tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4967565518518081783..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Coral reef bleaching with world-renowned expert Terry Hughes - and a Gish Gallop from "science" quack, Jim SteeleSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34354786747408863742017-04-30T21:35:07.475+10:002017-04-30T21:35:07.475+10:00He's an odd one, Millicent.
BTW, other scient...He's an odd one, Millicent.<br /><br />BTW, <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/02/no-honesty-or-diligence-about-climate.html#coral" rel="nofollow">other scientists have worked out</a> the likelihood of coral sea temperatures being as hot, with and without human caused forcings. From that HW article: <i>there's about a 175 times increase in the likelihood of very hot March months in that region, "because of the human influence on the climate". </i><br /><br />Not what Brian was looking for in his new "quantification" demand, but it gives you an idea of what is happening with global warming.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26137858625198292802017-04-30T21:19:23.698+10:002017-04-30T21:19:23.698+10:00"Yet he was unable to address my fundamental ..."Yet he was unable to address my fundamental concerns about the biological implications, because it was not his area of speciality."<br /><br />Can anybody explain to me why the word "yet" is present in that sentence?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4591870945486482262017-04-30T20:45:26.359+10:002017-04-30T20:45:26.359+10:00In other words, Brian, all your silly comments hav...In other words, Brian, all your silly comments have been over nothing at all. They were meaningless. You were simply wanting to pick an argument over nothing (except your AGW denial).<br /><br />Don't come back.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56145940876359137862017-04-30T20:40:13.054+10:002017-04-30T20:40:13.054+10:00Sou: "As for you wanting the researchers to ...Sou: "As for you wanting the researchers to put a number on human contribution to the ocean temperature (compared to El Nino), that's asking for something different from what their research was about. "<br /><br />Exactly what I have been saying.<br /><br />"This is likely to happen more often in coming years as global warming increases."<br /><br />This is an inference, since (as you say) the research you have been quoting does not prove it. <br /><br />Do I really have to explain this to you AGAIN???<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2915204942305660042017-04-30T20:30:02.037+10:002017-04-30T20:30:02.037+10:00Brian, your issue of quantification was not "...Brian, your issue of quantification was not "fundamental" - it's a goal post shift and not a relevant one at that. You first ignorantly raised "quantification" only today, not a week and umpteen of your comments ago when you got your knickers in a knot and began to insert your science denial here.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17545020607863459592017-04-30T20:24:47.747+10:002017-04-30T20:24:47.747+10:00Brian can't read:
Um, according to your refer...Brian can't read:<br /><br /><i>Um, according to your reference, I think you mean half the 0.8 degC warming of the atmosphere (not ocean) this century, right?</i><br /><br />Nope. The IPCC was referring to surface warming and said that the best estimate is all the warming since the 1950s was from human activity. (Read the quote again.)<br /><br />As for you wanting the researchers to put a number on human contribution to the ocean temperature (compared to El Nino), that's asking for something different from what their research was about. (There have been estimates at the global level, but not local AFAIK.)<br /><br />Frankly, it's been obvious from the outset that you don't understand the first thing about this research. It's not an average temperature that causes bleaching. It's the time spent above a tolerance threshold. This is likely to happen more often in coming years as global warming increases.<br /><br />I can tell you don't care about that. You just want to fight about something. You don't care what. Take whatever grief you're nursing (which has nought to do with corals or science) to your local boxing ring. That'll be much more satisfying, for all of us.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86332388211707442422017-04-30T20:24:31.030+10:002017-04-30T20:24:31.030+10:00Sou, note the word "necessarily", and ag...Sou, note the word "necessarily", and again the fundamental issue of quantification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26734544582291503752017-04-30T20:18:04.364+10:002017-04-30T20:18:04.364+10:00Bernard, you appear to be assuming that experts in...Bernard, you appear to be assuming that experts in marine biology also have expertise in climate science.