Can you spot a dead coral from 120 meters in the air?
The media and academic experts keep telling us the reef is dead. Jen Marohasy points out that the death of the Great Barrier Reef was diagnosed from the sky, so she had the radical idea of going out to reefs like Pixie reef to photograph it underwater instead. She didn’t receive any of the $440m Malcolm Turnbull sent to save the reef. But strangely, none of those millions appears to be used to do something as banal as a swimming near a coral. In an earlier post she described how many of the corals grow in vertical walls, which are very difficult to spot from a plane. Now she’s demonstrating how hard it is to spot even obvious things from a plane.
This reef, Pixie Reef, was ‘surveyed’ back on 22nd March 2016 from the air by Terry Hughes of James Cook University during one of his fly pasts. It was concluded from that single observation/glance-down from 150 metres altitude that that this reef was 65% bleached. The inshore reefs north of Cairns were more or less all written-off, back then, by the experts and the mainstream media, as ruin – as dead. But they are not, not at all. (And I do worry for all the children who now believe this precious environment/the Great Barrier Reef is dead from ‘carbon dioxide pollution’.)
In the photo Jen Marohasy floats on the surface and holds a one meter long bright orange tube.
Jen floating, with aerial photograph taken at 20 metres above the front of Pixie Reef on 22nd February, just before the thunderstorm hit.
But try spotting the orange tube “coral” from 120m above?
Jen floating above the reef front, holding a safety sausage showing exactly one metre. This aerial was taken by Stuart Ireland at exactly 120 metres altitude.
All colorful corals die in space and other great insights from Big-Government “Science”.
Jen writes via email and on her blog:
It may have been more than 65% bleached back then. But it is difficult to know from this single data point recorded as the professor looked out the window of an airplane from an altitude of 150 metres.
It is my hypothesis that these coral health assessments of the Great Barrier Reef, comprising 1,156 reefs including Pixie Reef as published in the peer-reviewed technical literature by Terry Hughes and others, are yet another example of the mismatch between official government-sponsored (taxpayer funded) propaganda masquerading as science, versus reality.
Sure, Terry Hughes could have used a very high resolution camera from a plane, but he still diagnosed 65% of this reef as dead. Was it really that bad then? Has it recovered, or was it just “plane dead” then?
The more government funding we throw at the Reef the sicker it gets.
The undead Great Barrier Reef looks fine underwater.
Close up of Pixie Reef Coral.
More undead corals at Pixie Reef.
Jen Marohasy’s other photos from the Great Undead Barrier Reef include Part 1, Part 2 and the garden of old Porites at Myrmidon Part 3.
Other posts on the Great Barrier Reef
- Yet more footage of Great Barrier dying reef not dying
- Global Mystery: Barrier Reef dying, total panic, but no one cares enough to measure growth for last 15 years?
- According to Nature these corals do not exist
- Great Barrier Reef lives, misrepresents The Guardian and Expert who said corals were dead
How is it that citizen scientists can do a far more thorough job than the reports generated from $440 million dollars. I can’t help but conclude that money corrupts, and the more money a subject has the more corrupt it gets. I guess money attracts corrupt people. Maybe that’s the takeaway.
Good work Jen; I sure wish I was out there (without the sharks).
390
Sharks are no problem Greg, you can beat them away with a blunt object, like the stump where your leg used to be…….
180
Pics from a light plane, is that all we get for our $440Mil., Pathetic.
210
For some years my job involved flights at low level – down to 100 feet above the surface to investigate sightings of interest – as a trained observer. A lot of that low-level flying was over the GBR, and our brief included reporting any coral bleaching we saw. Our cruising altitude was often between 1,000 and 1,500 feet, depending on weather and visibility.
On those low level runs it was very easy to see the condition of the coral, and even the colours and shapes of larger growths. Even at our cruising altitude any bleaching greater than the smallest area would have been visible. I never once saw evidence of bleaching, and over time I flew over most of the GBR from the Torres Strait to the southern islands many times. Most of the coral I saw was offshore on the main reefs, but I have also seen some of the inshore reefs up close and personal, as in from underwater, snorkelling.
260
Why didn’t alarmist scientists use a low-flying, hovering drone to take photos? Too stupid or too “clever” (diabolical)?
A specially designed drone could even land on the water and take really detailed photos through a glass-botomed viewer. It could take hundreds of photos per day, and geo-locate-tag each one accurately. It could cover a small area so completely that it could provide a truly objective measurement of the percentage of bleaching.
How about some contrarian organization funding the creation of such a drone? Or a fleet of drones to cover the whole reef?
Once created, it could apply for a governmental subsidy to do annual surveys. This could be a big money-maker!
