By Kenneth Richard on 2. December 2021
For decades Great Barrier Reef (GBR) warming and coral bleaching have often been assumed to be driven by human greenhouse gas emissions and/or El Niño events. But a new study finds a much larger and more robust correlation between natural cloud cover modulation of solar radiation, shallow-water warming, and bleaching.
It has taken over 260 years for the net total radiative forcing from CO2 to allegedly rise by a grand net total of 1.82 W/m².
But a new study reveals that a commonly-observed 20% decrease in cloud cover over the GBR exposes this region to an additional 30 W/m² of direct solar radiation for weeks, months at a time. This dramatically warms shallower waters and, more importantly, the enhanced shortwave radiation perpetually exposes corals to UV bleaching.
“Lagged regional sea surface temperature (SST) is correlated with total cloud cover across the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and direct shortwave cloud radiative forcing.”
“SST over the GBR is more highly correlated with the overhead cloud cover than the large-scale El Niño–Southern Oscillation signal.”
“Local-scale reduced cloud cover plays a crucial role in the shallow water warming over the GBR and the occurrence of thermal coral bleaching events.”
The evidence shows naturally-driven coral bleaching events have been ongoing for centuries, millennia, and beyond.
Earlier this year we highlighted a 2021 study asserting Coral Bleaching ‘Repeatedly Occurred’ Throughout The Warmer-Than-Today Mid-Holocene.
Now, another novel study even uses evidence from 150-year-old paintings to show coral bleaching was commonly observed during the frigid Little Ice Age. Coral bleaching can and often does occur during cold periods and/or in winter (Hoegh-Guldberg and Fine, 2005, Saxby et al., 2003, Hoegh-Guldberg and Fine, 2004).
The author asserts that what is “widely believed” about human-driven coral bleaching is wholly wrong, as bleaching is “not a modern phenomenon” but a “normal way of adapting to changing water temperatures.” Coral bleaching has been recorded in the 1930s, 1860s (paintings), and 1570s.
“It is widely believed that coral bleaching is a phenomenon first observed less than 50 years ago. However, coral bleaching was first observed more than 150 years ago by Eugen von Ransonnet, during the period called the little ice age (ca. 1300 – ca. 1900).”
“Yonge already in 1931 found that living corals on the Great Barrier Reef were bleached after being exposed to high temperature (Oliver et al. 2009; Yonge and Nicholls 1931), and Kamenos and Hennige (2018) recorded the traces of coral bleaching in coral rock cores from the Great Barrier Reef back to 1575. So, coral bleaching is a phenomenon that always has existed as a normal way of adaptation to changing water temperatures, and is not a modern phenomenon.”
There is even evidence that coral bleaching is more likely to occur where water is cooler. For example, the Coral Triangle is 2-8°C warmer than surrounding “marginal” or “low-temperature” areas, but the cooler regions record more bleaching events than the Coral Triangle does.
“Such coral bleaching during the last decades is reported particularly from marginal lower-temperature areas of the entire distribution area of hermatypic corals (Goreau and Hayes 1994; Oliver et al. 2009; Burke et al. 2011). On the other hand it is generally not, or to a much lower extent, reported from the central area, the so-called Coral Triangle (Oliver et al. 2009; Burke et al. 2011; Ridd 2017), where the water temperature is around 2–8 °C higher and more stable than in the marginal areas (Tchernia 1980; Tomczak and Godfrey 2002).”
So, in sum, yet another claim about the unprecedentedness of modern warming and bleaching in the GBR and their alleged connection to human greenhouse gas emissions has been smeared by observational evidence.
But all that sun screen from divers studying climate change can’t help.
Sunscreen chemicals are not good for corals. People started suffering from low levels of Vit. D after scares about skin cancer and skin aging were used to sell sun screens.
I had to look that one up.
The first two up on a search (yes it’s Google) here and here.
Kids in England started get rickets again. Previously they got it from spending all day in mines. People are really terrified of the sun there. If they go out, kids are slathered in sunscreen on days that I would normally find very mild indeed.
