The climate change debate continues.

[pmccarthy]

After posting the above I found the research summary. They put out clay tiles and counted the spawn that landed In the bleached areas. On average they counted five, versus a claimed 45 previously, though no information about where that average came from. So 40 less out of 45 is 89%. but no way were they measuring within one percent.

 

 

[octave]

I am sure the 89% was the upper range of some measurement. My objection is that it gives a false impression of accuracy, that the measurement was within 1%. 

 

 

It is illegal, for example, to report that 1000 assays in a gold mine gave a grade of 3.147 grams per tonne. The correct statement is 3.1 grams per tonne.

 

similarly here, 90% would be a statistically reasonable statement while 89% gives false confidence in the data.

 

 

 

OK so you don't actually know how the measurements were performed.

 

The method involves attaching 1000 clay tiles to to the reef in set locations just before a spawning event. These tiles or settlement panels are left for a given time and then retrieved.  These panels are then examined and the coral polyps are counted and compared to the panels from the last measurement. 

 

It is possible to come up with a precise number. If a tile had 100 polyps last time and only 11 this time well that is a precise percentage decrease.  Of course there are confounding factors which are spelt out in the paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1081-y    

 

Whilst you can read the abstract for free it will cost you $8.99 for the full paper.

 

Here is a news article which covers  this study.

 

https://theconversation.com/coral-reproduction-on-the-great-barrier-reef-falls-89-after-repeated-bleaching-114761

 

What order of precision would you be happier with?    You tell me that grams of gold are measured to 1 decimal place so what would be the acceptable level for counting individual polyps through a microscope?

 

The 89% figure is a headline figure. The raw data detailing the numbers on each tile are available.  

 

Let me be clear and say that any study is open to criticisms, this is what science journals like "Nature" are about. I imagine that other scientists probably did question methodologies but as far as I am aware it has not been overturned.

 

 

i said in an earlier post that I would try to stick to facts. The statement about 89% was made, that is a fact. I bet the real measurement was a statistical result, perhaps a mean of 49% with a range of plus or minus 30%, that would be consistent with the statement and the level of accuracy possible. It is pure politics but this political BS can impact all of NQ society if it is unchallenged.

 

 

 

It is just absurd to pronounce this figure as BS when you don't know how is was arrived at.   

 

Saying it must be BS without looking at the actual study is not what being a true skeptic is about.  I intend to buy the complete study and will happily share it with you because I would be interested in hearing your criticism.   

 

 

[octave]

After posting the above I found the research summary. They put out clay tiles and counted the spawn that landed In the bleached areas. On average they counted five, versus a claimed 45 previously, though no information about where that average came from. So 40 less out of 45 is 89%. but no way were they measuring within one percent.

 

 

 

Can you point me to where you read that?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Octave looks like we read the same material. I am not objecting to the methodology or the results, but to the precision which has been attributed to the results.

 

 

[octave]

Octave looks like we read the same material. I am not objecting to the methodology or the results, but to the precision which has been attributed to the results.

 

Fair enough, I just suspect that what we have in the more popular press is a headline number whereas what we more than likely have in the published study itself would be a more forensic breakdown of the figures. 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

It's a fairly safe bet that if the Australian says that, the opposite is most likely more accurate. I've read that paper most of my life and it's gradually deteriorated to the point where it doesn't have a lot of credibility any more. It cherry picks news that suits it's right wing conservative bent...

 

During the recent Federal election campaign the outrageous level of editorial bias triggered a revolt in the Oz news room. 

 

It's encouraging to know that even when their jobs may be in jeopardy, some journos have standards.

 

 

[willedoo]

I'd agree that a lot of the journos are not to blame. I've seen the editorial bias increasing as time goes by. I guess as I'm probably a bit left of centre, it's more noticeable. To a person who was much further toward the right, it would probably appear more balanced as it aligns with their views and would seem more normal. Probably the worst paper I've seen for editorial bias is the Courier Mail in Brisbane. It puts the Oz to shame and no points for guessing it's ownership.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Latest data on who is using coal

 

 

[ATTACH]50401._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[spacesailor]

India is so low in its comsumption, why the Adani mine, if its not just Cheap.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Indian coal is generally dirty and causes excess pollution. They are increasing consumption and are reaching the limit of domestic production. they will import more in future.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sure they will, when the pollution in Delhi is affecting the life expectancy of everyone there. Adani wants to export coal generated electricity to Bangladesh where there's no real rules on how you treat and pay workers.. Nev

 

 

[octave]

Latest data on who is using coal

 

 

[ATTACH]3341[/ATTACH]

 

Of course should be read in conjunction with this graph'

 

[ATTACH]50402._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Yenn]

I didn't see Australia on the second graph.

 

Considering that we are probably the country with the most sunlight available it is sad to see such a low take up of renewables.

 

Our government of course does not want to reduce the coal production figures because that is gold to them, whereas it is pollution to the rest of us.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Latest data on who is using coal

 

 

[ATTACH]3341[/ATTACH]

 

Where's it coming from?

 

I bet Australia ranks fairly highly on countries who export coal.  Number 3, I've heard.

 

 

[Bruce]

Here's how Australia could achieve low net emissions:

 

1. Stop burning coal for electricity. Use solar and wind backed up with pumped and unpumped hydro and turbines run from gas.

 

2. Pay farmers to make charcoal for burial. ( I think that this is the cheapest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but please tell me if you have something cheaper)

 

Alas these things are not going to happen. There is no profit for the rich in paying farmers to make charcoal.

