Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (58112)	9/13/2014 12:18:54 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

When we see there's been no heating for 80 years, we've gone back to the future to bring Doc home

To: Brumar89 who wrote (58112)	9/13/2014 7:49:14 PM
From: sense	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brian Sullivan Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I read the study. link.springer.com As it happens, I'm also intimately familiar with the environment in the region in question, and these reefs in particular... and am not the least bit challenged in addressing the science. The extraordinarily obvious errors it includes begin with assuming the truth of what it seeks to "prove" the data show at the outset ... identifying it as "junk science" from the start, without there ever being any rational connection established between them. Then, it fails in collecting data using questionable methods, and in analyzing the data using questionable assumptions, but otherwise it is not actually doing any science at all... including that there is zero interest shown in establishing any causality, rather than a purposeful effort made in AVOIDING it, while assuming the results of the data collection are a "proof" of the assumptions. The article does include mentions of (a couple of) its potential limits... and, then proceeds to ignore them... even though they offer a (still far too restricted but) perfectly reasonable set of alternative explanations... Other issues it ignores completely, or dismisses casually... including the element in potential changes in values being recorded resulting from changes in technology and/or methodology, which matters far more than they address. The study is not valid as science... without properly addressing all those issues it ignores. It presents two data sets showing a difference (?)... and then, without doing science, assumes a reason... Even if you accept the flawed assumptions... there's still a ludicrous dependence on them which requires ignoring that local variation ever matters... as if there is a "global" answer to every variation in data observed. Fowey Rocks and Carysfort Reef Lighthouse lighthousefriends.com are both SHALLOW locations... connected to local waters by patterns in channels between reefs and islands which have particular features... and which CHANGE. It is meaningless to connect the data to assumptions as they have without correlating the changes with... anything else... and then claiming it proves... anything. Unless you can show what happened between one data set and another... in relation to changing patterns in the flow of both water and air ? And, also, with the changes in the places where that flow originated ? Then, you can't tell much, if anything, from the data by itself. Where did the water on the reef whose temperature you are measuring... come from ? Because... you aren't measuring the temperature of the reef, but the temperature of a flow... that came from somewhere. The Gulf Stream... with much warmer water... is just off the edge of the reef at Carysfort... not more than mile. The Gulf Stream slowing down... does what to the flow of water over the reef ? And, that's the biggest issue with this "research" that I see... The reefs have many REAL challenges... the sources of which are NOT a mystery... I doubt CO2 matters at all in the way alarmists WANT it to, so badly. Their far too obvious motives and very obviously fraudulent methods peg my skepticism meter... however, I have ZERO question whether the impacts clearly apparent on the reefs over time are "anthropogenic". They are. So, a "study" like this... wastes money... does a huge disservice... and is a huge lost opportunity to address any of those REAL issues... in which there isn't a question about the assumptions being made. Perhaps, the water temperature changes are only a function of changed sensors and methods. I suspect that is true... given the shift apparent isn't just one toward "higher temperatures" but also "less volatility". The article fails to address that glaringly obvious indicator of measurement error... even though addressing it should not be hard. Then, it is a fact that Miami didn't exist in the first study period. There were maybe only 10,000 people living in Miami even beyond the 1930's... so, there might well be an impact from having a major metropolitan area suddenly appear... where there didn't used to be one ? And, it isn't "just" that the introduction of railways and the overseas highway enabled development of the islands... but, along with them... came the Corps of Engineers, and huge tinkering with the regional hydrodynamics. Odds are... that probably matters. S. Florida... is now riddled with "canal front properties"... canals filled with hot, stagnant water... that allow everyone to have a boat tied up in the backyard... even though they're no where near a natural waterway. The Everglades have been drained... that former aquatic sea of grass growing in a couple feet of water, now converted into a large highland melaluca plantation... leaving the water that is left... exposed... and shallow... it is now only a few inches deep... with a dramatically altered flow... All of that change... has also dramatically altered regional sedimentation... with backwaters in Florida Bay that used to be brilliant white bottoms of white coral sand and shells... now composed of black mud. The cooling water from Turkey Point (nuclear power plant) warms southern Biscayne Bay nicely... making a mid winter swim just off shore... not nearly as uncomfortable as it used to be... Maybe that matters ? Perhaps the dramatic changes apparent in S. Florida reefs... are due to sedimentation and agricultural chemicals and urban sewage... the development of the Ocean Reef Club... oceanreef.com a couple of hurricanes washing a lot of Miami's filth into the sea en.wikipedia.org ... too much estrogen in the water... and years, and years of coral harvesting, and boat anchors being tossed onto the coral... tearing the reefs apart ? However, those rich guys at the Ocean Reef Club... don't like being the problem. The development of the City of Miami/Dade County... can't possibly be the problem ? So, just call it global warming and no one gets upset... or thinks to actually DO anything about it. But, reality is... if you tell the obvious, stupid lies the global warming Nazis want to hear... they will make the money flow for any stupid thing you do... even though what they are paying for is absolute JUNK... they'll do it... as long as you start with the flawed assumptions they want. Real science is dead... because of it. And we're all put at REAL and GREATER risk... because of it.