Stone Island is the reef that put Peter Ridd’s career on the road to the high court. Last week Jennifer Marohasy released a mini documentary showing corals around Stone Island that weren’t supposed to be there. It was a bad look for Dr Tara Clark, the expert who had said the corals were gone.
This week Graham Readfearn hit back with “Scientists say rightwing think tank misrepresented her Great Barrier Reef study”. Apparently Marohasy must have used a right wing camera or something. (Those corals you saw are not really corals). If only Readfearn had not used a left wing keyboard, where the only truths it could tell were projections of his own flaws onto everything else.
Dr Clark apparently now denies she said the corals were all dead. Saying “We never claimed that there were no Acropora corals present in 2012.” Poor Guardian readers, as usual, get spoon-fed thin slices of technicalities and weasel words, never the whole truth.
This picture was taken with Jen Marohasy’s drone, Skido, looking south east towards the edge of Pink Plate Reef
on 26th August 2019.
Are you now or have you ever been an Acropora coral?
In reply Jennifer Marohasy just quotes the same Dr Clarke in her own papers:
At Stone Island, the reef crest was similar to that observed in 1994 with a substrate almost completely devoid of living corals.”
For Stone Island, the limited evidence of coral growth since the early 19th Century suggests that recovery is severely lagging.”
… by 1994 the reef was covered in a mixture of coral rubble and algae with no living Acropora and very few massive coral colonies present …”
It’s clear Dr Clark said the reef was similar to a report from “1994” when there were “no living Acropora” and the “substrate was almost completely devoid of living corals.” So that’s all right then, Clark only said it was “like” there were no live corals. It’s not “like” that is misleading.
Acropora sp and Turbinaria mesenterina, both hard corals, on 27th August 2019, at an inshore reef fringing Stone Island.
Jen Marohasy’s study was too small says Mr Readfearn, but Tara Clark’s was even smaller…
Jen Marohasy says:
According to the nonsense article by Mr Readfearn, quoting academic Dr Tara Clark, I should not draw conclusions about the state of corals at Stone Island from just the 25 or so hectares (250,000 square metres) of near 100 per cent healthy hard coral cover filmed at Beige Reef on 27 August 2019. Beige Reef fringes the north-facing bay at Stone Island.
But Tara Clark… “based this conclusion on just two 20-metre long transects that avoided the live section of healthy corals seaward of the reef crest.”
The whole Great Barrier Reef covers 348,000 km2. Rather than just a couple of transects, Jen Marohasy surveys more and also describes a bigger better study that the whole media “forgot”:
A study published by Reef Check Australia, undertaken between 2001 to 2014 – where citizen scientists followed an agreed methodology at 77 sites on 22 reefs encompassing some of the Great Barrier Reef’s most popular dive sites – concluded that 43 sites showed no net change in hard coral cover, 23 sites showed an increase by more than 10 per cent (10–41 per cent, net change), and 17 sites showed a decrease by more than 10 per cent (10–63 per cent, net change)
Queensland sea levels have been falling for 5,000 years (see Lewis et al). Sea levels also fall with El Nino’s. This puts the highest part of the reef at the most risk:
It is uncontroversial in the technical scientific literature that there has been sea-level fall of about 1.5 metres at the Great Barrier Reef since a period known as the Holocene High Stand thousands of years ago.
It is also uncontroversial that sea levels fall with the El Niño events that occur regularly along the east coast of Australia most recently during the summer of 2015–2016. As a consequence, the reef crest at many such inshore fringing reefs may end up above the height of mean low spring sea level. This is too high for healthy coral growth; because of sea-level fall, corals in this section of these reefs are often referred to as ‘stranded’ and will be dead.
Dr Clark studied the reef crests which are the high parts of the reef. Join those dots and the parts Clark studied were probably the most likely to have stranded, dead corals.
Dr Clark and colleagues clearly state that they began their transects at Stone Island at the reef crest, which they also acknowledge is at ‘the upper limit of open water coral growth’. It could reasonably be concluded that Dr Clark’s study set out to sample the section of this reef that could be referred to as stranded.
Jen Marohasy’s full reply at her blog: Why Deny the Beautiful Coral Reefs Fringing Stone Island?
Why indeed. Possibly there are more grants in finding dead corals than live ones?
Universities have become churches of a dying earth.
We face the end-times.
We have fallen, and must repent.
The devil resides in oil and straws and bags. Sinner, repent.
262
Universities new motto : ” Nothing to learn here , move right along ” .
But great work by Jennifer , that’s what science looks like ( just in [ the unlikely ] case the ABC would like to find out ) .
30
Thats a king sized “whoops”….
121
All Dr Clark need do is supply to Dr Marohasy is the map cords of her two 20m transects so her data can be replicated….or refuted
390
The area Clark sampled is in her
Nature ( peer reviewed ! )
Article.
That’s why Jen Marohassy did her filming there !
220
Like with Ayers Rock, all tourist activities on the GBR should cease. Boats etc polluting the water, unless electric, should also be banned. This is clearly required to begin the ‘healing’.
152
And a slight aside, this is a very real possibility given the way we appear to be headed:
And I’m absolutely certain that the Greens feel this way (all the while using the technology etc that fossil fuels have provided).
30
Also all trips by Climate “Scientists”. Cut their budgets too. After an initial uproar the number of “the Reef is dying/dead” reports will reduce considerably.
150
And a good thing too…went dont want another climate scientist ship of fools run aground on the ice…er…non existant coral….
100
Fossil fuels to the rescue!
Australia to give France Antarctic help
“Australia will lend a helping hand to the French Antarctic program this summer after the European nation’s research and supply ship broke down.”
https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6505019/australia-to-give-france-antarctic-help/?cs=9397
60
Why not use sailing ships like they used to do? That would please St Greta of Thunberg.
30
Five hours later and still a link to a news article is in moderation.
10
… all those skindivers, both academic and tourist, using sun-screems (<-deliberate mis-spelling for a bit of humour. This is so the trolls can understand.) are more dangerous to the sea-life, especially the corals, than any amount of CC. As we haven't had any CC at all yet ( after you remove the Climate Variation ) then it's got to be all those sunscreem chemicals in the water.
Many of the sunscreem chemicals don't appear to be human tested, either. Because they're all topical application, they're assumed to be safe. Oxybenzone in just the tiniest concentrations is known to be lethal to the filter feeders which includes corals. It's been found in human milk and it apparently breaks down under solar exposure. Yep, adds a whole new meaning to `fry' in the sun.
So far it hasn't been proven lethal to users. How long will that take though?
50
9 out of 20 sunblock products failed to block the sun
via govt radio 21 Nov: “The Cancer Society is being asked to recall all batches of one of its sunblocks because it doesn’t give people the protection claimed on the label… one of nine different brands which fell short in the latest round of testing”.
Won’t stop the sun yet kills coral dead. Bravo!
