Great Barrier Reef coral that was damaged has recovered a lot

The Reef and Rainforest Research Centre (RRRC), a non-profit enterprising Australian organization, has reported substantial signs of recovery for corals affected by mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. A milder 2017-18 summer as well as cooperation between science, industry and government is supporting the recovery of the Reef in many important locations.

Bleaching of coral is like sunburn to human skin. There are different levels of bleaching damage.

The Reef and Rainforest Research Centre (RRRC) in cooperation with the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators (AMPTO) conducted detailed surveys of bleaching levels at key dive tourism sites around Cairns in 2016. While many of the primary dive sites were not affected in the 2016 bleaching, quite a few were quite strongly affected in the 2017 event. Fortunately, these are the same reefs showing strong signs of recovery.

“It is important to realize that bleaching occurs in multiple stages, ranging from the equivalent of a mild sunburn to coral mortality – so when a reef is reported as ‘bleached’ in the media, that often leaves out a critical detail on how severe that bleaching is, at what depth the bleaching has occurred and if it’s going to cause permanent damage to the coral at that site,” RRRC Managing Director Sheriden Morris said.

In April, the Australian federal government announced a $379 million grant to help the Great Barrier Reef tackle such challenges as climate change, coral-eating starfish and agricultural runoff that ruins the water quality.

The majestic Great Barrier Reef is one of the seven natural wonders of the world and the world’s largest living organism, stretching 1,430 miles and featuring an abundance of marine life with over 3,000 individual reef systems and coral cays as well as hundreds of tropical islands with some of the world’s most beautiful sun-soaked, golden beaches.

As an iconic natural wonder and an unforgettable lifetime experience, the Great Barrier Reef is one of the world’s most sought-after tourism destinations, offering an abundance of experiences for travelers such as snorkeling, scuba diving, aerial tours and marine educational tours. Tourism provides critical support of the Great Barrier Reef, as visitor fees contribute to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the federal agency with oversight for the protection and scientific research to support the sustainability of the reef, including regulations that provide a global benchmark for responsible tourism practice.

Reefs around the world experienced bleaching in 2016 and 2017, and while the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef did experience some severe bleaching, this condition did not affect the entire Reef and there are currently encouraging signs of recovery at a variety of key tourism sites. Recent photos taken in June and July 2018 show healthy, vibrant coral at numerous locations that suffered during the back-to back coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 including Fitzroy Island, Moore Reef and Saxon Reef near Cairns, among other locations.

Coral bleaching occurs when corals experience too much stress – i.e. from high water temperatures or poor water quality – and eject their symbiotic zooxanthellae, losing their distinctive colors. If stressful conditions persist, the corals will die, but if conditions return to acceptable levels, some corals can re-absorb zooxanthellae and recover. A relatively cooler 2017-2018 summer in the northern Great Barrier Reef has helped many corals affected by the mass bleaching to start the journey back to good health.

The Reef Restoration Foundation, a nonprofit social enterprise creating optimism for the Great Barrier Reef through innovative coral reef restoration techniques, established the first ocean-based coral nursery in the Great Barrier Reef in December 2017 to regenerate damaged coral reefs at Fitzroy Island, Cairns, and have plans to install a series of other nurseries throughout the Great Barrier Reef. They are pleased to report that the first crop of corals have exceeded expectations, increasing in size 2.5 times in six months with nine out of 10 corals thriving and 222 new coral fragments resulting from the initial 24 pieces of coral initially harvested. They will soon attach about 100 of these thriving corals onto damaged coral reefs at Fitzroy Island.

Tourism operators have also reported improvements in the condition of corals at their high-profile dive sites. Quicksilver Group Environmental Compliance Manager Doug Baird said there had been widespread recovery from the 2016 and 2017 mass bleaching events at the company’s regular sites.

“All of our sites that survived the mass bleaching events have shown strong signs of recovery, they look great now. We were fortunate that the effects of bleaching were very patchy,” Doug said. “I was in the water a few weeks ago at our pontoon site at Agincourt Reef and it looks stunning, there’s staghorn coral that’s budding out and regrowing.”

180 thoughts on “Great Barrier Reef coral that was damaged has recovered a lot”

  1. So… the doyen of the Global Warming Alarmists Community is becoming a ever mind” it does that bleaching from time to time”” issue?Just saying.Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused…By time.And patience.And a whole lot of “”””never mind… look over THERE at the disaster unfolding!!!””””Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  2. Which brings up another question… has ANY human effort (besides the 5 obvious “yes” answers) to date diminished or reversed the ill effects of CO₂ atmospheric enrichment to date? The 5 Mr. Obvious hold outs might be: • U.S. cessation of SO₂ emissions → end of Acid Rain • U.S. cessation of leaving open-pit mines … open. → end of Acidifying runoff • EPA mandates zero-lead in paint, gasoline, pipes. → end of “lead-stupid” poisoning • EPA outlaws CFCs as foaming, refrigerant uses. → restoration of Ozone protection • EPA air quality laws toughen thru 1990s → MUCH improved metropolitan air qual. But after that, what? (Like the Monte Python skit, “What have the Romans ever done for US?”) Just saying. These corrections and regulations were pretty darn low hanging fruit. What have other countries done? I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant, or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America. Entirely out of ignorance, what’s the pan-European version of the EPA? What’s the body in Australia that’s not just bird-dogging Industry and participating in the loosey-goosey UN World-Environmental junkets, but what are they actually DOING that’s regulatorily proactive? REPORTING on The Great Barrier Reef bleaching of 2016–2017 is one thing. But remediation steps? Just asking. Someone amongst the regular readers here might know. Maybe DoctorPat? GoatGuy

    Reply
  3. So… the doyen of the Global Warming Alarmists Community is becoming a “never mind, it does that bleaching from time to time” issue? Just saying. Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused… By time. And patience. And a whole lot of “never mind… look over THERE at the disaster unfolding!!!” Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  4. Which brings up another question… has ANY human effort (besides the 5 obvious yes”” answers) to date diminished or reversed the ill effects of CO₂ atmospheric enrichment to date?The 5 Mr. Obvious hold outs might be:• U.S. cessation of SO₂ emissions → end of Acid Rain• U.S. cessation of leaving open-pit mines … open. → end of Acidifying runoff• EPA mandates zero-lead in paint”” gasoline”” pipes. → end of “”””lead-stupid”””” poisoning• EPA outlaws CFCs as foaming”” refrigerant uses. → restoration of Ozone protection• EPA air quality laws toughen thru 1990s → MUCH improved metropolitan air qual. But after that what? (Like the Monte Python skit”” “”””What have the Romans ever done for US?””””) Just saying. These corrections and regulations were pretty darn low hanging fruit. What have other countries done? I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant”” or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America. Entirely out of ignorance what’s the pan-European version of the EPA? What’s the body in Australia that’s not just bird-dogging Industry and participating in the loosey-goosey UN World-Environmental junkets”” but what are they actually DOING that’s regulatorily proactive? REPORTING on The Great Barrier Reef bleaching of 2016–2017 is one thing. But remediation steps?Just asking.Someone amongst the regular readers here might know.Maybe DoctorPat?GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  5. But after that, what? (Like the Monte Python skit, “What have the Romans ever done for US?”)” I still remember that skit….. Well, to be frank: you’re kind of lampooning your own rationale with the “besides the 5 obvious…” you can’t include those points and then go back to attacking the issue again. “I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant, or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America.” You’re kind of leaving out the point that America was the 1st, now 2nd largest polluter in the world. The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US. Also, your line: “ill effects of CO₂…” suggests you understand CO₂ is bad, but just haven’t bought into the whole climate change deal? Interesting… I wonder if any of it has to do with politics? For example, I bet we can both agree on the ill affects of CO₂ on the planet Venus. How it causes a runaway greenhouse gas effect, but I’m guessing you’d be hard pressed to talk about the same issues pertaining to planet Earth. Now, Earth would never be as bad as Venus, yes, I know, but the mechanisms which triggers that are the same.

    Reply
  6. In terms of helping the reef adapt there are regulatory measures (reduced fishing, mining, tourism) etc as well as remediation (killing off invasive starfish). In terms of reducing human activity water runoff I know that State Governments in Australia do have programs that reduce waste water runoff into the Ocean. However, I don’t know if there is much action on agricultural waste or fertilizer runoff from farms into the Ocean. Apart from the above the Federal government recently announced a $400m program to defend the GBR, though its overall effectiveness is contested. In terms of Federal CO2/GHG reduction policy from electricity it is pretty fragmented, policies like Emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, emission intensity schemes and most recently an energy guarantee have killed the political careers of those proposing them. The opposition Labor Party, who will likely form government in 2019 seems to have a policy for two trading/intesity type schemes, though I doubt they will get them through the parliament. For the last 15 odd years, Australia has an approx 20% Renewable Energy Target by 2020. For the transport sector this is not much in the way of emssions reduction policy. For land use, tree clearing has been progressively reduced by State Governments, again causing political issues in the bush where farm have had trees regrow. There is a Federal policy called Direct Action trying to reduce emissions – mainly in the bush as far as I can tell – for about AUD$10-15 via grants. Nuclear Power is banned in Australia. Fracking and even regular gas mining in much of the country is banned. However, my impression of the environmental agencies (usually also called the EPA) is that they regulate the mining industry well to reduce natural gas seepage etc. In contrast to that there is still plenty of open cut coal mining that produces particulate mining by-products.

    Reply
  7. Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused… By time. And patience.” So in other words: You don’t have an answer to the bleachings either? =) No skeptic actually has an explanation to why climate change is happening, and yet they claim to know more about the issue than actual scientists who study these issues.

    Reply
  8. But after that what? (Like the Monte Python skit” “”What have the Romans ever done for US?””””)””””I still remember that skit….. Well”””” to be frank: you’re kind of lampooning your own rationale with the “”””besides the 5 obvious…”””” you can’t include those points and then go back to attacking the issue again.””””I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant”””” or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America.””””You’re kind of leaving out the point that America was the 1st”” now 2nd largest polluter in the world. The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US.Also”” your line: “”””ill effects of CO₂…”””” suggests you understand CO₂ is bad”” but just haven’t bought into the whole climate change deal? Interesting… I wonder if any of it has to do with politics? For example I bet we can both agree on the ill affects of CO₂ on the planet Venus. How it causes a runaway greenhouse gas effect but I’m guessing you’d be hard pressed to talk about the same issues pertaining to planet Earth. Now Earth would never be as bad as Venus yes I know”” but the mechanisms which triggers that are the same.”””””””

    Reply
  9. In terms of helping the reef adapt there are regulatory measures (reduced fishing mining tourism) etc as well as remediation (killing off invasive starfish). In terms of reducing human activity water runoff I know that State Governments in Australia do have programs that reduce waste water runoff into the Ocean. However I don’t know if there is much action on agricultural waste or fertilizer runoff from farms into the Ocean. Apart from the above the Federal government recently announced a $400m program to defend the GBR though its overall effectiveness is contested.In terms of Federal CO2/GHG reduction policy from electricity it is pretty fragmented policies like Emissions trading schemes carbon taxes emission intensity schemes and most recently an energy guarantee have killed the political careers of those proposing them. The opposition Labor Party who will likely form government in 2019 seems to have a policy for two trading/intesity type schemes though I doubt they will get them through the parliament. For the last 15 odd years Australia has an approx 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Renewable Energy Target by 2020.For the transport sector this is not much in the way of emssions reduction policy. For land use tree clearing has been progressively reduced by State Governments again causing political issues in the bush where farm have had trees regrow. There is a Federal policy called Direct Action trying to reduce emissions – mainly in the bush as far as I can tell – for about AUD$10-15 via grants. Nuclear Power is banned in Australia.Fracking and even regular gas mining in much of the country is banned. However my impression of the environmental agencies (usually also called the EPA) is that they regulate the mining industry well to reduce natural gas seepage etc. In contrast to that there is still plenty of open cut coal mining that produces particulate mining by-products.

