WRITTEN BY PETER RIDD ON JUL 23, 2021
The annual data on coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels.
Record high, despite all the doom stories by our reef science and management institutions.
Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years, and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.
This data is good news. It could hardly be better. But somehow, our science organizations have convinced the world that the reef is on its last legs. How has this happened?
One reason is that occasionally colossal amounts of coral are killed, mostly by cyclones, but also by the crown of thorns starfish and bleaching.
So the media, with its predilection for bad news, can be fed a regular diet of doom. Our scientists are always happy to oblige.
The quiet recovery is generally downplayed or ignored.
Growing up in Innisfail, adjacent to the reef, in the early 1970s, I recall the initial doom stories about the reef.
The scientific study of the reef had only just started, and plagues of starfish that eat the coral had just been discovered and were making headlines worldwide. The reef had, supposedly, only a decade left.
It was reasonable in the ’70s to be concerned about these plagues and they ultimately precipitated AIMS’ long-term monitoring of coral and starfish in the ’80s.
I was working at AIMS when this important work started, and it is interesting to look back on what has changed.
The coral cover is no less, the number of starfish is no more, but the number of scientists and managers working on the reef has exploded. Perhaps this is the problem.
In 50 years we have now learned a great deal about the cycles of coral death and regrowth. The data reported every year by AIMS shows all areas go through these cycles every decade or two.
Remarkably, even the excellent news of record coral still has the scientists pessimistic. The reef is, apparently, still doomed from climate change and this is just a temporary reprieve. How well does the data need to be to make them admit the reef is fine?
The science institutions have been claiming that there have been three disastrous bleaching events in the past five years, which does not accord with the latest statistics.
Record coral cover means there was no disaster on the reef. The only disaster is the quality assurance at the science organizations.
An examination of the data shows that, while there have been three events, they occurred in largely different regions in each year. The reef has thus effectively had one major bleaching event in the past five years and the previous major event was in 2002.
So the reef has had roughly one event in 15 years, and most of the coral on the reef did not bleach and most that bleached did not die. Therefore, it is not surprising that the reef is in good shape.
The science institutions have been caught out by their own deception. They exaggerated the bleaching events – as usual.
Luckily, we have the AIMS long-term coral monitoring surveys, which are done professionally with good-quality protocols, to demonstrate the state of the reef.
The bad news is that the record high coral cover means it is likely that coral cover will decline in the next few years.
Prepare for the headlines saying the reef has lost much of its coral and is indicative of climate change and farmers polluting the reef. And the reef will be predicted to be gone by 2050 – or whenever.
When will these doom stories about the reef, which have been going for 50 years, cease? Will it be like the Ancient Greek legend of Prometheus, who was chained alive to a rock so that his liver could be eaten by an eagle, only for the liver to grow overnight so that it could be eaten again and again? Will the agony ever end?
They manage to adjust with the massive sea level rise and warmer oceans of thousands of years ago.
Meltwater Pulse
Wikipedia description link for the chart
Yeah but it’s the speed of change. Oh, the SPEED! 😉
The speed of the weirdness! Devastation, then unsustainably desperate attempts to somehow hang on, then more devastation … This may be a harbinger of the next level of catastrophic climate Hell; Climate Convulsions!!
(Damn, I was so mortified that I left out the ‘change’. The next level of catastrophic climate change Hell; Climate Convulsions.)
I like Climate Convulsions. I beg you, please continue to use that descriptive text!
Did you mean ‘climate epilepsy’?
Abnormal brain activity appears to cause climate delusions.
Climate obliteration. Climate Armageddon. Climate disintegration.
That’s the problem …
too many AGWists are consuming ‘speed’ removing logic & rational thought.
Lol
The “money graph”, as media writers like to say, is:
Suggested reading, this post on AreoMagazine this week:
https://areomagazine.com/2021/07/22/to-save-science-slash-the-number-of-phds/
We have an oversupply of “climate scientists” all trying to get noticed, to make a name for themselves, in a world that does not need their services. Hence, they get ever more hysterical and over the top in their claims, so that they can make a buck.
According to the post on AreoMagazine, the area in STEM that has the most oversupply of PhDs is – surprise, surprise, surprise! – life sciences.