10
Absolutely agree with Jonesy. What could possibly be wrong with a process in open-science where one scientist (Dr Clark) makes her results completely open for another scientist (Dr Marohasy) to examine on a completely transparent basis? Surely Replication is an absolutely fundamental aspect of the Scientific Process. C’mmon Dr Clark, please stand up and show your support for Replication and open science.
380
Scientific process has now changed to scientific consensus.
130
Actually science fiction. Lots of it on the Foxtel Discovery Science channel.
30
Also there is nothing wrong with science coming to a consensus provided it’s based on factsa nd correctly interpreted evidence. For example, the consensus at the moment is the earth is approximately spherical and not flat like some believe. The consensus is based on facts and correctly interpreted evidence, not fiction and opinions.
10
Why indeed. Possibly there are more grants in finding dead corals than live ones
Ouch, more corrupt individuals than Scientists.
It’s tragic!!!
30
Any suggestion to remove unnatural items from the reef area (is Man unnatural?) would preclude any visits by us as sunscreens, propellers, prop-wash, etc will have some effect on the reef, as in other areas of study.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/saltwater-science/what_risks_do_tourists_pose/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/tourists-may-be-making-antarctica-s-penguins-sick
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-04/hawaii-bans-sunscreen-coral-bleaching/9728322
Whatever we do, we are bad and must be stopped. Send money.
120
How does this fit in with pacific islands disappearing under rises seas?
120
Because the Great Barrier Reef data..is for that area and not other areas.
Sea level rise is not uniform and many islands are dynamic not static.
Take Tuvalu for instance.
Its the poster child for
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1.pdf
60
I don’t understand how sea level rises are localised. Assuming the rise is due to more water (ice melting) and expansion of water due to heat, shouldn’t the rise be distributed relatively evenly? To borrow a term from the flat earthers, doesn’t water ‘find its own level’?
Could it be more a case of the land rising and falling relative to the ocean instead?
FWIW
I think timeline has a part here; 1.5m lower than a thousand+ years ago does not imply falling ‘now’. Could be it fell, and is now rising back to where it was.
30
Its tricky, but consider a wave, the crest of the wave is higher than the trough, so when the trade winds blow say west to east, the water piles up in the east (Crest) and is lower in the west of the basin (Trough). Also Water height can be affected by air pressure above it, if the air pressure is low the water gets sucked in, High pressure pushes it away, so water level below atmospheric Low pressure systems is higher than under atmospheric high pressure systems. This is what causes storm surges( water rising under low pressure systems). Finally gravity also acts on water causing tides which move in a wave around the planet. It doesn’t take very long if coral is above the water line to affect the corals health, so when high pressure, trade winds and gravity all conspire to lower water level corals can be stranded above the water line for 6 hours or so. That’s enough to damage them. Depending on weather conditions, this can be as local as say 20km (Could even be much more local in storms or localised up/downdrafts or near eddies (Water spouts))
80
Ok, I understand what you say and it makes sense. But…wouldn’t such a “wave” be transitory? Once the winds stop or the low pressure moves on, the level would drop. Do we really measure sea level like that?
20
disorganize the trade winds are almost constant, that is why the sailing ships called them the “trade” winds. They facilitated the passage of sailing ships to the west. They blow from east to west almost continually in the subtropics, & much of the tropics, in the same way the “roaring 40s” further south blow almost continually from west to east.
Incidentally I ran marine tourist operations in the Whitsundays. We carried about 700 tourists a week to Hardy reef, about 75 kilometers from Airley Beach, & 102 kilometers from Bowen & Stone island in question here.
Hardy reef is a lagoon of about 7,000 acres, enclosed by a 30 kilometer ribbon of drying reef. On a big spring tide the lagoon inside this reef with only 3 very narrow passages through it called the waterfalls is about 1.6 meters above sea level. The water rushing out of the waterfalls is a sight to see.
This is part of the outer reef, little effected by mainland runoff, but the top of the drying reef is similarly devoid of live coral, just as the Stone island reefs are. Anyone with any knowledge of coral reefs knows the drying part of any reef will be basically dead.
Anyone surveying coral would only chose to study the drying coral flat, or crest, if they wanted to be sure of getting a negative result. I believe calling it the “crest” is a ploy to disguise the fact that it is what locals refer to as the coral flat, & is well known to have little living marine life.
Trust our current marine science, you’ve got to be kidding.
90
that makes sense also 🙂 So….. IF the water expands because of heat and ice melt, would that make the crests higher and the troughs lower? I know I’m stuck on the whole sea-level thing, but it is common argument for climate change that sea-levels are rising. I had understood that to imply rising *everywhere*. Then I read that sea is getting lower in places which seems to rebut the argument that levels are rising. Now I’m thinking that if crests get higher and troughs lower, then it makes a global measurement very difficult; but also that rising and falling simultaneously actually *supports* the notion that the sea is warming. If our reef is in a trough, then it seems inevitable that more reef will die as it becomes exposed.
10
“…also that rising and falling simultaneously actually *supports* the notion that the sea is warming…”
Hmmm.
Assuming you are asking to know and not to bring in the agenda via a back door…
Seas have been rising in many places since the 1700s and the LIA. It’s been a fairly steady upward dribble. To get an idea on the last century, just check the record for the geologically stable Port Jackson.
As for sea levels falling, there’s little disagreement anywhere about that. Places like Juneau and Stockholm have falling sea levels because of post-glacial rebound from the end of the last glacial period (LGP) a mere twelve thousand years back.
Sorry if I seem suspicious, but the GeeUppers and climate-botherers are such scamps. When the front door won’t do, they come in the back way, often posing as earnest questioners.
40
No worries wrt suspicions mosomoso – I’m new here after all.
FWIW, I was sucked in by Al Gore’s inconvenient truth when it came out. The increasing hysteria made me doubt and question (this year), and the ice core records showing CO2 lagging temps and even staying high (around 3000ppm iirc) whilst we plunged into an ice-age have me convinced CO2 is not leading. I also see NASA showing the world is greening – which makes me think that CO2 will self correct at some point. And even if C02 was utterly evil, then we’re pursuing the wrong path with unreliables – have to hand it to the French, they did well to follow nuclear.
A lot of the arguments made to challenge climate alarmism make perfect sense – though I do wish I had the ability to verify the raw data/interpetation for myself; but I do not. Other arguments, like the sea level rise and fall, are quite baffling (or were until this thread :))
I’ve joined this forum to be able ask questions on the stuff I don’t understand. My hope is to learn and solidify my own position on things, so I am better able to discuss if the subject comes up in conversation.
20
When we look at sea level its best to focus on ENSO.
‘A new study has found that the cyclical climate phenomenon can ratchet up sea levels off the West Coast by almost 8 inches over just a few seasons.’
