JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

What climate disaster? The Great Barrier Reef has more coral growing on it than ever recorded

The coral cover as sampled by AIMS across the entire Great Barrier Reef is not just good, but better than it has ever been in the 36 years they have been studying it. If the reef is in danger — it’s from being overgrown with coral. Climate Change, such as it is, has caused no trend at all.

If anything, in the spirit of modern-media-science, climate change causes record coral growth.

Tonight the UN scientists decided not to list the reef as “in danger”. The ABC and every Green group who normally follow UN scientists slavishly said that was “only because of lobbying”.

In the last few hours The Great Barrier Reef barely escaped being labeled as "in danger" by a branch of the China-friendly-UN. Go ell us how climate change causes record coral growth?

Record Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef.

The new AIMS report on Monday showed the Great Barrier Reef had a remarkable recovery, but the graphs were of three different sections of the reef (North, central and South). Peter Ridd obtained all the data and combined it to make one graph and discovered that the coral cover of 2020 was a new all time record high.

Strangely none of the government agencies or paid Professors discovered this. You have to be unemployed to discover record coral growth.

Science and media doomsayers ignore good news on reef

Peter Ridd, (The Professor that JCU sacked for being “non-collegial”) The Australian

Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.

This data is good news. It could hardly be better. But somehow, our science organisations have convinced the world that the reef is on its last legs. How has this happened?

The only thing the reef is plagued with is “experts”:

It was reasonable in the ’70s to be concerned about these plagues and they ultimately precipitated AIMS’s long-term monitoring of coral and starfish in the ’80s. I was working at AIMS when this important work started, and it is interesting to look back on what has changed. The coral cover is no less, the number of starfish is no more, but the number of scientists and managers working on the reef has exploded. Perhaps this is the problem.

Record coral cover means there was no disaster on the reef. The only disaster is the quality assurance at the science organisations.

In the last few hours the Great Barrier Reef barely escaped being labeled as “in danger” by a branch of the China-friendly-UN. Instead UNESCO will leave it at “critical” and decide again in a year if the 340,000 square kilometer reef is in danger of turning into a calcium-carbonate quarry.

The Australian ABC has already decided this was only because the Minister played games and pulled some tricks on a “whirlwind diplomatic effort” to override the UN body’s scientific advisors. Apparently the science advisors of the UN are so corrupt they can be bought off with a few rushed phone calls from a minor Australian minister, but these same advisors would never be influenced by the giant Chinese Communists with their billion dollar Belt and Roads, debts and honeypot traps.

Remember the UN experts are always right except when they’re not.

But China still wins this round of sabre rattling. By leaning on the UN to tell Australia off, the Australian government is still  tying itself in knots and spending millions to save a reef that has already saved itself.

We’ll have to hand in our homework report again as soon as February 2022. And the hack-media are not reporting on why UNESCO don’t care about China’s concrete-the-reef approach.

Greenpeace et al, who would have told us how horrified they were if the reef was listed as “in danger”, said they were disappointed it was not.

UNESCO would not get away with these absurdly transparent games if the Western media and most universities did not provide continuous running cover for their hypocrisy.

REFERENCE

The Australian Institute of Marine Science’s (AIMS) Long-Term Monitoring Program – Annual Summary Report on Coral Reef Condition for 2020/21

Latest Great Barrier Reef Condition Report

9.9 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

185 comments to What climate disaster? The Great Barrier Reef has more coral growing on it than ever recorded

  • #
    John R Smith

    Pretty rapid up tic in 2020.
    What about the surrounding ecosystems?
    Coral could be on the way to becoming an ‘invasive’ species.
    Possible coral variant?

    151

    • #
      Scissor

      Possibly. It could be that CO2 is like coral reefer so it’s gotten the munchies.

      111

    • #
      Geoff Croker

      Coral growing without government approval.

      This is a crisis and MUST be investigated by a team of UN approved “scientists”.

      What if more coral means more global climate change?

      The science is settled. Coral could even turn to co al. Unimaginable horror for our children.

      Lets all agree to a $T coral to co al prevention p ogram. Only right wing Trump lovers could be against saving coral from growing into co al.

      201

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Geoff Croker
        I know of no evidence that coal can form from coral.
        Geoff S. Geochemist

        30

        • #
          Geoff Croker

          Coral – r = Co al. So yes you can make Coral into Co al by simply changing the word in any written document. I estimate cost at $1T. This could be too small a budget.

          40

  • #
    Simon

    Two years of recovery after decades of cumulative disturbances is not really a glowing endorsement.

    264

    • #
      Lloyd

      Yes it is. It says that coral is resilient and has regenerative potential.

      And since global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels remain on the rise it suggests that coral is largely unaffected by changes in CO2 levels. It also suggests recent coral loss had nothing to do with global warming.

      The Reef isn’t dead, Not half dead. Not even 15%. It LIVES.

      391

    • #
      Vlad the Impaler

      Simon:

      The creatures we call ‘corals’ first appeared in the Paleozoic Era. Since then, they’ve been through ice ages, space-debris impacts, toxic terrestrial volcanism, continents drifting into-and-out-of the tropical zone(s), and somehow have managed to survive.

      I agree with Fran on #3: if you cannot be glad there is apparent health and growth of the reef environment, it speaks volumes for your character.

      If you can tolerate the language, you need to watch George Carlin’s “Saving the Planet” skit.

      Regards,

      Vlad

      431

    • #
      clarence.t

      On the contrary, simple one..

      It is a glowing endorsement of it health !

      282

      • #
        jelly 34

        Simon,all you have to do is visit the GBR to be able to see with your own eyes that the reef is in NO danger what so ever.I live about an hour and a half away,so I know how it is fairing.This theory that CO2 is killing it is total BS.Jens doco is a testament to how the reef is doing.If Peter is so worried about it’s health,I would suggest he come and have a look for himself.What he is being told is lies,lies,lies.

        221

      • #
        Ozwitch

        Don’t you hate it when you click on the red hand instead of the green one? Apols for the downtick, pls ignore!

        10

    • #
      John R Smith

      Simon, you so aptly demonstrate how the Left has become an insatiable negative force.

      331

    • #
      el gordo

      The reason for the bleaching over the past couple of decades has happened because of ENSO behaving badly, nothing to do with CO2.

      272

    • #
      GlenM

      Simon me boy you have got to get out some more. Also stop listening to the ABC they are totally unreliable .

