One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain

A purely theoretical possibility, given the refusal to post any links to research. My education is completely irrelevant, you post fantasies without any base in reality of scientific research, and refuse to support these fantasies with any links to real papers.

More alarmist bs disposed of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you knew of the recent disaster history for Queensland, Australia you might reconsider....
How do prepare for repeated annual disasters, rain, flood, fire, cyclone..? Literally billions spent every year for the last 6 years or so....
How do you prepare for repeated bleeching of the Great Australian Barrier Reef?
True, the amount of resourses devoted to ongoing and repeated disasters has generally increased over the last few years...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep.
Sorry about that, but you chose your ignorance and have been defending it with vigor. A relevant education is easily available to you.

In Schmelzer's World - as in the rest of the Republican Bubbleverse - I can make the bulk of AGW research and data analysis vanish from the world merely by failing to post links to it on demand.
In the real world, I have no such powers.

So you still haven't reality checked any of my posting or your posting on AGW.
More evidence that my longstanding assessment of your knowledge of AGW research was and remains correct - you know nothing about it, not even what I have foolishly wasted my time linking for you in futility (such as the real world funding and grant money and job security pressures on AGW research, which I linked for you in some detail and have linked for others in various threads since - upwards of a dozen examples and illustrations).

You don't know what it has discovered and recorded as data, who is doing it, who is paying for it, what the political and economic pressures on it are, or the theoretical bases of its various analytical approaches.
The support for that claim is of course the quotes of your more foolish and Republican media feed saturated posts, which I have diligently included.

But this is perhaps the central quote and post of mine on the subject of AGW,
and it does not depend on any links or research whatsoever, but instead on an adult view of reality itself:

That is the starting point for any discussion of the OP of this thread, for example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rain: improve drainage, sewer systems. Flood: increase dams near the rivers, build reservoir dams, prepare areas which may be flooded without creating much harm. Fire: there are various forms of fire protection, say, some area around villages without wood. Cyclone: building stable houses. What should be done is well-known, well-tested over the centuries.

If it exists, it does not vanish, and if the links would be posted, I would look at them and accept what they found. But simple claims from a person who has lied about me hundreds of times now are simply irrelevant if not supported with links.

It is easy to see that it is all alarmist bs, so there is no need to check something, especially that the only plausible reason that you refuse to link any evidence is that there is no. Why should I care to search if you have already searched and found nothing to link? QQ has given an interesting link, and we had an interesting discussion about it.

Don't speculate about things you cannot know. Simply post the evidence for the claims you make. Your refusal to give that information means it does not exist, or, if it exists, you don't have it. Thus, your repetitions of such postings shows that you are simply an alarmist.

BTW, I see no reason to care about ad hominem arguments like funding and grant money.

No, the only necessary support is that you simply refuse to present evidence for your claims. That's already sufficient.

The civilized behavior in a discussion is quite different. If one makes a claim, and the other side asks for evidence, then one either provides the evidence, or one says "sorry, I have lost the links" or so, and then it is clear that the claim made does not count.

LOL. Unfortunately, the reality does not have an account here and does not write any posts.

 

No , you are still missing the point... sorry...
If there were years in between floods you might have something but there isn't. and you don't.
when 75% of an entire state is under severe flooding drains are not going to help you one iota...there is simply no where for the water to drain to...Dams had to be opened to prevent catastrophic loss of life etc...
You seem to think that when a nation declares a state of emergency they are just playing politics....
Re cyclones: The houses are not the problem, Australia has been dealing with cat4 -5 on many occasions, it is the flooding and storm surge that comes with a cat 4-5 cyclone that is the problem.

I believe you are chronically underestimating the sort of events we are discussing here. Not events yet to happen, but events that have recently been increasing in frequency and scale, and events that are happening now.

Abandoning 75% of Queensland sounds awfully radical but if things continue the way they are we may actually have to seriously consider it.

There is not a drain or a flood preventative dam that could possibly cope with the extremes that have been experienced and the situation is only going to get worse...

And...
You have probably never been to the Barrier Reef along the Eastern Coast of Queensland. In a few years it may not even exist due to intense die off, bleaching due to increased ocean temps. Given the sheer scale of the tragedy theer is no way the world can know what the outcome will be when this reef disappears and fails to do what it is supposed to do environmentally.
Google it for your self if you wish...
2000 kms + of reef gone because of climate change....