Scientific America
30
Over longer cycles, dugongs lived in Botany Bay 6000 years ago when SST were warmer and sea level higher.
30
The whole dang plate is moving and flexing like toffee. The Australian crustal plate is shifting north faster than any other plate. It moves about 7cm a year, so fast it mucks up the GPS trackers. The pacific plate is subducting under it. To the south, Australia has travelled over a kind of fountain of magma – an upwelling — that lifted it up but now we are on the other side things are sinking back down. These are long timescales, but big movements. during the past 50 million years, it subsided by up to 300 metres and tilted to the north.”
In the short term, there are local areas of subsidence and rise. Toss out any idea that the Earth is solid and flat. WA is going north faster then the East Coast and the whole country (especially WA) gets more Earthquakes than a country in the middle of a plate is supposed to.https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-01-25/five-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-australia/8144516
And then there is the moon tide which pulls the whole nation up and down (like the rest of the world) by 40cm every day.
See also https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location-information/landforms/australian-landforms-and-their-history
http://www.ga.gov.au/news-events/news/latest-news/dynamic-topography-of-australias-margins
100
Interesting Jo. Recently I was told that Australia is rotating counter-clockwise, but your info says clockwise.
The same person also pointed out to me the linear fault lines out in the Indian Ocean that all terminate on Perth – look at Google Earth to see them.
He also commented that the coastal rocks around Cape Naturaliste to Cape Leeuwin are matched by the same coastal rocks in India. Fascinating stuff, geology.
21
“The linear fault lines out in the Indian Ocean that all terminate on Perth – look at Google Earth to see them.”
Graeme#4
Those lines are marine survey transects that originate from vessels leaving Femantle.
Making a digital surface map from a set of point data (historic individual soundings) and modern sidescan sonar swathes combined with potential field (gravity and magnetic) data is a complex process.
Have a look at this composite detailed bathymetry map from the centre of the Indian Ocean.
The modern sonar swathes are clearly visible and contain detailed high frequency spatial data. At the edge of the swathe the detail reduces and the map becomes smoother where the potential field data is being used. Notice also the individual points of the older depth soundings arranged in north-south lines along the track of the survey vessel.
20
this error was made on this blog some time ago. weird lines off tasmania if I recall.
Google earth is a tool of discovery but the data needs more than a cursory eye balling to make conclusions.
10
Those islands are adding surface area, as seen from the International Space Station, which adds to their mass.
Extra mass makes them sink …
10
“How does this fit in with pacific islands disappearing under rises seas?”
Jonsey,
The simple answer to your question is that the Earth has two distinct types of surface crust that sit above the mantle – light continental crust and heavy oceanic crust.
Continental crust being less dense is therefore more buoyant than oceanic crust. The Great Barrier Reef is developed on the continental crust of Australia and so the reef and the rocks on which it sits do not sink easily into the mantle and therefore remain close to sea level.
By contrast, oceanic crust is formed from dense volcanic rock. As oceanic crust ages, it cools and sinks into the Earth’s mantle, carrying the oceanic islands and their coral reefs down into the ocean depths as drowned atolls and seamounts.
10
” completely devoid of coral” = completely devoid of science .
This is why Peter Ridd had to go , to protect the science trough .
100
Latest from Peter Ridd’s site:
$759,280 raised of $1,760,000 goal
NOVEMBER 19, 2019
by Peter Ridd, Organizer
Dear All,
Firstly, a huge thanks to all those who have donated since my last update.
The main news is that the appeal date has been put back to 25-29 May 2020. It is a bit disappointing that it will drag on for longer, but in the scheme of things it is not a big deal. And it gives us plenty of time to raise more funds.
In the meantime, I have been busy working on a very detailed submission to the Senate Inquiry that is looking at the links between agriculture and the Great Barrier Reef. Submissions are slowly appearing on the inquiry web site – they are confidential until released by the committee. My submission makes the case that our science institutions are untrustworthy due to insufficient quality assurance protocols – essentially the point that I made that triggered JCU to fire me. There will be a few other scientists who will be making similar points.
I should add that it was a real thrill to meet some of you in Norway, Holland and the UK at the public lectures I gave on the Reef last month.
Kind regards
Peter
90
Readfearn and the
Propagandist Guardian
All small of B S
And on this occasion the smell
Is fresh and disgusting
60
Dr Clark now denies that she said all the corals were dead.
Another ‘academic denier’ Who will ever believe her again?
GeoffW
180
Cant wait to see what Rauri cones up with this one…..should be like harpooning a university trough funding for climate change…..
Thar she blows…..!!
80
The demented self-appointed excuse-makers and watermelon-protectors at the Guardian couldn’t help but attack science processed and debate again. They’re a fair bit better at spreading paparazzi sleaze photos and celeb-gossip drivel about the latest Ken & Barbie emanations seen at a beach or night club.
70
The MSM seems to suffer from “climate rabies”…..
80
Graham Readfearn is a climate change zealot and won’t be swayed. He has found some bread and butter work here and there, and writes the media releases for marine conservation.
https://www.marineconservation.org.au/author/graham/
60
Way back when he got “handed a new one” by Lord Monkton
10
What could be more obvious.
There is no money, there are no grants, there is no future in saying that nothing is wrong.
It is the death knell of the Grants to say the sea is not rising, the temperature is not going up, the reef is fine and beautiful and bushfires are natural and much worse since the Greens stopped backburning and clearing. And the crown of thorns starfish is an old occasional cyclic predator throughout the Pacific and does more good than harm.
It’s interesting that these disasters have only occurred since the explosion of ecology in the science department in the 1970s. Thousands of people looking for work with the government and demanding laws to justify their existence. No end of things have gone wrong with the world since then. All requiring massive endless government intervention, legislation and funding. And banning stuff like rock climbing, Ayer’s rock, high plains grazing of cattle, searching for gas, fracking and all tourism especially to the Great Barrier Reef. Plus banning the motor car, the airplane, the miner and the farmer, coal, oil and gas. And a lot more taxes to pay for all this, so they can import everything from countries which do not have such onerous restrictions.
The real concern is that the huge ABC is not needed. SBS has been completely obsolete since satellites and the internet. The CSIRO is desperate for meaningful work for their thousands of people in the science retirement village. The BOM is fully automated and satellites do a better job anyway. And many of the people who want to be paid to live in beautiful North Queensland desperately need to find something wrong which needs their full attention. Like a lobster plague and a champagne surplus.
170
why can’t I find Jennifer Marohasy’s response published in The Guardian:
a different Guardian – part of Australian Community Media (ACM), owned by Rural Press. Lawson also writes for Canberra Times, which is now listed as being owned by ACM:
22 Nov: NambuccaGuardian (ACM Paper): Scientists clash with Qld cane growers
by Kirsten Lawson
An inquiry into farm run-off into the Great Barrier Reef has ignited the scientific community, which insists the case is clear and has urged politicians not to “cherry pick” the data.