      371

    • #
      jelly 34

      Simon,all you have to do is visit the GBR to be able to see with your own eyes that the reef is in NO danger what so ever.I live about an hour and a half away,so I know how it is fairing.This theory that CO2 is killing it is total BS.

      152

    • #
      Ronin

      ” The only thing the reef is plagued with is ‘experts’ “. LOL

      240

    • #

      Now that is about as bad as a Canadian seeing a warmer climate as a negative.

      20

  • #
    Fran

    Greenpeace really gives their motivations away when they are DISAPPOINTED the reef is not in danger.

    521

    • #
      GlenM

      No such thing as good news at the ABC – a sad,sad day all round at Dulwich Hill . We have good news and we haff bad news.

      51

  • #
    wokebuster

    Thanks climate change for helping the coral to flourish again.

    191

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    As I said previously, if you like 1 or 2 species of fast growing hard coral, then this is great news. But the reef was listed because of its diversity of corals, and as the report shows, that is dropping. Welcome the the mono species reef.

    Full disclosure, after graduation I worked alongside a number of reef scientists and PHD students, and supported a research station situated on lizard island

    448

    • #
      wokebuster

      Clearly survival of the fittest wasn’t on the curriculum at the indoctrination institution you graduated from.

      331

    • #
      R.B.

      Peter Fitzroy making stuff up again. Reference for the GBR becoming a mono reef?

      If you read the papers based on the data, the intros are full of Thermaggeddon statements about the threat from human emissions (rather than warming SST due to increase in global temperatures because of an increase in CO2 because most Greens politicians drive an SUV). They will not hesitate to twist the data into such a narrative and yet – crickets.

      Full disclosure?

      I helped a koala researcher once, many moons ago, and googled to see what they have been up to. Back then, we found a koala, Molly, with a broken pelvis halfway up a tree in woodland next to O’Hares Creek gorge. I found a newspaper report from the time. Apparently, we found Molly with a broken leg in a field.

      311

      • #
        GlenM

        Peter is informed by the Guardian and the Conversation, two groups with a predetermined line. Facts presented are denied as a matter of ideological course.

        161

    • #
      clarence.t

      As everyone said earlier.

      You have nothing to back up that unscientific alarmist-mongering statement.

      Stop whinging about the massive recover of the reef, Peter.

      281

    • #
      Boambee John

      Don’t worry Peter, your Chinese mates have another opportunity to bribe UNESCO in a few months time.

      271

      • #
        PeterS

        Speaking of which if the CCP ever took control of Australia I wonder if they would be concerned about the reef and close down all our coal fired power stations. Of course they would do the opposite, and build a few nuclear ones to boot. Yet these m0r0ns would love to have the CCP come in and take over. I’m not so sure any more which is worse to have in control, the CCP or the m0r0ns.

        173

        • #
          Forrest Gardener

          The GBR would provide an excellent foundation for building military installations to “protect” the people of Australia.

          152

    • #
      clarence.t

      When a forest recovers from a bush fire, the fast species always appear first, then the balance re-occurs.

      Same is happening here as the coral returns after its El Nino low water bleaching events

      The residents are returning. !

      Its very obvious that Peter knows absolutely nothing about basic forest growth biology, and has never experienced anything real, in real life. !

      301

      • #
        Bill Burrows

        This current AIMS report on reef monitoring along with Peter Ridd’s added analysis caused me to follow up on remedial work being undertaken at Douglas Shoal (N.E. of Yeppoon in Central Queensland). Approx. 42 ha of this Shoal was impacted by the grounding of the bulk carrier Shen Neng 1 in 2010, when a rogue Captain attempted to take a “short cut” across to an outer shipping channel. Damage is variable over this area. Nevertheless after a Court settlement for claimed detriment to the reef some $36 M was allocated to GBRMPA for remediation work in 2016. This approximates $857,000 per ha. For perspective the GBR is said to cover 34 M ha.

        I don’t begrudge remedial action being undertaken but this is only being implemented some 10 years after the incident. One could reasonably question whether waiting another 10 years would see nature (a la bleaching recovery) do the job in any event, especially given the funds allocated and the area of the impact relative to the overall size of the GBR? Mind you this Shoal is a great recreational fishing ground.

        I have had the good fortune to fish and snorkel in the Swain and Bunker Group reefs for 1- 2 week periods for each of the last 20 years, On each trip there would be inevitable discussion about alleged Reef Armageddon. No one could relate to the supposed imminent demise of the reefs we variously visited and enjoyed. If you ever get the chance be sure to put the Swains (SE of Mackay) and/or Bunkers (E of Gladstone) on your Bucket List.

        171

        • #
          jelly 34

          Bill,don’t forget North West Island which I had the pleasure of camping on for 8 glorious days.Teaming with fish and those strange birds called Mutton birds.Amazing place and should be on every bodys bucket list.

          61

          • #
            Bill Burrows

            Shh! Jelly 34. We don’t want to get everyone in the know. Douglas Shoals are about 25 km due north of North West. Had the best Red Throat Emperor fishing there that I have ever experienced on the GBR. Yes and I must admit to a conflict of interest in sharing my reef experiences. The more the zealots promote Armageddon the better it is for the ‘locals’. Of course truth will out on all sides in the end. That is why we live here and enjoy it while still standing!

            61

      • #
        Chris

        Yes , they are the pioneer species which prepare the environment for less hardy but equally important species. We call them weeds. I know nothing about the reef , but I imagine it has “weed species’ also and for the same reasons.

        10

      • #
        Simon

        At least you are admitting that the Great Barrier Reef has suffered the equivalent of a bush fire. The problem is, what if these events starting becoming more and more frequent until such time as regeneration is impossible?

        02

        • #
          Analitik

          Of course. Like bushfires for forests, bleachings are natural events over the course of time for coral reefs.

          00

        • #
          Ozwitch

          Random & gratuitous speculation is the purview of science fiction, not science.

          10

    • #
      el gordo

      The 2016 bleaching was severe, but its on the mend.

      https://lirrf.org/posts/2020-coral-bleaching-at-lizard-island/

      Note how the 2020 bleaching was avoided.

      61

    • #
      sophocles

      Perhaps Jo should invite another photographic journal from Jen Marohasy. The last ones published in this blog showed highly diverse and rich coral growths
      — no signs at all of the Fitzroy Monoculture.

