- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


July 2012
« Jun   Aug »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Activist Scientists Crying Wolf on Coral Bleaching and Climate Change

THE propaganda from our Great Barrier Reef scientists at the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium is relentless. According to Janice Lough, Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the rate of change from anthropogenic global warming is unprecedented and is already having a catastrophic impact on the Great Barrier Reef. Also in front of the TV camera today, Phillip Munday, James Cook University, said the most spectacular of our coral reef fish will disappear. And John Pandolfi, University of Queensland, was begging us to do more to save the reef.[1] Australian Institute of Marine Science research director Peter Doherty told the $10 million symposium of more than 2000 marine scientists from 80 countries of an “alarming and unsustainable decline” in coral over large sections of the Great Barrier Reef in nearly three decades.[2]

But I reckon it’s all a put-on: they are crying wolf.

One of the symposium themes is ‘Climate change and bleaching’.

There have been some spectacular bleaching events in the last 15 years. The reality, however, is that most of the Great Barrier Reef has not bleached, and those areas that have bleached have almost fully recovered. The following are some interesting facts about heat and coral growth: [3]

1. All the species of coral that occur in the Great Barrier Reef also grow in Papua New Guinea where the waters are 2 degrees warmer.

2. Coral growth rates and tissue thickness generally increases with increasing temperature. The only regularly temperature-stressed corals in Queensland are in Moreton Bay, because the ocean water there regularly gets too cold.

3. The short lived Acropora corals which are most susceptible to bleaching make a choice of the symbiotic algae which resides inside them. It is the expulsion of these algae that causes bleaching. It is now known that the some clades of algae make the coral grow very fast but also renders them susceptible to bleaching. On the other hand, other clades of algae make the coral grow slowly but to be less susceptible to bleaching. By selecting different clades of algae, it is now apparent that the corals can easily adapt to major temperature changes, whether these are natural or not.

4. If global warming occurs and the sea-level rises in consequence, there will be a spectacular increase in coral cover on the large areas of reef flat which are now almost devoid of corals due to the fall in sea-level that has occurred in Queensland over the last 5000 years. These areas are presently below the spring low tide level and are thus exposed to the air. Sea level rise will allow these areas to recolonise.

5. High surface water temperatures associated with the two major bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef in recent decades were a result of periods of extended calm associated with strong El Niño conditions. At such times normal wave mixing ceases as does the normal wave driven currents across shallow reef tops. This permits unusually high water temperatures to develop and the water on top of reefs to become especially warm. There is no evidence to indicate any influence of anthropogenic climate change in these events nor of any increase in the frequency or strength of such events.

Scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and various universities depend upon generous government funding to study the supposed threats of climate change and coral bleaching. But rather than reporting their research findings in a scientifically meaningful way they behave as political activists and propagandists and talk nonsense.


Links, And

1. Climate change could make reef boring, Conor Duffy, July 10, 2012.

2. Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns hears of threats to our natural ocean wonders, Peter Michael, July 10, 2012.

3. Interesting facts about heat and coral growth compiled by Professor Peter Ridd, James Cook University.


147 Responses to “Activist Scientists Crying Wolf on Coral Bleaching and Climate Change”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. Comment from: Luke

    Sorry Tony I muffed my quotations and attribution above:

    Here we report the results of nearly 20 years of time-series measurements of seawater pH and associated parameters at Station ALOHA in the central North Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. We document a significant long-term decreasing trend of −0.0019 ± 0.0002 y−1 in surface pH, which is indistinguishable from the rate of acidification expected from equilibration with the atmosphere.

    The ocean near Bermuda has also become more
    acidic, with a decrease in seawater pH of 0.0012 ± 0.0006
    pH units yr_1 (Table 1 and Figure 1). This represents a
    decline of _0.025 pH units (_8.125 to _8.100) over the last
    20 years, about one third of the total 0.06 pH unit increase in
    ocean acidity observed since the pre-industrial times [e.g.,
    Caldeira and Wickett, 2003; Sabine et al., 2004a]. The longterm
    trends of pH, CO3
    2_ ion concentration and saturation
    states of calcium carbonate minerals were statistically highly
    significant (p-values 1500 m), the rate of pH decline is a
    quarter of that observed in surface waters. The surface seawater
    carbonate saturation states () are about 1.5 for aragonite
    and 2.5 for calcite, about half of levels found in subtropical
    surface waters. During 1985–2008, the degree of saturation
    () decreased at an average rate of 0.0072 yr−1 for
    aragonite and 0.012 yr−1 for calcite. The aragonite saturation
    horizon is currently at 1710m and shoaling at 4myr−1.
    Based on this rate of shoaling and on the local hypsography,
    each year another 800 km2 of seafloor becomes exposed
    to waters that have become undersaturated with respect to