    Reply
  10. Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused… By time. And patience.””So in other words: You don’t have an answer to the bleachings either? =)No skeptic actually has an explanation to why climate change is happening”””” and yet they claim to know more about the issue than actual scientists who study these issues.”””””””

    Reply
  11. There have been headlines proclaiming the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef my entire life. From oil, or coal, or crown-of-thorns-starfish, or from Taiwanese fishermen, or from excess tourists, or from global cooling, or global warming, or PCBs, or CFCs, or … After a while you just ignore them. After a while you ignore all that DOOM NOW! main stream media sensationalism. Well, I do. Somehow there are grown adults that take it all seriously. And they wonder why they live their lives in a state of frustrated panic.

    Reply
  12. As far as I know the Australian EPA did much the same stuff as the US EPA. I can’t give any details though. But I do know that there is a LOT of work on water management.

    Reply
  13. There have been headlines proclaiming the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef my entire life. From oil or coal or crown-of-thorns-starfish or from Taiwanese fishermen or from excess tourists or from global cooling or global warming or PCBs or CFCs or …After a while you just ignore them. After a while you ignore all that DOOM NOW! main stream media sensationalism.Well I do. Somehow there are grown adults that take it all seriously. And they wonder why they live their lives in a state of frustrated panic.

    Reply
  14. As far as I know the Australian EPA did much the same stuff as the US EPA.I can’t give any details though. But I do know that there is a LOT of work on water management.

    Reply
  15. Coral bleaching is easily explained. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change (up and down). I can describe, in quite detail how the coral process works if you like, but it’s an easy google search. If you look at historical records going back to 1870, the water temperature change in coral areas has been flat, more or less, except for the past 20 years. The past years temperature rise (in coral areas) have been caused by some extreme El Ninos. There is NO statistical correlation to atmospheric Co2 (ie while global Co2 has increased since 1870, temps in coral waters hasn’t except for very recently). If you look at GLOBAL water temps, you’ll see (according to NOAA/NASA) you’ll see a 40-year DECLINE in temps between 1880-1920, a RISE between 1920 and 1940, a DECLINE from 1940-1980 and a RISE since 1980. Again, not correlated (statistically) to Co2. Much of the recent INCREASES, according to NASA, can be attributed to more precise measurements. you can read more at Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017, doi: s41598-018-24530-9

    Reply
  16. Back to ScaryJello’s story of eating the iodine giant clam “to be polite”. There’s a broader message in the story I fear. It is that a WHOLE LOT of the planet’s hairless apes don’t give a flying fûque about their individual OR their collective impact on the environment. Just look at any 3rd world slum. The poo slowly oozing thru the open slough AKA “street” is everyone else’s fault. All I want for Eid is a new smartphone. As you said. Nice when things get cleaned up. Dealing with a whole planet of environmentally cone headed miscreants … That’s going to be hard. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  17. Let’s face it, Doc. (Wishing for bold, or italics…) The NEWS of the world depends critically on controversy. Controversy is most easily milled out of the grist of imminent doom. Crack addled journalists covet the mantle of authority worn by their Science interviewees, upon which they gin article after article of doom, controversy, story-selling yellow journalism. Without that, the News would be boring. Mrs. McGillicuddy slipped on a banana peel, knocked over a liter of milk, into the goldfish bowl, killing her prized bobble-eyed Japanese google-fish. She sued Dole, the shipper of bananas for 28 million because her hip will fracture decades earlier than if she hadn’t fallen. Etc., etc., etc. Boring. But “CFC’s are killing the Great Barrier Reef”, ah, there’s a doom-and-gloom story straight up. Just saying, GoatGuy.

    Reply
  18. I think Anthony covers it well. The Great Barrier Reef was never in danger. The temporary temperature increase was never enough to kill it, and a bit over 1/3rd of it (south of Mackay) was never in danger at all. There have been some remediation successes like having farmers better manage fertilizer run-off. What have other countries done? Not a whole heck of a lot. European cities are experiencing more smog than the 1960’s due to the push on diesel. The Baltic is a toilet. Per capita Co2 is higher than prior years. On the bright side EU managed to more or less eliminate CFC’s, so that’s good. Asia? I don’t think China has an EPA equivalent, I think they have the ERA (environmental ruin agency). Add to your list that the per capita Co2 production in the US is back to early 1960’s levels despite population growth etc etc. Only major country that has accomplished to reduce Co2. Maybe the trick is not to sign the Paris Accord?

    Reply
  19. To the opinion: “The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US”, I only have to quote fairly current numbers. US = 5,200 GT CO₂ EU = 3,900 GT CO₂ Thank you [i]Wikipedia[/i]. While 3900 is less than 5200 for sure, it isn’t “much lower CO₂ output”, especially as the EU … imports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous, not to count what you’re “off-shored”. Germany is especially good at this game, as EU’s largest energy consumer. Anyway, you’re fundamentally right: EU’s CO₂ footprint is lower than US’s. The US however has 9.8 million km² of land area compared to EU’s 4.4 million. A whole lot more road travel, for sure. America — in my mind “organically” but also unwisely — is a suburb-to-urban metropolis structured organization. The “everyone owns a car” revolution starting in the 1950s completely influenced US civic design. We don’t put little stores every few blocks in our suburbs, but collect them in centers called Malls. Or Walmart. Or CostCo, HomeDeport, and so on. However, this generates a lot of car-to-get-there use. A lot. Way more than the average person embraces in Europe (except for Germany!). I’m not saying it is “good”, but it is the way we swing over here. That 1,500 km/mo per average vehicle thing generates a bunch of CO₂. But less these days, with 25 MPG (10.5 km/L) fuel efficiencies for CAFE standard. And way less as we embrace the Electric Car. A whole lot tho’ goes to trucks, trains and aircraft. The EU embraced high-speed trains and lots of metropolises. American cities are spread way farther apart than EU’s, so are amenable to airports an air travel instead of pervasive high speed rail. This is not to imply that HS Rail doesn’t have a place over here, but with the distances involved, suburb-to-metropolitan-center and so on, as well as inter-city, rail has a more limited point.

    Reply
  20. I don’t have an answer to the leaves falling in my backyard every “fall”, though I suppose theoretically I could build a conservatory over the yard. Got any evidence coral bleaching wasn’t happening all along, and we just now noticed *because we’re looking now*?

    Reply
  21. North Beach? I stayed at the Asian-Belgian dive resort while I was there, courting my now wife. Very nice, I’d like to get back there some time. (Even if I did accidentally wrap a jelly fish around my self the last time I was snorkeling there…) Kawasan falls was nice, too; I hear they’ve cleaned it up. A lot of this, I suspect, is just seeing things we didn’t before, because we didn’t used to be looking so intensively, and assuming they weren’t happening before we started looking. You know, like the ozone hole at the pole, which we found *the first time we looked*, and for some reason assumed it was new.

    Reply
  22. Coral bleaching is easily explained. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change (up and down). I can describe in quite detail how the coral process works if you like but it’s an easy google search. If you look at historical records going back to 1870 the water temperature change in coral areas has been flat more or less except for the past 20 years. The past years temperature rise (in coral areas) have been caused by some extreme El Ninos. There is NO statistical correlation to atmospheric Co2 (ie while global Co2 has increased since 1870 temps in coral waters hasn’t except for very recently). If you look at GLOBAL water temps you’ll see (according to NOAA/NASA) you’ll see a 40-year DECLINE in temps between 1880-1920 a RISE between 1920 and 1940 a DECLINE from 1940-1980 and a RISE since 1980. Again not correlated (statistically) to Co2. Much of the recent INCREASES according to NASA can be attributed to more precise measurements.you can read more at Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017 doi: s41598-018-24530-9″

    Reply
  23. Back to ScaryJello’s story of eating the iodine giant clam to be polite””. There’s a broader message in the story I fear. It is that a WHOLE LOT of the planet’s hairless apes don’t give a flying fûque about their individual OR their collective impact on the environment. Just look at any 3rd world slum. The poo slowly oozing thru the open slough AKA “”””street”””” is everyone else’s fault. All I want for Eid is a new smartphone. As you said. Nice when things get cleaned up. Dealing with a whole planet of environmentally cone headed miscreants … That’s going to be hard. Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  24. Let’s face it Doc. (Wishing for bold or italics…) The NEWS of the world depends critically on controversy. Controversy is most easily milled out of the grist of imminent doom. Crack addled journalists covet the mantle of authority worn by their Science interviewees upon which they gin article after article of doom controversy story-selling yellow journalism. Without that the News would be boring. Mrs. McGillicuddy slipped on a banana peel knocked over a liter of milk into the goldfish bowl killing her prized bobble-eyed Japanese google-fish. She sued Dole the shipper of bananas for 28 million because her hip will fracture decades earlier than if she hadn’t fallen. Etc. etc. etc.Boring.But CFC’s are killing the Great Barrier Reef””” ah there’s a doom-and-gloom story straight up. Just saying””GoatGuy.”””””””

    Reply
  25. I think Anthony covers it well. The Great Barrier Reef was never in danger. The temporary temperature increase was never enough to kill it and a bit over 1/3rd of it (south of Mackay) was never in danger at all. There have been some remediation successes like having farmers better manage fertilizer run-off.What have other countries done? Not a whole heck of a lot. European cities are experiencing more smog than the 1960’s due to the push on diesel. The Baltic is a toilet. Per capita Co2 is higher than prior years. On the bright side EU managed to more or less eliminate CFC’s so that’s good.Asia? I don’t think China has an EPA equivalent I think they have the ERA (environmental ruin agency). Add to your list that the per capita Co2 production in the US is back to early 1960’s levels despitepopulation growth etc etc. Only major country that has accomplished to reduce Co2. Maybe the trick is not to sign the Paris Accord?

    Reply
  26. To the opinion: The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US””” I only have to quote fairly current numbers. US = 5200 GT CO₂EU = 3900 GT CO₂Thank you [i]Wikipedia[/i]. While 3900 is less than 5200 for sure”” it isn’t “”””much lower CO₂ output”””””” especially as the EU … imports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous”” not to count what you’re “”””off-shored””””. Germany is especially good at this game”” as EU’s largest energy consumer.Anyway you’re fundamentally right: EU’s CO₂ footprint is lower than US’s. The US however has 9.8 million km² of land area compared to EU’s 4.4 million. A whole lot more road travel”” for sure. America — in my mind “”””organically”””” but also unwisely — is a suburb-to-urban metropolis structured organization. The “”””everyone owns a car”””” revolution starting in the 1950s completely influenced US civic design. We don’t put little stores every few blocks in our suburbs”” but collect them in centers called Malls. Or Walmart. Or CostCo HomeDeport and so on. However”” this generates a lot of car-to-get-there use. A lot. Way more than the average person embraces in Europe (except for Germany!). I’m not saying it is “”””good”””””” but it is the way we swing over here. That 1500 km/mo per average vehicle thing generates a bunch of CO₂. But less these days with 25 MPG (10.5 km/L) fuel efficiencies for CAFE standard. And way less as we embrace the Electric Car. A whole lot tho’ goes to trucks trains and aircraft. The EU embraced high-speed trains and lots of metropolises. American cities are spread way farther apart than EU’s so are amenable to airports an air travel instead of pervasive high speed rail. This is not to imply that HS Rail doesn’t have a place over here but with the distances involved suburb-to-metropolitan-center and so on as well as inter-cit”

    Reply
  27. I don’t have an answer to the leaves falling in my backyard every fall””” though I suppose theoretically I could build a conservatory over the yard.Got any evidence coral bleaching wasn’t happening all along”” and we just now noticed *because we’re looking now*?”””

