Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Declare End to Global Coral Reef Bleaching Event (phys.org)
Scientists in the U.S. have announced Monday that a mass bleaching of coral reefs worldwide has finally ended after three years. "About three-quarters of the world's delicate coral reefs were damaged or killed by hot water in what scientists say was the largest coral catastrophe," reports Phys.Org. From the report: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a global bleaching event in May 2014. It was worse than previous global bleaching events in 1998 and 2010. The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean, so the event loses its global scope. Bleaching will still be bad in the Caribbean and Pacific, but it'll be less severe than recent years, said NOAA coral reef watch coordinator C. Mark Eakin. Places like Australia's Great Barrier Reef, northwest Hawaii, Guam and parts of the Caribbean have been hit with back-to-back-to-back destruction, Eakin said. University of Victoria, British Columbia, coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years. While conditions are improving, it's too early to celebrate, said Eakin, adding that the world may be at a new normal where reefs are barely able to survive during good conditions.
We're supposed to accept the climate change religion of the left without question. All hail High Priest MightyMartian, who uses his words to stroke down anyone who cares question the religion of climate change. Who needs facts when we have the IPCC holy book to guide us?
Denier trolls will spam this article with fallacious arguments against climate change. There are definitely a lot of paid shills on this site. Climate change is an undeniable fact and we are in serious trouble if carbon emissions don't go to zero right now. Right wing trolls like Brett Buck and SuperKendall will spew crap, which is pretty much all the Republicans can do. Their positions are never supported by the facts, which is why the right wingers are almost exclusively uneducated. The bleaching of coral reefs is undeniable evidence of climate change. Basic physics and chemistry show beyond any doubt that man-made CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming that led to the coral reef bleaching. The discussion here should be how to protect the coral reefs and slow the warming, but that's not what will happen. It's a shame that we can't discuss climate change on this site without the articles being polluted with spam and astroturfing from Republican climate change denier trolls. Shame on you, rightists. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
Regardless of the actions of man. Yawn. Film at 11.
But...CO2 levels haven't actually dropped. They may have maybe slowed down acceleration but they haven't dropped.
I've got this sweet deal to travel the world and hang out around all these coral reefs and get paid for it. All I have to do is dish whatever bullshit management wants when I get back.
It was just another lie from Soros funded pseudo "scientists". Just another fucking lie from the Deep State. It's pretty hard to keep up such a lie when peoples' own eyes show that there NEVER WAS any "bleaching event". Why do they persist in slinging mud against the wall? To see what sticks, of course, to find another way to separate you from your money. They will never be happy until all your wealth is confiscated.
Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
Abstract
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
No shit, Sherlock.
Where's that "97% consensus" now?
You WANTED mankind to be "destroying the planet" so you could make yourself feel superior "because you cared". So you POLITICIZED climate science.
So now you reap what you sowed - every damn thing that doesn't align with alarmist Chicken Fucking Little screaming about how "AGW is destroying things!" is going to get tossed in your fucking face.
The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean...coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years.
She might want to consult a map before she sets off.
It is probably the lull before the storm...
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed.
This one is easy. First follow the money. Oil and gas companies have a vested and huge financial interest in avoiding any science that might point a finger at them and they support and fund conservative politics that lead to that might lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This is simply money interests protecting the status quo. Second, look at the ideology. Conservative's purport to like small government and many of the environmental issues we have are best solved through regulation which to various degrees means larger government. So this makes an easy target for conservative pundits who want to make a buck on the backs of credulous people who inherently distrust government. It's little different from a preacher to tells people that the bible says homosexuality is bad. People listen to the preacher even when what he says is ridiculous. Third is simply tribalism. A lot of liberals are concerned about the environment and so the conservatives simply treat them as The Other. Because the opposition likes it then it must be bad. Whether or not this is contrary to their own self interest becomes irrelevant.
Ironically the republicans used to be rather forward thinking about environmental issues. The EPA and NOAA came into existence under republican administrations. It is a fairly recent development that conservatives started using the environment as a political punching bag. I find it hugely irritating that the notions of clean water and a hospitable climate could possibly be items of contention but it's amazing what some people will do to make a buck and gain power.
The "Climate Crisis" gangs in Washington DC, New York UN and WMO Geneva will be calling for the killing of the report authors and claim the report is the written by Donald Trump.
ioioioioioioioio
...you're saying that one of the oldest eukaryotes on the planet, one that has survived and flourished in much warmer and much colder earth climates, and which has likewise survived much more sudden ecological changes like massive globe-altering meteorites and sustained volcanism, maybe won't be as badly affected by a trivial warning as feared?
Do tell.
-Styopa
In other news, NOAA reports the great barrier reef is beginning to take on a faint orange glow, similar in shade to the Cheeto-in-chief.
Obviously this article is from the Great Cheeto's administrative mouthpiece and not the result of any sound science or research. The bleaching event is still going on and is in fact the worst bleaching event in recorded AND inferred history (including direct sampling AND proxy data).
...or at least that is what the environmental wackos will claim.
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades.
And what exactly is your point? The evidence CLEARLY points to the climate research being useful. I'm fine with spending that money as long as the evidence supports further investigation. The only people seemingly opposed to further climate research are people who make money from opposing it. Don't tell me you are one of these conspiracy theorists who thinks scientists actually en-mass are trying to scam you out of your tax dollars. If scientists really wanted to make money in a corrupt fashion the real money would be in opposing climate research.
Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
TRILLIONS are spend on fossil fuel subsidies annually. Again, what exactly is your point? Clean energy is an unambiguously good thing and subsidies are necessary for a time to get the technology to the point where the economics work. In many cases they have already succeeded. This is true for all kinds of new technology. Not sure why you seem to have a beef with subsidizing clean energy when fossil fuels in 2016 were $5.3 Trillion globally. That is 6.5% of global GDP for an industry that is wildly profitable and clearly does not need subsidies.
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
Bullshit. First off, fossil fuel companies collectively make TRILLIONS, not billions. The amount of money in clean energy currently is positively dwarfed by the amount of money currently in fossil fuel production and sales. It's not even remotely close. Second, "AGW agenda"? Spare me your nonsensical ravings. When you want to have a fact based discussion then we can revisit. Until then you are just spouting vague conspiracy theory bullshit.
I am not a coral-ologist, and the article wasn't much help. Why, or how, did the bleaching stop? Was it something the biologists/oceanographers did to curtail this or did, ah.. uh.. ah.. nature find a way?
"then something later evolves to take their place"
Exactly. Why do you hate the evolutionary winners? Things come and go, including humans. We don't have to save everything. Though bringing back the mammoth does sound tasty.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I'm confused, what is the connection to Tipper Gore's anal bleaching and can AlGore even see his dick over his carbon sequestering belly?
Bleaching? Like with Clorox?
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Feel free to go extinct, then. The rest of us would like to preserve an environment that's hospitable to human life.