Great Barrier Reef destroyed by climate... or not.

[APenNameAndThatA]

cscotthendry, tell us how Ontogenic Effect is 'nullified' in the coral core/slice records.And I think Eisenstein would have a comment to make about somebody turning up with a snowball as evidence. Remember the so-called climate experts were claiming many years ago that their children would not know what snow looks like...

.

Selecting a small element of a broad scientific field and using it as a way of criticising the entire field is intellectually untenable - like with the growth rings and the climate change denial. The reason is that the people in the field would easily be able to answer your questions. That is if the points are not outright fiction. I have not heard about villages from a couple hundred years ago being unearthed, have not heard about growing glaciers and have not heard about growing polar ice caps.

The Dunning Kruger effect works in the same way: not knowing enough to know how little you know. I see it when people criticise my field: the points they raise are dead boring and do nothing to prove the point that they are supposed to prove.

 

The posts are supposed to be about aviation. What aviation shows me about the atmosphere is how little of it there is. My own reasoning is that that should mean that humans should be able to change it. You can fly 300 km as a short hop, but go up 3 km and all of a sudden there is a lot less atmosphere.

 

As for invoking Einstein... puh-leeese.

 

In principle I will ignore all future posts you make on this topic. Just because they thought that Copernicus was an idiot does not mean that an idiot is at all likely to be a Copernicus.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

...but can we please leave this one to flying. ...You don't actually wish to engage in sensible debate but are using this forum for ranting and raving about the issue without actually responding to the points others make.

The hysteria surrounding the reef affects Australian aviation that serves the tourism and associated industry's. The so-called threats to the reef were used in attacks on a new airfield being built by Adani coal. So, YES, this discussion is about flying.

Please do point out where I am "ranting and raving" ? Whilst I entertain and respond to the hundred and one diversions thrown into the thread I do get back to the core issue... So, Nobody, what do you know about Ontogenetic effect ?

 

 

.

 

 

[octave]

I've flown up the coast over the GBR at low level many times over the last quarter century or so and never seen any coral bleaching. I'm wondering if somebody has seen this 'bleaching' and can give me some GPS co-ordinates so I can go and have a look-see ?

FB this was the original question you asked. I posted a link with an interactive map which pretty much answers this question and provides aerial footage. Did you have a look?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

="Flying Binghi, post: 653337, member: 17328"]So, all is lost so we should just let the aircraft crash...

I'm replying to this on the Off Topic (WUA) forum.

[Marty_d]

What's your motivation Flying Binghi?

 

We get your mindset. "Renewables are a waste of money". "Climate change isn't real". There you go, I've summed up your points.

 

Now why are you so eager to keep making them? Is it just a "head in the sand" thing, where you think if you yell long and hard enough that climate change isn't real, that it'll just go away?

 

This isn't something you can argue away. The science is in. It's a fact. Now we have to figure out how to deal with it, not waste time trying to argue about its existence.

 

 

[danny_galaga]

[Flying Binghi]

FB this was the original question you asked. I posted a link with an interactive map which pretty much answers this question and provides aerial footage. Did you have a look?

Yes, I did. Plenty of flying footage. Though, as I first said, I've flown the GBR for many years and, apart from the effects of the odd cyclone or two, not noticed anything out of the ordinary - And we have had a 'bleaching' hysteria event before going on 10 years ago. And as I've shown, we had a major bleaching 'event' back in 1952 that the then scientists needed funds to investigate. Seems to me what is being claimed via aerial survey to be recently bleached coral is just part of the normal state of affairs.

The Low Isles claims of 1952 were compared to the 1920's bleaching study's done in that area. And the 1920's coral killing mission is a fascinating read.

 

...And, I'm wondering why the panic re my questions about coral core records and the Ontogenetic Effect ? It's as though I'm questioning the basis of somebody's religious beliefs....

 

.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Selecting a small element of a broad scientific field and using it as a way of criticising the entire field is intellectually untenable - like with the growth rings and the climate change denial. The reason is that the people in the field would easily be able to answer your questions. That is if the points are not outright fiction. I have not heard about villages from a couple hundred years ago being unearthed, have not heard about growing glaciers and have not heard about growing polar ice caps.The Dunning Kruger effect works in the same way: not knowing enough to know how little you know. I see it when people criticise my field: the points they raise are dead boring and do nothing to prove the point that they are supposed to prove.

