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.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 1, 2011 at 9:46 pm
So, here are their qualifications:
1) Osborne appears to be a biostatistician who has specialized in epidemiology.
If she had been a co-author of Mann, perhaps he could produce a paper with statistics right side up. About time real mathematicians are included in papers.
In the 19th century the main sea port of Sudan was Suakin (Sawakin), on the small island off the coast of the Red Sea. Since 1909, new Port Sudan has been built, because Suakin island was completely “suppressed” by the fast-growing corals; just a few decades of coral growth prevented any possibility of ships harboring in the old port.
Corals can grow very fast; corals can die off very fast. Reasons are many, and in most cases aren’t well understood. Are corals dying off in some places? Yes, they do. Do corals grow and thrive in other places? Yes, they do. Is there any cause for alarm? No, there’s none.
Rattus,
I’m surprised at your concern about the paper! It’s not the author’s background that should be considered; after all, I heard they all drove in cars to and from their dive sites so they were clearly funded by Big Oil! That calls it ALL into question…
/sarc
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.
actually there are coral reefs in the cool waters off the coast of the south island of New Zealand and Tasmania. Similarly in the northern hemisphere off the fiords of Norway.
I seem to recall something about SPF15+ having more than a little to do with bleaching & coral die-off.
DaveE.
Mike says:
July 2, 2011 at 11:13 am
Seriously? You really cannot tell the difference in weight between a scientific study, based on evidence, and a ‘point of view’ based on emotion and hearsay?
OK…..
If you actually read the paper it talks a great deal about Acanthaster planci predation. Acanthaster planci predation appears to be stimulated by warmer water. Ocean temperatures are rising because we are warming up. Looks to me to be potential confirmation not dismissal of what many of you try so hard to dismiss.
I’m perfectly sure Ratty above would refuse to listen to an argument about gravity put forward by Sir Isac Newton, on the grounds that Newton did not have a Physics degree and appeared to be self taught!
Bystander says:
July 2, 2011 at 9:16 pm
“If you actually read the paper it talks a great deal about Acanthaster planci predation. Acanthaster planci predation appears to be stimulated by warmer water. Ocean temperatures are rising because we are warming up. Looks to me to be potential confirmation not dismissal of what many of you try so hard to dismiss.”
——————————————————
If you actually read the paper it states, and I quote: “Our results indicate that, from 1995 to 2009, GBR-wide coral cover did not decline.” (Osborne et al)
Also: “Rapid recovery of disturbed reefs has been recorded with some reefs taking less than 10 years to recover their previous communities from low coral cover [18], [22]. However modelling (sic) studies based on current rates of disturbance and recovery predict long-term declines on both inshore and offshore reefs [30], [31].” (Osborne et al)
As a biologist trained to discern observation contrasted with conjecture, I would point out that “rapid recovery” is actually observed while “modeling” that predicts long term decline is speculation.
I had the opportunity in 1973 to study tropical marine ecology at the U. of Queensland station on Heron Island, Capricorn Group, GBR. I had a chance to dive with a grad student who was running growth measurement plots. Believe me, the reef is resilient. The most degradation I saw was off shore from the resort hotel where they had dynamited a channel through the reef to make an anchorage for charter boats.
To have a little fun with your statement: “Ocean temperatures are rising because we are warming up.” It is my observation that ocean temps are rising because warm water rises to the top. (sarc off) Look at the Argos buoy data and you will see that ocean temps are in decline.(http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/all-oceans-are-steadily-cooling/)
Seriously though, the water on a reef is vertically stratified with cooler water below the warmer surface water. Corals live in a vertical environment as well as a horizontal one, where micro-climates abound and there is little temperature continuity. On an afternoon during ebb tide massive volumes of extremely warm water flow off the reef flats (where few corals grow) creating warm rivers on the reef face. The corals of the reef face thrive in it. The corals grow to a depth of 20-30 feet on the reef face where the temperatures are markedly cooler at depth. Their growth is limited by the failing light at depth, not by temperature. I don’t fear for the corals’ future survival. They like the boundary zone between the deep cool and the shallow warm. Goldie-locks was right. Not too hot, not too cold, just right.
