Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Having failed to stir interest in the Great Barrier Reef during the recent cliffhanger Australian Federal Election, reef scientists are now demanding that the government must choose which parts of the Great Barrier Reef they want to save.
Great Barrier Reef: government must choose which parts to save, says expert
Professor Hugh Possingham says authorities must confront prospect that some parts of reef are doomed and focus on what to preserve.
Governments must decide which parts of the Great Barrier Reef they most want to save and confront the prospect that some of it may be doomed, an expert on conservation modelling has warned.
University of Queensland professor Hugh Possingham said agencies, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, needed to make tough decisions about which parts of the natural wonder are most worth preserving “rather than trying to save everything”.
Possingham said the looming “triple whammy” of global warming’s impact on the reef – warmer seas, more acidity and more cyclones – meant time was running out and “triage” priorities were needed.
“We should be identifying the most resilient places – the ones most likely to be able to deal with all these assaults from outside and focusing our attention on them rather than trying to save everything,” he said.
“We need to focus on the bits we can definitely save.”
Possingham, a former Rhodes scholar who is described by the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute as “the global leader in mathematical modelling and decision science for nature conservation”, conceded it could be “suicide” for politicians to talk of abandoning some parts of the reef over others.
…
Possingham said while he welcomed the presence of climate sceptics, it would be “catastrophic” to delay action until the full consequences of how global climate change will play out and coral reefs would evolve were known.
“The person who creates the burden of proof has always got the upper hand because it’s almost impossible to prove anything entirely when we’re talking about large landscapes and seascapes over long periods of time,” he said.
…
Given Coral originated 540 million years ago, has survived numerous catastrophic extinction events such as the Permian-Triassic Extinction, which killed around 96% of all marine species, and has effortlessly survived hundreds of millions of years of abrupt natural changes in global temperature, I would suggest the burden of proof is on marine scientists to demonstrate why a few degrees gentle anthropogenic warming is such a threat, even if that warming actually occurs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How do they save it?
We walk on an old reef by us.
It is now wooded grassy hills.
Took a while to happen,BUT did.
Probably no one around to protect it.
Just the parts off the East Coast of Australia, and any other connected to that.
That would be enough. Just leave it alone, and stop mining aquarium fishes from it.
G
In particular we wouldn’t want all kinds of “researchers” pounding around in there collecting samples to study, before they get extincticated by sample collectors.
G
Charlie Brown would say
“Good Reef”
How do they save it?
================
They took all the corals
And put them in a coral museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see ’em
One of the main killers (40%) of coral reef is the “crown of thorns” starfish. This robot (reviewed in Sci-Am) is designed to kill the starfish.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-starfish-killing-artificially-intelligent-robot-is-set-to-patrol-the-great-barrier-reef/
“which killed around 96% of all marine species”
Is that a 97% con-sensus ??
Fair point, 96% isn’t really climate… 🙂
I was thinking 97% non-sensus,
Last nights news (ABC Australia) showed large areas of Mangrove – 10000 Ha dying back guess the cause?
Warmer seas, more acidity and more cyclones? Only if you want a grant …
One of the most effective anti-fouling paints for boat hulls, developed in the 1960s, contains the organotin tributyltin (TBT), which has been proven to cause deformations in oysters and sex changes in whelks.
(But don’t mention the C word).
….a common fungus
Well since the GBR is the least equatorial in the world (much of it is sub-tropical, and it extends down to the NSW border) it should be fine. Winter water is positively cold outside our tropics. We will have the last surviving reef in the world if it’s a function of warming.
That said, presented with the choice of “coal or Reef” in the election that’s a no brainer. The Reef brings about $1bn pa, coal about $90bn. And I can snorkel in Krabi where apparently the hot water doesn’t bother coral in the slightest.
Possingham said the looming “triple whammy” of global warming’s impact on the reef – warmer seas, more acidity and more cyclones – meant time was running out and “triage” priorities were needed.
Take a deep breath and really, really think.
Warmer seas – yes, we can control that one. Bring up a few drill rigs, and use on board freezing machines to manufacture ice cubes, and spray them over the reef. Problem solved.
