REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 27 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 26 27
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: jkb] #2781721
04/20/18 07:56 PM
04/20/18 07:56 PM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 6,380
Your mom’s house
D
Duffy Offline
Phil Edwards status
Duffy  Offline
Phil Edwards status
**
D

Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 6,380
Your mom’s house
Originally Posted By: jkb
Originally Posted By: BillyOcean
For the cultists, it most important to show you’re a true member of the cult

This means not questioning anything and always being ready to “do something” to further the cult dogma

In particular, doing something is always best when it costs cult members nothing, just other people and especially “corporations”


Kind of like the gun nuts?


Yup. Exactly like them. Two sides, same coin.


“No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn”

- The Wasp
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: StuAzole] #2781722
04/20/18 07:57 PM
04/20/18 07:57 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 54,769
HB, CA
I
ifallalot Offline
Duke status
ifallalot  Offline
Duke status
**
I

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 54,769
HB, CA
Originally Posted By: StuAzole
Originally Posted By: ifallalot
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Originally Posted By: ifallalot
Originally Posted By: afoaf
do you not recognize the need/value of subsidizing developing nations'
development of renewables and renewable-friendly power grids?

That's both racist and neocolonialist. We should allow them self-determination.

That being said, I totally recognize the need, but the subsidies have to come from somewhere, and the only realistic place they will come from is our pockets, so fook that.


It would be tolerable if the money actually went to developing clean power instead of enriching tin pot dictators and purchasing weapons from quai-legal international arms dealers.

That's what all foreign aid does

Foreign aid is AIDS


Foreign aid isn't a virus, it's oil:

In terms of individual countries, the following receive the most in economic [not security] aid from the US:

Afghanistan ($US650,000,000)
Jordan ($US635,800,000)
Kenya ($US632,500,000)
Tanzania ($US534,500,000)
Uganda ($US435,500,000)
Zambia ($US428,525,000)
Nigeria ($US413,300,000)

In terms of security aid, the countries receiving the most help are:

Afghanistan ($US5 billion)
Israel ($US3.2 billion)
Iraq ($US1.3 billion)
Egypt ($US1.3 billion)
Syria ($US541,500,000)
Jordan ($US364,200,000)


A single cent is too much


No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Surfdog] #2781740
04/20/18 08:21 PM
04/20/18 08:21 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 13,299
in the bathroom
M
manbearpig Offline
Tom Curren status
manbearpig  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
M

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 13,299
in the bathroom
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: manbearpig
Over 60% of the Maldives have been effected by bleaching, some area 90%. So they are not even close to “recovered nicely”. It’s not natural, and when it’s gone as far as it has in many areas (such as those in question) it’s irreversible.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/210...t-by-bleaching/


Coral starts growing back once temps return to normal from elevated heights due to El Nino or La Nina conditions, depending on region of the worlds oceans. It's takes years, but they do come back. Your article even hints that the El Nino prior to 2016 (when article was written) has the most affect on coral bleaching/die-offs. This cycle has been going on for eons. It's not a "new" AGW thing. Just a way to hype it to those that don't know any better.

Coral only comes back from bleaching if it’s not too far gone. Much of what is in question is beyond that threshold.

By the way do you have any sources/data for anything you mention? You already mentioned the Maldives reefs are doing good, which they are clearly not at 60-90% bleached. So I’m curious where you get any of your info from.

Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Surfdog] #2781750
04/20/18 08:39 PM
04/20/18 08:39 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,490
Body of Christ, Texas
T
test_article Offline
Phil Edwards status
test_article  Offline
Phil Edwards status
**
T

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,490
Body of Christ, Texas
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: Duffy


100%

basically every Surfdog word wall


You took my response seriously? Lol.


Even I got that is was a facetious meme.

Ya, it was wordy, but prove it wrong please.

The Maldives suffered badly in 1998 with coral bleaching and yes some areas will take longer to recover than others. It's only been 20 years. That's a fraction of a second in geologic terms when it comes to coral life cycles.