    Reply
  28. North Beach? I stayed at the Asian-Belgian dive resort while I was there courting my now wife. Very nice I’d like to get back there some time. (Even if I did accidentally wrap a jelly fish around my self the last time I was snorkeling there…) Kawasan falls was nice too; I hear they’ve cleaned it up. A lot of this I suspect is just seeing things we didn’t before because we didn’t used to be looking so intensively and assuming they weren’t happening before we started looking. You know like the ozone hole at the pole which we found *the first time we looked* and for some reason assumed it was new.

    Reply
  29. I don’t understand. Paragraph 2 says we’re all responsible for whatever mess we’re making. Paragraph 3 apparently criticizes people trying to clean the mess.

    Reply
  30. We watched the ozone hole increase, rather dramatically. You may not have been paying attention at the time, most people weren’t until it became global news. And since we’ve banned CFCs, the decline has stopped. This is a clearcut case of science working. There is something to be said that we are monitoring things better now than in the past. For instance, polar bear populations… we don’t know what the historical values were, we only started counting after sustained human hunting. We stopped hunting them, the numbers went up, so the anti-enviro crowd says there’s no problem. We don’t have enough data post-hunting to know what the real trend is.

    Reply
  31. I don’t understand. Paragraph 2 says we’re all responsible for whatever mess we’re making. Paragraph 3 apparently criticizes people trying to clean the mess.

    Reply
  32. We watched the ozone hole increase rather dramatically. You may not have been paying attention at the time most people weren’t until it became global news. And since we’ve banned CFCs the decline has stopped. This is a clearcut case of science working.There is something to be said that we are monitoring things better now than in the past. For instance polar bear populations… we don’t know what the historical values were we only started counting after sustained human hunting. We stopped hunting them the numbers went up so the anti-enviro crowd says there’s no problem. We don’t have enough data post-hunting to know what the real trend is.

    Reply
  33. Greenpeace et al are having a collective apoplectic fit over this, starting to pound the drums of denialism and conspiracies. News that have been used so much as a sign of our unavoidable and deserved doom (unless you repent, pay your tithes… CO2 taxes and self flagellate) can’t ever start to be wrong or reverse!

    Reply
  34. Greenpeace et al are having a collective apoplectic fit over this starting to pound the drums of denialism and conspiracies. News that have been used so much as a sign of our unavoidable and deserved doom (unless you repent pay your tithes… CO2 taxes and self flagellate) can’t ever start to be wrong or reverse!

    Reply
  35. This is a clearcut case of science working.” Because it was a clear cut case of observable data. Global Warming Fraud is not. It is not falsifiable, either. There isn’t a 1:1 relationship to amount of CO2 put up in the atmo and temp increase. Instead, there’s a reverse-logarithmic one. This is proven science but isn’t mentioned by the Grant Whores as it would really ruin their financial day.

    Reply
  36. Phils have a serious pollution run off prob. Got so bad that they have had to repeatedly close the beaches of Boracay because of the sewage runoff from the resorts.

    Reply
  37. Don’t worry. The media has now latched on to Donald Trump AS THE DIRECT CAUSE of Hurricane Florence, now. No. Not making this up.

    Reply
  38. This feels like an episode of Dr. Who, where he saves the world for the umpteenth time while humans are blissfully unaware. A few things off the top of my head: * Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list, after DDT was banned, following the publication of the “alarmist” book, Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle, even in a remote wilderness. * No more dust bowls following the introduction of better farming practices and gov. sponsored planting of wind breaks in the Great Plains. (It also helps we haven’t seen a sustained drought like that again too, but the agriculture improvements do play a part. There could be a feed-back loop there too). Controlling erosion has been key to keeping our farmland fertile. * National Parks and forests to keep rampant commercialization and polluting industries out of our most scenic and wild places. * EPA has stopped the extinction of large species within the U.S., following the near-miss with American bison, and the demise of passenger pigeons. Species like whooping cranes, and California condors are making a slow comeback. * Regulation of sewage, which used to get dumped straight into rivers. Cities downstream of Chicago for instance (after we reversed the flow of the Chicago River) really appreciate this. Would be nice if this commenting system could make real bullet points…

    Reply
  39. Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list after DDT was banned” following the publication of the “”alarmist”””” book”” Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle”” even in a remote wilderness. “”””Silent Spring was BS. And MILLIONS of people have died because of the resultant DDT ban. Links:bit.ly/2P36wF7a.co/d/0TaTolp”””

    Reply
  40. This is a clearcut case of science working.””Because it was a clear cut case of observable data.Global Warming Fraud is not. It is not falsifiable”” either.There isn’t a 1:1 relationship to amount of CO2 put up in the atmo and temp increase. Instead”” there’s a reverse-logarithmic one. This is proven science but isn’t mentioned by the Grant Whores as it would really ruin their financial day.”””

    Reply
  41. Phils have a serious pollution run off prob. Got so bad that they have had to repeatedly close the beaches of Boracay because of the sewage runoff from the resorts.

    Reply
  42. Don’t worry. The media has now latched on to Donald Trump AS THE DIRECT CAUSE of Hurricane Florence now.No. Not making this up.

    Reply
  43. This feels like an episode of Dr. Who where he saves the world for the umpteenth time while humans are blissfully unaware.A few things off the top of my head:* Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list after DDT was banned following the publication of the alarmist”” book”” Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle even in a remote wilderness.* No more dust bowls following the introduction of better farming practices and gov. sponsored planting of wind breaks in the Great Plains. (It also helps we haven’t seen a sustained drought like that again too but the agriculture improvements do play a part. There could be a feed-back loop there too). Controlling erosion has been key to keeping our farmland fertile.* National Parks and forests to keep rampant commercialization and polluting industries out of our most scenic and wild places.* EPA has stopped the extinction of large species within the U.S. following the near-miss with American bison and the demise of passenger pigeons. Species like whooping cranes and California condors are making a slow comeback.* Regulation of sewage”” which used to get dumped straight into rivers. Cities downstream of Chicago for instance (after we reversed the flow of the Chicago River) really appreciate this.Would be nice if this commenting system could make real bullet points…”””

    Reply
  44. It’s called “Global Warming”. They only started to call it ‘climate change’ when proof became undeniable that the Global Warming is not happening as predicted. And ‘climate change’ means anything. That is why that replace term was chosen. It sure helps to call someone a ‘climate change denier’ when they call out the Global Warming BS for what is and never ‘denied’ that climate changes.

    Reply
  45. mports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous, not to count what you’re “off-shored”. Germany is especially good at this game, as EU’s largest energy consumer. ” Yes. Called ‘electron laundering’. California did that for a while with BC hydro power.

    Reply
  46. Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list, after DDT was banned, following the publication of the “alarmist” book, Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle, even in a remote wilderness. ” Silent Spring was BS. And MILLIONS of people have died because of the resultant DDT ban. Links: bit.ly/2P36wF7 a.co/d/0TaTolp

    Reply
  47. It’s called Global Warming””.They only started to call it ‘climate change’ when proof became undeniable that the Global Warming is not happening as predicted.And ‘climate change’ means anything. That is why that replace term was chosen.It sure helps to call someone a ‘climate change denier’ when they call out the Global Warming BS for what is and never ‘denied’ that climate changes.”””

    Reply
  48. mports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous” not to count what you’re “”off-shored””””. Germany is especially good at this game”””” as EU’s largest energy consumer. “”””Yes. Called ‘electron laundering’. California did that for a while with BC hydro power.”””””””

    Reply
  49. A scientist by the name of Peter Ridd has come under a lot of fire for saying that the coral bleaching is not any worse than it has been in thousands of years. He has also stated that much of the science on coral reefs is based on subjective assessments and poor quality peer review. You can find out more by doing a search for Larcombe and Ridd (2018) for the paper.

    Reply
  50. A scientist by the name of Peter Ridd has come under a lot of fire for saying that the coral bleaching is not any worse than it has been in thousands of years. He has also stated that much of the science on coral reefs is based on subjective assessments and poor quality peer review. You can find out more by doing a search for Larcombe and Ridd (2018) for the paper.

    Reply
  51. Flying into Tokyo however looked like paradise – irrigated fields all green directly adjacent to the city. Whole place looked like a garden – green and cared for.

    Reply
  52. PH has more problems than can be mentioned. Would be nice to see them phase out two-stroke motors in the next 10 years; they shouldn’t be available for purchase. Maybe they aren’t sold anymore, but I figure 99% of the vehicles ever sold in PH are still on the road, smoking, with bald tires. My 10-second visual appraisal of their beloved (Isuzu) Jeepney is that they burn more than their true value (as scrap) in fuel every month. Also, some large portion (25-50%) of the Manila population has or has had TB. They need to euthanize all the skeletal mongrel dogs, but they consider that a high crime; instead they let them breed and breed. The land has been lived to death – if it weren’t for the rain and sun, it would be bare. The ground is limestone – coral reefs from millions of years ago – unforgiving soil. They plant and harvest rice and corn by hand. I admire some things, but mostly I just hope that they improve their lives there. We beat the Japanese to a radioactive smoldering pulp and then built them [back] into a major global player. We broke up gently with the Filipinos, reduced depth of military cooperation at their behest, and continue to watch this ally struggle their own dahmn way. Meanwhile, they speak decent English and eat American culture for breakfast; nobody besides the Chinese knows Chinese; they watch HBO, CNN, ESPN and make $20/day if they are lucky – often much less. Tough place to live; it is a sweating throbbing hell for the uninitiated 1st worlder.

    Reply
  53. Flying into Tokyo however looked like paradise – irrigated fields all green directly adjacent to the city. Whole place looked like a garden – green and cared for.

    Reply
  54. PH has more problems than can be mentioned. Would be nice to see them phase out two-stroke motors in the next 10 years; they shouldn’t be available for purchase. Maybe they aren’t sold anymore but I figure 99{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the vehicles ever sold in PH are still on the road smoking with bald tires. My 10-second visual appraisal of their beloved (Isuzu) Jeepney is that they burn more than their true value (as scrap) in fuel every month. Also some large portion (25-50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) of the Manila population has or has had TB. They need to euthanize all the skeletal mongrel dogs but they consider that a high crime; instead they let them breed and breed. The land has been lived to death – if it weren’t for the rain and sun it would be bare. The ground is limestone – coral reefs from millions of years ago – unforgiving soil. They plant and harvest rice and corn by hand. I admire some things but mostly I just hope that they improve their lives there. We beat the Japanese to a radioactive smoldering pulp and then built them [back] into a major global player. We broke up gently with the Filipinos reduced depth of military cooperation at their behest and continue to watch this ally struggle their own dahmn way. Meanwhile they speak decent English and eat American culture for breakfast; nobody besides the Chinese knows Chinese; they watch HBO CNN ESPN and make $20/day if they are lucky – often much less. Tough place to live; it is a sweating throbbing hell for the uninitiated 1st worlder.

    Reply
  55. Ok, URLs don’t work. Just google “nature article s41598-018-24530-9” and you’ll see that the declines you’ve mentioned are anomalies.

    Reply
  56. Ok URLs don’t work. Just google ature article s41598-018-24530-9″” and you’ll see that the declines you’ve mentioned are anomalies.”””