The posts are supposed to be about aviation. What aviation shows me about the atmosphere is how little of it there is. My own reasoning is that that should mean that humans should be able to change it. You can fly 300 km as a short hop, but go up 3 km and all of a sudden there is a lot less atmosphere.

 

As for invoking Einstein... puh-leeese.

 

In principle I will ignore all future posts you make on this topic. Just because they thought that Copernicus was an idiot does not mean that an idiot is at all likely to be a Copernicus.

That's the Einstein who were banished to the post office sorting room because he questioned the scientific consensus. That's the Einstein who said you don't need one hundred scientists to disprove what he said- Only one was needed.

...And what about them idiot Wright Brothers - Bicycle mechanics. The aviation scientists of the Wright Brothers time had big well funded university departments, a large water based aircraft launching site and lots of important aviation science meeting to attend... Bah, what would a couple of push bike mechanics know about flying.....

 

 

.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

...And, I'm wondering why the panic re my questions about coral core records and the ? It's as though I'm questioning the basis of somebody's religious beliefs.....

OK, I'll throw my couple of cents towards this flat earther.

WTF is this supposed Ontogenetic Effect???

 

Ontogeny (also ontogenesis or morphogenesis) is the origination and development of an organism, usually from the time of fertilization of the egg to the organism's mature form - sooooo, what "effect" are you on about. pray tell?

 

Flying over a bit of coral and saying - 'I cant see any damage' is right up there with the great intelligence Pauline Hanson, who took a swim in a protected bay, and then declared that because she couldn't see any damage, there was none, and thus all the scientists were mistaken or just plain wrong about coral bleaching/

 

Also, brand new article about coral reef degradation...

 

Damaged coral reefs are going quiet and young fish can't find their way home

 

You sir, are a troll, you know you are a troll, so please remove yourself from this forum

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Damaged coral reefs are going quiet and young fish can't find their way home

 

Share

 

ABC Science

 

By environment reporter Nick Kilvert

 

Updated yesterday at 15:01

 

First posted yesterday at 12:08

 

 

The sounds of healthy reefs attract young fish.

 

(Supplied: The Ocean Agency / XL Catlin Seaview Survey)

 

Healthy coral reefs are alive with the pops, snaps and clicks of the invertebrate creatures that inhabit them. And many newly hatched fish species use these sounds to guide them towards new habitats.

 

But now scientists have found reefs damaged by coral bleaching and cyclones are much quieter than intact reefs, and are failing to attract as many new juvenile fish, which are crucial for reef recovery.

 

An international team published its findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencestoday, and study co-author Mark Meekan from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) said the results were worrying.

 

"During bleaching, corals lose their zooxanthellae, they starve to death, they die and live coral cover is replaced by algae," he said.

 

"Those young fish graze the reef and keep the algae down. Without the fish suppressing the growth of algae, the corals have essentially no space on the reef and can't get through."

 

Dr Meekan said listening to a healthy coral reef through underwater audio amplifiers called hydrophones, was like "listening to bacon frying in a pan".

 

"But it's punctuated by the chirps and tweets and all sorts of screeches that come from fish."

 

 

Healthy reefs sound like 'bacon frying in a pan'.

 

(Supplied: PNAS)

 

The researchers compared underwater acoustic recordings from reefs around Lizard Island in the northern Great Barrier Reef off Cooktown from November 2012 and November 2016.

 

Between recordings, the reefs were hit by Cyclone Ita in 2014, Cyclone Nathan in 2015 and "the most severe global mass-bleaching event on record" in 2016.

 

The most recent recordings had "significantly reduced acoustic complexity, richness and rates of invertebrate snaps" when compared to the earlier recordings.

 

Fish larvae not attracted to 'quieter' reefs

 

Fish are spawned in the open water where they are safer from predators that live on the reef.

 

After a month or so of development in open ocean, they need to navigate back into shallower waters where there is shelter and food, Dr Meekan said.

 

"Baby fish that have been drifting off into the open water have to find their way back home, and what they use is sound.