I am very lucky I have spent time on this reef as a young adult while it was healthy.... but others are not going to be so fortunate...

Maybe it's a European perspective thingo...you can't see the horizon sort of thing...
You know when QLD is in flood like we have had recently you can look in any direction for 1000 kms and see nothing but 1 meter deep water in every direction, floating bloated cattle a few trees and a huge stink of rotting flesh. Drains? yeah sure...lol

Imagine all of Europe entirely under 1 meter of water for say a week, once or twice a year.... so tell me about drains and infrastructure....? I am all ears...

 

I did. I quoted your posts.

So I fill in, in the past with investigated links to research and documentation etc, nowdays in dealing with you more simply reality based corrections and occasional specific identifications of your areas of ignorance and so forth.
It's not difficult in these matters - your ignorance is near total, your posts in conflict with very basic stuff.

Untrue. I have posted and/or directly referenced orders of magnitude more evidence for my claims about AGW than you have, for example - between one and two orders, ten and a hundred times as much.

The usual Republican wingnut illiteracy - not only the "ad hominem" part, but even more strikingly the "argument" part.
But that's not the money shot.

The money shot is that they were your arguments, dumbass. Go back and take a look.

At the time, still foolish, I posted several links to real world circumstances and facts and research discoveries and so forth that refuted them. I treated your arguments as legitimate, however silly and deluded, and entitled to normal refutation - in that case, by counterexamples obvious enough to need very little in the way of argument.
I have posted many more such links etc since, but not as foolishly - no longer addressed to you, normally.

Meanwhile, you have posted no links or evidence at all for your claims or in support of your arguments regarding economic and political pressure on AGW researchers; unsurprising - even though the topic is transparently public and easily looked into - as they are delusions and fairy tales conjured up by US media pros and there is none.

And that is also the standard of the US Republican media feed - demand evidence from others, provide none of your own, attack always, never defend. It's the common rightwing corporate tactic, laid out in the 80s, made explicit by Luntz and Gingrich and Coulter et al in the early 90s. Afaik all except Sculptor here employ it - an interesting example, in that it illustrates the opposite way of handling the poor alignment of fact and claim that threatens to make a public mockery of AGW denial and then Republican claims of competence (fascism more often falls by derision than assault): they post sound research and facts, and then omit the claim - suggesting it only by innuendo and attitude, never stating it explicitly.

(Yet another? About half the agriculturally focused Federal agency AGW research scientists recently given a couple month's notice or so to arrange moving themselves and their families from DC to somewhere in or near Kansas City (not even told which State, flooded Missouri or economically trashed Kansas, let alone which school system, their new labs and offices would be in) apparently have said they will quit rather than relocate. That is hardly surprising - they were largely the higher status and better credentialed half, qualified for better paid and much better treated work near their homes, had roots in their local communities, had their kids in good schools, etc.
What was notable was that Trump's chief of staff, who is not responsible for or qualified to assess agricultural research of any kind, bragged about getting rid of them - to an audience of Republican officials and political supporters. They had published research into the most likely effects of AGW on US agriculture, see - and since it was competent and thorough research, it conflicted with the political needs of the Republican executive branch and their corporate support.
That's what the US economic and political pressure on AGW researchers looks like. It is in the direct opposite direction you claimed).

There's no discussion in a propaganda campaign - allowing political propagandists the status of discussion participants abandons discussion, concedes the floor to repetitions of falsehood and other propaganda tactics.

You aren't participating in discussion in these threads about AGW and US politics. You are posting Republican Party swill about AGW and its researchers and their findings and anyone who insists on making an issue of the threats they have discovered,

cribbed claim for claim and slander for slander and often word for word from the R media feed and R AGW denial and so forth.

Then you claim to be "civilized" and others not up to your posting standards.*
*(yet another meme cribbed from the current Republican Party line, with direct roots in US racism you have no chance of recognizing)

 

This is what happens seldom. If the change is rapid, nothing before but now it happens every year several times, the region will simply not be used for agriculture. Initially. Until people start to get used to this. Some use regions a little bit higher than the average, with appropriate drainage, for usual agriculture. Some build dams to create sees, and use them for fish farms. The Ancient Egyptians have also found ways to handle the situation where a single big flood in the year is all the water they have.

