4 ms·
Several of the possibilities you raise here are disproven by real world data. W.R.T. corals, claims of coral reefs being harmed by climate change have been dis
by revelio 4y ago
Several of the possibilities you raise here are disproven by real world data.
W.R.T. corals, claims of coral reefs being harmed by climate change have been discredited in recent years. Although scientists claimed for years that the corals were being severely harmed by emissions, 2022 had the highest coral cover in the GBR since records began in the mid 80s. It's confusing because the media reported several supposedly severe die-offs in the corals in the six years before 2022, but coral takes 5-10 years to regrow after a major die-off so those reports cannot have been correct.
Coral bleaching is caused by sudden changes in temperature, but most bleachings don't seem to cause die-offs and it's the speed of change that seems to trigger it, not so much the absolute temperature.
Sea level rise is small, constant over a much longer time period than the industrial era, and primarily caused by changes in the height of the land not the sea. That's why the Pacific islands that were supposedly in danger from climate change have actually grown over time, not shrunk.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1
Finally, the hockey stick graphs that are so famous are all scientifically fraudulent, being based on techniques like dropping any input data that doesn't yield hockey stick graphs.
- myshpa 3y ago> claims of coral reefs being harmed by climate change have been discredited in recent years https://theconversation.com/record-coral-cover-doesnt-necessarily-mean-the-great-barrier-reef-is-in-good-health-despite-what-you-may-have-heard-188233 https://theconversation.com/record-coral-cover-doesnt-necess... "it’s more likely the reef is being dominated by only few species, as the report states that branching and plating Acropora species have driven the recovery of coral cover" "these same corals are often susceptible to wave damage, disease or coral bleaching and tend to go bust within a few years" "Without more information at the level of individual species, it is impossible to understand how much of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost, or recovered, since the last mass bleaching event" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/06/great-barrier-reefs-record-coral-cover-is-good-news-but-climate-threat-remains https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/06/great-ba... "Dr Emslie, who leads the ... monitoring, says the rise in coral cover was expected, given the relatively benign conditions, but four bleaching events in seven years was uncharted territory." In some conservative media, the survey has been used to push arguments the reef is not under threat. “The naysayers can put their heads in the sand all they like, but the frequency of disturbances is going gangbusters,” says Emslie. Wachenfeld points out that scientists have never said the reef is dead. “Scientists have been ringing an alarm bell, not a funeral dirge,” he says. “The notion scientists have been misleading people is a nonsense.” He likens the reef’s resilience to a rubber band that can be stretched many times, but only so far before it snaps. “It’s hard to predict when that will happen, but it’s a bit like that with the reef,” he says. “We have a limited amount of time to slow and stop the warming. There is no way this resilience can last forever.” The rest I will leave for somebody else.
- revelio 3y ago> Dr Emslie, who leads the ... monitoring, says the rise in coral cover was expected, given the relatively benign conditions Was it now. A Guardian news report featuring Dr Emslie in March 2019 has one of his colleagues saying this [1]: the preliminary results of the study, and the lack of observed improvement in previously surveyed reefs, showed how difficult it was for corals to rebound after mass bleaching. “That doesn’t surprise me because it takes 10 years for coral to rebound,” Hughes said. “There’s been some reports of magical recovery, but the ecological memory of the bleaching will be long-lasting. “The big unknown is when it will bleach again, but it will almost certainly be before those reefs have time to recover.” In 2019 it is being predicted to take 10 years to rebound, any reports of recovery are "magical" exceptions to the rule and the next bleaching will "almost certainly" be before the reefs have time to recover. In 2022 it is not only fully recovered but at record breaking levels, this was fully expected, the idea scientists misled people is "nonsense" and only those dastardly "conservatives" and "naysayers" have any issues with what's happened. Do you see the problem here? These people aren't behaving like scientists, they are behaving like political activists. They make assertions that they fully understand the corals and that their predictions are "almost certain", then when the corals do things that contradict their prior understanding they lash out and argue that only "conservatives" care about the confidence bounds of modelling predictions. Observe how wildly biased that is. In the world they inhabit anyone who is pointing out inconvenient facts can be immediately dismissed by saying they're not a part of the tribe, nothing else is needed! > "We have a limited amount of time to slow and stop the warming. There is no way this resilience can last forever" ... he said, fervently hoping that the reefs will just hurry up and die already so they can stop being shown up. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/04/some-great-barrier-reef-coral-suffering-lasting-effects-from-mass-bleaching-events https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/04/some-gre...