180
Or how about an automated small boat (Ideally a flattish catamarin, for stability) that could do the same job, using smart software to repeatedly lower an underwater camera to cover all the locations to all the depths and angles needed to fully survey portions of the reef—or even a fleet of such, to provide complete coverage? This would consume less energy and be at a lower risk of misadventure.
20
Roger, you cant use automated systems, they would take funding from academics attending meetings. You also cant report the Reef is in good health, that would stop the gravy train of $millions to academics to study ways of fixing the non problem. Everything must be done to spread panic and create a crisis so academics can claim bigger research grants to sit around writing bullpoo!
70
You think they didn’t look at costs per square km of survey? I’d say they chose the cheapest and quickest method (there was a time factor here too). Where can one get these floating robotic drones and home much do they cost?
03
The cheapest way to get dud data is wild guessing from your office.
20
Which they didn’t do.
03
Some years ago we used autonomous drones to fly up and down the WA coast to count dugongs. A lot easier to spot than live coral – but not a very expensive survey. Our CEO said he would eat his hat if we managed to get a project using drones – he had to “swallow” his words. I like the idea of a drone that can lower an underwater camera at intervals and literally take a snapshot of the state of the reef. Do that thousands of times and you will get a statistical analysis of the percentage of live coral compared to dead. It doesnt have to cover the whole reef just a representative sample – ie sampling areas chosen at random. Yep it is all about the money. Prove the reeef is fine and the grants go away!
60
I don’t think you would even have to lower a camera. Just equip a drone with floats and a glass bottomed tube below the camera that projects just below the floats. Simples!
10
Matthew alleged:
Oh no. You not only got a `professional’ academic’s low-level flight but also an official diagnosis from that academice that the reef was 65% bleached.
Now, I’m not an expert on coral reefs, not even an X-spurt, but, and I’m open to correction by the truly knowledgeable, I understand that `bleached’ is another word for dead.
There’s where yer cash went, Matthew, into hiring a lazy academic and an aircraft. Av-gas is not as cheap as it was during WW2…
70
Perhaps we should ask Great Barrier Reef Foundation what they have been doing with the $444 million, an actual DETAILED BREAKDOWN ACCOUNTING would be very nice.
Perhaps we should ask ABC’s Seven Nillagain to investigate, I’m sure she can dig up an old white male somewhere to blame.
100
Too easy. There’s no shortage at JCU — instead, theres a pre-ponderance of those there.
20
Needs some theme music.
Bauhaus ;Bela Lugosi’s Dead.
Would be perfect.
All 12 minutes of it.
Although for most of the Cult of Calamitous Climate’s outburst “Oh Susanna” is probably more appropriate.
80
The $440 million of our hard-earned taxes that Turnbullsh*t gave away for Reef “research” is a disgrace. The money needs to be accounted for, every cent of it.
360
No-one should qualify for access to grant money to research the Great
Barrier Reef unless they actually carry out a series of dives to inspect the reef in person.
Looking at aerial photographs and playing about on a computer is not enough.
Aerial photographs of the Ruhr during WW2 apparently showed factories destroyed by bombing.
However when they were inspected on the ground after the war it was found that new roofs had been constructed under the shattered roofs and work had continued as before.
(Information obtained personally from a former member of the UK aerial reconnaissance unit at Medmenham.)
So check, check and check again anything you think you see from an aerial photograph, and go to the ground zero to see if the photos are being interpreted correctly.
240
As I remember it, the money wasn’t even asked for. The Turnbull government was virtue signaling and simply gave that money away. Wasn’t it Peter Ridd’s college that received it?
50
It wasn’t even to an accredited “academic” institution.
It was to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. A tiny, insignificant body.
Even Their ABC was surprised.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-03/turnbull-defends-cash-to-reef-foundation/10070556
30
Yes, and guess who was the Treasurer at that time who approved the payment! That being the case I doubt if our current PM would be too happy to see how it has been wasted.
00
The other day I heard Jenny Seaton, a popular announcer on Perth’s Curtin Radio state that she had never heard of Palladium before (she’s not exactly young). Why is this relevant? Because I have also heard her confidently stating that man made climate change is real. In that she knows very little about science but is very confident about invoking so-called climate experts, she is no orphan! I have little doubt that she has made pronouncements on the “poor state” of the Great Barrier Reef on-air as well. Plays some good music, though.
192
Palladium is an element. It is not science. Things are not science. If you were asking her about the value of palladium electrodes or some such that is closer to science but still not science.
