Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Just how long do we have to wait until the Great Barrier Reef is dead? The Reef allegedly went critical in the great El-Nino of 1998. Ever since, reef scientists have been bombarding us with dire predictions and demanding billions of dollars and urgent action to “save” it.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef ‘critical’ due to climate change
International Union for Conservation of Nature report says more than a third of world’s heritage sites are of ‘significant concern’ or ‘critical’.
The health of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem, is in a critical state and deteriorating as climate change warms the waters around it, an international conservation group said, warning that more than a third of the world’s heritage sites are similarly threatened.
The World Heritage-listed site off Australia’s northeastern coast has lost more than half its coral in the past three decades.
Coral-bleaching in 2016, 2017 and 2020 has further damaged its health and affected its animal, bird and marine population, the International Union for Conservation of Nature said in a report.
Bleaching occurs when hotter water destroys the algae upon which the coral feeds, causing it to turn white.
…
Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/4/australias-great-barrier-reef-critical-due-to-climate-change
My question – what evidence is there that bleaching is bad for coral reefs? Perhaps coral bleaching is like trees dropping their leaves – a completely normal part of the natural cycle.
Great Barrier Reef death in five years is “laughable”
Daniel Bateman, The Cairns PostMay 21, 2016 5:00am
CLAIMS by a James Cook University professor that the Great Barrier Reef will be “terminal” in five years have been rubbished by one of his own colleagues.
In a scientific paper released this week, JCU’s Dr Jon Brodie and Professor Richard Pearson warned the natural wonder would be in a terminal condition within five years without a $10 billion commitment during the federal election campaign to improve water quality.
…
But JCU marine geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd said his colleagues’ claims were “laughable”.
“I think the threats to the Barrier Reef are greatly exaggerated and mostly based upon science that is very poorly quality assured,’’ he said.
Latest findings by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority show 93 per cent of the natural wonder has varying levels of coral bleaching which was worse in remote parts off Cape York.
Prof Ridd said bleaching was an entirely natural event.
“It has always occurred over the millennia, and this is nothing special,’’ he said. “It’s no different to say that on the land, when in extremely dry conditions for example, eucalypt trees lose their leaves
…
Read more: https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/great-barrier-reef-death-in-five-years-is-laughable/news-story/7f0de36647f172815f55ebfd3a2e9df1
Time has vindicate Peter Ridd’s 2016 criticism of alarmist claims the reef would be terminal in 5 years. Even the most pessimistic reef scientists agree the reef is still alive enough to be worth them continuing to receive millions of dollars of research funding.
I take issue with this article it is all nonsense. I am an Australian and I know full well that the whole barrier reef went in the 60s. It was eaten by the Crown of Thorns starfish. There were a couple of very keen scuba divers man and wife who told the rest of us the dire peril it was in. They were trying to encourage other divers to come in to battle the starfish. So that’s what happened to it how could something that doesn’t exist anymore be bleaching?
Due to removal of the starfish’s main predator, by us.
Yep it’s what happens if you hunt the Pacific Triton predator too much-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6F6BpfucI
Warning: Vegans veges climate changers and sundry snowflakes may find some footage disturbing hopefully.
Only the crown of thorn starfish is itself entirely natural. So here is the funny part of humanity … we always want to protect the pretty and nice things but not all things in nature are pretty and nice. So anyone who really cared for nature would have got out of the dam way and let nature and the reef battle it out like it should. It’s like on wildlife documentaries they always show the chases where the Lion fails because that makes the audience feel good about the world and a little less self guilted.
Spot on, LdB!
How refreshing to hear your view.
“Even the most pessimistic reef scientists agree the reef is still alive enough to be worth them continuing to receive millions of dollars of research funding.”
Now why didn’t you lead with that? No wonder the sciencers troll you…
And a dead reef might be worth even more in attempted restorations! There are no lost opportunities in Climate Science.
The massive funding received by the reef people will amount to nothing. Even if the reef WAS in dire straights,
What are they gonna do? Shade it? (it’s 350,000 square kilometers) Replant it? (it’s 350,000 km2) What they will do is look at it a lot and take notes. Half a billion dollars worth of notes.
This is as SCAM of massive proportions. They will do nothing, can do nothing and know nothing about the fact that they can or will do nothing in the next 50 years that will make the slightest difference to the reef.
It’s like the bush fire people saying that the burnt forest NEEDS our help. You know, coz it doesn’t know how to repair itself anymore. It has become reliant on hairless monkeys to look after it.
The NEED to do SOMTHING is based on sentimental nonsense.
And on mortgages and bills to pay…
Also, Mike, think of the conflicting interests here. These doom-and-gloom “scientists” want millions to study the dying Great Barrier Reef, but the Australian tourism industry promotes viewing, snorkeling, or diving on the GBR as a great tourist attraction. Which side has the better position on this one? Remember the definition of a tourist is: someone who comes to your area, gives you their money, and then leaves. No agency should choose spending money (in this case for nothing) over receiving money.
Spot on. The reef is in excellent condition. Mind you it is only about 10,000 years old or since the last ice age ended and the sea level rose over 100 meters. I think there is no doubt it will be there until the next ice age.
Now that COVID-19 is dead and done, the Australian MSM is back, with a vengeance, on to climate change.
Anothe last chance! Come and visit the reef before it disappears (for the 10th tine or so). Bring tourist dollars!
The humor is the tourists kill the GBR between standing, touching and disruption the suntan lotion they often use contains Oxybenzone messes the corals up. Who needs an oil tanker to run aground when you can get a couple of million humans to visit it.
Pot meet kettle.
“My question – what evidence is there that bleaching is bad for coral reefs?”