I would imagine that the oversupply off PHDs has a lot to do with the lack of repeatability of most published papers. After several years searching for a permanent position the temptation to fudge the data ‘just a little bit’ might become a bit overwhelming. After all, who would ever know? :<)
No, the doom-and -gloom will NOT end, regardless of data. Media pessimists get too much attention, and too much sanctimonious self-regard from awfulizing.
Right on, Tom. The buzz phrase is “show me the money”, and doom and gloom sells and is funded. When was the last time you saw the headlines “everything is good, have a great day”? The irony is that taxpayer money is being distributed to the doomsters.
If they said ” everything is good, have a great day ” their funding would disappear.
While doom and gloom prevails in the media, taking a long term view is a bit different. We’re halfway through a climate optimum. The glaciers melted some 10,000 years ago. The best estimates from ice core data that ~20,000 years is that the length a climate optimum. We ‘re likely in the beginnings of a 10,000 year change back to glaciation, likely even worse than the last one(which nearly killed by reducing CO2 to ~150ppm.
In addition, we are in the middle of two solar minimums. The first one has ended and the next one is beginning.The last 20 years the weather(climate) has changed sporadically in many places, often helped by mankind(California wildfires). It is very likely to continue for another 20+ years.
The Climate Change extremists ignore this and focus on piddling little episodes of possibly possible Global Warming..
It’s time they woke up to the facts.
It is the apocalypse of the evil New Religion
not to mention that “climate change is the cash cow of all time. the opportunity to tax the bejeesus out of the entire globe.
The earth including its climate is more more resilient than our alarmistic “thinking” allows us to comprehend; fortunately!
Near as I can tell, the Earth isn’t sentient. Resilience is what concerns humans, at least for as long as humans are around.
–
The Earth could turn into a barren rock tomorrow and it won’t care. It can’t care. It could become a lush global paradise and the Earth still won’t care.
–
It’s poor thinking to do anything for the Earth. It’s better to think of how we humans manage ourselves and our adaptation to the changes the Earth undergoes. Anyone here know how to stop the continental plates from moving around? …….. I thought not.
–
P.S. oebele – I know what you meant when you used ‘resilient’ to mean some of Earth’s systems swing back to some central state. Certain systems get lush or crash, and then go through a ‘normal’ balance on their way back and forth from the edges.
As you point out, “It’s better than we thought.”
–
“All the Earth is constantly changing and it’s never the same as it once was. You can never cross the same river twice.”
~Captain Obvious
😜
And speaking of resilience, particularly of coral reefs, let’s not forget that the reefs at Bikini Atoll were totally obliterated in the 1950s by atomic bomb testing, but had resurrected themselves to their former glory in just 60 years.
Without any help at all from “expert” coral scientists.
Which came as a surprise to the “scientists”, but not to any of us.
Excellent point! Of course AGW/CC is apparently WORSE than nuclear war, or something like that……
Plus actual Climate change reacts more slowly than any BBC watching alarmist can comprehend.
The belief that the Great Barrier Reef is dying is a religious belief not a scientifically based knowledge. The Media and UN will continue with the doom-and gloom. The Media lives on pessimisms and doom. They are not interested in the truth, there is no money in it.
It’s a case of the old adage, “News travels fast, but nothing travels faster than bad news!”.
… or the other old saw that a lie can be half way around the world before the truth has its pants on to go chase it. Quote Investigator
From the same article linked above is this dilly:
Marxists have a problem with that idea.
Wasn’t that a Mark Twain quote?
What became of the Crown of Thorns starfish that were supposed to have eaten the entire reef 60 years ago? Did they go extinct because Climate Change?
They’re still around, just not in the overwhelming numbers predicted by the doomsters.
They were reportedly present in large numbers back in the 70s. My thought at the time was overfishing–not that fish eat starfish (yuck), but that they eat the larva or eggs. But I doubt that overfishing is any less of a problem today, in fact it’s probably worse (thanks in no small part to China, from what I hear). So what reduced the numbers of Crown of Thorns Starfish? Surely someone has looked into it.
I would say natural variation.
When the numbers are increasing, pseudoscientists claim they will continue to increase forever and ever until they completely destroy the BBR. They must be pseudoscientist to believe such rot.
