|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 22, 2023 19:25:41 GMT
Something I've been thinking of:
I think almost all of us are skeptics when it comes to AGW. It seems that almost all of us are invested in changing the public narrative on this, but more and more in recent years, it seems to me that even if skeptics are 100% correct, it may be too late to change the narrative on it in my lifetime, and it probably will not change in my kids lifetimes. If that is true, is that really a disastrous thing?
Something I began to notice in myself is a bit of "think by association" where things in contrast to the values instilled in me from my childhood began to be acceptable to me so long as it supported the narrative I wanted supported at the time. I didn't like that about myself when I began to assess it within myself. As an example, I was always taught that we were to be stewards of the earth and the things around us, if we didn't take care of the things we loved (like the rivers, streams and lakes) then they could be ruined, and things like the elimination of the buffalo herds and extinction of the dodo were given to me as examples of what effects we can have on the world around us.
This point is where I began to realize the contradiction as I listened without objecting as people insisted that the world was too vast and we were incapable of having significant impact on it. In fact, at least one public figure called it "arrogance" to think we had the power to affect the earth like that. At first, it sounded like a good line that supported what I believed about AGW, but espousing that line would require me to forget about things like the bison herds. It took me a number of years to realize I had to reconcile these things in my mind.
Now, my wife and I spend our winters in the Mexican Carribean. We absolutely LOVE snorkeling on the reefs - it's our favorite activity. The reef system is second only to Australia's Great Barrier Reef in terms of size. But the Great Barrier Reef has been significantly impacted by something, and fish kills and other things have combined to kill large portions of the reef. The reef here is likewise under threat from such things as overfishing (symbiotic relationship between fish and reef - neither can survive without the other), algae blooms and sargassum that has massively increased (according to local friends) in recent years for reasons such as agricultural fertilizer runoff from Brazil, deforestation, and here's where my question becomes relevant: warmer oceans are always listed as another contributing factor to this. So it seems that like the buffalo, we are having an effect on the oceans and seas at a level we never realized. Some list global warming as a factor, and these days, it seems silly for me to focus on that to the point that I cannot admit that we're threatening this system, or to the point that I don't realize that things need to be done to change direction.
I have read that the kelp forests off the coast of California produce more oxygen than all of the world's rainforests, but we've fished sardines in that area to the point that they are endangered, and many other species are also affected by this. We have huge tuna population decreases in the Atlantic, fish kills caused by algae blooms which seem to be increased by our activities on land, Shark populations greatly impacted by overfishing for sharkfin soup while the rest of the meat is discarded, etc. In all of these, I see our actions much like the buffalo herd kills (railroads seem to have been used to justify much of the bison kills). We ARE impacting life on earth very significantly. I know people also point to AGW as a contributor or even as a main factor. Even if AGW is 100% mythical, is the narrative against AGW worth the positions and inertia against change that people are trying to make to conserve?
IMO, people have always said things that were wrong, and things I have disagreed with. In the case of conservation, I think we need to stop fighting the AGW narrative long enough to realize what is happening to the biological culture in our (very large) petri dish. We have to be good stewards. I don't think we will change the narrative, and really, I don't want to spend my time trying to when my time and energy could be better spent on the conservation efforts that WILL affect what kind of world my grandkids will live in when they are adults.
I know several challenges to conservation, and I'll list some of them in the discussion, but this is my first assertion to get a conversation started here. I think we have to disavow some of the obviously false assertions we've had that we cannot really affect something as vast as earth or the oceans. It's not about saving the planet (which I don't think cares whether we are here or not), but about management of resources so our grandkids have a world worth enjoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 22, 2023 22:17:23 GMT
African Dust and the Demise of Caribbean Coral Reefs - Ran into this when I worked for the USGS in Flagstaff.