  2. Comment from: Luke

    Obviously some bad HTML interactions – apology for that – the middle reference abiove is from Bates, N. R. (2007), Interannual variability of the oceanic CO2 sink in the subtropical gyre of the North Atlantic Ocean over the last 2 decades, J. Geophys. Res.,

  3. Comment from: spangled drongo

    I thought that if the oceans were warming as you say they are, that they would be out-gassing CO2 and becoming less acidic.

    And according to Scripps, if the oceans fluctuate by a lot more than your figures on a regular basis, where’s the problem?

  4. Comment from: cohenite

    Cyclones, luke’s link, once again to Emanuel [2005], rebutted here:

  5. Comment from: Luke

    But what cheek – fancy quoting my own discovery paper back to me (Oh I hate it when he does that).

    Hardly rebutted at all my good fellow. More like nicely supplemented.

    Of course Callaghan and Power – such an excellent paper. But alas all aspects true – decadal influences very heavy in cyclones MAKING LANDFALL in eastern Australia – too true. Of course those decadal influences you would tell me have now reversed.

    And so good to see sceptics advocating a paper listing the decline in the Walker circulation (vis a vis SOI) “These and other considerations outlined below lead the authors to conclude that (i) both external forcing and internally generated variability contributed to the observed weakening of the WC over the twentieth century and (ii) external forcing accounts for approximately 30%–70% of the observed weakening with internally generated climate variability making up the rest.”

    But dear dear Cohenite – let us not get distracted – I might suggest Emmanuel’s result still stands. Who can forget such intense systems as Ingrid (Top End to Kimberley). Vance (WA), Nancy and Zoe (Pacific) – and the coast crossing Larry and the unforgettable and massive Yasi first coast crossing Cat 5 since 1918.

    What damage did Yasi do to the reef from it’s sheer Cat 5 intensity and scale – – patchy – mild to severe – lots od detail in the report – but of course just another factor in my list of factors.

    Ag runoff + acidification + ENSO + SST increase + cyclones + COTS

    What does CSIRO’s modelling of cyclone future suggest – “Tropical cyclone days are projected to decrease in frequency in the Australian region, but it is expected that a greater percentage of total cyclones will be in the stronger categories. That is, we may have fewer cyclones but the ones we do have will be stronger.”

  6. Comment from: Luke

    Well it about nett isn’t it Spangles – do we know that CO2 is sinking into the ocean (nett) and to depth.

    Oh I think so ….

    All about DIC and Revelle factors you see.

  7. Comment from: Robert

    Our sea levels rising after 1820: Mahina, the mother of all hurricanes and storm surges in 1899 (whew): that dry-tending half century after the Fed Drought – till the mega-drenching of1950…

    Always something going on, isn’t there? You just need some clever chaps to explain it all and tell you why it’s going to get worse, like those wet, chilly 1970s or the baking, dusty 1930s.

    At least one thing is constant: there are always clever chaps.

  8. Comment from: Debbie

    Even if my car MIGHT get scratched I’m now simply NOT PERMITTED to feel less concerned about going to the supermarket and shop for family supplies anyway because that is an obvious RIGHTIST CAPITALIST thing to do?
    Further….silly, silly me…..I apparently ignored that someone FAR MORE INTELLIGENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE AND LITERATE AND CARING AND NOBLY LEFTIST CO OPERATIVE than me had decreed that my car has faulty brakes even though I regularly service my car and always make sure that it is in tip top condition????
    I know THEY said the brakes were faulty, but truly, they’re not…really…they’re fine.
    For some reason, THEY know my car better even though they have never driven it. They don’t even know what COLUR OR MAKE it is or whether it is a LEFT hand or RIGHT hand drive.
    HOWEVER….just to make sure that I don’t point out the bleeding obvious, there is a new statistical analysis available that has proved that my car is in danger from something and I need to be told that I need to be worried.
    Further, I’m not PERMITTED to question the statistical analysis because someone IMPORTANT(etc) has decreed that it’s no longer statistics or anything to do with what side the steering wheel is on… It’s actually SCIENCE!!!!!
    And Also….although it had nothing whatsoever to do with the statistical analysis that caused me concern in the first place….it has also been decred there is ALSO a fault in my steering.
    Silly me….what I’m not understanding is….
    It’s FAR FAR WORSE than I thought.
    Looks like my family is just going to have to starve because I need to be so alarmed about the fact that we’ve tripped that ‘driving to do my shopping’ related precautionary principle and we can’t do anything about it because it MIGHT cause something else to happen. :-)
    There is a new statistical analysis that has extrapolated this a settled fact.
    Also…THEY can’t figure out how I could possibly survive anyway and I MUST pay someone else to do my shopping and all my worrying for me in the future.

