From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Patsy Lacey
HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!
Hundreds of sites across most of the Great Barrier Reef are turning white from heat stress in the fifth mass coral bleaching event in eight years.
Aerial surveys over two-thirds of the reef have confirmed ‘widespread’ bleaching, the It was only a year ago that Australia’s leading reef expert, Dr Peter Ridd, reported that coral cover was at record highs: said on Friday.
Climate change is the biggest threat to tropical reefs worldwide, and coral bleaching is caused by heat stress.
It’s not always fatal but corals are likely to die if temperatures remain higher than normal for too long.
Reef Authority chief scientist Roger Beeden said bleaching had been recorded at 300 sites from Cape Melville north of Cooktown to just north of Bundaberg.
‘The results are consistent with what we have seen with above average sea surface temperatures across the marine park for an extended period of time,’ Dr Beeden said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13171743/Great-Barrier-Reef-coral-bleaching.html#newcomment
It was only a year ago that Australia’s leading reef expert, Dr Peter Ridd, reported that coral cover was at record highs:
London, 8 February – A new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation refutes alarmist claims about the state of the world’s coral reefs.
According to the author, eminent reef scientist Peter Ridd, the official data show no signs of any long-term trends in reef health. Indeed, the best records – for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – suggest that coral cover is at record highs.
Dr Ridd said:
“The public are constantly told that reefs are being irreparably damaged by global warming, but bleaching events, about which there is so much doom-mongering, are simply corals’ natural response to changes in the environment. They are an extraordinarily adaptable lifeform, and bleaching events are almost always followed by rapid recovery.”
Dr Ridd suggests that rather than being seen as under threat from climate change, corals should actually be recognised as one of the organisms least likely to suffer harm in a warming world.
“Corals get energy from a symbiotic relationship with various species of algae. When environmental conditions change, they can rapidly switch to a different species that is better suited to the new conditions. This shapeshifting means that most setbacks they suffer will be short-lived.”
Dr Ridd says that the real risks to reefs come from overfishing and pollution.
The GWPF invited responses to this paper from authors likely to dissent from its conclusions. None of the authors who were contacted accepted this invitation.
Peter Ridd: Coral in a Warming World: Causes for Optimism (pdf)
As Peter Ridd’s report noted, it only in the last two or three decades that the GBR has really been systematically surveyed. Yet there is plenty of evidence that similar bleaching events have frequently occurred in the past, particularly during El Nino events. They were just never observed.
Whereas it was natural to assume that coral reefs would die off after bleaching, Ridd shows that they actually recover very quickly. Bleaching, far from being fatal, is actually a remarkable
adaptive response to changing temperature, because having expelled the microscopic algae, which gives it its colour as well as energy, it reabsorbs another strain of algae which thrives in warmer water. The opposite happens when the seas cool.
Ridd concluded:
The Mail report includes this comment, which exposes the thing as a scam:
Australia’s emissions of CO2 are just 1% of the world’s, so calling on the Federal Government to reduce emissions will make no difference whatsoever to the reef. Instead they are using the reef as an excuse to force through their left wing political agenda.
Check the http://www.thegwpf.org site for updated.lists
Who funds GWPF?
Who funds the Sierra Club or Tides Foundations?
We can do this all week.
I have no idea who the Sierra Club or Tides Foundation even are, never mind who funds them.
But, if their funding is secretive, like GWPF’s is, then it should be brought out into the light.
No more hiding behind ‘charity’ status for any of these so-called ‘think-tanks’.
“Sierra Club or Tides Foundation “
All funded by people deep in the “climate trough”..
There is MONEY in them there scams !!
Right, so who funds the GWPF and why is that different?
Funds going into the climate trough are several magnitudes higher than funding for realists.
Do you ask who funds all the garbage you put forward ?
“I have no idea who the Sierra Club or Tides Foundation even are…”
If you’re not familiar with the Sierra Club then you’re not of this planet. Make like the other ET, “call home”, for a pickup.
I Googled it, especially for you!
It seems to be some sort of environmental organisation.
