For years, the Great Barrier Reef has been the poster child for environmentalists warning about the dire consequences of climate change. Predictions of its imminent demise have been frequent, with a focus on coral bleaching events, ocean acidification, and rising sea temperatures attributed to increasing CO2 emissions. However, recent reports indicate that the Great Barrier Reef has hit record coral cover for the third year in a row, challenging these prevailing narratives. Jo Nova, offers a critical examination of the factors contributing to the reef’s unexpected resilience.
Record Coral Cover Amidst Rising CO2 Emissions
According to Jo Nova’s article, “After a trillion tons of CO2, the Great Barrier Reef hits record coral cover third year in a row,” the reef’s coral cover is at an all-time high despite the significant increase in CO2 emissions over the past few decades. Nova notes:
“Sixty percent of all human CO2 emissions have been emitted since 1985 but today the corals are healthier than ever. In 1985 humans were emitting only 19.6 billion tons of CO2 each year, and now we emit 37 billion tons. In the meantime AIMS have been dragging divers thousands of kilometers over the reefs to inspect the coral cover. These are the most detailed underwater surveys on the largest reef system in the world, and they show that far from being bleached to hell, the corals are more abundant than we have ever seen them.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
This statement directly contradicts the long-held assertion that increased CO2 levels are leading to the rapid degradation of coral reefs. Instead, the data collected by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) suggests a thriving ecosystem, with coral cover significantly higher than predicted.
Questioning the Scientific Consensus
The article highlights the role of Dr. Peter Ridd, a marine scientist known for his critical views on mainstream climate science. Ridd has pointed out inconsistencies in how data on coral cover is reported:
Ridd’s observations suggest that the methodology and presentation of data can significantly influence public perception and policy decisions. By splitting the data into sections, the overall positive trend might be obscured, thus supporting the narrative of a declining reef.
As Peter Ridd points out, when the reef was doing badly, AIMS was happy to combine the data on the whole reef, so we could lament its demise. But lately AIMS splits it into separate sections and if Peter Ridd didn’t check the numbers, who would know it was a record across the full 2,300 kilometer length of the reef? And that may be exactly the point. As Ridd reminds us, in 2012 the AIMS team predicted the coral cover in the central and southern regions would decline to 5 – 10 percent cover by 2022. Instead the whole reef is thriving at 30 percent [higher coral cover].
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
UNESCO’s Role and Political Implications
UNESCO has been a prominent player in the discussion about the Great Barrier Reef’s status. For years, there have been threats to label the reef as “in danger,” a move that could have significant political and economic repercussions. The article comments on UNESCO’s actions:
UNESCO has been threatening to slap an endangered label on the reef for years. They would have looked ridiculous if they had done this whilst corals were at a record high. But that didn’t stop them demanding tribute and conditions anyway, as if Australia can’t manage the reef by itself. Our Prime Minister should have laughed at them and cut UN funding until they start making sense.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
The interplay between environmental organizations, governments, and international bodies like UNESCO often extends beyond pure environmental concerns, touching on issues of sovereignty, economic interests, and political power.
The Reality of Coral Bleaching
Coral bleaching is often cited as the most visible sign of climate change’s impact on marine ecosystems. However, the article provides context that challenges the alarmist perspective:
There have been some bleaching events both before and after the survey, and as is normal, we won’t know for months whether any corals actually died or whether it was just the normal home renovation that corals go through when they get stressed. It’s common for corals to throw out the zooanthellae as temperatures change and let in newer house-guests that are better acclimatized.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
This explanation suggests that bleaching is a natural response mechanism for corals, allowing them to adapt to changing environmental conditions rather than a straightforward indicator of environmental decline.
The Role of Cyclones and Starfish Plagues
The article also touches on the natural threats to the reef, such as cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish:
As Peter Ridd says the biggest threats to the reef are cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish plagues, neither of which appear to be any worse now than they were years ago.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
These natural factors have historically posed significant risks to coral reefs, and their impact is not necessarily linked to anthropogenic climate change.
Public Perception and Media Influence
The disconnect between public perception and scientific reality is a recurring theme in the article. A survey mentioned indicates widespread ignorance about the reef’s current state:
Ten years after our corals hit a record low, our survey showed that half the country didn’t realize the reef has recovered. Only 3% knew the corals were at a record high, and nearly half the Green voters were as wrong as they possibly could be — they thought coral cover was at a record low.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
This highlights the role of media and educational campaigns in shaping public understanding, often emphasizing negative narratives over positive developments.
Conclusion: Reevaluating the Narrative
The story of the Great Barrier Reef’s recovery challenges the dominant climate change narrative. While it’s crucial to remain vigilant about environmental protection, it’s equally important to base our policies and perceptions on accurate, comprehensive data. The resilience of the Great Barrier Reef serves as a reminder that nature can be more adaptable and robust than we often assume.
In light of this information, it’s essential to continue scrutinizing and questioning the methodologies and motives behind environmental reports and policies. Efforts to protect the environment must be grounded in reality in order to be truly effective.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It was only a few months ago that the AIMS / JCU “experts” were lamenting a great bleaching of the reef due to warm water. Turned out that on closer examination by Jennifer Marohasy it was mostly BS. I’ve grown sps coral for more than a couple of decades and on occasion it has taken upon itself, for no apparent reason (my systems were computer managed so pretty stable) to bleach out and then a few months later miraculously regrow.
