The Ocean Fertilization Plan & Its Potential Consequences | GEO GIRL

[QUOTE="DEFinning, post: 1074546172, member: 85218"]Tell it to a psychiatrist.
[/quote]
Puerile personal insult noted. If you were interested in knowing the relevant facts (you aren't), you would know that justifications for getting government to control other people are some of the commonest arguments in debates on public policy. Look around at the news some day -- or attend any public meeting on proposed zoning changes.

I read what they write, and do them the courtesy of assuming they are sincere, though I am aware that is sometimes not the case.

Right. If you were concerned with the fate of the planet, etc. you would not so obdurately resist learning the relevant facts of objective physical reality.

You have not identified any specific belief of mine as nonsensical, nor will you ever be doing so.

<yawn>

 

*Yes, I absolutely see you saying that we all, who take Climate Change seriously, "want to" dwell on only the "negative" and totally ignore the "positive...effects," in the equation; want to "just report the costs, and ignore revenue." Tell me, what do you read yourself, to be saying?


So that was your first "what the hell is this guy talking about?" comment, in this post. You immediately proceed to the second, after quoting my comment:

DEFinning said: ↑
One more of your arguments, debunked.
Note that it does not conclude that, because of this resilience, there is no need to take steps, ourselves, to address the decline in the abundance of coral reefs.
<End Quote>

"It" refers to the text I had just quoted for you, from a source, making the case that Climate Change is bad, m'kay, real bad-- and yet it did not stick to only one side of the ledger (as you had alleged that all of our sources, do):

The report paints a picture of four decades of declining coral abundance, more frequent bleaching, and increasing amounts of algae, which is a sign of declining reef health. However, the report also reveals the incredible ability of coral reefs to recover when they are not disturbed by local and global threats. Both findings should motivate swift action.

WTF? What is debunked is what you had written-- seemingly now invisible to you-- that the side which looks at Climate Change as a serious problem, in need of serious attention and remediation, only looks at one side of the equation. I mean, really? You got lost, there, somehow? Well, I guess you would need get lost, in order to throw another bogus accusation at me, for using a straw man-- this time, that I am supposedly alleging that you'd said something about "not taking steps to address decline." Where T.F. do you get that? I swear, it's like trying to converse with a non English speaker.

No, the correct English to say that you have pretty much destroyed your credibility, would be your saying: "I think I've pretty much destroyed my credibility, now."

 

And it still does not matter.

The first instruments used for accurately recording the temperature was not until the mid-1800s. And in case you are not aware, that was during what is known as "The Little Ice Age". The the screamers have been trying to insist ever since that is the "benchmark" for what temperature things should be.

Right, during the coldest period on the planet since the Younger Dryas. Might as well put a thermometer in the fridge and say that is the average temperature of your house.

And yes, they are for a short period of time. All other figures are purely estimates. That is why every single chart has such a huge amount of "wiggle room" on it, because they know they are only estimates. Those are not "recorded temperatures", those are purely estimates based entirely on second and third hand sources.

The difference here is that I actually know those are not recorded temperatures, and you do not.

 

I take climate change VERY seriously.

I have not said the narrative is UNIVERSAL although that’s what you implied as my position. It is not. You are being dishonest now.

Nothing I’ve written has been debunked. I’m part of the side that takes climate change seriously. People who know nothing of the science behind climate and climate change are the ones who don’t take it seriously. I’m definitely not in that camp.

Yes, I agree your reading comprehension isn’t the best. I’ve posted in clear English.

Now, on to the science.

You posted this from a source you didn’t link to.

Let’s look at what you are referring to as legitimate evidence. Link for those interested.

https://gcrmn.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Executive-Summary-with-Forewords.pdf

You and your cite now attribute the entire coral loss to bleaching (ironically not to acidification that YOU originally seemed concerned about). But if you read the actual heart of the report they admit they don’t even quantify other KNOWN coral destroying metrics. They just straight up report disinformation and you regurgitate it. Because KNOWN causal effects are “difficult to assess” they just attributed ALL loss to bleaching! And you gobble it up and regurgitate it as if it’s meaningful in some way.

