Australia's Great Barrier Reef in 'very poor' condition: government agency

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, gunderhill said:

Hence Carboniferous  Limestone beds when temps were  much higher in the seas ( except near the end when temps dropped)

And like those reefs, given tens of thousands of years of gradual change in ocean temperatures, doubtless modern day reefs could adapt, too.  But that's not the case currently, is it?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The source for Ridd's claims are himself, unless someone was pretending to be him on the radio.

Unless someone can prove he wasn't speaking himself, either he is a liar, or your source above is lying. He's on the record, so I have no reason to doubt him. His opponents have every reason to claim he is being supported by evil capitalists, whether it's true or not. The Barrier is not affected by coastal sediment, so he has nothing to gain from sugar cane growers by saying it's healthy.

For me, the source about Ridd is you. I do find it curious that I can find nothing written by him on the internet. One of the ways to distinguish dubious sources from honest ones is if they put something down in print. Much easier to fact check so much more difficult to get away with dubious assertions.

[Mick501]

On 5 September 2019 at 1:17 PM, samran said:

A no-BS breakdown of all the players

 

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/reef/11471876?jwsource=cl

No BS from the lefty extremists at the ABC?   That would be the first time in 20 years.

 

all Ridd is saying is that "the science" has some fundamental unaswered questions.   Seems perfectly reasonable, given that Tim Flannery and other science experts have been for years making alarmist predictions that have not come to fruition.  Indeed, most of the low lying areas of the globe should be great dive sites by now if 2006 predictions were accurate.

 

the climate industry does itself a great disservice with many of its leading luminaries opting for unbridled alarmism rather than just presenting facts.   It makes it very difficult for the average punter to reliably inform themselves and discern reality from hysteria.

 

One undoubtable fact is the dire predictions have been wrong many times.  In that circumstance it would be foolish not to question every detail of future predictions.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Mick501 said:

No BS from the lefty extremists at the ABC?   That would be the first time in 20 years.

 

all Ridd is saying is that "the science" has some fundamental unaswered questions.   Seems perfectly reasonable, given that Tim Flannery and other science experts have been for years making alarmist predictions that have not come to fruition.  Indeed, most of the low lying areas of the globe should be great dive sites by now if 2006 predictions were accurate.

 

the climate industry does itself a great disservice with many of its leading luminaries opting for unbridled alarmism rather than just presenting facts.   It makes it very difficult for the average punter to reliably inform themselves and discern reality from hysteria.

 

One undoubtable fact is the dire predictions have been wrong many times.  In that circumstance it would be foolish not to question every detail of future predictions.

Nonsense. What denialists do is find an outlier opinion and then claim that it's the consensus of the scientific community. Or they simply lie or exaggerate what is being said. Or quote non-scientists. The predictions of the scientific community, have, if anything been overwhelmingly too conservative. 

[Mick501]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. What denialists do is find an outlier opinion and then claim that it's the consensus of the scientific community. Or they simply lie or exaggerate what is being said. Or quote non-scientists. The predictions of the scientific community, have, if anything been overwhelmingly too conservative. 

Oh, so the sea levels have risen 25 metres then?   My mistake.

[bristolboy]

On 9/7/2019 at 10:41 AM, Mick501 said:

Oh, so the sea levels have risen 25 metres then?   My mistake.

Thanks for proving my point about the untrustworthiness of denialists.  Where did you even come up with that prediction? I wasn't able to find anything like it.

 

Here's what the scientific consensus looks like:

"Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres."

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions-intermediate.htm

Edited September 9, 2019 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[Mick501]

On 9/7/2019 at 1:59 PM, bristolboy said:

Thanks for proving my point about the untrustworthiness of denialists.  Where did you even come up with that prediction? I wasn't able to find anything like it.

 

Here's what the scientific consensus looks like:

"Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres."

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions-intermediate.htm

In October 2006 Flannery quoted a US Navy study stating that, there may be, "no Arctic icecap in Summer in the next five to 15 years. He also quoted NASA's Professor James Hanson, "arguably the world authority on climate change" who said, "we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea".[46] In February 2007, as he explained how increased soil evaporation impacts on runoff, he said "even the [existing amount of] rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems" [47] and in June 2007, he said that, "Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months".

[Mick501]

Apologies for font size.  

 

You aggresively infer I'm a denialist, which is the catch cry of the climate religion who unquestioningly swallow every inch the left media gives them.  

