"Letting coral reefs die will cost us more than saving them".

[OriginalUserName]

We don't know why some reefs are dying...that sounds an awful lot like what we say about STN. Sometimes you can say "oh, your nitrates were too high" but just like our tanks, if a dozen small factors build up then surely that could explain a dead reef without needing a single smoking gun.

New York Post. No thanks. Same goes for every other "big" media outlet. The SPIN ZONE.

The Post is a conservative leaning paper so I don't get your comment.

And how do you propose solving the problem of over population? Because IF global warming is man made, (and it’s very debatable), I believe that is the issue. There’s not enough water, air, housing, jobs, food, etc. There are too many people on the planet, end of story. If Al Gore wants to save the planet, he should be handing out condoms instead of selling books. That is “The Inconvenient Truth”. But as you said, this is all way off topic. Just thought I’d mention it.

That problem is also fixing itself. Birthrates are negative or heading towards flat everywhere.

 

[WVfishguy]

@klp lol except for the vast amounts of deforestation that are occurring. Humans contribute more anthropogenic CO2 than the planet can handle hence the increase in atmospheric concentrations since they industrial revolution.

CO2 isn't even measured on graphs. It's always, "CO2 and other gases." There's remarkably little atmospheric CO2. Mankind has eliminated huge sources of CO2 and methane. For example, the American bison once numbered in the millions, and they were huge CO2 emitters and methane fart machines. They are few in numbers now. You'll never convince me that there is excess CO2 until I have to mow grass twice a week.

 

[KMench]

CO2 isn't even measured on graphs. It's always, "CO2 and other gases." There's remarkably little atmospheric CO2. Mankind has eliminated huge sources of CO2 and methane. For example, the American bison once numbered in the millions, and they were huge CO2 emitters and methane fart machines. They are few in numbers now. You'll never convince me that there is excess CO2 until I have to mow grass twice a week.

 

[biophilia]

And how do you propose solving the problem of over population?

Population in itself is not necessarily the root of the problem. It’s more a function of per capita consumption of non-renewable resources that’s at issue. For that reason, there’s not really an agreed upon carrying capacity for human population. Limiting population growth sure helps, though — and is generally accomplished by providing women in developing nations with resources and education so that they can be in charge of their own reproductive choices. This is backed up by population trends seen in every developed nation.

As for the comment about global warming being “very debatable”, I’m not a climate scientist, but I’ve taken enough upper division climate science classes and know enough climatologists to bristle a bit at that suggestion. How exactly are you forming that opinion? I’m not aware of a single peer-reviewed paper in any of the major climate science journals published in the last 5-10 years that makes that suggestion... and I’ve read hundreds of abstracts.

And with all due respect, I could care less what Al Gore has to say on the issue. He’s not a climate scientist. This is an incredibly important issue and we probably shouldn’t be using political ideologues on either side of the isle as the source of our information. Every single one of the national science academies of every single nation on earth supports the position that the earth is warming due to radiative forcing from anthropogenic gasses.

 

[biophilia]

CO2 isn't even measured on graphs. It's always, "CO2 and other gases." There's remarkably little atmospheric CO2. Mankind has eliminated huge sources of CO2 and methane. For example, the American bison once numbered in the millions, and they were huge CO2 emitters and methane fart machines. They are few in numbers now. You'll never convince me that there is excess CO2 until I have to mow grass twice a week.

This is not how the carbon cycle works. Digging up sequestered carbon from the Carboniferous period and injecting it into the present day carbon cycle is a very different thing than recycling carbon between topsoil/biomass/ungulates and the lower atmosphere.

 

[WVfishguy]

About 25 years ago the head of biology at the local university told me global warming "was bad science." I've always been skeptical since. I've also read there is no direct provable correlation between CO2 levels and warming trends, and that at times when the CO2 levels were higher than now, the earth was no warmer. I also wouldn't be so skeptical if global warming wasn't so blasted political. It seems like it is a thinly veiled attempt at anti-capitalism. I don't want to get political (too late!) but the same people who were Communists back in my day are environmentalists today (from Reds to Greens). Again, I apologize for the politics, but it does have a bearing on the discussion. Frankly, since we've only studied weather for about 100 years (on a 4 billion year-old planet) it's hard for me to assign blame on anything.

 

[biophilia]

About 25 years ago the head of biology at the local university told me global warming "was bad science." I've always been skeptical since. I've also read there is no direct provable correlation between CO2 levels and warming trends, and that at times when the CO2 levels were higher than now, the earth was no warmer.