Scientists and government science agencies have found themselves at loggerheads with Queensland cane growers over water quality in the reef, and they’re not hiding from the fight…
“The Australian Academy of Science is greatly concerned about a recent tendency to cherry pick, dismiss, misrepresent, or obscure scientific evidence or smear individual scientists,” president Professor John Shine said.
“Cherry-picking evidence to support a decision or position is dangerous and leads to poor judgement and outcomes.”…
The inquiry received more than 40 submissions, including from the federal government’s own environment department and from the CSIRO…
The environment department said plans to improve water quality were unpinned by the best available science, including more than 1600 papers and reports reviewed for the Scientific Consensus Statement…
Jennifer Marohasy, a well-known climate sceptic accused governments of deliberately hiding water data it to “maintain the perception of declining water quality, while in reality, the situation is improving”.
https://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/story/6505535/scientists-clash-with-qld-cane-growers/?cs=9397
120
Ahh scientific consensus, where would the world be without scientific consensus?
60
Seriously, what ecologist would study Stone island and write a report saying that it was fine and any dead areas were part of the normal cycle of life? It is absolutely critical for funding to make out something is very wrong. These are Monckton’s Profiteers of Doom. And every natural disaster was not predicted by Climate Change. Again, how does 1C in an average make any difference to anyone? At a human, animal, insect, chemistry level, it is completely undetectable let alone significant.
What has changed in 100 years of steady CO2 increase? A slight but steady warming of the oceans and why is CO2 responsible for that warming?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for the ocean warming to be responsible for the CO2 increase? I have no idea how CO2 heats the oceans when it does not heat the
air. As 98% of all free CO2 is dissolved in the world’s ocean, 50x as much as in the thin air above, steady ocean surface warming would release CO2.
Isn’t that a simpler explanation which fits the facts?
The fact is that there is almost no fossil fuel CO2 in the air. It gets sucked into the vast reservoir in the oceans in a giant system
in steady equilibrium.
But who gets paid for concluding there is nothing wrong?
180
Consider that in life, professionals often get paid from something going wrong. Doctors and lawyers, receivers, chartered accountants.
A new class of pseudo scientists have now joined them and like conflict lawyers, they have a vested interest in making things worse, at least until the money runs out.
150
Excellent point TdeF, these people simply thrive on catastrophies.
And when they cannot find one . . .
GeoffW
70
TdeF according to the link below, GHG’s IR emissions are not absorbed in water to more than 25 microns (micron = one millionth of a meter) and so cannot heat the oceans as it is immediately re-emitted to the atmosphere. Inconvenient that for the warmers isn’t it. UV and visible light heat the oceans along with volcanoes, completely natural. We play no part in it!
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87
John
60
Readfearn, while he was at the SMH debated climate science with Christopher Monckton and was absolutely shredded by Monckton’s citing of facts, as oppose to Readfearn’s unfailing belief in the CO2 ogre. That he is now writing for the Guardian is no surprise as he is a perfect fit for its declared belief in “the science” and its refusal to countenance any thing that challenges the alarmist religion.
140
Um…yeah….its like Vladimir Lenin wrote the curriculum…..what did they expect?
Lenin was an advocate of using schools are primary indoctrination centres for the State “theology”.
I’m not a a One Nation supporter, I do however agree the Leftist agenda has been embedded in curriculum.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-22/teachers-schools-lashed-as-conservatives-fear-leftist-agenda/11648892
“Teachers, schools in firing line as conservatives rail against ‘leftist agenda’
“One Nation voters are turning on the mainstream education system as conservatives across the country express a deep mistrust of what they say is a “leftist agenda” taking over the classroom.
“Supporters of the minor party are also significantly less satisfied with the job teachers are doing than Australians of any other political leaning.
“The root of the frustration can be traced to a wider dissatisfaction with the political landscape, and is expressed in new data from the Australia Talks National Survey.
“The survey found 55 per cent of voters for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation were dissatisfied with the education system — well ahead of the major parties, the Greens and other minor political groups.
“The anger at a perceived left-leaning bias in education can be found everywhere from Facebook groups to conservative curriculum experts and One Nation candidates, who have a warning for the political establishment and educators: “The tide is turning.”
“‘Politics has entered the classroom’
“Sharon Lohse knows the education system in Australia intimately.
“The mother of three taught her kids using distance education material for most of their schooling, with stints in mainstream and boarding schools also called on at times.
“Ms Lohse also ran as the One Nation candidate in the Queensland seat of Flynn at the May election, attracting 17,000 first-preference votes — the second-highest count among the party’s Lower House candidates.
“”Our life has been so dramatically changed because of politically driven agendas and it has hit our schoolroom,” Ms Lohse said.
“”We’ve lost our sense of education in Australia and I believe we’re losing our academics and we’re losing our enquiring minds.”
“Ms Lohse said when she first started teaching her eldest daughter by distance education in 1998 there was still a strong focus on basic textbook material and the “three Rs” — writing, reading and arithmetic.
“Yet she says she watched in dismay as the curriculum shifted, and by the time her youngest child reached high school, Ms Lohse was convinced a creeping bias had become entrenched.
“She cites climate change as one example, saying her family “doesn’t believe it” but her son was asked to do assignments on the issue based on it being established fact.
“”Now that’s condition. That’s complying. That’s not education,” she said.
“”Teach them the basic education to read, write and do arithmetic.
110
Thanks.
Fortunately my kids went to a private school and there was still a strong emphasis on the 3 Rs.
Private schools in Australia rank very well internationally and if their performance as a group is taken then they would sit in the top 3 of countries.
Public schools are way down the pack, and since private education covers 1/3 of children, hence lifting Australias overall performance, the public school system falls further to a disgracefully low level.
There seems no attempt at balance with the “climate change” issue – no showing of the historical record etc. People I speak to are astonished when I point out the far higher temps in the last 10 000 years without CO2 and the huge variation in temperature over time, without CO2. They should not be as if the school system did its job of INFORMING and EDUCATING rather than INDOCTRINATING we would be far higher up the ladder and people properly informed on this issue.
70
Yes such crap is rife in our public education institutions. It really spells doom for our nation given many of the students will be leaders in business and politics.
30
And how does “Climate-Change” amount to an automatic “bad”? That’s totally absurd from the start!
The NET effect of this recent warmer phase of the ocean-moderated multi-decadal weather cycle, has been demonstrably very positive indeed for the ecology of the planet.
If this is a “climate-crisis“, I’ll take two please!
110
And a natural increase in CO2 is essential for a rapidly growing world.
After water and sunshine, CO2 is the basic limit in food production and ultimately all food comes from photosynthesis and hydrated Carbon Dioxide or carbohydrates.
The idea that the extra CO2 is heating the world is putting the cart before the horse. Heating increases CO2, as if that wasn’t obvious. And CO2 clearly does not heat the air, as is also obvious.