      How about it Jo? Would Jen et al be able to provide some more eye candy?
      Her previous ones were a tour de force!

      201

    • #
      Ronin

      Didn’t you know Fitzy graduated from MSU.

      61

      • #
        Richard Owen No.3

        Ronin:

        He has an M.S.C. from James Cook Uni.
        (That’s a Maker of Silly Comments).

        31

    • #
      James Murphy

      Carbon sequestration isn’t seen as a positive by the Green doomers? I guess that CO2 is too difficult a concept to keep writing as a whole compound, then CaCO3, and CaMg(CO3)2 is going to be a struggle…

      20

    • #

      Full disclosure, after graduation I worked alongside a number of reef scientists and PHD students, and supported a research station situated on lizard island.

      Good for you Peter.
      BTW was that an Ecology Degree you were awarded with?

      Full disclosure, after graduation with an Environmental Science degree and also a Conservation degree studying woodland ecology, I worked in the oil industry finding energy that can be used as an alternative to burning trees and provides an energy source that returns vital lost carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere which allows plant life to flourish.

      70

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Peter F,
      Did your education about Lizard Island include the support and sponsorship of Sir John Proud?
      Full disclosure, Sir John was Chairman and founder of Peko and my ultimate boss when we developed the massive uranium deposits at Ranger, Top End of NT.
      The Lizard Island aquarium now bears his name in honour.

      00

    • #
      Hasbeen

      What garbage Peter.

      I spent much of my schooling years in Townsville. The reef is a long way out there, but we went a few times a year. I have personal knowledge of the reef off Townsville

      I spent a number of years cruising the Pacific Islands, mostly with in 600 nautical miles of the equator, in water much warmer than the Great Barrier Reef. I built jetties at isolated atolls, which involved hand grafting poured in place piles into the coral. I got to know the coral in these warmer waters very well. They are great.

      I then spent 10 years running reef trips out to the reef from the Whitsundays. In the warmer water the coral is spectacular, equal to our reef, proving warmer water is no problem for corals. Even the species were no different.

      I don’t know where your knowledge of corals comes from, but believe me you need to study some different sources if you want to know the truth.

      10

  • #
    R.B.

    The heading should be

    The only thing the reef is plagued with is “experts”:

    There really is an attempt to empty the budget by paying activists to act as experts/priests.

    Calling them pseudo priests is even demeaning to priests, even though there have been quite a few dodgy ones. These experts are like the bought and threatened clergy who found Joan of Arc a heretic to keep the conquering English happy. Just ignored all the rules to avoid an incorrect conclusion.

    191

    • #
      PeterS

      You are right. There are bad apples everywhere, including priests, doctors, scientists, etc.. A far more accurate term for the culprits would be agents of Satan, not priests.

      73

    • #
      PeterS

      You are right. There are bad apples everywhere, including priests, doctors, scientists, etc.. A far more accurate term for the culprits would be agents of Sa.t.n, not priests.

      83

  • #
    TdeF

    AIMS is a Commonwealth statutory authority established by the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972.

    Our commitment
    To undertake research that addresses real needs and provides impartial, authoritative advice, and that supports both the protection and sustainable use of our marine heritage, now and into the future.”

    Thank goodness for that. A group not making their living by pretending the Reef is dead and that Carbon Dioxide is killing everything. And an authorative group which responds to direction by the conservative Federal government.

    This does not augur well for the enemies of Dr Ridd, the doomsayers of the James Cook University on million dollar salaries.

    231

  • #
    Penguinite

    I trust JCU are spring cleaning Peter Ridd’s office!

    121

  • #
    PeterS

    Interesting to see the nonsense about how the reef is dying are not only fake news but still being discussed as though it’s possibly true. This is proof our so called elected leaders have failed us yet again. PM Morrison should by now have put a stop to all the BS being propagated by the MSM, certain politicians and others clamouring how the reef is in danger. The only danger the reef is in at the moment is the fact it will be destroyed if we end up with global cooling. Yet our “leaders” are silent on that because it would contradict their narrative about how we must reduce our emissions to save the planet from some mythical global warming catastrophe. As far as I’m concerned PM Morrison couldn’t give a damn about all this. He rather let the states do their thing to lcok-down the whole nation and destroy every single small business so that big business can thrive. Then we can have a fascist regime change where big business and governments are in it together to screw the rest of us. Good one PM Morrison. You might be a true Christian but you are a fake leader.

    153

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘ … it will be destroyed if we end up with global cooling.’

      Global cooling wouldn’t necessarily be detrimental to the GBR because most of the action happens in mid latitudes, but I’ll check it out.

      43

      • #
        PeterS

        Are you serious or are you just being sarcastic?

        44

        • #
          el gordo

          No, the resilience of the GBR is phenomenal, having been around for millions of years the reef has adapted. If we go back to the Last Glacial Maximum, its all good.

          ‘During the Ice Age Geology of the Great Barrier Reef expedition, we have systematically mapped almost 400 km of drowned Ice Age coastline in the southern Great Barrier Reef. R/V Falkor’s multibeam sonars have revealed a diverse array of coastal landforms—including beaches, storm ridges, dunes, past river channels, deltas, contourites (sedimentary bedforms), and ooid sand shoals (similar to those seen in the Bahama Banks today), fringing coral reef terraces, and pinnacles.’ (Schmidt Ocean Institute)

          So even a minor fluctuation in sea level, like that experienced around 1300 AD, would not be a problem for its long term survival.

          63

          • #
            PeterS

            For starters I don’t believe in that BS about millions of years, just as I don’t believe life evolved from rocks. I’m a creationist.

            35

            • #
              Richard Owen No.3

              So, do you believe that the Earth was created in 4004B.C. As suggested by Bishop Uusher?
              Or do you ascribe to the Catastrophic version as espoused by Baron Cuvier, the Very Reverend Dean of Westmister William Buckland and the Rev. William Conybeare ( which allows a bit more time for various extinctions to happen )?

              32

          • #
            PeterS

            For starters I don’t believe in that nonsense about millions of years, just as I don’t believe life evolved from rocks. I’m a creati0nist.

            59

            • #
              clarence.t

              That explains your total lack of scientific comprehension on the issue.

              You are like a AGW alarmist.. cannot let science get in the way of your religious beliefs !

