From Andrew Bolt at Australia’s Herald Sun below, some sharp evidence in a new paper that the “coral bleaching” scare of the Great Barrier Reef is unfounded and mostly made up.
This study indicates that at the scale of the whole GBR there was no net decline in live hard coral cover between 1995 and 2009.
I can hear Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (who rudely and selfishly disrupted my talk with David Archibald and Bob Carter last year in Brisbane) screaming all the way here in Washington DC as I post this. Since he’ll read this when he gets the linkback, maybe he’ll take time to read the funding acknowledgments (like your buddy Monbiot did) in Soon’s 2003, 2005, and 2007 papers and realize he’s just playing “follow the leader”. Ove, you’ve been bad and been had. – Anthony
=========================================================
Latest research: no, the Reef isn’t being killed by warming
Julia Gillard claims global warming is already killing the Great Barrier Reef:
Australian natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef are already being damaged, and the risk of coastal flooding could double by the end of the century.
Warmist alarmist Sir Nicholas Stern made the same claim:
The snows on Kilimanjaro are virtually gone, the Barrier Reef is probably going…
The ABC was already hypeing up the destruction of the reef by global warming in 2002:
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says up to 10 per cent of the reef has been lost to bleaching since 1998.
ABC host Kerry O’Brien back then treated the death of the reef as imminent:
It’s not just Australia’s farmlands which are threatened by global warming, the greenhouse effect could also spell disaster for coral reefs around the world, including our own natural wonder, the Great Barrier Reef.
As Australia prepares for another hot summer, one man is on a mission to capture as many corals as possible on high-definition camera before even more stretches of once-spectacular reef are bleached bone-white.
And remember the alarmism of prominent warmist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg?
In 1998, he warned that the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had turned white.
He later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.
In 1999 he claimed global warming would cause mass bleaching of the reef every two years from 2010.
He yesterday admitted it hadn’t.
In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
He later admitted this bleaching had a “minimal impact”.
All that alarmism, relentlessly pushed by this desperately dishonest government, is now blown out of the water by the latest research by Townsville’s Australian Institute of Marine Science:
Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009….
Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease.
While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.
You have been deceived again and again and again.
==================================================================
Here’s the paper: (link to PDF)
Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009)
Kate Osborne,* Andrew M. Dolman,¤a Scott C. Burgess,¤b and Kerryn A. Johns
Abstract
Coral reef ecosystems worldwide are under pressure from chronic and acute stressors that threaten their continued existence. Most obvious among changes to reefs is loss of hard coral cover, but a precise multi-scale estimate of coral cover dynamics for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is currently lacking. Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. Persistent decline of corals occurred in one subregion for hard coral and Acroporidae and in four subregions in non-Acroporidae families. Change in Acroporidae accounted for 68% of change in hard coral. Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease. While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jay:
Because the discussion section speaks very plainly about clear evidence that raises serious concerns about the GBR’s sustainability with climate change and that the purpose of their research was to provide a much needed, useful baseline for monitoring future changes.
“So IF temperatures go up, and if the temps going up cause harm, then there could be issues with GBR. Not that it’s happened in the past, but in the event that it does, AGW could kill the reef.”
Sounds like just the sort of thing a scientist would insert to get funding. Lip service to the cult so that they get funding and published. That portion of the discussion section isn’t evidence based, it’s speculation. Speculation isn’t science.
Too bad Mr. Bolt didn’t read the entire article–or he’s hoping no one else does. But I did, so allow me to excerpt a few notable phrases:
–“Climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems.”
–“There are clear links between increases in ocean temperature and coral bleaching.”
–“Global patterns of coral loss suggest that areas closest to urban centres are most degraded, implying that chronic stressors are compounding the effects of warming.”
–“Cyclone intensity is…predicted to increase in a warming climate and since 1995, three high intensity systems have crossed the GBR [Great Barrier Reef].”
–“Disturbances appear to be increasing in frequency and severity and it is not known whether coral growth will be able to keep pace with increased disturbance.”
–“Since the last widespread bleaching event on the GBR in 2002, summer sea surface temperatures have been high in some locations. Both disease and bleaching have clear links with increased temperature and are likely to be important causes of chronic mortality on stressed reefs.”
–“Climate change is expected to cause changes in relative abundance of species due to differential mortality and recovery rates.”
To summarize the article: coral reefs are in decline all across the globe; that decline is due not just directly to warming, but to disturbances from cyclones that are more powerful now because of warming; coral reefs are living things that can and will try to recover after any disturbance, though as those disturbances increase, the GBR may not be able to bounce back; and, as with every part of science, more and longer-term studies are needed to determine the precise effects of warming on reef systems, and/or whether warming-incurred damage is recoverable.