  9. Comment from: Luke

    And because Debbie DENIED all the evidence she hit a semi-trailer bound for Woolworths and was turned inside out. All the warning signs were there – stress cracks, trend lines, and routine check-ins ignored but Debbie decided to wait and see if something really catastrophic would happen first instead of taking remedial action.

    BTW I was just pandering to your fears with the co-op quip. i.e. joke

  10. Comment from: el gordo

    Roger Bradbury picked up the hymn book and sang a song to the NY Times.

    Where is due diligence?

  11. Comment from: Robert

    The New York Times has an ignoble history of climate alarmism, going right back to the nineteenth century. It really is the Journal of Reference…for impressionable snobs.

  12. Comment from: Debbie

    Oh silly me….I missed the REAL problem and it WAS associated with the steering after all.
    And even SILLIER me…I can’t recognise jokes.
    Those identified problems and the ability or the intelligence to make jokes ONLY apply to LEFT HAND drive cars….and very ALARMING is the fact that in Australia from the moment cars were a part of our lives….they have been right hand drives!:-)
    People who are suspected (but not actually proven) of using right hand drive cars do not posses a sense of humour and are so busily minding their own business that they are BLIND! They also wear tweed jackets and attend secret tea parties.
    We can’t have that anymore….it is totally alarming….people MIGHT drive in a non decreed direction and the wrong side of the road because it has been decided that there is an alarming and future catastrophic fault in allowing the steering wheel to be on the right hand side.
    No wonder we’re having a problem.
    I drive my car every day and the steering works just fine. But some of my farm vehicles do actually have left hand drive and amazingly the steering works fine on those too. Not perfect mind you….never perfect…because that would mean we have ascended and gone to heaven.
    So in my very deniable life, I’m fairly comfortable with the basic mechanics and engineering that makes the steering work (as long as I maintain the equipment and repair the inevitable errors that occur and responsibly update as I learn more about safe and efficient steering mechanisms). The actual SIDE the steering is on isn’t an issue for me….because I regularly drive both….but that left hand drive one sure costs me a heap more to own and drive.
    And don’t forget that my FEARS need to be pandered to. Something CATASTROPHIC like a Woolies semi trailer is heading straight for me because I just keep DENYING the fashionable and heavily funded concept that the only way to solve my steering problem (and avoid that scary wooliies semi trailer) is that my steering needs to happen from the LEFT side of my car.
    By the time I finally understand the problem (and the humour) I’ll likely be too alarmed to even get out of bed let alone drive my right hand drive car to the supermarket OR my left hand drive truck to the co op.
    We’ll need a new department and a new tax to solve that problem too.
    It will be called the ‘Bedroom change department’ and the tax will be the ‘bed tax’
    (Oh wait a minute….isn’t there already a tax on beds?)
    Never mind….we’re taxing it again because it isn’t really beds, it’s bedrooms AND there is a new alarming social problem that has developed and it is caused by too many people spending too long staying in their bedrooms, selfishly defending and worrying about the steering mechanisms on their cars.
    And the steering problem is now fixed too….because no one is courageous enough to drive their cars from now on…because don’t forget….there are Woolworth semi trailers out there!
    In the meantime while we sort this out….my family MIGHT starve to death!
    So…we now need a new dept and a new tax because there is a new social problem developing because people are too afraid to get out of their beds to go shopping and there are more starving families out there and …….never mind….I think you MIGHT get the joke.