The above article is actually science as JM is trying to test a hypothesis. I’d like some more discussion on Tery Hughes’s methods as this article, and even JM’s lack context. Hughes claims to have verified his aerial methods with on a number of site assessments to generate an expected view of bleached/ unbleached and healthy. I’m unclear if they then went and sampled a bunch of sites that were categorised from the air to see if the on site assessment agrees.
The above article seems to be about a sample size of 1 so I hope it is expanded to have some meaning.
632
Terry Hughes claimed that 60% of the Great Barrier Reef was bleached during that big El Nino. This catastrophic news was flashed around the world and essentially it was fake.
392
I remember when that claim came out, they taught it to my daughter in high school in Canada. She came home and told me all about it one day. I was appalled.
So we went online together and quickly debunked the claim. I think it opened my daughter’s eyes a bit, to this day she seems to display a more critical view than her friends.
210
Gee Aye, Jen M has visited several reefs, done many transects. It’s more than a sample of one (didn’t you see the links to other posts at the bottom?)
Agreed, we all like more detail and data. But all the taxpayer money is going to the very people who don’t seem to want more data.
Terry Hughes:
“We didn’t expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years,” said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature. “In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs — literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/science/great-barrier-reef-coral-climate-change-dieoff.html
220
And yet the Queensland premier is throwing millions$$ at tourists to visit the “dying” reef off Cairns. She is actually subsidising reef tours but supports the James Cook university’s theory of corals dying due to climate change, man made of course. Not a good deal actually paying to go & see dead corals????
May I remind the Premiere that you need a really good memory to be an effective liar. She can’t even get lying right!!!
230
Will any journalist ask Professor Terry Hughes and James Cook University for comments?
110
Jo, if they report the reef is all good and no problems, all funding would be withdrawn.
80
Thanks Jo – what you say is sort of correct. She references other articles but makes claims based on one. The problem is that it is hard to assess the work as a methodology is not stated and data is not presented that can be assessed and tested. If all those articles are part of a coherent scientific effort then they should be tied together and published. If they aren’t they’ll be forever in the IPA fringes, lauded by people who like the outcomes and ignored by anyone who values the scientific method.
btw I hope you are not implying that comments in the NYT are testable science?
12
G Aye. Jen M’s studies are a work in progress. She has to do dive trips piecemeal at her own expense and is not on the academic gravy train. If you have followed her writings for the last 5yrs she publishes her research and observations as she goes along. As the body of her research grows she will reach a point where she can publish that coherent book (it is far more than a paper) on the general good health of the reef. Its a work in progress by a valiant citizen scientist (and good friend of Peter Ridd).
40
I accept the difficulties and the fact that this is a mostly solo effort without support from an institution, but piecemeal and poorly funded work still needs to lay out its methodology. “If you followed her writings…” is a poor replacement for clarity. If I want to know what a research project is all about, what data it has used and what its findings are, I should be able to do so without following someone for 5 years.
14
She gets support from the IPA
21
They are cheapskates though but I’m sure they appreciate the content of the research output.
13
Gee Aye, I agree that there was little discussion of Hughes methods and that would be better. Will you agree that the massively well funded AIMS and JCU and NYT have even lower standards of evidence than unfunded skeptical bloggers do?
The NYT just reprints the junk media releases of Hughes, no hard questions asked, no critics invited to comment.
30
He didn’t only say it was bleached – he said it was dead which is not the same.
Refer article link where he actually engages with commentary to the article (if you can stomach it) https://theconversation.com/we-just-spent-two-weeks-surveying-the-great-barrier-reef-what-we-saw-was-an-utter-tragedy-135197
Such BS
101
How is that? Calcium is white, calcium is not alive.
21
My understanding is that when a coral is bleached, it’s not necessarily dead. Instaad, it’s ejected/evicted the current flavour of algae and recovers when it can haul in a fresh compatible one.
Death is past any possibility of recovery.
40
yes. A living coral polyp without a zooxanthellae will appear white. The polyp is pretty much clear and the calcium substructure is white.
40
What you are saying seems to be that bleaching kills the polyp but leaves an empty nest for a fresh coral spawn.
I’m sticking with “Bleached coral is dead”.
01
Jenny Marohasy’s fact checking of Terry Hughes aerial observation is science and she provided abundant detailed evidence as to why high level aerial reconnaissance of reef coral bleaching can yield totally false results. Considering that some very important land/sea management decisions can be based on a flawed aerial reconnaissance technique, detailed refutation of those flawed results are vitally important.
But getting back to news dissemination at a suburban level, it is very disappointing that JM’s study was not given wide publicity. But then it does not provide confirmatory bias to the beliefs of a broad swathe of our population who really don’t know how science is carried out.