              117

              • #
                PeterS

                I’ve studied the science and the evidence clearly shows the earth can’t be millions of years old. Using Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity it can also be shown the Universe is billions of years old relative to the earth. Obviously you haven’t studied the science and instead fell for the atheistic nonsense that everything came from nothing by itself. That’s OK, each to their own.

                43

              • #
                PeterS

                I am clearly not an AGW alarmist and even to allude to that means you are confused. I’ve studied the science of that too and most definitely AGW/CAGW is a scam and a hoax, just as are the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

                22

              • #
                clarence.t

                Your religious beliefs and ignorance of science are making a fool of you.

                !

                10

              • #
                clarence.t

                And still no counter to the scientific evidence that deeper parts of the reef are some 500,000 years old.

                Just naive baseless religious belief.

                10

              • #
                clarence.t

                In one way, you could be correct…. in saying that…

                Man created Gods around 4000-5000 years ago.

                10

          • #
            Mal

            We were still in the ice age 13000 years ago
            The sea levels were up to 65 metres lower
            The reef manage to survive and then thrive
            Nature’s resilience and ability to recover is phenomenal

            114

    • #
      clarence.t

      if we end up with global cooling.

      The GBR lived through the LIA.. and through the last major ice age…

      … don’t fret so much !

      93

      • #
        PeterS

        Really? During the height of the Ice Age, the area of the Great Barrier Reef was dry ground so I doubt it would be a reef at all there!

        75

        • #
          clarence.t

          GBR has existed for half a million years, in one form or another….

          Even a quick search confirms that fact.

          “Although coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years, the Great Barrier Reef is relatively young at 500,000 years, and this most modern form is only 8,000 years old, having developed after the last ice age.”

          84

          • #
            sophocles

            Trilobytes and other very primitive life forms including tabulate corals date from 500MYA. The Permian Extinction (300MYA-250MYA) took out the tabulate corals. Completely. Rendered them Extinct. `Modern’ corals appeared some 20-25million years later in the following Triassic period which followed the Permian.
            So, no, they haven’t been around for 500 million years. Only approx 225million.

            You’re right about the modern iteration of the GBR. You can check the video Geography of the Ice Age (Youtube) you will see the current position of the GBR was DRY land until 10,800 YA — sea levels rose about 100m after Meltwater Pulse 2 (end of the Younger Dryas 10,800 YA) and that’s when reef construction would have started shortly after that — once the Holocene Warming got going and melted most of the Glaciers).

            52

      • #
        PeterS

        Also reef-building corals cannot tolerate water temperatures below about 18° Celsius according to what I can dig up on the science. So global cooling would certainly aid in the reef slowly go away and eventually die if the global cooling is long enough.

        75

      • #
        sophocles

        through the last major ice age…

        Not so. Sea level was ~400′ lower then than now. The reefs, where they now are, grew over the last 10,000 years. (see The Geography of the Ice Age (Youtube Video) et al.)

        42

  • #
    FREDRICK PEGLER

    ‘You have to be unemployed to discover record coral growth.’
    With the way science is funded – If you’re not already unemployed, that’s a good way to become unemployed.
    No problem – on funding. The ‘job’ of science these days is to find problems.

    61

  • #
    Neville

    Thanks for this Jo and Peter, but China now has many countries’ votes that have been paid ( bribed) for in full, so unfortunately we can expect much more of this vile behavior in the future.
    BTW here’s the latest sea surface temps and ENSO is still neutral at the moment, but with a chance of la nina. Who knows?
    But IOD now looks like a change to negative and probably means a good finish to grain crops etc for this season.
    The line south of Broome to Wollongong is usually the lucky rainfall area during a negative IOD. All the best to those farmers for the next few months.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#overview-section=Sea-surface

    101

  • #

    At least UNESCO has put paid to the myth that Australia’s action on climate change influences the health of the reef which has been the implied narrative of environmentalists, and the ABC, for years. It acknowledges that (assuming CO2 actually influences the reef) all countries, especially big emitters, will have to reduce emissions to have any effect. Australia’s contribution to that is negligible to the point of being immeasurable.

    81

    • #
      Neville

      Lionel not just Aussie emissions. All of the USA + EU co2 emissions TODAY are about the same as they were in 1970. SEE WIKI graph. So why aren’t the MSM, UN, Labor, Greens etc HOWLING about China + other developing countries’ emissions??
      Clearly that’s where the soaring co2 emissions have been sourced over the last 20+ years. And don’t forget that the CSIRO tells us that the entire SH is a NET SINK for co2 and the NH is the NET SOURCE.

      81

      • #
        Bill Burrows

        HOWZAT! – Australia has already achieved net zero CO2 emissions (in terms of current FCCC, IPCC and Australian NGGI guidelines) – and well before 2050! Consider:
        It was recently announced that we will be accounting for all net CO2 emissions from all lands in the LULUC&F sector (cf. only c.1% of the land mass included in our Kyoto Protocol accounts) [Link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/ClimateBills2020/Submissions #588, p.13 ].

        The only practical way to fully sample all net emissions at a continental scale (769 M ha) is via inversions, based on satellite retrievals of the column averaged dry air mole fraction of CO2 (XCO2) measured from the top of the Earth’s atmosphere to its surface. The OCO-2 satellite provides c. 65,000 worldwide observations per day that pass quality screening fluxes (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-549-2017) – making it possible to estimate the distribution and magnitude of CO2 in regions that have sparse in situ surface atmospheric monitoring [e.g. Australia] (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021).

        Detmers et al. (2015) (https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065161) and Chevallier et al. (2019) (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14233-2019) have used these techniques and respectively revealed a natural (‘managed land’) flux in Australia of 770 ± 110 M t CO2/yr (net sink c.366 Mt CO2 after subtracting fossil fuel emissions in 2011) and a natural flux of c.697 Mt CO2/yr (net sink c.282 Mt CO2 after subtracting fossil fuel emissions in 2017) [See: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia for fossil fuel emissions]. [The inferred natural flux for 2017 is scaled from the OCO-2 inversion in Chevallier et al. (2019) Fig. 3].

        The proximity in value of these net sinks for Australia is rather surprising – given 2010-11 experienced a strong La Niña and 2015-16 was a strong El Niño period. It is posited that the former led to massive regeneration of perennial vegetation with surviving recruits entering the steeper slope of sigmoid growth by 2017.

        Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere (CO2 concentration at Cape Grim increased by 3.6% from Jan 2011 to Jan 2017) also improve the water use efficiency of vegetation. Furthermore, northern wet season (October–April) rainfall deciles for the 20 years (1998–99 to 2017–18) show wet season rainfall was very much above average for the 20 year period 1998-99 to 2017-18. [See: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate/previous/state-of-the-climate-2018/australias-changing-climate%5D. Most woody vegetation is located in the northern half of the continent.

        The two inversion studies cited above suggest we are currently a net sink of c.320 Mt CO2 per year – after averaging the La Niña and El Niño year results and deducting all fossil fuel emissions for each respective year from the ‘natural’ flux.

        Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people than live in a single world mega city (e.g. Tokyo). Yearly fossil fuel emissions generated by anthropogenic sources within this country (https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia) are more than offset by the capacity of our LULUC&F sector (‘landscape’) to absorb them. Net zero? QED!

        71

        • #
        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Bill, I am no expert in this area, but for years I have been saying that, considering our relatively small population to landmass and considering our extensive forests in all latitudes, we must be a net carbon sink. Why do our politicians fail to recognise and capitalise on this. We have no need to curb our use of fossil fired energy production.

          30

          • #
            Bill Burrows

            You are spot on Peter. It is a long story that goes back to a couple of years before we signed the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in 1997. I have been documenting this saga for some time. Here is an initial draft, with much more detail than you need, which I put together last April. (Link: https://www.keepandshare.com/doc22/112163/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-with-inserted-conclusions-pdf-934k?da=y). I have subsequently been updating reference sources and the latest, far more succinct statement is the one I put together for today’s blog comment above. (Incidentally if you want to use my quoted net emissions figures, the latter is the preferred source. Subsequent to my April draft I discovered that the calculations in the Detmers et al. (2015) paper had been corrected (on 23 Jan 2017) due to a misreading of units – Pg of CO2 were read as Pg of C).

            Having said all this I have circulated my arguments and data amongst a few mates. None have questioned my interpretations, information sources or conclusions so far. But this doesn’t mean I am right, just I haven’t been told I am wrong yet. If you spot any glaring errors I would welcome feedback. Finally if you have a problem with any of the links I will hopefully be able to sort out problems if you contact Jo, who might be kind enough to supply my email address to you.

            00

            • #
              PeterPetrum

              Thanks Bill. I will study your info when I am fully awake!

              00

              • #
                PeterPetrum

                Thanks again, I have now read that paper, but have not fully explored all the links. I have saved it to Favourites.

                Extremely interesting and confirmed my original wondering as to whether we are already a net carbon sink which, considering our huge pastoral, managed forest and natural forest areas, would seem to be a distinct possibility.

                I was particularly interested in the NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 image – we seem to absorbing more CO2 than we are emitting.

                You have confirmed that for me. Have you offered these findings to anyone in our Government in the recent past?

                Would this not be an excellent message for Scotty from Marketing to take to the City of my Birth?

                Just asking!

                00

        • #
          another ian

          But! But! But! Can’t have that!

          “California’s carbon mitigation efforts may be thwarted by climate change itself”

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/24/californias-carbon-mitigation-efforts-may-be-thwarted-by-climate-change-itself/

          11

  • #
    TdeF

    How practically do you look after something like this?

    “Approximately 2300 km (1300 miles). It begins near Papua New Guinea in the north, and continues south along the Queensland coast to Bundaberg (just north of Brisbane). 24 km wide in the north to over 240 km wide in the south

    With a surface area which could be more than 250,000km2 (100,000 square miles). It is bigger than the UK and possibly bigger than Italy. Who looks after the Alps or the Scottish highlands? Or the entire surface area of Italy?

    As Dr Ridd says, chemicals are not detectable with the most sensitive instruments but this enormous structure is at the mercy of massive storms in the Pacific ocean which covers half the planet.

    So what do you do? How do you ‘look after it’. Pruning? Build a fence? And how does anyone argue that we have failed to do so. What would they have us do?

    Would UNESCO like to make some recommendations on maintenance? Or point out how we have failed to do something we should have done?

    This is fantasy stuff. It’s not man made like the Great Wall of China, most of which is missing. As said, we have really only taken notice of it for the last 36 years. For the previous 200 years it was simply a danger to shipping. Now it is an excuse to get hundreds of millions from governments, as the Turnbulls know well. Where is that $444 Million?

    171

    • #
      Yonniestone.

      We’re going to need a lot of Reef Oil to cover that baby, I guess any amount would be better than nothing Atoll……………

      91

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    NASA – last 6 years hottest ever, rounding off the hottest decade ever. Coral growth in last 10 years explodes. Makes perfect sense, corals need CO2 and a rising sea to survive.

    81

    • #
      TdeF

      I want to know who is responsible for maintenance on the Himalayas. China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan and what sort of state they are in and who is checking? We are told that CO2 is man made and is trapped in the atmosphere and therefore the world’s climates are man made. Are politicians in the 21st century suffering from delusions of grandeur? And with China landing spacecraft on the dark side of the moon, who knows what sort of mess they left? And who is going to clean it up?

      111

      • #
        Mal

        97 % of CO2 is produced by nature
        Man made CO2 is 3%
        Australia produces 1% of this or about molecule of CO2 in 10 million parts of the atmosphere

        101

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, that’s just aerial CO2. There is 50x as much CO2 in the vast oceans as in the entire atmosphere and kept in place only by air pressure and massive water pressure at depth where it is technically a liquid. Warm the surface though and up it goes. Of course ‘scientists say’ that we control CO2. How is beyond science, facts and into alarmist fantasy

          121

        • #
          PeterS

          Thank you for reminding us. We’ve been through that years ago but the politicians, MSM, educators, scientists, etc. rejected that fact and moved on to pursue the CAGW scam and hoax with much success so far. I’m afraid such facts fall on death ears now but it is worth repeating it to make sure they don’t succeed to erase them with their memory holes.

          93

    • #
      Ronin

      Yes and corals need warm water to thrive, that’s they are growing off the Queensland coast and not near Port Phillip Bay.

      52

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Strange that the most famous, the biggest, most published Coral Reef on the planet comes in for the most ridiculous BS publicity on the plant.

    The way the UN mob carry on you’d believe it was the ONLY coral reef on the planet.
    The other famous reefs like Ningaloo on the WA coast is never mentioned nor are dozens of others.

    Wouldn’t perhaps be a conspiracy would it??