Evidence? Don’t make me laugh, you aren’t interested in that. To you and your Murdochian ilk evidence just means its an even bigger scam. ffs. Down the rabbit hole with Eric and his little gang of mad hatters, putting ideology before science.
Back in the world of non-fiction, the unequivocal evidence shows one of the wonders of the natural world abruptly going down the gurgler.
“We found the number of small, medium and large corals on the Great Barrier Reef has declined by more than 50 percent since the 1990s…
…The decline occurred in both shallow and deeper water, and across virtually all species–but especially in branching and table-shaped corals. These were the worst affected by record-breaking temperatures that triggered mass bleaching in 2016 and 2017,”
Dietzel et al, 2020
You forgot the /sarc tag
Are you talking about the parts that almost completely recovered to their pre-bleaching conditions within two years? If you want to talk science, then talk science, not propaganda that would even have Geobbels blushing.
I cited and quoted from a recent peer-reviewed study which included aerial surveys “verified by underwater surveys”. It follows the most recent of three severe bleaching events in four years with Feb 2020 showing the warmest temperatures in the 120 record and the trend indicating even more frequent and more severe bleaching events are likely in the coming decade.
http://www.bom.gov.au/environment/doc/2020-GBR-marine-heatwave-factsheet.pdf
Talk science? You gave your opinion.
“the parts that almost completely recovered” What “parts”? which two years? measured by who? What are your sources?
Warmest temperatures from BoM are MEANINGLESS. !!
You have NO SCIENCE , you are an empty sock-puppet.
https://reefecologic.org/coral-shows-strong-recovery-across-the-great-barrier-reef/
And as YOU have PROVEN MANY, MANY times, human CO2 has had no warming effect.
All warming is totally natural, according to YOU.
Try again, little sock-puppet awaiting a hand.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
No all the warming of the past 150 or so years is from additional GHG caused by our activities. 100%, in fact it could be 110% because if anything the climate should have cooled a little over that period. You’ve said as much yourself.
“No(t) all the warming of the past 150 or so years is from additional GHG caused by our activities. 100%, in fact it could be 110% because if anything the climate should have cooled a little over that period.”
Ignorant comment, LoyD’oh. GHGs are CLEARLY not responsible for 100% (or 110%) of the recent warming. Here’s a plot of CO2 emissions along with temperature variations over the last 2,000 years. Tell us all again how CO2 is responsible for all of the recent warming when the temperature started to rise at the end of the Little Ice Age BEFORE CO2 emissions increased.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temp-emissions-0-web.jpg
The last 70 years have had higher solar activity than any time since the early Holocene, about 8000 years ago. The authors conclude that solar activity contributed to the warming in the last century but didn’t dominate the last 30 years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02995
Now that you know that your statement is false can we trust that you won’t repeat it again?
“No all the warming of the past 150 or so years is from additional GHG caused by our activities”
NONE OF IT IS.
Making EMPTY dumb statements that have absolutely no scientific support .. is NOT EVIDENCE.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
So hilarious that you can’t back ANYTHING you say with anything except regurgitated BS. ! 🙂
“should have cooled a little over that period.”
MORE utter and complete BS.
With the sun at near maximum, of course it continues to warm.
You are a LIAR.
And you remain as always, completely EVIDENCE FREE
No more squirming and sliming your way out of PRODUCING EVIDENCE !!
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
Half of the warming occurred prior to the time when CO2 levels started increasing.
The rate of warming since the start of the CO2 rise is identical to the rate of warming prior.
We don’t know what caused any of the 4 warmings over the last 5000 years, so it is impossible to say that whatever caused those warmings isn’t in play in the modern warming. BTW, all of the previous warmings reached temperatures well above the current level of the modern warm period. All without the help of CO2, and those warmings were 100% beneficial.
“Now that you know that your statement is false can we trust that you won’t repeat it again?”
Loy-do KNOWS his statements are FALSE / INCORRECT / BLATANT LIES
….. that is WHY he keeps repeating them.
Its PATHOLOGICAL, as well as pathetic.
Loydo says,
Atmospheric CO2 concentration did not start to increase significantly until the 1950’s so how do you explain the warming over the previous 80 years? Could all or some of the modern warming simply being a recovery from the low temperatures of the little ice age period?
Loydo, here’s a little science for you. I am a geologist with multiple degrees and certified in Sequence Stratigraphy. I have walked through the rock unit known as limestone since my first field work in 1967, that’s more than 50 years. Limestone is the combination of debris shed by a living coral reef and actual bleached and preserved insitu reefs. The cycle of reefs flourishing, struggling, dying and moving to another more favorable environment is more than 600 million years long and continuing. Where in this natural cycle is there alarm about the Great Barrier Reef, no matter which side of the issue you take? It’s either undergoing minor natural changes or it’s doomed, along with all other reefs-and 600 million years of cycles mean nothing?
There are no sides Ron, just the stark science of a clear causal chain. Can I ask you this, are you likening natural, cyclic processes spanning centuries, tens and even hundreds of millenia with what humans have done the GBR over the past four or five years and what almost certainly will over the next ten or twenty? Que sera?
Loydo, your question “are you likening natural, cyclic processes…with what humans have done to the GBR over the past four or five years…?. Yes, Loydo, the basic tenant of science is can you detect a signal against the noise of natural background. The GBR is not undergoing anything outside the well-established natural cycles of reef history. Remember, reefs are intra-tidal to shallow water phenomena, so any regional effect of sea level (sea water water shallowing due to El Niño effect, for example) or temperature (ibid) can effect a reef response. Loydo, ask yourself this: how does a 100 million year old reef be preserved intact (intact means corals in growth position, bivalves with ornamentation preserved, etc) end u0p buried hundreds of meters in the stratigraphy? By the way 100 million years is before humans and SUV’s.
And 12 Ka ago the Great Barrier Reef didn’t even exist at least not where it is located now. That would have been dry land.