332
JM and transects, The method she uses is never use a previous documented transect, do not randomise the starting point, do not randomise your sampling points. Never ever publish
27
You mean documented transect from the air or what do you mean?
What previous transect?
If you read her work you would know she has done both reef crests and the lagoons of locations mentioned by JCU.
40
She admits that she will not use the established transects published in several papers, she looks for a nice site and surveys that – this is all in her blog.
14
… you wish. Pontificating from your arm chair … yet again.
Go do your own dives on those `dead’ reefs. PF. When you do, ensure you make a thorough photographic record of not just reef crests but the reef walls on all sides.
You start at the beginning of each reef and work your way to the far end.
In the meantime, I will say categorically: I trust JM’s science. Not yours. Never yours. You’ve been totally wrong far far too often.
40
I have never been wrong, your have just never agreed with me – there is a difference
26
That attitude is so anti-science.
10
Ive read her published work. She’s also edited 2 books i have on the shelf.
20
Speaking of “Elements”, let’s lighten up for a couple of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM-wSKFBpo&t=45s
An “oldie but goodie”.
20
Some of the jokes in the comments had me cacking too.
10
It’s a tad hard these days to get an education in science, the method, what has been discovered using the method, and conventions used by scientists, without coming across Palladium.
10
Well to be fair, she isn’t a scientist, just a useful idiot.
49
Jennifer Marohasy is not a scientist???
Do you mean a climate scientist?
What discipline is Hughes?
40
Jennifer has a PhD in biology.
A scientist in a suitable field for studying ‘biology’.
30
Jennifer Marohasy is not Jenny Seaton.
Marohasy is a brilliant scientist. Jenny Seaton is ???
40
Palladium is used in every petrol engined cars’ cat converter, on the road since the 80’s.
22
If Curtin FM is following the trend of other university associated community radio stations, then I’d say Seaton is under obligation to promote anthropological climate change no matter what she privately thinks.
50
I associate Palladium with Sunday nights – only someone from the UK in the 60s would understand that!
30
TV show?
10
Its a zombie reef……undead coral!!
80
No one has ever explained to me how an organism which has survives eons of extreme temperatures and is found in locations where temperatures vary by 5- 10 degrees, all of a sudden is dying because the earth has warmed by 1 degree in the last hundred years.
Basic common sense suggests that the announcement of the GBR’s death is very premature.
401
The truth of the matter, a momentary drop in sea level causes the bleaching, the polyps hate radiation and leave home.
151
And here I was, thinking that he “sea-level” was rising; what gives?
I wonder; from whence could such a notion emerge?
Some folk should try diving on the reef at NIGHT. Lots of interesting critters come out and the colours of the living coral come up nicely in the “white” light of a serious underwater lamp. The “band” of depths at which this happens is relatively narrow. Depending on factors like water turbidity and sunlight intensity, below a certain depth, there are NO “living” corals; not enough sunlight, the “plant” part of the polyps struggles to survive and the whole thing doesn’t work. So, how do corals grow and flourish at depths of 60 feet or greater? Short answer; They DON’T. Either the substrate has “sunk” slowly enough for the coral to build up on top, to maintain that necessary sunlight dosage, or the “tide” has come in at a similar rate, or, most likely, BOTH, at various times. Continental geology is not exactly set in aspic.
When night-diving, be it on the reef or the Tangalooma wrecks, eventually you get used to the sharks showing off their smiles as they glide through the beam of the lamp.
10
“the earth has warmed by 1 degree”
This was one of my questions when I became interested in ‘Global Warming’, as it was called in the old days.
“How much warmer is it and how warm should it be?” I would ask.
“Do you deny science?” they would say.
In my journey to Oz (the movie) I discovered the “consensus” appeared to declare …
“the earth has warmed by 1 degree”.
“Is it possible to determine the average temp of the planet (70% ocean) to an accuracy of 1 degree?” I would ask with a tinge of doubt.
“Denier!” they would say.
Then I voted for Trump.
And now I think believe in the Hidden Cabal.
191
Zig… I’ll explain it to you. Local adaptation and local biota. You swap the corals from the south island of NZ with the ones in FNQ – they’ll die.
Things die if change is too rapid and they are sessile.
So now you know.
13
I believe his question refers to the fact that sea temperature changes by more than a degree through a single day. If they can survive that where is the rapid change?
It is more likely to occur from a sustained temperature change than a brief one. Is there a sustained temperature change that has gone beyond the comfort range of the corals ability to adapt?
50
Brilliant comment will be interesting to see if leaf answers but faith trumps science so I doubt it .
