Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

2) Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.

Really? Too bad the observed reality doesn't match the statement......

Declining growth rates of global coral reef ecosystems

https://phys.org/news/2021-06-declining ... -reef.html

Rising sea surface temperatures driving the loss of 14 percent of corals since 2009

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/p ... orals-2009

If the trend of declining coral growth continues at the current rate, the world's coral reefs may cease calcifying around 2054, a new Southern Cross University study has found.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 135701.htm

[Jlabute]

Coral is very resilient. Coral has been here for hundreds of millions of years through many adverse climate conditions and only because if its ability to adapt. Not only shallow water heating, but cooling too. Florida has had recent cooling conditions that have affected coral. Of the earths 500 billion corals, you probably do not have any picture at all how they are affected over time. You continue to drone on with guesses and models and articles that say maybe, might, could be, who-knows, etc.

Just like ice cores, coral cores also show us that during times when the oceans were warmer, or higher, coral thrived. A science article from 2022 shows the following:

1) Coral reefs “develop rapidly in the warm period” (Roman, Medieval), and “coral reefs develop slowly in the cold period” (Little Ice Age, the Dark Ages Cold Period). Why? Because “warm periods are conducive to coral growth.”

2) Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.

3) Sea levels were 2 meters higher than they are today ~4,000 years ago, and still about 1 meter higher than today 1,000 years ago, or during the Medieval Warm Period. Lower sea levels produce a “decline in the coral reef development rate”.

4) The South China Sea surface temperatures were “3 to 6°C higher than today” from about 5,000 to 4,000 years ago; coral reefs developed rapidly in that warmth.




https://notrickszone.com/2022/02/24/one ... ell-swoop/

[foenix]

2) Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.

There's not one shred of evidence for that. All the observed data says the world wide coral growth has been in decline for decades.

Over the last 30-40 years, coral cover in the Caribbean has declined by 80% [6] and in the Indo-Pacific by 50% [4,7]. In the early 1980s, the Caribbean had such huge stands of elkhorn and staghorn corals (Acropora palmate and A. cervicornis, respectively) that entire reef zones were named after these species and patches the size of city blocks were common. Today, both species are scarce and a patch the size of a desk merits gathering graduate students for a viewing. In the early 1980s, these were the two most abundant corals in the Caribbean. In 2006, both species were listed as vulnerable under the US endangered species act and in 2009 both were elevated to threatened status. At present, 30% of the world's corals are at elevated risk of extinction [8]. This is an unprecedented decline; it would be the ecological equivalent of losing pine trees from the southeastern United States, hardwood trees from New England, or aspens from the Rocky Mountains - all in little more than a decade. Coral decline affects not only coral reefs; the US Commission on Ocean Policy estimates that coral reefs provide a staggering $375 billion per year in goods and services.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989627/

[Jlabute]

2) Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.

There's not one shred of evidence for that. All the observed data says the world wide coral growth has been in decline for decades.

Over the last 30-40 years, coral cover in the Caribbean has declined by 80% [6] and in the Indo-Pacific by 50% [4,7]. In the early 1980s, the Caribbean had such huge stands of elkhorn and staghorn corals (Acropora palmate and A. cervicornis, respectively) that entire reef zones were named after these species and patches the size of city blocks were common. Today, both species are scarce and a patch the size of a desk merits gathering graduate students for a viewing. In the early 1980s, these were the two most abundant corals in the Caribbean. In 2006, both species were listed as vulnerable under the US endangered species act and in 2009 both were elevated to threatened status. At present, 30% of the world's corals are at elevated risk of extinction [8]. This is an unprecedented decline; it would be the ecological equivalent of losing pine trees from the southeastern United States, hardwood trees from New England, or aspens from the Rocky Mountains - all in little more than a decade. Coral decline affects not only coral reefs; the US Commission on Ocean Policy estimates that coral reefs provide a staggering $375 billion per year in goods and services.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989627/

The science article is based on coral core evidence which spans long term trends. Corals thrive in warm periods (warmer than today) while not so much in colder periods.
You're saying the scientists are lying?

[foenix]

There's not one shred of evidence for that. All the observed data says the world wide coral growth has been in decline for decades.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989627/

The science article is based on coral core evidence which spans long term trends. Corals thrive in warm periods (warmer than today) while not so much in colder periods.
You're saying the scientists are lying?

I'm saying this is a lie........

Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.