Are corals susceptible to diseases caused by bacteria and viruses? Ships at sea sometime dump
sewage and garbage, which they are not supposed to do.
Is it possible that waters discharged from rivers which might contain pesticides used in farming and chemicals from cars and industry which could be harmful to carols?
The issues of run-off from farms going out via rivers is really a non-issue. The amounts of agricultural chemicals actually reaching the reef are so low that they are effectively immeasurable. The Ocean currents in and around the reef ensure that contamination from terrestrial run-off is all but impossible, the main Ocean currents flow in a Westerly direction, from the Pacific into the reef, washing river sediments along the coast line.
Exactly correct, MarkH.
We will destroy our agricultural industries for no reason.
The great blame game aimed at farmers was triggered by green groups promoting aerial photos of floodwater plumes going into the blue ocean. Floodwater plumes have delivered brown water into blue seas since dirt and rain began millions of years ago. But, every city dweller now believes they occur soley due to erosion of ploughed soils.
No doubt they have never considered how the level flood plains they all happily live on were created (ie; silt washed from mountain sides settling out as rivers overtop thier banks, fan out closer to the sea, and the flow velocity decreases. And the mud that does make it to the sea, settles there to be stirred up by the next storm, and that turbidity too gets blamed on the farmers.
Mark
Agree completely. Almost all of the reef is 50 km or more off the coast. With much of it 100 km to 150 km off the coast.
We were told for many years that farm runoff had caused plague infestation of Crown of Thorn Starfish and other disastrous consequences. None of these outcomes was even marginally possible.
A measure of the pollutability of a water body is how long it takes for that water body to be completely replaced on average. For example, water in a fiord with only one entrance can take as long as 6 months to be replaced. It therefore is highly susceptible to pollution.
The Great Barrier Reef, on the other hand, is fed and drained by massive ocean currents. The entire water body is replaced every 2 to 3 weeks. Consequently, it is nearly impossible to pollute the reef.
They should be embarrassed.
You have to watch that sneaky agricultural run-off (/s)
Not so long ago people around the Warrego River in western Queensland were assured by a minister of the time that they were contributing run-off to the GBR.
For a quick lesson in geography the Warrego River flows into the Darling River which meets the Murray River which meets the Southern Ocean around southern part of Australia.
From there that pollution would have to brave ocean currents north up the east coast a long way to get to the GBR.
See what I mean sneaky?
Any pollution that did arrive that way would more likely be picked up from Sydney’s Bondi sewer outfall
That’s quite an impressive feat 🙂
It does in a really good season.
I had a conversation w a biologist about oceans and agricultural runoff and was making the point that it is, of course, an issue closest to the source ie streams and rivers closest to agricultural land. He did not seem to grasp the dilution factor in regards to oceans. And, on true form, he brought up ocean acidification which is, again of course a misnomer. I find it odd that biologists often fall into the generalisation trap and are rather bad at straight physics. Then i was thinking that perhaps biology has been taken over by uber environmentalists and their agenda.
My friend just mentioned species extinction and the loss of insects and tied it all together to Co2 and agriculture. Occam’s razor kind of thing.
From my recollection, the “species extinction” rates that are often panicked about are…based on modelling and estimates. It’s modelling all the way down it seems.
“Sixty percent of all human CO2 emissions have been emitted since 1985 but today the corals are healthier than ever.” – great news, of course, but “for ever” is only since records began in 1985. We’re lucky that 1985 wasn’t an exceptionally good year. The alarmists push their luck when the dates suit them of course, but while we celebfrate the corals’ good health, we should remain conscious of the short period of record.
Indeed. And given the age of reefs in general they do adapt to changing circumstances. Being that close to the surface they are more susceptible to small changes but also adapt much faster. Otherwise they wouldve been long gone.
It’s a wonder / conundrum of the modern world that only areas that are practically inaccessible to ordinary folk are being devastated by global warming –
the GBR, the Arctic, the Antarctic, the Amazon jungles, the rainforests of Indonesia, San Francisco (oh wait, that’s drugs and crime).
The reason is obvious.
Global Warming is caused by UFOs.
And we all know that UFOs are very shy, so they prefer isolated areas rather than highly populated regions.
Those darn “shy” UFO’s… diving into the ocean and causing havoc with the corals.
There’s nothing surprising about it. They’ve survived for 100-200 million years, they’ll survive whatever we puny humans throw at them.
Even atomic bombs.
Ref: Bikini Atoll lagoon.
Bikini Atoll, the Pacific Ocean site where the United States carried out nuclear testing over 70 years ago, now has an abundant ecosystem of plant and animal life. Scientists report corals as big as cars and say it is teeming with fish such as snapper, sharks and tuna.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fish-nuclear-weapons-bombs-sea-stanford-university-us-tests-hiroshima-a7842436.html
No surprise that the Alarmists manipulate the data to conform to their preferred
narrative. They can’t allow any good news since it would be bad for grant funding, donations to
political groups & NGO’s, and appealing for votes.
