I mean, you can't argue that China needs to do more in order for us to do more and then say we can't do anything because China has done so much that they are integral to the installation of renewables due to their heavy presence in the production of renewable energy sources. (I'm assuming your claim is about China, as none of the other countries with which we have antagonistic relations are particularly major sources of renewable energy equipment. I should also point out that I highly doubt we are in a hot war with them in the next 18 months).
Sure, but not consistently. If they are cornering the market, and the argument is that they have done so because they have so much power as a purchaser as well and engage in unfair trade practices to benefit the companies based in China, it is really hard to argue that they aren't doing much. Also, I don't think DOD has released any such prediction. Best I could find was that a General wrote a memo in which he stated his "gut feeling" that we might end up with a war with China.
Keep trying to dismiss the report. I'll continue to post this "highest level of coral cover yet recorded in the northern and central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring".
So they can't develop the tech for sale to western countries who prefer a less efficient form of energy and not hold themselves to the same standard? Are you telling me China, per capita, is producing more clean energy than the US? Or are you telling me that China has more renewable sources of clean energy than the US. Those two are not the same.
When did I dismiss the report? You were the one who dismissed the report's author's interpretation. And I asked you what was in the report about the type of coral. Did you read it?
More than half of their new installations are renewables. And renewables are much cheaper generation methods right now. They currently produce about 3x as much solar power and about 40% more electricity from wind power compared to the US. Per capita, China doesn't use as much electricity as the US as a whole. Less than half as much, in fact. Not sure what that means. Both the US and China have sun and wind.
LOL. Yes I read it and quoted it to you. Want me to quote it again? Here, just in case you are confused: "highest level of coral cover yet recorded in the northern and central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring".
Okay, so what does the report say about the types of corals that make up that extent? You claimed the type was an assumption as if that isn't observable. Did the authors assume the type of coral or observe it?
You read it. Answer it yourself. I'll keep posting this phrase : "Highest levels of coral yet recorded over the past 36 years". Too funny.
And this is why it is pointless, because you aren't interested in actually discussing the topic at any level of appropriate depth, as it isn't useful to your point. Here is the part of the report that you want to dismiss: It isn't an assumption, rather an observation, that the type of coral being added increases the risk of large scale events. BTW, this is fairly standard in natural systems under substantial long-term stress. If you would like to actually discuss this in any depth, I'd be happy to discuss it, as it is an interesting topic. If you are just trying to keep it as shallow as possible so that you don't have to deal with the nuance of the actual situation (as recounted by the authors of the report you linked), that isn't particularly useful, and I see no reason to clutter the board further with that sort of thing.
LOL. Yeah, I'm sure the report would be the same if the coral dropped by 36% last year. You and everyone else would be screaming "global warming" left and right. It's ok to admit The Great Barrier Reef having the largest increase in 40 years is a good thing and defies the scientists. The rest of what you said is secondary and frankly not important. Sure, let's go in depth. The reason why there wasn't more growth was because of Crown of Thorns Starfish outbreaks in the Southern Reefs. Otherwise we would've seen even higher coral growth. This is a good thing, even though you are trying to severely downplay it. I guess that is the only way for you to not look foolish when discussing The Great Barrier Reef, since you can't argue about registering the highest levels of coral cover yet recorded in the past 36 years.
Are the new corals more or less prone to deaths due to Crown of Thorns Starfish outbreaks than the prior coral that died during the 2016-2020 period, according to the report? What caused that prior increase in mortality, according to the authors of the report?
Pretty much par for the course on just about any issue, with certain posters, especially ones where science is involved.
Yeah, The Great Barrier Reef basically gave science the middle finger when there was a huge gain in coral when pretty much every scientist studying The Great Barrier Reef predicted it's demise. Ooops.
You just keep swinging and missing. So now it's not enough that coral expanded larger than ever recorded, it must be exactly what type of coral you want because it makes your argument look stupid. Tough luck.