A scientist knows infinity is NEVER reached in nature, except in the case of actual extinctions. Only a liberal can believe that the infinity of the elimination of the GBR is possible in human time scales.
As has been stated before, liberalism is a mental disorder, which grossly effects a liberal’s ability to use LOGIC and REASON.
Wouldn’t their population decrease if they had significantly tore up the coral (their food source). Then the remaining coral recovers?
So what reduced the numbers of Crown of Thorns Starfish?
Counting them more accurately.
Nature’s Way… think “rabbits” and their ‘ebb and flow’, along with, I suppose, all creatures.
They got deposed.
The focus on the GBR is of course because of its global tourism focus, meanwhile other significant coral reefs around Australia are rarely mentioned, and this reveals the political motives.
I believe it’s the largest in the world, also.
Alarmist and grauniad headlines tomorrow:
All of which are badly out of context and reality but accurate in a small sense.
Bleaching in corals is like burning in forests. Essential for long term health.
Don’t forget heathlands too!!!
And prairies: the prairies need regular burns to put nutrients back in the dirt!
How do you know? Fires in forests reduce deadwood (which otherwise causes first to burn much larger and hotter), and open areas to sunlight so non-climax trees and other plants have a chance. How does bleaching help reefs?
The same way. The corals that replaced bleached corals are often not the same. Bleaching creates a niche.
Bleached corals are not dead.
Bleaching occurs when a coral expels it’s symbiotic algae.
What most commonly happens next is that the coral reacquires another algae more suited to the current conditions.
It has been estimated long since that about 10% of all corals get bleached annually, and always has done.
When some of the coral actually does die, it remains to form a substrate for the corals spawned by the next round of sexual reproduction.
Corals reproduce in vast profusion, and what generally limits how many of the spawn survive is how many of them can find a suitable substrate to settle onto before they get eaten.
Thank you.
Now,…AU government,… please defund the wet-behind-the-ears post graduate reef ”experts” spending gazillions of taxpayer $ on trying to create Frankenstein corals to save the reef.
1/ They won’t succeed, (the reef environment will ultimately decide what corals live or die) it’s a waste of money
2/ Even if they did it wouldn’t make the slightest difference.
3/ And let’s not forget that if you just leave it alone instead of looking for problems that are not there, it will manage just fine.
It’s very important to them. Doing this means that they can claim to have saved it, despite Climate Change ™.
The same is true for geoengineering projects. Both must be stopped.
The science institutions have been caught out by their own deception. They exaggerated the bleaching events – as usual.
One might also suspect that polar bear counts suffered from the same problem, eh?
Peter, thank you for this report. Many people in the UK, USA and elsewhere have been following your battle for truth and justice against a morally-corrupt university. The truth will out.
The truth will out.
Not if the Democrats have anything todo with it.
Or the JCU! Hypocrites all!
Do they know what it is ? Truth ?
According to the Post-Modernists the truth is what they say it is.
Kudos to Peter Ridd for being a man of courage and integrity, for standing up to vicious and hateful alarmists, for not backing down in the face of great adversity. The man is a hero.
There have been positive news stories of the reef lately, but only because it’s been threatened to take away the world heritage status.
Turns out, it’s not THAT bad after all…
The ChiComs are not nice people.
“The science institutions have been claiming that there have been three disastrous bleaching events in the past five years, which does not accord with the latest statistics.”
Meanwhile Chris Bowen (ALP) got his legs or something crossed claiming 5 events in 3 years.
“The government can lobby the Barrier Reef off the list but they can’t lobby it out of danger,” senior MP Chris Bowen said.
“The Barrier Reef remains in danger. We know that there’s been five (coral) bleaching episodes in three years, there’s been multiple warnings over recent years by UNESCO,” he said. ”
The New Daily
This will upset climate betwetters and The Guardian readers.
Is that “bedwetters”, perhaps?
The unfortunate reality is this. When the unadjusted truth, does not compliment the woke climate alarmists agenda. they simply make alterations to the data until it does.
The most important feature of real science is, it must present the facts, the actual data must be there unmassaged for real unbiased investigation to persist and for science to retain its role and reputation of sceptical inquiry.