Like the GWPF, I want to know who funds them.
So you are still totally ignorant about their funding.. OK
Marxist and other far-leftist AGW funding of the climate trough is several magnitudes higher than the pittances funding realists.
What a totally irrelevant question.
But I guess if it is best you have, we can expect nothing else.
Really?
A secretly-funded ‘think-tank’ that has the ear of government. I think I want to to know who funds that.
I expect you to ask who funds every other secretly funded far-left organisation that has FAR MORE FUNDING to lobby weak parliamentarians.
Every link or comment you make with a link must show where the funding for the group in the link comes from.
“In order to make clear its complete independence, the GWPF does not accept donations either from energy companies or from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”
Pity you don’t care about the MASSIVE amounts of far-left funding distorting modern society.!
You Alarmists are beginning to sound a little desperate as more and more ordinary people wake up to your lies.
Try focussing on the message. “Don’t shoot the messenger”.
It’s where the message is coming from, leefor.
What is the motivation for ‘the message’?
Are they serving a vested interest?
That’s important stuff. No one self-describing as a ‘skeptik’ should dismiss it.
Pity you don’t care about the MASSIVE amounts of far-left funding distorting modern society and propping up the AGW-scam.
Another one lacking self-awareness.
From their website:
“In order to make clear its complete independence, the GWPF does not accept donations either from energy companies or from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”
They do accept donations from individuals and I’m sure they would happily accept one from you. If you’re in the US your donation is fully tax deductible.
Lots of these organisations accept donations from third-party outfits.
These outfits were set up to accept anonymous donations. The organisations take the donation from said outfits and wash their hands of the source.
It stinks.
Pity you don’t care about the MASSIVE amounts of far-left funding distorting modern society and propping up the AGW-scam.
But so long as it supports your far-left idiotology.. of course you don’t care.
Irrelevant question.
To paraphrase Richard Feynman :
That’s not really paraphrasing Feynman though. It’s falsely adding the words “who funded them” into a direct quote.
Which is pretty typical of what I’d expect here.
Next time you post nonsense about wind turbines, AGW nonsense and such.
We expect to show who exactly is funding those comments.
It will always be a far-left marxists.. Those are the people you either support deliberately…
… or who have brain-washed you into your rancid leftist beliefs.
“… into a direct quote.”
You don’t understand “paraphrase”- you’re not of this planet. Go home.
Ran out of arguments, milord?
No, see above.
Yes.. we see you have run out of arguments.
Totally incapable of addressing the message.
Only interested in a petty attempt to slime.
Excellent article, very informative.
CAGW scoundrels are liars and cheats. I think you should publish the names of those who were invited to comment on the study. They had a perfect opportunity to put us sceptics in our place but they chickened out because they are cowards.
It is happening. The CAGW mongrels are moving the posts from 1.5 to 2.0 C. I knew they would, they don’t have a choice.
It’s not because they are cowards, IMO. It is because they know they have perpetrated deliberate falsehoods, and they know we know that plus the truth.
Bringing a rubber knife to a gunfight never ends well. So they no show instead.
If they had any confidence in their ‘settled climate science’ they would show up.
The fact that they don’t tells you everything you need to know.
Remember, Ridd got fired from his university for not being ‘collegial’ when he called his colleagues out about their GBR falsehoods. I donated to his court case over that. Ridd won the case, then lost when the AUS funded Uni appealed—wouldn’t do to have deliberate government sponsored falsehoods exposed.
To paraphrase Elena Gorokhova… “We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying.”
The CAGW Global Whiners claim about 40% of the earth has already reached +1.5 degrees C. with the current El Nino
They know that for a fact because they made up the global average temperature in 1850, with very little data. The 1850 number could be off by up to +/- 1 degree C. But that is close enough for government work.
I can not take any tipping point seriously unless it has more than two decimal places. That’s treal science. Tell me +1.5 and I don’t care. Tell me +1.51259 and I’m either heading for the hills or building an ark in my back yard.
Agree completely.
