• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Great Barrier Reef: Signs of recovery despite major coral bleaching

Easy come. Easy go.

Oceans
[h=1]Great Barrier Reef bleaching study; Karoly et al (April 2016), Part A.[/h]Guest essay by Bob Fernley-Jones Background: This headline image is for a publically released article (the article) in the Australian university-partnered blog The Conversation in which ‘the study’ cited therein is of major concern particularly in the point highlighted with red underline: It focussed on the month of March in 2016, when record high Sea…
 
Now we all know NOAA and National Geographic arent as solid as climate denier websites like WUWT that have been proven to be lying for years, or Australian tourist agencies that are trying to get people to come dive on the reef, but this is what they have to say:

Coral Reef Bleaching Event Forecast to Worsen; NASA Studies Cause in Pacific – National Geographic Society (blogs)

Coral Reef Bleaching Event Forecast to Worsen; NASA Studies Cause in Pacific
Posted by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University on June 23, 2016

Coral in every major reef region across the world has already experienced bleaching, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forecasts that temperatures in much of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans could reach a point at which significant bleaching of corals is present this summer. NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch suggests that the greatest threat is to reefs in Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia. All Northern Hemisphere U.S.-coral reefs are on alert for bleaching.

In a statement, NOAA said that “This third global bleaching event began in mid-2014” and is ongoing. “Global warming, coupled with intense El Nino, continues to make this the longest and most widespread coral bleaching event on record.”

Coral bleaches when it becomes damaged or diseased by rising water temperatures. Some recent studies have suggested other factors—beyond just warming water—also play a role. Over the past century, climate change has already caused global sea surface temperatures to rise by about 1 degree Celsius, pushing corals closer to their bleaching threshold.

Although the bleaching event was already the longest in recorded history and was predicted to run past the middle of the year, NOAA’s latest climate model-based forecasts suggest it will run at least through the end of 2016.
 
It appears, that despite some claims to the contrary, the Great Barrier reef is not on deaths doorstep. Do we, need to make sure we are not polluting the waters, doing what we can to negate our impact to this natural treasure? Certainly, but hysteria doesn't help.

One of the chief sources of pollution is tourism.

This is like the frog deaths in the Amazon blamed on global warming.. that were eventually attributed to foreign bacteria introduced to the rain forest by the boots of tourists and researchers.

Or the non-plight of the polar bear...
 
Now we all know NOAA and National Geographic arent as solid as climate denier websites like WUWT that have been proven to be lying for years, or Australian tourist agencies that are trying to get people to come dive on the reef, but this is what they have to say:

Coral Reef Bleaching Event Forecast to Worsen; NASA Studies Cause in Pacific – National Geographic Society (blogs)

Have to wonder at what point will you realize that alarmist BS is not a substitute for science, and that your long history of backing wrong alarmist predictions only cheapens you.
 
Have to wonder at what point will you realize that alarmist BS is not a substitute for science, and that your long history of backing wrong alarmist predictions only cheapens you.
The reality is that most people that buy into the silliness that is being promoted by the AGW crowd are not being 'fooled' by the lies...they are eager participants. Even on this topic they started by spewing the lies and have continued to back a proven lie even after it was shown to be a proven lie. Hell...they still promote the 97% of scientists consensus bull****. Its all they have. Its what they do.
 
The reality is that most people that buy into the silliness that is being promoted by the AGW crowd are not being 'fooled' by the lies...they are eager participants. Even on this topic they started by spewing the lies and have continued to back a proven lie even after it was shown to be a proven lie. Hell...they still promote the 97% of scientists consensus bull****. Its all they have. Its what they do.


It's the "noble cause" trap. They never stop believing in the cause, and start pushing lies to support it... then at some point they are so committed to the cause that they fail to see tat the lies are all that are supporting it.
 
Have to wonder at what point will you realize that alarmist BS is not a substitute for science, and that your long history of backing wrong alarmist predictions only cheapens you.

So I should listen to the tour operators and denier blogs over NOAA and published scientific literature, like you?
 
