Guest post by Bob Fernley-Jones
The 12th International Coral Reef Symposium (ICRS) was held in Cairns, Queensland, Australia last July. Not a bad venue for embracing subject field trips and the exotic and spectacular hinterland attractions. Yet they had time to reach a grand consensus statement endorsed reportedly by thousands of scientists.
Step 1) Back in June, three eminent scientists including the convener gathered at Stanford and drafted the consensus.
Step 2) They also launched an endorsement form on their websites at COS (Centre for Ocean Solutions) and ICRS which although aimed at scientists could be actioned by the unqualified without any affiliations other than their hometown name. (Click HERE in link in 1).)
Step 3) They also made the following request on the COS and ICRS websites:
“To build a large base of support in preparation for the pubic launch of the statement (during the opening ceremony of the 12thInternational Coral Reef Symposium on July 9, in Cairns, Australia), please click HERE to join other scientists from around the world by adding your name to the list of endorsees.”
Step 4) The ICRS website published a list of almost 2,500 endorsees dated 6/July/2012 that being three days before the five-day symposium started.
Step 5) The consensus statement launched at the opening ceremony and various sympathetic press reports announced that over 2,000; 2,200; 2,400 or 2,500 scientists had endorsed the alarmism, depending on source.
Step 6) Convener announces success of the Symposium and the return home of 2,000 (two thousand) “of us” to 80 countries. Also a plea to continue endorsing the consensus statement….. more than 3,000 signatures so far and we would like to keep the momentum going. [signatures?]
Needless to say there were some rather controversial consensus claims originated at Stanford, but does anyone think it is a bit strange to reach a consensus before the five-day symposium started?
Oh but just for laughs, I would imagine that the loudest cheering of all probably went for this gem from Prof Jeremy Jackson of the Smithsonian:
…”reefs around the world have seen severe declines in coral cover over the last several decades. In the Caribbean, for example, 75-85 percent of the coral cover has been lost in the last 35 years. Even the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, the best-protected reef ecosystem on the planet, has witnessed a 50 percent decline in the last 50 years.”
Ve haf vays of making a concensus….dumbkoff…sign here!
“To build a large base of support in preparation for the pubic launch of the statement …” – pubic launch??? Sounds like another load of cock & bull to me…
no easy steps for saving the price of carbon dioxide though:
Barbara is too clever by half. note Poland singled out, yet GERMANY IS OPPOSED TO INTERVENTION!
NOTE ALSO THAT THE BIG ENERGY COMPANIES LOVE THE MARKET-FIXING! surely with the LIBOR scandal still unravelling, the Energy Companies and the EU should not be attempting to FIX the price!
25 July: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: UPDATE 2-EU Commission presents plan to boost carbon market
Some in industry support intervention, others oppose it
Poland leads opposition within EU member states
Market drops around 5 percent
[ SNIP: two points: first, there is no need to cut-and-paste a whole article when you can provide a short summary and the link; second, you must have missed this at the bottom of the article:
“Fair use” is not copying all of an article. Please don’t do that. -REP]
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/eu-ets-idINL6E8IPCLZ20120725
I don’t know. Within 5,000 years every single one of those reefs will be dead as a doornail and sitting high and dry above sea level. When we begin to slip into the next glacial period and sea levels begin a rather rapid drop, there wont be anything we can do to save them.
Save the opi`hi
Alarmist consensus = higher probability of research grants.
Still waiting for the research on how quickly scientists can move through the data maze to collect the government cheese.
Adam Nottage @ur momisugly 11:38 pm,
I was just taking a sip of drink, and nearly choked.
I did not notice “pubic launch”
Could it be a Freudean slip?
Maybe someone better qualified will correct my understanding of the science. But I’ve long had my doubts about the catastrophic claims about coral. If you compare a map of ocean temperatures with a map of coral distribution, one thing is clear: corals like it hot. This can best be seen in the Indonesian archipelago, an area with the hottest water and most coral. If average global ocean temperatures increase corals should extend their range.
But the principal argument that the catastrophists make is that rising CO2 levels in the oceans will adversely affect the availability of carbonates. Leaving aside the disparity in amount of CO2 in relation to the volume of the oceans, the amount of dissolved CO2 and hence carbonates depends on the temperature of the water, which of course varys. The hottest waters (where the corals live) should not absorb as much CO2 as colder ones.
Adam Nottage,
I’ve just checked it out. The original Stanford version says, with my emphasis:
But the ICRS version translates pubic to public, possibly incorrectly?
The reef is fine thank you ; better condition than in 1975 with the crown of thorns starfish infestation.Another “the sky is falling in ” stories and people are turning off.
C’mon. Guys. Sniggering over a typo?
If it’s a pubic launch that goes to show that they themselves know it’s all balls.
A fifty percent decline in the great barrier reef coral cover!!!. A recent study not long released stated some thing like the scientists involved were amazed at how healthy the reef was, and that it was expanding in area. Funny that, they had been spruiking about warming oceans and acidification doing harm. They were surprised to learn that coral likes warm water and in estuaries the PH is up and down like topsy and the coral does not seem to mind.
Field observation is a bugger, it really messes with your computer model. I chuckled when I read their release.
Thought I’d drop a line on this one, as its on my patch.