And even during the last 12 Ka temperatures have been much higher when trees could grow much closer to the poles and much higher up the mountain.
“just the stark science ”
Which you can NEVER produce any of..
WE ARE STILL WAITING.
Regurgitated BS mantra is NOT EVIDENCE.
You have NOTHING except Grimm Bros fantasies.
Climate till WELL WITHIN the bounds of normal natural cycles.
There is NO EVIDENCE that humans have altered the global climate in any way whatsoever
You keep proving that with your abject inability to produce one iota of scientific proof.
As always, Loydo demonstrates that he clearly has no idea what science is. He still believes that the output of models trumps actual, real world data.
“with what humans have done the GBR over the past four or five years”
What have humans “done” to the GBR that you can provide real scientific evidence for. ?
Humans haven’t caused this bleaching, its totally natural.
There was that Rainbow Warrior boat that dumped a whole of oil/rubbish…..
…. intentional pollution, yes, but very local an unlikely to cause bleaching
You can’t continue making inanely dumb and stupid comments with no scientific backing..
…. and expect people not to LAUGH at you.
Simple question.. dare to take a try ???
I’d say you were batting ZERO….. but you aren’t even on the playing field yet..
“What have humans “done” to the GBR that you can provide real scientific evidence for. ?”
Aw c’mon Loy. Coral is one of the oldest lifeforms on earth. They have only been around for about 535,000 millennia. Do you seriously expect a rational human to believe that these past few years have presented them with a greater challenge than anything they have overcome in the past half billion years plus?
Please get a grip.
I love Loydo’s concensus science based comments and quotes. They elicit replies which highlight things I wasn’t aware of but can check fairly easily. What Robertvd has said appears to be the case for areas of the 2016,2017 and 2020 bleaching events.
Standard warmunist logic. He quotes someone who agrees with him, then declares that the issue is settled. Then insults anyone who dares to disagree with the settled science.
As Hivemind pointed out, and you ignored, the areas “surveyed” by the person you claim is a scientist have all recovered. Dead reefs don’t recover, and especially not in 2 years or less.
Mark, if totally obliterated reefs can recover completely in ~ 70 years (Bikini Atoll lagoon), surely merely ‘dead’ reefs have better than a fighting chance of recovery?
But yes, not in 2 years or less.
“Loydo December 6, 2020 at 2:18 am”
From your link;
“Ocean Temperature Outlooks | Coral Bleaching Risk
The latest seasonal SST anomaly outlooks from the Bureau of Meteorology’s dynamical climate
model ACCESS-S for the next six months for all Australian waters.”
Models all the way down.
Loydo, given climate action in Australia is a sham, if you want to put your name to a date by which the reef will be irretrievably dead, feel free to post your number. I suspect it will be wrong.
”“We found the number of small, medium and large corals on the Great Barrier Reef has declined by more than 50 percent since the 1990s…”
If memory serves this was an extrapolation from an aerial survey observing reef crests. It’s bullshit.
“Verified by underwater surveys”. You summarily dismiss their results out of hand so you must be intimately familiar with even ‘better’ data from somewhere else – you have such strong opinions about it. But I suspect your just venting.
I suspect you are just being ignorant.. still
You are certainly just yapping mindlessly, as is your meme.
Bleaching in the GBR is a regular natural event, often at El Ninos due to lower sea levels exposing the coral.
It is NOT CAUSED by anything humans have done.
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE otherwise ?????
And don’t try the “warming” nonsense, because you have already PROVEN many times, that human CO2 does NOT cause any warming.
There is no valid data from earlier than late 70’s they simply didn’t study it back then. Try looking up the history of scuba diving and the history of a marine biology degree .
What you are showing Loydo is complete ignorance .. no-one has data from back there.
Loydo doesn’t need data. He has models. And as long as the models print what Loydo already believes, then the models can’t possibly be wrong.
They “verified” the storm-damaged reef crests and ignored the lagoons, so what does that prove, Loy? (Hint: they can’t be so incompetent so they have to be dishonest)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/29/measuring-old-corals-coral-reefs-part-1/
Now don’t feign ignorance of that. We know it’s your job to read everything posted on WUWT and counter it with agitprop.
“Now don’t feign ignorance”
Believe me, Loy-dumb’s IGNORANCE is very very real. !!
and DELIBERATE. !
““Verified by underwater surveys””
Yep, they verified that the naturally beached areas were bleached.
They knew where to look .
SO WHAT !!
Has happened many many times before.. will happen again.
All part of life’s cycle.
Lowdown, instead of BS comments go and look for yourself, you know imperial evidence.
Just try it, it might open your eyes especially when you bump into beautiful real living coral.
empirical but you knew that
Imperial evidence? We are not amused.
Poor Loy-dumb
Each of the main recent bleaching events has come at El Nino events, where the sea level in the region DROPPED exposing the top surface of the reef to too much sun
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that humans had anything to do with coral bleaching, CO2 or otherwise.
unequivocal evidence shows one of the wonders of the natural world abruptly going down the gurgler.
MORE UTTER AND COMPLETE CRAP from brain-hosed LYING, DECEITFUL loy-troll
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/remarkable-coral-recovery-on-southern-great-barrier-reef-island-20190626-p521kv.html
https://reefecologic.org/coral-shows-strong-recovery-across-the-great-barrier-reef/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-06/coral-reef–at-rowley-shoals-recovers-from-bleaching/12840302
Why do you CHOOSE to remain ignorant ? !!! Is it the only state you are happy in ?? !!!
YOU remain EVIDENCE FREE, just yapping anti-science inanities….
You are the one INVENTING CRAP in your little cult fiction/fantasy la-la-land.
Want to try , or just run away again…. poor pathetic malodorous coward.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
“putting ideology before science.”