But when they come to the tropics, they are white as fine porcelain. So white it hurts to look at them. Then they slather themselves in sunscreen, and go sunbathing in the tropical noon sunshine that we wouldn’t even cross the road under.
It’s all very confusing to me.
Might as well send them back to the mines.
I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific. Plant and animal oils and zinc oxide from most sunscreens are nutrients to most plant and animal life. Even dimethecone found in some cream is chemically inert, unless an organism is drowned in it, or exposed to an entirely unreasonable concentration over an unlikely short period of time.
Two frequently ignored fun facts about chemicals derived from fossil fuels are (1) by definition, they are organic — fossils are the remains of plants and animals, and (2) they are more present in the oceans than they are on land (unless one’s religion calls for all oil seeps and coal bearing outcrops to be above sea level and created by humans). Most human “artificial” processing of chemicals is refinement — concentrating lesser components from the larger. more amorphous, naturally occuring quantity.
But I’m all in for all socially accredited and approved enviromentalist hysteric divers (like Woods Hole, for instance) to go without equipment and supplies that come from oil and coal, and Green Propagandists to do their “research” and salting — er, I mean sampling — from birch bark canoes and log rafts, provided they use stone tools to produce them.
If people reduce their outdoor time and use sunscreens, then likely they will have lower levels of Vit D. Those who use sunscreens but spend a lot of time outdoors will likely not. Studies have not shown that close a correlation because it is difficult to control for confounders.
That said, there are significant advantages to using sunscreens beyond just protection from burning. I wear daily 45 to 50 SPF, 9% micronized zinc oxide sunscreens, year round. My Vit D levels are 70 – 80 mcg/dL which is twice the levels recommended by the federal government. I do this by taking vit d supplements. This way I get the best of both worlds. High levels of vit D and protection from the sun and skin damage.
Corals ooze sunscreen equivalent to SPF 90 every day to protect themselves at low tide when many are exposed.
I learned that on my one and only visit to the GBR, when i also learned the hard way to not forget to sunscreen the backs of my legs when snorkeling .
burned calves crisp
What the coral ooze won’t be poison for them. What we put on is.
I’ve snorkeled a fair bit on the Reef. My only protection is shorts and a t-shirt. I don’t get burned. My legs and arms are generally below the surface, and I have a year-round tan anyway. I guess long thin trousers (like pyjamas – those Indians are canny) would help if your legs get burned.
Ah, straight to the nub of the problem. If only all those people stopped studying climate change we could move on to something else to complain about!
And as scuba diving did not exist before just after WWII, the period where coral was well studied is fairly short. Add in the roughly 1945 to 1975 cooling trend, and there are no really good ideas of what is “normal” for coral reefs.
Coral was studied pre-scuba/pre-WW2:
“Yonge already in 1931 found that living corals on the Great Barrier Reef were bleached after being exposed to high temperature”
They did have diving bells and suits I suppose. You can also snorkel and/or hold your breath and dive to see the shallow stuff.
Yes, let us take refuge in ignorance.
OT a bit story lead:
http://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22796160/invasive-species-climate-change-range-shifting
Peter Ridd could have done with this at his high court appeal.
It wouldn’t have helped, he faced a kangaroo court and everybody knows it.
No, Peter’s case was concerned solely with James Cook University’s technical enforcement of their employment contract.
A messy situation, but the law is often used as a tool to shield perfidy, which increasingly seems to be the tactic adopted by universities and other bureaucracies these days.
If you have a group of ‘professionals’ employed by an organisation and one starts slagging of others publicly then it’s not too surprising the organisation steps in to protect its reputation and the employees under attack. In academia their are ways of criticising the work of peers. Ridd decided to go outside of the rules he and his colleagues agreed were the norms. That it had to be decided by court cases is a bad result.
It could have been done otherwise, but Ridd decided not to go that route. He may go down as a martyr to climate science (or anti-science depending on one’s taste) but he was in breach of the terms of his employment – or at least that was what the court decided. The court did not rule on the validity of Ridd’s scientific position.