    Reply
  57. Sorry I don’t get you. You quoted the article I referenced to. “Anomaly” is a subjective observation. What is your statistical analysis that reaches this conclusion? A mere (but wrongly used) linear regression between 1871 and 2017 obviously shows a coral sea temperature increase. But that is like saying “the river is on average 1 foot deeper”. You need to look at the ups and downs over time. There are clear 40-year intervals at work. It would ANOMALOUS if sea temperatures didn’t vary this much over time. The El Nino and similar organic weather patterns are very influential, especially lately (2015 was Furthermore, the articles uses HadCRUT4 as their dataset to estimate the coral sea temperatures back in the day because there were no measurements. The underlying statistics for this data series is meaningless. Prior to 1920, the “homogenized error rates” and “exposure bias” (statistics-speak for making up data) has platykurtic distribution. That means the bell curve (their estimate of what the mean temperature ranges where back in the day) is flat. That means your error rate is so high you can’t draw any assumptions, other than there are a lot of guesses (ie the temps don’t range so much now so why would they back then?). At least the authors of the original paper admitted as much. Furthermore, the dataset PRIOR to 1940 has a non-significant p-value. BUT from today back 100 years, the estimate can show significance because recent temperature measures are extremely accurate, and if you make up data to fit the model, you get a model! In other words, you can only draw conclusions going back to about 1980. That is not acceptable, statistically, if you want to understand the impact of globally rising water temperatures. Climate scientists just don’t have enough reliable data going back far enough. Combine this with confirmation bias and you get misleading conclusions. The statistical test is easy. IF you believe global warming has caused “anomalous” El Nino’s (in IPC

    Reply
  58. Sorry I don’t get you. You quoted the article I referenced to. Anomaly”” is a subjective observation. What is your statistical analysis that reaches this conclusion? A mere (but wrongly used) linear regression between 1871 and 2017 obviously shows a coral sea temperature increase. But that is like saying “”””the river is on average 1 foot deeper””””. You need to look at the ups and downs over time. There are clear 40-year intervals at work. It would ANOMALOUS if sea temperatures didn’t vary this much over time. The El Nino and similar organic weather patterns are very influential”” especially lately (2015 wasFurthermore the articles uses HadCRUT4 as their dataset to estimate the coral sea temperatures back in the day because there were no measurements. The underlying statistics for this data series is meaningless. Prior to 1920″” the “”””homogenized error rates”””” and “”””exposure bias”””” (statistics-speak for making up data) has platykurtic distribution. That means the bell curve (their estimate of what the mean temperature ranges where back in the day) is flat. That means your error rate is so high you can’t draw any assumptions”” other than there are a lot of guesses (ie the temps don’t range so much now so why would they back then?). At least the authors of the original paper admitted as much. Furthermore the dataset PRIOR to 1940 has a non-significant p-value. BUT from today back 100 years the estimate can show significance because recent temperature measures are extremely accurate and if you make up data to fit the model you get a model!In other words you can only draw conclusions going back to about 1980. That is not acceptable statistically”” if you want to understand the impact of globally rising water temperatures. Climate scientists just don’t have enough reliable data going back far enough. Combine this with confirmation bias and you get misleading conclusions. The statistical test is easy. IF you believe global warming has caused “”””anomalo”

    Reply
  59. I feel like you’re now just playing the same mind games. Of course scientists will never say with 100% certainty on a conclusion. That’s just practicing good science. Which, by the way, no skeptics have a conclusion on either (Again, skeptics don’t know what causes recent rises in air temperature). And you’re right, we don’t have enough data on the coral bleachings, but that doesn’t mean climate change (Recent increases in air temperature) has gone away. Which, by the way, I’m glad coral reefs are not as affected as other things like hurricanes and droughts are from climate change. So, you say that you don’t know and you really don’t care about climate change, as you point out the obvious about the climate always changing….. over the course of millions of years. Yes, but we’re not talking about millions of years. We’re talking about the last 100 years. I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ. You don’t want to find out why this is happening. But I do. By the way, the net positives you speak of: longer crop growth cycles, where exactly? More green covering the world? Maybe in Siberia? Because we’ll also have more melting permafrost and algae blooms. So, that net positive result….. still inconclusive.

    Reply
  60. I feel like you’re now just playing the same mind games. Of course scientists will never say with 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} certainty on a conclusion. That’s just practicing good science. Which by the way no skeptics have a conclusion on either (Again skeptics don’t know what causes recent rises in air temperature).And you’re right we don’t have enough data on the coral bleachings but that doesn’t mean climate change (Recent increases in air temperature) has gone away.Which by the way I’m glad coral reefs are not as affected as other things like hurricanes and droughts are from climate change.So you say that you don’t know and you really don’t care about climate change as you point out the obvious about the climate always changing….. over the course of millions of years. Yes but we’re not talking about millions of years. We’re talking about the last 100 years.I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ. You don’t want to find out why this is happening. But I do.By the way the net positives you speak of: longer crop growth cycles where exactly? More green covering the world? Maybe in Siberia? Because we’ll also have more melting permafrost and algae blooms. So that net positive result….. still inconclusive.

    Reply
  61. I feel like you’re now just playing the same mind games. Of course scientists will never say with 100% certainty on a conclusion. That’s just practicing good science. Which, by the way, no skeptics have a conclusion on either (Again, skeptics don’t know what causes recent rises in air temperature). And you’re right, we don’t have enough data on the coral bleachings, but that doesn’t mean climate change (Recent increases in air temperature) has gone away. Which, by the way, I’m glad coral reefs are not as affected as other things like hurricanes and droughts are from climate change. So, you say that you don’t know and you really don’t care about climate change, as you point out the obvious about the climate always changing….. over the course of millions of years. Yes, but we’re not talking about millions of years. We’re talking about the last 100 years. I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ. You don’t want to find out why this is happening. But I do. By the way, the net positives you speak of: longer crop growth cycles, where exactly? More green covering the world? Maybe in Siberia? Because we’ll also have more melting permafrost and algae blooms. So, that net positive result….. still inconclusive.

    Reply
  62. I feel like you’re now just playing the same mind games. Of course scientists will never say with 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} certainty on a conclusion. That’s just practicing good science. Which by the way no skeptics have a conclusion on either (Again skeptics don’t know what causes recent rises in air temperature).And you’re right we don’t have enough data on the coral bleachings but that doesn’t mean climate change (Recent increases in air temperature) has gone away.Which by the way I’m glad coral reefs are not as affected as other things like hurricanes and droughts are from climate change.So you say that you don’t know and you really don’t care about climate change as you point out the obvious about the climate always changing….. over the course of millions of years. Yes but we’re not talking about millions of years. We’re talking about the last 100 years.I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ. You don’t want to find out why this is happening. But I do.By the way the net positives you speak of: longer crop growth cycles where exactly? More green covering the world? Maybe in Siberia? Because we’ll also have more melting permafrost and algae blooms. So that net positive result….. still inconclusive.

    Reply
  63. I feel like you’re now just playing the same mind games. Of course scientists will never say with 100% certainty on a conclusion. That’s just practicing good science. Which, by the way, no skeptics have a conclusion on either (Again, skeptics don’t know what causes recent rises in air temperature).

    And you’re right, we don’t have enough data on the coral bleachings, but that doesn’t mean climate change (Recent increases in air temperature) has gone away.

    Which, by the way, I’m glad coral reefs are not as affected as other things like hurricanes and droughts are from climate change.

    So, you say that you don’t know and you really don’t care about climate change, as you point out the obvious about the climate always changing….. over the course of millions of years. Yes, but we’re not talking about millions of years. We’re talking about the last 100 years.

    I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ. You don’t want to find out why this is happening. But I do.

    By the way, the net positives you speak of: longer crop growth cycles, where exactly? More green covering the world? Maybe in Siberia? Because we’ll also have more melting permafrost and algae blooms. So, that net positive result….. still inconclusive.

    Reply
  64. Sorry I don’t get you. You quoted the article I referenced to. “Anomaly” is a subjective observation. What is your statistical analysis that reaches this conclusion? A mere (but wrongly used) linear regression between 1871 and 2017 obviously shows a coral sea temperature increase. But that is like saying “the river is on average 1 foot deeper”. You need to look at the ups and downs over time. There are clear 40-year intervals at work. It would ANOMALOUS if sea temperatures didn’t vary this much over time. The El Nino and similar organic weather patterns are very influential, especially lately (2015 was Furthermore, the articles uses HadCRUT4 as their dataset to estimate the coral sea temperatures back in the day because there were no measurements. The underlying statistics for this data series is meaningless. Prior to 1920, the “homogenized error rates” and “exposure bias” (statistics-speak for making up data) has platykurtic distribution. That means the bell curve (their estimate of what the mean temperature ranges where back in the day) is flat. That means your error rate is so high you can’t draw any assumptions, other than there are a lot of guesses (ie the temps don’t range so much now so why would they back then?). At least the authors of the original paper admitted as much. Furthermore, the dataset PRIOR to 1940 has a non-significant p-value. BUT from today back 100 years, the estimate can show significance because recent temperature measures are extremely accurate, and if you make up data to fit the model, you get a model! In other words, you can only draw conclusions going back to about 1980. That is not acceptable, statistically, if you want to understand the impact of globally rising water temperatures. Climate scientists just don’t have enough reliable data going back far enough. Combine this with confirmation bias and you get misleading conclusions. The statistical test is easy. IF you believe global warming has caused “anomalous” El Nino’s (in IPC

    Reply
  65. Sorry I don’t get you. You quoted the article I referenced to. Anomaly”” is a subjective observation. What is your statistical analysis that reaches this conclusion? A mere (but wrongly used) linear regression between 1871 and 2017 obviously shows a coral sea temperature increase. But that is like saying “”””the river is on average 1 foot deeper””””. You need to look at the ups and downs over time. There are clear 40-year intervals at work. It would ANOMALOUS if sea temperatures didn’t vary this much over time. The El Nino and similar organic weather patterns are very influential”” especially lately (2015 wasFurthermore the articles uses HadCRUT4 as their dataset to estimate the coral sea temperatures back in the day because there were no measurements. The underlying statistics for this data series is meaningless. Prior to 1920″” the “”””homogenized error rates”””” and “”””exposure bias”””” (statistics-speak for making up data) has platykurtic distribution. That means the bell curve (their estimate of what the mean temperature ranges where back in the day) is flat. That means your error rate is so high you can’t draw any assumptions”” other than there are a lot of guesses (ie the temps don’t range so much now so why would they back then?). At least the authors of the original paper admitted as much. Furthermore the dataset PRIOR to 1940 has a non-significant p-value. BUT from today back 100 years the estimate can show significance because recent temperature measures are extremely accurate and if you make up data to fit the model you get a model!In other words you can only draw conclusions going back to about 1980. That is not acceptable statistically”” if you want to understand the impact of globally rising water temperatures. Climate scientists just don’t have enough reliable data going back far enough. Combine this with confirmation bias and you get misleading conclusions. The statistical test is easy. IF you believe global warming has caused “”””anomalo”

    Reply
  66. Sorry I don’t get you. You quoted the article I referenced to. “Anomaly” is a subjective observation. What is your statistical analysis that reaches this conclusion? A mere (but wrongly used) linear regression between 1871 and 2017 obviously shows a coral sea temperature increase. But that is like saying “the river is on average 1 foot deeper”. You need to look at the ups and downs over time. There are clear 40-year intervals at work. It would ANOMALOUS if sea temperatures didn’t vary this much over time. The El Nino and similar organic weather patterns are very influential, especially lately (2015 was

    Furthermore, the articles uses HadCRUT4 as their dataset to estimate the coral sea temperatures back in the day because there were no measurements. The underlying statistics for this data series is meaningless. Prior to 1920, the “homogenized error rates” and “exposure bias” (statistics-speak for making up data) has platykurtic distribution. That means the bell curve (their estimate of what the mean temperature ranges where back in the day) is flat. That means your error rate is so high you can’t draw any assumptions, other than there are a lot of guesses (ie the temps don’t range so much now so why would they back then?). At least the authors of the original paper admitted as much. Furthermore, the dataset PRIOR to 1940 has a non-significant p-value. BUT from today back 100 years, the estimate can show significance because recent temperature measures are extremely accurate, and if you make up data to fit the model, you get a model!

