Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I keep reading endless hype about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) getting bleached out of existence. So let’s start with some facts.
First, coral is not a single organism. Coral is a curious critter. Coral is a symbiotic partnership between an animal from the Anthozoa group and a microbial alga called Symbiodinium. The microbial algae use photosynthesis to create sugar, and the Anthozoa polyps feed off the sugar. Here’s a description from the USGS.

Figure 1. Description from the USGS article: “The hard skeleton of coral is formed by the secretion of calcium carbonate by the polyp. The cup-like skeleton deposited by an individual polyp is called a corallite. Polyps gather food particles with the nematocysts (stinging, venomous cells) in their tentacles, and feed from sugars produced by photosynthesizing zooxanthellae, a type of algae. The coral tissue protects these algae from herbivorous grazers, and the algae in turn use many of the polyps’ waste products such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Illustration by Laura Torresan, USGS“
Next, modern-type warm-water shallow coral reefs have been around for about half a billion years … so obviously, they must be resistant to temperature changes, including the large temperature swings in the transitions between the glacial periods and the interglacial times such as the current Holocene.
Next, “bleaching”. Bleaching is the natural response of coral to excessively warm or excessively cool temperatures. Or to pollution. Or to siltation. Or to toxic chemicals. Or to the death of the parrotfish or other grazers that keep the coral from being overgrown by other plants.
When the symbiotic relationship comes under pressure due to any of those stressors, the algae may leave the coral’s tissue. And if the stress is due to pollution, siltation, or the lack of parrotfish, then the reef may die.
But if the bleaching is from unusual temperatures, the reef doesn’t usually die. Instead, something entirely different happens. The usual outcome of bleaching due to temperature change is that after the algae die and are expelled by the coral, a different strain of algae that is adapted to the new temperature takes up residence in the bleached coral skeleton.
It’s easy for the new algae to colonize the coral—at that point the coral is like an apartment house where the tenants have all moved out. The new algae can colonize the coral without having to build up the structure. So the reef usually comes back to full health quite quickly.
How do I know this stuff? Hours and hours of scuba and snorkel diving on coral reefs, plus four years living on a coral atoll. I’ve seen the bleaching and watched the reef recover.
Now, as I mentioned at the top of the post, there’s all kinds of hype about what might happen to the GBR, or to the reefs off of Florida and the Keys for that matter, if the ocean warms up and doesn’t cool back down.
However, what most folks don’t know is that a) coral reefs like warm water, the warmer the better, and b) the GBR and the Florida reefs are at the coldest end of the temperatures where shallow-water corals reefs can grow. (And yes, I know there are deep cold-water corals … but we’re not talking about those, are we?)
So let’s start with the location of the GBR. It’s on the northeast coast of Australia, shown in the map below.

Figure 2. Location of the Great Barrier Reef
And where is that in relation to the rest of the world’s coral reefs? Well, very few coral reefs exist where the year-round water temperature is less than 23°C (73°F). And here’s a map of that region.

Figure 3. Temperature range where corals thrive (colored areas), and the area where most corals live (red box).
So … as you can see, both the Florida reefs and the GBR are in the coldest part of the temperature range where corals are happy. And most coral reefs are in the warmest ocean waters. So we know that there are plenty of warmer-water-adapted algae and warmer-water coral reefs.
And of course, this means that if the ocean in those areas of the GBR and Florida reefs gets and stays warmer … all that will happen is that some reefs will bleach, warmer-water-adapted algae will recolonize the reefs, and finally, because of the warmer waters, the reefs will be able to expand polewards.
A final note. Almost nowhere is the open ocean’s annual average temperature warmer than ~30°C. And as the ocean’s temperature overall has warmed, the warmest waters have stayed the same temperature. So a warming ocean is no threat to corals growing in the warmest ocean waters.
TL;DR version? While humans threaten coral reefs via pollution, pesticides, and siltation, corals like warm water. They are happiest where the water is warmest. Corals have survived radical changes in the temperature of oceans over geological time. Bleaching is the natural way that corals adapt to changing water temperatures.