 

I have plenty of time on my hands and have researched both sides. There is little doubt that surface and water temperature is rising.  There are plenty of people who don't have time on their hands who see these predictions not coming true (and there are many), and think they are being fed lies.  Which they are.   The problem is they then think that equates to global warming/climate change not existing.  And it is hard to blame them.

 

it is ok for scientists to say, "we think this is going to cause issues, but we really don't know what."   That's far preferable to the hysterical guess work that has taken place on a grand scale.

[bristolboy]

On 9/7/2019 at 5:18 PM, Mick501 said:

In October 2006 Flannery quoted a US Navy study stating that, there may be, "no Arctic icecap in Summer in the next five to 15 years. He also quoted NASA's Professor James Hanson, "arguably the world authority on climate change" who said, "we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea".[46] In February 2007, as he explained how increased soil evaporation impacts on runoff, he said "even the [existing amount of] rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems" [47] and in June 2007, he said that, "Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months".

First off thanks for proving my point about denialists quoting outliers and then pretending that this is a consensus view. Almost no climatologists ever subscribed to that view that the Arctic ice caps would be gone in 5 years. What you write is based on one alleged Navy Study.

Your claim about the 25 meter rise in sea levels is not what you claimed it to be in your earlier post. Let me remind what you wrote:

"Oh, so the sea levels have risen 25 metres then?   My mistake."

Check your calendar. Are we in the year 2100? The prediction that you mistakenly characterize came from James Hansen who wrote that if CO2 output wasn't drastically curtailed in 12 years from the date he made that statement, the sea level could up to 25 meters by the year 2100. So yes, it was your mistake.

And Hansen's view doesn't represent the consensus

.

Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, said the revised paper still has the same issues that initially “caused me concern”...

“I’m always hesitant to ignore the findings and warnings of James Hansen; he has proven to be so very prescient when it comes to his early prediction about global warming. That having been said, I’m unconvinced that we could see melting rates over the next few decades anywhere near his exponential predictions, and everything else is contingent upon those melting rates being reasonable.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

Prediction of Rapid Sea Level Rise Won’t Change Global Climate Talks

 

A new study predicting 10 feet of sea level rise by the century’s end isn’t supported by the mainstream scientific community

Schmidt says the study “might add to the discussions” but is far enough from conventional thinking that it is unlikely to change mainstream climate views, international negotiations on reducing carbon, or the IPCC’s recommendations to world governments...

“Ten feet is well outside the range of peer-reviewed projections and peer-reviewed scientific literature,” says Benjamin Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central, a non-profit climate research and journalism organization in Princeton, New Jersey.  

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150721-james-hansen-sea-level-rise-climate-change-global-warming-science/

 

As for the predictions of Tim Flannery, I've got some news for you: he's not a climatologist. But even if he were, he's only one person. Once again you indulge in that misleading ploy of denialists by taking the claim of one person and pretending that it's the consensus of the scientific community.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal, again.

[Mick501]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:14 PM, bristolboy said:

First off thanks for proving my point about denialists quoting outliers and then pretending that this is a consensus view. Almost no climatologists ever subscribed to that view that the Arctic ice caps would be gone in 5 years. What you write is based on one alleged Navy Study.

Your claim about the 25 meter rise in sea levels is not what you claimed it to be in your earlier post. Let me remind what you wrote:

"Oh, so the sea levels have risen 25 metres then?   My mistake."

Check your calendar. Are we in the year 2100? The prediction that you mistakenly characterize came from James Hansen who wrote that if CO2 output wasn't drastically curtailed in 12 years from the date he made that statement, the sea level could up to 25 meters by the year 2100. So yes, it was your mistake.

And Hansen's view doesn't represent the consensus

.

Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, said the revised paper still has the same issues that initially “caused me concern”...

“I’m always hesitant to ignore the findings and warnings of James Hansen; he has proven to be so very prescient when it comes to his early prediction about global warming. That having been said, I’m unconvinced that we could see melting rates over the next few decades anywhere near his exponential predictions, and everything else is contingent upon those melting rates being reasonable.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

Prediction of Rapid Sea Level Rise Won’t Change Global Climate Talks

 

A new study predicting 10 feet of sea level rise by the century’s end isn’t supported by the mainstream scientific community

Schmidt says the study “might add to the discussions” but is far enough from conventional thinking that it is unlikely to change mainstream climate views, international negotiations on reducing carbon, or the IPCC’s recommendations to world governments...

“Ten feet is well outside the range of peer-reviewed projections and peer-reviewed scientific literature,” says Benjamin Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central, a non-profit climate research and journalism organization in Princeton, New Jersey.  