No. Emergencies are a normal part of life. People don't prepare for everything, but for what is known to be typical. If the stormy climate is typical, they will be prepared for this. The extremal event which happens once during your lifetime will be an emergency because the preparations will be either completely absent or insufficient. Why? Because stealing money aimed for preparations for extremal situations is a quite secure way to steal. Because it will be detected only if the extremal emergency happens. Which maybe never. And because of this, preparations for really extremal event will always be insufficient. So, there will be emergencies, and they will cause deaths. But this consideration, you should note, does not depend on the actual climate or a climate change at all. And the natural thing, if such emergencies happen, is that those who have stolen the money designed for the preparations will be punished (if possible), and a lot of new money will be given for better preparations, and they will be given in such an amount that if this 100 year event happens again in 10 years everything will be normal.

Once you know what is the problem you can learn to deal with it.

That's rhetorical nonsense.

Indeed, never been there. But I know that corals are quite old creatures, thus, they have survived times which were much hotter, with much more CO2 in the air. The same holds for essentially all the other things living in the water.

Of course, it depends on your local conditions what you have to do. You ask a general question, and expect an answer in a single post what in particular you have to do in your particular circumstances? It depends on many things. If this happens every 100 years, care about good insurance, and that your home is safe enough that you can survive this. If this happens once a year, and during all the other time there is no rain at all, build dams around the place where you want to do agriculture. One dam around the deepest part on the border, for an artificial sea, the other dams around the higher parts. If necessary because the water flow down the hill is not sufficient or simply absent, use pumps to pump the incoming water into your artificial sea. there is not enough And drains with pumps, so that if there is too much rain, the water flows to the pumps, and will be pumped into the place for the see, and so that if the sea is full, it flows out of your territory. You can you use the sea as a fish farm as well as a water reservoir for the agricultural parts during the time without rain.

To compute the appropriate high of the dams, areas of the fields and the sea, and the power of the pumps, one has to know the average expectations as well as the volatility, of course also together with the changes during the year in that climate. The scheme itself will be able to work even with extremal volatility, say, one week extremely heavy rain per year. It stops working if there is not enough rain. But too much rain is not a problem. Moreover, it is a local structure, you do not depend on big structures like an Assuan dam or so, it depends only on the rain you get on your territory. With pumps, it works even in a completely flat area (which is what your description suggests). Pumps are also autonomous if you have your own machine to generate electricity and prepared enough fuel for it. For cows, one would better have a sufficiently safe barn (= sufficiently high) which remains safe even if you have no longer sprit for the pumps and no electricity. With modern weather predictions, you have at least three days to put the cows home into that barn and to care about your sprit stocks.

Does that require investment? Of course. But all the necessary technology remains the same well-known age-old. And the investment is not that large, in comparison with what a modern farm invests anyway. To secure against your 1m flood, a 3m high dam will be certainly sufficient, the remaining risk one can cover with insurance. Drainage is necessary anyway. You have a lot of machines anyway. Machines to generate electricity are common in the Third World because electricity provided by the government regularly fails, so you can afford this too.

Last but not least, these are investments which have to be made by the 1% working in agriculture in modern industrial society. They will have the money. (Do you care about India? That 1 % who have the money would be happy to buy land in India which could no longer be used for agriculture because the local people cannot afford the investments. That's evil capitalism, combined with neo-colonialism, even worse, in the Chinese-communist form, of course, but the resulting food production will be nonetheless sufficient.)

Do you remember how rice fields in the mountains look like?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is essentially the same technology, dams with appropriate drainage so that it works in the mountains too. Here, the water flows down by itself and has enough place to flow, so that you don't need pumps. But you need much more dams here. Nonetheless, this investment in dams has been done by people who are, from our point of view, very poor. Nonetheless, they easily survive your 150 mm per day rains, without even much loss for erosion because in most of this the speed of water is low, and where it is high, you have stones anyway.

 

Thanks for your post.