Radiosondes, satellites (UAH, preferably) and ARGO are the only data sources even remotely able to discern global warming trends. Analyses of observed warming have resulted in establishing maximum ECS at about 1.5 C/Century. Nothing is perfect, but perfect is the enemy of the good.
All of that effort and money spent on creating world temperature records with interpolated data and junk inputs, and the fools have themselves convinced they have data to model a planet. It’s absurd.
The agony will continue as long as it pays so well….
‘Shame’ is a concept unknown to climate activists.
In “Climate Change:The Facts 2017”,Dr.Peter Ridd wrote the article “The Extraordinary Resilience of The Great Barrier Reef.”
It is looking better and better.
The conclusion was-
“Due to the remarkable mechanisms that corals have developed to adapt to changing temperatures, especially the ability to swap symbionts,corals are perhaps the least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change – natural or man-made.”
The bad news is that the record high coral cover means it is likely that coral cover will decline in the next few years.
In other words, if you’re a climate crusader the Great Coral Reef is the gift that keeps on giving.
Look on the bright side … it can only get worse !!
The story of the liver is interesting, as a measure of ‘How Things Have Changed’
Tho not everywhere which is how ‘we work it out’
The liver is the fat processor of any animal that has one, that our own livers are so large must tell somebody something, but no.
For the hunters as we originally were, the liver was The Prize – The Very Best Bit.
And so there became a ritual surrounding the thing, carried on to this very day:
The Romantic Candlelit Dinner
… which we all think we know about: Boy organises an expensive treat for his ‘intended’ Girl.
If she accepts his treat, Girl gives Boy ‘a treat’ in return.
Thus= One very hard drawn out business deal.
Nowadays, Boy’s treat is (nearly raw) meat (classically steak = Bison??), wine and candles
The original Romantic Dinner was freshly caught raw liver, blood (loaded with salt to stop it congealing) and flickering light from the campfire ##
That is how Girl decided which Boy became the father of her babies.
It is what made us what we are
How things have changed.
Low to zero fat meat. A lot of protein is toxic for us.
Alcohol instead of blood – any amount of alcohol is toxic to us, especially to our minds and personalities. It is why Modern Girl is so desperate in her search for A Boy, Any Boy, with a GSOH
Interesting Scary huh
## For anyone who has ever had anything to do with farm animals, they will know of said animals’ fondness for eating grains.
But especially grains that have had their husk broken/cracked – otherwise the grain simply passes straight through and they have no interest. Contrary to popular belief, Cows Are Not Stupid.
Here’s a Really Wild One for you.
It is that we originally grew grain so as to set, lay and bait traps for the the things we actually liked to eat – large ruminant herbivores.
We would make clearings in a forest, cultivate and guard some grain-grasses and then harvest and store.
But instead of us eating them, we coarsely ground them as when required and set them out on slabs of rock or hard ground where the animals could easily see and find them.
We might shout and holler to draw attention to any nearby animals – exactly as modern livestock farmers do now – often to call them home for milking. Isn’t that right Rud?
And the animals would come because they recognised sugar when they ate it – they can eat raw starch, unlike us, and when they do it becomes Glucose = blood sugar – and it makes them happy, chemically depressed and restful.
IOW: Easy to catch
The rest is (romantic) history
At some point, some of this Bison Bait got a bit close to the fire, was ‘cooked/toasted’ and we discovered that it then made us happy and restful.
Restful both physically and mentally
With ‘restful’ being a politically correct term for ‘depressed’
Things have gone rapidly downhill ever since – to reach the Contemporary Nadir of:
Ta-da <big fanfare reveille>
Climate Science
A really lovely part of how wrong things have got and how clueless we now are, involved the members of a really rabid bunch of Off Gridders and Renewable Energy Nuts.
They recounted a story of how seals broke into Scottish salmon farms.
The seals ate the fish BUT, only ever took one bite.
The seals ate a big chunk out of the belly of the fish – exactly where the fishs’ liver was.
The renewable people could only berate the seals for being so wasteful – they were so perfectly clueless about what was happening there.
sigh
A fascinating collection of historic musings there, Peta. I will try the salty liver and camp fire option, the next time the wife lets me out hunting on my own….. 🙂
Remembered waaaaay too late for any more edit… I’ve just recounted how Christmas came to be.