Mooloo: Until there is strong evidence that the reefs are dying (globally, not just locally) we have to assume that they are not.
Are you serious? This study is very much an outlier. You only have to go as far as the wikipedia entry on bleaching to find:
Other coral reef provinces have been permanently damaged by warm sea temperatures, most severely in the Indian Ocean. Up to 90% of coral cover has been lost in the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Tanzania and in the Seychelles.
Globally we have lost about 16% of corals, due to warmer waters, pollution and overfishing. They are a unique environment for biodiversity, taking up a small percentage of the oceans but hosting about 25% of all marine species. If you have a subscription to Science they published a review of the literature on coral and climate change here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.abstract If not, it was discussed here: http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2008/01/temperature-and-co2-new-figure-for-new.html
2008 was the Year of te Reef, marked by a symposium of 3,000 marine biologists and other specialists, who in a ‘Call for Action’ described the reefs as ‘teetering on the edge of survival’. http://www.nova.edu/ncri/11icrs/outcomes.html
This is no time for complacency.
Sorry – a correction.
16% was the figure for coral loss in the bleaching event of 1998. The figure for global loss, according to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network is 20%.
http://www.crisponline.info/Portals/1/Skins/inside_fr/documents/0_statusofcoralreefs.pdf
Apologies.
See also here
Anthony, I am a 70 year old Australian, so I have seen politics unfold in this wonderful country of ours since the Menzies era. I have always been a “conservative”, in that I was confident in my ability to work in my chosen field of endeavour, be paid fairly for my achievements, to support my family and others that I chose to support. I was never prepared to give any of my time or resources to those who wanted a free ride, simply because they just did not want to make the effort. The world does not owe us a living.
I have worked for many years in countries such as Indonesia, Fiji and PNG, and have seen what bad and corrupt governments can mean to ordinary people, i.e., people without wealth or political connexions. These people are left without any pride, dignity and, more importantly, any hope.
I was trained as a scientist, (my profession was the applied science of structural and civil construction), and I KNOW from the science, (not believe), that to act immediately, to avoid the end of the world as we know it, is not only stupid and erroneous, but that those irrationals who advocate such actions, are haters of all those magnificent women and men who have advanced the good of all peoples by their achievements.
I am sick to my soul to see these irrationals, masquerading as the Australian Government, wanting to plunge our country into loss of identity, pride and hope for the future of our children, as they let their swollen egos have free reign. History, if there is any after their wanton actions, will indict them as those who killed the “Australian Dream”.
Graham;
I was with you right up until you said “free reign”. The sign of a failed education. My sympathies. ;( ;p
Think horses, not kings! “Free rein” as in uncontrolled runaway galloping. 😉
The thing that has always puzzled me is that if corals are so sensitive to minor sea level or temperature changes, how do they cope with tides every day and seasonal changes in temperature? How did they survive the great melt and sea level rise after the last ice age? Am I missing something obvious?
Nick Stokes/Rattus
Why don’t you look at the deconstruction of De’ath (Science 2009) at Climate Audit. It took a drubbing…
To Brian H
Sorry Brian, these people think they have the right to RULE us, hence reign.