<br /><br />Like you, I am not shy about going to the experts. I recall exchanging some interesting emails with Mario Molina some 20 years ago. He assisted me in better understanding the chemistry of polar stratospheric ozone depletion. Yet he was unable to address my fundamental concerns about the biological implications, because it was not his area of specialty. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19951818363561292732017-04-30T20:15:42.741+10:002017-04-30T20:15:42.741+10:00Lying, really? Perhaps you've forgotten how yo...Lying, really? Perhaps you've forgotten how you started out, Brian. This is from your <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/04/coral-reef-bleaching-with-world.html?showComment=1492928802157#c761503218899028328" rel="nofollow">first comment</a>:<br /><br /><i>Your immediate connection between global warming and the El Nino related coral bleaching events in 1982, 1998, 2002 and 2016, is an assumption, and not one that is immediately supported by scientific evidence. ... Also the unprecedented heating of tropical water is certainly caused by El Nino events, though not necessarily “on top of global warming”. ... It is important to note that neither the low sea level, <b>higher water temperature</b> nor drought are necessarily associated with anthropogenic global warming.</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37238031861832171562017-04-30T20:07:06.782+10:002017-04-30T20:07:06.782+10:00Sou: "Previously you implied there was no co...Sou: "Previously you implied there was no contribution"<br /><br />So now you have resorted to lying. Do you have a quote to support your claim?<br /><br />Sou: "The best estimate of the contribution of human activity in the latest IPCC report (which is a bit old now) was that humans have caused all the warming since the 1950s"<br /><br />Um, according to your reference, I think you mean half the 0.8 degC warming of the atmosphere (not ocean) this century, right?<br /><br />But this actually doesn't provide any quantification of the actual contribution to water temperature on reefs. Is it 0.4 degC? Is it more? Is it less? Is the amount of warming relevant compared to other factors? None of these issues are discussed above, none are referenced, and yet these are the questions that are relevant to your inferences.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69352161666226521212017-04-30T19:41:07.397+10:002017-04-30T19:41:07.397+10:00Brian Westlake, I simply say again - take your pro...Brian Westlake, I simply say again - take your protestations to the people on the front line.<br /><br />If you don't perhaps I should do it for you. It wouldn't be the first time I've taken something to the relevant experts in the field on behalf of a troll who's not had the courage to do so themselves. And to date I've never had a troll supported by the answers I've received.<br /><br />Would you like me to approach some people on your behalf?Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38836072063494955512017-04-30T18:37:19.358+10:002017-04-30T18:37:19.358+10:00PS This blog provides more references than most. B...PS This blog provides more references than most. Brian wants to set the bar even higher. If he'd looked at the second comment above, he'd have found I referenced work that reported only about three mass bleaching events over the 103 years prior to the 1970s or so. Lots since. <br /><br />That's not enough for Brian, yet he has not come up anything to refute this research, nor has he done any research himself (based on the evidence).Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15957370668060542252017-04-30T18:25:54.499+10:002017-04-30T18:25:54.499+10:00You now want a "quantification of that contri...You now want a "quantification of that contribution". That's called "shifting the goal posts". Previously you implied there was no contribution, so I guess that's progress.<br /><br />The best estimate of the contribution of human activity in the latest IPCC report (which is a bit old now) was that humans have caused all the warming since the 1950s, (and some prior to that).<br /><br />From the report:<br /><i>It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. <b>The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.</b></i><br /><br />Next goal post shift - I mean, next question?<br /><br />As for you insisting I and scientists use the word "inferred", whether in a blog article, a comment, or a scientific paper - go jump. Do you demand that of yourself? No. Do you demand that of every scientific paper that you read (if you have ever read one, that is)? No. Have you ever demanded that of any denier blog writer? I doubt it. Do you know what you're talking about? Based on the evidence here, I infer not.<br /><br />Read the comments from jgnfld for once, and read the references he gave you. Try to understand them if it's possible. Quit pretending you know more than real scientists. Lastly, if you think the reefs have been hit by as many mass bleachings in the past in as short a time period as a result of hot oceans, tell us all when that was, what happened to the reefs as a result, how the seas got so hot, and on what evidence you base your assertion.