 

"Turns out that the sounds of the degraded reef — the reefs that have undergone the bleaching and the cyclones — are both much quieter and much less attractive to the baby fish."

 

To test whether this was the case at Lizard Island, the researchers set up a controlled experiment using recordings from before and after the cyclones, which they played underwater over 18 consecutive nights at small "patch reefs".

 

 

Reefs around Lizard Island are quieter since being hit by two cyclones and severe bleaching.

 

(Supplied: PNAS)

 

They consistently found fewer fish larvae and young fish were attracted to recordings made in 2016, compared to recordings from 2012.

 

The phenomenon of fish using sound to navigate has been shown in previous studies, but observing it in a reef environment suggests bleaching may have far-reaching consequences, according to Ivan Nagelkerken from the University of Adelaide, who was not involved in the study.

 

"You're talking about natural food webs. If you take one species out, you're talking about cascading problems throughout the food web," he said.

 

Fallout from record bleaching continues

 

The bleaching event of 2016 was so severe, scientists say parts of the reef in the north were "cooked" rather than just experiencing the usual stress associated with marine heatwaves.

 

A recent study found that the bleaching event transformed the ecology of the reef, removing important habitats for some fish and invertebrates.

 

As well as sound, Professor Nagelkerken said changes in water temperature, salinity and acidification could alter fish behaviour.

 

His team exposed fish to ocean acidification levels "that we may see in the next few decades".

 

They found that fish were attracted to the sound of habitats that they wouldn't normally encounter, and actively avoided sounds from their own habitat.

 

Earlier studies have also shown that ocean acidification makes the smell of predators attractive to fish larvae, rather than triggering them to flee.

 

Dr Meekan, who has been working on the Great Barrier Reef for 20 years, says the pressure that climate change is putting on the reef may have permanent consequences.

 

"It was certainly the worst bleaching event that I've witnessed at Lizard Island," he said.

 

"But we have to remember that corals can recover from bleaching events, even when they're very severe.

 

"The point is how frequently they occur because it takes the reef about 10 years to recover.

 

"If bleaching events happen every five years, the reef gets constantly whacked and never gets a chance."

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

OK, I'll throw my couple of cents towards this flat earther.WTF is this supposed Ontogenetic Effect???

 

Ontogeny (also ontogenesis or morphogenesis) is the origination and development of an organism, usually from the time of fertilization of the egg to the organism's mature form - sooooo, what "effect" are you on about. pray tell?

 

Flying over a bit of coral and saying - 'I cant see any damage' is right up there with the great intelligence Pauline Hanson, who took a swim in a protected bay, and then declared that because she couldn't see any damage, there was none, and thus all the scientists were mistaken or just plain wrong about coral bleaching/

 

Also, brand new article about coral reef degradation...

 

Damaged coral reefs are going quiet and young fish can't find their way home

 

You sir, are a troll, you know you are a troll, so please remove yourself from this forum

Whoa, so much vitriol my way. Though, not all bad as nowadays what were once called Heritics by the true believers are now called trolls...

As to Ontogenetic Effect. I'm sure Jaba-who is looking into it now and wondering why it were not mentioned in that university presentation he attended.

 

.

 

 

[danny_galaga]

...And what about them idiot Wright Brothers - Bicycle mechanics. The aviation scientists of the Wright Brothers time had big well funded university departments, a large water based aircraft launching site and lots of important aviation science meeting to attend... Bah, what would a couple of push bike mechanics know about flying.....

This is going to go off track here, but as a fan of the Wright Brothers may I make a few points? They were not merely bicycle mechanics. They were businessmen, and true scientists. Yes if you own a bicycle shop you probably would be silly not to get your hands dirty. they also owned a printing business and were some of the first Americans to print African American literature.

Not just that, but Orville was accepted into Yale. The only reason he didn't go was because his mother became ill, and back then, that was the end of that.

 

Part of their genius was not just their astute scientific principles (the amount of research just into propellers was prodigious), but their even more astute business acumen. This is where they could do for $5000 what a 'real' scientist like Samuel Langley blew $50,000 of Smithsonian grants on. And of course they famously sued anyone who so much as looked their way. But none the less, this view that they were somehow just backyard tinkerers is pervasive, yet wrong.