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150721-james-hansen-sea-level-rise-climate-change-global-warming-science/

 

As for the predictions of Tim Flannery, I've got some news for you: he's not a climatologist. But even if he were, he's only one person. Once again you indulge in that misleading ploy of denialists by taking the claim of one person and pretending that it's the consensus of the scientific community.

 

Yes, guilty of over simplifying.  But on the numbers you quoted earlier of .75m to 2m, the 25m figure cited by many and believed by many at the time (let's not get all 20/20 hindsight here) was alsarmist, was it not?   And you are now retrospectively referring to "the foremost climate expert on the planet" as an outlier.  

 

This is is the problem I am getting at.  25 is a larger number than 2.  Do you see how that works?

 

and that did not happen did it?   and has now has been revisedto a fraction of what it was,  and history revised in your comments such that one time doyens should are now be categorised as exceptions.  This is far from an isolated example.

 

How many times do they get to be wrong before in your mind it becomes OK for highly educated and experienced people to ask questions about the methodology?

[bristolboy]

42 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

Yes, guilty of over simplifying.  But on the numbers you quoted earlier of .75m to 2m, the 25m figure cited by many and believed by many at the time (let's not get all 20/20 hindsight here) was alsarmist, was it not?   And you are now retrospectively referring to "the foremost climate expert on the planet" as an outlier.  

 

This is is the problem I am getting at.  25 is a larger number than 2.  Do you see how that works?

 

and that did not happen did it?   and has now has been revisedto a fraction of what it was,  and history revised in your comments such that one time doyens should are now be categorised as exceptions.  This is far from an isolated example.

 

How many times do they get to be wrong before in your mind it becomes OK for highly educated and experienced people to ask questions about the methodology?

First off, you weren't just guilty of over-simplifying. Your comment about the 25 meters was outright false. You might at least acknowledge that. 

 

And you also cited the opinions of some guy who is not even a climatologists. Why would you cite that as evidence of anything?

And what do you mean that the number was revised? It wasn't revised. That number was an outlier from the start. It wasn't accepted by the vast majority of climatologists ever.   Once again you are talking about 1 person. 

 

The scientific consensus has been, if anything, conservative on this.  So please, stop with the nonsense about "getting it wrong". Overwhelmingly, the scientific consensus has gotten it right. But thanks for proving my point about denialists focussing on a few examples rather than the science as whole.

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

First off, you weren't just guilty of over-simplifying. Your comment about the 25 meters was outright false. You might at least acknowledge that. 

 

And you also cited the opinions of some guy who is not even a climatologists. Why would you cite that as evidence of anything?

And what do you mean that the number was revised? It wasn't revised. That number was an outlier from the start. It wasn't accepted by the vast majority of climatologists ever.   Once again you are talking about 1 person. 

 

The scientific consensus has been, if anything, conservative on this.  So please, stop with the nonsense about "getting it wrong". Overwhelmingly, the scientific consensus has gotten it right. But thanks for proving my point about denialists focussing on a few examples rather than the science as whole.

Well, they did see fit to make him the chief climate science figure in Oz.   And he was quoting the leading scientist of the time.    But you can keep revising history to whatever suits your agenda.  Enjoy that.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Well, they did see fit to make him the chief climate science figure in Oz.   And he was quoting the leading scientist of the time.    But you can keep revising history to whatever suits your agenda.  Enjoy that.

And you can keep on trying to mislead by using such phrases as "the chief climate science figure in Oz." Or go on claiming that because some of one eminent scientist views differ from the overwhelming majority of scientists, somehow that's significant. Any person actually interestedin the truth would go to the IPCC report to get an honest idea of where the conservative consensus of the scientific community lies.

And I see you have no defense for the falsehoods you stated.

 

[RickBradford]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And you can keep on trying to mislead by using such phrases as "the chief climate science figure in Oz."

That's exactly what he was. 

 

He was the chief commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission, charged with communicating "reliable and authoritative information" about climate change in Australia.

 

His information was extremely unreliable, and has cost Australia tens of billions of dollars. He claimed that eastern Australia would never have enough rain again, and that Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would ‘need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months'. 

 

That panicked state governments into foolishly building desalination plants at a cost of several billion dollars, just in time for flooding rains for several years. Result: massive waste, which is ongoing, as mothballed desalination plants need power to keep them not running.

 

Flannery did indeed suggest, in the mainstream media, that sea-levels could rise 25 meters, quoting no less an authority than James Hansen, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute.