And as a result … all of the hype about the corals and “global warming” is just another part of the climate alarmism scam. They’re not under any kind of threat from warming oceans. Or to misquote Mark Twain, “The rumors of coral’s death are greatly exaggerated”.
w.
PLEASE NOTE: When you comment, quote the exact words you are referring to. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
____________________________________________________________
Hi Willis, you’re a few terms behind the times. It was Global Warming in the press up to ~2007 when “Climate Change became popular. But that’s being replaced by “The Climate Crisis” You can Google that to find out that some U.S. Government departments have adopted the term. Anyway, in my opinion:
“The Climate Crisis” is a text book example of “The Big Lie”
“Climate Change” was used at least as far back as 1988 when the IPCC was formed.
Yes, after all, it’s the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” But the press used “Global Warming” well into the 21st century.
And IPCC never corrected the MSM.
Another great post, Willis. Thank you. You are always so easy to read and understand.
You are spot on Willis.
I would add that none of the photosynthesizing coral we see today existed 10,000 years ago when sea levels were over 30 meters lower. They are very resilient creatures and rose with the rising sea levels as the world warmed.
They didn’t exist at the place they live today but why would the tropical oceans be colder? Pressure at sea level must have been higher so temperature must have been at least the same.
Because we’re in a global WARMING crisis, not a global COOLING crisis or even a global STABLE crisis. Didn’t you get the memo? Today is the hottest day in the last 125,000 miles.
The coral type stated was photosynthesising which means less than around 150m deep. That depth in present time was near surface about 20,000 years ago.
Yup…The location of the Great Barrier Reef, at the Last Glacier Maximum, was rainforest.
Good stuff, Willis.
Around 3 years ago I looked at the HadISST — 1°-by-1° spatial-resolution, monthly time-resolution — SST dataset for the GBR gridcells, for the slightly shorter timespan of 1870 to 2020 (151 years).
Note that there were two columns of “delta” calculations for each gridcell, the differences between each “summer max” and both the previous and successive “winter min” values.
Over the entire GBR, from 1870 to 2020 at least, the coral survived a total (absolute) temperature range of (roughly) 20-31°C.
Each 1°-latitude by 1°-longitude gridcell included coral that managed to survive temperature changes of at least 3°C, and up to 9°C … every six months !
And yet we’re supposed to believe that a gradual rise of 1.5°C over a century or two will devastate “warm water corals” in general and “coral reefs in Australia” in particular (IPCC AR6, WG-II report, SPM Figure 3, which should “autoload” below).
Somehow I doubt that particular “conclusion” by the IPCC.
[ Edit : The screenshot of my 3-year-old spreadsheet follows. ]
Thanks for that detailed post. A lot of IPCC assumptions, as always. All bad news based on..mmm..what exactly? High sensitivity based on…
Now, with a current 1.5 degrees warmer than say 1850 it means that an extra degree would lead to catastrophy, right? I mean, there are no positives to be seen up till now from slight global warming, apparently. So, the story is: bad stuff w 1.5 warming, even badder (im using a Bidenism) with another 1.5 on top.
It is interesting that NO positives are allowed in this racket. And i believe it IS a racket. Simply because it seems everything has to reach a certain outcome.
I happened to see the definition of a ‘Sea Lawyer’–“An argumentative captious sailor” Captious–1 “Marked by a often ill-tempered inclination to stress faults and raise objections.”
1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age when millions died from famine. The UN/IPCC thinks that time was great, they are nuts?
The Earth is still in a 2+ million year ice age with 90 percent of the fresh water locked up in 200,000 glaciers, the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica and it won’t be over until all the natural ice melts.
Outside of the Tropics, almost everybody has to work and live in heated buildings, use heated transportation and wear warm clothes most of the year,
Your chart is further proof that 30C is all she has. That is where the convective engine runs out of puff.. It is full throttle for Earth’s atmosphere. It is impossible for open ocean surface to sustain more than 30C.
