. If this news story got you this triggered, please don't read the USA Today story, that outright celebrates the resiliency of nature.

It’s the same story in that they’re talking about the same study, but the conclusions they draw from it are conjecture and they completely misrepresent the report. It’s not an objective look at the report, the headline alone tells you that. It cherry picks parts of the report to push a very blatant agenda. To say that it’s the same article that other outlets ran about the report is dishonest.

 

[bruno3047]

You can’t what? Tell the difference between journalism and propaganda? Breitbart isn’t news. They don’t conform to any standard of journalistic integrity or ethics and have extreme bias. There’s a lot more I would like to say, but I’m sure it would be deemed political (though IMO stating facts isn’t political). All I’ll say is that the coverage you mentioned that won the Pulitzer was not fake news.

I think this is really flawed thinking, and that its actually the opposite that is true (theist vs atheist. First, the idea that morality is only derived from theism is just patently wrong. Second, most of the monotheistic religions on the planet, which cover the vast majority of religious people, are human-centric, meaning that the theology puts humans at the center of the universe and that the natural world exists for human to exploit. When you don’t believe that this plain of existence is a weigh station on the way to some other, more true spiritual dimension, you have more of a vested interest in observing a sustainable relationship with the natural world, and I think, a closer and more holistic relationship with it.

While I agree with you that evolution has no goal or meaning, that human morality is ultimately irrelevant, and that whatever species go extinct is technically ‘natural’, the whole point of trying to stop climate change and to preserve the natural world is that it ultimately serves out own best interests, it’s not altruistic, it’s self-serving. I don’t think humans are going to extinct from climate change, but it is going to cause massive, widespread, never before seen levels of human suffering.

It’s the same story in that they’re talking about the same study, but the conclusions they draw from it are conjecture and they completely misrepresent the report. It’s not an objective look at the report, the headline alone tells you that. It cherry picks parts of the report to push a very blatant agenda. To say that it’s the same article that other outlets ran about the report is dishonest.

Whatever.

 

[Peace River]

It appears that this thread has run its course and has been closed for now. We believe that this is a very important topic so we will review the status and decide whether or not to reopen it in the future.

Please remember that R2R was founded on the simple premise to develop a warm, friendly, suitable place to gather and discuss this hobby for people of all ages, backgrounds, and experience levels. The “Be Nice” policy is something we take very seriously. Please work to separate the problem from the people and focus on addressing the problem.

We highly encourage healthy debate here and understand not everyone will agree on all issues. In fact, we value healthy and even lively discussion of hobby issues and questions...this actually leads to advancements in our hobby, so we ALL win through these debates. What we will not tolerate is the negativity, name calling, belittling attitude towards other members or the topics being discussed. We are not asking you to cease debating your positions. What we are asking is that you do so in a healthy, respectful manner.