"You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead"

I'll quote wiki:

A global mass coral bleaching has been occurring since 2014 because of the highest recorded temperatures plaguing oceans. These temperatures have caused the most severe and widespread coral bleaching ever recorded in the Great Barrier reef. The most severe bleaching in 2016 occurred near Port Douglas. In late November 2016 surveys of 62 reefs showed that long term heat stress from climate change caused a 29% loss of shallow water coral. The highest coral death and reef habitat loss was inshore and mid-shelf reefs around Cape Grenville and Princess Charlotte Bay.[54] The IPCC's moderate warming scenarios (B1 to A1T, 2 °C by 2100, IPCC, 2007, Table SPM.3, p. 13[55]) forecast that corals on the Great Barrier Reef are very likely to regularly experience summer temperatures high enough to induce bleaching.[50]​

In 2016 bleaching was so severe there was a coral mortality rate of 29%
In the 2017 bleaching a further 20% died.
It takes up to 10 years for corals to re-populate a stable ecosystem.
So, assuming that the ocean temperature returns to earlier 20th century norms it will take about 10 years of stability for the reef to recover somewhat.
Of course the assumption of a return to 20th century norms is highly tenuous and basically wishful thinking.
As of 2017 nearly 50% of the barrier reef is dead and temperatures are too high for it to regenerate adequately as it has before during earlier bleaching events.
"You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead"
Unless you have a magic wand that can resurrect dead coral, there is every reason to expect the entire reef will be lost ( dead) with in a few years.
It is now 2019 and unofficial reports about the reef are very concerning as to the speed of destruction that is going on.
Your view on coral survive-ability is essentially naive concerning the reality being faced.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Image c/o https://www.marineconservation.org.au/coral-bleaching/
Heron Island local reefs were full of living coral when I dived there in the 1980's. It is more or less totally dead now.(see image above).. with a slight hope that a certain regeneration MAY take place if ocean temperatures reduce and acidity returns to normal.

 

LOL, iceaura fills in for reality. You made my day.

No. This fails already because there is no amount of links to scientific research where a notion like "magnitude" would be appropriate to describe it. The count of links to scientific papers provided in discussions with me is, I would guess, below 10, feel free to correct me with the links to those posts.

The second point where it fails is that I make no claims about what scientific research has found (except some trivial things which are well-known on Wikipedia level and essentially unquestioned), thus, have no obligation to supply such claims with evidence. If you have no idea about the concept of "burden of proof", google about it.

No necessity, I know my own arguments well enough. It is simply the application of a general argument, namely that scientists who have to look for a new job every two years are extremely dependent, thus, have to follow the mainstream, whatever the mainstream claims.

Of course, it would be foolish to post links in a discussion with me, given that I will read them and confront you with the content. Which you haven't read yourself, but copypasted from an alarmist site, and those sites know nothing about what is written there too.

I read such papers in detail because all such papers are already tests for another hypothesis: Namely that the politically incorrect claims are not in the title and the abstract, (which is what iceaura probably reads) but deep inside in the footnotes. Iceaura is intelligent enough to know this, thus, is aware that to post a link based on reading the abstract alone would be dangerous.

QQ has seen here an example of this. The claim that in India we have a decrease of precipitation but an increase of extremal events (which is what alarmists would like) appeared to be an artifact of averaging if one looks at the pictures a, b of the paper, which show a different picture.
Zero extremal events remain zero if precipitation decreases so that if one includes some areas where precipitation increases and therefore the extreme events also increase, one gets what is necessary for the average. Iceaura has also had similar experiences with linking a paper about child labor.

The claim itself is standard economic theory, applied to science in general. If you have to look for a new job every two years, and if you get this job depends on the number of papers you were able to publish and the prestige of the journals where you have published them, you have to follow the mainstream to survive. So, it is an argument about mainstream pressure on researchers against alternative proposals in general. It is applicable to climate science, and, given that the climate science mainstream supports AGW, the direction of the pressure is clear too - in favor of AGW.

The claim that the scientific mainstream supports AGW is simply a repetition of what you say yourself, thus, it hardly needs any support. Which part of this could be supported by any empirical observation? Given that empirical observations can only falsify such general theories, the burden of proof is again on the other side. (If you know something about libertarian theory, you may be aware of the prejudice of the Austrian school against empirical research. I don't share this position because it exaggerates in the other direction, but as far as their argumentation makes sense it applies here too.)