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24733590532884514462017-04-30T18:02:08.537+10:002017-04-30T18:02:08.537+10:00Jammy and Bernard, still missing the point. I hav...Jammy and Bernard, still missing the point. I have no issues with the scientific conclusion,supported by the experts in the field, that coral bleaching is primarily caused by heat stress. The problem is that the author of the article above, and some of the authors of referenced papers, all infer that AGW contributes significantly to the cause of this heat stress without suitable reference to quantification of that contribution. eg Hughes21 bases all such assertions to [25] van Hooidonk, R. et al. which <br /> actually does not conclude on the issue of AGW and quantifying ocean heating.<br /><br />This whole thread is about demonstrating and QUANTIFYING increased water temperature connected to AGW. The article, and papers were devoid of suitable references demonstrating that correlation. It is INFERRED that the 2016 bleaching is correlated to unprecedented global warming, eg [Sou] "There have been El Ninos for centuries and it's only in recent times that they've heated up the oceans so much that they've caused mass bleaching." is a statement that has no reference attached - it is purely an inference, with scant observational evidence. I acknowledge it is completely logical, and probably correct. But it should be called out that it is an inference and not demonstrated by observation. If you don't do the science right, you leave yourself open to rogues like Jim Steele. <br /><br />And if you think I am a climate science denier, you are not paying attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12860622756380135702017-04-29T17:43:43.395+10:002017-04-29T17:43:43.395+10:00Brian Westlake, there's a very simple way to r...Brian Westlake, there's a very simple way to resolve your claims. Put them to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ARCCoralCoE/posts/779652215520479" rel="nofollow">Terry</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/profterryhughes" rel="nofollow">Hughes</a>, or to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/OveHG" rel="nofollow">Ove</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/oveHG" rel="nofollow">Hoegh-Guldberg</a>, or to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/godfatherofcoral/" rel="nofollow">Charlie (John) Veron</a>, or to any of a number of other researchers. These people are all very approachable and more than happy to discuss the science of coral bleaching and reef decline, and the bonus is that you can have public discussions with comments that comes straight from the horses' mouths.<br /><br />Please let us know how your conversations progress, and what insight you gain from putting your thoughts straight to the professionals who know more about the science than anyone else.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66765797704420729562017-04-29T17:30:50.128+10:002017-04-29T17:30:50.128+10:00I think I see what BW is saying. The paper should ...I think I see what BW is saying. The paper should have had a control planet with a GBR and subjected it to global warming until the reef was dead. Then the authors should jump into their time machine to the present on earth and presented their paper with irrefutable evidence that GW kills reefs. Then this paper could cite that paper and all would be well. <br /><br />Usual denier setting impossible expectations and i.possibly high bars. Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49738563066795489062017-04-29T16:49:42.849+10:002017-04-29T16:49:42.849+10:00Are you under some weird delusion you are capable ...Are you under some weird delusion you are capable of discussing it?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67076063268984137332017-04-29T15:07:15.387+10:002017-04-29T15:07:15.387+10:00True FACT: All inductive reasoning and the entire ...True FACT: All inductive reasoning and the entire edifice of science is assumed!jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59572840404030078752017-04-29T10:36:22.466+10:002017-04-29T10:36:22.466+10:00Brian wrote: "Sou, let me explain this one mo...Brian wrote: <i>"Sou, let me explain this one more time. In your post above, and in your article, you assume that it is a FACT that current coral bleaching is (a) related to global warming, and therefore escalating in severity and intensity, and (b) that this will ultimately destroy the GBR."</i>...and more repetition.<br /><br />Read the article again, Brian. Then, read each comment again. Then go away and read up about a) global warming and b) coral reefs. Then read a critical thinking text and think about why what you wrote is inaccurate. Look up the words "you", "assume", "will" - to start with. Also, think about, but don't come back and tell us, where in the article above you got your b) from.