Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

I was only pointing out that global warming from human activity is melting the icecaps and glaciers and causing coral bleaching and hastening the disappearance of the Barrier Reef.

 

And I reject that to be honest, and see nothing exceptional between what is happening now and previous interglacials.

If there was no such thing as "humans", the difference between now and previous interglacials would be fractional at best. And we still have a hell of a long way to go in warming before we are even close to previous interglacials. In fact, I often laugh because many seem to call me a "denier", yet I predict changes far worse and more severe than any of them can bring themselves to admit. Some scream about an inch or two of ocean rise, I have already written off most of Southern Florida, New Orleans, huge areas of the San Francisco Bay area and other major population centers. And that hurricanes will grow increasingly more severe and often.

Tell me, did human activity cause the ice age to start to end? Did human activity cause the Medieval Climate Maximum, or cause it to end? Did they cause the Little Ice Age?

Myself, I find it an extremely narcissistic mindset to believe that humans are to blame for everything.

 

In actuality the GBR is ~ 600,000 years old. The modern version exists in the current inter glacial that we are in which is now ~ 10,000 years following the last great ice age where the area of the town I grew up in was beneath one mile of ice.

https://www.gbrbiology.com/knowledg.../#:~:text=Sea Levels and,even more remarkable.

 

Or to believe that humans can change the climate.

 

IOW human activity has increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which have increased global temperatures from the "glass house" effect.

 

So what caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels if it wasn't from human activity?

 

The outer reef which bleached east of Mackay is about 250 km from the coast

 

You want the answers - you do the work. I do not bow to Bandolinis law

 

Maaate! It is a “game”. They challenge you to provide evidence - when you do they dismiss it out of hand with no citations or scientific backing

 

Within the geography of the map provided there has been no change in water temperature and pH in the last 200 years. Water and pH changes cannot explain the differences in corals less than 10 miles apart on the map.

 

You jump around a lot.

Mackay is far south of Cairns. In the cluster of sites that did and did not bleach in the area east of Mackay, what evidence do you have that the bleached sites were warmer than non bleached sites? I’ve provided evidence of warmer waters in the northern parts of the reef compared to the south. Now it’s your turn to provide evidence. Show us temperature was higher for the bleached areas far east of Mackay than un-bleached areas adjacent to them. That will help us determine if temperature is the only important metric.

 

Of course atmospheric CO2 has increased because of human emissions. But these increases are not responsible for global warming. The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis fails as shown by the Antarctica data.

 

Seems very unlikely that far from the coastline.

 

This guy thinks Mackay is north of Cairns. If you think I haven’t backed up my posts with evidence you better read them again.

This dude denies deforestation and sugar cane growers are not impacting reef health. He denies peer reviewed studies presented to him showing nutrient levels and ratios greatly affect bleaching at moderate and high temperatures.

I’m the ONLY one in this exchange providing evidence.

 

Its greenhouse effect but other than that you are doing well - don’t let them rattle you may friend for they know not what the F they talk about. lols! I am just tired of trying to debate conspiracy theorists who deny good solid science

 

You can read the peer reviewed research I’ve provided. Or not. You can accept this other dude’s opinions that conflict with evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

You can provide evidence global ocean nitrate levels have NOT increased and show the studies I presented are incorrect….

But you won’t. None of you will. Because all you have is unsubstantiated opinions.

 

The science says bleaching and destruction of the GBR is being caused by land use changes as well as temperature increases. This dude denies the science.

He denies temperatures in the northern reef are higher than the south. He denies global and coastal nutrient levels and ratios have changed over time. He thinks Mackay is north of Cairns. He hasn’t made a single point that’s supported by evidence.

 

The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis fails in the Antarctica data for the last 200 years. Therefore the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis disproven. That an application of the scientific method as it was intended.

 

Sure it does. Do everyone a favor. Go to this site and look at the interactive map of the world. This is about the worst example of cherry-picking I've ever seen on this forum.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121

 

Alarms about the health of coral reefs were apparently based on ignorance.
Why Climate Scientists were Duped into Believing Rising CO2 will Harm Coral and Mollusks
Jim Steele
The world can only hope that NOAA and all those alarmist websites will soon admit that improved science has revealed the error of their ways. . . .

 

My post is an application of the scientific method to disprove a hypothesis. The earth has been warming ( ~ 1 degree C) since the mid 1880’s. But the reason for the warming is not increasing human CO2 emissions.

 

Exactly what are you raving about?

Our theory explains all the data perfectly, and it is the simplest explanation, thus it is the accepted theory. That's how the scientific method works.

Your theory is contradicted by the data, therefore it is wrong. That's how the scientific method works. It doesn't matter how intense your belief is. The hard data contradicts your theory, therefore your theory is wrong.

 

This Brandolini guy seems like a modern day Brigham Young, only without the temple.

 

And I pointed out if we want to reduce damage to the GBR now instead of some hypothetical future, we have faster more effective means available than CO2 emissions reductions.

And that made you refer to me as a climate change denier. You still haven’t pointed out any case where I’ve denied climate change.

 

No, it hasn't.. You've just waved your hands around a bunch.

Yes, nitrates have an effect. However, you haven't shown any evidence of increased nitrates at the bleaching sites. You've just announced it must be so, without showing any evidence.

No nitrates in the Florida Keys. Massive bleaching. Hence, the nitrates theory is debunked.