The only question really is how to blame rapid global cooling on CO2.
100
And what does water temperature have to do with CO2 anyway? I have never seen an attempt at an explanation for greenhouse gases heating the ocean. Have I missed this incredible connection? Or is everything simply climate change, the great UN faith. It certainly pays millions of wages.
90
Even at the Guardian. It is noticeable that all the proponents of man made Global Warming are making their living from it. None of the scientists who disagree. In fact like Prof Ridd, they are more likely to be fired if not already retired.
80
Take our local council..
“Port Phillip Council declares climate emergency
Published 19 September 2019
Port Phillip Council has joined the growing movement calling for urgent action to address climate change.
A motion passed at last night’s Council meeting declares climate change poses a serious risk to Australians – including those living in Port Phillip – and should be treated as an emergency.
It commits Council to advocating to state and federal governments to “declare a climate emergency and take action to drastically reduce warming emissions in Australia and across the world”.
Port Phillip Council will also incorporate the declaration in all of its relevant strategies and policies and consider the impact of climate change when planning and decision making.
Mayor Dick Gross, a university lecturer on climate change, likened the current debate to when the harm caused by smoking was not universally acknowledged in the 1950s, despite a raft of scientific correlations.”
I do not remember when the opponents of smoking had University salaries for being against smoking.
90
TdeF –
this is your Mayor?
TheConversation: Dick Gross, Tutor in Climate Change, University of Melbourne
I am a lawyer with a BA and LLB from Monash and an LLM from the University of Melbourne. I teach first and second year Climate Change which is an interdisciplinary breadth course run by the Faculty of Science. I am a tutor and occasional lecturer in the subject.
For over a decade I was a councillor and 3 times mayor at the City of Port Phillip. I was President of the Municipal Association of Victoria and a board member of the Australian Local Government Association.
I am also a waste nut having led and served on a number of waste management committees and policy reform bodies. For these, I have been awarded the Membership of the Order of Australia for service to the environment and local government.
Since my local government career came to a tragic end, I have been writing books and a blog on atheism. I am the author of non fiction books on death and unbelief and a fictional work on the Passion from a secular Jewish viewpoint. My blog, “Godless Gross” was initially commissioned by Fairfax Media and attracted more comments than almost any other regular blog in the country. It can be read at LINK…
My current directorships include Keep Australia Beautiful Victoria and the Australian Packaging Covenant Council.
https://theconversation.com/profiles/dick-gross-90691
70
Yes, a dedicated Climate Change employee. And no longer as his career came to a ‘tragic end’, which is interesting.
100
He is obviously incredibly well qualified as a ‘Climate Change tutor’ I see.
Sarc…in case you didn’t notice.
80
It’s H.L.Mencken sin-drohm,
hobgoblins, alarmed populace/send more money!
30
Slightly off topic but I have noticed at my local cemetery large patches of green grass diectly above the graves. This is very noticeable in a new area that 8-10 years ago was just hard brown dirt where nothing grew. There is no watering, no fertilizing and of course minimal rain, so is something else going on like Co2 rising out of the ground? Any comments.
GeoffW
50
Interesting.
20
Think of graves as infill, its been a drone boon for archaeology.
‘What has made the summer of 2018 so remarkable is that the winter and spring was so wet that plants grew relatively shallow roots, having no need to search deeply for water. So when the drought came this summer, those plants that grew over buried features such as ditches and pits benefited from the greater store of water retained in the infilled soil. Well-drained sandy soils and those over chalk are particularly conducive to revealing features through cropmarks.’
The Conversation
40
Australia is on fire ( except if you look back 1000 years via Antarctic ice core samples, and its actually quite normal…as are long droughts…) but never let that get in theway of a good headline….
Quote : “We say we want climate action, but we still won’t vote for it”
Um…….yes……why would anyone who can discern nonsense from fact, willingly vote for “environmentalism masquerading as socialism” ( to quote Tony Abbotts’ insightful truth )
The sky is falling! Sort of…but only if the funding research forms are filled in, in triplicate…..
https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-say-we-want-climate-action-but-we-still-won-t-vote-for-it-20191121-p53coj.html
“Opinion
“We say we want climate action, but we still won’t vote for it
“What now, after two scorching weeks that have set the nation ablaze and delivered warnings of catastrophe so regular they have begun to seem monotonous? Could it be a turning point in Australia’s political logic on climate change; the episode that turned climate denialism (or at least agnosticism) from a political asset into a liability? The moment when those debates about the cost of action seemed rather less urgent in the searing face of the cost of inaction?
“That people are now prepared to talk climate change in the midst of a fire emergency tells you that some kind of threshold has been reached. At least something is up when politicians – from both major parties – spend considerable energy telling you not to discuss something, and the public debate carries on anyway. At that point, such pleas sound more like desperation than authority.
“But there’s a long way to go here, because the problem in Australia is that climate politics is no longer a simple contest between believers and deniers. It’s not even a contest between those who want action and those who don’t. Perhaps the greatest trick of all this has been pulled by those who support the idea of climate action but oppose every particular version of it.
40
It’s all a simple sign of a nation going mad. Those of us who are not mad will have to endure a lot of pain before things get better again.
30
In GBR coral cores the length of the reef there was a persistent 400 year long drought just prior to European settlement.
i.e. peak Little Ice Age which greatly attenuated the wet season, which made monsoonal rains and cyclones rare in QLD.
As Australia warmed up the humidity rose and the wet-seasons returned. Otherwise Europeans would probably have settled Australia later, due staples crop failures and famine.
50
BTW, wrt to fuel load, rising humidity and less cloudy days would produce higher fuel loads and more intense burns more often, in a greener warmer continent. Combine that with fewer controlled burns with time and you get catastrophic fire/climate murgency.
20
Two studies on the same, or nearly the same, area of one reef.
One study by Dr Clark uses an established methodology (a transect) is published, which allows both replication and critique
The other study by Dr Marohasy, does not publish its methodology, but apparently uses a drone, and therefore can not be replicated or meaningfully criguqued.
This does not invalidate either study, but they can not, on any level apart from a vague geographic one, be compared.
116
Of course they can.
130
In fact one can be criticized for doing a lousy job on our money. Being reviewed by your friends in the same position means nothing. They are all in the same game.
140
PF
I cannot believe what you are saying here.
Jennifer supplies clear evidence that Dr Clarks study is false.
The peer review process is broken across the academic world due to it not having a proper standard to follow. When I audit I must audit to a defined standard with clear unambiguous steps to be met. Peer review is a joke because there is no rigourous process where we have an exhaustive checklist related to the data review and handling, confirmation that experimental protocols are rigourous and that outcomes of experiments have been properly reviewed, including a formal review of these outcomes by the review. And who defines who is a peer? And where is the publically available evidence that those reviewers have actually done anything other then tick it off and pass it through.
