|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 23, 2023 22:58:03 GMT
Narratives can change but step change will not happen it's going to be evolution otherwise polarized positions drive of apposing cliffs.
The support for this view is look at the world 20 years ago and the narratives were very different. Water quality in many regions of the world mostly the wealthy west are vastly improved by a concerted attitude change, the Maslows hierarchy of needs defines the pace of evolution of the narrative.
But difficult it certainly is. Where I see the biggest problem is that the outcome is not defined. Most of the Greens are looking to install a "Socialist Paradise" and most of the right think they are talking about a clean planet the cleanliness of the planet is most certainly not the Green goal as a clean planet would render them the greens without an authentic cause.
This is why CO2 is such a wonderful target reducing the level of CO2 back to 290ppm would obliterate the people of the plant and drive the world to a socialist uprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Feb 24, 2023 3:23:03 GMT
Of course the videos portray how I view the GBR. AIMS/James Cook University (JCU) has been fearmongering about the GBR for a very long time and have received massive government funding as a result. Peter Ridd was sacked because he criticised the scientific rigour/conclusions/methods of AIMS research. A long court battle followed and he was awarded damages but eventually lost on appeal by JCU in the High Court. The loss was not because he was wrong but because he contravened a clause in his employment contract that forbade criticism. JCU has form: Going back to 2013, you may remember Professor Bob Carter was sacked by JCU for similar reasons. The GBR has been 'dying' as far back as I can remember. The reef is not pristine. No reefs are. They suffer from a multitude of influences but they are resilient and have been for tens of millions of years. I expect that they will outlast the current hysteria by a geologically significant margin. On the question of whether the narrative can be changed, I think we're stuffed and I think it will be disastrous.  |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 24, 2023 16:11:40 GMT
Of course the videos portray how I view the GBR. AIMS/James Cook University (JCU) has been fearmongering about the GBR for a very long time and have received massive government funding as a result. Peter Ridd was sacked because he criticised the scientific rigour/conclusions/methods of AIMS research. A long court battle followed and he was awarded damages but eventually lost on appeal by JCU in the High Court. The loss was not because he was wrong but because he contravened a clause in his employment contract that forbade criticism. JCU has form: Going back to 2013, you may remember Professor Bob Carter was sacked by JCU for similar reasons. The GBR has been 'dying' as far back as I can remember. The reef is not pristine. No reefs are. They suffer from a multitude of influences but they are resilient and have been for tens of millions of years. I expect that they will outlast the current hysteria by a geologically significant margin. On the question of whether the narrative can be changed, I think we're stuffed and I think it will be disastrous. Ratty, I'm going to challenge a few things in what you've said. First of all, I think it is important to read what someone says in their own words in order to understand what they're really saying. When I'm reading that "person A said that person B said" kinds of things, that's a rumor (rumour  ). If you go up a few posts when I replied to you, I pulled a quote from this article by AIMS: www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/great-barrier-reef-not-fine-and-nor-it-dying-truth-inbetweenThe quote I pulled was this: Not only is that quote a good expression of what happens when people start (mis) representing other people and thus, why we need to read someone's expression in their own words, but it also sounds a lot like when you say this: "The GBR has been 'dying' as far back as I can remember. The reef is not pristine. No reefs are. They suffer from a multitude of influences ..." My honest opinion as I have been reading more from AIMS is that I am not reading fear mongering or "the reef is dying" in their own words. I'm reading what seems to be an honest attempt at balancing the influences and trying to express whether it is a concern. (For that matter, it is AIMS that published the report being discussed in the videos you posted where coral cover was the greatest observed in 36 years.) Warming oceans are mentioned as a stressor and influence in the health of the corals, and specifically are cited as a contributor to coral bleaching and coral deaths. It's interesting that they had a dispute with an employee that led to him being sacked. Maybe he was right in some or many areas. Sometimes organizations change as a result of these types of discussions and disagreements, and sometimes they don't. I think the hazard for us in this context is to look at one side or the other as a hero and