And yes belief in AGW is now of cult religion proportions. Some are casual practitioners, and profess their faith by driving a Prius or using only "green" products (which some are far from). Others are more of the warrior/crusades type believer where in your face challenges and shaming, if you question, are part of their worship and faith. It's science fiction prophecy portrayed as "fact" and more laughable, "consensus". No such thing as "consensus" in real science. Junk science, yes.

NOT saying we shouldn't be looking at ways to improve/recycle/reuse products and conserve energy and resources, when practical. But to tax, fee and shame the public into conforming and believing an apocalyptic theory as gospel truth and fact, is in itself shameful, if not outright communist. But if you don't "believe", you're a heretic and should be sent to prison or worse (this HAS been claimed by some in government/green industry, don't make me dig it up again). All feelz and no realz.

Did anyone notice the recent peer reviewed article regarding the timeline change for "catastrophic" sea level rise recently? The previous claims (in general, some have been much higher), of 2-4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, have been noticed as pretty tough to meet now, given the recent lack of ANY substantial uptick in sea level rise rates.

So, recent "studies" have been "recalculated" to push that date out to 2300 at the earliest now. So, they were only off by 200 years, based on 30-40 years of "observation". rolleyes

But even more comical, than that roll-back of "catastrophe", is that 2-4 feet in the next almost 300 years, is actually about the normal rate of sea level rise we've seen the last 300-500 years, post ice-age rate. 2 feet would be near the exact same rate we've been experiencing, while 4 feet would be about double. So, in essence next to ZERO increase in the existing sea level rise rates by 2300 or slightly more.

WHY isn't that HUGE news in the AGW industry? Because it's not scary enough to halt spending $Trillions$ in "fighting" it, akin the Crusaders back in the middle ages.

Fighting AGW is like shadow boxing an opponent. You can pretend it's a big contender, and throw a lot effort into "fighting" it, but it's pretty much wasted energy and effort ($$$) for naught. But we must believe, or we and our children will die for our sins to the planet. monkey


What percentage of reef worldwide has died in recent times?



Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: test_article] #2781759
04/20/18 08:48 PM
04/20/18 08:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
S
Surfdog Offline
Tom Curren status
Surfdog  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
Originally Posted By: test_article
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: Duffy


100%

basically every Surfdog word wall


You took my response seriously? Lol.


Even I got that is was a facetious meme.

Ya, it was wordy, but prove it wrong please.

The Maldives suffered badly in 1998 with coral bleaching and yes some areas will take longer to recover than others. It's only been 20 years. That's a fraction of a second in geologic terms when it comes to coral life cycles.

And yes belief in AGW is now of cult religion proportions. Some are casual practitioners, and profess their faith by driving a Prius or using only "green" products (which some are far from). Others are more of the warrior/crusades type believer where in your face challenges and shaming, if you question, are part of their worship and faith. It's science fiction prophecy portrayed as "fact" and more laughable, "consensus". No such thing as "consensus" in real science. Junk science, yes.

NOT saying we shouldn't be looking at ways to improve/recycle/reuse products and conserve energy and resources, when practical. But to tax, fee and shame the public into conforming and believing an apocalyptic theory as gospel truth and fact, is in itself shameful, if not outright communist. But if you don't "believe", you're a heretic and should be sent to prison or worse (this HAS been claimed by some in government/green industry, don't make me dig it up again). All feelz and no realz.

Did anyone notice the recent peer reviewed article regarding the timeline change for "catastrophic" sea level rise recently? The previous claims (in general, some have been much higher), of 2-4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, have been noticed as pretty tough to meet now, given the recent lack of ANY substantial uptick in sea level rise rates.

So, recent "studies" have been "recalculated" to push that date out to 2300 at the earliest now. So, they were only off by 200 years, based on 30-40 years of "observation". rolleyes

But even more comical, than that roll-back of "catastrophe", is that 2-4 feet in the next almost 300 years, is actually about the normal rate of sea level rise we've seen the last 300-500 years, post ice-age rate. 2 feet would be near the exact same rate we've been experiencing, while 4 feet would be about double. So, in essence next to ZERO increase in the existing sea level rise rates by 2300 or slightly more.