  13. Comment from: Luke

    Yes but in this the case the cumulative effect of degrading brakes (Acidification and temperature rise) , failing to have the care serviced and so air bags weren’t working (but you don’t notice until needed), (ag runoff) which ended all being cumulative when presented with a sudden failure of power steering. (Big MFO ENSO)

    So you might have taken some prudent risk management, read what you’d been given, but you didn’t.

    This video will explain all Debs – note what you have to do make sure you study it in detail

  14. Comment from: Debbie

    :-) :-) :-)
    It’s even WORSE than I thought AGAIN???

  15. Comment from: Tony Price

    Luke is waving decreasing pH statistics about as if they’re needed to PROVE that higher atmospheric CO2 decreases ocean pH and aragonite concentration. It’s called the “weight of evidence”, and it’s supposed, by its very mass, to stifle disagreement. However, this is a “no-brainer”, it’s actually “settled science”. What isn’t “settled science” is how exactly those rates will correlate with increasing atmospheric CO2 in the future, and what effect those rates will have on corals, other small marine organisms, and ultimately, the ocean food chain.

    Ocean pH varies over a range of at least 0.1 units across the oceans, on coarse-resolution maps, equivalent to the supposed 0.1 units increase since 1760 (the latter measured at one location without the vital temperature information). Local variation can be several times that, with diurnal, seasonal, and annual cycles. Many ocean organisms that are subject to variations on those scales are said to be at risk due to permanent changes of a tiny fraction of those ranges. Prove it, and don’t wave the “precautionary principle” at me.

  16. Comment from: Luke

    Well we seem to have moved from pH changes are not happening. I’m then prepared to take ecological response to outgassing CO2 ocean seeps as proxy for changes we might expect elsewhere. And changes there are !

    You know very well that is no proof to satisfy you until it’s happened. Even then you’ll deny it.

    And as I said – that’s one of many forcing factors at work.

  17. Comment from: jennifer

    Hi Luke

    I looked at the first three references you provided (following my initial request for best articles on acidification) – many comments ago. No evidence there for pH change. Have you posted a link to something since that shows evidence for an actual pH change in the oceans?

    I agree theoretically it is all possible including significant reductions in calcification rates. But why its not happening… probably relates to the inherent buffering capacity of the ocean and the temperature component meaning that the oceans may in fact be liberating, not requesting carbon dioxide at the moment. Anyway I’m building up to a series of posts on this issue.

    In the meantime… if you have something that shows an actual change in ocean pH I would be interested in reading it.

    Thanks, Jen

  18. Comment from: Luke

    See my discussion just above. Luke – July14, 8:15 and 8:23. And that was a very lazy look.

    Also important classic paper on CO2 sinking to depth and why DIC and Revelle are important concepts. Luke July 15, 12:02


    But there are complex issues in the southern ocean which is a major sink –

  19. Comment from: Luke free kick

  20. Comment from: cohenite

    I don’t want to distract from luke’s blizzard of CO2/ocean acidity papers but in respect of the Walker weakening:

  21. Comment from: Luke

    Keep telling ya Cohers – your “critique” is old silliness.

    Do get updated with Journal of Climate, December 2011, Vol. 24, No. 24 : pp. 6501-6514

    What Caused the Observed Twentieth-Century Weakening of the Walker Circulation?
    Scott B. Power and Greg Kociuba
    (doi: 10.1175/2011JCLI4101.1)

    One does need to keep up !

  22. Comment from: Larry Fields

    I posted the first two paragraphs plus a link in a few places, including free-associationdotnet, a small social networking site. Here’s the comment that I added:

    Larry’s comment: Dr. Marohasy is the top expert on evidence-based environmental policy in Australia. (Her academic specialty is in biology.) She’s taken a lot of flack from hired-gun ‘scientists’, for whom funding, and the requisite Political Correctness, are more important than telling the truth.

  23. Comment from: Luke

    Oh and even more important and a further paper by the great Scott Power.

    Of course Jen could do well the read the warning contained therein (but alas she ignores me)

    “Thus, statistical prediction schemes which use the SOI will need to be either modified or replaced by climate model-based prediction schemes in the years ahead, as the global warming signal in the SOI (and the quantity being predicted) becomes larger.”

  24. Comment from: Robert

    “Thus, statistical prediction schemes which use the SOI will need to be either modified or replaced by climate model-based prediction schemes in the years ahead, as the global warming signal in the SOI (and the quantity being predicted) becomes larger.”