After I graduated from high school (1968), over the course of 40 years, I adopted two major geographic areas of interest, together with their landforms and biological occupants. After graduation I wandered west and discovered the Canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Colorado mountains. During my undergrad and grad years at MU, and post-university employment in Missouri and Colorado, I spent my vacation time with pack, strong legs and sleeping bag, hiking the canyons. Even managed to get in my first float trip through the Grand Canyon. I sympathized with Edward Abbey's prayer for a precision earthquake right under Glen Canyon Dam. It was personal and a crime against God. I have mellowed, but remain insulted.  When I moved to Alaska, I made annual sorties with Colorado comrades to Lake Powell. By skiff & 25hp motor, we explored the flooded side canyons of what used to be (and will be again) Glen Canyon. Still marvelous above Damn max pool elevation. Yes, I understand the need for water in the dry West ... even though huge quantities evaporate from that huge reservoir.
While in Alaska, I also discovered the coral reef systems of the Caribbean. Over the next twenty+ years, my employment (Alaska, U. Florida, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and USGS) allowed me to add reef systems in the Red Sea, Polyenesia, Oz and other parts of the Caribbean. Got dive certified in Prince William Sound in December. Why? Damned if I know. Just stupid I guess. I watched the coral die-offs from disease and bleaching in the 80s. The reefs I was seeing in the 90s were not what they were in the 80s. "The Cause" wants to blame everything on people and their habits. Some of it certainly is. But research is finding that other parts are not. Corals didn't survive millions of years of stress (good times and bad times) just to die from us.
Here in COMO my Dad put me as administrator of the 60+ acre family farm which he and his 7 siblings grew up on. Bought by my Grandfather in the early 1880s, it is now going back to tall grass praire complemented by 20+ acres of old-growth forest, which I believe is pre-settlement. I will spare them the colonoscopy to find out for sure. The usual Missouri assemblage of white oak, shagbark hickory and other species. The story is that my Grandfather refused to sell them to the whiskey barrel makers that swept through in the early 20th century. Some said it was because he was a devout Baptist ... but I believe that the Celt in him would not allow it.  They will stay there until they drop dead. I am putting them in a conservation easement to ensure that they do.
So, I have an ingrained conservation background and World View. But I was trained as a scientist ... and both sides should listen to each other and adapt accordingly. It prevents split personalities and Jihadi suicide dives. Karen(s) will not be pleased.
And as for the title of this thread, narratives CAN be changed. And have been before. And as for cycles ... we see them all around if we observe. Never exactly the same in their particulars, but they are there. I subscribe to a phrase in the Ballad of Ecological Awareness(?) ... no relationship in the World is linear for long. Science is like a box of candies. Ya just never know what your gonna get (adapted from Forest Gump's mother).  |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 22, 2023 22:32:22 GMT
African Dust and the Demise of Caribbean Coral Reefs - Ran into this when I worked for the USGS in Flagstaff.
After I graduated from high school (1968), over the course of 40 years, I adopted two major geographic areas of interest, together with their landforms and biological occupants. After graduation I wandered west and discovered the Canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Colorado mountains. During my undergrad and grad years at MU, and post-university employment in Missouri and Colorado, I spent my vacation time with pack, strong legs and sleeping bag, hiking the canyons. Even managed to get in my first float trip through the Grand Canyon. I sympathized with Edward Abbey's prayer for a precision earthquake right under Glen Canyon Dam. It was personal and a crime against God. I have mellowed, but remain insulted. When I moved to Alaska, I made annual sorties with Colorado comrades to Lake Powell. By skiff & 25hp motor, we explored the flooded side canyons of what used to be (and will be again) Glen Canyon. Still marvelous above Damn max pool elevation. Yes, I understand the need for water in the dry West ... even though huge quantities evaporate from that huge reservoir.
While in Alaska, I also discovered the coral reef systems of the Caribbean. Over the next twenty+ years, my employment (Alaska, U. Florida, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and USGS) allowed me to add reef systems in the Red Sea, Polyenesia, Oz and other parts of the Caribbean. Got dive certified in Prince William Sound in December. Why? Damned if I know. Just stupid I guess. I watched the coral die-offs from disease and bleaching in the 80s. The reefs I was seeing in the 90s were not what they were in the 80s. "The Cause" wants to blame everything on people and their habits. Some of it certainly is. But research is finding that other parts are not. Corals didn't survive millions of years of stress (good times and bad times) just to die from us.