Because, reindeers were, still are, the people food of the Frozen North
And the reindeers were managed using Fly Agaric – the Red and White hallucinogenic mushroom
Wheat and barley don’t grow too well up north but the mushrooms love living under the forests (Esp Birch trees if I recall right – Birch and mushrooms grew like weeds in Cumbria)
The mushrooms were gathered by happy and jovial (how could anyone not be) gentlemen in large sacks
And when the sacks were bulging full, A Celebration Feast was had
Now do we see how All The Little People in the Modern World are being controlled?
Being fed a diet of depressives (sugar, cooked starch, booze, cannabis, Trash TV, Bad News) – while being told that such things are Good For You.
Even when it is admitted they are =Bad.
They become OK, essential even, when consumed ‘In Moderation’
ha ha ha
Ask the Alcoholics Anonymous about ‘Moderation’ – the word doesn’t exist in their book.
Yeah right.
Just like the Bison caught in the grain-traps or the reindeer being herded by the mushrooms, all those things make Little People ‘Easy to catch, easy to control, easy to tax and most especially and Big Thanks to HL Mencken
Easy to frighten with real & imaginary hobgoblins
geddit now, see what’s going on and why, again I say, we really are in A Lot of Trouble here
Being fed a diet of depressives (sugar, cooked starch, booze, cannabis, Trash TV, Bad News) – Whoa, Peta! Not everybody swallows that garbage!!!!
I dumped TV a very long time ago when the only thing worth watching was whatever movies (on discs) I had in my library, or whatever books were stuffed into bookshelves.
Not everyone is hooked on modern-day garbage!
cannabis – Not everybody swallows that garbage!!!!
I’m with Coleridge, Shelley, Rimbaud and even Ginsberg.
You can become creative or, in the absence of talents, a vegetable.
Quite the novel idea.
Unfortunately, Fly Agaric is essentially poisonous, and will at best make you rather ill, albeit hallucinating. The reason reindeer were important is that they can eat Fly Agaric and not have any ill effects. The hallucinogen is passed into their urine. Drinking this urine causes hallucinations without any ill effects.
As for feasting, we used to eat as much as possible to build up fat stores from all our gathered fruits and nuts to weather out the cold winter when nothing could be gathered and very little hunted.
Count on you for some strange history. The ancient story of a man tied-up on a tree and having his liver pecked-out by vultures, only to have it re-grow and the event repeated the next day had to be based on some kind of experience. Prb’ly a soldier surviving w/an open wound exposing the damaged liver and having it visually repair itself?
Thank you for this great article! Prof. Ridd‘s scholarship and integrity stand in wonderful contrast to the politically corrupted norm in climatology.
Most coral thrive best in the warmest water. Even the very warm southern Red Sea is dotted with healthy coral reefs (unlike the cooler Mediterranean). If you look at a map of coral reef locations, you’ll see that they’re clustered around the equator:
Some coral inhabit temperate zones, but most prefer tropics. In fact, where there are seasons, corals grow fastest in summer.
At 7:20 in this BBC video you can hear how wonderfully healthy the coral are in warmest part of the very warm southern Red Sea, off Eritrea:
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is about 20 million years old. It has withstood CO2 levels both higher and much lower than present, and temperatures both substantially warmer and much colder, and water levels both higher and much lower, than present. It is a highly resilient ecosystem, and we needn’t worry that a degree or two of anthropogenic warming will destroy it.
Another great source is Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. In fact, I would say that she is essential reading for anyone concerned about coral reefs, and especially Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
A third excellent source is Dr. Walter Starck, who also writes in Quadrant Online, where he informed readers months ago that the GBR is doing fine.
Fixed it for you.
“Record Coral Cover Of Great Barrier Reef Shames Climate Alarmists, Media”
Does the narrative driven media care? No. From today’s Grauniad
“The Great Barrier Reef is a victim of climate change – but it could be part of the solution
…
The ocean doesn’t have to be a victim of climate change. It can be a major solution to solving the climate crisis – some would say our strongest ally. To assist our ally, we should be investing in the sustainable blue economy, converting shipping to non-fossil fuel energy sources and financing renewable offshore energy infrastructure.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/jul/26/the-great-barrier-reef-is-a-victim-of-climate-change-but-it-could-be-part-of-the-solution
As usual it’s fact free and steeped in emotional drivel.