Let’s look at some evidence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320721003591

But the UN is telling you coral loss is from bleaching alone, not attributing any of the 14% loss to fishing practices.

More information on fishing practices. It contributes directly to bleaching susceptibility.

https://coral.org/en/coral-reefs-10...,grow unchecked, eventually smothering corals.

Terrestrial pollution.

Mechanical anthropogenic damage to coral.

But the UN tells you it’s all the result of warming by failing to account for ALL other causes. Science does not attribute all causality to one quantifiable factor when many other causal factors are KNOWN, but are difficult to quantify. Your source is intentional disinformation. It’s not based on science.

You have accepted a narrative that is not based on evidence but instead based on ignoring evidence that is inconvenient to the narrative. As I said, your opinions are not based on a full understanding of science. Because the narrative must curate information to influence your opinions.

 

Please provide quotes using the PF quote function of me presenting the idea coral reefs aren’t suffering and won’t suffer.

Please provide quotes of me claiming positive information is universally excluded by those raising alarms about negative effects of climate change. If you would read a bit of my content you would see I routinely raise alarms about negative effects of climate change!

If you can’t provide the requested quotes you may wish to retract or rephrase this:

 

No, you are being disingenuous, to focus on one word, when I had only been paraphrasing your argument. When you say that "y'all" want to "just report costs and ignore revenue," or that we are making assessments and/or presenting arguments, "without accounting for positive" effects, those are absolute statements (as opposed to, for example, having said that some of us often overlook, discount or undervalue the positive side of the equation). So, I used the word "universal"-- this is irrelevant, to the overall meaning of what I had represented you as saying, which was completely accurate, whether you care to admit it, or not. In fact, you are doing the same thing with your entire argument, in this thread: focusing on small details, which do not change the overall picture.

If you want to spend your time arguing over your not having used the word "universal"-- while clearly talking about all of us, always doing this, as it is part of the "dishonesty of the popular narrative"-- that is your time, to waste. I find your niggling denial to be pathetic, and too insignificant a thing to be worth my effort to argue over.

 

You don’t know about “proxy data?” They have been collecting it and studying it for more than 30 years……

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempe...re indirect,between temperature and the proxy.

 

You are full of crap, because you have misrepresented my arguments, in the past!

No one goes back, to quote their debate partner, verbatim, every single time they refer to that person's argument.

Again, I showed that just my use of the word "universal," did not misrepresent 557's overall post, in which everything about those of us, to whom he referred, was expressed in absolute terms: "y'all"-- not some of you; "without accounting for," "just report... and ignore," the "dishonesty of the popular narrative." There were no limiting qualifications, whatsoever.

But how can I guess that reasonable by explanations are meaningless to someone like you? You don't care how pathetically weak or disingenuous your argument, do you?

 

The narrative you follow is dishonest. I deconstructed your cite on coral as incontrovertible evidence this is accurate to claim.

You CHOSE a source that was intentionally misleading and misreported data on causes of coral destruction.

You and your SOURCE behave exactly as i originally claimed, providing misleading narratives. I did not claim it was universal, but you and your sources ARE doing EXACTLY as I claimed you do.

Thank you for not only demonstrating you do exactly what I claimed on matters of science (misrepresent actual science to form a narrative) but that you are more than willing to be dishonest about fallacious arguments you present as well.

Obviously you can’t debate science as your posts now contain nothing but personal attacks and further fallacy.

As I said, if you wish to support your arguments with science (not misleading non-science from the UN) I’m always open to discussing science. But I’m weary of the pure fallacy your posts in the science subforum devolve into when you are shown REAL science.

We shall see how significant you believe this is by your next post. If it contains data or evidence to support a science based position on climate change we can take you seriously. If it is pure fallacy as the last post we can be certain posting fallacy is far more important than science to ya’ll.

Again, thanks for the solid evidence what I said about ya’ll is accurate. Here it is again as it’s important third parties again see how you have provided evidence this post is accurate. You have done exactly as the post claims and then resorted to pure fallacy instead of posting science in the science subforum.