They have no idea what the temperatures were back in 1850 for well over 80-90% of the globe. Even Phil Jones admitted most of the southern oceans, data was “mostly made up”,
plus large areas of the African and South American continents are also greatly lacking in any real data.
They also have no accurate idea what the current real global temperature is, or how it compares, because their so-called data is so corrupted by urbanisation, bad sites that are unfit-for-purpose, homogenisation smearing bad data all over the place, rapid acting thermometers etc etc…. as well as manic adjustments to past data.
It is all just make-believe. !
CCTF-fact-sheet-16-Rewriting-Australias-Temperature-History-V2-1.pdf (climatechangethefacts.org.au)
NASA Ministry Of Truth – YouTube
And of course, Corals don’t live in areas of constantly “average” temperatures.
Steve Jones, a biologist published a book, Coral: A Pessimist in Paradise in 2008. Though I have studied no biology, I was surprised reading the book carefully to discover it was littered with logical flaws.
The titles of the chapters sound like the titles of stories from Aesop’s Fables.
He loves telling stories and style can be described as “rambling”.
He draws links between disparate things he used to prove his points.
He uses emotive language/words.
Similarly, a non-scientist who carefully reads articles and books about climate change can spot the logical flaws and contradictions even if he or she is unable to test the scientific claims. If the arguments are logically flawed, how can one trust the scientific assertions? Happily, I have noticed that those who reject climate alarmism tend to express themselves in a simpler and clearer way.
From growing up and living more than half my life in sub-tropical coastal areas, and diving on many inshore fringing reefs and the GBR proper, I formed the observation a few years ago that tropical corals are like weeds –
you can cut them down, you can dig them up, you can poison them, but the buggers just keep coming back.
(see the history of the Bikini Atoll lagoon where the coral reefs there were totally obliterated by atomic bombs testing in the 1950s, and were 90% grown back all by themselves in just 60 years)
We literally nuked the coral reefs … and they survived and grew back.
I guess Biden was correct when he said climate change is WORSE than nuclear war! /sarc tag
The GBR scare is like the polar bear scare. Knowingly bad biology, perpetrated by people who DO know better, their false alarms then echoed globally by the Fake News Media. As here.
Different sects of the ‘climate science is settled’ religion claim that climate models produce data, that surface temperature records are fit for purpose, and that coral atolls will drown from sea level rise—when Darwin knew that was not true from his Beagle voyage observations.
It isn’t working out well for famous ‘climate scientist’ predictions. Hansen’s dreaded sea level rise acceleration didn’t. Wadham’s dreaded Arctic summer sea ice disappearance didn’t. Viner’s UK kids still know snow.
Ten years in, one could maybe trust the IPCC and ‘climate science’. 20 years in, the UEA Climate Gate leaks raised serious doubts. Now 40 years in, ridicule is the only viable ‘climate science’ response.
Whilst declaring 5 bleaching in 8 years as a negative, this also shows the environment is healthy enough to recover each time which should be seen as good
Using obvious simple logic to prove bleaching are not a big deal is NOT allowed.
Drop in GBR sea levels due to El Nino, exposing surface corals…
You know.. the only ones you can see from a fast low-flying aircraft.
… just like in 2015.
Thers is only one fact that everyone needs to know in order to understand that global warming is no threat to corals and in particular no threat to the GBR, but I’ll give you three.
According to who?
All those who conspired to ‘cancel’ Dr Ridd.
(clue – if he wasn’t a much published leading reef expert, the cancel cabal wouldn’t have worried about canceling him . And worry them he did – big time)
I’m sure there are other ‘much published’ reef experts, many of them Australian; I’m just wondering why this guy in particular is being described as “Australia’s leading reef expert”.
Who decided that and on what basis?
Is it just a value judgement of the author, or did he win a particular award?
Oh dear.. still trying NOT to argue the facts.
Got anything worthwhile to contribute ??
Who decided that and on what basis?