We are STILL WAITING for your “science” loy-dumb
All we get from you is your idiotology. !
For you, that idiotology is first, second third and fourth.
Actual SCIENCE NEVER gets even a look-in.
You could prove me wrong.. But you won’t. ! 😉
Here ‘s your chance, little loy-satte.. Let’s see your “science”
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
Wow, you spend hours and hours replying to little ol’ me. You make me feel special, thanks, but how do you find time to do anything else?
He just wants you to answer some basic questions
If you find it annoying why not just finally answer the questions?
Based on your faith, they should have easy answers
You spend hours making up little fantasies which tottlay refusing to back up those little fantasies with ANYTHING even remotely resembling science.
Look at the utterly childish and moronic way you keep dodging, weaving, slithering and oozing in your manic attempts to distract and avoid.
A headless chook to be sure.
You don’t realise that everyone can see that you are TOTALLY EMPTY of any science.
You make a mockery of the whole AGW scam/facade !
Bringing the total lack of any real evidence into the light of day
You see, I KNOW that you cannot answer either of these questions..
….. because there IS NO EVIDENCE… period.
I am USING YOU to highlight that FACT to everybody.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
typo fix
“which tottlay refusing” => “while totally refusing”
Yeah, but why do you bother?
I like showing EVERYONE just how ignorant and mal-informed the below average AGW cultist really is
Thanks for all your assistance. 🙂
You are great to have on own team as the dumb guy !!
Why do YOU bother always putting yourself forward as a dumb ignorant wack-a-mole!?
Once again, when challenged, Loydo runs and hides.
Typical warmunist
Loydo, you ARE special, just not in a good way.
Remember to take off that red nose and make-up when you go to bed tonight, and don’t trip over those long, floppy shoes.
Yep, special in a very unflattering way..
or
> how do you find time to do anything else?
This fred guy is the closest to the “paid troll team” stereotype I have ever seen. He’s activity needs constant, around the clock, 24 hour attention to a multitude of pages. He’s answering posts not addressed to him (so supposedly without notification) with multiple answer below long forgotten articles. Perhaps the expression “Terminal Diarrhea” characterizes best the way he’s excreting that staggering number of meaning-free posts. I even find it possible that he’s a robot ‘cos he’s quite schematic in his writings, and anyway, one single person can’t do this shit for long. I occasionally comment on articles, once in a few weeks and even that can be tiresome.
Poor nyholist.
A PETTY little ignorant self hating ultra-communist evidence-free troll with the morality of a nema0toad.
“One single person can’t do this shit for long.”
Yet you keep going…. whenever you minders let you at the keyboard.
When are you going to get a life that doesn’t include manic gullibility due to your deep and deliberate ignorance
When are you heading to North Korea to be with your socialist totalitarian scumbag mates.
You haven’t made ONE POST ever that had any meaning.
You are the one with constant science free spew.
You just HATE being called on it.
Can we play the little “Find the EVIDENCE” game again, little worm…..
The one where you run around like a headless chook..
… attempting to distract from your petulant insignificance?
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
Your self worth is in the bottom of the sewer, with the rest of your troll droppings.
…. and you can’t do anything about it. poor poor pitiful YOU. 🙂
You poor retched little trollette.
It really hurts you that you are INCAPABLE of countering any of the FACTS I put forward with anything resembling actual science. doesn’t it 🙂
Being grossly incompetent ALL YOUR LIFE , is no excuse.
You are the one posting below forgotten posts…
And what make you think you have any right to tell me which posts I can reply to ?
We are not is your ultra-left controlled u-dope-ia you know.
We are STILL WAITING for you to produce something resembling SCIENCE..
…. and not just puerile, banal, mindless yabbering rhetorical spew.
No its more bizarre than that, he goes on ad nauseum like this at several other sites on top of all this under a range of pseudonyms. Um, tell us more Fred.
Tell us SOMETHING. loy-dope… !
Give us some TINY LITTLE BIT OF EVIDENCE
NOPE.. Still totally empty !!! ?????
So sadly PATHETIC.
Care to try.. just once…. to overcome your utter and complete COWARDICE and INEPTITUDE ?
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
Once again Loydo demonstrates that warmunists do science is to quote people who agree with you.
Loydo doesn’t even address the question he claims to challenge. IE, is bleaching bad for coral reefs. He just repeats ad infinitum, the quotes that the reef is dying. Does he actually provide evidence that the reef is dying? Of course not, he’s quoted people who agree with him, that’s sufficient for his small, minimally functional mind.
Question. How did the Great Barrier Reef survive the last ice age when the ocean was about 300ft lower?
Loydo, you’ve convinced me.
I live in Cairns so I promise this afternoon to go and take a leak in the Pacific Ocean. What, between the rise in sea levels and ocean acidification I can cause personally I reckon I can kill off the whole damned reef in one go.
Then we can have a chat about what all those destitute “reef scientists” are going to do with their spare time. Perhaps they can write romance novels.
/sarc
Ha ha ha. You have never seen the reef, have you?
Mmm, eight billion self-centred, hairless monkeys ransacking the planet, what could possibly go wrong.
No, thats right, its all a communist rent-seeking plot.
Your evidence there are 8 billion hairless people? Or the fact you cannot prove the BGR is in an danger?
The Breat Garrier Reef is fine, it’s the other one not doing so well.
GBR is recovering well from the NATURAL, regular bleaching episodes.
And yes, all other reefs are also doing fine
As you know, there is no evidence that human CO2 has any causation whatsoever for the NATURAL events
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
3: Do you have any scientific evidence that human CO2 causes natural coral reef bleaching events ?
Or will you continue with your mindless fantasy/fiction statements, unbacked by anything remotely resembling real science.