Your counterargument is slightly different. Some particular industries support some part of climate research, and what you assume is the prejudice of these industries would have to be the prejudice which is relevant to the researchers. First of all, it is not clear how relevant this support is. Most fundamental research is paid by the government, a point which you have supported in other discussions too. Then, even if a particular grant is given by someone who would prefer anti-AGW results, the scientists with 2-year grants have to care about the mainstream much more than about their actual grant giver. So, I have no problem with what you claim about reality (that some grants are paid by firms which may have some interests against AGW). Once I don't object to your facts presented, I have, again, no burden of proof.

Interesting, but I have never doubted that Trump has a different position on AGW, thus, that any possible direct political pressure on AGW researchers will change.

I have to agree, and, therefore, to stop discussions with you. They are, anyway, not discussions but repetitions of alarmist propaganda. Assigning to you the status of a discussion participant is, indeed, unjustified.

 

not true...
example:

A historic drought in Chennai, the sixth-largest city in India, is so severe that it’s now visible from space.


The city’s 4.6 million citizens are rationing every drop of water, restaurants are closing early and companies are scaling back their operations as Chennai tries to survive a heat wave with 99 per cent less water than it had at the same time last year. The state government is shipping in water on trucks, but those trucks can’t replace the now dried-up lakes that once fed the city.

Everyone is asking the same question: When will the monsoons start?
​

24-06-2019
https://globalnews.ca/news/5424366/chennai-india-drought-satellite/

 

Thanks for your post, too, but it does not answer the problem I see.

Corals have survived millions of years, among them periods with much higher temperatures and much higher CO2 in the air. How?

The answer is, in fact, quite obvious. The wiki-level reading suggests critical temperatures being 29 degrees of Celsius. So there will be always enough water around which is cold enough. Everything else seems to be only additional stressors. So, the bad luck for those who work in underwater tourism if their location is hit by coral bleeding, but no global danger at all.

Explain.

 

Do you deny the veracity of the reference links I provided?
Do you argue that the coral mortality rate has not been about 50% in 2016/17?
How much do you think died? any?

Can you provide a link that refers to coral surviving higher temperatures... over such a short time scale?

Of course the multi billion dollar tourism loss due to the bleaching (not bleeding** as you have called it) deaths of coral is a concern. As an example of how climate change is impacting on temperature sensitive environments, it serves it's purpose quite well...the incredible sadness of watching it all happen before your eyes is not able to be valued in money terms.

**Bleeding may refer to the reaction to acidification more than temperature which can induce bleaching instead. ( you can have both simultaneously btw)

 

just google "India+drought" and find out for yourself...avoid USA news media if you wish.
then google "India+floods" cross reference the dates, plot it on your mental map of India and have another think about it all...

What do you think I meant when I posted the obvious:

"You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead"

Why do you think I posted it?

 

Locally they may have died completely, because of some illness or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching writes "Coral in the south Red Sea does not bleach despite summer water temperatures up to 34 °C (93 °F)".

That's a typo. The list of possible triggers for bleaching in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching is quite long and surprisingly includes reduced water temperatures too. After reading there "infectious bacteria of the species Vibrio shiloi are the bleaching agent of Oculina patagonica in the Mediterranean Sea, causing this effect by attacking the zooxanthellae" it is clear that high temperature in itself is not a deadly threat for them. The argument that there have been much higher CO2 levels in the past so that they can survive other stressing side effects like acidification too, remains unquestioned too.

Yes, it is invaluable for alarmists. We have a symbiotic system, which is sensitive to many stressors, like bacteria and many others, the effects of too much stress look quite impressive, and you can blame it on warming. Ideal.

In reality, this is a complex ecosystem which has survived millions of years and will survive millions of years in the future too, bleaching is a local event, recovery after bleaching events possible, and the whole thing looks like it is simply not well understood.

In other words, you have no counterargument to my analysis in #153 of the figures 1 a,b of the paper you linked.

Looks like you are learning from iceaura that discussing particular scientific papers with me is dangerous for an alarmist and should be avoided, and instead one has to restrict oneself to "google yourself to find the evidence for alarmism".

Because this sounds like typical alarmist's rhetorics, and you are an alarmist.

 

do you think the marine biologists are that stupid!