WHY isn't that HUGE news in the AGW industry? Because it's not scary enough to halt spending $Trillions$ in "fighting" it, akin the Crusaders back in the middle ages.

Fighting AGW is like shadow boxing an opponent. You can pretend it's a big contender, and throw a lot effort into "fighting" it, but it's pretty much wasted energy and effort ($$$) for naught. But we must believe, or we and our children will die for our sins to the planet. monkey


What percentage of reef worldwide has died in recent times?


More reefs are dying because of actual toxic pollution, than by AGW.

>> plastic-pollution-is-killing-coral-reefs-4-year-study-finds <<

We can thank China for being the largest single contributor to the Great Plastic Basin Dump in the middle of the Pacific. Plastics are a much bigger problem to our ecosystems than AGW will EVER be.

There's also regional reef die-offs due to localized ocean warming, mostly due to El Nino and La Nina's. The reefs dying of actual pollution will likely never come back, unless pollution stops, forever. Reef affected by temporary ocean temp rises alone, will eventually come back, until another strong El Nino or La Nina affects them again, and again, and again.


Surf 'em if you got 'em
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Surfdog] #2781767
04/20/18 08:59 PM
04/20/18 08:59 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 13,299
in the bathroom
M
manbearpig Offline
Tom Curren status
manbearpig  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
M

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 13,299
in the bathroom
Lmao so you think AGW is responsible for killing reefs?

Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: manbearpig] #2781770
04/20/18 09:03 PM
04/20/18 09:03 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
S
Surfdog Offline
Tom Curren status
Surfdog  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
Originally Posted By: manbearpig
Lmao so you think AGW is responsible for killing reefs?


What? Did you miss a word in there?

Both toxic pollution and temporary ocean warming due to El Nino/La Nina's are responsible for most of coral reef die-offs. AGW is such a minor player, as to be part of a +/- tolerance percentage of the 2 in the grand scheme.


Surf 'em if you got 'em
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: manbearpig] #2781772
04/20/18 09:04 PM
04/20/18 09:04 PM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 6,380
Your mom’s house
D
Duffy Offline
Phil Edwards status
Duffy  Offline
Phil Edwards status
**
D

Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 6,380
Your mom’s house
Quote:
60-90% bleached.


That’s quite a range. Is it 60? Is it 90?

Do we know?


“No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn”

- The Wasp
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Duffy] #2781775
04/20/18 09:18 PM
04/20/18 09:18 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
S
Surfdog Offline
Tom Curren status
Surfdog  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Quote:
60-90% bleached.


That’s quite a range. Is it 60? Is it 90?

Do we know?


The 2 yr old article say 60% overall, with "some" areas as high as 90%.

Granted, this study was done on only one atoll group of literally dozens of atoll groups in the Maldives. Not sure why this one atoll group was chosen, but the 2015/2016 ocean temps during that strong El Nino were likely near the heights and duration of the 97/98 strong El Nino (strongest El Nino prior to 2015).

The Maldives are a very hot, humid location almost on the equator with shallow reefs surrounding the little islands. Ocean temps are always in the low/mid 80's there, but when they get into the high 80's or near 90 for extended periods, corals can die off pretty bad.

Edit: And we should add that sunscreen is also known to kill off corals pretty bad. So tourists are also killing coral without knowing it. Humans in general are devastating to coral, unfortunately.

Decided to check where the study atoll group is in relation to the main atoll group of North Male (caught up with work today hat ). Each atoll group consists of many dozens of small little island/atolls in each. Usually a ring of little islands with a bunch scattered shallow reefs or exposed islands inside the perimeter. There are about 2 dozen of these atoll groups stretching over 400 miles north/south and not quite 100 miles wide east/west. Add them all up and there's probably near 1000 little islands in all. The study atoll is across the small "sea" between the east and west sides from North Male. Fairly isolated from industry islands.