    Not only is it worse than we thought. It will be worse than we will think.

  25. Comment from: Tony Price

    Luke is as usual very selective in his many quotations. Perhaps he hopes we won’t actually read his sources, despite his continual (becoming continuous) exhortations to just that.

    (ref. Luke July 14th, 2012 at 8:15 pm)

    Here’s the full Conclusions section from “Rate of Iceland Sea acidification from time series measurements”, Olafsson et al. 2009

    “The anthropogenic increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide affects the Iceland Sea both at the surface and at depth. In the surface, the pH has decreased from 8.13 to 8.08 between 1985 and 2008, and the aragonite saturation , which is naturally low anyway, decreased from 1.6 to 1.5 between 1985 and 2008. In the deep-water, the aragonite saturation horizon, currently at 1710m, is shoaling at a rate of about 4m/yr . This shoaling results from extensive vertical mixing which transmits atmospheric signatures to waters as deep as 1500m (Messias et al., 2008). Large areas of the benthos are thus undergoing a rapid transition from being exposed to waters that are supersaturated to being exposed to waters that are undersaturated with respect to aragonite. There is an urgent need to clarify the effects of these changes on associated benthic ecosystems, especially at shallower depths, where the population of carbonate forming benthic biota are much greater.

    “There is an urgent need to clarify the effects of these changes on associated benthic ecosystems” – need anything more be said?

  26. Comment from: Tony Price

    A reminder about Icelandic coastal waters: “the aragonite saturation, which is naturally low anyway, decreased from 1.6 to 1.5 between 1985 and 2008″.

    “Opening the Conference Iceland Mussel 2007 – Opportunities and Future Prospects for a New Seafood Industry in Iceland”

    “Members of Iceland’s Association of Shellfish Cultivators recently announced plans to begin cultivating the shellfish in Iceland’s waters. The association has experimented with blue mussel cultivation in Iceland in recent years with good results, and members now feel it is time to start producing blue mussels in large quantities for export.”

    “the aragonite saturation, which is naturally low anyway, decreased from 1.6 to 1.5 between 1985 and 2008″.

  27. Comment from: cohenite

    “Oh and even more important and a further paper by the great Scott Power.”

    The “great” Scott Power!?

    Your game is down luke. From your “great” man’s paper:

    “Our results also indicate that the observed decline in the SOI in recent decades has been driven by natural, internally generated variability.”

    The escape route for the “great” man is that natural variability is now and will be increasingly caused by AGW.

    We had this discussion before on Jennifer’s extended thread; there you quoted from Power’s 2007 paper:

    “[18] On the other hand, there is currently no consensus amongst climate models concerning change in the behaviour of ENSO in response to global warming [Cane, 2005; Collins et al., 2005; Guilyardi, 2006; Nyenzi and Lefale, 2006; Philip and van Oldenborgh, 2006; van Oldenborgh et al., 2005; Zelle et al., 2005; Meehl et al., 2007]. Yet if ENSO events are defined as years in which the magnitude of the June–December SOI exceeds 5 then El Niño events appear to have been more dominant in 1977–2006 than in any other 30 year period on record.

    [19] However, if global warming is largely responsible for the observed decline in the average value of the SOI over the period 1977–2006 then the threshold values used to define ENSO events need to be lowered (by approximately 3 SOI units). Under the new thresholds the apparent dominance of El Niño disappears. This simple interpretation gives a result that is consistent with modelling results: global warming weakens the Walker Circulation and warms the tropical Pacific Ocean, but has little impact on tropical ENSO-driven variability about the new mean-state [Meehl et al., 2007]. While plausible, further research is needed to help quantify the extent to which global warming has in fact driven the unprecedented recent decline in the 30-year average value of the SOI.”

    I replied:

    “Point 19 of the paper is simply S-F:

    “However, if global warming is largely responsible for the observed decline in the average value of the SOI over the period 1977–2006 then the threshold values used to define ENSO events need to be lowered (by approximately 3 SOI units). Under the new thresholds the apparent dominance of El Niño disappears.”

    What they are saying is that AGW not only warms but it also suppresses natural warming; the threshold for the natural warming mechanism, El Nino, drops , so that all the warming is AGW and little natural. This in fact was the main point of the cacophony against McLean et al; that natural factors merely oscillated and contributed nothing to trend.

