How will Funding Climate Science Help Prevent Coral Bleaching?

Pauline Hanson
Pauline Hanson. By Dragons Abreast Australia – originally posted to Picasa as Pauline Hanson, Jenny Petterson, Michelle Hanton, Joanne Petterson, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12314595

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate skeptic Aussie One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has challenged marine park authorities to explain why giving them money will help prevent global warming from bleaching coral reefs.

Pauline Hanson gives Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s top scientist a serve over coral bleaching

Rebecca GredleyAAP
Monday, 21 October 2019 3:50 pm

“You’re saying that coral bleaching is affected by water temperatures,” she told Dr David Wachenfeld.

“Yet around Indonesia, closer to the equator … where the water temperatures are 29C, it’s a known fact that coral actually grows faster and more prolific in warmer temperatures.

Wachenfeld explained that corals live in a variety of water temperatures over the world, with substantial differences even within the Great Barrier Reef.

“The fact that corals in Indonesia could withstand higher temperatures than corals on the central Great Barrier Reef is of no benefit to the corals of the central Great Barrier Reef when they die.”

But Hanson was not swayed, asking how the authority planned to address both water temperatures and the “natural occurrence” of bleaching events with its taxpayer funding.

Read more: https://7news.com.au/politics/pauline-hanson/coral-bleaching-happens-naturally-hanson-c-514581

Climate skeptic Pauline Hanson and her fellow One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts are an ongoing thorn in the side of Australia’s climate wastrel politicians.

I think Pauline’s question about funding is applicable to all climate science expenditures. If the science is settled, if we know we’re all doomed by 2050 or whatever, what is the point of spending billions of dollars every year to tell us what we already know?

When is the last time an alarmist climate scientist had anything new to say about the future of our global climate?

Advertisements

79 thoughts on “How will Funding Climate Science Help Prevent Coral Bleaching?

  1. Negotiating with and then giving in to a terrorist’s demands has never worked in the past.
    To think it will with this latest version of terrorism = insanity.

    • “We think there is a problem, Global Warm…ahhh Climate Change, Send Money’

      Terrorist are required to put forth an effort, in the Terror event, before making demands.

      These Marxists (as in the Marx Brothers) huddle up, concoct a AGW terror scenario, inform the government, ask for money and make demands.

      And the Keystone Cops in Government fall all over themselves to comply with other peoples money and and restrictive regulations.

      • These Marxists (as in the Marx Brothers)

        The Marx brothers were funny. These marxists are alot of things, but one thing they are most certainly not, is funny.

        • beng135

          You gotta admit that “The Marxist Brothers” plot is pretty funny. Add to that the article on organic farming and you get the “The Marxist Brothers and the Case of the Keystone Crops”.

          I’d buy a ticket.

  2. Not often I agree with our Pauline but it is a fair question. How will the funding be used to address water temperatures?

    • Apparently it won’t change the outcome but if you give them money they will post regular doom updates to the agreed endpoint. It probably has a name like eco voyeurism if you are the social sciences type.

    • Clarky of Oz October 23, 2019 at 2:21 pm

      Not often I agree with our Pauline but it is,

      here’s to you: go

      https://www.google.com/search?q=webcam+corral+reefs&oq=webcam+corral+reefs+&aqs=chrome.

      The best comment is taxidriver, go slow. I’m in a hurry!

      Ain’t that right – most justifications start with I just wanted to be in time :

      – most justifications start with “I just wanted to be in time” : after a mass carom, clash, encounter, smash-up, collision, and a lot of time wasted !

      Switch to the webcam, that’s sedative.

  3. They think that either nobody is paying attention, or that those that are can’t see through the BS. They are wrong, of course. But best to keep the gravy train running as long as possible, preferrably to retirement age, before the lies can’t be hidden any longer.

  4. Good posting of a story featuring a clear thinker in Pauline Hanson. As a geologist I have studied many limestone formations, especially where they are gold mineralized, and can assure everyone that limestones are very widespread in the geologic record and are found in many different paleoenvironments, but always in fairly shallow marine water. The limestone is usually shed debris from the limestone factory, ie a reef, but sometimes an entire reef is overwhelmed by mud and preserved intact. The variety of environments that the reef flourished in is quite remarkable, from cold to hot and everywhere in between. There is a lot of room in the worlds oceans for reefs to migrate in an either warmer or cooler direction as they are inclined to. So, the Indonesian reefs may some day end in the position of the Great Barrier Reef, and everything goes on, just the corals look different. Instead of giving money to the park department give it to childrens cancer research.

