Great Barrier Reef: Gone in 20 Years

Sorry, I don't buy into to the idea that the CO2 levels are the only reason. Or that man is solely responsible.

The coral reefs have been around longer than the dinosaurs. they will probably outlast humanity.

Just my opinion, Dragon

more fearmongering... I agree.

a few volcanos makes industry seem insignificant when it comes to airborne stuff.

Correct Chris, The volcanoes around the world spew out more CO2, methane and sulfur dioxide in one year than we have EVER made. The oceans are changing chemical composition and it is the height of hubris to think that we humans can cause it to happen or stop it from happening.

We think we are the end all and be all, when in reality we are a blip in history. The earth has seen much more massive extinctions in it's history than we can comprehend and it has recovered nicely without us thank you.

Don't misunderstand me, we need to do all we can, within reason to not "crap in our own bed", but the earth will continue on, we might not.

Just my opinion, Dragon

Previous significant warming was from 800 to 1400.

How did the coral reefs survive this? And the more intense warmings before - minimum 2 more pronounced within the last 10Kyears.

And may be most important:C02 is playing only a minor role in warming, water vapor a much bigger one, experts estimate between twofold to 20x.

But water vapor is no trace gas in our atmosphere and all reports are looking only at the effect of trace gases.

Let's be pessimistic.

Anything will be much worse than predicted.

Maybe only the barrier reef will survive and anything else goto hell.

RHABE

Of course this is real and caused by man. I'm sorry that the facts don't into fit the other commentors "belief systems". If only we could handle this problem with denial, then we'd have it solved by now.

Dear Roger, No insult or denial intended. I ask this in all seriousness: What do YOU suggest we do? Stop the use of all petrochemicals? Stop creating CO2? Stop using internal combustion engines?

Roughly 300 million years ago the Earth on average was 20 degrees warmer. Life virtually exploded in it's diversity and evolution. We did not cause that warm up, and Earth survived just fine.

I understand your serious concern and am not making light of it.

Many of the biggest contributors to "Global Warming" (China, India, etc.) are also the one's blaming the western world for the problem. I think it is highly unlikely that these countries will cease their industry and growth for ANY reason, short of an armed takeover of their government. (I am NOT suggesting that any other nation or nations do any such thing) The Tokyo Accord is HEAVILY skewed against all "developed" nations not just the United States. Much (not all) Global Warming policies are nations playing technology catch-up.

We must (in my opinion) not believe we have to to do "something, anything" just to be doing it. Let us formulate a real, objective plan that has a chance of ALL the Earth's people agreeing to and being able to implement.

I am not minimizing your concerns or input. I truly would like your solution to this dilemma.I await your reply.

Regards Dragon

Dragonsfarm,

I think the U.S. government should invest heavily in Solar Power and Nuclear Fusion and improve the Power Grid, and by heavily I mean 100s of billions of dollars a year.

By the way, those "facts" you rattle off in your post, not one of them is true. It's actually quite remarkable. It's not easy to be completely wrong but somehow you pulled it off. Nice job.

Roger

I will never understand why the pollution from one country is worse than that from another. You say "Many of the biggest contributors to "Global Warming" (China, India, etc.)" I assume that you are from the USA - have you ever looked at your per capita contribution to Global Warming and been embarrassed? You should be!

(Not making any excuses for the developing worlds contribution).

While a new COAL fired power plant goes online every other month in China. Oh and the Three Rivers project has been called "One of the biggest environmental disasters in recent history", not my words "Greenpeace".

Blue

Dear Roger Pink,

you may be right that the Great Barrier Reef is dying and that this is man-made. But if so then it is not by warming. Other possibility is pollution.

As this and other reefs survived intact much heavier warmings, where is the difference to previous warmings?

RHABE

"Of course this is real and caused by man."

...sounds like a belief system to me...

Whatever, I've said my piece. See you geniuses around cr4.