Here in COMO my Dad put me as administrator of the 60+ acre family farm which he and his 7 siblings grew up on. Bought by my Grandfather in the early 1880s, it is now going back to tall grass praire complemented by 20+ acres of old-growth forest, which I believe is pre-settlement. I will spare them the colonoscopy to find out for sure. The usual Missouri assemblage of white oak, shagbark hickory and other species. The story is that my Grandfather refused to sell them to the whiskey barrel makers that swept through in the early 20th century. Some said it was because he was a devout Baptist ... but I believe that the Celt in him would not allow it. They will stay there until they drop dead. I am putting them in a conservation easement to ensure that they do.
So, I have an ingrained conservation background and World View. But I was trained as a scientist ... and both sides should listen to each other and adapt accordingly. It prevents split personalities and Jihadi suicide dives. Karen(s) will not be pleased.
And as for the title of this thread, narratives CAN be changed. And have been before.
I've been on the USGS website for the last hour or so. Thought I'd give this lithium mining thing a try.. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 22, 2023 22:46:08 GMT
African Dust and the Demise of Caribbean Coral Reefs - Ran into this when I worked for the USGS in Flagstaff.
After I graduated from high school (1968), over the course of 40 years, I adopted two major geographic areas of interest, together with their landforms and biological occupants. After graduation I wandered west and discovered the Canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Colorado mountains. During my undergrad and grad years at MU, and post-university employment in Missouri and Colorado, I spent my vacation time with pack, strong legs and sleeping bag, hiking the canyons. Even managed to get in my first float trip through the Grand Canyon. I sympathized with Edward Abbey's prayer for a precision earthquake right under Glen Canyon Dam. It was personal and a crime against God. I have mellowed, but remain insulted. When I moved to Alaska, I made annual sorties with Colorado comrades to Lake Powell. By skiff & 25hp motor, we explored the flooded side canyons of what used to be (and will be again) Glen Canyon. Still marvelous above Damn max pool elevation. Yes, I understand the need for water in the dry West ... even though huge quantities evaporate from that huge reservoir.
While in Alaska, I also discovered the coral reef systems of the Caribbean. Over the next twenty+ years, my employment (Alaska, U. Florida, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and USGS) allowed me to add reef systems in the Red Sea, Polyenesia, Oz and other parts of the Caribbean. Got dive certified in Prince William Sound in December. Why? Damned if I know. Just stupid I guess. I watched the coral die-offs from disease and bleaching in the 80s. The reefs I was seeing in the 90s were not what they were in the 80s. "The Cause" wants to blame everything on people and their habits. Some of it certainly is. But research is finding that other parts are not. Corals didn't survive millions of years of stress (good times and bad times) just to die from us.
Here in COMO my Dad put me as administrator of the 60+ acre family farm which he and his 7 siblings grew up on. Bought by my Grandfather in the early 1880s, it is now going back to tall grass praire complemented by 20+ acres of old-growth forest, which I believe is pre-settlement. I will spare them the colonoscopy to find out for sure. The usual Missouri assemblage of white oak, shagbark hickory and other species. The story is that my Grandfather refused to sell them to the whiskey barrel makers that swept through in the early 20th century. Some said it was because he was a devout Baptist ... but I believe that the Celt in him would not allow it. They will stay there until they drop dead. I am putting them in a conservation easement to ensure that they do.
So, I have an ingrained conservation background and World View. But I was trained as a scientist ... and both sides should listen to each other and adapt accordingly. It prevents split personalities and Jihadi suicide dives. Karen(s) will not be pleased.
And as for the title of this thread, narratives CAN be changed. And have been before.