    • Ron, just get them to explain how and when the White Cliffs of Dover formed….

      …and for a bonus question ask them if CO2 made the oceans acidic

      • Latitude,
        Chalk is actually an unusual form of limestone in that it is believed to have formed in relatively deep seas as a result of the accumulation of countless shells of pelagic microorganisms. It has no connection with the shallow sea and/or reef related limestone deposition that is more the subject of this article and which created the majority of limestones across the globe and throughout most of the geologic record.

    • Reefs don’t migrate, but corals do. Or rather coral larvae do. They are pelagic and float with the currents until (a very small proportion) finds a suitable place to settle.

      All oceanic islands start as a sterile volcano, but within a few years corals start to grow there if the water temperature is warm enough.

      And remember that as recently as 10,000 years ago the GBR was just a range of low limestone hills. And that this was the case during about 90 % of the last million years. The GBR dies at the end of each 10,000 year interglacial and comes back to life again 100,000 years later when the next interglacial arrives. This has happened at least 8 times.

  5. “what is the point of spending billions of dollars every year to tell us what we already know?”

    It’s to keep those phoney-baloney jobs going, Eric

  6. Its all about, “”I have a job and I want to keep it”” That needs a steady supply of money, from the taxpayer of course.

    MJE VK5ELL

  7. Pray for low tides so the hundreds of millions of $$$$ can be spent in spray painting bleached coral in a variety
    of approved pastel colours. Geoff S

  8. How will funding climate science help anything?

    Was there climate on the earth before man funded the science of it?

    Does climate vary depending on the amount of climate science we fund?

    If we boycotted climate science, would the earth lose its climate??

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  9. To be fair, why do we need climate scientists to tell us anything when the eco-activists are willing to tell us the same thing, earlier and at half the price

  10. One good science question requiring an answer would be to ask, “Are the corals in Indonesia of the same species as those of the Great Barrier Reef”, just to eliminate any temperature sensitive issues between the two locations.

    • No the question is when those Indonesian species invade do we “turn back the coral” or put them in prison on a small pacific island nation.

      • Funny thing, we are allowed to import marine fish species into Australia but we are not allowed to import coral species !

      • LdB October 23, 2019 at 5:09 pm

        No the question is when those Indonesian species invade do we “turn back the coral” or put them in prison on a small pacific island nation.

        There’s the question these corals wouldn’t have the right morals, the right attitude.

  11. GBRMPA is yet another State Govt make-work project which used the ‘National Parks’ and ‘environment and heritage’ excessive red-tape model, and applied it to a marine park, which does absolutely nothing useful or tangible and badly needs to be abolished and the money returned back to taxpayers.

  12. I would ask where the increased heat in the ocean next to the Great Barrier Reef is coming from since the current hypothesis says that man made global warming manifests itself as an atmospheric phenomena.

  13. Pauline has it right this time, but at the same time she is still a bit of an idiot. If you want to see her out of her depth, youtube a senate enquiry on submarines where she is asking some Navy personnel various questions. It’s a little cringey. Neither her or Malcolm have ever really struck me as being articulate, just a bit shrill and combative. They lack charisma. Here she does ask valid questions but the majority of the voting public don’t take one nation all that seriously due to past dramas.

    If the govt was serious, they would install a monitoring network with visual and temp sensors for a set distance over all of the reef. Make the data publicly available and the whole thing totally transparent. Obviously, will never happen

  14. The fact that corals in Indonesia could withstand higher temperatures than corals on the central Great Barrier Reef is of no benefit to the corals of the central Great Barrier Reef when they die.

    That’s a BS reply. A non-BS reply would address the differences between the two coral populations or something like that. I’ve heard more cogent reasoning from drunken and/or stoned teenagers.

  15. “If the science is settled, if we know we’re all doomed by 2050 or whatever, what is the point of spending billions of dollars every year to tell us what we already know?

    the science that is “settled” and settled means no credible scientist will waste his time trying to refute it.