    Now luke, just think about that for an instant; AGW warms while suppressing natural warming; and you wonder why there are sceptics out there pulling their hair out at the utter gibberish produced by our so-called top scientists.

    And you have totally ignored the Wentz paper:

    The significance of this paper is that it shows that natural processes rather than decreasing due to warming are compensating; increased rainfall of course removes extra warming from the system. And it also shows the Walker is not weakening.”

    Now tell me how Power’s 2010 effort is different from 2007?

  28. Comment from: Luke

    Tony – the QUESTION asked was is there any evidence of oceanic pH changes made in the world. So I provided some. Changing the goal posts is typical sceptic stuff.

  29. Comment from: cohenite

    Don’t complain luke, the thread, like fate, takes us where it wants.

    Ocean pH in a historical context:

    Here’s a further link which provides graphs from the above paper:

    Carry on; thanks for the Power papers; you are trying to send me insane, aren’t you?

  30. Comment from: Luke

    Someone has to update you and be nice to you. You see I am a nice person really.

    Those CO2 denier links aren’t up to date! It’s 2012 by my clock.

  31. Comment from: Debbie

    It’s 2012 by my clock too Luke,
    Can you therefore explain why in the closely related MDB debate and also much of the AGW debate we are all still having projective climate & socio-economic models/graphs/reports that go no further than 2009 ‘real time data’ jammed down out throats?

  32. Comment from: Luke

    That’s good ! In fact normal – as data prep and complex model runs take to perform and analyse and then write up and get published. All that takes time Debs – 2009 is quite good.

  33. Comment from: Debbie

    Why would we be basing far reaching social policy and loads of tax payer funding on something that can’t keep up?
    Especially since it claims to predict the future?
    As Jen does clearly point out….that data re reefs is already available….at other reef locations.
    I realise at this post Jen has mainy pointed out the ‘warming’ data is available….but we all know that much of the rest is too…don’t we?

  34. Comment from: Luke

    Duh – why is critical to have the last couple of years – adds what? just silly nonsense Debs

  35. Comment from: Lars Jonsson

    I red the paper from 2009 in Pnas and certainly think that we should be very careful about what might happen with the changinh pH values. However the abstract starts with the proclamation “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing at an accelerating rate”. You have looked at 20 years and according to the following grapg from NOAA there is at present no accellerating rate. The last ten years the rate of increase is rather decellerating. This is not said to downplay the the consequences of future acidification, but obvioulsy the fraction of air molecules are at present not accellerating although this could be said for the period on the whole. It is a bad sign of a scientific paper if one of the first scentences is not correct

  36. Comment from: Tony Price

    Luke said “Tony – the QUESTION asked was is there any evidence of oceanic pH changes made in the world. So I provided some. Changing the goal posts is typical sceptic stuff.”

    I didn’t move the goalposts, I also provided precise evidence of pH changes, and more importantly, a significant drop in aragonite saturation (from one of your linked papers – is quoting from it “changing the goalposts”?), countered by an apparent lack of impact on mussels in the same area. There’s no evidence for any impact on clams either. Ignoring a whole, large chunk of what I posted is a typical opposition tactic.

  37. Comment from: Debbie

    you are managing to contradict yourself.
    The projections are not passing the harsh judgement of reality.
    I have no probs with continuing work that is prepared to update correctly.
    My point was that this work is not good enough and therefore it is not appropriate to use it to dictate social policy or to pour further copious funding into trying to justify behaviour that is not delivering on stated goals.
    As you also point out, the process is so bleeding cumbersome it can’t keep up and becomes a burden and an obstruction.
    Your comment to Cohenite was that he wasn’t updated and that it is now 2012.
    When exactly the same criticism is made about closely related issues how does it magically morph into ‘just silly nonsense’?

  38. Comment from: Luke

    Lars on the contrary put a trend line through your quoted growth rate in CO2 figure.

    Tony – and yes for the period involved would you expect major effects on biota?

    Debbie – a great many AGW predictions are turning out spot on. But you wouldn’t know a you don’t read anything but blog bilge. Otherwise you wouldn’t make such comments.

    Your comment about updating is simply utter drivel. I’ve never heard such nonsense. Is Jen’s paper up to date – nuh ! All serious science has periods of experimentation, periods, of analysis, periods of writing, getting review and then publishing. Takes time ! 1-2 years

    But when you’re 10 years out – that’s another matter.