How can the GBR possibly be recovering. Loydo has quoted a learned scientist who mustn’t be questioned as stating that he looked at a small part of the reef one day, and it was dead.
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the entire reef was dead and would always remain so.
How dare you question the words of a scientist that agrees with the great Loydo. You must be some kind of a science denier. Beyond that you are probably a hairless ape bent on ransacking the planet while refusing to share any of it with the great Loydo.
“while refusing to share any of it with the great Loydo.”
Loy-do TAKES ……
… everything he has and does is built on released CO2 and the capitalist system.
He would NEVER give up those massive benefits.
Once again, Loydo demonstrates that it is incapable of actually dealing with anyone on a level higher than grade school insults.
”Mmm, eight billion self-centred, hairless monkeys ransacking the planet”
This has NOTHING TO DO with habitat destruction, over exploitation etc. It’s all about the heat dude.
You have no idea what you are talking about. No one here desires environmental degradation. Bleaching, caused by high temps supposedly, is DOCUMNETED as being perfectly natural, having been recorded as occurring for 1000’s of years. The coral is still there. Do you know better?
Do you believe that all natural systems are static?
Loydo, if you have evidence mankind is causing a huge problem why don’t you put it together into a well referenced post and ask Anthony to publish it?. I can’t speak for Anthony, but he sometimes publishes essays from people he disagrees with, if they are polite and well written.
Um Eric, “a well referenced post…” doesn’t mean cut and pasting and padding it with a sentence or two as an afterthought. Just sayin’.
Dodging and squirming again hey, little coward.
You know you can’t even present one tiny bit of scientific evidence to support your anti-science garbage statements….
Why do you choose to make such a pathetic anti-science LOSER spectacle of yourself.
You don’t expect the great Loydo to actually admit that he is a total charlatan, do you?
Next thing we know, you might start demanding that the great Loydo prove that he is superior to a bunch of hairless apes.
“You don’t expect the great Loydo to actually admit that he is a total charlatan, do you?”
But he makes it obvious for ALL to see.
Total lack of action in the way of scientific evidence….
….. is far more pointed than his mindless regurgitations of all the AGW BS he has ingested.
People notice as they see him squirming around in evasion and distraction.
They start questioning……
they ask, “Why can’t he/she/it produce any evidence?”
…… and come to the realisation that its all a hoax/scam/fraud.
He does IMMENSE damage to the AGW cult because of that.
In other words, Loydo is incapable of putting together such a post but he can’t admit to it, so instead he’ll fling a few more insults and hope that nobody notices how pathetic he has become.
Reaching out Loydo. Up to you.
You can reduce the number of hairless monkeys by one….
Loy is more like a nema-toad… a parisite on society
… not evolved to a monkey stage yet.
But H. Sapiens is NOT monkeys. Monkeys, generally speaking, have tails (unless they had a fight and bit off someone’s tail), although some species do not have tails. Monkeys are in superfamilies Cercopithecoidea and Ceboidea.
Apes do not have tails, period. And we’re part of the Great Apes (no tails) and while I am about half their size, I would not mind playing checkers with one of them.
“Monkeys, generally speaking, have tails”
Loy-do has FAIRY-TAILS. !
Now, Fred, that’s an entirely different chapter in the story.
For all you Antipodeans, no Murdochians or mad hatters obviously, you might be interested in a live broadcast this weekend on ABC, of the GBR mass coral spawning.
…..probably not a lot to see as we have been scientifically informed that it’s all pretty much dead.
Why not tune in to see just how dead it is.
Just saw a quick take on the local Oz TV. It said that it was the greatest coral spawning ever seen, and that it would help the reef recover from its “death throes”. But apparently nobody stopped to think that a very big spawning event would be impossible from a dead reef. The sheer illogical statements from local press are astounding.
oh aunty abc has doublespeak down pat!
I will keep mentioning the huge spawning from the dead reefs though
pure gold
A great point from my namesake!
When have alarmists like Loydo and Griff ever been logically consistent?
You are certainly not much more than a brain-dead monkey
If you think there are too many humans.. Do the right thing and LEAVE.
You don’t even listen to your AGW cult priests, who have said time and time again that it is a plan to install socialism
At least if you are going to be a brain-washed fundaMENTAList AGW cultist, listen to what your masters say. !!
You haven’t reached the level of monkey, yet, loy, nor ever likely too.
Just the equivalent of a cockroach pleading for attention.
WHY DO YOU HATE YOURSELF SO MUCH ???
Like most progressives, Loydo demonstrates that his core motivation is a hatred of humanity.
Self centered: IE, they keep refusing to give what they have earned to losers like Loydo.
ransacking: They dare to take advantage of the bounty offered by nature. Don’t they know that they are supposed to suffer and die so that trolls like Loydo can feel superior to them.
“eight billion self-centred”
No loy, there are very few people as self-centred as you.
Stop judging everyone by your below zero standards of morality.
The solution is clear. You first!
It’s been doomed at 5 yearly intervals for a long as I can remember. Still, if the thing finally does die, at least we will be able to blast some proper shipping channels through it.
Same it’s been dying or going to die for my entire life. My parents even talk of wanting to be Marine Biologists because of the TV series “flipper” and going and saving the reef … so it’s been dying for two generations now.
How many generations are there in 0.535 billion years?
(That’s how long coral has existed).
Hey, not so fast with the coral reef protection racket down there in Oz.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-pledges-protection-for-corals#:~:text=The%20UK's%20waters%20are%20home,Marine%20Conservation%20Zone%20(MCZ).&text=There%20are%20also%20extensive%20reefs,this%20fragile%20habitat%20from%20damage.
Here in the UK we have decided we need to protect coral too.
British waters are particularly rich in corals and guess what they need protecting from climate change.