    181

    • #
      PeterS

      In fact both sides are making exaggerated claims. It appears they are confused as to whether cold or not hot climates have any impact at all. The truth of course is whenever the climate does change significantly one way or the other the reef does deteriorate extensively but recovers very quickly when the climate returns back to “normal”. At the moment there is no significant climate change and so all the hoopla about the reef being in danger is just sheer nonsense.

      84

      • #
        clarence.t

        No, the reef will adapt to whatever conditions prevail.

        73

        • #
          TdeF

          It’s made of truly countless tiny opportunistic organisms called polyps. And with a lifespan each of only a couple of years, this is a flexible, highly adaptive, rapidly selected group. To suggest that they are unchanging, fragile and easily destroyed is a denial of everything Darwin taught us. And they can reproduce sexually and asexually. All bases covered.

          101

          • #
            TdeF

            And in their millions. About 1.5 cm long generally “A few, dozens, hundreds, and even millions of coral polyps can be attached to an area of substrate. The substrate covered by coral is called a coral branch or coral mound. The community of corals is called a colony. group of one species of organism living close together.”

            I would suggest the corals could be among the hardiest survivors in the natural world, far less fragile as a group than humans.

            141

          • #
            TdeF

            It’s not a single thing, the Great Barrier Reef. It’s a massive structure built from the skeletons of countless individual polyps over tens of thousands of years. And they are very successful as a species, compared to most other species. It’s survival of the species which matters, where humans are more worried about survival of the individual. I would put my money on the Great Barrier Reef over any human species and we presume to ‘look after’ them? Nuts.

            91

            • #
              TdeF

              And it’s worth repeating that maintaining the Great Barrier Reef is akin to maintaining the White Cliffs of Dover or Mt Everest. Ridiculous. Do no damage would be the only edict and no one can say how any damage is done by Australians. The position of China, by far the greatest producer of CO2 on the planet attacking Australia for man made CO2 is beyond reasonable, even if it was real science. Maybe that’s why they let millions of dollars of our lobsters rot on the wharves? And no one says anything about it.

              61

          • #
            another ian

            You have to be careful of the meaning of “fragile” in the ecological literature.

            It has nothing to do with “fragile” as in , say, Wedgewood china.

            It describes a community whose species population is varying over time – so one might also say just the shot for variable conditions

            31

        • #
          PeterS

          Including a repeat of the past during the Ice-Age when it wasn’t covered with sea water and there was no reef?

          53

          • #
            clarence.t

            Except there was, it was just below the then water levels.

            That is what coral does. !

            “Although coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years, the Great Barrier Reef is relatively young at 500,000 years, and this most modern form is only 8,000 years old, having developed after the last ice age.”

            73

          • #
            el gordo

            Browse through Webster’s insights at the LGM.

            https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=-IiFZWwAAAAJ&hl=en

            23

          • #
            clarence.t

            To get a better estimate, the consortium of 17 researchers from Europe and Australia carefully drilled two holes, one 86 meters deep into the reef’s inner shelf, the other 210 meters into a narrow reef skirting the margin of the outer shelf. The team removed cores from both sites and analyzed their composition. Strontium isotope ratios in the outer shelf core date its oldest coral remains to between 490,000 and 1.05 million years old.

            https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2001/06/great-barrier-reef-surprisingly-young

            Please don’t be a PF and let religion cloud actual science !

            64

          • #
            el gordo

            Corals migrate to survive.

            “There were major lateral migrations following each death, initially as sea level fell during the last ice age,” says Jody Webster, Associate Professor at the University of Sydney and lead author of the study. “When the world went into deglaciation and sea level started to rise, the reef was able to migrate and essentially hop back across the shelf edge.” (Jody Webster)

            53

          • #
            el gordo

            Sea surface temperature at the LGM.

            ‘We find a 1–2 °C larger temperature decrease between 17° and 20°S about 20,000 to 13,000 years ago. The result is best explained by the northward expansion of cooler subtropical waters due to a weakening of the South Pacific gyre and East Australian Current.

            ‘Our findings indicate that the GBR experienced substantial meridional temperature change during the last deglaciation, and serve to explain anomalous deglacial drying of northeastern Australia. Overall, the GBR developed through significant SST change and may be more resilient than previously thought.’ (Fellis et al 2014)

            32

  • #
    David Maddison

    Part of the problem with the Left, of numerous problems they have with science, logic and common decency, is that they are scientifically illiterate, or alternatively, just know enough science to give ignorant people the impression of knowing what they are talking about.

    In regard to climate, they are under the delusion that the climate is static and has never or will never change. They seem not to understand the planetary and ecosystem and its principle source of energy, the sun, is endlessly changing.

    91

    • #
      RickWill

      Yep – planet has never tracked the same path or orientation around the sun. Every day and year is different to the previous or any time in recorded history. Climate is always changing.

      Northern Hemisphere currently on a long term warming trend since 1585 and Southern Hemisphere long term cooling.

      The variation in insolation over the surface from century to century and millennium to millennium is HUGE. And yet the ocean surface never exceeds 30C but the land masses gain and lose a bit of ice from time-to-time.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    And the Left remain silent about the massive damage being done to reefs in the South China Sea by the Chicomms.

    131

    • #
      PeterS

      That’s not climate change but CCP-made so it’s off limits for discussion by the MSM, politicians and the like.

      102

    • #

      You like to repeat this DM. The left/greens/ environmentally aware citizens are concerned. This is just one of those things where you can say “thing doesn’t happen”, based on the certainty you get by not knowing about it.

      00

  • #
    Russell

    Take a look at the resume of stories from Their ABC hack who “reported” this story.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/michael-slezak/9641812
    Now tell me that Their ABC reports impartially and balanced.
    I always check the previous headlines by every ABC reporter before I read any of their BS.
    The organisation is clearly infected with activists and has no chance of reporting as per their charter.
    You would have to wonder if this guy could be on the payroll of CCP.
    Do they have to disclose that sort of connection?

    121

    • #
      Serp

      Would you?

      31

    • #
      David Maddison

      I see he worked for New Scientist. I stopped subscribing to that (and Scientific American) when they became mouthpieces for Leftist lunacy.

      101

      • #
        Serp

        My last New Scientist is dated 25 July last year. It being a source of knowledge I’d been monitoring since the 1980s it was with great reluctance diminishing returns finally forced me to delete it from my shopping list –should have done it a decade ago.