    1. C02 is a GHG. this means it is opaque to IR. This is settled engineering as well.
    2. The growth in c02 over the last 160 years is due to human emmisions. we dont know
    all the sinks and sources with Precision, but we know that our emissions are roughly
    twice as large as the growth in c02. But for us, the level would be lower.
    3. Adding GHGS ( theres more than c02) will warm the planet, not cool the planet.
    4. The additional warming from doubling c02 is between 1.5C and 6C. Lots of room
    for debate withing these values. Kooks argue outside these boundaries.
    5. It is warming. There was an LIA

    So nobody wants to spend the money to revist what is known. hell the Trump admistration
    couldnt even organize a red team to look at 1-5. Think about that.

    What is not settled

    1. How much damage will the warming cause
    2. Which areas will suffer the most and which will Benefit ( IPCC says there will be winners and losers)
    3. Will the change be gradual? or are there tipping points
    and the list goes on.

    But, no one wants to spend money on what is settled. duh, nobody is asking for money to study
    the skeptical claims that it hasnt warmed, or that GHGs dont warm the planet, or that c02 is not a GHG.
    Like I said, the Trump admistration couldnt even organize a review of 1-5. Think about that.
    4 years to challenge the science and couldnt even get a team on the practice feild.
    Folks want to spend money on the parts of the science where there is debate, where folks are actually
    uncertain.

    man you skeptics need better arguments.
    Psst follow nic lewis lead if you want to make a difference and dont be dumb

    • “1. C02 is a GHG. this means it is opaque to IR. This is settled engineering as well.”
      >>>

      Chemistry … scheech!

    • What is not settled
      1. How much damage will the warming cause
      2. Which areas will suffer the most and which will Benefit ( IPCC says there will be winners and losers)
      3. Will the change be gradual? or are there tipping points
      and the list goes on.
      >>>

      1. Marine sedimentary science evidence shows none that will be permanent.

      2. We know of none which are degrading, the corals are healthy, they recover fast, other species are not collapsing and the planet is greening, the biomass is expanding – no crisis is evident, not even a clear indication of a ‘problem’ in fact. Even snow has not disappeared, it’s at record levels in recent years. And where prior evidences of crises have been claimed, those have been repeatedly debunked and shown to be false information, being pushed by agenda-driven hysterics.

      3. There is little or no evidence of catastrophic ‘tipping-points’, the ocean is a heat absorber in the same way cars have pothole-absorbers, their shocks are negated. And any thermal rise is almost all UHI, it has been as hot in the 1930s and the MWP and the world did not end, and the heat is dissipated by long-term heat absorption capacity in the ocean, which is expressed as higher rainfall and more benign conditions, with even less storminess.

      (It’s safe to un-clench your butt now Mosh).

        • Steven, you have not got a clue, you just want to whinge about nothings. Stick to English literature, you don’t know the difference between engineering and chemistry.

          Time waster.

    • I’m chipping in to get the Mosh a new snow shovel for Christmas. The one he’s using is too worn for words.

    • Why would gradual global warming cause any damage Mosher?

      At most it might cause a gentle migration of species away from the equator.

      It won’t cause disruption to food supplies. When Britain colonised Australia, most of the British farm animals and crop staples had no problem adapting to new, far warmer conditions. The colony thrived, even with ignorant first settlement mistakes like planting grains in fall, because the people in charge of the colony didn’t understand seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere.

      Even sea level rise is not a threat. When Chicago was threatened by floods in the mid 1800s, the entire city was lifted out of the mud. What engineers achieved in the 19th century could be done today, for property valuable enough to bother saving.

      • ‘Why would gradual global warming cause any damage’

        because
        global warming is linked to C02
        CO2 is linked to industry
        industrialisation is linked to capitalism
        and capitalism is bad. obviously. it’s settled

        some people might call it guilt by associations.

        and they would be right

      • Domestic animals, notably cattle and sheep, originated in the middle east, not Britain. Now early domestication did occur at the end of the ice age ca 10,000 years ago when the climate was cooler, but since that time there’s been a lot of development of different varieties bred for different conditions. There are already different varieties in different parts of Australia, some of which can already handle warmer climates.

        The real question is will they have enough to eat and drink? Right now large areas of Australian rangeland are suffering extreme drought, some have been in drought for most of the 21st C. There’s no water for stock in many areas; towns are surviving on trucked water. Hay has been trucked from wetter areas to feed stock in drought at areas, but that’s running low and stock numbers have plummeted. I live on a road that is part of such a truck route; earlier in the year there was regular procession of semis loaded with hay, but no more.