  39. Comment from: Debbie

    Debbie – a great many AGW predictions are turning out spot on.
    That’s a rather broad statement Luke?
    What % fig is that ‘great many’?How USEFUL is that particular % as a basis for dictating rules and policy?
    And you of course realise that I can easily say ‘ a great many’ have not been even close to ‘spot on’.
    Which may mean that your continued & totally unsubstantiated claims that I don’t read anything would also not be ‘spot on’ either.
    You appear insanely obsessed with calendar points Luke….and failing to see that the natural environment is not interested in the repeatedly failing attempts to formulate social policy based on % of precautionary mights and then come up with infallible sets of bureaucratic rules.
    I watch the RESULTS of that behaviour every day in my patch.
    It leads to insane procedures that result in water authorities dumping water from dangerously low storages at the top of our flooding river systems…straight into those flooding river systems….in the name of ‘paying back’ to the environment because the rules based on the out of date models said the water had to be released.
    The further ‘knock on’ effects are even more unrealistic.
    2 years can make a hellava difference to the people and communities who just want to get on with it Luke.
    Actually ONE WEEK can make a difference!
    In the face of the massive flooding that occured here in March….we found ourselves continually obstructed because the ‘rules’ did not allow it….rules that were put in place to manage a millenium drought and the continuation of popularly followed projective models.
    Which leads me back to the point that we should not be basing far reaching social policy on stuff that can’t possibly keep up with what’s really happening.
    I have never said this work is BAD…I have always said that projective modelling is a very useful TOOL.
    Nearly everybody uses the TOOL Luke….but you seem to think it’s SCIENCE….and that it’s above reproach?????
    And seriously…considering you have a total obsession about ‘serious science’
    what does this silly comment have to do with anything?
    Is Jen’s paper up to date – nuh !
    Where did Jen claim that her paper was the answer to all our woes?
    (and yes I have read)

  40. Comment from: Luke

    You are upset with the climate change modellers coz your weather forecast is wrong? Good grief.

  41. Comment from: Debbie

    What planet do you live on and what language do you speak?
    That question and comment has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
    BUT Luke, while it is NOT what upsets me you are at least correct that the forecasting is often wrong.

  42. Comment from: sp

    Luke – answer the question:

    What % fig is that ‘great many’?How USEFUL is that particular % as a basis for dictating rules and policy?

  43. Comment from: Luke

    84.762% and yes

  44. Comment from: sp

    Question: What % fig is that ‘great many’?How USEFUL is that particular % as a basis for dictating rules and policy?

    Luke Response: 84.762% and yes

    Luke either provide a link to support your response or simply admit you are wrong.

  45. Comment from: Debbie

    May I also point out that YES is NOT an answer to the second half of the question?

    The question was clearly ‘how’ useful….NOT ‘is it’ useful as a basis for dictating rules and policy.
    Along with sp….and considering you’re such a stickler for ‘serious science’….I believe a reference is in order Luke.
    May I also point out that you did not answer the question about your snipe at the Marohasy/Abbot research paper?
    From my reading, that research is aimed at contributing to our ability to make ‘informed’ decisions using tools that are already available to most of us and (IMHO) a sensible use of the increasingly impressive data bank of raw data….particularly on our Eastern Seaboard. ….and it shows some early promise.
    In particular businesses like mine and also the mining industry would definitely find this research USEFUL if (repeat IF!) it delivers on its early promise.
    This research also did NOT give C02 and ‘Climate Change Theory’ a prominent forcing yet still it shows at least equal success at ‘projecting’.
    It does not in anyway suggest that it is a tool to DICTATE social policy.
    And further… in relation to the topic of this post….you have not answered the question about why same species coral thrives in other areas that ALREADY have warmer ocean temps etc.

  46. Comment from: roberts

    Why is it that under water volcanism is always ignored.
    Fault lines caused where tectonic plates meet stretch around the globe for something like 86,000 kilometers.
    Most of these faults are under water.
    Is it beyond the realm of impossibility that these vents could be sources of heat and very acidic compounds that could actually add to the water’s temperatures and ph in different locations.

  47. Comment from: Tony Burke eats the Great Barrier Reef at Catallaxy Files

    [...] myths perpetrated by green activists is that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat from farming.  Jennifer Marohasy has totally deflated the claims which scientists have used to milk money from governments determined [...]

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All