It’s simple boofhead. A bunch of taxeaters besmirching the name of James Cook kept claiming the GBR was doomed via coral bleaching evidencing their climate dooming and Ridd called nonsense and the coral maxed back just like he said it would. It’s cyclical folks and we’ve only really become aware of coral bleaching events since the widespread adoption of SCUBA. That’s a pitifully short time to be running about like a bunch of Chicken Littles claiming the sky is falling.
What part of that don’t you get with scientific expertise? You’re a Groupthink taxeater looking out for your paycheck and not rocking the boat too are you? Nice boats and gear they have swanning around on the GBR too.
Doesn’t really answer my question though.
Well there is Terry Hughes, who described large areas of the GBR as “dead” after one bleaching event. Unfortunately for him, it came back Lazarus like. 😉
Do you reckon Hughes and Flannery went to the same school of “Dud Forecasting”?
Don’t know what this means, sorry.
I’m just asking who appointed Dr Ridd “Australia’s leading reef expert…”
That’s all.
Listen, maybe he is and I missed it.
Maybe he got a Nobel Prize or some similar gong. I don’t know.
Just wondering why he is “Australia’s leading reef expert…” apparently.
Who decided that?
Right, so someone called Terry Hughes made a mistake (according to you).
How does this make Dr Ridd “Australia’s leading reef expert…”?
That’s all I’m asking.
You also said “I’m sure there are other ‘much published’ reef experts, many of them Australian”. I gave you one. So you can’t do your own research? But this may help, but perhaps not.;)
“Professor Terry Hughes is Director of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which is headquartered at James Cook University, Australia.”
https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/terry.hughes/
The other ‘much published’ reef experts are alarmists, just like you.
Right, so, some examples of these published experts and an explanation for why Dr Ridd is considered to be the “leading ” one, please.
Is it so much to ask?
Peter Ridd gets it CORRECT
Hughes basically always gets it WRONG.
We all know who you will go with…
… the one that gets it always wrong. !
So, toe-fungus can’t argue the reality of the facts.
Nothing unusual there.
I must tip my cap to this board’s, and the world’s, only surviving brain donor.
Well we know you aren’t capable of it. 😉
Noted.. you have just admitted you are incapable of arguing the reality or facts.
Well done.
A mushroom, also a type of fungus, would have a higher IQ that you possess.
You never had one to donate… and the single-cell amoeba wouldn’t have wanted it anyway.
Actually, Peter Ridd’s status as an expert in the GBR is completely irrelevant. He presented hard, physical evidence that the GBR was not irreversibly damaged, but was in fact in good health. That is what counts.
Credentialism, another slimy technique of the likes of ToeFungalNail.
It is a well known fact that the GBR coral have been dying since the 1960s and by now must be all dead, or even worse. This was caused by leftists secretly stocking the GBR with parrotfish they raised at home, who eat the coral. The leftists blame “climate change”.
But when scientists fly over the GBR airplanes — Ph.D.’s are not allowed to swim near coral — the coral look just fine.
Of course the coral look fune for a good reason. Since the 1960s the dead coral have been secretly replaced with weighted plastic coral replicas by those pesky Australian conservatives
The main reason Australia is now controlled by lunatic leftists is the conservatives have been too busy with the plastic coral replacement project to campaign for political office.
SOURCE:
The Internet
I’ve died and gone to Green Heaven and I can tell you mere mortals CO2 here is 600 parts per million so you’re all part of Gaia’s Grand Plan and all will be revealed.
I saw this pop up on X last week. James Cook started it and pushed it to The Guardian.
ABC have been hammering it as well
There are fossil coral reefs in eastern Utah that are hundreds of feet thick. Somehow coral is able to survive huge changes of climate.
A few unmeasurable tenths of a Kelvin are not going to do anything.
Ocean Heat Content in the Pacific has been much higher than current levels for most of the last 2000 years.
(little red line at the end is recent “human caused… lol)
Corals LUV warm water !
I was shocked to read an msm article the other day that said bleaching was a result of coral getting rid of algae. The article didn’t make clear if this was harmful or not, but it implied that the end of the earth would result.