        Disruption of food supplies? Even though a lot of sheep have been slaughtered because of the drought, the price of lamb, a traditional food-staple in Australia, has sky-rocketed. I guess we can go vegan, oh wait, vegetables need water too!

        • Tom Foley,

          Australia is usually in drought: much of it is desert.

          Don’t worry. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration increases growth and reduces need for water of plants.

          Richard

          • Australia has a range of climatic and vegetation zones, from wet rainforest, warm and cool temperature, woodland, semi-arid shrublands, and arid shrublands. Those zones reflect rainfall gradients.

            Deserts are at the extreme, and the term is usually restricted to areas with minimal plants and moving dunes. We do have some deserts in Australia, but most of the interior is just semi-arid and arid. Even in arid areas it rains, there’s just a lower amount.

            Drought occurs when an area does not receive its usual rainfall; so the vegetation adapted to that rainfall (even if it’s low) is stressed.

            The areas currently suffering drought, in Vic, NSW, and southern Qld, are not arid and are not desert. They are temperate and semi-arid woodlands, shrublands and grasslands with a rich natural flora and capable of carrying stock, in numbers compatible with the vegetation.

            Currently in this drought there is no ground vegetation left in many places and the trees are struggling, not to mention the stock. Where I live in western NSW, the average annual rainfall is about 300 ml. That’s semi-arid. So far this year we’ve had less than 100ml. And it’s been like that for a few years now. That’s drought. Only two months to go in 2019 and no sign of any change. 38 degrees today. No amount of extra C02 is going to help if there’s no rain. Any if the extra C02 is a factor in the lower rainfall….

          • Tom, this is a serious question.
            In the “white man” history or the Aborigine history have those areas experienced Drought conditions before?

        • Tom the urban population of Australia is soaring, but water infrastructure investment is lagging. Given a choice between shafting farmers who hate them anyway, or millions of urban voters, its a bit of a no-brainer.

    • If you don’t want to look dumb, Mosh, learn how to spell ’emissions’, and ‘don’t’,
      for start. Capital letters might make for easier reading too. I expect most English Lit grads have these problems, but we have higher expectations of people wanting to get paid in the sciences.

  16. Latitude. For a start, the White Cliffs of Dover aren’t made of coral. Perhaps some of money could go towards education?

    • Tom Foley,

      You are being ‘picky’ and ignoring the correct point made by Latitude.

      The White Cliffs of Dover are chalk formed from remains of sea creatures similar to those which form corals and contains many coccoliths which are very pretty when Au coated and viewed using se imaging in an SEM ( see http://www.mikrotax.org/Nannotax3/index.php?dir=Coccolithophores ).

      You would have known this if you had sufficient education.

      Richard

      • Coccoliths are tiny calcium carbonate platelets which form shells of coccolithophores, single celled protists related to plants. They reproduce by division. Coral polyps are animals related to sea anemones and jellyfish. Coral polyps can reproduce by budding or sexually.

        Coccolithophores are plankton, that is, they float around in the ocean carried by currents. As individuals die their coccoliths fall to the sea bed and over time build up sediments, with mud and other materials. But their descendants float on. Coral polyps are sessile; they secrete layers of calcium carbonate around themselves which form reefs over time. The polyps are stuck there; they can’t move away.

        Planktonic coccolithophores are irrelevant to the question of the vulnerability or otherwise of fixed coral polyps in reefs.

        As for your comment about my education, I could mention something about motes in eyes, but I will end with a request for civility in debate.

        • Tom Foley,

          YOUR POST said in full,
          “Latitude. For a start, the White Cliffs of Dover aren’t made of coral. Perhaps some of money could go towards education?
          (emphasis added RSC)

          My reply to that
          (a) pointed out you were plain wrong about the White Cliffs because they “are chalk formed from remains of sea creatures similar to those which form corals”,
          (b) provided additional information, and added,
          (c) “You would have known this if you had sufficient education.”
          That was and is an appropriate and polite reply to your comment.

          Your ignorant response to that reply says coral polyps differ from the creatures that formed the White Cliffs because “The polyps are stuck there; they can’t move away.”

          NOT SO. The polyps’ offspring do “move away” and they form coral reefs elsewhere.