I've been on the USGS website for the last hour or so. Thought I'd give this lithium mining thing a try.. Your going to become a lithium miner? Gonna milk that Federal cow? |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 22, 2023 22:53:09 GMT
I've been on the USGS website for the last hour or so. Thought I'd give this lithium mining thing a try.. Your going to become a lithium miner? Gonna milk that Federal cow? Yes, exactly. When I heard about that big subsidy last week I got a little disgusted. New Mexico has many, many old hydrothermal sites which were looked over/assayed a long time before anyone was particularly interested in some of these minerals. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 22, 2023 23:00:25 GMT
That's a good paper. It was published in 2000. It does give global warming, overgrazing and agricultural practices as contributing factors in the dust that they are linking to the coral black band disease, coral bleaching, and other pathogens in sea fans and other sea life.
I am thinking that a hypothesis published in 2000 would lead to a great deal more research in the area. I'm seeing other articles that I'm going through from that launch point. Back to the point about narrative, though, almost everything I see published both in that study, and after that study give global warming as a contributing factor. So even if it is wrong, this is what drives the reality of the narrative. "It's possible to change the narrative" is a statement of possibility and not one of probability. My assertion is that it is nearly impossible to change the direction of the narrative at this time, and I really see this as more evidence of that. But is it a disaster if we can't change that narrative? I don't think it is - I just think it might hurt our feelings a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 22, 2023 23:11:59 GMT
While I'm looking at the other, the whole topic of airborne dust made me remember the big issue in Korea: the "misae munji" which literally translates to "fine dust" and is what is meant by that in the title of this article: www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48346344While I was in Shanghai, we had some urban pollution, but it was nothing like the times I went to Beijing and visibility was less than 2 city blocks. It could blow out overnight and have clear air the next day. When in Korea in the 1980s and 1990s, I don't remember the misae munji issue, but when there in the 2010s, it was a DEFINITE issue both in Seoul, and sometimes at my home on the coast in Busan. Obviously, it reaches Japan as well, and I'm sure much of it goes into the Pacific. I'm now wondering how much of it might reach the west coast of the Americas. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 23, 2023 0:11:41 GMT
That's a good paper. It was published in 2000. It does give global warming, overgrazing and agricultural practices as contributing factors in the dust that they are linking to the coral black band disease, coral bleaching, and other pathogens in sea fans and other sea life. I am thinking that a hypothesis published in 2000 would lead to a great deal more research in the area. I'm seeing other articles that I'm going through from that launch point. Back to the point about narrative, though, almost everything I see published both in that study, and after that study give global warming as a contributing factor. So even if it is wrong, this is what drives the reality of the narrative. "It's possible to change the narrative" is a statement of possibility and not one of probability. My assertion is that it is nearly impossible to change the direction of the narrative at this time, and I really see this as more evidence of that. But is it a disaster if we can't change that narrative? I don't think it is - I just think it might hurt our feelings a bit. Everybody pays lip service to the gorilla in the room. Just the safe (translated as no balls) thing to do. Science bureaucracies work that way. The USGS certainly did. But most of these luke warm supporters would rapidly change over to support for almost any new paradigm that emerged. Go along to get along is the science agency watch word.
But is it a disaster if we can't change that narrative? That very much depends on what you deem a disaster. They could very easily double (triple?) the price of energy with all its individual and corporate downstream effects ... with no obvious rewards for the effort. Or make energy a very rare thing ... with everything implied in that. They have a problem though. If they make everything very much more expensive, they are going to shed support like a bad case of dandruff. Massive price increases along with an enforced standard of living reduction would change a lot of hearts and minds. I'm not fond of cold personally. But an obvious downturn in temperatures would be very hard to explain away to the majority of the population. If "we" have become that animal farmish, then we deserve what we get.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 23, 2023 1:50:56 GMT
Everybody pays lip service to the gorilla in the room. Just the safe (translated as no balls) thing to do. Science bureaucracies work that way. The USGS certainly did. But most of these luke warm supporters would rapidly change over to support for almost any new paradigm that emerged. Go along to get along is the science agency watch word.