Not all the academics at JCU follow the party line – there are at least 3 or 4, plus of course Bob Carter, who are either skeptical about the “alarm” generated around the GBR or flatly and publicly argue against it. Thing is – I don’t see any of them listed in the symposium attendees. I don’t blame them for avoiding it. Why invite all the aggravation. It was common knowledge that this was going to be a love-in for the faithful.
There are risks of course. Run-off of nutrients is a potential problem, but a lot of work has been done to reduce this, mostly by the agricultural community.
There is a lot of fuss being made about the risk of coal carriers cracking up on the reef. Worse effects would occur if a bulk carrier of molasses was to do the same, but no vessels of this type use the inner sea lanes. I have been here for nearly 23 years, and do not recall any major incidents.
Having snorkeled around PNG, my wife and I can confirm that coral thrives in warmer water – we have the scars to prove it 🙂
The waters around Dobu Island in the Trobriands lie over the ring of fire. There are bubbles of CO2 rising continuously from the sea bed, just like from a glass of Coke. The sea water around there is at saturation. Coral and reef fauna are fine.
The people at the Australian Institute of Marine Science know about this, having been
persuaded (eventually) to go and see the evidence for themselves. Their recorded comment was “we didn’t like what we saw”. Why are we not surprised …
The Argo Project reveals that the north-east Coral Sea produces some of the warmest temperature readings anywhere, often approaching, but never exceeding 30°C. Above 24 – 25, instability sets in, there are storms and turbulence, everything gets cooled off. This is why this
area is the origin of a large proportion of the cyclones that affect north-east Australia. Shallower waters of the NE Coral Sea have extensive coral reefs and marine life.
The GBR has existed for at least 266,000 years. There is evidence of coral formations going back more that half a million years. The current “build” of the GBR is 6 – 8,000 years old. The GBR has been through more extreme climate change than even the most lurid of warmist predictions.
Endorsed by the Hotels association of Tanzania, The last bastion of reasoned climate theory.
Warming seas? Ocean acidification?
Corals have been around for over 400Ma and thrived during periods of high atmospheric CO2 content more than when the CO2 was low. Rising sea levels are no problem and encourage growth. The only event that screws coral is falling sea levels. The GBR, subject, amongst others, to the conference became dry land during the last ice age when sea levels fell by 130-160m. It recovered well as the flooded area 8000 years ago was invaded by the corals from the lower fringing areas of the GBR that lived during the sea level fall.
So, coral prefers warmer water (within reason), therefore warm water is bad for coral. Also, cold water absorbs more CO2, more CO2 in the water means “more acidic” water, so warm temperatures mean more acidic water.
Wait, what? We haven’t fully got a grip on this “science” thing, as a species, have we?
While I was double-checking my thoughts on this, I ran across a supposed information page on water ph that included the claim that the US was trying to get out of the Kyoto treaty (wait, what?) despite how well it was working (wait, what?) under a “things are growing ever worse” chart claiming no improvement (wait, what?).
The Consensus statement is a strange beast. The first part makes general statements that are pretty much indisputable, about CO2 levels & Sea-Surface warming, but the second part is full of scientifically unsupported nonsense! The tiny, wee, very small flaw with this “scientific consensus”, is that there is no such thing as a “scientific consensus”! 1925 Pocket OED, Consensus: General agreement on the part of ALL concerned! Note that we caveat “ALL”? Never mind, made a note of your names, keep trying, there’s some grant money out there somewhere , & there is always some dumb slimeball politician somewhere who will shout the rallying battle-cry for you when there are votes to be had! 🙂
David Ross @ur momisugly 12:58 am
C’mon. Guys. Sniggering over a typo?
You assert that it was a typo but have you considered the possibility that it might be a Freudian Slip?
Regardless, where is your sense of humour?
I’m surprised your resident fellow of the Union of Concerned Scientists didn’t appear on the endorsers list. But I suppose Kenji’s plate is full already….
“pubic launch” – obviously a “cock and bull” story.
Those “catastrophic decline” statistics aren’t borne out by anything I’ve read anywhere, not even on alarmist websites.
Their second bullet item from their statement is:
Maybe they should review and augment their statement since this news appeared after their “pubic launch statement”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/viruses-linked-to-coral-bleaching/
Maybe they need to have an inoculation program, much like the polio immunizations…
Hardy polar bears have survived past global warming
POLAR bears have patrolled the planet’s icy regions for millions of years longer than previously thought – riding out several episodes of global warming in that time. While this suggests their future might not be so bleak, it is no guarantee they will survive the melting occurring in the polar regions today.
Charlotte Lindqvist of the University at Buffalo, New York, and an international team of researchers have just completed the most comprehensive analysis yet of the polar bear genome. The team looked at DNA from 23 living polar bears and a 110,000-year-old polar bear jawbone. Aided by comparisons with the genomes of brown and black bears, they found that polar bears first emerged as a separate species between 4 and 5 million years ago.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528754.600-hardy-polar-bears-have-survived-past-global-warming.html
re:Hardy polar bears have survived past global warming
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/20/1210506109.full.pdf+html
All the species that exist in the GBR also exist in the relatively warmer waters off the coast of Papua New Guinea.
The GBR is fine, it’s healthier than it’s ever been.
No alarm, no funds.