 

 

[willedoo]

This thread is about to reach 30 pages. By the time the debate has run it's course, the world will have run out of hydrocarbons, we'll be on 100% renewables by necessity, and there will be nothing left to talk about.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I heard a scientist on RN today saying there's no point thinking that facts are going to change people's minds.  They cherry-pick around them, entrench their position and just feel under attack.

 

The only way for the public to actually do anything about climate change is to make it worthwhile for them.  That is, make solar so affordable that they can see a financial benefit.  Tax emitters heavily so there's a cost involved in buying stuff that's not sustainable.

 

It worked for cigarettes.

 

 

[nomadpete]

No, Marty. It hasn't worked for cigarettes.

 

All that effort HAS resulted in some reduction of smokers numbers, but nothing like the reductions we need to make in our polluting ways!

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics website:-

 

"In 2014-15, 16.9% of males and 12.1% of women smoked daily, with a similar but higher pattern in 1995 (27.3% of men compared with 20.3% of women)."

 

Not even halved.

 

Also note that the young people taking up smoking is much higher than the older quitters.

 

I don't see these numbers as a raging success story.

 

 

[facthunter]

They used to smoke pipes and cigars in Restaurants. Just the thing to make you enjoy your meal when someone on the next table lights up a cigar. We have done  a great job here with cigarettes. Not perfect, but I know no other place where it's better, or even 1/2 as good. It has to be the single worst thing you can do to your self (and those around you). Nev

 

 

[octave]

No, Marty. It hasn't worked for cigarettes.

 

All that effort HAS resulted in some reduction of smokers numbers, but nothing like the reductions we need to make in our polluting ways!

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics website:-

 

"In 2014-15, 16.9% of males and 12.1% of women smoked daily, with a similar but higher pattern in 1995 (27.3% of men compared with 20.3% of women)."

 

Not even halved.

 

Also note that the young people taking up smoking is much higher than the older quitters.

 

I don't see these numbers as a raging success story.

 

 

 

I see the reduction of smoking as reasonably successful especially over a longer time frame.  In 1945 72% of males and 26% of females smoked.  In 1980 this had dropped to 41% males and  30% of females. Now it is 16% male and 12%.  It has become a minority activity.  It would be interesting to find out whether people who do smoke do so to the same degree. I remember in the 80s working with a guy who smoked 4 packets a day.      We are probably left with the recalcitrant group who will probably never quit.

 

Back to co2 etc. Realistically if we could halve emissions in 20 years I certainly would be enthusiastic. 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

They used to smoke pipes and cigars in Restaurants. Just the thing to make you enjoy your meal when someone on the next table lights up a cigar. We have done  a great job here with cigarettes. Not perfect, but I know no other place where it's better, or even 1/2 as good. It has to be the single worst thing you can do to your self (and those around you). Nev

 

We can thank Nicola Roxon for having the guts to take on the global tobacco-addiction industry.

 

If only the LNP could show similar leadership and decency, we'd have a much better country.

 

 

[nomadpete]

I'm not saying that the achieved reduction in percentage of population smoking cigarettes is bad. From 1995 to 2015 the numbers have roughly halved due to the increased taxes and the advertising. It is obviously a good result. (I'm a reformed smoker - maybe I'm biased). It's good but it isn't great. Stopping the tobacco industry and the cigarette smoking culture would make it a great result. Zero harm from the hazard.

 

The point I'm trying to make, is that the anti smoking programme over the past 20 years has only halved the problem. Neither the percentage nor the timeframe are acceptable when it comes to climate change or general pollution.

 

 The worldwide present problem cannot be reversed by halving the polluters. We need more than that.

 

 Right now, we need the entire population of the world, to adopt sustainable practices (not WRT just CO2 from fossil fuels).

 

I realise that simple human greed prevents this happening. And nobody really wants to be the first to reduce the profitability that drives the businesses of their own patch.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The Sydney "Blue sky & sunshine" are a thing of the past with all this pollution on a daily occurrence.

 

If we have a foggy day. It will be SMOG.

 

Another day with the  Air-filter Running. Or off to the hospital for their oxygen to sustain life.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This talk in London is already sold out....

 

When: Monday 4th November 2019, 6.00pm - 7.30pm

 

Where: Committee Room 4, House of Lords, London SW1

Many of the threats to the Great Barrier Reef, such as from sediments and nutrients from agricultural runoff, and from climate change (either natural or manmade), have been greatly exaggerated. Far from being in very poor condition, the GBR is actually one of the most pristine and unspoiled ecosystems on earth. The manifest discrepancy between alarmist claims and observational evidence is due to a systemic failure of Quality Assurance systems used for science and relied upon for public policy decisions. 

 

About Peter Ridd

 

Peter Ridd is a geophysicist with over 100 publications in international journals and 35 years working on the Great Barrier Reef. He has interests in coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments on coral reefs, instrument development, geophysical sensing of the earth, and mangrove swamp hydrodynamics. Until being unlawfully fired by James Cook University he worked as an academic and also led its very successful consulting group called the Marine Geophysics Laboratory that works on the development of instruments including sediment deposition sensors, tilt current meters, and mine paste pipe monitors.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Thanks for posting, PM. I'm sure the legal case will eventually tell us more about what happened to Peter Ridd.

 

Hopefully justice will eventually be done, but the main issue is how to best manage our world treasure, the GBR.

 

As a former farmer I have seen how difficult it is to avoid damaging natural systems. I have no doubt that runoff from coastal farms is doing damage and that political pressure to downplay this has been exerted.

 

It sounds like the main debate is about the degree of damage; surely we should not tolerate any damage.