 

LOL. You think “ya’ll” is universal? But “universal” is not claiming universal?

You are the one spending time misrepresenting arguments here. Post some science instead of garbage disinformation from the UN and endless fallacy.

 

And manipulating, cherry-picking, editing, weighting, smoothing, reconciling, commingling and falsifying it...

 

Indeed.
Continuing Problems with Paleoclimate Proxies

 

Of course I know about it. And am aware it is not actual data but an approximation. They are not the same thing, so should not be treated as the same thing.

 

Thought I’d add a little more science to counteract the UN corruption of science and fallacy that is polluting the thread.

Another serious concern with coral health and destruction is plastic pollution.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/01/oceanic-plastic-trash-conveys-disease-coral-reefs

And how prevalent is plastic on reefs?


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06113-5

And yet we see the UN and others form a narrative that excludes this actual science to create a misleading narrative that bleaching from warming is the relevant driver of coral health. No effort by them to quantify the other causes of coral decay let alone mitigate those causes.

Just more evidence for my observation:

 

Oh, there can be a great many problems with proxy data. And it is not what most people think it really is.

For example, one of the biggest is actually sea floor sediment. They study the shells of plankton on the bottom, and the bodies they find at different layers gives an idea of the water temperature at the time.

But know what it does not tell? Oh, things like currents, air temperature, actual climate conditions like rainfall. That is all estimated, normally based on the conditions now and speculating on conditions then.

Kind of the same with tree rings. All that tells is the amount of growth in a year. It does not actually say why a tree grew so much or so little, once again that is estimated.

Proxies are very important in estimating the conditions in the past. However, one has to remember it is only an estimate and is not a real measurement. And things can be thrown off a hell of a lot, depending on the bias of the one interpreting the proxy used.

I have mentioned this before, I will do so again. If a tree ring for a couple of years is smaller than usual, the general interpretation is that that means it was a drought year. However, that is not the only cause for that to have happened. Extreme cold could also cause that to happen, as can a year or more of extreme cloud cover. Or even things like torrential rains causing the tree to be submerged, that also would greatly slow the growth cycle.

And the same thing can be associated with wide tree rings.

In many ways, actually deciphering proxy data is not a hell of a lot different than reading tea leaves. Yes, it is a real and actual science, I am not saying it is pseudoscience. However, it is not just so simple that one can go "I see this, therefore the condition I want to proxy is that". That is why any time you look at say a temperature chart prior to 1850, the line showing the temperature should get wide as hell. And here is the thing, I see that all the time but they always put what they say is the "actual temperature" right square in the middle. And I have never seen any explanation as to what proxies they are using, and the methodology used to determine other than throwing it right smack dab in the middle.

And proxy data is so freaking vague and hyperopic that a hell of a lot of things will not even be recorded in the data. You can have several years of higher or lower ocean temperatures, but not enough to make an impact in the sea floor record. Therefore that aberration will not even be recorded. Nor will what is killing the plankton ever be recorded. Is it above average temperatures? Below average temperatures? A sudden surge of fresh water? Hypersaline water? Some kind of pollutant?

Don't know, but we see a lot of the shells of dead plankton that survive in water between X and Y in this layer, and that means that was the temperature the water must have been. Then above that we see one between Y and Z layer that wants water at this temperature, therefore the water changed temperature up/down between X and Z.

A bit of a simplification, but that is the gist of how most temperature estimates are made, based upon the sea floor data.

And the difference I guess is that I am actually aware of this, what it means, and why it should absolutely never be regarded as the same thing as actual first hand recordings. No more than any other proxy data should be considered "true". They are based on estimates taken from second, third, even forth hand sources, and a lot of bias can creep in, primarily because of how vague they are. Not to mention the bias of the ones actually interpreting the data itself.

There was one I read about many decades ago that I wish I knew where I could find online. But it discussed a contradiction between two sets of data used. Tree rings on the location showed small growth as if the tree was in a drought condition, yet the soil layers showed plenty of evidence of precipitation. In other words, the two contradicted each other and it was driving them crazy trying to decide which it was.