20
Average temperature over a lifetime affects growth development and fertility in basically all organisms. This doesn’t mean that they don’t also have the ability to cope with fluctuations, but coping with fluctuations doesn’t mean they can cope with sustained extremes as postulated to have occurred in parts of the reef. This is mostly, but not entirely, explained by enzymatic efficiency,
Another environmental factor that is misunderstood re enzymes is pH. Small organisms can regulate to an extent their internal pH against fluctuations but suffer from a shift in average pH owing to the extra energetic requirements to maintain pH. There is only so much an enzyme can do.
21
Yes, which is why Poms who migrate to Oz all die off due to the shock of temp change. The corals in Papua new guinea are doing great. But how can that be with the Higher water temps they have than Q’land – NSW?
30
I think it is called natural selection. Conditions change – species adapt or others take over – the biggest problem we have are people who want the world to stay the same whilst all around them habitat is destroyed. Temperature is a bit player in all this.
10
seriously bobn???
I thought you picked up on my corals in south NZ. Different corals.
11
With respect professor, variations in SST doesn’t automatically bleach coral. Do you think sea level fall has any connection?
20
The Earth has not warmed by 1 degree. Anyone who claims this is pulling your leg. Who was out measuring anything like global temperature 100 years ago – it is fanciful rubbish.
The only notion of a global surface temperature has emerged in the satellite area – the last 40 years. The best of those records, in a region calibrated against moored ocean buoys does not show any warming:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhCQ8JK1w3s8nVsGD
The Earth’s energy balance is controlled by temperature regulating processes at the poles and tropics, from -2C at the poles to 30C at the tropics.
Hence the average surface temperature = [30 =(-2)]/2 = 14C or 57F as John Kerry told us.
So be a little more skeptical about what you are told. If anyone points to a measurement record that has a warming or cooling trend, look for the flaws in the measurement system before thinking it has any relevance to the real world. We will know that the globe is heading toward glaciation again when the tropical Atlantic does not make 30C annually. That means it is energy deficient with insufficient sunlight to make the 30C regulating limit.
20
Goes to prove all the climate/reef hysterics aren’t worth a safety sausage.
101
“Safety Sausage” sounds like something Sir Les Patterson would say while promoting condoms.
(Can’t take me anywhere nice)
80
If only Sir Les had changed his ties more often – the food stains were off-putting – he could have gone on to higher office… maybe the highest!
40
I think he did change them. Those stains were just lunch.
60
Yonnie….”safety sausage” brought a smile to my face…well done….
20
Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty by the public for the blood in the car found during from scientific investigation. I was an 11 yr old at the time and I remember being convinced she was guilty by that very fact. Science is all knowing and perfect, impossible for deviation or inaccuracy to occur, its just science, like 2+2=4 and the earth is round. Science, facts.
Years later the blood turned out to be rust. Oops. I always tell kids this about climate change and its related all knowing unquestionable “science”.
211
It wasn’t rust Phillip, it was red oxide underbody sealer that Holden have used since the days of the FX, and the NT govt trotted that woman out to help find that bloke guilty of Peter Falconios murder.
80
cheers. Thanks for that correction. Was just writing off the top of my head from memory.
10
we were in Africa at the time where hyenas and other animals regularly take children – we always understood that the Dingo was fully capable of taking the child and were astounded to come to Australia and find that LC had been convicted. Beware of the court of public opinion – and tell that to Christian Porter!
50
Just a hint:
“Public opinion” does NOT arise “spontaneously”.
There is usually an agenda, (not necessarily the obvious one) and there is ALWAYS an “initiator” and “promoter”.
And, finally, there is ALWAYS a “solution” in search of a “problem”.
00
This is very much like the misnomer that last year the whole of Australia was on fire during the NSW bushfires. When, in fact the 2019/2020 burn area was significantly less than the average and trivial compared to years like 1974/75. Yet, most overseas people thought the former was true due to some malicious early widespread media spread quickly by social and traditional media. My son was in Italy at the time and many people told him how sorry they were his country was devastated by fire. Tell a lie, tell it big, tell it early and you cant turn it around. I suspect a lot of overseas people are thinking exactly the same about the GBR. What about going to Australia and seeing the GBR honey? Nah, apparently it’s all dead sweetie, I read about it on Facebook and besides Barack Obama said it was also gone. ( pre COVID, of course) 🙂
251
Is that true, less than the average ? But and excellent analysis. Huge over reaction, all on hype.
10
Fundamentally it’s all about The Left denying the existence of objective reality.
QUOTE
Why do some liberals (Leftists) deny the existence of objective truth?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-liberals-deny-the-existence-of-objective-truth/answer/Ralf-Thompson
122
From my Christian perspective, if the Left had to acknowledge Truth as in the existance of God and His moral standards, then they would have to acknowledge the evil they have done and continue to do.