A sustainable blue economy?
“a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport, which accounts for more than 80% of global trade in terms of volume.
Decarbonising maritime transport (as well as fishing operations) will decrease greenhouse gas emissions, as well as air and water pollution and underwater noise.”
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_2346
Converting shipping back to sail is no solution at all, but you can bet whatever the EU does Boris will do it faster.
Decarbonising maritime transport may have the unintended consequence of crew members being flown home.
Decarbonizing maritime transport will put an end to the rise of China.
Maybe a good idea after all.
“released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels….” No good news is news fit to print if it upsets the Doomsday Apple Cart.
I have read articles about the coral deposits in the Bahamas that show advances and retreats over many thousands of years. The coral comes and goes with the storms, drops and rises in tidal levels, and – well, really, which way the wind blows. I haven’t read any fussing about corals in the Philippine Sea, but maybe it just isn’t interesting enough.
Coral is a resilient little critter, which is something that seems to escape the notice of the Doomsayer crowd. And frankly, I doubt that Australia is going to melt away to nothing if the barrier reef retreats in an exponential way. If it’s about fish and food for fish, well, they go where there is food and if the food disappears, they move on. And it’s entirely possible that the small critters that created Australia’s barrier reef may find better habitat some place else, and move away, leaving behind the remains of what used to be.
Really, if the Doomsayer Apple Cart didn’t have something to complain about, they’d be out of a job, wouldn’t they?
I could forgive the brave Peter Ridd for experiencing the merest hint of Schadenfreude whilst penning this contribution!
Peter, somewhat off subject but are you able/allowed to inform us about your case against Cook uni?
So I went tot he source data to conform this graph.
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2020-2021
And the graph is not there. By eyeball the various different graphs for the various reefs seem to be supportive of the combined graph reported by Peter Ridd.
But it’s not there.
It does raise the question as to why the overall figure is not reported by the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
In contrast to his supposed reputation as some kind of beacon of scientific integrity, Ridd does not give enough information about what exactly he is plotting, but it is not supported by the report, which shows a recovery, but no records broken. The news is good enough without exaggeration…
GBR N
Source : https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-07/AIMS%20Long%20Term%20Monitoring%20Program%20Annual%20Summary%20Report%20on%20Coral%20Reef%20Condition%20%28GBR%29%202020-2021_July2021.pdf
There’s a link to the data, but it is coming back ‘unavailable’ right now. Last time I plotted the Manta Tow data it showed a long term decline in live coral cover.
MT
GBR Central
GBR S
The report from which Ridd got the data he plots above says….
While there have been hard coral cover increases across all three regions over recent years, the Northern and Southern GBR are still below the highest recorded coral cover in the 1980s, and preliminary analyses have documented shifts in the dominant corals on some reefs.
The Central region cover is below the 2016 peak. So I would love to know what it is he is actually graphing.
I guess a corollary question to yours would be –
“what are you actually graphing?”
My graphs are % cover of hard coral, from the same AIMS source Dr Ridd cites. If you follow the link I posted the graphs are fully described.
The data is from ‘Manta Tows’, again fully described in the report. % coral cover is only one metric, of course and tells you nothing about the composition of the mix. The factors that contribute to loss of coral – high sea temperatures, storms, Crown of Thorns starfish have all been in remission over the last 12 months and percent cover has bounced back, which is of course welcome. However the increase is dominated by faster growing Acropora corals. From the report
“The majority of recovery was driven by increases in the fastgrowing Acropora corals, which have proliferated across many GBR reefs. Once established, these corals enter an exponential growth phase which rapidly increases measures of percent hard coral cover, as documented in this year’s results. However, the fast growth comes at a cost, the skeleton is less dense than other slower growing corals, making them particularly susceptible to wave damage, like that generated by strong winds and tropical cyclones.”
As I said, the data is available here but I get a 503 error when I try and access it, which is frustrating.
That’s my point. These graphs are all there I looked.
But the composite graph that Peter Ridd provides is not there.
And the obvious question is, “Why Not?”
Surely the question about the overall health of the Great Barrier Reef would be answered by the composite graph.