          Importantly, you added,
          “As for your comment about my education, I could mention something about motes in eyes, but I will end with a request for civility in debate.”

          You would be as wrong about “motes in eyes” as you are about everything else you have written here because YOU raised the issue of need for education, I politely pointed out that you did not know what you were talking about (but I did), and your response has been to compound your error and to ask for “civility” which I have provided but you have not.

          Richard

          • Yes, I was inconsistent. I apologise for the tone of my initial comment on education. However, I was correct in my comment. Coccolithophores are NOT sea creatures like coral polyps; they are single called planktonic organisms more similar to algae than to multicelled animals that are coral polyps.

            While coral polyp larvae are also planktonic, they tend to settle on established reefs (some research suggests they find them by the noise of fish and crustaceans around the reefs). They don’t necessarily float round the world; larvae from one part of the Barrier Reef tend to end up on another part. The build up of coral reefs is a direct result of activity of living corals which indeed are stuck where they settle as larva. The creation of large coral reefs is dependent on shallow water depth and temperature.

            In contrast the accumulation of coccoliths which eventually form chalk is a byproduct of the death of the organisms. There is a continual fine rain of dead plankton to the sea floor everywhere; the build up of coccoliths and their subsequent lithification will vary due to local conditions and geological processes. It’s unlikely to be directly related to water depth and temperature the way coral reefs are.

          • Tom Foley,

            You make a distinction without a difference. As Latitude suggested in his post that started this thread, both organisms require similar conditions and create ‘stone’ from minerals in sea water.

            Your first post (responding to the post from Latitude) was wrong in every possible way, and that is not corrected by anything have said since.

            Simply, as I said,
            “The White Cliffs of Dover are chalk formed from remains of sea creatures similar to those which form corals”.

            Richard

        • You started the insults. And you’re too self absorbed and ignorant to comprehend that. Also stop lying about Australia.

  17. ”3. Adding GHGS ( theres more than c02) will warm the planet, not cool the planet.”
    ”C02 is a GHG. this means it is opaque to IR”

    But isn’t 50% of light hitting the Earth IR?
    Therefore…GHG cool the planet coz if they weren’t there……etc etc. Adding more will cool it more.

  18. A few years ago one New CEO of CSIRO wanted to cut back on the budget for CSIRO arguing that they didn’t need so many personnel researching climate change because if the science is settled why did we need to continue research. I must admit I don’t know what happened but there was such an outcry I think the government backed .

  19. Re the CSIRO and settled science.

    The boss got rid of a number of Climate scientists, but them the Minister for the environment , what a title, one Greg Hunt, a Greenie since he was at Uni said that he would establish a new facility for the environment in Tasmania, and the scientists were re employed.

    Is the same all of the time, the Liberal ( Conservative) government feel that they have to pay “”Lip Service”” to the idea of Climate Change, or they will loses votes.

    MJE VK5ELL

  20. Last evening ITV News had a story majoring in Madagascar.
    Apparently raised sea temperatures are killing the coral reefs surrounding the island and fish numbers are drastically reduced.
    This has led to overfishing by locals trying to feed their children, in one case shown he had 8 children.
    They are now illegally logging to produce charcoal to sell. It is reckoned that 95% of Madagascar’s forests have been destroyed.
    No doubt some windmills and solar panels would help the situation, along with some contraceptives /s

  21. No bleaching at Bikini Atoll where man does not go and where the coral is in pristine condition and growing like a forest.

    There is a clue in there.

  22. I’m not too worried about the Great Barrier Reef. Why? “The Bahamas is comprised of 700 islands and over 2,000 rocks and cays, sprinkled over 100,000 square miles of ocean. The archipelago is an ecological oasis, boasting the clearest water on the planet.” Coral Reefs turn into Coral islands. How did that happen, Mr Coral Reef Scientist?

  23. To A.C. Osborn, a big question, the answer is yes, there have been droughts before in this area (western NSW) but we don’t have a very long record historical record.

    First, there are Aboriginal legends of droughts, often focusing on rainmakers; and also stories about the creation of rivers and in one example of the drying up of a tributary of the Darling.

