climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[palmbeacher]

1.5 degrees warming kills 90% of coral reefs. How is that a good thing?

Demonstrably false. Red Sea is often cited as a model environment for warmer world. It has thriving coral population. Let me repeat: relatively puny area (compared to Great Barrier Reef) features coral diversity approaching, or even exceeding the famous contender.

So the fact that Red Sea corals may be better equipped against warming temperatures, doesn’t mean that other corals elsewhere also survive. The Red Sea probably has less than 10% of remaining corals globally, so what is your point here exactly?

[palmbeacher]

1.5 degrees warming kills 90% of coral reefs. How is that a good thing?

Hilarious! The last time the Earth was 3 degrees warmer, apparently it made all of the coral extinct? Maybe "moon men" brought the coral back after having saved it to be replanted in the earth's oceans?

Palmy, I think you're losing touch with reality. If the Earth's ecosystems were that sensitive to climate change, there wouldn't be any ecosystems left given the climate change that has happened in the last billion years.

Are you referring to the ecocene 50 million years ago? Your argument that some corals may survive, doesn’t say anything about the scientific fact that 90% of coral reefs (that have taken thousands of years to develop) will die because of warming oceans. This will have grave consequences for people around the world as coral reefs are nurseries for pelagic fish. But please go on to believe this isn’t an issue and we should continue to emit carbon emissions for no reason other than the wealth of 0.001% of the human population.

[Pemba]

So you haven't really offered any practical solutions.

Stop digging! That is always the first step.

By saying "All the while getting you worked up about something that isn't even enough of a problem in comparison to the reality that we are facing" I think you assume either that AGW is not real or that it's consequences are not very bad. Obviously reading your posts this is what you believe. But can you prove that ? I assume it can't be proved either. So I continue to believe that AGW is real and the consequences are negative in terms of biodiversity and more. This is because the majority of scientists seems to believe that.

Warming, whether anthropogenic or natural, is more of a benefit to humanity in the increasing carrying capacity of Earth. The proof of this is the undeniable fact that a cooling climate on earth is detrimental to the carrying capacity of Earth. If you can find someone that says otherwise, you will find that they have no grounds upon which to base that assumption. There is no scientific evidence that a cooling climate will have more rainfall and more arable land. And all scientific evidence shows that increasing temperatures will increase the amount of arable land on the Earth. A cooling climate also sees an extension of the polar regions where biodiversity is much less than closer to the Equator.

The AGW scientific Community has shown a definite bias toward selling their narrative - to the point of ignoring contrary data, and even falsifying data to prove their narrative true. This is also fact. If you want to believe what someone wants you to believe who has an agenda for you believing that, and has demonstrated their bias and agenda, then you might be....... well, disappointed in the overall outcome.

Ok, your hypothesis of increased carrying capacity seems worth looking into. But do you have any idea how many more years it would give humanity, say per degree C of warming ? An ever increasing global population is unsustainable unless we just assume we will be able to start using other planets. Therefore to me, probably quite controversially, increased carrying capacity of the earth (assuming you are right) is not an important argument. Biodiversity is. I'm hoping that somehow increased welfare in second and third world countries will bring population growth there down. I believe that will eventually happen, but by then it will be "too late" for many things..

Also, you highlight (the risk of) global cooling as the alternative to limiting CO2 emissions. You propose to not take any action now because you're afraid there's a chance we'd be too successful in it, while at the same time I think, arguing that we don't understand the way climate works. So is your point then: we don't understand climate, so lets not change anything we're doing now because you never know, we might trigger global cooling ? However we are continually changing things, we're continually pushing more CO2 in the atmosphere aren't we ? It might well be a coincidence but I can see your line of reasoning is beneficial to countries that have fossil fuels and not to China. Political. I think the chances of us triggering global cooling as a result of successfully limiting CO2 emissions must be so minute they don't deserve to be mentioned here. I'd think that if it happens we could reverse or adapt our actions but then you believe we don't know or understand the consequences of our actions.. That in itself should actually be an argument to not increase CO2 emissions I think..

I believe the "non AGW" community, including "big oil" is at least equally biased, potentially leading to the same disappointment in the overall outcome. These points have both been made many times already, there seems to be no point repeating them.

[tegirinenashi]

So the fact that Red Sea corals may be better equipped against warming temperatures, doesn’t mean that other corals elsewhere also survive. The Red Sea probably has less than 10% of remaining corals globally, so what is your point here exactly?

The dim progressives view on Darwinian evolution capabilities always fascinated me. Or are you implying that those particular species of coral resilient to bleaching are of no interest to the ecological warriors? Then, perhaps starting nonprofit "Black Corals Matter" is not such a crazy idea...

[palmbeacher]

So the fact that Red Sea corals may be better equipped against warming temperatures, doesn’t mean that other corals elsewhere also survive. The Red Sea probably has less than 10% of remaining corals globally, so what is your point here exactly?