        61

        • #
          Ronin

          Couple of years ago, I got a Nation Geographic out of my local library, couldn’t believe how far left they have swung.

          91

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            Yes, my dentist has some copies of National Geographic, going back about 5 years. They are totally left leaning in so many articles, especially those directly linked to climate or the environment in general. I remember, back in the 60’s, I used to buy NG if I was going away on a working trip for a few days and thoroughly enjoyed their articles then for their quality and genuine, non partisan, information. Sad, really

            10

    • #
      Ronin

      Yep, leftard all the way.

      61

    • #
      GlenM

      Had a look at the chap and his contributions; definitely an activist and not a true scientist. Most likely a fifth columnist.

      41

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Yes, he has Masters in Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science. He has no science qualifications.

        00

    • #
      RickWill

      I always check the previous headlines by every ABC reporter before I read any of their BS.

      Russell this is indicative of your madness or masochistic tendency.

      It is easier and more rewarding not to read any rubbish from their ABC. That is everything that turd factory emits.

      20

  • #
    Flok

    On one hand CO2 contributes to greener and productive world and coral growth.

    On the other hand we need to reduce CO2?

    Problem is the UN, UNO, UNO2, UNO3. Cake, cream and bottom feeding, red coloured brigade working on diverting the growth of natural life to their own growth.

    Madness

    51

  • #
    Raven

    The biggest issue here is pandering to the likes of UNESCO.
    They’re unelected self appointed ‘do good’ officials who have us on a list . . a LIST!

    Why should we pay for Environment Minister Sussan Ley to fly around the world on a whirlwind diplomatic effort just to satisfy people who couldn’t even make a visit to the reef themselves?

    Just tell ’em to take a hike.
    We’ll cop the same flack either way but there’s no need to acknowledge their faux authority.

    91

    • #
      Ronin

      Weren’t they the same clowns who were sticking their bib in on the raising of the Warragamba dam wall.

      111

  • #
    Ruairi

    On a GBR graph sourced from AIMS,
    Coral growth refutes warmist claims,
    With the chart clearly showing,
    Twenty twenty most growing,
    Of which warmists so oft make a hames.

    111

  • #
    Ronin

    If the reef is at risk because of climate change and climate change is caused by CO2, then why isn’t China being demonised for it instead of Australia and don’t give me that ‘developing country’ rubbish.

    121

    • #
      PeterS

      Good question. Lack of good leadership by our current crop of politicians would have to play a major role. Their silence on the issue is deafening. They should be calling it for what is is; deliberate fabrication of the truth in the name of the CAGW scam. It can possibly be for any other reason. The problem of course is they can’t do that otherwise it would expose them as being part of the scam for pursing what has to be called as the stupidest decision of late; reducing our emissions because the left say we must.

      82

      • #
        el gordo

        Settle down, over the coming year the GBR should return to normalcy, no further bleaching. Enjoy the moment, we can get the Morrison government onside, his minders watch Rohan Dean.

        42

      • #
        PeterS

        It appears you have no trouble with the alarmist crap spreading fro now. Is that because you have rose coloured glasses?

        33

    • #
      Serp

      Why? Let’s not foget the Biden dictum “Truth Beats Facts”. And wasn’t he marvellous at the Town Hall gig playing his dementia shtick?

      51

    • #
      David Maddison

      Communist C02 doesn’t count.

      61

  • #
    Maptram

    “measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.”

    Every week or two, on social media, one of the green groups, Greenpeace or The Greens, asks us to write a letter to the Environment Minister asking her to end new coal mines in Queensland as the runoff will destroy the reef. Perhaps runoff from existing coalmines could be similarly measured.

    91

    • #
      Ronin

      “Every week or two, on social media, one of the green groups, Greenpeace or The Greens, asks us to write a letter to the Environment Minister asking her to end new coal mines in Queensland as the runoff will destroy the reef. Perhaps runoff from existing coalmines could be similarly measured.”

      Even though the coal mines are many kilometers inland, they persist in these fairy tales.

      111

    • #
      another ian

      Jennifer Marohasy did a stint with Canegrowers back in the day when “dioxin” from farm chemicals was the “destroyer of the GBR of the day”.

      Turns out there are naturally formed dioxins too.

      And tales out of school – she offered to be tested for dioxin content but was told she wasn’t ​plump enough

      (IIRC from her blog of old)

      51

    • #
      Dennis

      Tell them the every increasing number of coal fired power stations in China is the main problem, and effluent on other coral reefs from many Chinese ships being moored above it playing war scare mongering mind games.

      And then point them in that direction.

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Does anyone know what happened to the $440 million of our taxes that Turnbull gave away to that nine person committee to “study” the reef? A great shock to all, including the committee…

    141

    • #
      PeterS

      Even if we knew our “leaders” will do absolutely nothing about it. It’s like a serial killer going around committing a number of similar crimes leaving obvious clues but the law enforcement and justice system turning a blind eye to the crimes. The criminals are laughing at us and all the way to the bank, thanks to our gutless “leaders”.

      112

    • #
      Dennis

      On the money-go-round maybe?

      62

    • #
      GlenM

      I could hazard a guess. Maybe Dennis is right and it money-go-round to Infigen..

      61

    • #
      Deano

      The $440 million magically worked to save the reef simply by being handed over. That’s how this climate change protection racket works:
      You blackmail governments into handing over dough or you’ll get your media mates to embarrass them by using schoolkids to cry and sob about how they’ll all be cooked alive because “How dare you!” etc. Then, when a huge wad of money is delivered with lots of gushing approval by the media, the problem suddenly disappears…..for a while. But you need private jets, lavish advertising campaigns, vast administration departments with high salaried jobs for friends and family etc. Expensive, and money doesn’t grow on trees. Opps, bad metaphor.

      40

  • #
    Dennis

    Slowly but surely the real world buyers are forcing EV specification facts to be revised …

    “THE RANGE CLAIMS ARE OPTIMISTIC
    Tesla recently changed the claimed range of its Model 3 on its Australian website. The SR+ dropped from 508km to 448km, although nothing changed with the car. Tesla simply adopted the more realistic efficiency standard now used in Europe. It’s still too generous, though. Even with the bigger, heavier battery fitted to the updated Model 3 (it was upsized because Tesla started using batteries that are believed to be cheaper to manufacture but store less electricity) it will likely get about 400km from a charge – less if you’re sitting on 110km/h. A full charge at a Tesla Supercharger takes about an hour and will cost about $28. Charge it at home and the bill will be more like $14.”