It's the "noble cause" trap. They never stop believing in the cause, and start pushing lies to support it... then at some point they are so committed to the cause that they fail to see tat the lies are all that are supporting it.
The only part about that I disagree with is that they fail to see the lies. They see the lies...they just dont care. They will continue to spew what they know to be lies because it supports their cause.
 
So I should listen to the tour operators and denier blogs over NOAA and published scientific literature, like you?

I'm not telling you who to listen to, other than stop listening to scary stories that make no falsifiable claims yet pass themselves off as science. These types of stories are meant to persuade, not prove.
 
Now we all know NOAA and National Geographic arent as solid as climate denier websites like WUWT that have been proven to be lying for years, or Australian tourist agencies that are trying to get people to come dive on the reef, but this is what they have to say:

"Although the bleaching event was already the longest in recorded history and was predicted to run past the middle of the year, NOAA’s latest climate model-based forecasts suggest it will run at least through the end of 2016."

...

I, for one, never get tired of alarmist predictions that always fail.
They demonstrate the extent of human resilience when explaining each failure.
 
I'm not telling you who to listen to, other than stop listening to scary stories that make no falsifiable claims yet pass themselves off as science. These types of stories are meant to persuade, not prove.

Well, the scary stories are the ones that NOAA and the papers are telling us. You know, the scientists who 'pass off' their findings as science.

The others are denier blogs and tour operators, as shown in this thread, making no falsifiable claims and passing it offf as 'science'.

So I'm a bit confused on who to believe.
 
The only part about that I disagree with is that they fail to see the lies. They see the lies...they just dont care. They will continue to spew what they know to be lies because it supports their cause.

I didn't say they fail to see the lies, only that they cross to a point where they fail to see that the lies are the only thing supporting their belief.
 
Well, the scary stories are the ones that NOAA and the papers are telling us. You know, the scientists who 'pass off' their findings as science.

The others are denier blogs and tour operators, as shown in this thread, making no falsifiable claims and passing it offf as 'science'.

So I'm a bit confused on who to believe.

They are scare stories regardless of their origin. They aren't science, they are unspecified predictions that they can make year after year, ad nauseum.

Like I said, these stories are meant to persuade, not prove. They are propaganda, not science.
 
They are scare stories regardless of their origin. They aren't science, they are unspecified predictions that they can make year after year, ad nauseum.

Like I said, these stories are meant to persuade, not prove. They are propaganda, not science.

So what you're saying is only believe the sscience that fits your predetermined conclusion - that reef bleaching is not a big deal.

Gotcha.

I guess thats one way to just state your confirmation bias!
 
So what you're saying is only believe the sscience that fits your predetermined conclusion - that reef bleaching is not a big deal.

Nope, I am telling you how to differentiate science from propaganda.

I guess thats one way to just state your confirmation bias!

Nope. But that does appear to be the way your brain operates so I can understand your confusion.
 
Nope, I am telling you how to differentiate science from propaganda.

.

So I should avoid believing peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature because they are 'scary' (and just a veiled way to get a free trip from the author to Australia), and believe the 'non scary' reports from guys who operate tours at the reef that says everything is fine- plan your dive trip for next year with them? I think you're real confused about which is science and which is propaganda.
 
So I should avoid believing peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature because they are 'scary' (and just a veiled way to get a free trip from the author to Australia), and believe the 'non scary' reports from guys who operate tours at the reef that says everything is fine- plan your dive trip for next year with them? I think you're real confused about which is science and which is propaganda.

I didn't tell you to listen to either.

But here is a good way of weeding out the science from the propaganda. Go to your NatGeo link and follow the links within the article to see where they take you. Do they take you to peer reviewed literature?

I know you wont, so I'll help you this time. The links are, in order of appearance:

The Miami Herald

The Huffington Post

The Washington Post

The Independent

Nature

The Guardian

Mashable

Science Daily

NASA

IBTimes

ABC News

The Christian Science Monitor

I bolded the two potentially scientific sources in your link and guess what? The Nature article discusses causes of GBR bleaching that are not global warming, and the NASA link is to a page announcing a 3 year study that hasn't completed.