What sort of coral are you talking about. Surely you are smarter than this.

so do you think the marine biologists on the barrier reef in QLD are stupid and haven't done their job? (btw Mediterranean coral, Red sea coral and all other coral reefs have adapted to a very different environment to Barrier reef Coral in Australia.)
You do need to actually use your intelligence sometimes... you know...other wise your own adaptation ability is compromised.

do you think marine biologists want climate change to be real?

but it can not if it is dead.....a new form of coral would have to find a way of adapting to the new conditions... perhaps another million years or so and we may see something...

not at all... any one can fudge the stats like you are doing. Any one can play games with the truth like you are doing... no point arguing about stats when the intention to obfuscate is obvious.
My bet is that you actually did google as suggested and found nothing to support your position and plenty that refutes it.... am I right?

but why did I post when I posted the obvious:
"You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead"

 

Little of that will work, in the aftermath of AGW.

None of that will work unless begun in time, on an emergency basis, right now. That requires taking the researchers and their analyses seriously.

As we see in Schmelzer's posts, the rightwing corporate US Republican Party media feed is still namecalling them "alarmists", and that Party (those corporate interests) controls the bulk of the available political responses (not just in the US) , so that's not going to happen in time. (For example: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...source=twitter&utm_campaign=owned_buffer_tw_m)

The recent and catastrophic bleaching caused by AGW is due primarily to sudden higher water temperatures. That was established by research - not random selection from a list of possible bleaching causes.

Bleaching is now a world wide event, increasingly frequent, wherever AGW has caused water temperature spikes in tropical reefs. Whether a given reef can recover from being killed by the rapidly repeated bleaching events under AGW is unknown, as the current effects of AGW have no known precedent.

By adapting, over the long periods of time available.

Trump's position is the same position as the Republican Party has held for decades, and that Party has more or less controlled the political and economic pressure on climate change researchers for decades. I linked you to specifics - the names of the committee chairmen, several incidents of pressure, methods of harassment, and so forth. That was back when I was willing to run errands for you, dig up the facts you insist on ignoring.

You were wrong about the direction of political and economic pressure on US funded climate change research. Worse, you based your entire evaluation of the "propaganda" you claimed was "alarmist" on that initial and quite stupid error. You were disinformed by your sources, as you have always been by those sources (that's all they do) and until you learn better you will remain the poster child of a propaganda victim - not just wrong, but a public fool.

 

I am just curious how Schmelzer is going to adapt to the next couple years in Europe. Especially the next summer. Perhaps instead of screaming "alarmist" he could actually be volunteering to help build facilitate a/c emergency shelters for himself and all the other "alarmist"criers out there....seriously... adapt of perish is the mantra....

It only takes one extreme heat (peak heat) event to happen in Northern Europe and so many people will never be able to adapt...which is in part why I posted the obvious:

"You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead"

 

and if and only if the local ocean temperature remains relatively stable for that long time....and that ain't going to happen any time soon....

 

I'm in this case simply quoting Wiki.

No. To quote the same Wiki

So, research about corals is far from being finished, there may be found other unexpected things too.

It would be strange if not. The fact remains that all these corals are quite old and have survived many different climate changes.

If all exemplars of a whole coral species is dead. But even bleaching does not mean death. To quote the same Wiki:

Of course, that starving may cause the death of a lot of them. But it does not mean complete extinction.

It looks like you have not understood that with such primitive personal attacks you discredit only yourself. At least for educated, civilized readers.

And this is already completely amoral behavior. An accusation of "fudging stats" and "playing games with the truth" without any base, where all the evidence is open - the pictures 1a,b which you have posted, as well as what I see on these pictures, and what follows from this.

No. Once we have found an interesting scientific paper, I prefer to consider this paper in detail, to understand what this particular paper has been found. I google if I recognize that I have not enough information about a particular question. In this case, I have a nice scientific paper with the interesting statistics given in nice pictures.

Because this is quite typical polemical behavior. The content itself is a triviality, and your claim creates the impression that I would object to such a triviality. Beating a straw man.

In principle possible, but hard to tell, given that it would be hard to distinguish between alarmist babble and really dangerous things. This is one problem of alarmism: Once there is too much of this, people will reject all this as alarmism and then ignore some few real dangers, which may have quite harmful consequences.

Unfortunately, even if this would be possible, given your history of being unable to present evidence for your claims about scientific research, I have to ignore this as alarmist babble, if you don't provide links to that research.

You completely ignore what I have claimed and invented straw men.

 

yep... like I stated 50% of the barrier reef DIED after suffering a bleaching event in 2016 and 2017...
but by all means read what you will...