The scientific evidence behind human-caused climate change has really bloomed since a quarter century ago. To the point that it's really the only way to currently explain the disparity between global mean surface temperatures and the present orbital configuration/solar irradiance. Our current position within the Milankovitch cycle should have the planet on a slight downward cooling trend, but the observed reality is radically different. The IPCC, which acts as a sort of "super peer review" process, under enormous political pressure (and thus has tended to understate its conclusions) places the confidence interval of rising anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for most of the warming at ~95%. Keep in mind the discovery of the warming potential of CO2 gas was formulated by John Tyndall back in the 1860s -- so the science behind this is not exactly new. We even have another test subject within our own solar system (CO2 is why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun).

The temperature of the earth is a function of position within the Milankovitch cycle combined with atmospheric gasses like CO2, CH4, various halo-carbons, etc. This is why it's possible for previous points in earth's history to have higher CO2 levels and similar temperature.

Sometimes the most elegant way to cut through the noise of differing agendas is to look at the raw data mapped. Here, the correlation between CO2 and global mean temp is abundantly clear:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/es...plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

I also wouldn't be so skeptical if global warming wasn't so blasted political. It seems like it is a thinly veiled attempt at anti-capitalism. I don't want to get political (too late!) but the same people who were Communists back in my day are environmentalists today (from Reds to Greens). Again, I apologize for the politics, but it does have a bearing on the discussion. Frankly, since we've only studied weather for about 100 years (on a 4 billion year-old planet) it's hard for me to assign blame on anything.

The global warming "debate" is only really political if you happen to be an ideologically conservative person living in America. All of the major political parties in every other nation on earth acknowledge the role of anthropogenic gasses in warming the planet. As does every single national science body in every nation spanning countless political systems. You could just as easily point out that the same people who were Communists back in the day believe in the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, and the fact that the earth is a sphere which orbits the sun. The only causal link between belief in basic principles of climate science and political ideology is the link between the American right (The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale has published a lot of interested data on this phenomenon). That acknowledgment (or lack thereof) of basic climate science findings is in any way correlated with political ideology is evidence that people are falling victim to mass movements and not drawing rational conclusions based on evidence. It's a dangerous situation that risks playing a giant game of Russian roulette with the lives of billions of the planets most vulnerable people.

It's also really unfortunate because the American left should not have a monopoly on proposing national solutions to climate change as it currently does. The right could very likely be better equipped to tackle this problem through fiscally conservative, market-based solutions (revenue neutral taxation on negative externalities and incorporation of natural capital into economic accounting) but they're instead choosing to stick their heads in the sand and not have a voice at the table at all. It's ultimately a position that cedes power unnecessarily.

As for only having studied the weather in recent centuries, fortunately there are numerous paleoclimatic proxies that shed light on past climates. Ice cores, sediment cores, tree ring data and others allow for a pretty good understanding of temperature and atmospheric gas variations going back at least 800,000 years.

 

[klp]

The scientific evidence behind human-caused climate change has really bloomed since a quarter century ago. To the point that it's really the only way to currently explain the disparity between global mean surface temperatures and the present orbital configuration/solar irradiance. Our current position within the Milankovitch cycle should have the planet on a slight downward cooling trend, but the observed reality is radically different. The IPCC, which acts as a sort of "super peer review" process, under enormous political pressure (and thus has tended to understate its conclusions) places the confidence interval of rising anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for most of the warming at ~95%. Keep in mind the discovery of the warming potential of CO2 gas was formulated by John Tyndall back in the 1860s -- so the science behind this is not exactly new. We even have another test subject within our own solar system (CO2 is why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun).

The temperature of the earth is a function of position within the Milankovitch cycle combined with atmospheric gasses like CO2, CH4, various halo-carbons, etc. This is why it's possible for previous points in earth's history to have higher CO2 levels and similar temperature.

Sometimes the most elegant way to cut through the noise of differing agendas is to look at the raw data mapped. Here, the correlation between CO2 and global mean temp is abundantly clear:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/es...plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958




The global warming "debate" is only really political if you happen to be an ideologically conservative person living in America. All of the major political parties in every other nation on earth acknowledge the role of anthropogenic gasses in warming the planet. As does every single national science body in every nation spanning countless political systems. You could just as easily point out that the same people who were Communists back in the day believe in the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, and the fact that the earth is a sphere which orbits the sun. The only causal link between belief in basic principles of climate science and political ideology is the link between the American right (The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale has published a lot of interested data on this phenomenon). That acknowledgment (or lack thereof) of basic climate science findings is in any way correlated with political ideology is evidence that people are falling victim to mass movements and not drawing rational conclusions based on evidence. It's a dangerous situation that risks playing a giant game of Russian roulette with the lives of billions of the planets most vulnerable people.