Post modernism is nhilism in its purest form, and suits tyrants as they can avoid all forms of accountability.
QED.
81
I have surfed and dived on the reefs in Indonesia for 25 years.
I have dived on the reefs at Lord Howe Island 3 times. The GBR, too many times to remember.
I am not a Marine biologist. I just have a love of nature.
I am opining that there maybe a little too much hysteria regarding the GBR.
The facts are:
Sumatra, Indonesia, over the last 10 years
Water Temp is a min of 25.5 degrees C.
Max is 31.11 degrees C.
Coral lives and thrives in that Sea Temp.
Ok, Lord Howe Island.
This island has the most southern coral reef.
Water temp is a min 17.9 degrees C
Max is 26.3 degrees C
Coral lives and thrives in that Sea Temp.
Re the GBR.
Why is a 1000km reef, in temperate water, between those latitudes, apparently in decline?
https://seatemperature.info/lord-howe-island-water-temperature.html
https://seatemperature.info/sumatra-water-temperature.html
Just asking my friends.
251
Bill, when did you first dive the reefs, before or after the COT infestations?
I’m with you re water temp but may disagree on scoring the GBR health on a 1 to 10 scale.
20
The Crown of Thorns Starfish myth has been debunked by no less than the native Tahitians who experienced the depradations of their reef over centuries but noticed how much healthier the reef was after pruning. So they sing an ancient song of welcome to the Starfish. It’s another modern myth of man made cataclysm while I read a Queensland university was building ocean swimming robots which would identify the starfish and inject it with poison. Nothing could go wrong there, of course.
201
Have you dived on the reef?
I have, before and after the COT. I cried in my goggles diving one of the Ribbon Reefs, north of Cooktown. There was hardly a stick of hard coral to be found.
40
No. I did not say the damage was not extensive. I expect it is devastating, like all pruning.
However the recovery was fast and overall improvement was worth the loss, according the Polynesians in their oral history. And this coral also created the sandy beaches which now cover those rugged volcanic atolls. Other areas are very black fine volcanic rock. Overall the place is improved. We do the same with all plants and pruning is severe on most. It looks terrible and the starfish just vanishes. It’s a cycle of life, not a disaster.
112
We Australians are new to all this, especially with scuba gear invented in WWII. Before we jump to conclusions we need to know more. The same with all the obviously wrong theory of rapid sea rise, massive extinctions and Global Warming and Climate Change. And the CO2 rise is not man made but natural too. That is easily proven.
141
Do you have a link for this “pruning” effect, TdeF?
Not that I find it implausible but it would be nice to see where it has been stated, if only to shove the facts into the face of the hysteria merchants.
40
No, it was a discussion I had with a team on Bora Bora about four years ago. This is a tiny place. You can drive around it in 20 minutes.
The explanation was local and just a few years ago. It was not a paper although who knows by now? The group was explaining to the local community what they were doing in research and about the starfish when a polynesian woman starting singing and the translation of the song was the story of the crown of thorns starfish. The locals had common images for the starfish. It was part of their folklore and they revere the starfish.
The point is that we can jump to conclusions and try to intervene in nature before taking the time to understand the cycles of life which existed for a long time. As if that is not the entire story of man made Global Warming, a theory which should be been debunked long ago but has spawned a massive industry worldwide and has a life of its own.
181
And so unlike our aborigines, the Polynesians live on the water and mainly from the water and what canoe plants they brought hundreds of years ago. There is little arable land. Our freestyle swimming stroke came from the lagoons of the Solomons and Tracey Wickham’s relative around 1900. So we have to respect what they have learned living on the reefs.
110
So I would like your species counts from the locations you quite, Hint: there is more than one species of coral, and each species is adapted to a narrow range of environmental values
28
Ha ha. Do your own census. Then we can be sure it will be useless …
31
So they are adaptable then?
50
There are 410 species of hard coral on the GBR, it may take a little while to sort.
20
It’s all nonsense.
We are supposed to believe that the reef is being destroyed by a 50% increase in CO2 which somehow is bleaching the bulk of the reef? How?
At best we are talking about an increase in air temperature of 1.5C in 120 years but the reef was fine in the 1970s, so in 50 years 0.7C has killed it? And how does that tiny air difference heat the oceans? The world’s oceans are 350x the mass and 4x the heat capacity of air but now the water is boiling?
The water around the reef as noted above varies in temperature much more from end to end, 1400 miles and from summer to winter than 1.5C? So a tiny increase in air temperature produces selective water surface heating which does something unprecedented to this vast area of living coral?