But is it a disaster if we can't change that narrative? That very much depends on what you deem a disaster. They could very easily double (triple?) the price of energy with all its individual and corporate downstream effects ... with no obvious rewards for the effort. Or make energy a very rare thing ... with everything implied in that. They have a problem though. If they make everything very much more expensive, they are going to shed support like a bad case of dandruff. Massive price increases along with an enforced standard of living reduction would change a lot of hearts and minds. I'm not fond of cold personally. But an obvious downturn in temperatures would be very hard to explain away to the majority of the population. If "we" have become that animal farmish, then we deserve what we get.
You started with a good thought. I really hoped you would not go there. If you think that you are talking to someone that is not just politically independent, but detests every political party from every country where I have lived, you may understand how that statement sounds like the dire warnings given by every single politician from every single political party from every country when he/she is trying to get support for a position, and as such, it flips a switch with me. It's much like when someone starts calling people "sheep" for not following them as shepherd, or someone who writes "WAKE UP" at people who sees an aspect of a problem the waker-upper doesn't seem to be able to consider. Surely there is a better argument than that. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Feb 23, 2023 6:07:22 GMT
On AGW specifically .... I've been at this for about twenty-five years and what I have found when I look into almost every doom & gloom story is that there is no basis for the alarm. That is certainly true of the Great Barrier Reef: It is healthy and reported so by the Australian Institute of Marine Science last year. Peter Ridd (4m) and Jennifer Marohasy (5m) are scientists who know the reef: I'm not familiar with the reefs in the Caribbean but, if I were a betting man, I would have money on their being resilient/healthy too.  On the Sahara: NASA: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 23, 2023 7:13:05 GMT
Everybody pays lip service to the gorilla in the room. Just the safe (translated as no balls) thing to do. Science bureaucracies work that way. The USGS certainly did. But most of these luke warm supporters would rapidly change over to support for almost any new paradigm that emerged. Go along to get along is the science agency watch word.
But is it a disaster if we can't change that narrative? That very much depends on what you deem a disaster. They could very easily double (triple?) the price of energy with all its individual and corporate downstream effects ... with no obvious rewards for the effort. Or make energy a very rare thing ... with everything implied in that. They have a problem though. If they make everything very much more expensive, they are going to shed support like a bad case of dandruff. Massive price increases along with an enforced standard of living reduction would change a lot of hearts and minds. I'm not fond of cold personally. But an obvious downturn in temperatures would be very hard to explain away to the majority of the population. If "we" have become that animal farmish, then we deserve what we get.
You started with a good thought. I really hoped you would not go there. If you think that you are talking to someone that is not just politically independent, but detests every political party from every country where I have lived, you may understand how that statement sounds like the dire warnings given by every single politician from every single political party from every country when he/she is trying to get support for a position, and as such, it flips a switch with me. It's much like when someone starts calling people "sheep" for not following them as shepherd, or someone who writes "WAKE UP" at people who sees an aspect of a problem the waker-upper doesn't seem to be able to consider. Surely there is a better argument than that.OK. So you don't like animal farm comparisons. So change it to ... In a democratic republic we do deserve what we vote for, or put up with. Most of our political representatives are "sensitive" to opinions if they think it may cost them their seat. Science-based narratives do change. Sometimes very quickly. The continents didn't move until about 70 years ago. The Ice-Age scare ended abruptly when temperatures turned around. Neither of these resulted in serious economic repercussions. Many people missed them totally. The Climate Change narrative is not really a science-based discussion. It is more of a religion, as a part of a socio-economic movement. So we will see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 23, 2023 8:46:42 GMT