The auditing process used for finance and food manufacturing is far more robust, but still has issues. Peer review by contrast is non robust and virtually useless as a guarantee of accuracy.
110
Assertions?
There were two studies using two methods – unless you replicate one against the other, you have proved nothing
112
The way I see it the idea was to overlook any existing coral to further the CAGW meme and put in a case for further research needed grant troughing .
The location is the same the only difference is one scientist wasn’t using a seeing eye dog and a cane .
130
‘Assertions?’
My hypothesis is that Jennifer’s observation supersedes Clarks earlier work. Its possible that a flood plume in February provided the impetus for the Stone Island corals to rejuvenate.
70
And how can you do that? What you’re suggesting is drivel. Why? Because there were two studies using two methods.
It’s simple: you can compare the two studies conclusions. Photographic evidence is pretty compelling …
60
No – science does not work that way. It measures apples to apples.
here is another, previously discussed reference
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/02/coral-reef-deaths-mystery-solved/
The transects were looking for evidence from a specific event – they were not an observational survey
in detail
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10350
however, if you want to – compare apples to oranges, it makes not a jot of difference to science
14
Peter Fitzroy,
You obviously completely misunderstand what science is about.
Scientific verification by other methods has be long used in the scientific records to substantiate most scientific claims. The fact that the two studies use different methods is good for science in as far as it points out that more open and honest study is required to find, with better detail what is truly happening.
The scientific process is not about foolishly relying on one study and it’s results, as NO research project can ever reveal the totality of the topic in question. To improve our knowledge using the science process requires more study of what we think we know, with improved methodologies (that will hopefully), reveal the finer details of whatever is examined, and that has always, and is how it’s to be done.
Science is NOT a catalogue of some ‘known’ facts but an unending process that seeks knowledge of the universe about us. A such the scientific process does NOT hold all the answers, for in reality it holds very few, if any, of complete and reliable facts. Only those who believe that science is like a religion would consider it otherwise. Science does not require belief, it requires observations, measurements, and verifications.
Experiment, record, verify is the scientific process.
41
What statistical justification was provided that 2 x 20 metre transects allows any conclusion other than that there were 2 x 20 metre transects used in the study?
50
I don’t know, read the method section of the study
03
“Two studies … One study … is published … The other study … does not publish its methodology …”
In other words, “Who are you going to believe, the published study or your lying eyes?”
80
Climate change is one of the biggest misinformation campaigns ever concocted. I can’t believe it’s entirely organic. Some deep co-conspiracy is going on here.
70
They are all paid for their Climate Change beliefs. People who disagree are not.
90
21 Nov: BBC: China could ‘turn off power’ in the Philippines, senate hears
China could switch off the Philippines’ national grid, congress has heard in Manila.
The head of the National Transmission Corporation confirmed the possibility during a senate session.
China has part-owned the Philippines’ national grid since 2009 – leading one senator to question whether China’s “hegemonic ambitions” posed a security threat to the Philippines.
The countries have a territory dispute in the South China Sea…
The senate heard that – although the power could be switched off remotely – the Philippines could restore it within 24 to 48 hours…
During the session Sen Hontiveros said the ***Nari Group supplied remote control systems to power grids in Kenya, Indonesia and Thailand…READ ON
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50498720
as BBC doesn’t give a clue who ***Nari Group is, thought I’d look for something, and found this. it’s old, but an updated version would be intresting:
17 Dec 2015: Lowy Institute/The Interpreter: The State Grid Corporation of China: Its Australian engagement and military links
by Geoffrey Wade
One of the major companies under State Grid is the Nanjing Nanrui Group whose subordinate companies generally bear the NARI name…
In recent years, NARI has been expanding its presence in Australia…READ ON
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/state-grid-corporation-china-its-australian-engagement-and-military-links
40
And Indonesia could switch off the water, or that used to be the case.
50
A couple of points, as this paper shows much of what is wrong with academic research:
From the Nature paper:
“the results of this study provide a robust understanding of coral community change for Bramston Reef and Stone Island”.
They don’t. (There’s that word ‘robust’-it’s as flimsy as can be, and the paper draws various conclusions which cannot be made)
-the data for Stone Island was based on just 2 20m transects, which were carefully selected because they needed to use dead coral for dating, so they chose ‘dead’ coral areas. They assumed these transects covered the ground of some historical photographs-which show healthy coral, but it is not possible to draw that conclusion. Reef cover changes, there is no way to accurately ensure the transects are the same as in the coral photos from previously.
-conclusions from these dead coral areas were then used to make conclusions that these corals were ‘not recovering’ since the 1890s, and so on, with no corals of present of various types etc-within the 2 x 20m transects. No such conclusions could be made because it isn’t clear where the original photos were taken.
-the study of course does not look at any other coral areas about the island and their associated changes, leading to further false inferences and conclusions about rates of recovery, coral cover etc.
-another obvious error is that the paper refers to anecdotal reports that there was coral cover in the 1960-70s in some areas, making an inference that the coral ‘didn’t recover for at least 40-50 years’; no such conclusions could be made because these anecdotal reports don’t cover time before the 1950s-1960s. It’s gobbledygook.
The paper is trying to get around the issue that there is very little historical data from before the 1970s on the Great Barrier Reef coral cover, so they use photos from the 1890s etc. The trouble with doing this is you cannot compare changing coral cover around the island to the present state from just a few photos. You also cannot use 2 20m transects to make general conclusions.
It’s much like a ‘CDO of a CDO’ (in financial terms)-inferences are building on inferences that benefit nobody except the people making them. They aren’t checked or replicated. When the crunch comes, they don’t bare any relation to reality.
130
assertions only – can you show where in the methodology, that the transect selection was biased?
015
Thingdonta has a fair point – lack of data before 1970 means establishing a meaningful trend is difficult, so any results are questionable. As such, in fairness and applying proper scientific rigour, you cannot give a definitive answer.
120
I’ll second thingdonta.
Coral cores should give us a better glimpse of the long term trend of death and renewal. My earlier research indicates that Queensland was a droughty place in the 19th century, until the arrival of substantial rains in the 1870s through to the present.
Are the occasional river flood plumes beneficial for the reef?
50
Well yes all true. As to the plumes, I’m not going to stick my head out on that one. What sort of plume are we talking about, one from 200 years ago with no farming inputs, or one from now with farming inputs?
My point is that:
These there are two studies using two methods, they can not, should not and must not be compared. One uses a transect method, the other uses an observational method.(as near as I can guess)
05
Both are valid.
It was a desert in Clarks time and now the flood plume has reinvigorated the corals, as exhibited by observation.
40
Nutrient load has changed
03
Praise the lord, a nutrient rich plume brings corals back to life. And before you run off to look for all those terrible nutrients humans are putting into the ocean, its not my bag.