The arrogance of 21st century man is that we now control something of this magnitude by a trivial change in tempeature which we are alleged to have caused? This is delusions of grandeur, pushed by opportunists and climatebaggers on the university payroll and protected by all the people’s money they can afford on lawyers.
It’s all an outrageous lie. And why does the Vice Chancellor of James Cook University still have her million $$$ job pushing this nonsense and persecuting and silencing anyone who speaks out? You do not need to be scientist to know this is all made up.
And where is our Global Warming, where are our Climate Bushfires, our Climate Change, our rapidly rising oceans and Climate Extinctions? Nothing we are being told is true. No one is Climate drowning after 33 years of this. Now two generations of people have been taught this nonsense at school. Except it is obviously not true.
No one should be called a Climate Scientist without a degree in meteorology. That eliminates almost every current Climate Scientist. And everyone on Rudd’s Climate Commission who now call themselves the Climate Council. Fakes.
271
A comment I just saw on another blog
“It’s all about the science – political science”
60
I would add one word, political science fiction. Tim Flannery and Al Gore have two things in common. Their degrees were in English and they are mathematics and thus science incompetent. Perfect for the story of man made Global Warming and rapid sea rise. It’s your fault, so pay. Both have houses on the water’s edge. Hypocritical opportunists. Their true predecessor was L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer who created his own science religion, Scientology. The Flannery Gore religion could be called Climatology.
81
Here are a couple of 2019 reports on the health of the southern section of the GBR. They discuss findings made by researchers based at Central Queensland University (Rockhampton) and from Southern Cross University (Lismore). Some people who don’t know the GBR may say this southern section is “different” – but I would advise that the main difference is that the scientists responsible for these studies are working independently of JCU and apparently prefer to make their observations either on the reef, or from the waters surrounding it – not flying at speed above it! Links:
https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/fears-reef-report-has-people-jumping-to-wrong-conc/3821745/
https://www.scu.edu.au/engage/news/latest-news/2019/southern-great-barrier-reef-island-shows-vital-signs-of-life.php
FWIW I have had the good fortune to cruise and fish the GBR south east of Mackay (mainly the Swain and Bunker Group reefs) for 10 day periods once or twice a year for the past 19 years. My knowledge of these reefs goes back to the 1950’s. Believe me they are still in good fettle. It is sad – but if agenda driven activists want to continually bad mouth Australian and Queensland stewardship of this World Heritage icon they are simply gifting exclusive use of this marine paradise, to the good fortune of those who know better.
141
Oh to be a climate scientist in tropical Tahiti or Queensland. Great job for a supervisor on Bora Bora. I saw the Californian professor in Tahiti checking up on his bikini clad students on the beach who were trying to acidify sea water in fish tanks with bubbling CO2 and the result on sea life. Real Research. Perhaps they could teach them some physical chemistry first? Like Henry’s Law.
And I assume they have their own version of a Pier group. Usually at the local hotel or restaurant. It’s a great life on Government money or Green donors. Can you major in Global Warming yet? Or Coral extinction?
71
Apologies readers. The first link above is pay walled by Murdoch enterprises. I thought I had worked around this problem. I’ll keep searching my files & put up an accessible version if I find it. (Where is Mark Zuckerberg when you need him?).
40
Aloha! I am sad to report that from the ISS-International Space Station the entire human race and all mammals on Earth are extinct! Where’s my $400mil?
90
cross posted at https://freedomaustralia.freeforums.net/thread/979/great-barrier-reef-alive
10
From a distance the corals look bleached,
Like pale dried seaweed when beached,
Yet alive, they amaze,
As their true colours blaze,
When close-up by swimmers are reached.
140
Will this new data help Peter Ridd’s case? I.e., will it make his harshness seem more-than justified?
41
Let’s hope Peter gets a sensible ruling. Clearly his comnents were needed and proved correct.
When 2 out of 3 supreme court judges rule to be ‘popular’ we hope the high court will be legal, sensible and not politically collegial.
30
Now that Great Barrier Reef alarmism has been (or soon will be) debunked, I suggest that it be used by our side as a “microcosm” of the phoniness of alarmism in general. It should be paired with polar bear and walrus alarmism too. In all cases, the intense personal / emotional feelings of the alarmists about protecting Mother Nature, and their eagerness to say anything, however false, to achieve that end, are clearly apparent.
71
I do like the stunt with the orange pool noodle. What JM is demonstrating is that the initial survey could have underestimate coral loss as it would not have picked up small scale bleaching. By the way, a polyp is quite small, so JM thrashing about on the surface would still be underestimating the total population. Either way it is not science, nor is the alleged hypothesis strong enough to debunk the original survey.