    In other words, you can only draw conclusions going back to about 1980. That is not acceptable, statistically, if you want to understand the impact of globally rising water temperatures. Climate scientists just don’t have enough reliable data going back far enough. Combine this with confirmation bias and you get misleading conclusions.

    The statistical test is easy. IF you believe global warming has caused “anomalous” El Nino’s (in IPCC parlance “extreme”), you need to go back in time and see if there were extreme ENSOs pre-industrial. Guess what? There were. A great paper (doi 10.1007/s10584-008-9476-z) discusses this, and uses Great Barrier Reef coral samples. So how can there have been ENSOs just as “destructive” back then (we are talking 1525 and forward 350 years) that wiped out the coral but there clearly wasn’t AGM? Climate-alarmists will say that doesn’t matter because AGM will make ENSO worse. Statisticians will say that’s an unproven theory. Alarmists will say it doesn’t matter because the potential ruin event is too high. Statisticians will say if the ruin probability is high, than where is the data? And so goes the debate.

    Reply
  67. Ok, URLs don’t work. Just google “nature article s41598-018-24530-9” and you’ll see that the declines you’ve mentioned are anomalies.

    Reply
  68. Ok URLs don’t work. Just google ature article s41598-018-24530-9″” and you’ll see that the declines you’ve mentioned are anomalies.”””

    Reply
  69. Flying into Tokyo however looked like paradise – irrigated fields all green directly adjacent to the city. Whole place looked like a garden – green and cared for.

    Reply
  70. Flying into Tokyo however looked like paradise – irrigated fields all green directly adjacent to the city. Whole place looked like a garden – green and cared for.

    Reply
  71. PH has more problems than can be mentioned. Would be nice to see them phase out two-stroke motors in the next 10 years; they shouldn’t be available for purchase. Maybe they aren’t sold anymore, but I figure 99% of the vehicles ever sold in PH are still on the road, smoking, with bald tires. My 10-second visual appraisal of their beloved (Isuzu) Jeepney is that they burn more than their true value (as scrap) in fuel every month. Also, some large portion (25-50%) of the Manila population has or has had TB. They need to euthanize all the skeletal mongrel dogs, but they consider that a high crime; instead they let them breed and breed. The land has been lived to death – if it weren’t for the rain and sun, it would be bare. The ground is limestone – coral reefs from millions of years ago – unforgiving soil. They plant and harvest rice and corn by hand. I admire some things, but mostly I just hope that they improve their lives there. We beat the Japanese to a radioactive smoldering pulp and then built them [back] into a major global player. We broke up gently with the Filipinos, reduced depth of military cooperation at their behest, and continue to watch this ally struggle their own dahmn way. Meanwhile, they speak decent English and eat American culture for breakfast; nobody besides the Chinese knows Chinese; they watch HBO, CNN, ESPN and make $20/day if they are lucky – often much less. Tough place to live; it is a sweating throbbing hell for the uninitiated 1st worlder.

    Reply
  72. PH has more problems than can be mentioned. Would be nice to see them phase out two-stroke motors in the next 10 years; they shouldn’t be available for purchase. Maybe they aren’t sold anymore but I figure 99{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the vehicles ever sold in PH are still on the road smoking with bald tires. My 10-second visual appraisal of their beloved (Isuzu) Jeepney is that they burn more than their true value (as scrap) in fuel every month. Also some large portion (25-50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) of the Manila population has or has had TB. They need to euthanize all the skeletal mongrel dogs but they consider that a high crime; instead they let them breed and breed. The land has been lived to death – if it weren’t for the rain and sun it would be bare. The ground is limestone – coral reefs from millions of years ago – unforgiving soil. They plant and harvest rice and corn by hand. I admire some things but mostly I just hope that they improve their lives there. We beat the Japanese to a radioactive smoldering pulp and then built them [back] into a major global player. We broke up gently with the Filipinos reduced depth of military cooperation at their behest and continue to watch this ally struggle their own dahmn way. Meanwhile they speak decent English and eat American culture for breakfast; nobody besides the Chinese knows Chinese; they watch HBO CNN ESPN and make $20/day if they are lucky – often much less. Tough place to live; it is a sweating throbbing hell for the uninitiated 1st worlder.

    Reply
  73. A scientist by the name of Peter Ridd has come under a lot of fire for saying that the coral bleaching is not any worse than it has been in thousands of years. He has also stated that much of the science on coral reefs is based on subjective assessments and poor quality peer review. You can find out more by doing a search for Larcombe and Ridd (2018) for the paper.

    Reply
  74. A scientist by the name of Peter Ridd has come under a lot of fire for saying that the coral bleaching is not any worse than it has been in thousands of years. He has also stated that much of the science on coral reefs is based on subjective assessments and poor quality peer review. You can find out more by doing a search for Larcombe and Ridd (2018) for the paper.

    Reply
  75. It’s called “Global Warming”. They only started to call it ‘climate change’ when proof became undeniable that the Global Warming is not happening as predicted. And ‘climate change’ means anything. That is why that replace term was chosen. It sure helps to call someone a ‘climate change denier’ when they call out the Global Warming BS for what is and never ‘denied’ that climate changes.

    Reply
  76. It’s called Global Warming””.They only started to call it ‘climate change’ when proof became undeniable that the Global Warming is not happening as predicted.And ‘climate change’ means anything. That is why that replace term was chosen.It sure helps to call someone a ‘climate change denier’ when they call out the Global Warming BS for what is and never ‘denied’ that climate changes.”””

    Reply
  77. mports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous, not to count what you’re “off-shored”. Germany is especially good at this game, as EU’s largest energy consumer. ” Yes. Called ‘electron laundering’. California did that for a while with BC hydro power.

    Reply
  78. mports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous” not to count what you’re “”off-shored””””. Germany is especially good at this game”””” as EU’s largest energy consumer. “”””Yes. Called ‘electron laundering’. California did that for a while with BC hydro power.”””””””

    Reply
  79. Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list, after DDT was banned, following the publication of the “alarmist” book, Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle, even in a remote wilderness. ” Silent Spring was BS. And MILLIONS of people have died because of the resultant DDT ban. Links: bit.ly/2P36wF7 a.co/d/0TaTolp

    Reply
  80. Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list after DDT was banned” following the publication of the “”alarmist”””” book”” Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle”” even in a remote wilderness. “”””Silent Spring was BS. And MILLIONS of people have died because of the resultant DDT ban. Links:bit.ly/2P36wF7a.co/d/0TaTolp”””

    Reply
  81. This is a clearcut case of science working.” Because it was a clear cut case of observable data. Global Warming Fraud is not. It is not falsifiable, either. There isn’t a 1:1 relationship to amount of CO2 put up in the atmo and temp increase. Instead, there’s a reverse-logarithmic one. This is proven science but isn’t mentioned by the Grant Whores as it would really ruin their financial day.

    Reply
  82. This is a clearcut case of science working.””Because it was a clear cut case of observable data.Global Warming Fraud is not. It is not falsifiable”” either.There isn’t a 1:1 relationship to amount of CO2 put up in the atmo and temp increase. Instead”” there’s a reverse-logarithmic one. This is proven science but isn’t mentioned by the Grant Whores as it would really ruin their financial day.”””

    Reply
  83. Phils have a serious pollution run off prob. Got so bad that they have had to repeatedly close the beaches of Boracay because of the sewage runoff from the resorts.

    Reply
  84. Phils have a serious pollution run off prob. Got so bad that they have had to repeatedly close the beaches of Boracay because of the sewage runoff from the resorts.

    Reply
  85. This feels like an episode of Dr. Who, where he saves the world for the umpteenth time while humans are blissfully unaware. A few things off the top of my head: * Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list, after DDT was banned, following the publication of the “alarmist” book, Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle, even in a remote wilderness. * No more dust bowls following the introduction of better farming practices and gov. sponsored planting of wind breaks in the Great Plains. (It also helps we haven’t seen a sustained drought like that again too, but the agriculture improvements do play a part. There could be a feed-back loop there too). Controlling erosion has been key to keeping our farmland fertile. * National Parks and forests to keep rampant commercialization and polluting industries out of our most scenic and wild places. * EPA has stopped the extinction of large species within the U.S., following the near-miss with American bison, and the demise of passenger pigeons. Species like whooping cranes, and California condors are making a slow comeback. * Regulation of sewage, which used to get dumped straight into rivers. Cities downstream of Chicago for instance (after we reversed the flow of the Chicago River) really appreciate this. Would be nice if this commenting system could make real bullet points…

    Reply
  86. This feels like an episode of Dr. Who where he saves the world for the umpteenth time while humans are blissfully unaware.A few things off the top of my head:* Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list after DDT was banned following the publication of the alarmist”” book”” Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle even in a remote wilderness.* No more dust bowls following the introduction of better farming practices and gov. sponsored planting of wind breaks in the Great Plains. (It also helps we haven’t seen a sustained drought like that again too but the agriculture improvements do play a part. There could be a feed-back loop there too). Controlling erosion has been key to keeping our farmland fertile.* National Parks and forests to keep rampant commercialization and polluting industries out of our most scenic and wild places.* EPA has stopped the extinction of large species within the U.S. following the near-miss with American bison and the demise of passenger pigeons. Species like whooping cranes and California condors are making a slow comeback.* Regulation of sewage”” which used to get dumped straight into rivers. Cities downstream of Chicago for instance (after we reversed the flow of the Chicago River) really appreciate this.Would be nice if this commenting system could make real bullet points…”””

    Reply
  87. Greenpeace et al are having a collective apoplectic fit over this, starting to pound the drums of denialism and conspiracies. News that have been used so much as a sign of our unavoidable and deserved doom (unless you repent, pay your tithes… CO2 taxes and self flagellate) can’t ever start to be wrong or reverse!

    Reply
  88. Greenpeace et al are having a collective apoplectic fit over this starting to pound the drums of denialism and conspiracies. News that have been used so much as a sign of our unavoidable and deserved doom (unless you repent pay your tithes… CO2 taxes and self flagellate) can’t ever start to be wrong or reverse!

    Reply
  89. I don’t understand. Paragraph 2 says we’re all responsible for whatever mess we’re making. Paragraph 3 apparently criticizes people trying to clean the mess.

    Reply
  90. I don’t understand. Paragraph 2 says we’re all responsible for whatever mess we’re making. Paragraph 3 apparently criticizes people trying to clean the mess.

    Reply
  91. We watched the ozone hole increase, rather dramatically. You may not have been paying attention at the time, most people weren’t until it became global news. And since we’ve banned CFCs, the decline has stopped. This is a clearcut case of science working. There is something to be said that we are monitoring things better now than in the past. For instance, polar bear populations… we don’t know what the historical values were, we only started counting after sustained human hunting. We stopped hunting them, the numbers went up, so the anti-enviro crowd says there’s no problem. We don’t have enough data post-hunting to know what the real trend is.

    Reply
  92. We watched the ozone hole increase rather dramatically. You may not have been paying attention at the time most people weren’t until it became global news. And since we’ve banned CFCs the decline has stopped. This is a clearcut case of science working.There is something to be said that we are monitoring things better now than in the past. For instance polar bear populations… we don’t know what the historical values were we only started counting after sustained human hunting. We stopped hunting them the numbers went up so the anti-enviro crowd says there’s no problem. We don’t have enough data post-hunting to know what the real trend is.

