Great Barrier Reef: Stories of death greatly exaggerated!

[BruceK]

For some,the Reef is but a coathanger for their politicized agendas. For most Australians, it is a source of wonder, joy, and beauty.

 

[Simi 60]

Anchor up @ 3:30am doing the run back out the reef to Lady Musgrave and the Capricorn group.
Should be there around lunchtime.

 

[BruceK]

This seems to be what the Govt Funded Australian Broadcasting Commission thought needed publicizing out of a recent report, a bacterial affectation which may or may not be beneficial/deleterious. No mention of a recovered reef.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05...d-in-great-barrier-reef-study-finds/102380368

 

[Insequent]

Well, to be fair the ABC was covering a different report than the one I posted about in post #29. As detailed localised research continues overall understanding improves.

My agenda here is to regularly update results from the long term monitoring programs that are taxpayer funded. They are carried out by career scientists who are obliged to report the data collected objectively. I think they are worth a quick look even if folks don't have the inclination to read them fully.

 

[utclmjmper]

Never forget that most "scientists" or government paid..>>>Dan

 

[Action]

Some news articles prompted me to post again.

The papers can present some facts that federal politicians and others would rather avoid. I've also posted a link to the Snapshot referred to if anyone wants to dig deeper.

https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspu...92cc-77b3aebfaec0/SummerSnapshot 2022-23 .pdf

Seems to be a case of bad news gets lots of publicity, but good news is ignored.

I am glad you posted.
More information, as long as it is accurate creates awareness.
Generally good news is considered not as news worthy as the opposite.
However I appreciate these posts.

 

[Andy G]

Never forget that most "scientists" or government paid..>>>Dan

So it's governments not global warming that is the problem?

 

[utclmjmper]

It mostly goes back to that..>>>Dan

 

[KnotYet]

Never forget that most "scientists" or government paid..>>>Dan

Another laughable misconception and distortion.
Most scientists, like most people, are employed by private companies or self-employed.

Most ignoramuses post nonsense on forums.

 

[sunchaser]

Knot so fast. They are called Paris Accords, government grants, NOAA, EPA, UN, IPC, university studies, NASA, etc for a reason.

 

[SeaLion]

Another laughable misconception and distortion.
Most scientists, like most people, are employed by private companies or self-employed.

Most ignoramuses post nonsense on forums.

Exactly!

 

[BruceK]

Well, to be fair the ABC was covering a different report than the one I posted about in post #29. As detailed localised research continues overall understanding improves.

My agenda here is to regularly update results from the long term monitoring programs that are taxpayer funded. They are carried out by career scientists who are obliged to report the data collected objectively. I think they are worth a quick look even if folks don't have the inclination to read them fully.

Aha, 2 reports. Brian, I appreciate your postings. I wouldn`t usually associate "fair" and "ABC".

 

[OldDan1943]

Knotyet,
Yup, you gotta dance with the one who brung you.
If you want your Govt funding to continue, you gotta agree with the Govt. Many current ‘papers’ quote other ‘papers’. ‘Papers’ that are poorly planed and executed and incorrect conclusions. The hell with science.
Want an example? “We have more growing trees than we did have 30 years ago.” That is most definitely true BUT, they are so small they are not yet marketable size. Even the growing conditions are perfect these planted or naturally occuring trees may not be ready to harvest until anywhere between 30 and 1000 years, depending on temp.

Meanwhile Alberta Canada has burned up in excess a half million acres of tree this year and no end in sight.

 

[OldDan1943]

Knotyet,
Yup, you gotta dance with the one who brung you.
If you want your Govt funding to continue, you gotta agree with the Govt. Many current ‘papers’ quote other ‘papers’. ‘Papers’ that are poorly planed and executed and incorrect conclusions. The hell with science.
Want an example? “We have more growing trees than we did have 30 years ago.” That is most definitely true BUT, they are so small they are not yet marketable size. Even the growing conditions are perfect these planted or naturally occuring trees may not be ready to harvest until anywhere between 30 and 1000 years, depending on temp.

Meanwhile Alberta Canada has burned up in excess a half million acres of tree this year and no end in sight.

Yes, I am a retired professional forester who has worked in northern Alberta, Idaho, Michigan and Georgia.

 

[Hippocampus]

“We use thought and reason to decide for ourselves. Climate change could be real or not real. Yes, its gotten hotter in some year, and cooler in others. Point is, more study is needed.”

This is not a true statement. Overwhelmingly science is consistent with man made climate change. Current studies are to refine and improve the accuracy of predicting specific impacts and outcomes. There is nothing offered by prior posters to support the statement “climate change could be real or not real”.

First there’s a difference between weather and climate. Weather accounts for cooler and warmer years. Climate change is the consistent trend over the many decades of our added heat trapping gases to our atmosphere and other activities (concrete manufacturing, non reflective cities and paving, factory agricultural and clear cutting etc,) causing man made climate change . As is said above you form a null hypothesis and then test and test. That testing allows you to refine your hypothesis as well as confirm the initial statement. Yes, you generate a statistic usually stated as my hypothesis is true with this probability. Hundreds of studies done throughout the world funded by NGOs, governments, academic institutions have consistently throughout decades shown that man made climate change is occurring. The probability of this being untrue is extremely low.

Agree there’s bad plumbers and good plumbers. Same with scientists. But when 99+% of studies and climatologists consistently document evidence supporting man made climate change if you choose to believe the 1% who do not well have a good time. BTW from my own experience as well as that of multiple family members I know industry salaries and reimbursement is much higher than than governmental or academic incomes for scientists. Any thought MMCC is a conspiracy or politically driven is a fantasy. Yes the political class will manipulate the science to their benefit but their manipulations doesn’t impact on the underlying science. Please read the series of the international commission to familiarize yourself with the science.

Mass extinctions and fundamental climate shifts occur suddenly in a geological time scale. If you have taken the time to take even a cursory look you would see we are currently in such an epoch. I’ve dove that Caribbean and it’s quite apparent in the places I’ve visited repeatedly how dramatic the coral, fauna and flora have declined in even such a short time frame of a decade. A good reef is diverse. I note your citations make no judgment as to diversity nor a baseline prior to 1950. If the base line is 90% living coral 27% or even 50% living coral should cause concern. Increase due to decrease in biodiversity should also cause concern.

Folks look at a study of events of a year or two or say this has been a concern through much of my life. Please note below from one of the citations of a poster poopooing MMCC.
“ . The first analyses consisted of a purely temporal model comprising a smoothed trend for the whole GBR and for each region separately. For the whole GBR, this showed that from 1985 to 2012, mean coral cover declined nonlinearly from 28.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) = (26.6, 29.4)] to 13.8% (95% CI = 12.4, 15.3) (Fig. 2A), a total decline of 14.2% (0.53% y−1). This is equivalent to a loss of 50.7% of the initial cover. Two-thirds of that decline has occurred since 1998, the current rate of decline is 1.51% y−1, ”

As one of our posters ends his posts
“Science doesn’t care what you believe “.

It’s totally consistent with MMCC that there would be variations from the mean but consistently that mean trends downward. MMCC is occurring and is already impacting us and the other life of this planet.