More acidity – yes, we can control that too. Use tugs to bring out barges laden with caustic soda, and sprinkle that on the reef. Problem solved.
More cyclones – we can ameliorate that as well. Windmills take energy from the wind, so we need to plant about 100 000 000 windmills on the reef to extract massive amounts of energy from the cyclones, so they become no more than tropical depressions. And we produce a massive amount of energy, so the rivers in Queensland and northern NSW can be pumped back over the Great Dividing Range, to irrigate the Inland (as well as powering all those ice cube making machines). Two problems solved in one blow – pun intended!
What do you mean, we can’t see the reef for windmills and the noise has driven away all the fish and tourists? Doesn’t matter, we have saved the Reef. Hurray! 3 cheers for climate scientists.
To man, cyclones are bad. To nature, it has adapted and there are probably links of biological ecosystem response and even dependence on cyclones. The transference of what is bad for man is bad for nature is a typical response not based on science, but emotion.
I was long ago given to understand that hurricanes were necessary to the proper flushing out of the Everglades ecosystem.
Interesting point Climate Otter. The glue-green algae breakout in Florida might have something to do with the lack of hurricanes in that area.
The troubling downside to his alarmism is that cyclone numbers have dropped in the Australian region and there is no reason to think this will change.
Not only are there fewer cyclones, they don’t travel as far south as they used to. Maryborough, Bowen, Brisbane, when was the last time the siren sounded? 1974? 1976?
hmm . . when the climate siren was sounding for global cooling ?
Interesting our scientists cite more cyclones per year yet other scientists say our cyclones are at a 500 year low. BTW we are now at the end of cyclone season in Qld and not 1 cyclone this year. http://theconversation.com/tropical-cyclone-frequency-falls-to-centuries-low-in-australia-but-will-the-lull-last-20814
Perhaps Hugh should stick to being a statistician, I can tell you that he is good at that, as he taught me statistics years ago.
NO, NO, and NO.
Warmer seas: good for coral reefs, higher metabolism, more photosynthesis, less soluble calcium carbonate making coral strangers with more deposition, reefs growing farther north and south than previously.
More acidity: CO2 make carbonic acid which is a weak acid and unable to alter the complex buffer system that is seawater. Coral reefs themselves actively acidify water as it passes by and through them, and it does not hurt a thing. Corals have what is called physiology which is perfectly able to handle these small changes in pH. Given time to adapt, they clearly can handle much higher concentrations of CO2, as CO2 has been much higher than now during the vast majority of the last 600 million years.
More cyclones: There is no evidence of increased cyclonic activity. Actually the atmospheric cyclonic energy has been low for almost 10 years. This is no surprise since we have had no real warming for over 20 years.
After examining all of the alarmist claims for 10 years, I realized why noe of their claims were true. It’s really quite simple: if there is no warming, nothing they point to can be because of warming.
“making coral stronger with more deposition,”
Darn auto-correct!
Cyclones are actually good for corals just as forest fires are good for the forest. A mature forest is a dead forest.
It is mans perception and understanding that needs to change.
@ur momisugly higley7
“Darn auto-correct!”
No, you were right the first time. None of my friends are corals. All corals are strangers.
I know you were being sarcastic, but wind turbines have to be shut down during high winds, so no energy at all would be generated during a cyclonic event.
And who is supposed to pay for the trillions of dollars worth of windmills for this project. Also, do you really want to mess with a natural cycle with no idea of what the worldwide consequences might be. It is way cheaper to develop building codes to limit the damage they cause. What would the loss of water these storms bring do to the areas they hit? Lots to consider here.
Ha! ha!
Last time in UK, a breezy day, we stopped at a pub in a moorland village, overshadowed by a forest of windmills. THEY WERE ALL FEATHERED-OUT!!! Not one was running in the stiff breeze.
The landlord replied: “When the wind gets to a certain strength, they have to feather ’em out, otherwise they’d get trashed!”
And the wind wasn’t *that* strong.
Forget mitigating cyclones!