    Reply
  93. PH has more problems than can be mentioned. Would be nice to see them phase out two-stroke motors in the next 10 years; they shouldn’t be available for purchase. Maybe they aren’t sold anymore, but I figure 99% of the vehicles ever sold in PH are still on the road, smoking, with bald tires. My 10-second visual appraisal of their beloved (Isuzu) Jeepney is that they burn more than their true value (as scrap) in fuel every month. Also, some large portion (25-50%) of the Manila population has or has had TB. They need to euthanize all the skeletal mongrel dogs, but they consider that a high crime; instead they let them breed and breed. The land has been lived to death – if it weren’t for the rain and sun, it would be bare. The ground is limestone – coral reefs from millions of years ago – unforgiving soil. They plant and harvest rice and corn by hand. I admire some things, but mostly I just hope that they improve their lives there. We beat the Japanese to a radioactive smoldering pulp and then built them [back] into a major global player. We broke up gently with the Filipinos, reduced depth of military cooperation at their behest, and continue to watch this ally struggle their own dahmn way. Meanwhile, they speak decent English and eat American culture for breakfast; nobody besides the Chinese knows Chinese; they watch HBO, CNN, ESPN and make $20/day if they are lucky – often much less. Tough place to live; it is a sweating throbbing hell for the uninitiated 1st worlder.

    Reply
  94. Coral bleaching is easily explained. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change (up and down). I can describe, in quite detail how the coral process works if you like, but it’s an easy google search. If you look at historical records going back to 1870, the water temperature change in coral areas has been flat, more or less, except for the past 20 years. The past years temperature rise (in coral areas) have been caused by some extreme El Ninos. There is NO statistical correlation to atmospheric Co2 (ie while global Co2 has increased since 1870, temps in coral waters hasn’t except for very recently). If you look at GLOBAL water temps, you’ll see (according to NOAA/NASA) you’ll see a 40-year DECLINE in temps between 1880-1920, a RISE between 1920 and 1940, a DECLINE from 1940-1980 and a RISE since 1980. Again, not correlated (statistically) to Co2. Much of the recent INCREASES, according to NASA, can be attributed to more precise measurements. you can read more at Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017, doi: s41598-018-24530-9

    Reply
  95. Coral bleaching is easily explained. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change (up and down). I can describe in quite detail how the coral process works if you like but it’s an easy google search. If you look at historical records going back to 1870 the water temperature change in coral areas has been flat more or less except for the past 20 years. The past years temperature rise (in coral areas) have been caused by some extreme El Ninos. There is NO statistical correlation to atmospheric Co2 (ie while global Co2 has increased since 1870 temps in coral waters hasn’t except for very recently). If you look at GLOBAL water temps you’ll see (according to NOAA/NASA) you’ll see a 40-year DECLINE in temps between 1880-1920 a RISE between 1920 and 1940 a DECLINE from 1940-1980 and a RISE since 1980. Again not correlated (statistically) to Co2. Much of the recent INCREASES according to NASA can be attributed to more precise measurements.you can read more at Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017 doi: s41598-018-24530-9″

    Reply
  96. Back to ScaryJello’s story of eating the iodine giant clam “to be polite”. There’s a broader message in the story I fear. It is that a WHOLE LOT of the planet’s hairless apes don’t give a flying fûque about their individual OR their collective impact on the environment. Just look at any 3rd world slum. The poo slowly oozing thru the open slough AKA “street” is everyone else’s fault. All I want for Eid is a new smartphone. As you said. Nice when things get cleaned up. Dealing with a whole planet of environmentally cone headed miscreants … That’s going to be hard. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  97. Back to ScaryJello’s story of eating the iodine giant clam to be polite””. There’s a broader message in the story I fear. It is that a WHOLE LOT of the planet’s hairless apes don’t give a flying fûque about their individual OR their collective impact on the environment. Just look at any 3rd world slum. The poo slowly oozing thru the open slough AKA “”””street”””” is everyone else’s fault. All I want for Eid is a new smartphone. As you said. Nice when things get cleaned up. Dealing with a whole planet of environmentally cone headed miscreants … That’s going to be hard. Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  98. Let’s face it, Doc. (Wishing for bold, or italics…) The NEWS of the world depends critically on controversy. Controversy is most easily milled out of the grist of imminent doom. Crack addled journalists covet the mantle of authority worn by their Science interviewees, upon which they gin article after article of doom, controversy, story-selling yellow journalism. Without that, the News would be boring. Mrs. McGillicuddy slipped on a banana peel, knocked over a liter of milk, into the goldfish bowl, killing her prized bobble-eyed Japanese google-fish. She sued Dole, the shipper of bananas for 28 million because her hip will fracture decades earlier than if she hadn’t fallen. Etc., etc., etc. Boring. But “CFC’s are killing the Great Barrier Reef”, ah, there’s a doom-and-gloom story straight up. Just saying, GoatGuy.

    Reply
  99. Let’s face it Doc. (Wishing for bold or italics…) The NEWS of the world depends critically on controversy. Controversy is most easily milled out of the grist of imminent doom. Crack addled journalists covet the mantle of authority worn by their Science interviewees upon which they gin article after article of doom controversy story-selling yellow journalism. Without that the News would be boring. Mrs. McGillicuddy slipped on a banana peel knocked over a liter of milk into the goldfish bowl killing her prized bobble-eyed Japanese google-fish. She sued Dole the shipper of bananas for 28 million because her hip will fracture decades earlier than if she hadn’t fallen. Etc. etc. etc.Boring.But CFC’s are killing the Great Barrier Reef””” ah there’s a doom-and-gloom story straight up. Just saying””GoatGuy.”””””””

    Reply
  100. I think Anthony covers it well. The Great Barrier Reef was never in danger. The temporary temperature increase was never enough to kill it, and a bit over 1/3rd of it (south of Mackay) was never in danger at all. There have been some remediation successes like having farmers better manage fertilizer run-off. What have other countries done? Not a whole heck of a lot. European cities are experiencing more smog than the 1960’s due to the push on diesel. The Baltic is a toilet. Per capita Co2 is higher than prior years. On the bright side EU managed to more or less eliminate CFC’s, so that’s good. Asia? I don’t think China has an EPA equivalent, I think they have the ERA (environmental ruin agency). Add to your list that the per capita Co2 production in the US is back to early 1960’s levels despite population growth etc etc. Only major country that has accomplished to reduce Co2. Maybe the trick is not to sign the Paris Accord?

    Reply
  101. I think Anthony covers it well. The Great Barrier Reef was never in danger. The temporary temperature increase was never enough to kill it and a bit over 1/3rd of it (south of Mackay) was never in danger at all. There have been some remediation successes like having farmers better manage fertilizer run-off.What have other countries done? Not a whole heck of a lot. European cities are experiencing more smog than the 1960’s due to the push on diesel. The Baltic is a toilet. Per capita Co2 is higher than prior years. On the bright side EU managed to more or less eliminate CFC’s so that’s good.Asia? I don’t think China has an EPA equivalent I think they have the ERA (environmental ruin agency). Add to your list that the per capita Co2 production in the US is back to early 1960’s levels despitepopulation growth etc etc. Only major country that has accomplished to reduce Co2. Maybe the trick is not to sign the Paris Accord?

    Reply
  102. To the opinion: “The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US”, I only have to quote fairly current numbers. US = 5,200 GT CO₂ EU = 3,900 GT CO₂ Thank you [i]Wikipedia[/i]. While 3900 is less than 5200 for sure, it isn’t “much lower CO₂ output”, especially as the EU … imports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous, not to count what you’re “off-shored”. Germany is especially good at this game, as EU’s largest energy consumer. Anyway, you’re fundamentally right: EU’s CO₂ footprint is lower than US’s. The US however has 9.8 million km² of land area compared to EU’s 4.4 million. A whole lot more road travel, for sure. America — in my mind “organically” but also unwisely — is a suburb-to-urban metropolis structured organization. The “everyone owns a car” revolution starting in the 1950s completely influenced US civic design. We don’t put little stores every few blocks in our suburbs, but collect them in centers called Malls. Or Walmart. Or CostCo, HomeDeport, and so on. However, this generates a lot of car-to-get-there use. A lot. Way more than the average person embraces in Europe (except for Germany!). I’m not saying it is “good”, but it is the way we swing over here. That 1,500 km/mo per average vehicle thing generates a bunch of CO₂. But less these days, with 25 MPG (10.5 km/L) fuel efficiencies for CAFE standard. And way less as we embrace the Electric Car. A whole lot tho’ goes to trucks, trains and aircraft. The EU embraced high-speed trains and lots of metropolises. American cities are spread way farther apart than EU’s, so are amenable to airports an air travel instead of pervasive high speed rail. This is not to imply that HS Rail doesn’t have a place over here, but with the distances involved, suburb-to-metropolitan-center and so on, as well as inter-city, rail has a more limited point.

    Reply
  103. To the opinion: The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US””” I only have to quote fairly current numbers. US = 5200 GT CO₂EU = 3900 GT CO₂Thank you [i]Wikipedia[/i]. While 3900 is less than 5200 for sure”” it isn’t “”””much lower CO₂ output”””””” especially as the EU … imports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous”” not to count what you’re “”””off-shored””””. Germany is especially good at this game”” as EU’s largest energy consumer.Anyway you’re fundamentally right: EU’s CO₂ footprint is lower than US’s. The US however has 9.8 million km² of land area compared to EU’s 4.4 million. A whole lot more road travel”” for sure. America — in my mind “”””organically”””” but also unwisely — is a suburb-to-urban metropolis structured organization. The “”””everyone owns a car”””” revolution starting in the 1950s completely influenced US civic design. We don’t put little stores every few blocks in our suburbs”” but collect them in centers called Malls. Or Walmart. Or CostCo HomeDeport and so on. However”” this generates a lot of car-to-get-there use. A lot. Way more than the average person embraces in Europe (except for Germany!). I’m not saying it is “”””good”””””” but it is the way we swing over here. That 1500 km/mo per average vehicle thing generates a bunch of CO₂. But less these days with 25 MPG (10.5 km/L) fuel efficiencies for CAFE standard. And way less as we embrace the Electric Car. A whole lot tho’ goes to trucks trains and aircraft. The EU embraced high-speed trains and lots of metropolises. American cities are spread way farther apart than EU’s so are amenable to airports an air travel instead of pervasive high speed rail. This is not to imply that HS Rail doesn’t have a place over here but with the distances involved suburb-to-metropolitan-center and so on as well as inter-cit”

    Reply
  104. A scientist by the name of Peter Ridd has come under a lot of fire for saying that the coral bleaching is not any worse than it has been in thousands of years. He has also stated that much of the science on coral reefs is based on subjective assessments and poor quality peer review. You can find out more by doing a search for Larcombe and Ridd (2018) for the paper.

    Reply
  105. I don’t have an answer to the leaves falling in my backyard every “fall”, though I suppose theoretically I could build a conservatory over the yard. Got any evidence coral bleaching wasn’t happening all along, and we just now noticed *because we’re looking now*?

    Reply
  106. I don’t have an answer to the leaves falling in my backyard every fall””” though I suppose theoretically I could build a conservatory over the yard.Got any evidence coral bleaching wasn’t happening all along”” and we just now noticed *because we’re looking now*?”””

    Reply
  107. North Beach? I stayed at the Asian-Belgian dive resort while I was there, courting my now wife. Very nice, I’d like to get back there some time. (Even if I did accidentally wrap a jelly fish around my self the last time I was snorkeling there…) Kawasan falls was nice, too; I hear they’ve cleaned it up. A lot of this, I suspect, is just seeing things we didn’t before, because we didn’t used to be looking so intensively, and assuming they weren’t happening before we started looking. You know, like the ozone hole at the pole, which we found *the first time we looked*, and for some reason assumed it was new.