And *this* is supposed to be a “nail in the coffin” of AGW? 😉
Go easy on Ove, folks. He has probably never been to Chicago and doesn’t realize that the mile-thick glacier that once covered the area is now completely gone, and that maybe this whole “warming trend” is bigger than first imagined…
How come most of this supposed bleaching problem only seem to exist in countries who “allow” greenbillies to poke around, touch and, fiddle with the reefs?
Tourism almost fondles the reefs to death, then every kinds of greenpeazers of the world come along to do world-saving-research, and have a last look see, and mannhandle the remains to extinction.
But then again observations are like alien death rays, a hoot.
I could never accept the claims because the oceans have been much warmer in the past.Yet the Reefs are still around.
The same way I could never accept the “Hockey Stick” claims of no MWP and LIA.The past geologic,historical and botanical evidence shows their existence as being undeniable.
Let’s see the GBR is doing so bad and is at such a tipping point that 6-7 years ago the Austrialan government opened up the GBR to coral collection for the marine ornimental hobby. Since then there have been corals coming in from Austrailia by the thousands of pounds a month and it was the government that opened it up to collection. Makes you wonder don’t it?
Sorry for spelling errors…Been a really long night at work.
The AGW crowd consistently attacks the credentials of skeptical scientists while ignoring the inescapable conclusion that their whole house of cards is built on the corrupt team science exposed by climate-gate.
@Neapolitan
Cyclones are on the increase? The relative lack of them the past twenty years has fooled me, I guess.
While it is clearly good news that overall coral cover is stable, the time period is too short to inspire complacency. Over 14 years the effects of ENSO are unlikely to ‘average out’ sufficiently to draw long term conclusions.
I am reminded of the fuss when Phil Jones said that the warming since 1995 failed to achieve statistical significance. Is this flat trend significant by the same measure?:
However, this apparent overall stability was a product of variable and asynchronous increases and decreases in coral cover at the scale of subregions. Coral cover varied dramatically in some subregions while changing relatively little in others. The linear trend in total hard coral cover was positive for 6 subregions and negative for 7. For two subregions the trend in total cover was clearly non-linear and linear trends were not assessed. Only one subregion had a statistically significant linear trend, which was negative.
Seems not.
John Marshall says:
July 2, 2011 at 3:24 am
Corals, as we all know, like warmth that’s why they live in the tropics. Occasionally their algal symbiot needs changing and bleaching ensues. New algae soon grows and the corals continue.
=============================================================
yep…..
Either that or corals evolved to do something they didn’t need to do.
These so called scientists have played it up that bleaching means death.
Bleaching is perfectly normal.
@ur momisugly Neapolitan
The parts you quote are misinterpreted, taken out of context and cherry-picked.
It’s pathetic.
Anthony
I had the plesasure of being at the Brisbane meeting listening to you and Bob Carter when up popped this little man demanding that he be heard. Yes, this was Ove Huegh-Guldberrg, barrier reef alarmist and known to some of us here as Flannery of the Polyps, for his unending list of unfulfilled predictions about reefal demise. As Bob Carter says, the reef seems to be much the same as it was when Captain James Cook holed his ship (the Endeavour) on some of the coral back in 1770.
Biggest problems at present are further outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish, and tour operators leaving one American diver behind (again). He swam to another boat and is safe.
Look forward to your conference talk.
Geoff Derrick of Brisbane
Neapolitan says;
A list of conjectures. It has been well demonstrated that cyclone intensity has declined over the 80’s – 90’s warming period, and temperatures have been stable over the past decade and that ocean temps have begun to drop. So coral seems to suffer at large urban centers, which has nothing to do with global warming. These statements are merely a wink and nod to infamous computer modelers and their climate projections which to date, have shown not to have much basis in reality.
We are concerned citizens too. If all these things that were predicted to happen were happening we wouldn’t be here. The conclusion of the paper is that for the past 15 years, the time frame of observance, the reef has been stable. These statements are caveats, because there is no indication that the reef is in a decline.
That’s what we are fighting here, alarmism without observations to back it up.
It is not just the climate change scientists who are consistently wrong, it is also the media that puts their predictions that never happen out to the public again and again and it is the politicians who use these false predictions to make new law, regulations and restrictions based on false claims. And it is also the educational system that is teaching lies to the next generation, taking advantage of the innocence and trust of children while stabbing their tax paying parents, who pay their salary, in the back.
The funny thing about all of the claims of “big oil” funding is that eventually people will start to realize that a few things:
1) The “Big Oil” funded scientists are right more often that those funded by Greenpeace and the like.
2) Greenpeace and the like fund bad science.
3) Being forced to produce less oil at higher prices isn’t really something that oil companies fear. If I make and sell 20 widgets for $5 each or 10 widgets for $10 each I’m still making the same gross earnings, and the net profit is better selling 10 widgets.
Great barrier reef doomed?