Question: The GBR is ~2300km in length running roughly NW to SE.
What are the seasonal differences in water temperatures from north to south? Where can I find that data? Thx!
AIMS. Lots of gaps in their data though. No-one tries to make this sort of data easy to find or reseach. I imagine I will find measures shown on maps, and very nice charts for each station, but no.
https://weather.aims.gov.au/#/overview
I had a look in some months ago after another scare story and talking to a biologist friends who questioned my source of information. In this age of drones it would be relatively easy to track the development of corals w pictures, graphs etc and deep dive into the data like one can do w weather stations. But no..
Just returned from Fiji and the rainbow coral reef. Very healthy (and beautiful!!)
There is a high probability that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is increasing because of warming.
Clouds, rain, can dissolve less of it. More evaporates from the sea. The balance is dynamic.
The high CO2 turnover is by rain, which therefore has a pH of 5.6. The water content of the atmosphere is exchanged every 10 days.
So above the oceans, CO2 is released from the ocean back into the sea.
Rain falling on land forms carbonates from rocks, which accumulate in the seas.
Basic physics tells you that as water warms more gasses are released.
More good news. It’s quite a stretch to call the CAGW crowd scientists. They give science a bad name.
The climate ‘scientists’ put all their money on the CO2 numerator horse and ignore the denominator. We all know that the denominator, in this case 1,000,000, is the all important context. Their get-out is to assert that CO2 has some magical heat properties way in excess of it’s numbers, a bit like a kind of homeopathic effect.
The AIMS is usually a mixed bag. On the one hand they put in things like: “With coral reefs facing existential threat from the impacts of climate change, being able to induce spawning on demand will accelerate our understanding of corals”.
But then actual articles are written about how the reefs are recovering as well.
I think 2 things might be happening at the same time: highlight alarm to keep the focus (and funds) going and virtue signal the importance they put on the effect of climate change and do the actual much less dramatic science/ observations. The latter of course gets much less attention in the media. The AIMS is covering both bases. Makes sense. Its just that the public only gets to see the alarm the msm puts out, as with just about everything in regards to climate issues (or weather).
This is the BBC’s latest news for children on the topic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/cg33mpkxk9po.amp
Thought for the day on BBC Radio 4 today was also some sort of weird Scientism/Christianity amalgam referencing the GB reef, link will be available later I expect.
Polar bears are thriving, the Maldives aren’t sinking and now the Barrier Reef is blooming.
The canaries just aren’t dieing – we will have to cull the critters soon!
At one time it was polar bears and the Arctic, but when that didn’t play out the way they had hoped, they had to find another location and biology to claim was done. The Great Barrier Reef. Problem is, it is far more accessible than the Arctic, so many people can challenge the misinformation.
Sixteen years ago I read a new book, “Coral a Pessimist in Paradise.” It reminded me of Esop’s Fables.
Well coral has aged well but the book with its dire predictions about coral has not.
To the President and regents of James Cook University in North Queensland, Australia:
I do believe that, based on the above article as well many similar articles that have been published on the growth of the Great Barrier reef since October 2021, you do owe Dr. Peter Ridd a formal apology for your outrageous lawsuit actions and your overall ignorance of the scientific method.
Of course, that would require you demonstrating some semblance of ethical behavior, a phrase methinks you’ll need to look up in a dictionary.
Now the Great Barrier Reef no longer can be used to promote dangerous man made climate change we could use it as a platform for wind turbines to save the planet.
Joshua trees, Whales or The Great Barrier Reef should not stand in the way of progresses.
As a reminder, the Crown of Thorns issues were tied to fertilizer runoff decades ago. More nitrogen meant more algae and the CoTs were off to the races.
Blaming fertilizer runoff jsut doesn’t ring true: 150 to 200 km from the coast, with huge ocean currents flowing past?
EAC current map attached.
“the reef’s coral cover is at an all-time high despite the significant increase in CO2 emissions over the past few decades”
Not despite increased CO2! Because of it! I’m not an expert in coral reefs, except to say, as it turns out, I appear to know more about their resiliency than the scientists of the infamous Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). My knowledge is of the fossil record for coral and its antecedents (stromatoliths, bioherms) which are large layered masses of fossilized algal matter which supported colonies of single-celled and other creatures, stretching back 2.5 to 3 billion years ago!
This long, unbroken history, surviving hot seas and snow-ball earth, giant bolides, thousands of Carrington events, multi ice ages, drifting continents and horrendous continental collisions – India crashed into Asia and crumpled up the Himalayas. Sealevel jumped up and down 100’s of meters and with the Chicxulub bolide that wiped out the dinosaurs 66mya generated a wave ~1.5 km high and a super tsunami that would have done ser5ius damage to the world’s coral reefs.
Shame, Shame on all pretenders to science and the evil politics that pays for these awful dishonest reports to promulgate fear, guilt and crippling socioeconomic conditions on innocent citizens. Biology was the first science to be corrupted by politics I the 1950s. Somebody has to fix it. Many must to pay restitution for these crimes against humanity.