Great Barrier Reef Warming, Coral Bleaching Driven By Cloud Radiative Forcing, Not Humans.
For decades Great Barrier Reef (GBR) warming and coral bleaching have often been assumed
to be driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.
_________________________________________
That means coral bleaching isn’t a problem and neither is carbon dioxide.
Besides making the Earth greener, read about that here and here, is there anything being claimed as being caused by increased carbon dioxide that hasn’t turned out to have happened before or has been happening right along?
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter what the facts are, because the narrative has been established, and Naiomi Oreskes has declared that all of the science is settled. No more research is needed. So, we just have to accept the narrative, which is now set in stone, and get on with the next phase of our social existence (mean, brutish, and short).
And yet this article was in response to a new bit of research.
Couldn’t Earth’s waning magnetic field be the main cause of more UV radiation ?
Unlikely. UV radiation is almost completely unaffected by magnetic fields. A change in the magnetic field would affect particles of the solar “wind” however. Any change in, say, the ozone layer would affect UV radiation.
And the increased radiative forcing is caused by…?
Damn it, Kenneth!
You can’t go around, tossing bombshells into alarmist’s fantasies, without there being major repercussions! The biggest one might be a ringing in the ears, but watch out for the suicide trolls! They’re the ones that, like a pesky mosquito, come buzzing in to annoy you and disrupt your sleep! They sacrifice their supposed principles and integrity to attack heresy!
It seems clear that coral polyps respond to changes in temperature by ejecting one suite of plankton for another more suited to the new temps! It would be interesting to look at whether warmer or colder water has a greater effect on coral, but that money is still all tied up; trying to prop up the collapsing Climastrology house-of-cards!
” …the collapsing Climastrology house-of-cards!”
____________________________________
It’s not collapsing, now or anytime soon.
Nobody (or few people) thought the Soviet Union was going to collapse- but it happened very quickly. Maybe the same will happen with the climate Nazis.
The Soviets didn’t have every political and media wannabe star on their side. A whole lot of people wanted them to fail. Not so with the climate cult. An entire generation has been brain washed with the bullshit, and they really don’t see the take over coming.
then we need to constantly shame all the elites who live in mansions, have private jets and huge yachts- and I don’t mean all the wealthy people, only those who are climate Nazis- of course we try, but it seems few are listening
They have to have a sense of shame for that to work, Joseph, or something resembling a conscience.
Good point.
A more recent event may be cause for hope, however slight.
A year ago the Wuhan lab leak theory was completely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. The few scientists who put forward evidence to support the theory were dismissed as crackpots and viciously attacked. Some social media giants deleted any references to it. Scientists who had been involved in funding gain of function research at Wuhan got all the publicity, particularly the letter published by the Lancet.
But what a change just one year has made! Now the theory has gone mainstream. The US intelligence report concluded that there was a 50% chance that it was indeed a lab leak. There’s even a possibility that St. Fauci may eventually end up in jail, one reason being that he demonstrably lied to a senate hearing.
It would be fantastic if such a huge weather change could occur in the climate world. But I’m not holding my breath…..
Chris
I suspect there will be a tipping point in the climate issue- in our favor. I see it just beginning to happen here in Net Zero Massachusetts- where even climate Nazis are complaining about solar “farms” being built in THEIR communities. Here, all wind turbines will only be built at sea. I bet within a few years we’ll be hearing proposals for small nuclear reactors- the only way the state can be net zero by ’50. I see our Govenor Baker, a classic RINO, won’t run again- almost certainly so he can run for president in ’24 but since he pushed this Net Zero thing on the state, let’s never forget it.
And it has been explicitly linked to the change in President – scientists have explicitly stated that they didn’t want to be “linked to Trump” so they didn’t say anything about the lab possibility.
There’s where we get when we politicize science.
But the problem is there is no evidence that the virus was as a result of a lab leak. The fact that coronaviruses have been around for at least as long as we have known about viruses and that they evolve quickly suggests that covid may be as a result of evolution.
Some people believe all life was created. Then you have to run around asking who created this one, who created that one?