The original posting refers to a paper that analysed 15 years of monitoring data on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Not on global reefs. The standard reference for these can be found in the annual Status of Coral Reefs of the World published by the World Resource Institute and other than overt human impacts they seem in as good as shape as any other of the worlds ecosystems. It is problematic to the extreme to compare such data as the data collection methods vary significantly. Crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) came out of the analysis in this paper as the major contributor to changes in reef status, as measured by a rather insensitive measure of visual observation. It didn’t look at physiological stress, at say the molecular level so there could be some impact not being overtly observed but just as a general practice doctor can give a pretty good estimate of your health status by basic analysis. One would have to look deeper if one really wants a concise measure of health, i.e. like a blood test showing up non-symptomatic issues, but overall simple monitoring is at least a pretty good estimate of health. During the heydays of COTS alarm it proved impossible to tell whether COTS were an issue on reefs in geological time as there was no agreed upon indicator of such events in the distance past. It was only with the rise of SCUBA diving that COTS events were described as being on the rise. Even the GBR was basically unknown and coral status a mystery in the 1970s (see The Coral Battleground by J Wright, although she was a poet so not sure of her credentials to comment!). Likewise, it is impossible to accurately state what the historical levels of coral bleaching may have been. Corals live in a symbiosis with an algae which, like any partnership, goes through rough patches with the partner risking being occasionally thrown out. But it is typically patched up and all is forgiven and back to a ‘normal’ relationship. Few corals actually die from bleaching (nearly all recover) and in those cases were bleaching is prolonged (as it is typically a transient event) the reef is reseeded, either from corals at deeper depth (nearly always it is the corals in shallow water that are impacted with those are depth no impacted) or from the symbiotic algae that occurs naturally planktonic. In the terrestrial environment trees and their leaves (although not a symbosis) will drop leaves, lose some leaves, whither, etc during times of stress, such as drought, but if not prolonged recover, either within the season or in the next. Whether bleaching is on the increase or not cannot be historically determined with certainty as it leaves no accurately measured tell tale signal that can be confidentially attributed to bleaching. With respect to the GBR do your own analysis on water temperature stretching 20 years plus (see earlier post, the data is there) and you will find there is no detectable temperature rise over a 20 year time scale. Where’s the threat? Over-fishing is the whipping boy of environmentalists, on the one hand demonising it as doing damage whilst on the other lamenting the loss of livelihoods based on fishing. In the GBR herbivores fish (which graze algae) are not harvested so that is not an issue. Fishery harvest in the GBR is less than 25 kg per square kilometre per year, which works out to be the equivalent in food of harvesting 1.5 chicken eggs per day per square kilometre. It is nonsense to claim that is overfishing. The major impact of near shore reefs to a continental mass is freshwater runoff, especially during the wet season. Corals do not tolerate a drop in salinity. Corals that live close to a continental mass with wet seasons and river mouths are living a very precarious life. No insurance company would give them a policy. Whether any ‘pollutants’ that run off with the drainage water (when massively diluted by floods) has any additional impact is arguable. Most demonstrations of such are based on short-term non-natural aquarium experiments and questionable as to if they apply to the real world. And acidification? There are no historical direct measures of GBR lagoon pH. As a basin of 30-40 m depth (not oceanic (effectively bottomless) surface water), with a fully mixed water column and primarily a carbonate base, there is so much biological buffering it is doubtful it can ever be measured. The only CO2 and pH probes have been deployed on the reef for little more than a year and there is no observable change in either. Fossil fuels will run out before any pH changes in a lagoon (Tans 2009). But acidification is a very powerful cry at getting governments to throw lots of public money at research (gravy train here we come) at something that so far is primarily based on hype. Overall reefs need to be protected but it is doubtful whether they are under as much threat of dying off due to climate change. The paper of the posting indicates that based on the last 15 years on monitoring there is little evidence of climate change (what is the parameter to be measured as ‘climate change’ – has to be multiple variables) being an issue. The main impact of coral change over 15 years has been COTS.
Rattus Norvegicus says: July 1, 2011 at 9:46 pm, the Townsville marine biology centre is a highly respected scientific outfit. Also, the tropical aquarium in Townsville is one of Australia’s best tourist destinations – it is a superb collection, particuarly if you happen to catch the one-night-of-the-year coral spawning cycle.
Another one to add to “Climate Fail Files”, along with Willis’ piece on sea level. Would love to see that section continue to expand…
In view of this headline “During The Last Ice Age, Coral Reefs Must Have Been 300 Feet Above Sea Level”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/during-the-last-ice-age-coral-reefs-must-have-been-300-feet-above-sea-level/
I wonder what the state of the great barrier reef was durring the last iceage
Phil Clarke says:
July 3, 2011 at 2:23 am
” You only have to go as far as the wikipedia entry on bleaching to find:”…
———————————————-
Citing Wikipedia earns you an “F” in my class. Sorry.
As a topical semi-witticism, sorta maybe.
But as a metaphor, it’s meaningless. “Free rein” (running without controls) is pertinent and coherent. With a long history in grammatical English, unlike “free reign”, which is simply a malaprop (like “hair to the throne”).
;p
You misread. It’s the teachers stabbing their employers in the back by perverting the children’s comprehension of the world in support of leftist Watermelon politics.