Dear Roger, I am sorry I didn't mean to anger you or upset your ideas. My information comes from 20 years of research and work in the Geophysical fields. You may be correct that 100's of billions of dollars may need to go into research into solar and fusion, BUT all the planet's government's need to contribute EQUALLY, after all don't we all live here? And we have all heard about those two methods before. I thought perhaps someone of your intelligence would have a new idea or two.

Perhaps a new approach to energy is necessary.

Regards Dragon

You Wrote:"I thought perhaps someone of your intelligence would have a new idea or two."

Good Stuff. You're manipulating at a 6th grade level. I was truly torn between contempt for your hamfisted approach as illustrated in the sentence above and humor at the fact that you are apparently unaware of how cliche you are. You might as well be writing from a script. I think if you ever had an original thought your brain might shut down from overuse.

But really, you've given me a lot to think about, thanks.

Have a nice day.

Dragon

And if you had a thought for any body's opinion but your own, your brain would explode out your ears. Why are you here? It's pretty obvious to everyone (but you) that all you have in life is a petty need to belittle and insult others like a bully at a playground. (How's that for your own 6th grade comparison?)

Don't bother writing back. I really have no interest in this other than I don't like bullies and I have seen you do this too many times before to others who don't fight back.

I've said my mind, deal with it or don't.

Blue

I do this because we live in a country where a sizable percentage of the population don't "believe" in evolution nor global warming. Two subjects with indisputable scientific consensus. I do this because I live in a country where people actually believe there is so much bias at NASA and major universities that they are actually concealling the truth.

What would you have me do? Shall I remain silent while ignorance and lies are spread with abandon? While science and scientific institutions are casually dismissed as "biased"? You and your kind attack the very fabric of rationality and progress. You practice sophistry and call it debate. You reek with hypocrisy as you bemoan others as bullies.

Other scientists suggest the best course of action is to ignore you, but I feel that the only voice in a vacuum gets a credibility it doesn't deserve. Others advocate rational engagement on the issues.........but debating a sophist is like trying to outrun a shadow.

So I fight back. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm a blue collar guy and thats how I am. I apologize to my friends who I make uncomfortable with such undignified assualts. But I will never, ever apologize to you and your ilk, because I understand fully the danger you represent. When no facts are beyond question, when all acts are justified, there can be only anarchy. That's what you represent, intellectual anarchy, and as a scientist, I must oppose that.

You said "don't bother writing back". Sorry, you don't get to tell me what to do, blue.

Dear Roger, I really get upset with insults to Anarchy. Anarchy is a very high form of government with only two main tenets.

Those main tenets are Defense, and Education.

It is difficult to argue with fish and pigs.

Sometimes I forget, so I am a little cranked in this tread that why it is of any significance that the Great Barrier Reef ought not be an ignored loss.

It has been 30 years since I tape recorded all the lectures at UNCG on the subject of Climate Change.

Blue collar, working class, yeah, me too.

I thought that the biggest danger to the environment was whatever disrupted the food chain. I thought that if the Coral Reefs died the reason we ought to be concerned was that this meant less food for the food chain of the sea, and hence less food for us.

Actually part of what is disturbing that while to the scientists, investigators and editors who proffered the news of danger to the Great Barrier Reef, assumed that we here on CR4 would know, without much explanation, why this was of importance, this is not the reality.

It is known that I can myself get real cranky.

However it is also known that most of what I know I've learned on my own, or in the streets trying to make a living, and I am only likely to get really really cranky when people make me lose money.

Are the great Magazines, Scientific American, and The New Yorker going downhill?

I thought intellectual anarchy was a good thing...since the main tenets of anarchy are education, and defense, and it is good to know what you are talking about.

Hello Roger,

You made an interesting point in your last post I would like to explore a bit, with your indulgence. You stated: "When no facts are beyond question, when all acts are justified, there can be only anarchy. That's what you represent, intellectual anarchy, and as a scientist, I must oppose that." That statement strikes me as a bit at-odds with the spirit of the scientific process. Leaving out the part about all acts being justified (not sure where you were going with that), is it not the duty of a scientist to continually question and re-verify all assumptions? Are not "facts" simply a set of assumptions that are only as good as the process used to derive them (and, in turn, based on still more assumptions used in that process as well)? Why do you believe questioning any data presented as "fact" is equivalent to anarchy? It just seems like good science to me.