There's still a huge diving tourism industry there, and basically the "Hawaii" for Europe and Asia for many ocean enthusiasts. The local Maldivians have lived there for probably at least 1000 years, as the capital Male was established in 1117. In fact the word "atoll" originated in the Maldives. OK. More than you ever wanted to know about the Maldives, but were afraid to ask. tongue2

Last edited by Surfdog; 04/20/18 10:06 PM. Reason: edit add

Surf 'em if you got 'em
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Surfdog] #2781780
04/20/18 09:54 PM
04/20/18 09:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,490
Body of Christ, Texas
T
test_article Offline
Phil Edwards status
test_article  Offline
Phil Edwards status
**
T

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,490
Body of Christ, Texas
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: manbearpig
Lmao so you think AGW is responsible for killing reefs?


What? Did you miss a word in there?

Both toxic pollution and temporary ocean warming due to El Nino/La Nina's are responsible for most of coral reef die-offs. AGW is such a minor player, as to be part of a +/- tolerance percentage of the 2 in the grand scheme.


The 2016 El Nino was extreme as a temperature event, as you say. There are studies showing extreme temperature event returns have shrunk by two-thirds since the '60s, i.e., a 99 year event now occurs every 33 years. What should we make of that?



Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Surfdog] #2781788
04/20/18 10:15 PM
04/20/18 10:15 PM
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,211
600 yards from the playground
G
GromsMom Offline
Gerry Lopez status
GromsMom  Offline
Gerry Lopez status
**
G

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,211
600 yards from the playground
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: Duffy


100%

basically every Surfdog word wall


You took my response seriously? Lol.


Even I got that is was a facetious meme.

Ya, it was wordy, but prove it wrong please.

The Maldives suffered badly in 1998 with coral bleaching and yes some areas will take longer to recover than others. It's only been 20 years. That's a fraction of a second in geologic terms when it comes to coral life cycles.

And yes belief in AGW is now of cult religion proportions. Some are casual practitioners, and profess their faith by driving a Prius or using only "green" products (which some are far from). Others are more of the warrior/crusades type believer where in your face challenges and shaming, if you question, are part of their worship and faith. It's science fiction prophecy portrayed as "fact" and more laughable, "consensus". No such thing as "consensus" in real science. Junk science, yes.

NOT saying we shouldn't be looking at ways to improve/recycle/reuse products and conserve energy and resources, when practical. But to tax, fee and shame the public into conforming and believing an apocalyptic theory as gospel truth and fact, is in itself shameful, if not outright communist. But if you don't "believe", you're a heretic and should be sent to prison or worse (this HAS been claimed by some in government/green industry, don't make me dig it up again). All feelz and no realz.

Did anyone notice the recent peer reviewed article regarding the timeline change for "catastrophic" sea level rise recently? The previous claims (in general, some have been much higher), of 2-4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, have been noticed as pretty tough to meet now, given the recent lack of ANY substantial uptick in sea level rise rates.

So, recent "studies" have been "recalculated" to push that date out to 2300 at the earliest now. So, they were only off by 200 years, based on 30-40 years of "observation". rolleyes

But even more comical, than that roll-back of "catastrophe", is that 2-4 feet in the next almost 300 years, is actually about the normal rate of sea level rise we've seen the last 300-500 years, post ice-age rate. 2 feet would be near the exact same rate we've been experiencing, while 4 feet would be about double. So, in essence next to ZERO increase in the existing sea level rise rates by 2300 or slightly more.

WHY isn't that HUGE news in the AGW industry? Because it's not scary enough to halt spending $Trillions$ in "fighting" it, akin the Crusaders back in the middle ages.

Fighting AGW is like shadow boxing an opponent. You can pretend it's a big contender, and throw a lot effort into "fighting" it, but it's pretty much wasted energy and effort ($$$) for naught. But we must believe, or we and our children will die for our sins to the planet. monkey


Why do you spend all that time writing the same stuff over and over again? Wouldn't be easier to just copy and paste it from the last time your wrote it? Mix the words up a bit?
What do you hope to accomplish by writing all that?
Is it carthatic, like a heroin addict who needs his dose?
You must be a fun person to grab a drink with...
Do you hope that maybe your long diatribes might change someone's views on the opposite side?