More acidity – yes, we can control that too. Use tugs to bring out barges laden with caustic soda,…
…no, will form a localized super concentrate and precipitate carbonate (buffer)
Easier to just use Arm and Hammer
“””””….. Possingham, a former Rhodes scholar who is described by the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute as “the global leader in mathematical modelling and decision science for nature conservation”, …..”””””
Well there you see what the problem is; the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute.
Hello, Earth to Australia; there are NO ” Mathematical Sciences “. Absolutely NOTHING to observe of experiment on, because Mathematics is a totally fictional Art form. We made it all up out of whole cloth in our heads; NONE of it actually exists.
And if you don’t like the mathematics you already have available to you, then you can just make up some more to your own rules.
Trying to observe any mathematical objects in the universe is even more difficult than looking for dark matter, or intelligent life elsewhere. We already know for certain that there are no mathematical objects to observe anywhere in the universe.
But statistics is an interesting pastime, particularly if you have nothing better to do, or you don’t have any 100 mm square (4 inches) sheets of paper to fold.
In a pinch when you just have to do some Origami, it just so happens that most ordinary toilet paper, also comes in 100 mm or 4 inch squares.
It doesn’t make for good Origami though but it could come in handy to clean up after all that guff about the Great Barrier Reef.
g
Warmer seas are a local or regional condition and transient. Additionally, coral bleaching associated with warm sea temps is usually aggravated by extremely low tides. There is no reason to think these events haven’t always taken place. They always recover.
There is no ocean acidification nor is there likely to be
Hurricanes are fewer recently
There is a problem with agricultural runoff and perhaps with excessive harvest of reef fish. These issues could be addressed quite easily.
Interestingly I heard it pointed out that the reefs down the West Australian coast with similar land, mining and shipping seem to be squeaky clean?
No link to hand
Well, how does the water temperature there compare to the east coast reefs in question? And similar land? Spend much time in WA?
“choose which parts of the Great Barrier Reef they want to save”
maybe they should ask a real reef scientist.
that would be Paul Kench
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Kench/publications
‘Possingham, a former Rhodes scholar who is described by the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute as “the global leader in mathematical modelling ‘
Ah, Climate modelling? Increased Cyclones?
‘
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png
Courtesy BoM
Spot on Lee. Are these “scientists” corrupt or just stupid:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/australia-has-lowest-number-of-tropical-cyclones-in-1500-years/
Apparently their “model” doesn’t use current data as input.
It seems all based on the supposition that there will be “warmer seas, more acidity, more cyclones”. This “made up data” is what their model works off of. Then the conclusion is reached — if such happens the reefs will die. This is converted to — such WILL happen and therefore the reefs will die.
If you are a true believer in global warming and evil carbon — such WILL happen — “warmer seas, more acidity, more cyclones” Their current dire predictions are justified by what will become “future current data”.
They can see into the future and from the future they pluck their data and use it in their models.
These people are not scientists — they are seers. Belief in global warming and evil carbon makes the future an open book to them.
Its all just a religious guy making another dumb “end of the world” prediction.
Eugene WR Gallun
@Eugene – There is no “made up data.” It is all just fraud and lies.
Maybe they should transplant Red Sea and Persian Gulf corals?
Wouldn’t work. Very limited range of species, all adapted to higher than normal salinities.
Where polluting runoff is a problem I say fix it.
Temperature anomalies with trends for three different start dates and all ending in July 2014:
http://mclean.ch/climate/figures_2/GBR_Aug2014_1.gif
“… the trend from January 1982 to July 2014 being 0.082C/decade …”:
http://mclean.ch/climate/GBR_Aug_2014.htm
Thirty five years of data is hardly enough basis for a mathematical model.
Chris
More than enough
As the saying has it
A statician will (under protest) fit a curve through three points
An engineer through two
And an ecofadist through one
(While a Clinton will (over protest) fit it through none at all ; )
maybe an `electrical` engineer would.
Or a railroad engineer.
Statistical trend lines don’t actually have to go through any known points, and seldom do. Nobody knows what to do about all the new points on the trend line; none of which have ever actually been observed or measured.
G
I was taught as an engineer not to extrapolate beyond the data. I recall an illustration on curve fitting someone put together from order 1 to 5. The behavior of the curves was eye-opening to say the least.