The negative feedback from cyclic cloud formation is 2. Meaning increase in reflected short wave is twice reduction in OLR. The inverse relationship is even observed in the 23 years of CERES data just north of the Equator:
?ssl=1
The latitudes just north of the Equator is where there is more cloud. Nearly all other latitudes are experiencing less cloud. And SWR has reduced more than OLR has increased overall by 1.1W/m^2. So any theory on the influence of CO2 has to explain why it has a sudden reversal of influence just north of the Equator.
The only reason that warm pools can actually sustain 30C is that they borrow more heat, most as latent heat, from surrounding ocean due to mid to low level convergence than they release as sensible and latent heat at high altitude divergence to surrounding air. Precipitation in warm pools can be up to twice the rate of the local rate of condensing.
Fun affirmation. Off my Fort Lauderdale beach condo the coral reef is actually three separate reefs. Shoreward is shallowest and largest extent, about 15 feet down. Next toward the ocean is a separate smaller reef about 30 feet down. And ocean most is the deepest smallest reef about 60 feet down. Each obviously has different temperature adapted symbionts. The shallowest reef does extend north past Pompano for about 15 miles. But by the time you get to Southernmost Palm Beach (Mar a Lago)—a mere 45 miles north up the coast—there is no reef at all. Water is too ‘cold’.
Sea level has changed much over the past 100000 years.
* The Anastasia Formation stretches from Anastasia Island to Palm Beach, about 250 miles. It goes 300 miles east into the Atlantic Ocean and 30 miles inland.
“Trump killed off the coral reefs!”
— Climate Alarmist (without a STEM degree)
There’s some reef up to about Port Saint Lucie, seen it with my own eyes.
I did not know that, so looked it up. Is not large in extent. Reef is Located 1/2 mile offshore in 5-35 feet of water in Port St Lucie State Park (which includes 3500 acres offshore). Most of the reef comprises sebelariid worm rock, not coral. But there are also patches of coral. Those are the absolute northernmost extent of live reef corals in the US.
Thanks for the information. Those pesky facts get in the way every time with the alarmists.
Do we know if shallow-water corals reefs have moved closer to the Poles the last 200 years?
Thanks again Willis for a big dose of truth.
But tbh, when such truths are all around us and being pointed out so continuously, it can get a bit boring for dear readers.
I need some frivolous entertainment in my climate reading now, so I’m going over to The Guardian for a spell.
But as Arnie says –
“I’ll be baaack . . . “
Always look forward to your insight on climate and the tropics. Coral are such odd creatures. They seem to be an evolutionary colony of symbiotes. I didn’t know that they fed from their algea guests, kind of like ants feeding off of aphids. I do think that the nematocysts are probably defensive. They are a one shot and done mechanism. Enjoyed your posts.
You got me thinking, so I did some quick research. The coral nematocysts have two functions. First, they stun prey from zooplankton to fish larvae for capture and digestion. Second, they are defensive. If an adjacent polyp ‘intrudes’, the nematocysts sting the intruder tentacle and that part of the intruder dies. That’s how such exquisite polyp packing is accomplished by nature.
Just about to post my comment dubious about only defensive when I double checked. Didn’t think the nematocysts could ‘rewind’. My zoology was 1972. Somehow that barb must somehow draw the prey back in to its mouth. Still learning.
Side note O/T. That nematocyst firing is thought to be the fastest biomechanical process. It inflates. I still don’t think it could rewind, but maybe could contract to pull prey in. A zoologist might know, I don’t.
“… zooplankton and fish larva…” is this an omnivore? carnivore?
All the GBR coral are dead or dying.
Since the 1960s.
They have been gradually replaced by plastic replicas held in place by lead weights. They look great from Google Earth photos.
No climate scientist would ever leave his desk to scuba dive to see what really happened. That’s what confuser models are for.
This conspiracy is why we keep hearing fake news about record amounts of GBR coral, thanks to that Australian conservative conspiracy. to populate the reef at night, using flashlights, with plastic corals.
The next UN/IPCC meeting should be held in January outdoors in Norway and get a real, live climate experience.