It's also really unfortunate because the American left should not have a monopoly on proposing national solutions to climate change as it currently does. The right could very likely be better equipped to tackle this problem through fiscally conservative, market-based solutions (revenue neutral taxation on negative externalities and incorporation of natural capital into economic accounting) but they're instead choosing to stick their heads in the sand and not have a voice at the table at all. It's ultimately a position that cedes power unnecessarily.

As for only having studied the weather in recent centuries, fortunately there are numerous paleoclimatic proxies that shed light on past climates. Ice cores, sediment cores, tree ring data and others allow for a pretty good understanding of temperature and atmospheric gas variations going back at least 800,000 years.

I Still haven't seen you debunk the NASA data that there is no global warming. I would trust NASA first rather than scientists that are paid to promote global warming... The only reason I bother to respond is the totally inaccurate picture you present trying to present yourself as an expert. R2R is not the forum for your politics. Unless you can debunk NASA's data, knowing more than they do of course, I am done with this. Toodles biophilia...
Click to expand...
NASA data there is no global warming. Global warming is a religion not science.
https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#5f67bc332892

 

[biophilia]

I Still haven't seen you debunk the NASA data that there is no global warming. I would trust NASA first rather than scientists that are paid to promote global warming... The only reason I bother to respond is the totally inaccurate picture you present trying to present yourself as an expert. R2R is not the forum for your politics. Unless you can debunk NASA's data, knowing more than they do of course, I am done with this. Toodles biophilia...
Click to expand...
NASA data there is no global warming. Global warming is a religion not science.
https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#5f67bc332892

Thanks for the response. I made absolutely no claims to be an expert of any sort. What I am saying is that I trust the experts, though, and have read and listened to what they are saying and take it seriously. It seems that in this case the position that you are taking, which is one of ignoring the research of thousands of climate scientists and every major science agency on the planet, is a position that claims to "know better", and hence be the expert here. I'm not really interested in debating politics and agree that they don't belong here. To the extent that I mentioned them at all was simply in responding to the comment by WVfishguy. I do think that a discussion about climate change itself is fully relevant given that the future of the reefs is inextricably tied to what happens with the climate over the course of the next 20-30 years.

You're asking me to debunk "NASA data there is no global warming" which links to an op-ed by an energy lobbying executive with a big, bold attention-grabbing headline that pretty grossly misrepresents what NASA data actually shows and what NASA scientists actually claim. The author seems to be cherry picking quite a bit and does not differentiate between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent at all which is confusing to me. He also speaks of and shows data represented as "polar ice caps" though the data he's actually linking to is specifically talking about Antarctic sea ice. And even there, he's cherry-picking a two year period and extrapolating that outward.

Besides, there's no reason for me to be sitting here trying to defend against what you are claiming "NASA data shows". Here's what "NASA data" actually shows (from NASA itself, not some random energy lobbying executive) https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddar...l-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

 

[biophilia]

NASA actually has a great deal of useful material on their climate change site here: https://climate.nasa.gov/ It's worth checking out!

 

[klp]

NASA actually has a great deal of useful material on their climate change site here: https://climate.nasa.gov/ It's worth checking out!

Went on the site you listed. Took a look at the date of my article which I had not noticed, 2015. Whoopsie... Time to revaluate. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

The scientific evidence behind human-caused climate change has really bloomed since a quarter century ago. To the point that it's really the only way to currently explain the disparity between global mean surface temperatures and the present orbital configuration/solar irradiance.

The IPCC states that anthropogenic co2 emissions only became relevant after the WW2. Explain the warming prior to this time - 1920 to 1945

Explain then why the earth's global average temperature started rising, & glacers started melting, at least 200 years ago?
Explain why earth's global average temperature was up to 5C warmer than present during the Holocene Maximum, the warmest period of this present interglacial, when co2 level was 260ppm?
Explain why all 4 of the previous interglacials were warmer than the Holocene Maximum, again when co2 was far lower than now?

Our current position within the Milankovitch cycle should have the planet on a slight downward cooling trend, but the observed reality is radically different.

