The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or, as you yourself just posted but have now curiously left out, a consistent campaign of what is arguably alarmism from the BBC about the GBR over at least the past decade, including at least two articles listed in your same post claiming a 50% coral loss over 10 years. If this is correct, and since the reef is what, millions of years old(?), then the reader is left with the impression that the reef is certainly DYING, doing so fast, and given the claimed rate of degradation is most certainly soon to be DEAD.

You've got two things there:

1. A claim of 50% coral loss over 10 years. And related discussion of harm.
2. An unproven inference about what someone might conclude from the facts. Or a subjective, biased disagreement with current coverage.

#1 is worth discussing. Are these assertions correct? What is the real state of the GBR? What is likely to happen in the future? #2 is a strawman from which to launch a rant, from the OP who admits to a somewhat partisan stance about CC etc.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... My understanding is that Prof. Reid doesn't dispute negative impacts either, only the extent of their impact and their source ...

... Iow, Reid could have legitimately been found to have violated the university's rules, but the firing could still be deemed unlawful since it violated his rights to free speech and academic freedom. I'm pretty sure the latter is how the lower court ruled.

I'm sure Exile is referring to Dr. Peter RIDD (James Cook University).
It's very hard to understand one's point, when the most basic facts are wrong.

[RaymondR]

"This is not a simple calculation, where a single (set of) observation(s) can provide a simple answer - as comforting as many of us would find such simplicity."

Right on mate but this fact and all the other factors which might come into play have not stopped a lot of people who should know better from making the most dire of predictions.

Last year much of eastern Australia was in the grip of a drought. Someone made the statement that if we were to continue the high rate of population increase we were going to have to build more water storage dams. The relevant minister of the state responded with the assertion that because of climate change it made no sense to spend money on more dams because they would never fill. Well, as usual the drought broke with extensive rains and now the dams are all overflowing.

Since one way or another most climate science is tax payer funded and the institutions where the work is being carried out subject to budgetary restrictions. Sooner or later legislators are going to say why should we continue to waste money providing ammunition for the AGM/CC zealots to continue ti cry wolf and beat us around the ears with this nonsense and shut the money flow off. Since we badly need to refine the models so that we can have confidence that they are providing good information on which to make plans for the future this would be a disaster.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You've got two things there:

1. A claim of 50% coral loss over 10 years. And related discussion of harm.
2. An unproven inference about what someone might conclude from the facts. Or a subjective, biased disagreement with current coverage.

#1 is worth discussing. Are these assertions correct? What is the real state of the GBR? What is likely to happen in the future? #2 is a strawman from which to launch a rant, from the OP who admits to a somewhat partisan stance about CC etc.

On #1, the assertions are made most recently (14 October 2020) in:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2020.1432

with a succint and less detailed story at:

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-re...alf-its-corals

To date, no one has published data to suggest that those assertions are not correct.

Quite the opposite, the additional data suggest that the focus on just the 50% coral loss hides the real story: that the fish that used to find suitable homes around the coral now find that the space between clumps of coral is too large for their continued existence. Since most fish are depth-bound, i.e. they prefer to live within a narrow range of depth, that's the death of fish.


Arguing about 'ridd' or 'reid', arguing about arguing, and arguing about supposed rights to free speech, do not change the evidence for assertion #1.

[Wotname]

^^ hey, shooting the messenger(s) is always the preferred choice of those who don't like the message.

Sadly...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I'm sure Exile is referring to Dr. Peter RIDD (James Cook University).
It's very hard to understand one's point, when the most basic facts are wrong.

Yes, Peter RIDD. Thanks for the correction.

My post was not intended as a presentation of basic facts but more of a brief summary of the core issue. The appeals court opinion is not easy to get through, but have a look at the facts outlined in p.7 of the opinion which you linked us to in post #37. Ridd never disputed his transgressions under the university's Code of Conduct, but instead argued his censure and ultimate dismissal violated his rights to intellectual freedom guaranteed by the so-called Enterprise Agreement (further defn. & explanations in the opinion). In essence, the lower court ruled that the two were in conflict and the right of academic freedom should have priority. The appeals court disagreed based on a different analysis entirely. Maybe Ridd will have better luck with the High Court. Either way, it's not a simple case of rule violations vs. basic civil rights as many like to frame it. If nothing else, his case has brought him and the GBR a lot of attention in the court of public opinion.