follow them as authoritative based on that disagreement - that leads to just another type of "think by association," I would think. It is not saying that either is incompetent, but I witness disagreements between very competent individuals as well. I do see other articles where corals in laboratory conditions with all other factors being equal can be made to bleach and die by raising water temperature by 1 or 2 degrees C. To bring this away from a "person a said" vs. "person b said" discussion back to something more evidentiary, I would like to know if the reefs actually experienced warmer temperatures corresponding with the bleaching events. Is there any correlation here at all? Does Dr. Roy Spencer or anybody independent of AIMS have records of this area and time specifically? Or does AIMS have records of this specifically? I would find that very interesting. EDIT: One more thing, since there are at least two incidences of this kind of statement in this thread. This statement should be recognized for what it is: "I expect that they will outlast the current hysteria by a geologically significant margin." That is really a statement of belief and not a scientific statement. We probably could have said that about the bison herds in North America and pretty much every other thing we assumed was permanent and we could not eliminate. That's part of my assertion in the original post. (Note: I have beliefs, and I am a person of faith. I don't find faith to be in contradiction to science at all, but I think it is important to recognize a statement for what it is in the context of these kinds of discussion.) |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 24, 2023 17:50:22 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.) Narrative change requires an ever growing majority dumping the paradigm of catastrophic CO2-caused climate change and voting for those that think likewise. Also may require them to agree that throwing lots of scarce resources at a failed catastrophic paradigm is a bad idea and a threat to their personal economics. Two presidential and three congressional elections removed from the tail of SC25. As a physical scientist I don't foresee Charles Oscar II (CO2) recovering his "catastrophic lift" in that timeline. Not much chance I think of SC25 being much different (unless the second peak collapses) from SC24. Continued lower solar inputs to a slowly cooling ocean. Look to the Centennial Minimum with a slightly warmer ocean.
Like old generals I guess, old narratives never die. They just fade away. But, if by 2030, the Leftist-Catastrophs have not been socially and politically humbled, then ... (fill in the blank).
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 24, 2023 18:31:39 GMT
I do see other articles where corals in laboratory conditions with all other factors being equal can be made to bleach and die by raising water temperature by 1 or 2 degrees C. To bring this away from a "person a said" vs. "person b said" discussion back to something more evidentiary, I would like to know if the reefs actually experienced warmer temperatures corresponding with the bleaching events. Is there any correlation here at all? Does Dr. Roy Spencer or anybody independent of AIMS have records of this area and time specifically? Or does AIMS have records of this specifically? I would find that very interesting. You have to remember that coral reefs are 3-dimensional. The coral biomass extends to depth. Temperature or energy may trash the top periodically. But the reef will recollonize both up and across wherever bare substrate allows. I'm sure that AIMS scientists know that. Not sure if Dr Roy's data could/can/has been resampled to such small areas. AIMS may also have larger-scale (small area) digital products from imagery or sensors.
The following charts contain large-area measures plotted with years stated as large coral bleaching years (from post article). They seem to be concentrated along Warm Pool transition years (both up and down). Notice also the huge downward change in IOD (negative = warmer water in the eastern Indian Ocean. Haven't had this big a downward shift since circa 1950.   |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Feb 25, 2023 15:25:44 GMT
Society is constantly changing. The invention of the telegraph changed society.
The narrative is always flexible.
|
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Feb 25, 2023 19:26:19 GMT
Society is constantly changing. The invention of the telegraph changed society. The narrative is always flexible. until they own all the news ,printing ,and internet ?? oh wait ...they do .. freedom of speech is great until you can't speak .. matrix 101 ... |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 25, 2023 21:32:07 GMT
I expect that they will outlast the current hysteria by a geologically significant margin. I like that phrase. I think I will adopt it. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Feb 25, 2023 23:06:59 GMT
I expect that they will outlast the current hysteria by a geologically significant margin. I like that phrase. I think I will adopt it. $US120 thanks. |
|
). 