The effect the Milankovitch cycle has on Earths climate is theory & far from providing a conclusion. Explain why glacial / interglacial cycles shifted from lasting 40,000 years for the first 1.5 million years of this present ice age, to 100,000 year cycles around a million years ago?

The IPCC, which acts as a sort of "super peer review" process, under enormous political pressure (and thus has tended to understate its conclusions)

LOL .. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation; it is a UN body of unelected socilaist bureaucrats, with an agenda, pimarily to control world energy & redistribute wealth & intellectual properity. The IPCC reports have been shown to be corrupted by the Summary for Policy Makers, a non scientific propaganda piece that has historically left out the vast uncertainties in the science, the lack of knowledge of climate processes & research that goes against the politically correct position, all contained in the report. It's corruption!

(the IPCC) places the confidence interval of rising anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for most of the warming at ~95%.

This 95% confidence level is a manufactured figure, & is not scientific as it is unverifiable!

Keep in mind the discovery of the warming potential of CO2 gas was formulated by John Tyndall back in the 1860s -- so the science behind this is not exactly new.

Tyndall's, & others assumptions have been revised many times over the years. It is now well understood that the direct effect of doubling of atmospheric co2, from any level (due to its diminishing effect) will result in a 1C increase in average global temperature. eg, 300 to 600 ppm = 1C, 600 to 1,200 ppm = 1C, 1,200 to 2,400ppm = 1C. This is well constrained by experiments. What isn't well constrained is the unscientific propaganda concerning hypothised net positive feedback to a forcing (create a concept & reality leaves the room), where hypothesised positive water vapor feedback alone triples the direct effect of co2 >>> in models!
Dangerous climate change, based on anthropogenic emmisions of co2 is completely reliant on hypothesised net positive feedback, by which the IPCC states is dominated by positive water vapor feedback. This hypothesis has been shown to not only be incorrect but the opposite, by both radiosonde & satellite data. Without positive water vapor feedback, net feed back is negative, which means the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 will be less than 1C!

Models predictions verse real data. The models prove to be far more sensitive to co2 than what reality shows.

We even have another test subject within our own solar system (CO2 is why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun).

Venus, unlike Earth, has no tectonic plate movement, & thus, no co2 recycling mechanism. This is one reason why co2 has built up in its atmosphere.
Venus, unlike Earth, has no magnetic field, & this is why all Venus' water has been completely stripped from its atmosphere by the Sun's solar wind. No rain; another reason for its high levels of co2.
Venus, unlike Earth, has no forrests, & no oceans to absorb co2, it has no calcium carbonate - limestone rock, etc, to take up & lock up co2; another reason for its high levels of co2.
Venus, unlike Earth, has a thick & dense sulphuric clouds blanketing the entire planet. This cloud blanket reflects most of the Sun's incomming radiation, but traps in the planets heat.
Venus has a surface pressure 93 times that of Earth, & this high pressure contributes to it surface temperature of 467 °C. At an altitudes where the pressure is only 1 atmosphere the temperature is comparable to Earths temperature.
Yes Venus has an atmosphere near 100% co2, as does Mars, but Mars has an average temperature of only −55 °C.

Venus cannot be used as some sort of analogy to Earth.

CO2 (purple line) is at geologically low historic levels, & photosynthesis ceases a 150ppm.
CO2 is clearly trending down as more & more available CO2 is locked up in calcium carbonate rock.
CO2 & temperature (blue line) has no connection.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Oh, and higher average temperatures means stronger and numerous storms - - which takes us back to the OP’s article citation.

Incorrect. The cause of storminess is the difference between the temperature at the poles & the tropics.
In a warmer warmer world the difference in pole / tropical temperature reduces, & this results in less storm activity.
The data shows this, all text books state this, even the IPCC agree with this!

 

[Scrubber_steve]

You aren't willing to even read the article, even if it is from somewhere you don't normally read? All viewpoints can be good to show how other people think (that is why I can't stand people who rely solely on 1 news source for news, whichever side they are on the political spectrum. All media has an agenda. Read it all, and make you own opinion). Even if you don't like the first 2 paragraphs (man made global warming paragraphs), the rest of interesting. Brings to light something people night think about when thinking about coral reefs dying.

I don't think temperature is the only thing to blame, but it definitely seems to be playing its part. There are probably a few things contributing to coral reefs dying. Either way, coral reef are dying, and we should be doing as much as we can as a species to stop contributing to it.