Is was instructed that one might, under duress, extend a graph at one end or the other to the tune of 5 – 10% but only if the need was time critical and everyone had agreed to the risks. I’ve never actually had to do it myself.
“More acidic” “Rhodes Scholar” what a putz, a lying thieving putz.
Perhaps, less caustic
They should come out here. The reef is fine 😊
What are you going to believe, a multi-million dollar climate model, or your own eyes?
Apart from the million tourists, most people believe the models.
And ground truth those various “Brigalow Declarations” to which he has his name
“Given Coral originated 540 million years ago, has survived numerous catastrophic extinction events such as the Permian-Triassic Extinction, which killed around 96% of all marine species, and has effortlessly survived hundreds of millions of years of abrupt natural changes in global temperature, I would suggest the burden of proof is on marine scientists to demonstrate why a few degrees gentle anthropogenic warming is such a threat, even if that warming actually occurs.”
______________________________
And then there is still the question why marine scientists are snorkeling on the sea surface for coral reefs, count whales in the tropics on diesel powered rubber dinghies and count Adelaide penguins in the arctic summer
instead of doing marine science.
count adelaide penguins in the arctic summer
-> in the antarctic summer.
Adelaide penguins? Adelie even?
Those penguins say all kinds of things!
adelie even / uneven
dennisambler on July 11, 2016 at 2:43 am
Adelaide penguins? Adelie even?
whatever you want dennis.
http://www.google.at/search?ei=6JCDV_m5AsS1a-mlsPAM&q=fat+white+meat+Ad%C3%A9lie%C2%A0penguins+&oq=fat+white+meat+Ad%C3%A9lie%C2%A0penguins+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12…62512.91441.0.94968.33.24.2.5.5.0.3045.12465.0j5j7j2j2j1j1j3j0j1.22.0….0…1c.1j2.64.mobile-gws-serp..14.15.5109.3..0j41j0i3j0i67j0i22i30j33i21.5FvpsjlEbvA
He lost all respect when it turned out he was a modeller. Ground truthing is everything. No ground truth, no science.
I wonder how he intends to be able to change the climate on the parts of the reef they decide to save, while the rest of the reef is left with its natural climate. Drop in ice blocks over it? He appears to have assumed that climate is having some effect but if he had taken 5 minutes of trouble like I just did and look up the BOMs temperatures for say AYR Research Station 70kms from Townsville which opened in 1951. he would have found the following. Annual Mean Maximium temperature for 1952 was 29.9 DegC. For 2014 it was 30.1 DegC. and for 2015 29.1. So the average of the last two full years ( 2014-15) of records was 29.6 degC. which is 0.3 Deg.C cooler than the Annual Mean Max in 1952. So why do they say the reef is dying due to the extra Mann made heat. It makes no sense. BTW it is only about 22% of the reef has bleached, and it will recover as it has done before.
It seems obvious there’s no choice; they can’t save both.
And they can’t save either.
The truth is no one has the power to “save” the kelp forests, or the coral reefs; nor do they have the power to destroy them. It’s hubris; an overwhelming sense of perverted duty to “do something”.
It’s unique to the modern human; the idea they’re so important, the things they do are so significant? They change the entire ecosystem! Hubris writ large? Yes of course, but what does it tell us about the people who live next door?
You aren’t that important. What you do in life is insignificant. If you win a Nobel Prize, they send you a letter. Otherwise, sit down, shut up and watch the movie.
I be a whole bunch of Australian dollars could be saved by eliminating his position and research center. That is about the only saving I see coming out of this. Of course since I am not an Australian citizen, it is my tax dollars being wasted. We could use to eliminate a few clock cycles on environmental computer games in the US as well.
Wow, my keyboard dropped a few letters on me. The opening was supposed to say “I bet …”
Right. Cooling specific parts of the reef artificially must be cheap &. easy. And mixing a prodigious quantity of lime milk there into the water along with diverting cyclone paths to abandoned segments is surely a piece of cake. Or Possingham is silly. Either — or.