In Australia we have a particularly nasty (100% fatality in infected humans) virus in our bats. I suppose you could argue that it is a product of near perfect genetic engineering on the part of someone here.
Or you could assume it has evolved from other viruses and go out into the field and get the facts. It involves work.
Armchair biologists who decide because it’s from China, covid was manufactured by the Chinese are lazy. They haven’t done the hard work needed to work out the odds.
It is a form of thinking reminiscent of the warnings of disease that could be caught from Jews that doctors in Nazi Germany were forced to display in their offices. Missing the point of the disease vectors and and other details thereby obscuring the facts and making things more dangerous.
“But the problem is there is no evidence that the virus was as a result of a lab leak.”
Paul,
My point was about the dramatic change in attitudes to the theory, not whether it was true or not.
However, there is a huge amount of evidence e.g.
Occurrences in 2019 well before the pandemic was declared, such as Wuhan lab workers hospitalised with serious flu-like symptoms.
The complete failure to find wild animals infected with Covid – in previous pandemics it was easy to find the animal vector, but after testing huge numbers of animals for the Covid virus they’ve found nothing.
Some virologists have stated that the genetic mutations that created Covid looked to be man-made.
The US intelligence report found a 50% probability of a leak.
The Wuhan lab had probably the largest collection of Corona viruses in the world, and US agancies had been funding extensive gain of function research on these viruses for years. Lab leaks there had occurred before. It was basically a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. It’s not surprising that the Obama administration banned gain of function research in the US. By funding the research at the Wuhan lab, Fauci got around that ban. If not illegal it was morally reprehensible, particularly as Fauci himself had admitted the danger of a pandemic caused by a leak of a virus created by that research. It is very possible that Fauci is partially responsible for millions of deaths.
Anyway, with that in mind, what was the probability of the pandemic starting practically on the doorstep of the Wuhan lab if it had not been caused by a leak? I would guess maybe a million to one.
Chris
People have been arguing that new organisms cannot come about through natural evolution for years. At this point, that seems to be all that can be argued. I have seen the allegations that the changes to the virus “look” man made. Viruses are highly intricate nano machines. Their very existence seems incredibly unlikely…until you look at the number of viruses that exist and the rate at which they change.
Typically, pinning down an animal vector can take a long time. In this case, we know that the bats endemic to Wuhan have harboured corona viruses for years.
To assign a probability to something like a leak, as opposed to guessing it, would take some pretty detailed knowledge of the likelihood of a failure in the lab. If it’s as high as you say then leaks must have been occurring all the time. No person in Australia who worked at the lab thought that it was even bad, certainly not that bad.
I realise there are problems with the regime in China. But leaping to negative conclusions about everything that comes out of China is not the answer. Cool appraisal of what is and what is not going on there is called for.
Unfortunately, one cannot use reason or logic to dissuade conspiracists from believing that perfectly rational, scientifically rigorous explanations such as the one you describe are not the “real” story. There is always that exciting hint of political machination; of dark dealings by the “others.”
Our brains are pattern recognition engines. They tend to find “conspiracy” where none exists, unless actual effort is exerted to overcome our proclivity for cognitive biases.
Side note: I don’t know that this is true of Mr. Wright, but this site is frequented by commenters who neither understand what the word “evolution” means, nor accept that it is fact. That is probably a major factor in the naive rejection, by some, of natural explanations of the origins of novel pathogens.
The photograph used above this essay, I assume, is meant to be “bleached coral”. Unfortunately, there are patches of bleached coral, but that is not one of them. Pictured is a healthy reef of beige coral.
This is not your fault – the image in incorrectly used in over 550 web pages on the internet.
The full-resolution image is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stopadani/33675818851/in/photostream/lightbox/
Using any enlarging tool at your disposal, you will see the living little white nodules that are the living parts of the coral of this species. The photo is not of dead or bleached coral, but living thriving beige coral.
“has been smeared by observational evidence.”
But remember, “observational evidence is not useful”…
“observational evidence is not useful”
You have to put that observational evidence through a computer before you can get any political value out of it.