    Reply
  108. North Beach? I stayed at the Asian-Belgian dive resort while I was there courting my now wife. Very nice I’d like to get back there some time. (Even if I did accidentally wrap a jelly fish around my self the last time I was snorkeling there…) Kawasan falls was nice too; I hear they’ve cleaned it up. A lot of this I suspect is just seeing things we didn’t before because we didn’t used to be looking so intensively and assuming they weren’t happening before we started looking. You know like the ozone hole at the pole which we found *the first time we looked* and for some reason assumed it was new.

    Reply
  109. It’s called “Global Warming”.

    They only started to call it ‘climate change’ when proof became undeniable that the Global Warming is not happening as predicted.

    And ‘climate change’ means anything. That is why that replace term was chosen.

    It sure helps to call someone a ‘climate change denier’ when they call out the Global Warming BS for what is and never ‘denied’ that climate changes.

    Reply
  110. “mports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous, not to count what you’re “off-shored”. Germany is especially good at this game, as EU’s largest energy consumer. ”

    Yes. Called ‘electron laundering’. California did that for a while with BC hydro power.

    Reply
  111. “Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list, after DDT was banned, following the publication of the “alarmist” book, Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle, even in a remote wilderness. ”

    Silent Spring was BS. And MILLIONS of people have died because of the resultant DDT ban.

    Links:

    bit.ly/2P36wF7
    a.co/d/0TaTolp

    Reply
  112. “This is a clearcut case of science working.”

    Because it was a clear cut case of observable data.

    Global Warming Fraud is not. It is not falsifiable, either.

    There isn’t a 1:1 relationship to amount of CO2 put up in the atmo and temp increase. Instead, there’s a reverse-logarithmic one. This is proven science but isn’t mentioned by the Grant Whores as it would really ruin their financial day.

    Reply
  113. This feels like an episode of Dr. Who, where he saves the world for the umpteenth time while humans are blissfully unaware.

    A few things off the top of my head:
    * Bald Eagle taken off the endangered species list, after DDT was banned, following the publication of the “alarmist” book, Silent Spring. In the 70’s it was a big deal to see a Bald Eagle, even in a remote wilderness.
    * No more dust bowls following the introduction of better farming practices and gov. sponsored planting of wind breaks in the Great Plains. (It also helps we haven’t seen a sustained drought like that again too, but the agriculture improvements do play a part. There could be a feed-back loop there too). Controlling erosion has been key to keeping our farmland fertile.
    * National Parks and forests to keep rampant commercialization and polluting industries out of our most scenic and wild places.
    * EPA has stopped the extinction of large species within the U.S., following the near-miss with American bison, and the demise of passenger pigeons. Species like whooping cranes, and California condors are making a slow comeback.
    * Regulation of sewage, which used to get dumped straight into rivers. Cities downstream of Chicago for instance (after we reversed the flow of the Chicago River) really appreciate this.

    Would be nice if this commenting system could make real bullet points…

    Reply
  114. Greenpeace et al are having a collective apoplectic fit over this, starting to pound the drums of denialism and conspiracies.

    News that have been used so much as a sign of our unavoidable and deserved doom (unless you repent, pay your tithes… CO2 taxes and self flagellate) can’t ever start to be wrong or reverse!

    Reply
  115. There have been headlines proclaiming the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef my entire life. From oil, or coal, or crown-of-thorns-starfish, or from Taiwanese fishermen, or from excess tourists, or from global cooling, or global warming, or PCBs, or CFCs, or … After a while you just ignore them. After a while you ignore all that DOOM NOW! main stream media sensationalism. Well, I do. Somehow there are grown adults that take it all seriously. And they wonder why they live their lives in a state of frustrated panic.

    Reply
  116. There have been headlines proclaiming the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef my entire life. From oil or coal or crown-of-thorns-starfish or from Taiwanese fishermen or from excess tourists or from global cooling or global warming or PCBs or CFCs or …After a while you just ignore them. After a while you ignore all that DOOM NOW! main stream media sensationalism.Well I do. Somehow there are grown adults that take it all seriously. And they wonder why they live their lives in a state of frustrated panic.

    Reply
  117. As far as I know the Australian EPA did much the same stuff as the US EPA. I can’t give any details though. But I do know that there is a LOT of work on water management.

    Reply
  118. As far as I know the Australian EPA did much the same stuff as the US EPA.I can’t give any details though. But I do know that there is a LOT of work on water management.

    Reply
  119. We watched the ozone hole increase, rather dramatically. You may not have been paying attention at the time, most people weren’t until it became global news. And since we’ve banned CFCs, the decline has stopped. This is a clearcut case of science working.

    There is something to be said that we are monitoring things better now than in the past. For instance, polar bear populations… we don’t know what the historical values were, we only started counting after sustained human hunting. We stopped hunting them, the numbers went up, so the anti-enviro crowd says there’s no problem. We don’t have enough data post-hunting to know what the real trend is.

    Reply
  120. Coral bleaching is easily explained. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change (up and down). I can describe, in quite detail how the coral process works if you like, but it’s an easy google search.

    If you look at historical records going back to 1870, the water temperature change in coral areas has been flat, more or less, except for the past 20 years. The past years temperature rise (in coral areas) have been caused by some extreme El Ninos. There is NO statistical correlation to atmospheric Co2 (ie while global Co2 has increased since 1870, temps in coral waters hasn’t except for very recently).

    If you look at GLOBAL water temps, you’ll see (according to NOAA/NASA) you’ll see a 40-year DECLINE in temps between 1880-1920, a RISE between 1920 and 1940, a DECLINE from 1940-1980 and a RISE since 1980. Again, not correlated (statistically) to Co2. Much of the recent INCREASES, according to NASA, can be attributed to more precise measurements.

    you can read more at Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017, doi: s41598-018-24530-9

    Reply
  121. But after that, what? (Like the Monte Python skit, “What have the Romans ever done for US?”)” I still remember that skit….. Well, to be frank: you’re kind of lampooning your own rationale with the “besides the 5 obvious…” you can’t include those points and then go back to attacking the issue again. “I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant, or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America.” You’re kind of leaving out the point that America was the 1st, now 2nd largest polluter in the world. The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US. Also, your line: “ill effects of CO₂…” suggests you understand CO₂ is bad, but just haven’t bought into the whole climate change deal? Interesting… I wonder if any of it has to do with politics? For example, I bet we can both agree on the ill affects of CO₂ on the planet Venus. How it causes a runaway greenhouse gas effect, but I’m guessing you’d be hard pressed to talk about the same issues pertaining to planet Earth. Now, Earth would never be as bad as Venus, yes, I know, but the mechanisms which triggers that are the same.

    Reply
  122. But after that what? (Like the Monte Python skit” “”What have the Romans ever done for US?””””)””””I still remember that skit….. Well”””” to be frank: you’re kind of lampooning your own rationale with the “”””besides the 5 obvious…”””” you can’t include those points and then go back to attacking the issue again.””””I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant”””” or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America.””””You’re kind of leaving out the point that America was the 1st”” now 2nd largest polluter in the world. The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US.Also”” your line: “”””ill effects of CO₂…”””” suggests you understand CO₂ is bad”” but just haven’t bought into the whole climate change deal? Interesting… I wonder if any of it has to do with politics? For example I bet we can both agree on the ill affects of CO₂ on the planet Venus. How it causes a runaway greenhouse gas effect but I’m guessing you’d be hard pressed to talk about the same issues pertaining to planet Earth. Now Earth would never be as bad as Venus yes I know”” but the mechanisms which triggers that are the same.”””””””

    Reply
  123. Back to ScaryJello’s story of eating the iodine giant clam “to be polite”.

    There’s a broader message in the story I fear. It is that a WHOLE LOT of the planet’s hairless apes don’t give a flying fûque about their individual OR their collective impact on the environment. Just look at any 3rd world slum. The poo slowly oozing thru the open slough AKA “street” is everyone else’s fault. All I want for Eid is a new smartphone.

    As you said. Nice when things get cleaned up.
    Dealing with a whole planet of environmentally cone headed miscreants …
    That’s going to be hard.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  124. In terms of helping the reef adapt there are regulatory measures (reduced fishing, mining, tourism) etc as well as remediation (killing off invasive starfish). In terms of reducing human activity water runoff I know that State Governments in Australia do have programs that reduce waste water runoff into the Ocean. However, I don’t know if there is much action on agricultural waste or fertilizer runoff from farms into the Ocean. Apart from the above the Federal government recently announced a $400m program to defend the GBR, though its overall effectiveness is contested. In terms of Federal CO2/GHG reduction policy from electricity it is pretty fragmented, policies like Emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, emission intensity schemes and most recently an energy guarantee have killed the political careers of those proposing them. The opposition Labor Party, who will likely form government in 2019 seems to have a policy for two trading/intesity type schemes, though I doubt they will get them through the parliament. For the last 15 odd years, Australia has an approx 20% Renewable Energy Target by 2020. For the transport sector this is not much in the way of emssions reduction policy. For land use, tree clearing has been progressively reduced by State Governments, again causing political issues in the bush where farm have had trees regrow. There is a Federal policy called Direct Action trying to reduce emissions – mainly in the bush as far as I can tell – for about AUD$10-15 via grants. Nuclear Power is banned in Australia. Fracking and even regular gas mining in much of the country is banned. However, my impression of the environmental agencies (usually also called the EPA) is that they regulate the mining industry well to reduce natural gas seepage etc. In contrast to that there is still plenty of open cut coal mining that produces particulate mining by-products.

    Reply
  125. In terms of helping the reef adapt there are regulatory measures (reduced fishing mining tourism) etc as well as remediation (killing off invasive starfish). In terms of reducing human activity water runoff I know that State Governments in Australia do have programs that reduce waste water runoff into the Ocean. However I don’t know if there is much action on agricultural waste or fertilizer runoff from farms into the Ocean. Apart from the above the Federal government recently announced a $400m program to defend the GBR though its overall effectiveness is contested.In terms of Federal CO2/GHG reduction policy from electricity it is pretty fragmented policies like Emissions trading schemes carbon taxes emission intensity schemes and most recently an energy guarantee have killed the political careers of those proposing them. The opposition Labor Party who will likely form government in 2019 seems to have a policy for two trading/intesity type schemes though I doubt they will get them through the parliament. For the last 15 odd years Australia has an approx 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Renewable Energy Target by 2020.For the transport sector this is not much in the way of emssions reduction policy. For land use tree clearing has been progressively reduced by State Governments again causing political issues in the bush where farm have had trees regrow. There is a Federal policy called Direct Action trying to reduce emissions – mainly in the bush as far as I can tell – for about AUD$10-15 via grants. Nuclear Power is banned in Australia.Fracking and even regular gas mining in much of the country is banned. However my impression of the environmental agencies (usually also called the EPA) is that they regulate the mining industry well to reduce natural gas seepage etc. In contrast to that there is still plenty of open cut coal mining that produces particulate mining by-products.

    Reply
  126. Let’s face it, Doc. (Wishing for bold, or italics…) The NEWS of the world depends critically on controversy. Controversy is most easily milled out of the grist of imminent doom. Crack addled journalists covet the mantle of authority worn by their Science interviewees, upon which they gin article after article of doom, controversy, story-selling yellow journalism.

    Without that, the News would be boring. Mrs. McGillicuddy slipped on a banana peel, knocked over a liter of milk, into the goldfish bowl, killing her prized bobble-eyed Japanese google-fish. She sued Dole, the shipper of bananas for 28 million because her hip will fracture decades earlier than if she hadn’t fallen. Etc., etc., etc.

    Boring.

    But “CFC’s are killing the Great Barrier Reef”, ah, there’s a doom-and-gloom story straight up.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy.

    Reply
  127. I think Anthony covers it well. The Great Barrier Reef was never in danger. The temporary temperature increase was never enough to kill it, and a bit over 1/3rd of it (south of Mackay) was never in danger at all. There have been some remediation successes like having farmers better manage fertilizer run-off.