Oslo and Norway in general have a rather mild climate by North American standards. How about Winnipeg in January? Or better yet Yellowknife or Fairbanks?
Indeed, those of us who occasionally read The Guardian know for a fact that the GBR was carted off by Crown-Of-Thorns starfish on a moonless night in the 1970s. So any claims that the reef still endures (even if a bit worse for wear) must be based on some such thing as plastic replicas.
Dear Willis. All your posts are deeply Embarrassing to the alarmists. I use the ‘traditional biomass’ one all the time. I have this photo of an elderly Indian woman making cowdung chuppatties for fuel.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the BBC has even turned ‘prayer for the day’ into climate propaganda! Well here it is, enjoy:-
A spiritual comment and prayer to start the day with Fr John Burniston
Good morning.
Radio may not be the best place to learn about the amazing eco system that is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia but I was particularly taken with a short piece on the Today programme about the challenges it faces.
Extending for thousands of kilometres, the Great Barrier Reef is home to countless micro habitats, each of which provides a home for more than 1,600 species of fish, dolphins and whales and six of the world’s seven species of marine turtles. No one reef looks like another. Their beauty – and their strength – lies in their diversity.
However, the rise in ocean temperatures has led to severe bleaching and decay and recent cyclones have caused large areas of the reef to fracture into coral skeletons. Without intervention the coral will simply break up and die.
Yet marine scientists are rising to the challenge. Massive seawater misters are being deployed to create fog over reefs exposed to too much sunlight and thousands of living coral fragments are being planted to enable reef renewal.
We are not the first generation to feel overwhelmed by challenges to faith and to Christian values. Nor are we immune from the temptation to think that there is nothing much we can do, that decline is inevitable.
But like the coral scientists we will need to be both creative and systematic in finding solutions to enable our own hugely complex ‘barrier reef’ church home to thrive once more. Jesus talks about the way the grain of wheat has to die before the crop can be harvested. What new fragments do we need to be planting?
Lord, in all the challenges be our guide, for we put our trust in you.
Amen.
Serendipitous timing. I just attended a talk last Thursday by Dr. Greg Asner regarding the reef situation in West Hawaii. He’s heading up a coral restoration project called ʻĀkoʻakoʻa. Basic idea is to take samples of specific coral which have thrived despite various stressors at different locations and cultivate them to produce more coral to enhance the original source reefs.
Extensive data collected both before an after major 2015 heatwave identifies pollution, siltation and anchor damage as more harmful than heat to long-term coral health. These are problems we can actually do something about. Dr. Asner and multiple people present confirmed that reef health below 7 meters was generally good; the worst problems were with shallower corals (which are also closer to shore and therefore in higher concentrations of runoff).
Sadly, from observation I believe diver damage is another significant factor.
ʻĀkoʻakoʻa Project homepage is here.
Data on Hawaii reefs can be explored here. (I assume raw data is available on request).
Regards.
Precursors of coral reefs are massive algal reefs stretching back in time to at least 2 Bya with some evidence from 3.5Bya. It is interesting that the wonderful mind of Darwin was troubled with the seemingly strong geological evidence at the time that life forms began in the Cambrian. If this was so he felt it falsified his theory of evolution because there should be evidence in older rocks of progenitor creatures leading up to the specialized animals in the Cambrian (can you imagine today’s post normal consenus climate scientists capable of such a thought?)
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.707072/full
Do not conflate calcification stromalites from cyanobacteria with tru corals. About 2.5 billion years of evolution difference.
Quite a number of critters have built carbonate reefs at one time or another. Algae, Sponges (sort of anyway-Archeocyathids), Bryozoa, even clams (in the Cretaceous). My impression is that the coral reefs we are familiar with are mostly a fairly modern phenomena. The internet isn’t helping me out much as it insists that the earliest coral reefs are in the 480 million year old Chazy group in Vermont, Quebec and upstate New York. The problem there is that I’ve actually looked at a fair number of Chazy exposures. While there are certainly some corals there, they are by no means the principle component of those rocks.