40
As I said, they chose dead coral areas because they needed to date dead corals (duh).
There is healthy live coral just 30m away, which was obviously no good for dating dead corals. But you cannot then make a general statement ‘there are no such and such corals’, based on the short transect, nor can you say ‘as there was in the 1890s.’ This is making misleading conclusions. Or can one say that there ‘they didn’t recover until the 1960s-1970s’, based on anecdotal reports that there was healthy coral in the 1960s-70s, with no information prior to and up to the 1960s-70s. They are making inferences on inferences on inferences, all of the above are invalid.
70
This study was designed to mislead.
Anyone with any knowledge of coral reefs, doctor or humble fisherman, knows there can be no regeneration of coral on a drying reef flat, or “crest” for the doctors out there.
Once the reef is regularly above low tide level, all coral dies, & can not regenerate. If the flat only dries on large spring tides some large heavy coral will survive for some time.
No marine biologist could ever believe differently. This study was designed to support James Cook Uni in their fight with Peter Ridd, & promote the fallacy that the reef is in trouble. It could not have been undertaken as a legitimate study of the regeneration of coral by anyone but an idiot.
60
As I remember the 1890’s were rather hot in Australia, and the northern coastline also got thoroughly hammered by numerous strong cyclones on both the east and west coasts in recurring major outbreaks, until about 1919. Whatever coastal reef existed in the 1890s much of them would have been devastated by 30 years later, so it is ignorant to expect the same sorts of reef cover in the same locations with time.
When you look at coastal locations in QLD, Cooktown stands out as it’s been a very long time since a genuinely powerful cyclone hit Cooktown directly. But major cyclones went within 150 km north, east and south of Cooktown during that period. Cooktown itself has been very lucky though. Which means the reef immediately surrounding Cooktown has been relatively a-typical, and unrepresentative of the GBR reefs, due to this protracted lack of major cyclonic disturbances at places like Endeavor Reef where Cook’s ship was holed on the reef.
The notable coastal reef-flat corals photographed south of Bowen during the 1890s may also be the result of such fortuitous protracted lack of major coastal disturbances, where cyclones did not hit and destroy that strip of coast near Bowen for say 50 years. That may be what it takes to redevelop coral on the flats.
But those same reef flats were hit by the norther core of Cat-4 Cyclone Debbie in Feb 2017.
Known unknowns, but valid considerations, which can explain the changes observed, without any reactionary need to invoke the apocalyptic end of the world due to humans.
What is not valid is to presume a mere 20 m transect of a dead reef flat is representative of a reef that is vastly larger, and also deeper, and had a different and undocumented prior history of disturbances and development. A 20 m transect is just as long (and not as wide) as the keel of a small coastal otter-trawler! It’s nonsense to assert conclusions about a reef based on two 20 m data samples over a disturbed reef top.
Indeed the large Cat 3 Cyclone Aivu’s eye approached and hit Cape Upstart, just north of Bowen on 4th April 1991, so what was seen on that reef flat in 1994 was at least in part the detritus of a major cyclone event’s destruction of the reef top and burial by storm sediment. Unless such a paper takes account of the storm history of the reef, what’s its worth for gauging the state of the corals present or absent, or their condition? A single point in time tells you almost nothing, and basing ‘conclusions’ on what was present in the 1890s, and then in 1994, and implying a trend between two points separated by a century is absurd. Presuming destruction by human action is even more absurd. It’s obvious that Jennifer’s video is vastly more revealing than any paper from 1994, we can see the reef is in very good condition with ~100% coral cover.
Good enough for a recon video! Which is what it is. And definitely a good basis for follow up work, or monitoring on a slightly more regular schedule.
70
arrh! my memory failed me, TC Aivu was April 1989, not April 1991.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/pdf/aivu.pdf
50
“It’s nonsense to assert conclusions about a reef based on two 20 m data samples over a disturbed reef top.”
My point exactly.
50
Alarmists can only see dread,
When climate-change goes to the head,
While the corals alive,
On the Reef grow and thrive,
At Stone Island are deemed to be dead.
150
plenty of joy, interspersed with a dose of CAGW, at ZME Science:
21 Nov: ZME Science: The Great Barrier Reef sees its greatest spawning event in recent memory
The Reef is bloody, but not bowed
by Alexandru Micu
“The corals are really looking spectacular since the bleaching events of 2016 and 2017,” said Stuart Ireland, a marine biologist from Calypso Productions who filmed the event.
“There was coral spawn everywhere last night. It was like a grey haze with beautiful pink bundles going up; it was a magical night. It’s a testament of how resilient the Great Barrier Reef really is.”…
VIDEO: 1min32sec
Typically, these events take place at night. However, the unique conditions this year led to a daytime spawning, explained Russel Hore, a Reef Bio Research Manager at Quicksilver Port Douglas, for Newsport. He adds that there’s a very good chance we’ll see a second spawning in December.
“We expect to see more pressures in the future, but the Great Barrier Reef’s size, complexity and huge biodiversity makes it a very strong ecosystem,” Ireland explains. “The reef has shown us that she is not lying down, she is doing extremely well and fighting for the future.”…
https://www.zmescience.com/science/great-barrier-reef-spawning-event-9312536/
little joy at theirABC, with credit going to the academics:
18 Nov: ABC: IVF on Great Barrier Reef helps researchers buy time before further coral decline
ABC Far North By Jesse Thompson
Few of them may know it but, when night falls, the massive marine ecosystem beneath their neon-flippered feet will become the stage for an event marine scientists dream of.
Colloquially, the annual spawning of coral on the Great Barrier Reef is known as the world’s largest orgasm.
“It really feels like you’re in the midst of an underwater snow storm, or blizzard,” Katie Chartrand, a senior researcher with James Cook University’s TropWATER research group, said…
But in conjunction with tourism operators and reef conservation group Citizens of the Great Barrier Reef, scientists from three universities are seizing this small window of opportunity.
Their goal is to effectively outpace nature, trying to fast-forward the rate at which the reef reproduces…
Ms Chartrand: “We’re trying to enhance the numbers — rather than letting the winds and currents let these larvae float away … we want to ensure we maximise the number that actually find some degraded areas or open reef area to settle on to.”
Spawn kept in coral nurseries…
This is the second year the project — sometimes labelled IVF for the reef — has taken place, but this year’s project is taking place on a significantly larger scale…
“The reason we need to put algae into these corals is that’s what naturally occurs on the reef within the first week of settlement,” project leader and coral IVF pioneer Professor Peter Harrison said.
“But many of the coral larvae end up dying during that first period.
“So what we’re trying to do is add like a battery pack back into the larvae as soon as possible to increase their energy and therefore increase their survival and growth rates.”…
Researchers racing against time…
Project leader and coral IVF pioneer Professor Peter Harrison: “We know that increasing climate change impacts are going to occur on the Great Barrier Reef and other reefs all around the world, and every reef system on the planet is losing corals faster than they’re naturally replenishing.