<br /><br />Oh,and before you explain "one more time" again, don't. You've done it umpteen times already and in doing so, shown no sign of properly comprehending the science, the HW article, or any of the replies to your comments.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73837419557455081512017-04-29T09:53:58.783+10:002017-04-29T09:53:58.783+10:00PS. Regarding the assumption coral bleaching even...PS. Regarding the assumption coral bleaching events are historically unprecedented, I am not the only one suggesting there is potential for doubt. From the Australia Institute of Marine Science http://coral.aims.gov.au/info/bleaching-environment.jsp “The 1997-98 El Niño event was the most extreme in recorded history yet it is still possible that this and the two other major events in the past two decades (1981-82 and 2001-02) were exacerbated by other, slower, climatic cycles which are part of the natural variability of the Earth’s climate and not a response to greenhouse warming.”<br /><br />So there may be evidence that coral bleaching has been worsening over the last century, but that does not mean what we are observing is not common on millennial timescales. That perhaps may go some way to resolving the relevance of Sou's questions: How did the reefs manage to survive? How is it that there's no sign of these frequent mass coral bleaching events? How did all the fishers miss it? How did the seas get so hot without any impact on land or in the ocean that left a sign? What caused these extra hot spells in the ocean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56660969387134082732017-04-29T09:23:44.421+10:002017-04-29T09:23:44.421+10:00OK thanks for the heads up. This site is NOT abou...OK thanks for the heads up. This site is NOT about discussing science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49647269459329621932017-04-29T09:16:16.796+10:002017-04-29T09:16:16.796+10:00Sou, let me explain this one more time.
In your p...Sou, let me explain this one more time.<br /><br />In your post above, and in your article, you assume that it is a FACT that current coral bleaching is (a) related to global warming, and therefore escalating in severity and intensity, and (b) that this will ultimately destroy the GBR.<br /><br />Now we don't have direct observational evidence over time for either of these conclusions. They are logically inferred from the available evidence. There is nothing wrong with making a logical inference, but it should be called out, because without direct observational evidence there is room for doubt, and alternative hypothesis. That is my only point.<br /><br />Now in anticipation of further accusations about me being a denier, because I apparently "doubt" the FACT that global warming is destroying the GBR, <br /><br />(1) refer you to my analogy below concerning the Crown of Thorns starfish, and how inference and a lack of accurate quantification can result in inappropriate policy.<br />(2) consider direct observation and quantification - Quantify the delta water temperature that anthropogenic global warming contributed to the recent coral bleaching events, "on top of" El Nino factors: (A) 2 degC (B) 1 degC (C) 0.1 degC (D) 0.01 degC (E) unknown. Consider the complexity of answering this question by inference with respect to our current knowledge of how much humans contribte to observed global warming, ocean heating and mixing, the heat content and it's relationship to water temperature, and how this might logically impact on water temperature during coral bleaching events.<br /><br />As I know you are not expert in thermodynamics, I don't expect you to fully comprehend what I am saying here. But don't worry, I am learning to not have high expectations. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7979691518590114202017-04-28T12:27:01.361+10:002017-04-28T12:27:01.361+10:00Science 101 is often wrong in terms of any profess...Science 101 is often wrong in terms of any professional understanding of issues. This is particularly true WRT the sophomoric belief that the hypothetico-deductive method as described in first year survey texts has any real bearing on how professional science is actually performed.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2195609155552137272017-04-28T11:43:38.032+10:002017-04-28T11:43:38.032+10:00[tedious] At least I am not the one demanding that...[tedious] At least I am not the one demanding that Science 101 is wrong. [/tedious]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40991807367217877752017-04-28T02:08:21.703+10:002017-04-28T02:08:21.703+10:00Further to M's point, you could look in the ti...Further to M's point, you could look in the title area and see what the site is about. There you would see: "Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers."<br /><br />Or, possibly you could read the "About Us" entry.<br /><br />But then reading anything fully is rarely a denier skill.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.com