Good one Ratty. Corals have been with us for millions of years supposedly. They thrive in warm, shallow, nutrient-poor conditions where there is hard substrate for attachment. Their symbiotic relationship with blue-green algae has been very successful. The algae photosynthesize "food", part of which is passed to the corals. Corals are filter feeders whose waste products feed the algae. Healthy coral reefs contain a huge assortment of plants and animals. Fleshy algae compete for space with corals. In nutrient enriched conditions they can overgrow and smother the corals. I have seen what were spectacular fringing reefs downstream of small "urban" sewage outlets being overgrown by fleshy algae. Fertilizer inputs do likewise. This example is from Utila in the Bay Islands of Honduras. But there are others. Local fishermen have depleted many species of grazing fishes to feed tourists ... or for export. Absent grazing fishes that feed on fleshy algae, fleshy algae can outgrow the corals. In general, corals do better in locations farther removed from Human settlements and inputs. Much attention has been paid to coral bleaching events and airborne pathogen inputs. Much additional research is needed (standard scientist plug) ... bleaching usually occurs under extreme temperature conditions when corals expel their symbionts and turn white (thus bleached). If continued for long periods, corals can die. Usually, the event passes and the symbionts come home with reasonably minimal casualties. There are exceptions. Vacant substrate is generally rapidly recolonized. But pictures of bleached corals are used to raise money. The puppy dogs of the aquatic world. I need to up additional studies beyond the original USGS one on airborne pathogens. My guess would be that they are periodic, when conditions are right. Don't know if the pathogens degenerate over time. Nor if human activity in Africa actively promote the pathogens. I do know that they're ugly ... and I have seen many cases in the Caribbean. I assume there are studies that look at how long they persist ... but I have not seen them. Like bleaching, the association of these with human activities is used as a money raiser.
For my money, the Indo-Pacific reefs are the award winners. The Great Barrier Reef is lucky to be so far offshore. The Red Sea reefs are spectacular, and the human population of those coasts is limited. Sorry slh, but the near-shore coastal Riviera Maya reefs are not particularly spectacular(my opinion only). If you get out to the barrier it gets better. Don't get me wrong. Some coral is better than no coral. Their small patches are fun, and interesting to snorkel through ... or maybe I just missed the better parts. Cozumel also did not impress me. It was fun, but ... The reef system I really want to see is the barrier reef offshore of Belize. Never gotten there yet. My general opinion is that ... the heavier the human traffic ... the worse shape the corals are in. And the Riviera Maya is over run with people. But I still go. And I still enjoy it.
On AGW specifically .... I've been at this for about twenty-five years and what I have found when I look into almost every doom & gloom story is that there is no basis for the alarm. That is certainly true of the Great Barrier Reef: It is healthy and reported so by the Australian Institute of Marine Science last year. Peter Ridd (4m) and Jennifer Marohasy (5m) are scientists who know the reef: I'm not familiar with the reefs in the Caribbean but, if I were a betting man, I would have money on their being resilient/healthy too. On the Sahara: NASA: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 23, 2023 10:13:56 GMT
On AGW specifically .... I've been at this for about twenty-five years and what I have found when I look into almost every doom & gloom story is that there is no basis for the alarm. That is certainly true of the Great Barrier Reef: It is healthy and reported so by the Australian Institute of Marine Science last year. Peter Ridd (4m) and Jennifer Marohasy (5m) are scientists who know the reef: I'm not familiar with the reefs in the Caribbean but, if I were a betting man, I would have money on their being resilient/healthy too. On the Sahara: NASA: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds Thank you for that. Is it possible that what we're seeing in these videos is one side of what is discussed in the article by Paul Hardisty in this article: www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/great-barrier-reef-not-fine-and-nor-it-dying-truth-inbetween where he asserts: Your videos are from 6 months ago, whereas the article I linked is from July of 2021. I looked for what AIMS said after the newest study since the articles I'm reading from those seem to be attempting to be honest on both sides of the issues. From what I can tell, the report that is being discussed in the videos is here: www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/highest-coral-cover-central-northern-reef-36-yearsIs that correct? If so, then after reading the report, might those videos be engaging in one side of the discussion like the pull quote I gave above? I find some encouragement in what the report says, but it seems that the serious discussion is not quite as rosy as the videos. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 23, 2023 10:39:59 GMT
That would be driving the narrative. Even if that's what they're really doing, that's part of why I don't think the narrative is going to change. I just see no evidence that it will.