    Second, European historical records are short. The problem here is that although the Sydney colony was set up in 1788, it was 40 years before any Europeans got to western NSW, and another 20 years before the Darling River was surveyed. Pastoral squatters moved in around 1850-60, with the first riverboat up the Darling in 1859. Early records focus on the occasional big floods which reflects the normality of semi-arid conditions. The big historical drought was 1895-1903, the Federation Drought. The current droughts since 2000 have been worse (depends on exactly what criteria you chose, and how you want to spin it). There were many times of lesser droughts, with low river levels and fish kills. I’m pulling this historical data together.

    The Aboriginal knowledge is sparse. There was a lot of early conflict and while Aboriginal people survived, languages were lost and culture fragmented. In any case, stories of great droughts and rainmakers can’t be pinned down in time. Further inland, the European historical record is shorter but the Aboriginal knowledge is richer, especially where language is still spoken.

    Finally, there is much archaeological and palaeoenvironmental data; notably from Lake Mungo and the other Willandra Lakes. The work here has focussed on the older records and large-scale climate change (15-60,000 years) not so much on the last 10,000. Also the resolution can’t get down to individual droughts, and this is an area of poor pollen preservation. Too big a topic for a single comment!

  24. Banning granular synthetic fertilizer in Australia would prevent coral bleaching all around the country.

    People would need to buy the waste from the meat industries and use liquid only fert which if applied to the point of run-off kills plants too.

    This is my bailiwick, you can’t argue against it.

  25. Questioning what’s being done with the money granted/laundered to eco-loons (whoever they are) is fightin’ words. Expect her to be viciously attacked.

  26. . Tom Foley October 23, 2019 at 10:16 pm

    Don’t worry, be happy –

    Know Your Terms: Shooting Stars, Dirty ‘Snowballs’ and Space Rocks on Earth …

    dirty snowballs from meteors from http://www.pbs.org

    Earth’s water daily gets recycled by the same plants that “consumed” it.

    dirty snowballs from meteors from http://www.pbs.org

    15 Feb 2013 · Comets are several miles in diameter,

    .

    The Eddington luminosity, also referred to as the Eddington limit, is the maximum luminosity a body (such as a star) can achieve when there is balance between the force of radiation acting outward and the gravitational force acting inward. The state of balance is called hydrostatic.

    Planet Earth too gets some reserve tank refills:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Know+Your+Terms%3A+Shooting+Stars%2C+Dirty+%27Snowballs%27+and+Space+Rocks+on+Earth+…+%EF%BF%BC+15+Feb+2013+%C2%B7+Comets+are+several+miles+in+diameter%2C+composed+of+rock%2C+ice+and+other+organic+compounds%2C+making+them+%E2%80%9Cdirty+snowballs%E2%80%9D+in+space%2C+according+to+NASA%27s+near+earth+object+program.+They+originate+outside+the+orbit+of+the+outermost+planets+and+form+elliptical+orbits+that+pass+close+to+the+sun.&oq=K.

    .hopefully to be of any help.

  27. . Tom Foley October 23, 2019 at 10:16 pm

    Don’t worry, be happy –

    https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNQZcIjbphYfkSbx26viGyH3g4gzBA%3A1571879504039&ei=UPqwXa_-AcKmmwWk5ImQCA&q=Eddington+Limit&oq=Eddington+Limit&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

    dirty snowballs from meteors from http://www.pbs.org

    Earth’s water daily gets recycled by the same plants that “consumed” it.

    15 Feb 2013 · Comets are several miles in diameter,

    .

    The Eddington luminosity, also referred to as the Eddington limit, is the maximum luminosity a body (such as a star) can achieve when there is balance between the force of radiation acting outward and the gravitational force acting inward. The state of balance is called hydrostatic.

    Planet Earth too gets some reserve tank refills:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Know+Your+Terms%3A+Shooting+Stars%2C+Dirty+%27Snowballs%27+and+Space+Rocks+on+Earth+…+%EF%BF%BC+15+Feb+2013+%C2%B7+Comets+are+several+miles+in+diameter%2C+composed+of+rock%2C+ice+and+other+organic+compounds%2C+making+them+%E2%80%9Cdirty+snowballs%E2%80%9D+in+space%2C+according+to+NASA%27s+near+earth+object+program.+They+originate+outside+the+orbit+of+the+outermost+planets+and+form+elliptical+orbits+that+pass+close+to+the+sun.&oq=K.

    .hopefully to be of any help.

Comments are closed.