Well see John the GBR is not one entity, but rather a 3,000 km chain of reefs lying 50 – 200 kms off the Queensland coast in the Coral Sea.
In some ways, it’s like your body – made up of parts.
If you get a sunburn on your back, that does not mean your whole body is cactus.
You’ve been out to the GBR of course?
sorry, reply meant for John’s comment.
None of the three regions reached a peak their previous peaks in the same year, so it’s not necessary for a year to peak in any one region in order for the total to reach a new high. IOW, the combined average of the three regions was higher last year that the combined average any other single year.
For instance compared to the first year in the graphs, coverage in the Northern region was slightly higher, the Central region was about 5 percentage points higher, and the Southern region slightly higher, leading to a significantly higher average. The graphs provided certainly show a record high total for the average.
The only question is whether there is so much difference between the amount of coral in each region that the percentages need to be weighted in order to come up with an accurate total.
Apparently the complaint about the alleged poor condition of the GBR was from green groups and not from China, those groups were attempting to shame Australia into taking or agreeing with green group demands for climate hoax witch doctoring to slow the computer generated warming trend modelling to 1.5 C when the next meeting takes place in Glascow UK.
They have been reminded by the Australian Government that Australia has achieved all emissions targets set by the UN IPCC, Kyoto Japan Agreement and now Paris France Agreement is on track. On the other hand most signatory nations did not achieve their targets and are not on track to achieve their Paris Agreement commitments.
And then consider the increasing emissions by China and other “developing nations” that well exceed Australia’s annual emissions and are added to China annual emissions every year.
The GBR is healthy, funding for maintenance is substantial, and it is a very important tourist attraction which provides maintenance incentives alone.
The http://www.greens are a political minority and should be treated as such, simply ignore them.
So you’re saying all the funds sent to Save The Coral Reefs, all the carwash fund-raisers, all the wringing of hands to bloody stumps have been… unnecessary??
No, they worked. congratulations. Send excess funds to the polar bears. No, they are ok too. I have a sore back from landscaping my yard (environmental decay), i would welcome any excess funding coming my way?
But you don’t get it.
If corals decrease, it’s bad.
If they increase that’s bad too.
If they stay the same that’s also bad.
Whatever happens is worse than we thought.
I’m not a marine biologist or a “climate change expert”, but I recognize that everything on earth, especially the earth, is cyclic. Ice ages come and go. Seasons come and go. Even continents move. Man has only been around for the blink of an eye compared to the earth’s 4.5 billion years of existance, and “scientists” want to say what is and what isn’t normal based on their knowledge of what has been observed during that blink of the eye. Wake up, you don’t even know what you don’t know.
Serious Question: Isn’t the “age” of the Earth only a ‘guess’.?
The Great Barrier prophets of doom are claiming that the ocean level rise, due to the CAGW, is upon to kill the corals of the reef that will stop growing and breeding in too deep waters. But, happy surprise, the sea level itself doesn’t look rising so fast as they are claiming according to the irrefutable proofs they got from the satellites records since the many planet’s tide gauges (among them some are almost 2 centuries older than the satellites) stubbornly contradict that the seas are rising at an alarming rate and that they show definitely no acceleration of this rise.
Islands of Truth Emerging from the Murky Depths of “Sea Level Science” – Watts Up With That?
Listen up, deniers…
Why is the Great Barrier Reef in trouble? A simple guide
Why is it at risk?
Global warming has already led to the reef losing half its coral since 1995.
Larger, branching coral types – habitats for a range of sea life – were especially harmed.
Coral polyps – which form the backbone of the reef – are highly sensitive to sea temperatures. They can die if waters get too warm.
And in the past five years alone, the reef has suffered three mass bleaching events.
Climate change also causes ocean acidification and reef erosion.
What needs to be done?
Experts warn the only way to save the reef is by urgently cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The UN says even if the world contains global warming to a 1.5C rise, 90% of the world’s corals will still die.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-57938858
Well, it’s the BBC so we invert the message; the reef is just fine.
Sorry pal. Fossils show coral has been around for hundreds of millions of years and survived all the planetary upheavals that have taken place, including the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. Plus 2 degrees, even if it happens, will be a piece of cake.