I gather the problem with corals is they don’t like it hot? Here is a question for the experts concerning corals and their habitat.
Do corals evolve to exist in waters of almost any temp?
UK waters are very cold, if you try to swim in them at Christmas, as some people do, you make national news! Unlike in Australia, where I am told people actually have beach barbies and regularly swim in the waters there? Just to rub in the hard man image of Australians, it doesn’t even make the news. 🙂
Now rumour has it there are corals thriving in the Red Sea. I have sailed in the Red Sea and can confirm the water there is hotter than a Santa swimmer experiences down in Oz,
We have corals in frigid UK waters we have corals in warm Australian waters and we have corals thriving in hot Red Sea waters.
Are we sure corals are such delicate creatures/systems they don’t know how to adapt to changing conditions?
Best do some research to find a temperature tipping point. I wonder if there are any grants available? I would love to spend some time sailing around looking at corals…..:)
Keep me posted.
To demonstrate just how adaptable corals are, they completely resurrected themselves after being anhillated by atomic bomb tests in the Bikini Islands in the 1950s.
“ Now rumour has it ”
https://www.coral-reef-info.com/red-sea-coral-reefs/
All this BS about the GBR is a gross insult to all those individuals and agencies who worked on the Landcare projects, that massively reduced the nutrient run-off.
Clowns in aircraft 300 metres above the Reef cannot be relied on. You have to go and look, like Jennifer Marohasy has done recently. Go look at her stuff at https://jennifermarohasy.com/
One problem with the Crown of Thorns mob was, they chopped the things up and threw the bits overboard. 6 pieces? 6 new CoT starfish. Duh.
And no the sea temperature isn’t going up, even though the BoM is reporting temperatures that are well above the maximum possible. How do I know? The Coral Sea is about 200m from my door, and the nearest Reef is about 40km away.
Daft question. Does coral bleach because it dies or is it because the life it plays host to vacates when conditions change? For example a change in water temperature or salinity. When other life, which thrives in the ‘new’ conditions, starts to inhabit the host the bleaching disappears.
Coral will expell their symbiotic algae when stressed causing the bleached look. They are still alive and can recover and ‘un-bleach’ if conditions improve, but if they remain bleached for too long they die.
And they ARE RECOVERING
https://www.kidsnews.com.au/environment/coral-recovery-hope-for-great-barrier-reef/news-story/020502a244fa587055ba11aa88642dec
https://reefecologic.org/coral-shows-strong-recovery-across-the-great-barrier-reef/
Natural bleaching, natural recovery
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HUMAN CAUSATION,
certainly not from atmospheric CO2..
YOU have proven that many many times.
It’s all the same corals that exist elsewhere closer to the equator in warmer water.
The coral is fine, it didn’t die out during much warmer periods in the last 10,000 years, why would it die now in a cooler period?
Surely you aren’t going to still with that “hottest ever” garbage?
Hottest evah! Going all the way back to the primordial 1970s.
It should be pointed out that within the GBR, areas the size of Belgium can suffer natural bleaching from natural events such as cyclones. And they recover naturally, as part of the natural cycle of life. New coral just builds on top of dead coral – that’s how coral reefs grow. The amount of live coral has NOT changed since the reef was first studied in detail in the 1980s – parts just goes through natural cycles.
Many years ago when the Amazon rain forest was being cut down it was claimed that an area the size of Belgium was felled every year. Comedians suggested that we just clear Belgium.
Lyodo, Sorry to be a first time replier to you but in this instance I could not help myself. I sailed the reef for 2 years after retiring. North to south in all weather. I can tell you that ALL STORIES OF THE REEFS DEMISE are crap. I have witnessed the coral spawning on 2 seperate occasions lasting about 2 weeks each time and the spawn was visible from horizon to horizon where ever we sailed. Have you ever been to the reef? let alone spent 2 years on it? If you have no first hand knowledge of the site why are you even putting your two cents in. I really find it laughable that all these stories are perpetuated by people who have not bothered to see for themselves but believe the absolute BS of rent seekers.
I’ve lived Cairns and Townsville and I’ve dived on the reef a dozen or so times, but that was twenty years ago. I don’t recall seeing any bleaching back then, only dead patches from crown of thorns starfish. When did you sail the reef?
So have you dived those same location recently?
Loydo, have you thought that your, and hundreds of others ,diving on the GBR in a limited number of locations and breathing out CO2 rich air into the water where it quickly dissolves and changes the chemistry might have something to do with problems seen by the next set of divers also messing with water chemistry.
Chemistry is mostly from the toxic (for corals) substances in sunscreens.
Corals thrive on CO2.. they use it to build with.. like plants do.
WOW, with all you PANIC and FEAR of global warming..
you STILL choose to live in or visit Cairns and Townsville
Now that is JUST HILARIOUS !!
How did you possibly get through it without a severe mental breakdown
Oh wait.. you obviously didn’t. !!
I have always found it logically implausible that a wonder of nature that has survived millions of years through 10+ degrees of changed temperatures, and thrives in much hotter temperatures around the world would be threatened by one or two degrees of temperature change. Only the most indoctrinated global warming alarmist fanatic could even start with this as a hypothesis.
I actually think that those who spout such obvious falsehoods are actually guilty of deliberately damaging the tourist industry and should be sued in a major class action by the tourism operators in Northern Queensland. And as much as I blame the Queensland government and the James Cook University I also blame the Federal government for not calling out this none sense. It’s ridiculous that the fight against this deliberate misinformation has had to be carried out by Peter Ridd and his private sponsors when the one who has suffered most is the Australian tax payers who have seen billions of dollars of revenue disappear from the system from potential tourists who have been dissuaded from holidaying in North Queensland by these unsubstantiated claims as to the health of the GBR.