 

Ok, back to climate change

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

This is going to go off track here, but as a fan of the Wright Brothers may I make a few points? They were not merely bicycle mechanics. They were businessmen, and true scientists. Yes if you own a bicycle shop you probably would be silly not to get your hands dirty. they also owned a printing business and were some of the first Americans to print African American literature.Not just that, but Orville was accepted into Yale. The only reason he didn't go was because his mother became ill, and back then, that was the end of that.

Part of their genius was not just their astute scientific principles (the amount of research just into propellers was prodigious), but their even more astute business acumen. This is where they could do for $5000 what a 'real' scientist like Samuel Langley blew $50,000 of Smithsonian grants on. And of course they famously sued anyone who so much as looked their way. But none the less, this view that they were somehow just backyard tinkerers is pervasive, yet wrong.

Yep, grandfather of mine run a push bike shop back early last century so I found the Wright Brothers to be a fascinating study.

The trouble though with your background of the Wright Brothers is with today's eco-loons they would need peer reveiwed research, a university degree, and a university job before they would be allowed to comment on anything aviation related. And then if their views did not agree with the consensus they would be hounded out of their jobs.

 

And the Wright Brothers were back yard tinkerers...

 

Back to the thread..

 

.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...And the Wright Brothers were back yard tinkerers...

...who, after their laudable pioneering work, held back aircraft development in America for decades via litigation and patent claims. When America entered The Great War they found they were so far behind European aircraft development that had to use French planes.

[danny_galaga]

Yep, grandfather of mine run a push bike shop back early last century so I found the Wright Brothers to be a fascinating study.The trouble though with your background of the Wright Brothers is with today's eco-loons they would need peer reveiwed research, a university degree, and a university job before they would be allowed to comment on anything aviation related. And then if their views did not agree with the consensus they would be hounded out of their jobs.

And the Wright Brothers were back yard tinkerers...

 

Back to the thread..

Not really, because their research was replicable. If the same thing happened today, as back then, people will pick it apart and when it's put back together and still works, there's your consensus just like the climate research ;-)

A good example of someone who wasn't a 'scientist' but who's research was verified by 'scientists' (because it was true and correct, which is science) is Marjorie Rice

 

Marjorie Rice - Wikipedia

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

...who, after their laudable pioneering work, held back aircraft development in America for decades via litigation and patent claims. When America entered The Great War they found they were so far behind European aircraft development that had to use French planes.

No one said they were saints, just astute. And as to patents - pay the dues and get the rights of usage.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Not really, because their research was replicable. If the same thing happened today, as back then, people will pick it apart and when it's put back together and still works, there's your consensus just like the climate research...

Heh, you obviously haven't had much to do with researching the subject. Anyone questioning the 'consensus' gets hit with a barrage of diversion and abuse. Much so-called climate science is paywalled or simply not allowed to be accessed.

An example of what I have alluded to in this and prior posts...

 

Professor Peter Ridd is a physicist at James Cook University who has dared to question scientific findings that purport to show the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. Specifically, he has been formally censured by the University and told to remain quiet about the matter – or risk his job.

 

The issue dates back to August 2017, and comments he made on television promoting the book I edited...

 

Peter wrote the first chapter in this book, and in it he suggests that there are major problems with quality assurance when it comes to claims of the imminent demise of the reef. He has also published in the scientific literature detailing his concerns about the methodology used to measure calcification rates, including a technical paper in Marine Geology (volume 65).

 

Peter Ridd Asks for your Help - Now - Jennifer Marohasy

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

plenty of academics trying to get on the minerals payroll

 

 

[danny_galaga]

This Peter Ridd?

 

He’s a tenured professor at James Cook University. He makes a bunch of his money from consulting on marine dredging, which he plows into his research. Applied sciences, which is just fine. Seems to be doing okay.He’s also a science adviser to the climate change denialist group, the Galileo Movement. Oops. And he’s also the science coordinator for the Australia Environment Foundation, which sounds nice, but is a spin off climate change denial group of the right wing advocacy group the Institute for Public Affairs. That sounds nice too, but it’s the Australian equivalent of the Heritage Foundation and in fact got a bunch of its funding from it. Basically part of the dark money climate denial network funded by the Koch brothers and similar people.

