THE propaganda from our Great Barrier Reef scientists at the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium is relentless. According to Janice Lough, Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the rate of change from anthropogenic global warming is unprecedented and is already having a catastrophic impact on the Great Barrier Reef. Also in front of the TV camera today, Phillip Munday, James Cook University, said the most spectacular of our coral reef fish will disappear. And John Pandolfi, University of Queensland, was begging us to do more to save the reef.[1] Australian Institute of Marine Science research director Peter Doherty told the $10 million symposium of more than 2000 marine scientists from 80 countries of an "alarming and unsustainable decline" in coral over large sections of the Great Barrier Reef in nearly three decades.[2]
But I reckon it’s all a put-on: they are crying wolf.
One of the symposium themes is ‘Climate change and bleaching’.
There have been some spectacular bleaching events in the last 15 years. The reality, however, is that most of the Great Barrier Reef has not bleached, and those areas that have bleached have almost fully recovered. The following are some interesting facts about heat and coral growth: [3]
1. All the species of coral that occur in the Great Barrier Reef also grow in Papua New Guinea where the waters are 2 degrees warmer.
2. Coral growth rates and tissue thickness generally increases with increasing temperature. The only regularly temperature-stressed corals in Queensland are in Moreton Bay, because the ocean water there regularly gets too cold.
3. The short lived Acropora corals which are most susceptible to bleaching make a choice of the symbiotic algae which resides inside them. It is the expulsion of these algae that causes bleaching. It is now known that the some clades of algae make the coral grow very fast but also renders them susceptible to bleaching. On the other hand, other clades of algae make the coral grow slowly but to be less susceptible to bleaching. By selecting different clades of algae, it is now apparent that the corals can easily adapt to major temperature changes, whether these are natural or not.
4. If global warming occurs and the sea-level rises in consequence, there will be a spectacular increase in coral cover on the large areas of reef flat which are now almost devoid of corals due to the fall in sea-level that has occurred in Queensland over the last 5000 years. These areas are presently below the spring low tide level and are thus exposed to the air. Sea level rise will allow these areas to recolonise.
5. High surface water temperatures associated with the two major bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef in recent decades were a result of periods of extended calm associated with strong El Niño conditions. At such times normal wave mixing ceases as does the normal wave driven currents across shallow reef tops. This permits unusually high water temperatures to develop and the water on top of reefs to become especially warm. There is no evidence to indicate any influence of anthropogenic climate change in these events nor of any increase in the frequency or strength of such events.
Scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and various universities depend upon generous government funding to study the supposed threats of climate change and coral bleaching. But rather than reporting their research findings in a scientifically meaningful way they behave as political activists and propagandists and talk nonsense.
Shame.
*****
Links, And
1. Climate change could make reef boring, Conor Duffy, July 10, 2012. http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-07-10/climate-change-could-make-barrier-reef-boring/977326
2. Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns hears of threats to our natural ocean wonders, Peter Michael, July 10, 2012. http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2012/07/10/227711_local-news.html
3. Interesting facts about heat and coral growth compiled by Professor Peter Ridd, James Cook University.
[...] myths perpetrated by green activists is that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat from farming. Jennifer Marohasy has totally deflated the claims which scientists have used to milk money from governments determined [...]
Why is it that under water volcanism is always ignored.
Fault lines caused where tectonic plates meet stretch around the globe for something like 86,000 kilometers.
Most of these faults are under water.
Is it beyond the realm of impossibility that these vents could be sources of heat and very acidic compounds that could actually add to the water's temperatures and ph in different locations.
May I also point out that YES is NOT an answer to the second half of the question?
The question was clearly 'how' useful....NOT 'is it' useful as a basis for dictating rules and policy.
Along with sp....and considering you're such a stickler for 'serious science'....I believe a reference is in order Luke.
May I also point out that you did not answer the question about your snipe at the Marohasy/Abbot research paper?
From my reading, that research is aimed at contributing to our ability to make 'informed' decisions using tools that are already available to most of us and (IMHO) a sensible use of the increasingly impressive data bank of raw data....particularly on our Eastern Seaboard. ....and it shows some early promise.
In particular businesses like mine and also the mining industry would definitely find this research USEFUL if (repeat IF!) it delivers on its early promise.
This research also did NOT give C02 and 'Climate Change Theory' a prominent forcing yet still it shows at least equal success at 'projecting'.
It does not in anyway suggest that it is a tool to DICTATE social policy.
And further... in relation to the topic of this post....you have not answered the question about why same species coral thrives in other areas that ALREADY have warmer ocean temps etc.
Question: What % fig is that ‘great many’?How USEFUL is that particular % as a basis for dictating rules and policy?
Luke Response: 84.762% and yes
Luke either provide a link to support your response or simply admit you are wrong.
84.762% and yes
Luke - answer the question:
What % fig is that ‘great many’?How USEFUL is that particular % as a basis for dictating rules and policy?
Luke?
What planet do you live on and what language do you speak?
That question and comment has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
BUT Luke, while it is NOT what upsets me you are at least correct that the forecasting is often wrong.