“We’re getting desperate to intervene to capture the remaining genetic diversity that’s in these populations and try to restore corals while we can.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-18/great-barrier-reef-ivf-buys-desperate-scientists-time/11713228
JCU: Katie Chartrand
I am currently co-leading a project to increase coral larvae settlement and recruitment success in the northern Great Barrier Reef. The new research is one of six innovative ideas funded by the Australian and Queensland Governments…
https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/katie.chartrand/
SouthernCrossUni: Professor Peter L. Harrison
Director, Marine Ecology Research Centre
BSc (Double Major in Marine Biology and Zoology), James Cook University 1979
BSc (First Class Honours) in Marine Biology, James Cook University 1980 (Honours Prize)
PhD in Marine Biology, James Cook University conferred 1989…
He has been awarded more than $11 million in research grants and Antarctic field support (the majority from national and international competitive research grants including ARC) and consultancies. He has published more than 200 scientific research papers, books, invited major review chapters and major reports, which have been cited more than 8000 times (Google Scholar); H-index 43…READ ON
https://www.scu.edu.au/marine-ecology-research-centre/people/professor-peter-l-harrison/
40
Fairfax (now Nine Entertainment) appears to have totally ignored the natural wonder of the spawning altogether! can’t find anything in their Brisbane Times or SMH newspapers.
last article they wrote:
4 Apr: SMH: ‘Shocking’ coral spawning drop raises doubts over Great Barrier Reef’s resilience
By Peter Hannam
Not only did the amount of new baby corals crash – falling as much as 95 per cent in some parts of the north – the composition also shifted, according to research published Thursday in Nature…
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/shocking-coral-spawning-drop-raises-doubts-over-great-barrier-reef-s-resilience-20190403-p51afc.html
they preferred to report the following & spruik REs:
19 Nov: SMH: Climate change the biggest threat to Great Barrier Reef: Ley
By Tony Moore
Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley and Queensland’s Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch released a statement on Tuesday afternoon acknowledging climate change as the biggest threat to the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
The United Nations scientific body, UNESCO, will in 2020 make a decision on whether or not to list the Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef as a world-heritage site that is in danger…
A project to slowly reduce eroded soil flowing down the Burdekin River onto the Great Barrier Reef has also received recognition by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.
“These regulations, along with other efforts including tree-clearing laws and action on climate change, are all steps that are being taken by the Queensland Government to support the health of the Reef and prevent it from being listed by the World Heritage Committee as in-danger next year,” Ms Enoch said…
Conservation groups argue a faster shift towards renewable energy is needed because the the world’s atmospheric temperature has risen by more than one degree centigrade, an issue highlighted by the Federal Government’s own Great Barrier Reef Management Authority’s in it’s 2019 Outlook Report…
No commitment was made by either environment minister to increase the pace of a shift towards renewable energy.
Queensland promises to provide 20 per cent of it energy by 2020 from renewable energy sources and 50 per cent by 2030.
The Australian government has a commitment to provide 23.5 per cent of its energy from renewable energy by 2020.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-the-biggest-threat-to-great-barrier-reef-ley-20191119-p53c4b.html
18 Nov: SMH: Ministers assess protection of ‘very poor’ Great Barrier Reef ahead of UN scrutiny
By Tony Moore
(Australian Marine Conservation Society director of strategy Imogen Zethoven) said despite a range of good efforts, Australia urgently needed to reduce carbon emissions because another coral-bleaching event would emerge.
“In 2016-17 we saw the loss of 50 per cent of the shallow-water corals in the Great Barrier Reef,” shesaid.
“That problem has not gone away and so whether it is this summer or a summer after that – this issue is not going away – so what exactly is the government doing?”
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ministers-assess-protection-of-very-poor-great-barrier-reef-ahead-of-un-scrutiny-20191118-p53bqa.html
30
A Convenient Truth!
Jet travel is deemed to be kinda green after all.
“The Quango Strikes Back!”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opinion/climate-change-travel.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
(hat-tip ‘WR2’ at WUWT)
30
” The GBR is dying! ” is an enduring alarmist green trope favoured by activist environmental groups when seeking to turbocharge their fund raising efforts. An oldie but goodie, in fact practically a classic, and quite efficacious for bringing in a few million extra bucks to replenish the Greenpeace coffers when everyone is tired of hearing how evil the Koch brothers are… Sarc.
50
So coral is around despite the last glacial phase, which ended less than twelve thousand years ago. Before that Younger Dryas shock, through over a hundred thousand years of colder temps and lower sea levels. (In our geological era we and corals get to spend 80% of our time in colder conditions than the last twelve thousand years.)
Yet coral was around when the Eemian, the previous interglacial, was really cookin’.
And not only was coral around then, it was around during the Holocene high stand, just a few thousand years ago, back when you could graze the Sahara thanks to some actual global warming.
I can’t say that coral will be in the same places as millennia go by. That would be to defy all geology and most science except the GameBoy science of the climatariat. But there’ll be coral.
And there’ll be lantana and mocking, marauding bower birds. Some stuff you can’t kill, even if you…
60
Even better is that corals existed during the Carboniferous Period which was both hot and very high in atmospheric CO2. This should scotch the notion of “ocean acidification” causing damage to reefs (and anything else, really).
60
Like nearly every climate debate/argument (they are rarely debates) it instantly dissolves into:
– cries of who is doing the most cherry picking
– my scientists are better than your scientists
– I have more scientists, so there!
– personal attacks
00
Well speaking as a Geologist and someone who is currently on holiday in Cairns and Port Douglas Queensland, I have had a chance to go snorkelling and see the reef first hand and make a couple of direct observations. No – not Stone Island – but via the tourist dive boats to the outer reef.
Firstly we did not get a chance to go to a pristine reef, the areas visited were all populated by dive boats, helicopter platforms and 40 to 50 swimmers per boat.
I last visited the reef in 1980, so had a chance to see any changes. First comment is that the reef is not dead or even dying (at least the bits I saw and photographed with a small underwater camera. However, the man swimmers were damaging the reef with touching and crowding. In 1980, we walked on the reef – but that was when only a few people visited it. This time the many flippers were constantly touching the corals and many were damaged. However, despite this obvious damage, there were plenty of live corals among the dead ones.
Secondly, we happened to coincide with a massive spawning event and all of my photos had lots of white dots over them from the coral eggs and the water was milky with the sperm outpourings.
Is there a problem? Yes, there is damage by over use by tourism, but as long as this remains confined to the few places that have frequent visits – the other 2000 km of reef should be able to recover in peace and quiet. The fish life was abundant indicating that it remains a living organism.
I would say that reports of the reef’s demise are somewhat exaggerated.
30
Many – not Man – I wasn’t suggesting that the damage is only by the Male of the species!
20