So yeah, you lose.

I will say one thing, though, the following headline...

Coral Reef Bleaching Event Forecast to Worsen; NASA Studies Cause in Pacific

... is no doubt true, and is right in line with my argument! :lamo
 
Last edited:
I didn't say they fail to see the lies, only that they cross to a point where they fail to see that the lies are the only thing supporting their belief.

I think that it may be that the more outlandish and unreal the lies are the more the identity jacket increases in value. That the higher the wall required to be part of the group the more they must be valued by the group, right???? Very sad really.
 
I didn't tell you to listen to either.

But here is a good way of weeding out the science from the propaganda. Go to your NatGeo link and follow the links within the article to see where they take you. Do they take you to peer reviewed literature?

I know you wont, so I'll help you this time. The links are, in order of appearance:

The Miami Herald

The Huffington Post

The Washington Post

The Independent

Nature

The Guardian

Mashable

Science Daily

NASA

IBTimes

ABC News

The Christian Science Monitor

I bolded the two potentially scientific sources in your link and guess what? The Nature article discusses causes of GBR bleaching that are not global warming, and the NASA link is to a page announcing a 3 year study that hasn't completed.

So yeah, you lose.

I will say one thing, though, the following headline...

Coral Reef Bleaching Event Forecast to Worsen; NASA Studies Cause in Pacific

... is no doubt true, and is right in line with my argument! :lamo

And those links, which are put in because people are more interested in reading solid news stories that describe science instead of difficult to read scientific papers, mostly quote scientists studying in the field, and refer to papers (which are often paywalled - not a real strong link when you are trying to reach a mass audience).

But the links that have opposed this point (which, I'll note, you have supplied NONE, as per the usual) have been single sourced newspaper articles, or 'studies' done by the tourism industry.

But you arent swayed by propaganda at all!
 
And those links, which are put in because people are more interested in reading solid news stories that describe science instead of difficult to read scientific papers, mostly quote scientists studying in the field, and refer to papers (which are often paywalled - not a real strong link when you are trying to reach a mass audience).

But the links that have opposed this point (which, I'll note, you have supplied NONE, as per the usual) have been single sourced newspaper articles, or 'studies' done by the tourism industry.

But you arent swayed by propaganda at all!

Then do me a favor, track one of those articles back to the original journal article that gives solid, scientific predictions that the bleaching will get worse so we can use it to measure against future observation. I started with the Miami Herald and that article only turned up links back to the Miami Herald and the CORAL program announcement. HuffPo referenced a bunch of NOAA posts but none gave quantified predictions on future bleaching.

You seem to think they are there.
 
Then do me a favor, track one of those articles back to the original journal article that gives solid, scientific predictions that the bleaching will get worse so we can use it to measure against future observation. I started with the Miami Herald and that article only turned up links back to the Miami Herald and the CORAL program announcement. HuffPo referenced a bunch of NOAA posts but none gave quantified predictions on future bleaching.

You seem to think they are there.

The topic, of course, is CURRENT bleaching, and how the deniers are denying it exists.

Future bleaching mechanisms can be found here. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I suggest you read WG2, on the impacts of climate change.
 
The topic, of course, is CURRENT bleaching, and how the deniers are denying it exists.

Future bleaching mechanisms can be found here. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I suggest you read WG2, on the impacts of climate change.

Feel free to point to the actual content that supports the claim with quantified projections of reef die off that we can use to assess the accuracy of the projection.

Thanks in advance!
 
[h=2]How Gaia and coral reefs regulate ocean pH[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on October 13, 2016 | 20 comments[/FONT]
by Jim Steele
Although some researchers have raised concerns about possible negative effects of rising CO2 on ocean surface pH, there are several lines of evidence demonstrating marine ecosystems are far more sensitive to fluxes of carbon dioxide from ocean depths and the biosphere’s response than from invasions of atmospheric CO2. There is also ample evidence that lower pH does not inhibit photosynthesis or lower ocean productivity (Mackey 2015). On the contrary, rising CO2 makes photosynthesis less costly.
Continue reading
 
Back
Top Bottom