    But “a full charge” is only 80 per cent recharge recommended, and the extra 20 per cent adds hours doesn’t it?

    Anyway, the GBR is healthy and EV is not going to make any difference.

    81

    • #
      Ronin

      All EV charging stations should be directly connected to wind and solar power, if you are going to virtue signal, do it properly.

      30

  • #
    Ross

    There’s reporting on this today in the MSM. Well, my local radio station at least. The story was slanted so that the fact the reef is NOT in danger is a bad thing. Huh? Then guess who they provided to comment on the issue. Someone from Greenpeace who then blathered on about danger of climate change to GBR etc- the usual bunch of lies. The same bloke from Greenpeace is probably providing comments to the media by the dozens today. Alternate views are never sourced. Its just lazy journalism. I have experience with Greenpeace in my industry. They get on the front foot, tell as many lies as possible, as often as possible using very emotive language. Its extremely hard to counter because of the short news cycles.

    121

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    So we continue the debate on an aspect of Climate Change/Global Warming.

    The discussion is interesting, but if we looked for the truth, and it’s there, we would realise that it is just feeding the monster.

    There is no scientific substance to the concept that human origin CO2 causes or is linked to atmospheric warming.

    It’s just a social control mechanism with the added bonus of being able to tax people On behalf of the UNIPCCC and subscribers.

    We need to state the facts; CAGW is scientifically untenable.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/07/tuesday-open-thread-65/#comment-2444546

    121

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes most of us here understand all that. The problem of course is convincing our “leaders” that their policies are supporting the other side not ours. Stop voting for them.

      102

    • #
      Ronin

      “It’s just a social control mechanism with the added bonus of being able to tax people On behalf of the UNIPCCC and subscribers.”

      Christina Figueres let the cat out of the bag when she stated,’ there is no climate problem, it’s just a mechanism to bring the west under control and provide an income to the poorest countries.’

      71

      • #
        John R Smith

        “provide an income to the poorest countries”
        Is that working?
        Seems like the result is just more billionaires.
        That can now propel themselves in space. (Well, I know it’s not space but just the high atmosphere, but that’s another discussion.)
        So it’s just control, she just tacked on that part to make herself feel better.
        And I can no longer stomach listening to U2.

        50

        • #
          Deano

          That must the the same U2 who’s singer Bono lectured the vast unwashed about making sure they paid all their taxes, then carefully used top shelf accountants to process his huge income through tax minimization schemes. Makes you appreciate other performers who just deliver the show and keep their politics to themselves.

          40

  • #
    Kraken

    This is explosive stuff !. The CSIRO should be defunded at once and all money given to Jo.

    70

  • #
    Ronin

    If next year the Unesco ‘expurts’ declare the reef Kaput, Qld should dredge it all , make cement from the lime and build a 4 lane concrete highway from Brisbane to Cooktown.

    40

    • #
      Klem

      And include long straight sections with no speed limits, like the German Autobahn. That would be sweet.

      ..I mean bicycles, build it for bicycles only, because climate.

      40

    • #
      another ian

      Red Thumber” must be off duty – didn’t approve of a similar comment at #5.4.1.1.1

      Will it read this far?

      51

  • #
    FrankH

    measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment

    That’s homeopathic levels of pesticides. By rights (i.e. if homeopathy worked) the reef should be overrun with pests, shouldn’t it? 😉

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    So who was the James Cook University professor who was on the evening Ch9 News supporting the ratbags like Greenpeace complaining about the GBR being granted (how dare they, it’s Australia’s territory) a reprieve from UNESCO criticism?

    It’s alright, it’s ok, I’m not in the tourism industry but would like more taxpayer funding for my reef research???

    50

  • #
  • #
    Analitik

    SBS trotted out a GreenPeace executive to state that the government was supressing opinions of scientists about the reef deterioration and then a professor from John Cook University to scientifically state that the reef was deteriorating and needed the Will Robinson labelling.

    I am so convinced with such “expert” opinions.

    30

  • #
    Deano

    “The ABC and every Green group who normally follow UN scientists slavishly said that was “only because of lobbying”.”

    In an odd way I can agree with them, but only because lobbying can cause some truly bizarre decisions to be made. And usually the lobbying in those cases is from the Green side of the argument. They don’t like it when the other side plays by their rules.

    40

  • #
    another ian

    Re CO2- another map

    “China’s carbon-monitoring satellite reports global carbon net of six gigatons”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/24/chinas-carbon-monitoring-satellite-reports-global-carbon-net-of-six-gigatons/

    21

  • #

    […] “Wir wurden mit Schlagzeilen bombardiert, die verkündeten: “Die Aussichten für das Great Barrier Reef verschlechtern sich auf kritisch, da der Klimawandel die größte Bedrohung für das Weltnaturerbe darstellt”. Unsere Kinder nehmen an Klimastreiks teil und tragen Plakate mit der Aufschrift “Korallen statt Kohle”. Wie sieht die Realität aus? Ganz anders, natürlich. Nach den allerneuesten Daten der “Experten” des australischen Instituts für Meereswissenschaften ist die Korallenbedeckung am Great Barrier Reef signifikant auf einen rekordverdächtigen Wert von 28 Prozent gestiegen, ohne dass eine ernsthafte Korallenbleiche festgestellt wurde. Tatsächlich ist das Nachwachsen des Riffs so beeindruckend, dass die Korallenbedeckung jetzt weitaus höher ist als zu mehreren Zeitpunkten in den 1980er Jahren, als die ersten Riffuntersuchungen durchgeführt wurden.” Hier den englischsprachigen Artikel lesen: https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/new_data_shows_great_barrier_reef_coral_cover_is_at_a_record_high?fbclid=IwAR3VSmDw_pffKJqvFnIrsrq92URGIYCmMUBzZFWpTVbZETuCagHC46tsre0 und: https://joannenova.com.au/2021/07/great-barrier-reef-has-more-coral-growing-on-it-than-ever-recorded… […]

    00

  • #
    another ian

    Cartoon at

    “The annual “last chance” announcement.”

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2021/07/25/the-annual-last-chance-announcement/

    21

  • #
  • #

    […] What climate disaster? The Great Barrier Reef has more coral growing on it than ever recorded […]

    00