The dim progressives view on Darwinian evolution capabilities always fascinated me. Or are you implying that those particular species of coral resilient to bleaching are of no interest to the ecological warriors? Then, perhaps starting nonprofit "Black Corals Matter" is not such a crazy idea...

Without evidence you suggest that somehow magically coral reefs will adept globally to record rising temperatures? With this kind of intelligence I do have less faith in humanity.

[Matteo V]

The scientific evidence suggests that a system with more energy will have more frequent extreme weather events. If your argument is that this will benefit agriculture, perhaps you have not considered the real impacts this might possibly have.

And a system with less energy will have less average rainfall. So here is your lesson in how to propagandize something that is good and make it seem bad.

The most precious agricultural resource on the planet is freshwater. Places where freshwater is available, either from direct rainfall, irrigation via groundwater, or water transportation such as reservoirs and canal systems, can be used for crop production. All three of the water resources above, absolutely require rainfall. Irrigation, whether from relocation of water via reservoirs and canals, and groundwater, starts as rainfall. And groundwater sources are finite, thus they must be replenished with rainfall also.

I grew up in the central US where we have arable land that does not requiring irrigation, land that is highly productive but requires irrigation, and land where no irrigation is available. If average rainfall increases, some of the land where no irrigation is currently available, could be developed into irrigated arable land. And some of the land that required irrigation before, may no longer require irrigation.

But if you decrease the global average rainfall, obviously, the opposite happens. Some of that irrigated arable land, will no longer have a water source available to irrigate it. And that some of the land that does not require irrigation for crop production, will begin to require irrigation for crop production. The net effect of this is that there is less land available for crop production, and more inputs are required with more environmental consequences, such as diverting rivers and streams.

So how do you sell more average rainfall, as a bad thing? Well you mention that it comes down from storms which can obviously be destructive. More lightning, more tornadoes, more hail, and even increased plant production in dry areas which can lead to increase fuel for forest fires. So when you push that side of the narrative to those unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves, you can get people to think that more rainfall is bad for Humanity.

But if you look past the headline once again, you will realize that all of those things are necessary byproducts of rainfall. LIFE GIVING RAINFALL!!! Which comes in everything from gentle rain, to severe storms to hurricanes and typhoons. These are our source of freshwater on this planet! And while it is true that there are often times crop damaging storms, there is no rainfall without storms, and no crops to be damaged without rainfall. There is also no reliable evidence that the net increase in damage to crops from storm damage will somehow be out of proportion to the increased amount of rainfall and increased amount of arable land on the Earth.

But here's where the environment really comes in, and the reality turns out to be the opposite of what you are being sold with the AGW narrative. There are many examples of water resources that are already overextended, and even Wars taking place over their allocation. Some rivers are so overused that they never actually make it to the ocean. Entire ecosystems have also been irreparably altered or completely destroyed by the overuse of water resources. If the Earth experiences a cooling event, more Rivers and streams will be exploited to the point that they themselves lose there ability to support their own unique ecosystems.

And in the end, desperate exploitation by Humanity always leads to environmental destruction, pollution, and the loss of even wider-ranging ecosystems.

So once again, the AGW narrative paints a picture which is the opposite of what it actually is. It is so very much like a religion, that it is deserving of being criticized as an actual religion. To believe in this AGW narrative, you have to first of all believe that CO2 is bad for plant production, increased rainfall will somehow magically destroy more crops on average than it supports. You also have to believe that local changes, such as some areas becoming dryer, and many areas receive more rainfall, is overall bad.... because it's change.....and the narrative is that change is bad..... which means the last 4 billion years on this planet have all been bad and somehow we are going to stabilize the climate so that it doesn't change anymore.

And here's the news flash! The climate has on regular cycles in the past, changed in a way which would be more devastating to humanity than any nuclear war. And that change was in the form of cooling events. A major cooling event could even mean the extinction of humanity. But a minor cooling event, could also be just as devastating because of things that humanity would do just to survive, especially as we continue to add more people into that problem.

[Matteo V]

1.5 degrees warming kills 90% of coral reefs. How is that a good thing?

Hilarious! The last time the Earth was 3 degrees warmer, apparently it made all of the coral extinct? Maybe "moon men" brought the coral back after having saved it to be replanted in the earth's oceans?

Palmy, I think you're losing touch with reality. If the Earth's ecosystems were that sensitive to climate change, there wouldn't be any ecosystems left given the climate change that has happened in the last billion years.

Are you referring to the ecocene 50 million years ago? Your argument that some corals may survive, doesn’t say anything about the scientific fact that 90% of coral reefs (that have taken thousands of years to develop) will die because of warming oceans. This will have grave consequences for people around the world as coral reefs are nurseries for pelagic fish. But please go on to believe this isn’t an issue and we should continue to emit carbon emissions for no reason other than the wealth of 0.001% of the human population.