Just a question, Fred: The panic attacks about coral bleaching in the Australian GBR occur regularly, but no one ever says a word about anything like that in the Bahamas coral banks. Could there be a REASON for that?
Just askin’, because there are fossilized layers of coral in the Bahamas that show a pattern of growth and diebacks, that’s all. And here’s some backup for that:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027737919400108N
Nice link Sara. 🙂
ALL coral reefs undergo periodic bleaching events.. its part of reef life cycles.
Again, we have the idiots, like loy et al, that think coral reefs are never-changing structures.
Just DUMB. !
Ah! Thank you for that feedback, Fred. Since, in living organisms, I have yet to find anything that says “never, ever changing’, and you don’t even get that in rocks and mountains and deserts, it supports the opposite of the “never-changers'” view that nothing ever changes, which is stale baloney.
Doesn’t even make a good sandwich.
I’m trying to understand the cognitive dissonance in someone’s mind that shuts off the idea of change. Change, to them, must be scarier than a pack of barking cats. (Don’t get me started on that one.)
I’m taking the view that the atmosphere itself is becoming somewhat erratic, with more and more episodes of unexplained severity (all seasons on that, too) and may account for the increasing frequency of violent land storms, never mind at sea. Just not sure about that, or what the connection might be, but it IS WEATHER, not the other thing. Weather seems to go through cycles of heavy precip in all seasons, for instance, and then backs off and goes the opposite way. That’s the short term, and that’s what we should be looking at more closely.
Climate change? It’s been happening for millions of years and Hoomans have had nothing to do with it. It was happening long before we existed. How was it affected by continental drift? We’re on a very active planet where nothing – repeat, NOTHING – is smooth and wonderful and predictable. The best meteorologist in know of can only give a reasonably accurate forecast for a week’s worth of weather. Beyond that, it’s “best guess”. (Still don’t know how the OFA people do it, but they frequently come within barking distance.)
OH, golly Bill, I found something else! Looks like the Great Barrier Reef has had FIVE EPISODES of so-called “death events” in the last 30,000 years. Golly durn! That just kind of blows a hole in this whole GBR dead forever twaddle, doesn’t it?
Here you go:
https://nypost.com/2018/05/29/fossils-reveal-how-great-barrier-reef-survived-5-previous-deaths/
Corals are kind of resilient critters, not nearly as complicated as us 2-leggers and the 4-leggers we think we can control (can’t, really). Just thought some of you might like a sort of different view of the “THREAT” to the GBR. From that article:
Webster and an international team wanted to view the reef’s current plight within a long-term context. Over 10 years, they studied how it had responded to changes caused by continental ice sheets expanding and waning over 30 millennia.
Their research covers a period from before the “Last Glacial Maximum” or LGM — the peak freeze about 21,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. The average sea level at the time was some 120 meters (131 yards) lower than today.
As sea levels dropped leading up to the LGM, there were two massive “death events” about 30,000 and 22,000 years ago, the team found. These were caused by the reef being exposed to air. What remained of it inched seaward to rebound later.
As ice sheets melted after the LGM, two die-offs — 17,000 and 13,000 years ago — were due to sea level rise, the team found. In these cases, the reef moved itself landward. – article
It appears to me that the dieback and recovery are handled quite well by the coral critters themselves – those small organisms that create the hard corals – and even if they lose water volume, they can migrate to a safer place. I am EXTREMELY sure, since they are rather primitive organisms, that THEY will still be around when we Hoomans have long since disappeared from the planet as a species.
Any questions? Anyone? Bueller?
I think the biggest problem is we have records which cover hundreds and thousands of years and we’re comparing them them to near real time analysis. There just isn’t the granularity in a fossil record for a day by day comparison which can be done.
This is allowing for Grand standing by those who wish to feel guilt and responsibility where none should exist.
In 1985 I took a party of 160 people on our high speed catamaran out to our facility at Hardy Reef, out from the Whitsunday Islands. The party consisted of most if not all the management & scientific staff from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science & the marine biology department of James Cook university, & some of their families.
A number of the scientists appeared to take great delight in telling me we would be out of business with in 3 years, as the crown of thorns star fish would have cleaned out all the reef in our area. When I told them that the dive school instructors & their students we took out there 3 times a week on our daily reef trips, had seen only one crown of thorns star fish in the last 6 months, they told me that obviously these people didn’t know what one looked like.
That was 1985, & tourists are still amazed at the sights of the same reef today. I wonder if it was the divers, or the scientists who did not know what the star fish looked like.
Tell me, does the Australian government, the state govts in the NE, their tourism authorities, do they use the GBR as a tourism draw, to help draw in millions of tourists?
Same as our tourist destinations here in canada like Victoria, Whistler, Banff etc?
I continue to laugh at these jurisdictions that proclaim climate emergencies, full of well meaning idiots proposing to sue oil companies for “climate harm” while on the very same websites bragging as to how many tourists came in previous years and pushing for more, every one of which arrives thanks to hydrocarbon based travel thereby increasing the climate emergency.
I continue to have no respect for such idiots and clowns
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/05/claim-the-great-barrier-reef-is-critical-because-of-climate-change/#comment-3140429
Robertvd’s comment is the Q.E.D. comment on this thread and should lead off every GBR harangue. Indeed, the GBR was not even where it is now 12,000yrs ago because the current region was a mass of dry land with sealevel down 120m from today’s level. And you the GBR science-lites professors actually do not know this! Possibly Peter Ridd may not even know this – it should have appeared in his protestations.
Now here is a real, bonafide PhD study that, although any geologist could have told them about it, has probably never been done (I dont have time to search our first corrupted science’s literature – y’all know biology died over 80yrs ago, I’m sure). Study the 120m depth level for the once dry land base that the modern reef rests on. It will be a flat plain under which is a 100,000yr old dead earlier edition of the GBR. Now look at the flanking areas around this at greater depth and there you WILL find the likely defunct Glacial Max generation of the GBR. The reef would have simply colonized this deeper water as the reef ’emerged’ from the sea.