You started with a good thought. I really hoped you would not go there. If you think that you are talking to someone that is not just politically independent, but detests every political party from every country where I have lived, you may understand how that statement sounds like the dire warnings given by every single politician from every single political party from every country when he/she is trying to get support for a position, and as such, it flips a switch with me. It's much like when someone starts calling people "sheep" for not following them as shepherd, or someone who writes "WAKE UP" at people who sees an aspect of a problem the waker-upper doesn't seem to be able to consider. Surely there is a better argument than that. OK. So you don't like animal farm comparisons. So change it to ... In a democratic republic we do deserve what we vote for, or put up with. Most of our political representatives are "sensitive" to opinions if they think it may cost them their seat. Science-based narratives do change. Sometimes very quickly. The continents didn't move until about 70 years ago. The Ice-Age scare ended abruptly when temperatures turned around. Neither of these resulted in serious economic repercussions. Many people missed them totally. The Climate Change narrative is not really a science-based discussion. It is more of a religion, as a part of a socio-economic movement. So we will see what happens. On the bolded: That's not a correct interpretation. What I don't like is the way politically minded people, including those in office, take a "fear of loss" approach in every attempt to sway opinions, and if people don't just follow along, they take an arrogant approach that there is something flawed with the people who don't agree with them. Sometimes these people use farm animal illustrations to try to express what they think is flawed in people with different opinions. "You'll get what you deserve" is one of the things I hear often in this context. It usually (not in this case) comes across to me as an attempt to get the last word and shut disagreement off. This is something consistent across political parties and national borders. On this being a non-scientific "more of a religion" discussion, I think that assertion kind of fits what it is accusing the other side of doing. If I may summarize the reading starting with what you provided: A paper published in 2000 linked dust from Africa with Carribean coral problems, but the paper states that this is a hypothesis. I cannot find follow-up scientifically to support that hypothesis. Many bleaching events have happened to coral worldwide since 2000 including the GBR, American Samoa, the Maldives and many other locations, and African dust cannot explain all of them. A scientific approach would need to look more broadly than just this. Many coral die in bleaching events. It appears that coral can recover, but some of what I am reading from sources such as AIMS state that it takes about 10 years. A general term of "coral cover" can be used to say that "coral cover" is the highest in 36 years after the big bleaching events on the GBR, but "coral cover" doesn't address things like species or "hard" vs. "fast-growing" coral (terms I just learned by reading the AIMS articles I linked to). In all of AIMS articles, they talk about increases in ocean temperatures, and that corresponding to bleaching, and uncertainty about the ability of coral to adapt longer term. I also found it interesting that the latest bleaching event in parts of the GBR is the first observed during la niña. (Most of this is from articles here: www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/highest-coral-cover-central-northern-reef-36-years . Ratty pointed to a couple of scientists in the videos as being people who know the reef. It seems to me that the people in AIMS fit that description very well, and I am not finding the articles to be alarmist nor accusative, and at least they seem to admit to the areas of uncertainty.) It seems that the start of determining whether this is scientific or religious should be in temperature records corresponding with the bleaching events. Can we find that? I just learned about the crown-of-thorns starfish being a natural predator of corals, and that sounds like something that could be cyclical - the predator-prey population cycle we see in many predator-prey systems, so long as other factors don't seriously alter the system. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 23, 2023 11:31:49 GMT
The specific discussion on the corals is good, and I don't want to shut that off, but on changing narratives, let me rephrase it: Is that the main goal? Can we not function to benefit conservation efforts if that narrative is not changed? What do you think the probability is that it will change in your lifetime? (informal expression of probability - no deep analysis needed.)
|
|
When I moved to Alaska, I made annual sorties with Colorado comrades to Lake Powell. By skiff & 25hp motor, we explored the flooded side canyons of what used to be (and will be again) Glen Canyon. Still marvelous above Damn max pool elevation. Yes, I understand the need for water in the dry West ... even though huge quantities evaporate from that huge reservoir.
They will stay there until they drop dead. I am putting them in a conservation easement to ensure that they do.