CO2-caused Bleached Coral can take its place beside CO2-caused Ocean Acidification, as two of the dumber claims made by the Alarmists.
Good ole History destroys both claims.
I really really really wish our side would focus on calling out the entire term “coral bleaching” as a fraud, which it most certainly is.
Coral don’t get “bleached” unless exposed to bleach. Period.
Coral temporarily lose their temporary population of symbiotic organisms, which makes them look lighter in color, and then get it back.
The term “bleaching” is purposefully used to wrongfully imply exposure to harmful chemical agents, especially chlorine bleach which most people are familiar with.
It’s real simple:
Well, the alarmists have discovered that the term “ocean ACIDIFICATION” works great with the media, so why not use the expression “coral BLEACHING” as well.
Propaganda has been turned up to 11 in today’s academia and media.
Yup – it is scientifically impossible to “acidify” a buffered alkaline aqueous solution unless and until the pH drops below 7.’
But it does not sound very threatening when the term “ocean buffering” is used.
Acidification simply means becoming more acid. Something is more acid if its pH drops, more alkaline if it rises. Refusing to call a decrease in pH “acidification” is pure political correctness. It tells us nothing.
If someone cannot tell the difference between acidification and being dissolved when they go for a swim in the ocean then they seriously need to take up other pastimes.
But chemists are not about to change their terminology to reassure some pH language police.
Duane, Don’t you notice the bleached trees every fall. sarc
Yeah, now that you mention it … global cooling results in land bleaching. It’s reached crisis level in Antarctica and at the north pole! OHG!
Another climate lie comes to Greef.
English is such a wonderfully expressive language. There is, good grief, and there is bad griff, and clearly we now have great barrier greef to add to our rich tapestry of phrases. I blame all the bedwetters in the climate alarmist movement for the bleaching of coral. Something to do with all that urea perhaps? 🙂
Contradicting some of the conclusions stated in the story, marine heatwaves with more bleaching events are more prevalent during higher TSI and associated warming, when there are more clouds, versus fewer bleaching events during solar minimum TSI, when central Pacific outgoing longwave radiation is positive, ie, when there are fewer clouds.
R. O. T. F’n. F. L.
Sorry mate. Too complicated for this readership. Note the fixation over sunscreen lotions which are apparently much more worthy of discussion. However, to the article itself, the assumption seems to be that cloud cover is not affected by human activity and that therefore any heating/cooling attributable to cloud cover is is beyond the bounds of anything human activity could affect. Case closed, apparently.
My reading of the journal article on which this article comments is that bleaching events may not be attributable to el Nino/la Nina cycles. Somehow that amounts to a demonstration that human activity plays no part in the CBEs. I doubt the reasoning.
Do you have any reason to believe CO2 has anything to do with coral bleaching?
By bleaching, do you mean the change in colour due to the expulsion of their algal symbionts by the coral polyps?
The evidence in the field and laboratory is that the expulsion happens with increased water temperature. Can we agree on that?
“The evidence in the field and laboratory is that the expulsion happens with increased water temperature. Can we agree on that?”
Yes, we can.
It is trivial work with digital image adjustment to reduce brightness and add a little red to bring colour back to the presented image. This manipulates the image. as I declare. It is not clear if the presented image above was also manipulated. Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/coral.jpg
I’ve said a million times, to understand global warming, you have to understand what is warming the oceans. What warms the oceans is high energy visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 microns, not low energy 15-micron LWIR that CO2 emits. Sunlight bleaches everything, just leave a colored tee shirt out on a beach. Bleaching of coral is done by bleaching visible radiation and could be a proxy for warming light reaching the oceans. More bleaching, more warming, fewer clouds…nothing to do with CO2.
Nonsense! The “bleaching” is the loss of colour consequent on the algal symbionts being expelled from the corals. Rather than waste your time saying things a million times, a little time spent on finding out a little coral biology could be both enjoyable and instructive.
How lucky we are to have your instructions.
You talk like you know it all, so let’s hear it.
Your expressions of gratitude are most welcome.