The GBR is not dying. Reports of 50% of it bleaching during the 2015/16 event were overstated to say the least.
The coral types most affected were the plate & stick corals, corals that naturally have a shorter life span, & typically grow quicker than the corals that last hundreds of years.

The vast majority of the 2015/16 bleaching event occured north of lizard island, which is in the top third.
This bleaching had nothing to do with reported man made global warming.
The cause of the bleaching was a fall in local sea levels as indicated by tide guage readings, & this led to extreme low tide events. The same applied to indonesian reefs (which bleached the upper 150mm of those reefs with no contribution by water temperature. The extreme low tides, combined with an El nino event equal to that of 1998 was the cause of the GBR bleaching event. A natural phenomenon that has happened many times, & will continue to happen.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Atmospheric co2 levels were 20 times higher than at present when life as we know it developed.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Coral tricks for adapting to ocean acidification

 

[sghera64]

The GBR is not dying. Reports of 50% of it bleaching during the 2015/16 event were overstated to say the least.
The coral types most affected were the plate & stick corals, corals that naturally have a shorter life span, & typically grow quicker than the corals that last hundreds of years.

The vast majority of the 2015/16 bleaching event occured north of lizard island, which is in the top third.
This bleaching had nothing to do with reported man made global warming.
The cause of the bleaching was a fall in local sea levels as indicated by tide guage readings, & this led to extreme low tide events. The same applied to indonesian reefs (which bleached the upper 150mm of those reefs with no contribution by water temperature. The extreme low tides, combined with an El nino event equal to that of 1998 was the cause of the GBR bleaching event. A natural phenomenon that has happened many times, & will continue to happen.

Great reading here. Following along and learning a ton from the dialogue. I do appreciate the focus on facts, critical thinking and absence of personal attacks, @Scrubber_steve

 

[biophilia]

The IPCC states that anthropogenic co2 emissions only became relevant after the WW2. Explain the warming prior to this time - 1920 to 1945
...
Explain then why the earth's global average temperature started rising, & glacers started melting, at least 200 years ago?

The industrial revolution? I'd love to see peer-reviewed research to the contrary, though!

Explain why earth's global average temperature was up to 5C warmer than present during the Holocene Maximum, the warmest period of this present interglacial, when co2 level was 260ppm?
Explain why all 4 of the previous interglacials were warmer than the Holocene Maximum, again when co2 was far lower than now?

It wasn't. Where on earth are you getting this information? You seem to be confusing localized temperature in the northern latitudes with global mean temperature which is a reflection of the overall energy balance of the earth system itself. That graph shows Antarctic temperature changes taken from oxygen isotopes in the EPICA and Vostok ice cores, not global mean surface temps. I'd love to see some peer-reviewed research to the contrary, though!

The effect the Milankovitch cycle has on Earths climate is theory & far from providing a conclusion. Explain why glacial / interglacial cycles shifted from lasting 40,000 years for the first 1.5 million years of this present ice age, to 100,000 year cycles around a million years ago?

I have no idea. I'm not a climate scientist. I'll defer to them, though! I'd love to see some peer-reviewed research to the contrary. Do you have any I could read?

LOL .. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation; it is a UN body of unelected socilaist bureaucrats, with an agenda, pimarily to control world energy & redistribute wealth & intellectual properity. The IPCC reports have been shown to be corrupted by the Summary for Policy Makers, a non scientific propaganda piece that has historically left out the vast uncertainties in the science, the lack of knowledge of climate processes & research that goes against the politically correct position, all contained in the report. It's corruption!


This 95% confidence level is a manufactured figure, & is not scientific as it is unverifiable!

That may be. I'm trying to avoid further descents into politics that are unnecessary to the core of the discussion. Like I said above, I would love for the American right to embrace climate change so they could help fix this. My end-goal here is not to appease some political goal. We're all on the same team here. My end-goal is simply for myself and the rest of life on earth to survive the 21st century. I'd love to have children, for example, but am reluctant to because of this issue. I'd love to see some peer-reviewed research that supports the argument that anthropogenic forcing is not behind the majority of the warming seen during the last few centuries of the Holocene. Do you have any?