Possingham said the looming “triple whammy” of global warming’s impact on the reef – warmer seas, more acidity and more cyclones – meant time was running out and “triage” priorities were needed.
I have seen elsewhere that the portions of the GBR that are most endangered are those exposed directly to currents crossing the Coral Sea from the strait between Vanuatu and the Solomons, a very active volcanic area. Perhaps the sulfur dioxide released by the submarine volcanism is a contributing factor.
I think there has been a lot of volcanic activity in the last few years. Earthquakes, and a lot – and I mean a lot, of pumice stone on the beaches.
Obviously they need to give the Marine Scientists millions in order to ‘research’ how to save the reef.
An all-expenses-paid tropical ‘research’ holiday – on the taxpayer. Who wouldn’t enroll? (Just write what we suggest).
reefs are the aquatic equivalent of weeds in the front yard…they will grow where they can
There’s the brilliant truth!
100 stars!
Corals have developed a method of dealing with sudden warm waters, this evolutionary defense mechanism developed over millions of years, so this is nothing new for corals.
Warmists must not believe in evolution then. Corals have obviously being dealing with environmental change for millions of years including sudden increases in temperature.
This is pure pseudo science to claim corals are suffering from temperatures
Logically, is very weak.
“Corals have developed a method of dealing with sudden warm waters, this evolutionary defense mechanism developed over millions of years, so this is nothing new for corals.”
That doesn’t mean you know that these corals will survive this event.
“Warmists must not believe in evolution then.”
Believing that quick changes will harm certain ecosystems doesn’t mean you don’t believe in evolution.
“Corals have obviously being dealing with environmental change for millions of years including sudden increases in temperature.”
Nobody is claiming that all corals will necessarily become extinct due to a sudden temperature increase.
“This is pure pseudo science to claim corals are suffering from temperatures”
And that was a bunch of pseudo logic.
I feel sorry for you, Phillip. I expect you still refuse to give in to the idea that the Easter Bunny isn’t real or that Santa doesn’t bring your Christmas presents. Mark’s logic is concise and flawless, while you advance the preposterous notion( yes Phillip, your ideas are preposterous!), that a temporary upset of a couple of degrees to an area of reef could possibly be the first time in the history of coral reefs that this completely permanent and fatal condition has occurred. You present no counter theory as to why the ocean had some magic temperature limit before humans that prevented this from ever happening. When I was in Cuba years ago I saw hills composed of layers of coral hundreds of feet above sea level. I don’t think they’re alive, Phillip! I flew there in a plane, Phillip! And it was pretty hot there. Did I kill the coral, Phillip? If you think so, go ahead and blame me for Santa and Peter Cottontail!
John Harmsworth said: “I feel sorry for you, Phillip. I expect you still refuse to give in to the idea that the Easter Bunny isn’t real or that Santa doesn’t bring your Christmas presents”
OK, nothing so far, just an insult.
“Mark’s logic is concise and flawless, while you advance the preposterous notion( yes Phillip, your ideas are preposterous!), that a temporary upset of a couple of degrees to an area of reef could possibly be the first time in the history of coral reefs that this completely permanent and fatal condition has occurred.”
I do? Please do quote me if you aren’t just making stuff up.
“You present no counter theory as to why the ocean had some magic temperature limit before humans that prevented this from ever happening.”
I didn’t say anything about that at all. I just pointed out that the logic used by mark doesn’t prove anything.
“When I was in Cuba years ago I saw hills composed of layers of coral hundreds of feet above sea level. I don’t think they’re alive, Phillip! I flew there in a plane, Phillip! And it was pretty hot there. Did I kill the coral, Phillip? If you think so, go ahead and blame me for Santa and Peter Cottontail!”
Now you’re just ranting.
Also they wont say, when SPS do die off, the rock they leave is a prefect environment for even more diverse reef life. Most don’t die off though, they hunker down expel algae and wait for things to get better, which would be around now as El Nino went. If the waters suddenly cool in the GBR it will also have a negative net effect until temperatures stabalise
Plus we can actually take chunks of reef and seed new reefs, easily. We can grow reefs no problem, this is all complete nonsense