 

So he’s been a tenured professor looking at ocean sediments mostly, running research projects and advising students. And in parallel, he has positions being the science guy for climate change denial organizations. That doesn’t seem like his beliefs are causing him problems.

 

What did cause him problems was getting in a snit about the use of photographs of the reefs in some research and publications. The photographs were comparing historical pictures with current pictures and came with proviso after proviso about what they might indicate. But that wasn’t good enough for Ridd. He ignored all of the careful wording in the research and publications and made a bunch of statements about the veracity and credibility of the researchers for their use of the photos. Yeah, he’s a coral-bleaching denialist and like most denialists can’t help but be nasty and doesn’t work through peer-reviewed publications because he can’t produce anything that supports his denial that’s of sufficient quality to get into anything other than complete pay-to-publish rags.

 

This was picked up by the usual suspects and he got a bit more publicity for his fringe views. I’m sure the Heritage Foundation and the IPA were very happy. He was slapped on the wrist by his university for his statements, which were a/ public, b/ inflammatory, c/ stupid, d/ personal and e/ not peer-reviewed.

 

What is the scientific perspective on reef bleaching by the way?

 

Indeed, Professor Ruth Gates, president of the International Society for Reef Studies, which co-organised the symposium, told Media Watch:

 

“Almost every single member of the conference of 2500 people stood up saying that they felt that bleaching and climate change pose a significant threat to the existence of coral reefs. There’s really no discussion about whether or not it’s serious. It is very serious. There is no debate about it.”

 

— Professor Ruth Gates, President, International Coral Reef Symposium, 30 June, 2016

 

So James Cook University censured him after an investigation. They found that he was “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”. Did James Cook remove tenure? Um, no. Did they fire him? No. Did they prevent him from continuing his dredging related sediment research? No. Did they stop him from being the science-y guy for two different climate change denial groups? No. That didn’t prevent the climate change blogosphere and right wing media from acting as if he’d been cast into a bottomless pit.

 

Hard to say how Ridd’s career has been negatively impacted by his long standing crank position on climate change.

[pmccarthy]

Climate denial is a pejorative term. Many of the geologists that I know are quite unconvinced by “climate science” because it ignores a lot of evidence. In twenty years we will look back and laugh at today’s hysteria.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

"...Ontogenetic Effect...".

 

This Peter Ridd?

A link to where you found that please danny_galaga

As to credibility of what you posted - Peter Ridd is going to court to retain his position. So the claim of "Did James Cook remove tenure? Um, no" does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

So as to the credibilitie of the rest of it... We'll soon have the court records to peruse..

 

From my prior link - After some reflection over the last couple of months, and some thousands of dollars on legal fees... Professor Ridd has decided to fight the final censure.

 

Peter Ridd Asks for your Help - Now - Jennifer Marohasy

 

.

 

 

[danny_galaga]

Climate denial is a pejorative term. Many of the geologists that I know are quite unconvinced by “climate science” because it ignores a lot of evidence. In twenty years we will look back and laugh at today’s hysteria.

What type of geologists? Interesting article here:

Geologists and climate change denial

 

 

[bexrbetter]

This Peter Ridd?

You just supported Flying Binghi's proffering, anyone who dares question Climate Change is to be dealt with using personal abuse and tearing down.

Is it totalitarian'ism, or just itellectually incapable of forming a debate with facts?

 

Speaking of Reef damage, what happened with that starfish infestation that was doing all the damage a few years back, is that still going on?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

What type of geologists? Interesting article here:Geologists and climate change denial

Linking to a radical climate change hysteric's website does you no favours.

Here's a task for you, prove this statement from the article you just linked: "One survey of earth scientists found that while 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists agree humans are changing global temperatures"

 

Warning, you may not like the facts surrounding that oft quoted 97% figure.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Climate denial is a pejorative term. Many of the geologists that I know are quite unconvinced by “climate science” because it ignores a lot of evidence. In twenty years we will look back and laugh at today’s hysteria.

Gee PM, I sure hope they're right. If not, in twenty years it'll be too late to do anything about it and we'll be swamped with millions of refugees...