Yes Gary, it is common knowledge among those involved with the reef at least that the outer edge of the reef was a range of low hills for much of it. Much of the rest was low plain.
Each square meter of coral has 10,000 polyps or more.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/education/tutorial/crw03_coralreef.php
The GBR covers about 344,400 sq km, but of course not every sq m is covered with coral. If only 10% of the area has live coral, then that would be about 34 billion sq meters. Thus 3.4e+14 polyps.
Each mature polyp releases 6-8 eggs during spawning.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68289-4
So we can estimate that during each spawning event, about 2.4e+15 eggs are released. (About 7,000 per sq meter of sea surface in the GBR). Those that are fertilized float freely on the currents until a suitable substrate is found.
Understanding this numerical reality, is it any wonder that coral have successfully survived for 535 million years?
After the coral spawn Rich, you get many of patches of dead spore in areas of tens of acres each, floating on the surface for days. These are either brown or yellow, & the brown will stain the paint of boats if not washed off quickly. Ask me how I know .
You also get quite thick drifts of the stuff washed up on beaches with on shore winds. These become very smelly for a week or two.
Re: “the GBR is almost dead” stories that run repetitively in the msm –
for most of my earlier years (say, 1960 to around 1998), I could not get my head around how so many people got taken in by the yuuuuge lies that ‘leaders’ such as H!tler, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc, etc told their citizens, and got away with them.
(oh, and that JFK was offed by lone-wolf magical sniper Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone)
Now, reading stories such as the death of the GBR in ‘respectable’ media, I understand how Goebbels et al pulled off their propaganda tricks –
use ‘experts’ to tell yuuuuge lies (not little ones), and repeat them ad nauseam.
Oh, and make sure the propaganda is about something that ordinary folk can’t check by using their own lyin’ eyes.
Like GBR health, for example.
Warmists are very concerned about the Earth’s temp increasing from 287 K to 289 K.
The evil 2 degree increase.
It will kill the GBR.
I understand that the temp diff from one end of the GBR to the other is 5 degrees.
Yep. And there is plenty of coral in the high tropics, North of the GBR.
At worst, 2C global warming will cause the reef to expand Southwards a little.
Yep.
Look what a bit of slightly warmer water (Australian East Coast Current) does for much more southerly coral reefs around Lord Howe Island.
(Need to be seen up-close & personal to believe how truly beautiful they are. So none of your 1,000 ft high, 100 mph fly-by photos bullshit to claim bleaching & dying, thanks Terry Hughes)
What happened to Peter Ridds challenge to other reef scientists to do some independently monitored test on the reef as he thought they had examined corals that were too young for the result they came up with? I remember him saying he would go away and not be heard from again or words to that effect if he was proven wrong. Effectively a put up or shut up from a very honourable man.
Peter Ridd has another appeal hearing coming up shortly.
The idea of the GB being some immutable natural phemomenon which is only now dying, entirely because of man, is laughable rubbish. The GBR in its current form is only about 8000 years old, and would have been 120 metres up a desert slope 20,000 years ago when sea levels were 120 metres below that of today.
Corals have been around for 500 million years… they are pretty adaptable, and have shown reat resilience … I am sure if surface temperatures rise a little, they will find better conditions a little lower down
There is a long tradition of myths of death and resurrection, the barrier reef coral myth of repeated death and return to life joins this rich collection of cultural mythology.
For example, Osiris of ancient Egypt was one of the first to be associated with the mummy wrap. When his brother, Set, cut him up into pieces after killing him, Isis, his wife, found all the pieces and wrapped his body up, enabling him to return to life.
The Sumerian deity Dumuzid has a sister Inanna who dies. Dumuzid fails to adequately mourn Inanna’s death and, when she returns from the Underworld, she allows the galla demons to drag him down to the Underworld as her replacement. Inanna later regrets this decision and decrees that Dumuzid will spend half the year in the Underworld, but the other half of the year with her, while his sister Geshtinanna stays in the Underworld in his place, thus resulting in the cycle of the seasons.
In corresponding Greek mythology the goddess Aphrodite found the infant Adonis and gave him to be raised by Persephone, the queen of the Underworld. Adonis grew into an astonishingly handsome young man, causing Aphrodite and Persephone to feud over him, with Zeus eventually decreeing that Adonis would spend one third of the year in the Underworld with Persephone, one third of the year with Aphrodite, and the final third of the year with whomever he chose. Adonis chose to spend his final third of the year with Aphrodite.
Likewise Dionysus was believed to have been born from the union of Zeus and Persephone, and to have himself represented an underworld aspect of Zeus. Many believed that he had been born twice, having been killed and reborn as the son of Zeus and the mortal Semele.
In ancient Turkey the daemon god Agdistis initially bore both male and female attributes – a non-binary god! But the trans-phobic Olympian gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ and cast it away. There grew up from it an almond-tree, and when its fruit was ripe, Nana, who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius, picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant. Nana abandoned the baby (Attis). The infant was tended by a he-goat. As Attis grew, his long-haired beauty was godlike, and his mother, Cybele, then fell in love with him. And so on …
Now to add to this we have the myth of coral trolls that lie underwater staring at the moon each night. When the world of men pollute the air with their foul engines, the trolls can no longer see the moon at night. So in grief they banish the algal cells from their mineral matrix and turn as pale as the moon, in this way entreating the skies to clear and the moon to return. The moon on due course returns but the coral trolls die. However the moon urinates into the sea fertilising new growth of the coral trolls which return to life. And so the cycle of death and rebirth of the corals continues endlessly.