[Reefmagnet]

If Peter Ridd supported the the "death of the reef" narrative, he'd be lauded as being a leading world expert on GBR ecosystems (which he is). Because he won't toe the company line, he's marked as a pariah instead.

And for those that don't consider the educational system an industry, it was Australia's #4 export in 2019, beaten only by iron ore, coal and natural gas. A somewhat interesting observation is that the most climate alarmist institutions also appear to be the most neck deep in bed with certain countries that have a less than stellar reputation when it comes to managing climate change (and other things). Of course the cynic might claim that the common element is "following the money", but who knows?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
I don't believe that the authors explicitly claim to directly answer their (own) question.

"Do clouds save the great barrier reef? satellite imagery elucidates the cloud-SST relationship at the local scale” ~ by Susannah M Leahy, Michael J Kingsford, Craig R Steinberg
Links to the complete article.
➥ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0070400
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722189/
➥ file:///C:/Users/gorda/AppData/Local/Temp/Leahyetal2013_cloudsonGBR.pdf


“Evidence of global climate change and rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is now well documented in the scientific literature. With corals already living close to their thermal maxima, increases in SSTs are of great concern for the survival of coral reefs. Cloud feedback processes may have the potential to constrain SSTs, serving to enforce an "ocean thermostat" and promoting the survival of coral reefs...
... This work quantifies the often observed cloud cooling effect on coral reefs. It highlights the importance of incorporating local-scale processes into bleaching forecasting models, and encourages the use of remote sensing imagery to value-add to coral bleaching field studies and to more accurately predict risks to coral reefs. ”



As I previously claimed:

My focus were the bits I bolded. They supported my argument as requested.

Summary....

Observation: when it's cloudy SST reduces. When it's sunny it increases.

Theoretical research: The positive feedback of clouds on SST may be underrated and things could be worse than we thought.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My focus were the bits I bolded. They supported my argument as requested.

Summary....

Observation: when it's cloudy SST reduces. When it's sunny it increases.

Theoretical research: The positive feedback of clouds on SST may be underrated and things could be worse than we thought.

Ahh, so many ways to address this 'summary' of an unsupported-by-evidence, cherry-picked, misapplication of scientific studies, apparently made in an effort to --- promote an agenda? --- convince the gullible? --- preserve or promote a starkly obvious propoganda campaign? What actually is the goal here, or is it just simply the inability to understand, or ignorance, or both?

Here's the complete abstract that you (or perhaps one of your sources) cherry-picked, thinking, apparently, that it supports the claim you say it does. Of course it does not.

I'll add some comments within to illustrate the, at best, schizophrenia in many of these denier positions, and bold the items that illustrate why the 'observations' (which these aren't; it says so right in the abstract, "Here, the authors exploit numerical simulations in the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model".) don't support the fantasy that the ultimate cause of the currently warming seas (or any other area of the habitable earth) is primarily solar irradiance.

"Cloud radiative effects (CREs) are known to play a central role in governing the long-term mean distribution of sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Very recent work suggests that CREs may also play a role in governing the variability of SSTs in the context of El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Here, the authors exploit numerical simulations in the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (Wait, aren't models anathema to pseudo-skeptics? 'Everyone knows' that if a model doesn't 100% agree with observation, the model is 'wrong' and hence should be discarded...) with two different representations of CREs to demonstrate that coupling between CREs and the atmospheric circulation has a much more general and widespread effect on tropical climate than that indicated in previous work. The results reveal that coupling between CREs and the atmospheric circulation leads to robust increases in SST variability on time scales longer than a month throughout the tropical oceans. Remarkably, cloud–circulation coupling leads to more than a doubling of the amplitude of decadal-scale variability in tropical-mean SSTs. It is argued that the increases in tropical SST variance derive primarily from the coupling between SSTs and shortwave CREs: Coupling increases the memory in shortwave CREs on hourly and daily time scales and thus reddens the spectrum of shortwave CREs and increases their variance on time scales spanning weeks to decades. Coupling between SSTs and CREs does not noticeably affect the variance of SSTs in the extratropics, where the effects from variability in CREs on the surface energy budget are much smaller than the effects from the turbulent heat fluxes. The results indicate a basic but critical role of CREs in climate variability throughout the tropics. (Of course, the over-arching schizophrenia is the continual misapplication of scientific literature to try and support an ascientific conclusion. For instance, the AMS (the source of the misinterpreted abstract) is unequivocal in it's stance on anthropogenic climate change,

"Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face. Based on our current path, a child who is born today would, at age 30, breath air with roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as her great, great grandparents. And yet, we do not know how much carbon we can emit safely and we cannot know in advance when human-caused climate changes will lead to catastrophic societal consequences. We do know that we are seeing some of these consequences today, including increases in global temperatures, melting ice caps, and rising global sea levels.These are conclusions based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been gathered over decades of intensive scientific research. They are affirmed, and reaffirmed by numerous leading scientific institutions around the world, including AMS.

For example, the official AMS statement on Climate Change, reads in part, “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.” It goes on to say, “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases …”

The complete statement is here https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/am...imate-change1/ )

So 'variation' translates to 'less overall heating' how, exactly? Or more specifically, net cooling overall, which was the starting point for this particular wild goose chase?

The apparent fact that the agreement between the two supposedly contrasting papers shown in post 263 is unrecognized by some is on par with a statement made earlier, to the effect, " the GBR is millions of years old", and is likewise indicative of the degree of both the level of seriousness these 'skeptics' have, and the credibility that should be extended to them.

Without looking it up, there are probably no extant coral reefs on earth older than about 10,000 years, because most coral reefs are shallow water phenomena, and until roughly 10,000 years ago, sea level was 350' below present level.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

... The apparent fact that the agreement between the two supposedly contrasting papers shown in post 263 is unrecognized by some is on par with a statement made earlier, to the effect, " the GBR is millions of years old", and is likewise indicative of the degree of both the level of seriousness these 'skeptics' have, and the credibility that should be extended to them.

Without looking it up, there are probably no extant coral reefs on earth older than about 10,000 years, because most coral reefs are shallow water phenomena, and until roughly 10,000 years ago, sea level was 350' below present level.

Indeed.

Evidently, deep sea reefs are among the oldest living creatures.
Researchers have discovered coral beds (about 1,200 ft. deep), off the coast of Hawaii, that are more than 4,200 years old, making them among* the oldest living (in continuous existence) creatures on Earth.
Two different species of coral beds were documented using carbon dating methods.
Leiopathes is now confirmed to be about 4,265 years old, while the other species, Gerardia, is believed to be about 2,742 years old.

* Some of the bristlecone pine trees in Northern California are also more than 4,000 years old.

“Radiocarbon-based ages and growth rates of Hawaiian deep-sea corals” ~ by E. Brendan Roark et al
➥ http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m327p001.pdf
About ➥ https://www.llnl.gov/news/deep-sea-c...arine-organism

As a species, corals are 500 million years old, and date back to the late Cambrian period, during the Paleozoic era. Evidence suggests that they started as simple, solitary organisms but, in response to changes in their environment, later evolved into the coral reefs we know today. It is also known that over the 500 million years, during which corals are known to have existed, they have experienced a number of extinction events. These extinction events were largely the result of dramatic changes in their environment, such as we are seeing today.
The corals that form reefs in tropical waters today, first appeared in the Middle Triassic Period, about 240 million years ago. The Great Barrier Reef is relatively young, at 500,000 years, and this most modern form is only 8,000 years old, having developed after the last ice age.

“Coral Reef History”
➥ Coral Reef History - Global Reef Project

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Ahh, so many ways to address this 'summary' of an unsupported-by-evidence, cherry-picked, misapplication of scientific studies, apparently made in an effort to --- promote an agenda? --- convince the gullible? --- preserve or promote a starkly obvious propoganda campaign? What actually is the goal here, or is it just simply the inability to understand, or ignorance, or both?

Here's the complete abstract that you (or perhaps one of your sources) cherry-picked, thinking, apparently, that it supports the claim you say it does. Of course it does not.

I'll add some comments within to illustrate the, at best, schizophrenia in many of these denier positions, and bold the items that illustrate why the 'observations' (which these aren't; it says so right in the abstract, "Here, the authors exploit numerical simulations in the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model".) don't support the fantasy that the ultimate cause of the currently warming seas (or any other area of the habitable earth) is primarily solar irradiance.