    What have other countries done? Not a whole heck of a lot. European cities are experiencing more smog than the 1960’s due to the push on diesel. The Baltic is a toilet. Per capita Co2 is higher than prior years. On the bright side EU managed to more or less eliminate CFC’s, so that’s good.

    Asia? I don’t think China has an EPA equivalent, I think they have the ERA (environmental ruin agency).

    Add to your list that the per capita Co2 production in the US is back to early 1960’s levels despite
    population growth etc etc. Only major country that has accomplished to reduce Co2. Maybe the trick is not to sign the Paris Accord?

    Reply
  128. To the opinion: “The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US”, I only have to quote fairly current numbers.

    US = 5,200 GT CO₂
    EU = 3,900 GT CO₂

    Thank you [i]Wikipedia[/i]. While 3900 is less than 5200 for sure, it isn’t “much lower CO₂ output”, especially as the EU … imports … a bunch of electricity from its neighboring non-EU sister countries without that adding to her CO₂ production levels. Kind of disingenuous, not to count what you’re “off-shored”. Germany is especially good at this game, as EU’s largest energy consumer.

    Anyway, you’re fundamentally right: EU’s CO₂ footprint is lower than US’s. The US however has 9.8 million km² of land area compared to EU’s 4.4 million. A whole lot more road travel, for sure. America — in my mind “organically” but also unwisely — is a suburb-to-urban metropolis structured organization. The “everyone owns a car” revolution starting in the 1950s completely influenced US civic design. We don’t put little stores every few blocks in our suburbs, but collect them in centers called Malls. Or Walmart. Or CostCo, HomeDeport, and so on.

    However, this generates a lot of car-to-get-there use. A lot. Way more than the average person embraces in Europe (except for Germany!). I’m not saying it is “good”, but it is the way we swing over here. That 1,500 km/mo per average vehicle thing generates a bunch of CO₂. But less these days, with 25 MPG (10.5 km/L) fuel efficiencies for CAFE standard. And way less as we embrace the Electric Car.

    A whole lot tho’ goes to trucks, trains and aircraft. The EU embraced high-speed trains and lots of metropolises. American cities are spread way farther apart than EU’s, so are amenable to airports an air travel instead of pervasive high speed rail. This is not to imply that HS Rail doesn’t have a place over here, but with the distances involved, suburb-to-metropolitan-center and so on, as well as inter-city, rail has a more limited point.

    Oh, we’ll muddle thru it. Eventually we’ll “get smart” and offshore much of our electricity production to Canada, so that our domestic CO₂ numbers will drop. Thanks Germany!

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  129. Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused… By time. And patience.” So in other words: You don’t have an answer to the bleachings either? =) No skeptic actually has an explanation to why climate change is happening, and yet they claim to know more about the issue than actual scientists who study these issues.

    Reply
  130. Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused… By time. And patience.””So in other words: You don’t have an answer to the bleachings either? =)No skeptic actually has an explanation to why climate change is happening”””” and yet they claim to know more about the issue than actual scientists who study these issues.”””””””

    Reply
  131. I don’t have an answer to the leaves falling in my backyard every “fall”, though I suppose theoretically I could build a conservatory over the yard.

    Got any evidence coral bleaching wasn’t happening all along, and we just now noticed *because we’re looking now*?

    Reply
  132. North Beach? I stayed at the Asian-Belgian dive resort while I was there, courting my now wife. Very nice, I’d like to get back there some time. (Even if I did accidentally wrap a jelly fish around my self the last time I was snorkeling there…) Kawasan falls was nice, too; I hear they’ve cleaned it up.

    A lot of this, I suspect, is just seeing things we didn’t before, because we didn’t used to be looking so intensively, and assuming they weren’t happening before we started looking. You know, like the ozone hole at the pole, which we found *the first time we looked*, and for some reason assumed it was new.

    Reply
  133. Which brings up another question… has ANY human effort (besides the 5 obvious “yes” answers) to date diminished or reversed the ill effects of CO₂ atmospheric enrichment to date? The 5 Mr. Obvious hold outs might be: • U.S. cessation of SO₂ emissions → end of Acid Rain • U.S. cessation of leaving open-pit mines … open. → end of Acidifying runoff • EPA mandates zero-lead in paint, gasoline, pipes. → end of “lead-stupid” poisoning • EPA outlaws CFCs as foaming, refrigerant uses. → restoration of Ozone protection • EPA air quality laws toughen thru 1990s → MUCH improved metropolitan air qual. But after that, what? (Like the Monte Python skit, “What have the Romans ever done for US?”) Just saying. These corrections and regulations were pretty darn low hanging fruit. What have other countries done? I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant, or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America. Entirely out of ignorance, what’s the pan-European version of the EPA? What’s the body in Australia that’s not just bird-dogging Industry and participating in the loosey-goosey UN World-Environmental junkets, but what are they actually DOING that’s regulatorily proactive? REPORTING on The Great Barrier Reef bleaching of 2016–2017 is one thing. But remediation steps? Just asking. Someone amongst the regular readers here might know. Maybe DoctorPat? GoatGuy

    Reply
  134. Which brings up another question… has ANY human effort (besides the 5 obvious yes”” answers) to date diminished or reversed the ill effects of CO₂ atmospheric enrichment to date?The 5 Mr. Obvious hold outs might be:• U.S. cessation of SO₂ emissions → end of Acid Rain• U.S. cessation of leaving open-pit mines … open. → end of Acidifying runoff• EPA mandates zero-lead in paint”” gasoline”” pipes. → end of “”””lead-stupid”””” poisoning• EPA outlaws CFCs as foaming”” refrigerant uses. → restoration of Ozone protection• EPA air quality laws toughen thru 1990s → MUCH improved metropolitan air qual. But after that what? (Like the Monte Python skit”” “”””What have the Romans ever done for US?””””) Just saying. These corrections and regulations were pretty darn low hanging fruit. What have other countries done? I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant”” or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America. Entirely out of ignorance what’s the pan-European version of the EPA? What’s the body in Australia that’s not just bird-dogging Industry and participating in the loosey-goosey UN World-Environmental junkets”” but what are they actually DOING that’s regulatorily proactive? REPORTING on The Great Barrier Reef bleaching of 2016–2017 is one thing. But remediation steps?Just asking.Someone amongst the regular readers here might know.Maybe DoctorPat?GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  135. So… the doyen of the Global Warming Alarmists Community is becoming a “never mind, it does that bleaching from time to time” issue? Just saying. Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused… By time. And patience. And a whole lot of “never mind… look over THERE at the disaster unfolding!!!” Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  136. So… the doyen of the Global Warming Alarmists Community is becoming a ever mind” it does that bleaching from time to time”” issue?Just saying.Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused…By time.And patience.And a whole lot of “”””never mind… look over THERE at the disaster unfolding!!!””””Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  137. There have been headlines proclaiming the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef my entire life.

    From oil, or coal, or crown-of-thorns-starfish, or from Taiwanese fishermen, or from excess tourists, or from global cooling, or global warming, or PCBs, or CFCs, or …

    After a while you just ignore them. After a while you ignore all that DOOM NOW! main stream media sensationalism.

    Well, I do. Somehow there are grown adults that take it all seriously. And they wonder why they live their lives in a state of frustrated panic.

    Reply
  138. “But after that, what? (Like the Monte Python skit, “What have the Romans ever done for US?”)”

    I still remember that skit….. Well, to be frank: you’re kind of lampooning your own rationale with the “besides the 5 obvious…” you can’t include those points and then go back to attacking the issue again.

    “I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant, or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America.”

    You’re kind of leaving out the point that America was the 1st, now 2nd largest polluter in the world. The entire European Union combined together has a much lower CO₂ output than the entire US.

    Also, your line: “ill effects of CO₂…” suggests you understand CO₂ is bad, but just haven’t bought into the whole climate change deal? Interesting… I wonder if any of it has to do with politics? For example, I bet we can both agree on the ill affects of CO₂ on the planet Venus. How it causes a runaway greenhouse gas effect, but I’m guessing you’d be hard pressed to talk about the same issues pertaining to planet Earth. Now, Earth would never be as bad as Venus, yes, I know, but the mechanisms which triggers that are the same.

    Reply
  139. In terms of helping the reef adapt there are regulatory measures (reduced fishing, mining, tourism) etc as well as remediation (killing off invasive starfish). In terms of reducing human activity water runoff I know that State Governments in Australia do have programs that reduce waste water runoff into the Ocean. However, I don’t know if there is much action on agricultural waste or fertilizer runoff from farms into the Ocean.

    Apart from the above the Federal government recently announced a $400m program to defend the GBR, though its overall effectiveness is contested.

    In terms of Federal CO2/GHG reduction policy from electricity it is pretty fragmented, policies like Emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, emission intensity schemes and most recently an energy guarantee have killed the political careers of those proposing them. The opposition Labor Party, who will likely form government in 2019 seems to have a policy for two trading/intesity type schemes, though I doubt they will get them through the parliament. For the last 15 odd years, Australia has an approx 20% Renewable Energy Target by 2020.

    For the transport sector this is not much in the way of emssions reduction policy.

    For land use, tree clearing has been progressively reduced by State Governments, again causing political issues in the bush where farm have had trees regrow. There is a Federal policy called Direct Action trying to reduce emissions – mainly in the bush as far as I can tell – for about AUD$10-15 via grants.

    Nuclear Power is banned in Australia.

    Fracking and even regular gas mining in much of the country is banned. However, my impression of the environmental agencies (usually also called the EPA) is that they regulate the mining industry well to reduce natural gas seepage etc. In contrast to that there is still plenty of open cut coal mining that produces particulate mining by-products.

    Reply
  140. “Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused…
    By time.
    And patience.”

    So in other words: You don’t have an answer to the bleachings either? =)

    No skeptic actually has an explanation to why climate change is happening, and yet they claim to know more about the issue than actual scientists who study these issues.

    Reply
  141. Which brings up another question… has ANY human effort (besides the 5 obvious “yes” answers) to date diminished or reversed the ill effects of CO₂ atmospheric enrichment to date?

    The 5 Mr. Obvious hold outs might be:

    • U.S. cessation of SO₂ emissions → end of Acid Rain
    • U.S. cessation of leaving open-pit mines … open. → end of Acidifying runoff
    • EPA mandates zero-lead in paint, gasoline, pipes. → end of “lead-stupid” poisoning
    • EPA outlaws CFCs as foaming, refrigerant uses. → restoration of Ozone protection
    • EPA air quality laws toughen thru 1990s → MUCH improved metropolitan air qual.

    But after that, what? (Like the Monte Python skit, “What have the Romans ever done for US?”) Just saying. These corrections and regulations were pretty darn low hanging fruit. What have other countries done?

    I mean the question seriously: it pains me to be either so ignorant, or there being so little evidence that any other country has gone to similar lengths to correct glaring problems as has the United States of America. Entirely out of ignorance, what’s the pan-European version of the EPA? What’s the body in Australia that’s not just bird-dogging Industry and participating in the loosey-goosey UN World-Environmental junkets, but what are they actually DOING that’s regulatorily proactive? REPORTING on The Great Barrier Reef bleaching of 2016–2017 is one thing. But remediation steps?

    Just asking.
    Someone amongst the regular readers here might know.
    Maybe DoctorPat?

    GoatGuy

    Reply
  142. So… the doyen of the Global Warming Alarmists Community is becoming a “never mind, it does that bleaching from time to time” issue?

    Just saying.
    Seems like most-every held-out-as-evidence-of-looming-disaster is defused…
    By time.
    And patience.
    And a whole lot of “never mind… look over THERE at the disaster unfolding!!!”

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply

Leave a Comment