[TheBanHammer]

Want to understand the science? If you click on each title in the black box at this website and scroll down to read, you will get actual proof of the science manipulation along with all of the headlines from the newspapers, announcements by NASA and NOAA and the climate scientists over history dating back as far as recording began. There is a wealth of evidence provided here, it is not someones opinion or information funded by some special interest group. It is all presented using all of the science that has been shown yo us over the years from the beginning of their warnings up to present time and it all laid out showing the information,graphs, reports, and articles that the scientists have shown the public to prove climate change along with the manipulations. If you just can not handle information that does not line up with your deeply held beliefs then you probably won't like this, but then you are not engaged in truth but rather religion. Keep in mind what is used here is the information and material that the people you are listening to have been providing you with all along. Here you will find climate change and the science change that goes in tune with it. There has been some amazing research done here and if you find some of this persons videos he provides loads more evidence. Yes the climate is changing and I am sure humans and their activities have some effect on it, to what degree no one can say for sure. What I do know is us giving a bunch of money to already wealthy people will have zero effect other than lining their pockets or paying for another house at the oceans edge that is rising so fast. If you take the time to look at this, I do think you may not find CO2 is the major culprit here.

https://realclimatescience.com/

[Frisk]

[JagXKR]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... -ever-been
We are still, and I mean STILL, below the average Earth temperature over time. This goes back 500 Million years when the first complex life began.

To arbitrarily take 1880 as the starting point and make it the average temperature is dishonest and unscientific. Typical eco terrorist graph. The assumption that 1880 is average is so wrong that it's a bold faced lie.
Initial conditions are very important in science. Making 1880, a very cold time in the Earth's history, as the average....wt?
The left wing eco terrorists will continue their deception and lies forever. They do not care about truth, only about their messed up agenda. Dogma and doctrine of their lying fake science is entrenched in every dishonest bone in their body.
Shameful.

[Jlabute]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... -ever-been
We are still, and I mean STILL, below the average Earth temperature over time. This goes back 500 Million years when the first complex life began.
graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png
To arbitrarily take 1880 as the starting point and make it the average temperature is dishonest and unscientific. Typical eco terrorist graph. The assumption that 1880 is average is so wrong that it's a bold faced lie.
Initial conditions are very important in science. Making 1880, a very cold time in the Earth's history, as the average....wt?
The left wing eco terrorists will continue their deception and lies forever. They do not care about truth, only about their messed up agenda. Dogma and doctrine of their lying fake science is entrenched in every dishonest bone in their body.
Shameful.

The complexity and random chaotic nature of climate too difficult to grasp. Even within our current inter-glacial we had much higher sea levels and warmer temperatures 7000 years back. Not too long ago there were Forests in the arctic which remain as petrified tree stumps. Previous warm periods had lower CO2 as well.

We are currently in a naturally warm period now due to the synchronicity of obliquity and insolation. Cold is next, and no evidence CO2 will significantly change that.

[foenix]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... -ever-been
We are still, and I mean STILL, below the average Earth temperature over time. This goes back 500 Million years when the first complex life began.
graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png
To arbitrarily take 1880 as the starting point and make it the average temperature is dishonest and unscientific. Typical eco terrorist graph. The assumption that 1880 is average is so wrong that it's a bold faced lie.
Initial conditions are very important in science. Making 1880, a very cold time in the Earth's history, as the average....wt?
The left wing eco terrorists will continue their deception and lies forever. They do not care about truth, only about their messed up agenda. Dogma and doctrine of their lying fake science is entrenched in every dishonest bone in their body.
Shameful.

The complexity and random chaotic nature of climate too difficult to grasp. Even within our current inter-glacial we had much higher sea levels and warmer temperatures 7000 years back. Not too long ago there were Forests in the arctic which remain as petrified tree stumps. Previous warm periods had lower CO2 as well.


Holocene-CO2-record.png



We are currently in a naturally warm period now due to the synchronicity of obliquity and insolation. Cold is next, and no evidence CO2 will significantly change that.


022817_1933_thetiming.png






cmeoia.JPG

.....except those swings in temperature took 5,000 years or more, now we are going through some of those changes in hundreds of years instead of thousands. There will never be another glacial cycle as long as the CO2 stays above 400 ppm. The only way we will see another glacier is if the concentration of CO2 goes back to the last 800,000 year average of between 170 and 280 ppm.