"Cloud radiative effects (CREs) are known to play a central role in governing the long-term mean distribution of sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Very recent work suggests that CREs may also play a role in governing the variability of SSTs in the context of El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Here, the authors exploit numerical simulations in the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (Wait, aren't models anathema to pseudo-skeptics? 'Everyone knows' that if a model doesn't 100% agree with observation, the model is 'wrong' and hence should be discarded...) with two different representations of CREs to demonstrate that coupling between CREs and the atmospheric circulation has a much more general and widespread effect on tropical climate than that indicated in previous work. The results reveal that coupling between CREs and the atmospheric circulation leads to robust increases in SST variability on time scales longer than a month throughout the tropical oceans. Remarkably, cloud–circulation coupling leads to more than a doubling of the amplitude of decadal-scale variability in tropical-mean SSTs. It is argued that the increases in tropical SST variance derive primarily from the coupling between SSTs and shortwave CREs: Coupling increases the memory in shortwave CREs on hourly and daily time scales and thus reddens the spectrum of shortwave CREs and increases their variance on time scales spanning weeks to decades. Coupling between SSTs and CREs does not noticeably affect the variance of SSTs in the extratropics, where the effects from variability in CREs on the surface energy budget are much smaller than the effects from the turbulent heat fluxes. The results indicate a basic but critical role of CREs in climate variability throughout the tropics. (Of course, the over-arching schizophrenia is the continual misapplication of scientific literature to try and support an ascientific conclusion. For instance, the AMS (the source of the misinterpreted abstract) is unequivocal in it's stance on anthropogenic climate change,

"Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face. Based on our current path, a child who is born today would, at age 30, breath air with roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as her great, great grandparents. And yet, we do not know how much carbon we can emit safely and we cannot know in advance when human-caused climate changes will lead to catastrophic societal consequences. We do know that we are seeing some of these consequences today, including increases in global temperatures, melting ice caps, and rising global sea levels.These are conclusions based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been gathered over decades of intensive scientific research. They are affirmed, and reaffirmed by numerous leading scientific institutions around the world, including AMS.

For example, the official AMS statement on Climate Change, reads in part, “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.” It goes on to say, “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases …”

The complete statement is here https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/am...imate-change1/ )

So 'variation' translates to 'less overall heating' how, exactly? Or more specifically, net cooling overall, which was the starting point for this particular wild goose chase?

The apparent fact that the agreement between the two supposedly contrasting papers shown in post 263 is unrecognized by some is on par with a statement made earlier, to the effect, " the GBR is millions of years old", and is likewise indicative of the degree of both the level of seriousness these 'skeptics' have, and the credibility that should be extended to them.

Without looking it up, there are probably no extant coral reefs on earth older than about 10,000 years, because most coral reefs are shallow water phenomena, and until roughly 10,000 years ago, sea level was 350' below present level.

Yes, the Great Barrier Reef as a structure is in the tens of thousands of years old, not millions. And if you want to call selecting two search results from the first dozen or so from the first page of a google search "cherry picking" then so be it.

[Davidla]

I fly over the GBR at least twice a week at heights from 200' to 2500'. I cover from the Town of 1770 to the Torres Strait. I visibly examine the reef and observe the activities of those operating vessels on it. I have seen tiny examples of coral bleaching mostly in the northern areas. Of the reef itself I would estimate the bleaching to have been at less the .5%
The reefs off Mackay, which start at about 50 miles of the coast are clearly the best if you want to see great reef. It is very much alive.
These are all facts.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Davidla

These are all facts.

Who you gonna believe?


Terry Hughes would doubtless respond by misquoting the Marx Brothers:
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes? "

[Exile]

Obviously just another denier who also probably throws his empty plastic bottles overboard. [sarcasm]

[Reefmagnet]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has first hand knowledge of the GBR - and that doesn't have an agenda to pursue - that would agree there is a serious problem.

Last month, I was anchored for a few days right where the eye of cyclone Debbie passed over in 2017 and was amazed at the recovery of the reef in this area. I'd say the aquatic areas have recovered much better than the surrounding land areas at this point.