I await your considered reply.

Regards,

BD

You Wrote "is it not the duty of a scientist to continually question and re-verify all assumptions?"

No, it is the duty of a scientist to test predictions of a hypothesis with experiments. There is no mention of "assumptions" in the scientific method. The scientific method consists of:

You Wrote:"Are not "facts" simply a set of assumptions...."

No. Here's the definition of a fact
Here's the definition of an assumption

As you can see from the definitions above, they are not the same.

You Wrote:"...that are only as good as the process used to derive them (and, in turn, based on still more assumptions used in that process as well)"

No, assumptions are not involved in developing facts, however a fact always exists in a context. There is no universal fact.

You Wrote"Why do you believe questioning any data presented as "fact" is equivalent to anarchy?"

I didn't say any data. I said sophist questioning of established scientific fact is intellectual anarchy.

You Wrote:" It just seems like good science to me."

That's because you don't understand the scientific method. Your misconceptions are confirming your misunderstanding. What you are doing is good sophistry (philosophy if you prefer), not science.

Roger,

Thank you for your kind and considered reply. I freely admit I consider myself an engineer and not a pure scientist, but I do not consider myself to be a complete stranger to the scientific method. While everything you say is correct in the strictest technical sense, I think it's application to real-world situations is a bit more...nuanced. I also think you underestimate how easily the human mind blurs the line between "fact" and "assumption." For example, "the sun rises in the east" (a fact, as you say, that only exists in a specific context) quickly becomes "the sun will rise in the east" (an assumption on at least two levels, but a statement that most humans would consider a fact). At the end, my point is that it still seems questioning the validity of statements presented as facts is good, responsible science in the peer-review process.

I am curious: exactly which lines of questioning by the previous poster do you consider to be sophist? And why, in this simple discussion, do you accuse me of the same?

Kind Regards,

BD

Your response to my definitions and clear explanation of the scientific process consists of "I think ....." statements, yet you wonder why I call it sophistry.

The point of the scientific method is what people "think" often fail them. It was a created as a method to verify hypothesis. To verify the "I thinks" people have.

You claim science has significant bias, which is a hypothesis, but you never test your hypothesis. You conduct no experiments, use no data to validate your argument.

You claim the human mind blurs fact and assumption. But you don't test your hypothesis either, not with the scientific method.

In essence, your approach to disprove a theory is to imagine hypothesis to contradict it. That is not how the scientific method works. You must prove your hypothesis. Another favorite tactic is to prove your hypothesis in a smaller context and then extend that hypothesis outside the scope of which you proved it. This is the same as imagining a hypothesis.

If you want to throw out the scientific method because you believe there is inherent bias in science, that's fine as a personal choice, but don't expect me to play along, and certainly don't pretend any argument you are making has any scientific merit.

Roger,

Merely beginning a statement with "I think" does not qualify the remark as sophic; I am puzzled by your use of the term in the context of our conversation. I am not advocating abandonment the scientific method, and have in no way indicated so. I am also in no way attempting to practice it in this particular thread - only trying to have a discussion. I am not imagining any particular testable hypothesis nor claiming science has any particular bias (significant or otherwise). I am only exploring a statement you made about questioning information presented as fact that is at odds with what I was taught to be good, responsible scientific inquiry.

I am fully aware that my understanding of your position on this esoteric point of the method is by far the least of your concern, and I can sense that your patience for my questioning is nearing it's end. I thank you sincerely for your time and comments on this matter thus far. If you are interested in continuing our conversation, I am certainly interested in listening to what you have to say, but thus far you have not convinced me that any fact used to verify a hypothesis is itself ever above question, and I am still puzzled by the intensity of your reaction to the previous poster. At this point I am willing to agree to disagree and please know that I respect you as a man of science and believe that such respect always has room for healthy disagreement.