Vivian Krause has done significant work matching tax deductions and charitable funding. This shows how major foundations in the US have crippled energy development in Canada to boost prices and profits in the US. The less oil and gas that Canada exports to the US, the higher US (and world) energy prices, the more the major stock holders in US energy companies stand to make. This is simply good business investment to maximize profitability. Some very well known family foundations are heavily involved, which ensures you will never hear about this from msm.
Just applying a little logic would show that there’s nothing new about this phenomenon.
How long have corals been around?
Just how old is the GBR to have attained its current size?
Does it predate the last ice age for example?
Over that period how constant has been the temperature?
If the coral is known to exchange its symbiotic partner depending on sea temperature then that must have been happening a significantly long period of time, such adaptations don’t suddenly happen, but evolve. Is the GBR more prone to sea temperature changes due to El Niño/ La Niña than say the corals in the Caribbean? Even during the ice ages the Caribbean would have been ice free and relatively “warm”.
GBR bleaching generally happens when there is too much exposure to sunlight… like when tide levels drop lower than the coral is used to, as in a strong El Nino event…
This also means that there isn’t a flow in nutrients into the reef, but out of it.
The coral critters don’t like too much direct sunlight.. and go on holidays searching for less direct sunlight, and a better nutrient supply…
Only to return later.
The bottom line is still the corals have evolved mechanisms to cope with these situations over millennia.
On May 19, 1964, I dived freestyle several times down 1 to 2 metres at the Magnetic Island ferry terminus at Arcadia Bay, where as far as I could see, the coral was white. This was before the public used the term “coral bleaching” and it was before Man was accused of bleaching related to levels of CO2 in the air.
About 3 years later I graduated B Sc from James Cook Uni, Chemistry major. That and later exposure to science taught me that I should not mention this white coral in the context of global warming hysteria because I did not collect adequate supporting data. However, if researchers now know that white coral was rare to unknown before that date, my observation might have some minor interest.Geoff S
The Red Sea between NE Africa and Saudi Arabia has some of the most extensive coral reefs in the world, some of which form ‘cliffs’ thousands of metres deep whilst others have been uplifted to form coral islands.
Are the waters along the GBR going to be hotter than the Red Sea has been for millenia?
Despite El Niño, nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef. Nutrients are constantly flowing into the reef from the cool south.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/03/09/1800Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-202.50,-29.97,874
This is the forecast for Australia as of March 14.
I assume these aerial surveys are photographic. If so, how are they correcting for the lost reds, purples, oranges, and yellows that are absorbed as light passes through the water before assuming “bleaching”?
Indoor CO2 levels routinely exceed double outdoor levels. Yet coral reefs thrive in indoor salt water aquariums.
Better an empty house than a bad tenant.
Coral Reef Bleaching 101.
Global warming is now causing reindeer to lose their antlers.
It is likely that the reef, like other animals, may be threatened by too much UVB radiation over an extended period of time.
Ignorance on the part of the masses is the fuel for effective propaganda. It’s why so many of the lies about the supposed “climate crisis” involve environments or life forms far out of sight of most people. The poles, under the seas, animals that live far from organized human settlements and glaciers that most people will never visit are all prime topics for climate fear mongering because the average person has no first hand experience to counter the nonsense. Pseudo scientists can claim a collapse of insect species or birds in tropical rain forests when most people have no idea what they are describing or how they measure any changes (if they actual do at all). Almost no one will have first hand experience from which they could judge the health of the entire Great Barrier Reef so it is an easy topic to lie about.
The problem underlying all this is the human tendency to believe amazing things without objective evidence, especially if the topic is scary and potentially existential.
Climate liars specialize in existential propaganda. They do nothing but harm to human society, the environment and the collective common sense of humans as a species. The obvious solutions are to improve education and especially the skills in critical thinking and understanding of the scientific process, sever all lines of funding to people who propagate lies to achieve their own wealth and power, build a system that enforces the rule of evidence when bold claims are made and punishes professional liars, and finally, take politics seriously and only support leaders who practice true evidence-based decision-making.