 

"James Hanson, director of NASA's Goddard Institute, is arguably the world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea. Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like."  

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-last-chance-20061028-ge3fvb.html

 

Over-zealous climate activists cause damage wherever they go, though that does not concern them in the least, puffed up as they are with their own moral superiority.

 

This is obvious to anyone who inhabits the real world; it may not be apparent to "progressive" types who inhabit their own comic-book universe.

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 8:40 PM, bristolboy said:

For me, the source about Ridd is you. I do find it curious that I can find nothing written by him on the internet. One of the ways to distinguish dubious sources from honest ones is if they put something down in print. Much easier to fact check so much more difficult to get away with dubious assertions.

 

 

https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd

 

July 25, 2017

In a chapter Ridd wrote for the IPA Publication “Climate Change The Facts: 2017”, he described corals as the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change”:

“Due to the remarkable mechanisms that corals have developed to adapt to changing temperatures, especially the ability to swap symbionts, corals are perhaps the least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change – natural or man-made.” [7]

[bristolboy]

On 9/8/2019 at 11:11 AM, RickBradford said:

That's exactly what he was. 

 

He was the chief commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission, charged with communicating "reliable and authoritative information" about climate change in Australia.

 

His information was extremely unreliable, and has cost Australia tens of billions of dollars. He claimed that eastern Australia would never have enough rain again, and that Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would ‘need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months'. 

 

That panicked state governments into foolishly building desalination plants at a cost of several billion dollars, just in time for flooding rains for several years. Result: massive waste, which is ongoing, as mothballed desalination plants need power to keep them not running.

 

Flannery did indeed suggest, in the mainstream media, that sea-levels could rise 25 meters, quoting no less an authority than James Hansen, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute.

 

"James Hanson, director of NASA's Goddard Institute, is arguably the world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea. Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like."  

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-last-chance-20061028-ge3fvb.html

 

Over-zealous climate activists cause damage wherever they go, though that does not concern them in the least, puffed up as they are with their own moral superiority.

 

This is obvious to anyone who inhabits the real world; it may not be apparent to "progressive" types who inhabit their own comic-book universe.

 

 

 

 

More falsehoods. Tim Flannery did not panic state governments into building desalination plants. Those plants were built during a prolonged drought and as far as providing water goes, were a sound investment. Australia has a climate of extremes. Depending how you measure it, it is either the driest continent or in 2nd place behind Antarctica. So what does flooding at one point in time have to do with extreme droughts at others? There's only so much water that dams can hold.

You think those flooding conditions are going to last forever? In fact,

"When compared to other 32-month periods commencing in January, the 32 months from January 2017 to August 2019 has been the driest on record averaged over the Murray–Darling Basin (34% below the 1961–1990 average), as well as over the northern Murray–Darling Basin (40% below average) and for the state of New South Wales (34% below average). All three regions have also been the driest on record for the 20 months from January 2018 to August 2019, whilst the 26 months from July 2017 to August 2019 rank second in all three regions; only the 1900–02 peak of the Federation Drought has been drier."

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/

As for those mothballed plants...

'Game on': What happens when Sydney's desalination plant gets turned on

 

The $2.3 billion Sydney Desalination Plant has been mothballed since July 2012. The trigger for reactivating the project will be reached by Sunday, once the city's water reservoirs dip below the 60 per cent mark.

Dam levels reached 60.0 per cent on Saturday morning, with levels dropping at the equivalent of 1 percentage point every two weeks, according to WaterNSW.

The desal plant is expected to be ordered to be restarted on Sunday, Don Harwin, the urban water minister, said in a Saturday media release.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/game-on-what-happens-when-sydney-s-desalination-plant-gets-turned-on-20190124-p50tdl.html

Sydney's desalination plant set to expand as drought continues

NSW government wants to be ready to increase water supply if the drought worsens

 

The New South Wales government has begun preliminary planning to boost output at Sydney’s desalination plant, in a bid to secure the city’s water supply as dam levels continue to drop.

The Kurnell plant, which can currently supply drinking water for up to 1.5 million people in Sydney, returned to operation in January for the second time since 2012.

The water minister, Melinda Pavey, said on Sunday it was playing a significant role in maintaining the city’s water supply during “one of the worst droughts in living memory”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/11/sydneys-desalination-plant-set-to-expand-as-drought-continues

 

Ya think the people of Eastern Australia are regretting the expense of building those desalination plants?