Kind Regards,

BD

Dear Roger,

You asked why the goal would be to convince me? I freely admit that it is not. The goal is to simply have a conversation. A statement you made piqued my interest and I asked your indulgence to expand on it in light of my contrasting opinion.

I am truly sorry you see my politeness as something sinister. I could certainly descend to the depths of insult, as you have, but really see no reason to do so - I bear you no ill will that would warrant it. If I come across as overly polite, it is because I have witnessed other discussions you have participated in and am trying to prevent this one from following what appears to be an inevitable course. I mean no offense by my politeness, it is only that I have seen what does not work.

You speak of debate, yet ignore the core question I have asked: why should any information presented as a fact be above question in the context of healthy scientific inquiry? No statement you have made has any direct bearing (that I can determine) on that issue. Instead, you take every opportunity to insult and discredit an individual you know nothing of.

If this is not something you want to discuss, simply say so and be done with it. If insults and dismissals are the only response you have to an open, honest question, than I thank you again for your time and your thoughts and bid you a respectful good night. But if you are interested in continuing with an open discussion, please know that I have no interest in convincing you of the right or wrong of anything, nor do I expect it of you.

I do not consider myself the chief arbiter of anything except of what makes sense to me in my own mind, and your comment about what is and is not true seems out of place in this discussion. I am merely interested in expanding my consideration of a basic scientific precept that, until I read your post, had not occurred to me to question. I am simply asking you to expand on your reasons for believing as you do. I am not interested in trying to expose you or trap you or trick you into revealing a compromising position, only to attempt an understanding of your thought processes in this matter and see if they can be incorporated into my own.

If you are interested in continuing, then I look forward to your reply. If not, then please know that none of the words I have written thus far are empty, and please enjoy the rest of your evening.

Kind Regards,

BD

Dear BD,

You can't fake it man. No one can. You're not speaking from the heart and everyone can tell when they read your posts. This isn't debate and never has been. This is you putting on a performance.

After-all, if you truly were an honest person, and I as unreasonable as you present, why would you engage me in the first place? To convince me? No. That of course was never your intention. To discredit me, that was your intention.

Your tactic was to appear the voice of reason to my unreasonableness. Unfortunately, the flaw in your approach is your insincerity. As I alluded to in my previous post, humans have evolved to instinctually detect insincerity. A fake smile or laugh is easily detected, though if you were to ask the person doing the detecting how they knew, they couldn't tell you, they just knew.

Ultimately it's the juxtaposition of what you claim and what you do. You're words speak of engagement and congeniality, but they are always in the context of an insult or rebuke.

The sad thing I've always felt about the insincere, and the fear that is buried deep in their souls, is that most of us see right through lies. Often we simply go along because calling one out on a lie:

1. Never results in that person admitting they're lying

2. Only deepens the lie which makes the entire situation all the more uncomfortable

Unfortunately the insincere are never told this, and so, to their ultimate folly, they believe they can manufacture an air of truth if they are fervent or consistent.

Hopefully you'll realize this someday BD, but I know that day isn't today.

So feel free to continue to fervently refute that you had anything but the noblest intentions, and go ahead and point to my straight forward (and truthful) response as insulting and belligerent. Just remember, when people read, they can instinctually recognize the truth. And we both know I'm not the one being insincere here.

Roger

Dear Roger,

In what manner did I ever insult or rebuke you? I was open and honest enough to be truthful about the manner in which I approached you when you commented on it. I do not believe you to be unreasonable (and never stated such), only tempestuous (and I mean no insult by my word choice). I do find it ironic that the very method in which I chose to approach you is the reason you have latched on to insult me.

On what position am I seeking to discredit you? The only thing I ever did is ask your indulgence to expound on a previous statement you made to enrich my own understanding of the topic. I never attacked your position, I merely stated my viewpoint as a contrasting opinion and asked for an open dialog. Not even a debate, just a conversation.