The corals that were around then are extinct now. Many of the ones we have now are, indeed, near to the top of their thermal stress range.
http://globalreefproject.com/coral-reef-history.php
All corals die John.
Then new ones grow on the skeletons.
That’s how coral “reefs” are formed.
Mr. Phillips,
Dr. Peter Ridd has studied the GBR corals for 40+ years. He is an internationally recognized expert. What is your expertise? That you can find some phony data and spout alarmist claptrap? Do you risk losing your job for spouting off on a subject you have no background in? Would you like everyone who disagrees with you to be fired? Would you like to receive the same treatment you wish to inflict on others? Do you think this is some sort of game, where you play with no risk to yourself but others lose everything?
You may feel that your opinions are worthy, but your hammering on demonstrates a great disregard for the reality of the situation.
Additionally Mr. Phillips,
In the interest of full disclosure, please provide your CV, your affiliations, and especially who is paying you to post comments here.
All of this commotion about man made global warming is an effort by the radical liberal leftist around the world to separate us from our money and eradicate our freedom.
The libs believe we are so powerful and can destroy the earth in a handful of decades. We are more powerful than the sun, the storms, the atmosphere. Heck, they even believe humans are more powerful than God.
“It was reasonable in the ’70s to be concerned about these plagues”
No it wasn’t. Corals had survived hundreds of millions of years of changing climate, asteroid strikes, rising and falling sea levels, and no doubt countless lesser catastrophes of which we remain ignorant. And if research was just beginning, that’s reinforces the arrogance of thinking any intervention was required.
What this really shows is the evil of governments confiscating taxes and having such a ready pool of unspent funds just begging dishonest people to find a way to tap into.
http://globalreefproject.com/coral-reef-history.php
Coming next from the MSM: “But this record high level of coral reef growth is a clear sign of climate change and future marine devastation because . . .”
Hmm…So the coral reef is growing so fast it’s mass-density will soon exceed the Schwarzschild limit and implode into a black hole? That sounds like a typical Green’s argument.
Real pollution (i.e. not CO@ or H2O) is a threat to coral reefs. Ecosystem disturbances that allow starfish to overhelm an area is a threat. Too many tourists, some of who have to touch the coral or even take home a souvenir is a threat.
Seal levels rising at the current rate are not a threat. CO2 levels are not a threat. More water in the atmosphere is not a threat (the most potent greenhouse gas). Slight warming is not a threat – however cooling could be. Storms while destructive, are not a threat to large reefs survival.
If you want to protect a large reef, designate it a protected area, keep tourists, fishermen, and especially scientists away from it, control any pollutants introduced into the water, and leave it be. The reef will thrive.
There is no reason scientists can’t simple build their own reefs for study. It seems easy to do if a but time consuming – but then they can drill, cut, and take samples without endangering natural reefs.
Had three pipefitters/welders from Australia, they were all divers and spearfishers who grew up in Cairns, tell me about the condition of the GBR in 2004. Never believe anything environistas have to report about GBR. Ever.
Everything warmistas say and believe is based on the notion that all change is bad, and anything humans do must necessarily have catastrophic consequences.
The details are all just made up nonsense by various individuals within their sect.
As I have said for years…the basic raw material of the entire biosphere is CO2, and CO2 is necessary for solar energy to be converted into the power supply of the biosphere.
More CO2 will lead to a more extensive, massive, and robust biosphere.
It is the same in the sea as it is on land.
Of course corals are increasing…there is more availability of the raw material from which they are made than has been the case for a very long time.
It is like if a person who has been starved is given a much larger supply of food.
Coral reefs themselves are constructed of mineralized CO2, and they get most of their food from photosynthetic algae that they live symbiotically with. Their other source of food is stuff floating around in the water, which is part of a food chain that has at it’s base photosynthetic organisms of one sort or an other.
Warmistas have been claiming that CO2 caused disasters of every description have and will continue to wreak havoc with land plants and crops as well, even though there has never been any evidence of this.
They are wrong about everything, almost by definition it seems.
The logical thing to do is assume that everything they say is the exact opposite of the truth and of reality.
When upwelling is strong, as it is now, the reef will be healthy.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Southern-Oscillation-Index-SOI-a-and-upwelling-index-UI-b-monthly-anomalies_fig3_248230647
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/