But you are too generous. I was simply pointing out that CO2isLife was mistaken in her assertion that coral bleaching is caused by sunlight.
Yes, sunlight bleaches things too. But that’s not what the article is talking about.
I apologize for getting the wrong impression about you.
I, at first, thought you were a know-it-all deigning to enlighten the unwashed here at WUWT.
But, from your subsequent comments, I think you are not a dictator, but a thinker. So welcome aboard.
That doesn’t mean you will receive agreement on your positions automatically. We will have to see your positions first.
That’s fine. To the extent that I embrace scientific thinking as a good thing, I must be prepared for the possibility that what I once thought was true may turn out to be false.
My opinions are less important than the facts. So, if I see what seem to be errors in fact, or reasoning I will speak up. I expect anyone here will respond in kind to me when necessary.
The sun bleaches things. I fitted a lovely Lantern (skylight) and on the side the sun hits most we have very dull green leather chairs – on the side it doesn’t, bright green.
The same with the curtains on the gazebo, the table tennis cover, was once black now grey.
Sunlight modifies the colour – it’s why vehicle manufacturers spent millions switching paint systems to include lacquer with UV resistance – no more faded red cars…
So sunlight does bleach.
Therefore, if “science” wants to miss-describe what is actually happening to the coral in a bid to stir alarmist reaction, then they cannot cry foul when their “terminology” is used against them.
As always accuracy is key to all reasonable debate and progression. When what is happening to the Coral is classified correctly in MSM, then we can expect more sensible debate.
Until then – bleached it is….
But that’s simply not what coral bleaching is! It can happen in shaded spots. It is a temperature related phenomenon.
Tilting at windmills, my friend.
The great barrier reef was completely killed off during each ice age as they were completely above sea level. They always came back to life. There is literally nothing that humans can do to coral reefs that isn’t very temporary.
Actually, there is literally nothing humans can do to anything that isn’t very temporary. But it’s hardly the point is it?
It’s very much THE POINT.
People who think we/they control any natural process are arrogant fools, we can’t even control our own bodily functions.
I think it’s more like the people that assume they are ‘Gods’ (measured by wealth), expect others to do what they demand, whilst they are free to do what they like.
Megalomaniac is making a resurgence – and not the cool 80s Spectrum version. Sadly.
So, you argue everything is temporary therefore we need do nothing. No natural process can be controlled, so someone who, say, tries to control the damage being done by wildfire is an arrogant fool.
Rather than take an absolute position like that, I think it might be wise to assess just what can and cannot be controlled.
Please be aware that this research violates the James Cooke University Faculty of Climate Change security protocols. Within the next 48 hours you will receive a visit from the FETP (Faculty Enforcement Thought Police) with details of how to attend mandatory re-education seminars. Failure to do so will result in you being cancelled by the Australian Supreme Court.
Funny. I just had a text message telling me to expect a visit from the police for non-payment of my tax…
It sounded just like this; it wasn’t you by any chance?
Climate scientists need to start asking the most basic questions. The one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the backradiation of 13 to 18 micron LWIR. That is it. Coral is bleaching. Visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 short wave visible radiation bleaches object. If LWIR would bleach clothes your dark closet would all hold bleached clothing. 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate water and it won’t bleach coral. That can be tested in a lab. Why wasn’t that done? Because it doesn’t support the narrative. Bleaching coral should be used as a proxy for an increase in incoming solar radiation and a source of the global warming.
Yes. The UV radiation in sunlight does bleach (in the common usage: to remove color from) some things. Nobody is disputing that.
The problem is: that is NOT what “coral bleaching” refers to. In its proper scientific context, the term “coral bleaching” refers to the loss of color due to expulsion of algae.
It is a distinct phenomenon from pigment degradation. Its cause is irrelevant to the term that describes it.
On a related note:
Grammatical confusion aside…
It isn’t “science” that is “miss-describing.” [sic] You don’t seem to understand the terminology. See above.
Also, science doesn’t “bid” to “stir” anything political. People with agendas misuse scientific data in all sorts of ways.
The MSM has nothing to do with scientific classification.