You may continue to denounce my statements as lies, if you wish. As you suggest, I would certainly welcome an outside perspective, but certainly I am disappointed that a simple conversation should require a moderator.

I have provided several opportunities for you to end this conversation and preserve the dignity of both sides. I have clearly stated my motivation for continuing...which, I realize, you believe to be a bald-face lie. What I do not understand, is your motivation to discredit me. If you really consider me to be nothing more than a troll, why do you not simply ignore me? Mind you, I'm not asking to be ignored. I believe I asked a legitimate question and really hoped for an open dialog. I'm just puzzled by your ultimate response.

Kind Regards,

BD

You Wrote:"I believe I asked a legitimate question and really hoped for an open dialog."

What was that question again?

"why should any information presented as a fact be above question in the context of healthy scientific inquiry?"

I'm unclear what the formal definition is of "healthy" scientific inquiry. Can you explain precisely what you mean. In other words, what is a "healthy scientific inquiry"? What are the steps involved?

A very good point! For our purposes, let's define a healthy scientific inquiry as one honestly intended to determine what a scientist (not a philosopher) would say is the truth; not solely dedicated to tearing down a rival theory.

In the context of our discussion, say a paper is being peer-reviewed (or even just being read critically). Should any information presented as fact ever be considered "above scrutiny", especially if a conclusion was built upon it? I was taught the answer to this question should always be "no." You have made statements that, unless I interpreted them incorrectly, would indicate that at least some facts are above reproach; perhaps all of them. I am interested in your approach to determining the difference, if any, and when, if ever, facts should be questioned.

You stated earlier, and I agree, that facts only exist in context. Should not at the very least the fact's context be evaluated for consistency between statement and application? To borrow your phrase, this is what sophistry is truly about; stating a fact in the correct context to gain it's acceptance and then applying it to a slightly different context to support an un-truthful conclusion. I see it all the time in science, but I don't claim it is usually done with intent; I think it is an easy trap for the human mind to fall into. I think this is a healthy part of the peer-review process: to question all facts, from all angles, and in all applications. Does it make science tedious and adversarial? Probably, but if it ultimately leads to the truth, is that not what is important?

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind on this topic, or even have a formal debate. I have tried to lay out my thought process on this issue where they seem to conflict with a statement you made. I am interested in hearing your additional thoughts so that I may try to at least understand (if not agree with) your perspective.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

BD

You Wrote:"In the context of our discussion, say a paper is being peer-reviewed (or even just being read critically). Should any information presented as fact ever be considered "above scrutiny", especially if a conclusion was built upon it? I was taught the answer to this question should always be "no.""

There are a ton of famous papers that involve variations and expansions Newton's second law of F=ma.

Are you suggesting, in all of these papers extending the application of the equation F=ma, that the equation F=ma should be reexamined? Or can we call F=ma an established fact of physics, as long as it is true to its proven context (Newtonian Space)?

I would say we accept F=ma as an established fact and it would be a bit ridiculous to reexamine F=ma every time a paper was written where it came up. Don't you agree?

I would agree that reexamination of every use would be a bit ridiculous. But to give even F=ma carte blanc acceptance and not even critically examine the context in which it is being used for validity seems irresponsible. It was this very reexamination of F=ma that allowed us to learn that it does not hold true in every context, and even begs the question of whether F=ma is indeed a fact, or just a close-enough approximation that it works well in the macro-scale and yields expected results without any error within our ability to detect. Distinction without practical difference, I know, but it does illustrate my point that every new application of a fact should be carefully and critically reviewed and that no fact should be considered above reproach.

BD

Roger,

I believe it is late where you are. If you would like to continue this later, I will look for your reply tomorrow.

BD

Sounds like another bunch of professional students trying to set up another 20-year "research" project.

Dear Guest, I think you just may have hit the nail on the head.

Regards Dragon

I thought that the death of a Coral Reef was significant as an indicator of diminishment of the basic planet food chain ecosystem which we depend on.