Sit back and reflect on these things for once. Or don't.

PS: Where is surffrog when you need him monkey grin2

Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: test_article] #2781790
04/20/18 10:29 PM
04/20/18 10:29 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
S
Surfdog Offline
Tom Curren status
Surfdog  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
Originally Posted By: test_article
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: manbearpig
Lmao so you think AGW is responsible for killing reefs?


What? Did you miss a word in there?

Both toxic pollution and temporary ocean warming due to El Nino/La Nina's are responsible for most of coral reef die-offs. AGW is such a minor player, as to be part of a +/- tolerance percentage of the 2 in the grand scheme.


The 2016 El Nino was extreme as a temperature event, as you say. There are studies showing extreme temperature event returns have shrunk by two-thirds since the '60s, i.e., a 99 year event now occurs every 33 years. What should we make of that?


Could possibly be AGW related, but El Nino's/La Nina's vary in intensity with each episode. We've only been able to accurately measure them since 1950 at best. We know for a fact we had as strong or stronger events in the late 1800's and 1939/40. We usually have a strong El Nino event every 7-8 years, on average. We've just had the longest stretch between "strong" El Nino's on records going back to 1950. So, what should we make of that?

>>http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php <<

>>http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm <<

P.S. The first chart link above has "officially" confirmed we've been in a weak/moderate La Nina this past winter. The second chart has yet to be updated to confirm. I take it the March data is just now being confirmed.

We already knew we were in La Nina conditions, again, after a weak short one last year. "Officially" we need 5 consecutive 3 month periods with either +0.5 (El Nino) or -0.5 (La Nina) Nino3.4 region ocean temp anomalies to qualify a period as El Nino or La Nina. This winters La Nina was a bit stronger that last years.


Surf 'em if you got 'em
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Duffy] #2781793
04/20/18 10:32 PM
04/20/18 10:32 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 13,299
in the bathroom
M
manbearpig Offline
Tom Curren status
manbearpig  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
M

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 13,299
in the bathroom
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Quote:
60-90% bleached.


That’s quite a range. Is it 60? Is it 90?

Do we know?

Read the article I posted. It states 60%, with some areas up to 90%. That’s data from 2016.

Last edited by manbearpig; 04/20/18 10:36 PM.
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: GromsMom] #2781794
04/20/18 10:33 PM
04/20/18 10:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
S
Surfdog Offline
Tom Curren status
Surfdog  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,488
Oceanside,CA
Originally Posted By: GromsMom

Why do you spend all that time writing the same stuff over and over again? Wouldn't be easier to just copy and paste it from the last time your wrote it? Mix the words up a bit?
What do you hope to accomplish by writing all that?
Is it carthatic, like a heroin addict who needs his dose?
You must be a fun person to grab a drink with...
Do you hope that maybe your long diatribes might change someone's views on the opposite side?

Sit back and reflect on these things for once. Or don't.

PS: Where is surffrog when you need him monkey grin2


surfrog couldn't keep up with the latest flip-flops the AGW industry keeps back-tracking on.


Surf 'em if you got 'em
Re: Anthropogenic climate change causing mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef [Re: Surfdog] #2781811
04/20/18 11:29 PM
04/20/18 11:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 17,916
West of the Atlantic. East of...
G
GromsDad Offline
Duke status
GromsDad  Offline
Duke status
**
G

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 17,916
West of the Atlantic. East of...
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: manbearpig
Lmao so you think AGW is responsible for killing reefs?


What? Did you miss a word in there?

Both toxic pollution and temporary ocean warming due to El Nino/La Nina's are responsible for most of coral reef die-offs. AGW is such a minor player, as to be part of a +/- tolerance percentage of the 2 in the grand scheme.


I thought it was my sunscreen that killed the reefs. shrug


“This is a bad day for the news media. Let’s not kid ourselves,” Toobin said on CNN. “The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they’re willing to lie to do it.”
Page 11 of 27 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 26 27

Moderated by  Groundswell, Nameless60, r32