No expertise on coral here, just the notion that if shallow water corals grow only in relatively warm waters, which limits the extent of their range … and if the range of warmer waters expands further north … then logic dictates, absent any other controlling parameters to the contrary, that more coral reefs will be the result.
Same thing with mangrove forests which grow only in tropical and subtropical latitudes. If warming environment extends further north then the result should be more mangrove forests.
The trick that the warmunists always play is to only count the costs of warming, never the benefits. Ditto with CO2. They ignore the fact that environments are relatively stable yet change and evolve continuously. This results in individual losers and individual winners. But who is to say that the changed environment is “worse”? Who gets to make that subjective declaration?
If the climate warms then the people who prefer cooler weather are “losers”, I suppose. But those persons can either adapt their lifestyle to the warmer climate, or they can move to where it is cooler. Plants and animals do the same – move or adapt, or expand or shrink.
Moreton Bay is located off Brisbane at 27S. Some distance south of what is regarded as the southern end of the GBR. The water there is usually colder than the reef and the corals not as abundant as seen on the GBR but there must have been periods in recent millennia when the coral thrived because most of Brisbane was built from cement made from corals dredged in Moreton Bay.
that has worried me for years further the ocean looks to have been slightly higher also. Geology in the region is very stable in the context of 12,000 years.
Moreton Bay still has excellent stands of live ‘reef-building’ coral.
Brilliant succinct summary of a complex topic. Thank you Willis.
Great article Willis. I learned stuff about corals I did not know. Like the location of colder reefs!
Very nice Willis, very informative.
The Earth is still in a 2+ million ice age named the Quaternary(Glaciation). Corals were around before this ice age when the Earth was much warmer.
Willis,
There’s a bit of an inconsistency. At one point you state: “Well, very few coral reefs exist where the year-round water temperature is less than 23°C (73°F). And here’s a map of that region.”
Which is followed by Figure 3 with the caption: “Figure 3. Temperature range where corals thrive (colored areas), and the area where most corals live (red box).”
So is there a missing map, showing were very few corals exist due to low year-round water temp? I’m confused.
In Figure 3, the uniform dark blue areas show the waters which average less than 23°C … which is where almost no corals live.
w.
Ok. I threw me since it said “here’s a map of that region”, and it’s a world map. Never mind, it’s good.
“Next, “bleaching”. Bleaching is the natural response of coral to excessively warm or excessively cool temperatures. Or to pollution. Or to siltation. Or to toxic chemicals. Or to the death of the parrotfish or other grazers that keep the coral from being overgrown by other plants.”
Or crown-of-thorns starfish.
Willis.
Nice article …but …
“very few coral reefs exist where the year-round water temperature is less than 23°C (73°F).” ???
There are lots of cold water coral reefs, including at both poles.
Lophelia pertusa tolerates temperatures between 4 and 13°C (Freiwald, 2002)
Unmanned submersibles ( developed by the oil & gas industries ) have discovered 1,000s
I can’t find the big distribution map link, but here is a taster –
https://data.unep-wcmc.org/pdfs/3/WCMC_001_Global_Distribution_of_Cold-water_Corals.pdf?1617121038
Reefs of the hard, cold water coral Lophelia pertusa in association with other hard corals (e.g. Madrepora oculata and Solenosmilia variabilis) are found in water between 130 and 2,000m depths. They can cover extensive areas of the sea bed up to several kilometres long and standing more than 20m high. The oldest of these reefs are estimated to be around 8,000 years old.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8727/Cold_water_coral_reefs.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed=
Some pretty pictures from Norway –
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/norway-cold-water-coral-reef.html?sortBy=relevant
1save, you really should read the whole thing before beclowning yourself … from the head post:
Best regards,
w.
Coral bleaching is just another excess elite employment program.
Think of all those poor social “sciences” majors and hack lawyers and social media community managers that would be unemployed if not for the AGW scam.
coral is formed by the secretion of calcium carbonate
=======
By weight, coral reefs are more than 50% carbon dioxide.