The guys on the spot say not. Remember this article from 2008?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/friends-of-the-reef-not-worried/story-e6frg6oo-1111118339211
Perhaps the cause of reef damage might be a little more prosaic, according to one of the friends of the reef, a Mr Cropp;
“The only change I’ve seen has been the result of over-fishing, pollution, too many tourists or people dropping anchors on the reef,”
Rattus Norvegicus,
Here is how the GBR made it through after natural bleaching events.
Tom says:
July 2, 2011 at 3:13 am
“If you’re an American, you need to understand that the extremist agenda being promoted in Australia reflects a relentless campaign by old guard European Union-style socialist groups to separate Australia from the new world (America) and the region in which Australia lives (Asia). We need Americans to take an interest in our attempts to save Australia from zealots who are using junk climate science as a trojan horse to overturn our free enterprise system. ”
Tom,
Believe me, we (citizens of USA) share a similar and unnecessary pain with the our Australian mates! The same agenda is active here but, with the help of resources provided by the many concerned citizens posting on WUWT and similar sites… (is there really anything ‘similar’ to WUWT?), we have had some positive effects in the last few election cycles at halting the advance of that socialist ‘green’ political agenda. We managed a significant shift away from the most extreme aspects of their agenda by retiring a bunch of their supporting pols in 2010.
The battle here is not won yet… and the final outcome is still very much in question, however. Our next major election cycle comes in Nov 2012 (President, Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate, along with a host of state and local elections). The extreme deficit spending, looming federal and state debts, persistent high unemployment, and stalled economy of the last 3 years are weighing on the minds of the electorate and fostering a more pragmatic and reality based focus. Akin to the Missouri state motto “Show Me!”, more and more folks are directly challenging the validity of the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” hypothesis. Several deep snow and cold winters have help, along with persistent cool springs. It’s ‘Prove It Or Shut Up!’ time for the AGW folks…. and they know it.
We have a scant 17 months left to continue educating our elected officials about the false claims of AGW and how it is used as a front for the socialist agenda. If they are willing to oppose the AGW agenda, we must re-elect them. If not, we must recruit and elect folks who will.
Believe me, Tom. We are very much interested in helping our best allies defeat this insidious 5th column attack within both of our countries. How can we help, as we are making a concerted effort to ‘set our own house in order’? How can we help defeat the ‘green’ socialist zealots in your country also, in the near term?
Jimbo,
Every species of coral that lived in the mid-Silurian-Late Devonian period is now extinct.
Which kinda makes the comparison irrelevant.
I’d be careful endorsing an Australian Government agency as the peer of this study, but it does acknowledge a hero of Rattus’ level of endorsement. Just sayin’.
Since you seem to accept the scientific integrity of this study then we can assume you accept the authors’ view that “There is widespread scientific agreement that coral reef ecosystems worldwide are being rapidly degraded. …. Climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems. There are clear links between increases in ocean temperature and coral bleaching.”
Olen says:
July 2, 2011 at 7:12 am
That’s an interesting viewpoitn – kids stabbing their parents in the back! – but I do see your point. However, perhaps in order to remind our kids of the future we should be reminding them of how it works i.e. folk get old, retire, live off the state pension, etc, etc – and that THEIR kids have to to pay for it (via their taxes!). So given the possible future carbon tax regime and energy ‘poverty’ etc (should the greens get their way!), kids should realise it will affect future economics in a massive way – not only affecting their own actual lives but those around them. For example, I wonder how many current ‘middle aged’ folk would sooner pay carbon tax or pay for their still alive parents pensions, as a simple ‘choice’. It’s an oversimplification, but perfectly valid.
Rattus – The ability to analyse is not restricted to those thoroughly versed in their subject, any more than a Ph.D. guarantees accurate and disinterested analysis. What every conclusion of statistical analysis should have, and almost never does, is the unreserved endorsement of an eminent statistician. That the latter is almost invariably missing, I suspect, arises from the fact that no eminent statistician would dream of putting his name to the statistical junk that we see produced time after time by the scientific community. Far too much is published by people who are basically innumerate.
Phil Clarke says:
July 2, 2011 at 6:19 am
While it is clearly good news that overall coral cover is stable, the time period is too short to inspire complacency. Over 14 years the effects of ENSO are unlikely to ‘average out’ sufficiently to draw long term conclusions.
We’ve been hearing for 30 years that the Great Barrier Reef is about to die. If we keep saying we “cannot draw long term conclusions” based on the negative evidence so far, we will never be able to keep moving. It’s a recipe for paralysis.
Until there is strong evidence that the reefs are dying (globally, not just locally) we have to assume that they are not.
The Precautionary Principle is not a recipe for life. We might risk killing reefs. But many millions in the poor world will die unnecessarily if we prevent them having coal power stations just in case.