Final realization came much later, and now they believe the area was getting above average rainfall, but for some reason further inland it was not. So there was less runoff in the spring and summer, and as it was a delta area the water turned brackish and slowed the tree growth it almost killed the tree. But it was driving them crazy for years trying to figure out why the two sources of proxy data were contradicting each other.

 

I seriously wonder if you have perhaps had a stroke, of which you are unaware, as I do not recall your ability to process written words, as being so horribly bad, as you are now demonstrating it to be. Here, I am going to make this real easy for you. Below is the quote of mine, which you'd used, in your post, which you are apparently mistaking to be my contending that you had said, "coral reefs aren't suffering and won't suffer."

DEFinning said: ↑
To be honest, I am doubtful you will be able to produce a credible scientific article, to back up the idea that coral reefs are not suffering, and will not suffer more, due to an abundance of CO2, turning the oceans less alkaline, and more acidic.
<End>

Obviously, you have excerpted this part, from a longer post, but did a defective job, in getting the full context. Just before this-- if you don't mind my paraphrasing myself, rather than wasting the time looking up my exact words, to answer this nonsense post of yours (but feel free, if I misrepresent anything, to quote my full post, which you had edited, here)-- I had given my main idea, with which it had seemed, from all your posts contesting mine, that you must disagree. So since your contrary posts, did not seem to address my main idea, is why I think I asked for you to show that the suffering of coral reefs, was not in fact the basic truth of the matter, which your replies, not only did not acknowledge, but were implicitly contradicting. I guess, you had been only having your half of a different conversation, than the subject of my posts, which you had been, nonetheless, addressing.

 

Over thirty years of research into proxy data. Yes it still has margins of error but that does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. It amazes me that it is often the same people who talk of previous climate changes, which are based on proxy data, dismiss the current climate change due to use of proxy data

 

Did not say it was 100% accurate - just that it had been collected and researched for over 30 years. Steve McIntyre (author of your blog) had ONE success with the questioning of temperature collection data and has been scrambling to repeat that success ever since

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

https://www.desmog.com/steve-mcintyre/

conflict of interest much?

 

LOL. More fallacy with no science from you.

Nobody in this conversation has said or implied coral will not and is not affected by acidification. Because nobody has made any such claim there is NO reason for anyone to provide evidence to support it.

You have presented a classic strawman argument which I not anyone else made.

You are welcome to provide evidence I made any such statement or implied such. But you won’t because you can’t. You can’t because it’s a strawman created by YOU.

Present some science if you want to regain any semblance of credibility.

The suffering of reefs from acidification has nothing to do with my main point that you and others are misinformed and lack basic knowledge of climate change. It has nothing to do with my point that you and others subscribe to a false narrative that is founded on exclusion of vast swaths of scientific evidence.

 

Your comment is risibly uninformed.

 

Where did I say it should be dismissed? I have not, I have not even implied anything of the sort.

You really are an "all one thing or the other", aren't you? This is why to be honest I generally dismiss most of your claims. YOu have absolutely no moderation or caution, just jump in with both feet anywhere you think they should be pointed.

 

Oh, you mean blatantly dishonest peer-reviewed climate "scientists" like Lyin' Michael Mann, who used cherry-picked temperature-insensitive "temperature proxies" to contrive his "hockey stick" temperature reconstruction that showed almost no change in temperature from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, and then, when those very same proxies ALSO showed almost no warming in the 20th century, REMOVED THEM FROM HIS "HOCKEY STICK" GRAPH AND SUBSTITUTED UNCORRECTED THERMOMETER DATA? Those people who talk of previous climate changes?

 

That is a bald falsehood. His criticisms of dishonest anti-fossil-fuel nonscience have been trenchant and unanswerable.

You cite two obvious anti-science smear sites, and then talk of conflict of interest??

Laughable.

 

There's a physics girl, too, who is pretty interesting, but I forgot her name.

 

The fish are doing just fine.
Health of Fish Stocks Contradict Climate Alarmists Predictions
Guest Blogger
In 2020, there was a record 214 million tonnes of production from both wild catches and aquaculture . . . .