[Jlabute]

You don't know that, it's impossible to determine. That is an extremely un-scientific assumption working backwards from the belief CO2 accelerates warming. There is no temporal "high-resolution" temperature data-sets going back 10's of thousands of years with small error bands, let alone millions of years. Unless you have a link to that data? You need a link to a study peer reviewed research paper with actually data. The only people who say this are Michael Mann (Penn State) and James Hansen (NASA). All temperature data we have today before 1940 is extremely filtered with large error bands.


Despite that, the world has been warmer with less CO2. All you have to work with are models that are all wrong so far.

[foenix]

You don't know that, it's impossible to determine. That is an extremely un-scientific assumption working backwards from the belief CO2 accelerates warming. There is no temporal "high-resolution" temperature data-sets going back 10's of thousands of years with small error bands, let alone millions of years. Unless you have a link to that data? You need a link to a study peer reviewed research paper with actually data. The only people who say this are Michael Mann (Penn State) and James Hansen (NASA). All temperature data we have today before 1940 is extremely filtered with large error bands.


Despite that, the world has been warmer with less CO2. All you have to work with are models that are all wrong so far.

There is empirical evidence of a direct relationship between temperature and CO2. This experiment has been carried out numerous times.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default ... 202021.pdf

[Jlabute]

You don't know that, it's impossible to determine. That is an extremely un-scientific assumption working backwards from the belief CO2 accelerates warming. There is no temporal "high-resolution" temperature data-sets going back 10's of thousands of years with small error bands, let alone millions of years. Unless you have a link to that data? You need a link to a study peer reviewed research paper with actually data. The only people who say this are Michael Mann (Penn State) and James Hansen (NASA). All temperature data we have today before 1940 is extremely filtered with large error bands.


Despite that, the world has been warmer with less CO2. All you have to work with are models that are all wrong so far.

There is empirical evidence of a direct relationship between temperature and CO2. This experiment has been carried out numerous times.


https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default ... 202021.pdf

Temperature changes first, then CO2 follows as oceans release CO2 when they warm. There is no 'global' scale 'experiment' lol. Not to mention, Bill Nye tried this experiment and then falsified the data.

So, let's just say for example, global average temperature rate of change is 0.14c/decade from 1980 to 2000. A 20 year period. The fastest that ever existed. Holeee smokes, I got whip-lash it is so fast. Except the last year it has been 0.13c/decade.

What was the rate of global average temperature change from -8120BC to -8100BC?

[foenix]

There is empirical evidence of a direct relationship between temperature and CO2. This experiment has been carried out numerous times.


https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default ... 202021.pdf

Temperature changes first, then CO2 follows as oceans release CO2 when they warm. There is no 'global' scale 'experiment' lol. Not to mention, Bill Nye tried this experiment and then falsified the data.

So, let's just say for example, global average temperature rate of change is 0.14c/decade from 1980 to 2000. A 20 year period. The fastest that ever existed. Holeee smokes, I got whip-lash it is so fast. Except the last year it has been 0.13c/decade.

What was the rate of global average temperature change from -8120BC to -8100BC?

No, scientists have done experiments with CO2 and temperature and looked at their correlation. Here's a simple one....

https://cires.colorado.edu/outreach/sit ... %20Key.pdf

Enjoy.....

Here's another....

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.192075

Here's a more scientific experiment.....

https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2241

[LovemyBolt]

Temperature changes first, then CO2 follows as oceans release CO2 when they warm. There is no 'global' scale 'experiment' lol. Not to mention, Bill Nye tried this experiment and then falsified the data.

So, let's just say for example, global average temperature rate of change is 0.14c/decade from 1980 to 2000. A 20 year period. The fastest that ever existed. Holeee smokes, I got whip-lash it is so fast. Except the last year it has been 0.13c/decade.

What was the rate of global average temperature change from -8120BC to -8100BC?

No, scientists have done experiments with CO2 and temperature and looked at their correlation. Here's a simple one....

https://cires.colorado.edu/outreach/sit ... %20Key.pdf

Enjoy.....

Here's another....

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.192075

Here's a more scientific experiment.....

e.PNG

https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2241

Something's fishy about that chart. 1. There's no such place as Muana Loa. It's Mauna Loa. One would think a reputable source would know how to spell places. 2. I would have thought that they would not show assumptions. Where do they get that assumption from? Your source seems to be a blogger or something.