What if Humanity had the capability to air condition the oceans? Would it be okay to essentially freeze evolutionary pressures on this Earth by stabilizing ocean temperatures and the climate? And do you really believe the ocean temperatures are somehow going to magically be stabilized so that all corals have the ideal growing conditions for the next 4 billion years? I think a good term for your mentality and almost all AGW believers would be, "evolutionarily excluded environmentalism". The premise for which is that any change in an ecosystem or an environment, is bad. And all changes whether man-made or natural, should be fought against.

But please go on to believe this isn’t an issue and we should continue to emit carbon emissions for no reason other than the wealth of 0.001% of the human population.

Sure, so long as you go on pretending that reducing CO2 emissions is a positive environmental action without reducing the population of the Earth. Once again I must remind you, that halfing the planets per person CO2 emissions does nothing when you double the human population.

[tegirinenashi]

Without evidence you suggest that somehow magically coral reefs will adept globally to record rising temperatures? With this kind of intelligence I do have less faith in humanity.

Have you ever seen a documentary about corals? Once a year coral polyps have mass "ejaculation event", when a sea water is saturated with eggs. You suggest oceans current can't disseminate Red Sea coral eggs all over the globe?

To reemphasize the point about evolution: make no mistake, if there is an ecological niche it gets occupied. In fact, the competition for every such niche is quite fierce. We humans are lucky today that we have so many thing taken for granted -- life was not so generous to us in the past. But you are right to a certain degree: the belief in evolution is not actually a proof.

There is certainly some magic element in evolution. Why things tend to get better, when the second law of thermodynamics points the opposite way? My explanation is that humans have extremely limited perspective to appreciate a myriad of processes simultaneously at work. At this very moment, while you are complaining about global warming, numerous researchers are quietly working on new exciting technologies that will redefine humanity future.

[palmbeacher]

Without evidence you suggest that somehow magically coral reefs will adept globally to record rising temperatures? With this kind of intelligence I do have less faith in humanity.

Have you ever seen a documentary about corals? Once a year coral polyps have mass "ejaculation event", when a sea water is saturated with eggs. You suggest oceans current can't disseminate Red Sea coral eggs all over the globe?

To reemphasize the point about evolution: make no mistake, if there is an ecological niche it gets occupied. In fact, the competition for every such niche is quite fierce. We humans are lucky today that we have so many thing taken for granted -- life was not so generous to us in the past. But you are right to a certain degree: the belief in evolution is not actually a proof.

There is certainly some magic element in evolution. Why things tend to get better, when the second law of thermodynamics points the opposite way? My explanation is that humans have extremely limited perspective to appreciate a myriad of processes simultaneously at work. At this very moment, while you are complaining about global warming, numerous researchers are quietly working on new exciting technologies that will redefine humanity future.

This is literally the dumbest comment about corals I have ever come across. I am a scuba diver and marine biologist and have witnessed many spawning events. No, mass coral spawning events do not spread globally and asexual reproduction of coral has a very low success rate.

Please do keep arguing about things you know nothing about..

[palmbeacher]

Hilarious! The last time the Earth was 3 degrees warmer, apparently it made all of the coral extinct? Maybe "moon men" brought the coral back after having saved it to be replanted in the earth's oceans?

Palmy, I think you're losing touch with reality. If the Earth's ecosystems were that sensitive to climate change, there wouldn't be any ecosystems left given the climate change that has happened in the last billion years.

Are you referring to the ecocene 50 million years ago? Your argument that some corals may survive, doesn’t say anything about the scientific fact that 90% of coral reefs (that have taken thousands of years to develop) will die because of warming oceans. This will have grave consequences for people around the world as coral reefs are nurseries for pelagic fish. But please go on to believe this isn’t an issue and we should continue to emit carbon emissions for no reason other than the wealth of 0.001% of the human population.

What if Humanity had the capability to air condition the oceans? Would it be okay to essentially freeze evolutionary pressures on this Earth by stabilizing ocean temperatures and the climate? And do you really believe the ocean temperatures are somehow going to magically be stabilized so that all corals have the ideal growing conditions for the next 4 billion years? I think a good term for your mentality and almost all AGW believers would be, "evolutionarily excluded environmentalism". The premise for which is that any change in an ecosystem or an environment, is bad. And all changes whether man-made or natural, should be fought against.

But please go on to believe this isn’t an issue and we should continue to emit carbon emissions for no reason other than the wealth of 0.001% of the human population.

Sure, so long as you go on pretending that reducing CO2 emissions is a positive environmental action without reducing the population of the Earth. Once again I must remind you, that halfing the planets per person CO2 emissions does nothing when you double the human population.

Another misinformed claim:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... says-oxfam