Tyndall's, & others assumptions have been revised many times over the years. It is now well understood that the direct effect of doubling of atmospheric co2, from any level (due to its diminishing effect) will result in a 1C increase in average global temperature. eg, 300 to 600 ppm = 1C, 600 to 1,200 ppm = 1C, 1,200 to 2,400ppm = 1C. This is well constrained by experiments. What isn't well constrained is the unscientific propaganda concerning hypothised net positive feedback to a forcing (create a concept & reality leaves the room), where hypothesised positive water vapor feedback alone triples the direct effect of co2 >>> in models!
Dangerous climate change, based on anthropogenic emmisions of co2 is completely reliant on hypothesised net positive feedback, by which the IPCC states is dominated by positive water vapor feedback. This hypothesis has been shown to not only be incorrect but the opposite, by both radiosonde & satellite data. Without positive water vapor feedback, net feed back is negative, which means the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 will be less than 1C!

Models predictions verse real data. The models prove to be far more sensitive to co2 than what reality shows.

Venus, unlike Earth, has no tectonic plate movement, & thus, no co2 recycling mechanism. This is one reason why co2 has built up in its atmosphere.
Venus, unlike Earth, has no magnetic field, & this is why all Venus' water has been completely stripped from its atmosphere by the Sun's solar wind. No rain; another reason for its high levels of co2.
Venus, unlike Earth, has no forrests, & no oceans to absorb co2, it has no calcium carbonate - limestone rock, etc, to take up & lock up co2; another reason for its high levels of co2.
Venus, unlike Earth, has a thick & dense sulphuric clouds blanketing the entire planet. This cloud blanket reflects most of the Sun's incomming radiation, but traps in the planets heat.
Venus has a surface pressure 93 times that of Earth, & this high pressure contributes to it surface temperature of 467 °C. At an altitudes where the pressure is only 1 atmosphere the temperature is comparable to Earths temperature.
Yes Venus has an atmosphere near 100% co2, as does Mars, but Mars has an average temperature of only −55 °C.

Venus cannot be used as some sort of analogy to Earth.

CO2 (purple line) is at geologically low historic levels, & photosynthesis ceases a 150ppm.
CO2 is clearly trending down as more & more available CO2 is locked up in calcium carbonate rock.
CO2 & temperature (blue line) has no connection.

Obviously Tyndall's assumptions have been revised. They were made 170 years ago. The Venus example was meant as a very simple example of the greenhouse effect of CO2 gas, not an exact analogue for Earth. Again, you're making some serious claims that, if backed with empirical evidence, would likely earn you or the cited researchers a Nobel prize. Do you have any peer-reviewed research which might shed some more insight? I'd love to read it!

Climate sensitivity as it relates to tropospheric water vapor may not be entirely understood, but the GCM models sure seem to be aligning with real-world temperature rise so far (on the high end, if anything). The IPCC projections also don't incorporate feedbacks like melting of CH4 clathrates in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf so there's also a chance that net positive forcing will be far more catastrophic than predicted. If I had to make a gamble given the potential range from H2O-vapor-as-a-negative-forcing to 50-gigtatons-of-CH4-hydrates-as-positive-forcing, I'd probably settle on the IPCC projections as a sensible middle ground. Again, I'm not an expert by any means so for all of the above I'm only relying on what I've learned in climate science classes, books, academic journals, and various avenues of science reporting. I'd love to read some groundbreaking new research that changes my mind, though! This is not an easy weight to bear on the soul.

 

[biophilia]

The GBR is not dying. Reports of 50% of it bleaching during the 2015/16 event were overstated to say the least.
The coral types most affected were the plate & stick corals, corals that naturally have a shorter life span, & typically grow quicker than the corals that last hundreds of years.

The vast majority of the 2015/16 bleaching event occured north of lizard island, which is in the top third.
This bleaching had nothing to do with reported man made global warming.
The cause of the bleaching was a fall in local sea levels as indicated by tide guage readings, & this led to extreme low tide events. The same applied to indonesian reefs (which bleached the upper 150mm of those reefs with no contribution by water temperature. The extreme low tides, combined with an El nino event equal to that of 1998 was the cause of the GBR bleaching event. A natural phenomenon that has happened many times, & will continue to happen.

I'm happy to read this. SCUBA diving in the GBR as a 15 year old was a life-changing event for me. It's probably why I'm here on this forum and gluing animals to rocks like some sort of crazy person today!

 

[OriginalUserName]

CO2 isn't even measured on graphs. It's always, "CO2 and other gases." There's remarkably little atmospheric CO2. Mankind has eliminated huge sources of CO2 and methane. For example, the American bison once numbered in the millions, and they were huge CO2 emitters and methane fart machines. They are few in numbers now. You'll never convince me that there is excess CO2 until I have to mow grass twice a week.

The number of domesticated cows in the US far outnumbers wild bison populations.