117
“What JM is demonstrating is that the initial survey could have underestimate coral loss as it would not have picked up small scale bleaching. ”
No she didn’t show that at all. What she showed is that the aerial method is foolishness. Fake news. This is a longstanding problem with global warming cultists lying about the great barrier reef. This is a core lie for them.
150
The initial survey item was an aerial illustration of that well known saying
“The further the commentator is from the problem the greater the knowledge of it”
100
No – this is a stunt, you are measuring the abundance and healthy coral polyps – on a terrestrial view – you could measure the abundance and health of grass in the same say – she proved nothing
15
What she proved is that you COULDN’T do it the same way. Everyone who dives can testify to the way that colours are diminished by the water. You can do desertification that way. But not coral reefs. The water gets in the way.
50
Jen’s science is good and the reef is fine. There won’t be a strong El Nino for at least five years, so lots of polyps will return and you’ll be amazed at the regenerative nature of coral.
81
What science? I see none
13
I contributed to the $440M for Terry Hughes to monitor the health of the GBR, and all I got was a couple of lousy fossil-fuelled fly-over photos and a BS story about carbon (sic).
I’ll be selling the t-shirts in the lobby after the thread is over.
150
Only in XXXL sizes with tiny print.
40
Our government always does this. They always have a problem and spend way too much money way too quickly. This leads to bad results. The way to handle problems is to spend small amounts over a long period of time so that you slowly build tight teams who know what they are doing. Doing anything worthwhile cost-effectively takes time. To do things both quickly and cost-effectively … we ought to leave such undertakings to entrepreneurs whose capacities to pull this off will be revealed when they are successful. If we want socialist undertakings to be successful you start off with a small daily cash flow allowance.
20
If I remember my rudimentary high-School science correctly, COO2 is soluble in water. See also water “variants”: beer, champagne etc.
Furthermore, I recall that there is some gas law or other that talks about solubility of gases and the temperature of the “water”.. Something like: Warm beer in a glass goes frat really fast, therefore keep your beer COLD and sealed until time to consume.
So, the catch is that the coral critters need Sunlight for the plant bit, which in turn nourishes the “animal” bit which in turn processes dissolved CO2 into “solid carbonate” form in the process of building the reef structure.
Too MUCH sunlight (out of the water for too long) and the coral dies, too LITTLE sunlight and the polyps die from photosynthesis failure. Species and regional variations apply. I’m sure there is some nifty technical term for such constraints.
I also recall some North Queenslanders telling me that there used to be a common natural predator for the Crown of Thorns Starfish, a large Conch. Sadly these were much prized by waves of “foreign” fishing operators, starting before WW2. Remove a major predator from any ecosystem and things can get bent out of shape just as quickly as introducing an “exotic” one will..
50
Gee conveniently drops his evolutionary biology in favour of leftist core issues when he wants to. Individual organisms die, but the coral reef ecology thrives, through all climate change, a process which is itself eternal.
If we could choose weather that makes sea life in general flourish it would be colder weather. So one of the compensations that the new little ice age will bring us is the capacity to replenish our fish stocks, should we decide to do so. On land, if it can be believed that we have higher than normal CO2 levels, (and I think that is broadly true) this gives us a chance to repair our soils. Soon the cold weather could help us in our capacity to replenish our fish.
But we have to have zero tolerance for these leftists who “cry wolf” with ecological matters. They are toxic. They are environmentally unsound. They not only tend to favour bad vaccines, they are themselves analogous to bad vaccines, crying wolf all the time, and distracting from authentic environmental concerns.
Hanrahan gives us first hand information of some sort of damage to some parts of the reef. We want to dismiss the CO2 thesis and see if this is more than a short-run problem, test the water for toxic gunk … this sort of thing. Bruce just made a great point about the Large Conch as a predator to the crown of thorns starfish. CO2 lies detract from finding out where the problems may lie.
Its possible to be intensely in favour of a strong natural ecology and a strong small business ecology, at the same time, but not unless we are fully set in our ways against toxic leftist disinformation. Disinformation that seeks to damage both our natural and small business ecologies. Could be something wrong with the water. Could be that we need to reintroduce a predator and have a breeding program. Nope its CO2. Its always CO2.
This is a disgrace that we let this oligarchical deflection cloud our thinking. What we can be sure of is its got nothing to do with industrial CO2 release. Such a repulsive and repetitive lie.
20
What leftist core issues? I’m a bit over you. State what you mean or just keep it to yourself.
00
Hey Gee Aye…why don’t you keep your KKK opinions to yourself? You are lucky this website is fair, otherwise your 1984-Orwellian Big Brother opinions would be placed in the trash bin, where they belong. Frost articulates a reasonable argument…something you know nothing about.
00