You would have to have a heart of stone not to chuckle at the coral contortions endured by many journalists as they wrote through gritted keyboards that the little critters are growing back in record numbers on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The initial reaction seems to have been one of shock. It cannot be true – Sir David Attenborough had assured us that the GBR was in “grave danger” of disappearing within decades because of climate change. Far from disappearing, the coral is now at its highest cover level since reef-wide monitoring began 36 years ago.
The news has yet to feature on the BBC climate page. The Corporation employs numerous environment correspondents, but the only report on its news site had a Sydney, Australia byline and appeared on the general science page. Curiously there was a similar absence of reporting earlier this year, when it was learnt that the South Pole had recently had its coldest six month winter since records began.
For the last three days, the BBC has been leading its climate coverage with a pile of emotional tosh arguing that scientists are not taking seriously enough the possibility of catastrophic climate change outcomes, “including human extinction”. According to the lead author, an international relations specialist, the “closest attempts” to address this have come from popular science books such as The Uninhabitable Earth, “and not from mainstream science research”. This last remark prompted the science writer Jo Nova to comment: “Essentially they are telling us we need to panic because there are no scientific papers telling us to panic.”
I digress, back to actual science and the coral reefs. Much of the mainstream commentary picked up on the steer from the Australian Institute for Marine Science (AIMS) that growth had come from the faster-growing corals. One might well comment, it would, wouldn’t it. In addition, there have been further outbreaks of bleaching. Again, the science writer Jo Nova notes that bleaching has probably occurred for millions of years, “there were just not many scuba divers to record it”. We ought to be shocked if corals did not have a full toolkit to cope with rapid changes, she said. She added that this latest 2021/22 study from AIMS, “was an absolute blockbuster in terms of busting the myth that corals are on the verge of extinction”.
Reef expert Peter Ridd said the GBR has proven to be a vibrant and healthy ecosystem. This should not be a surprise, he noted, since there are few human pressures on the reef, and it is well protected. “It is also unreasonable to expect that the small temperature rise over the last century (1°C) will have caused much impact, especially as it is well known that most corals grow faster in warmer waters,” he added.
In his view, the AIMS data show the reef is a robust system with rapidly fluctuating coral cover. We must expect coral cover to fall sometime in the future. In a comment, perhaps aimed at Attenborough, he said we should remember, “it is almost certainly natural, and not allow the merchants of doom to depress the children”.
Peter Ridd is a physicist and has researched the GBR since 1984. He was the former head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Queensland. In 2018 he was fired for pointing out quality assurance deficiencies in reef-science institutions. In a recent note published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation he charged that over the last few years, AIMS “has effectively hidden the good news on coral cover”. Much of the recent doomsday coral copy from journalists would appear to reflect this agenda.
From 2017, AIMS stopped publishing the average coral cover for the GBR, and only issued disaggregated figures for three sectors, northern, central and southern. But figures are available, and Ridd has compiled the above graph for aggregated coral cover over the entire reef. He uses AIMS figures for 1986-2017, and his own from 2017. It shows in a dramatic fashion the spectacular growth since the low point around 2016, when the reef was badly affected by natural depredations arising from a powerful El Niño event. Coral reefs are home to many species and AIMS defines 30-50% cover as a ‘high value’ based on historical surveys. Ridd reports that current cover is almost 34%, with a small margin of error. In his view, only by seeing all the data aggregated for the entire reef can the “exceptional” state of the coral be appreciated. Ridd feels it is “surprising” that AIMS no longer provides an average coral cover for the entire GBR, because it had previously made far reaching claims about the poor state based on reef-wide average data.
In fact he went on to note that when coral cover hit a low point around 10% in 2011 after being devastated by major cyclones, AIMS authors, in a paper widely quoted in the media, said “coral cover in the central and southern regions of the GBR is likely to decline to 5-10% by 2022”.
Ridd concludes that by no longer publishing an average figure for the entire reef, AIMS “has obscured the good news for 2022, and drawn a veil over their inaccurate prediction of a decade ago”.
Polar bears increasing, forests of coral springing up, global warming not happening, even Arctic ice seems to be making a small comeback. Is there no end to all this bad news for green agenda-driven journalists?
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This event has probably spoiled the nascent El Nino global warming event which climate alarmist propagandists were so looking forward to. It also puts them on the spot of having to confront the greenhouse gas effect of atmospheric water vapour.
Invoking the golden rule of Cliff Mass, this sudden spike in the UAH temperature series is an opportunity to mock anyone who claims it is due to human influence. There is no scientific mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 could cause such a sudden change. The same applies to recent El Nino spikes, e.g. in 1998 and 2016.
According to the UN IPCC (not that I believe their modelling at all), man-made CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming at a slow but steady rate of about 0.2°C ± 0.1 per decade https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/. The July spike is an increase of well over 0.2°C in a month, equivalent to a rate of over 24°C per decade.
Steve Milloy puts the latest spike in context: https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1686719167838228481?t=iabhXX61Z0BesYAGIaikWQ&s=19
Just had a look at that twitter link.
-” July 2023 was NOT the warmest month on the satellite record… an honor still held by February 2016. – July 2023 was about as warm as April 1998”. They are misleading us even by their own data, and their own data is junk.
I do not usually quote Wikipedia but here goes.
“Satellites do not directly measure temperature, they measure radiances (reflected radiation) which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. As a result, different groups that have analysed the satellite data have obtained different temperature trends… The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – the record is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation… The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary… Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”
In other words plenty of opportunity to create any temperature record you want. Pure junk!
It is absolutely obvious that satellite observation, covering at least 90% of the planet’s surface, are far more likely to yield a meaningful ‘average’ global temperature (if you believe that measure is really meaninful, anyway), than the alternative rag bag of thermometers and buoys.
At least, Typhoon jets taking off yards from a Stephenson screen at Coningsby, housing a dodgy electric probe, cannot adulterate the satellite record.
Obviously, different teams of “scientists” will have different abilities, different approaches and different political (or cultish) beliefs.
But (again), if you believe this global average means anything, all the satellite data and all the information from sondes and balloons, all of which are reasonably consistent, build up to contribute to a coherent picture of what the Climate is up to.
The “surface” readings from correctly sited screens are also valuable, but have been very widely and blatantly tinkered with, to produce headlines rather than weather data, let alone climate data.
But the absolute nadir, the lying elephant in the room, is the Garbage Out “climate” computer models.
The warming is all in the adjustments. The data has been adjusted more times than a prostitutes knickers.
Well at least Chris now accepts that last month was extraordinarily warm and all those extraordinary temperatures were not down to bad measurement. But I guess he had to when the “accurate” satellite figures confirmed it.
The question, as always, is why.
Sure – but it is a handy first step to accept there is something that needs explaining.
Even that is a stretch. We’ve only been measuring this stuff – badly – for the blink of an eye.
And look around you. Evidence of enormous climate change happening repeatedly on enormous scales from times before little old humans even existed.
We are nothing on this planet. To suggest otherwise is arrogance in the extreme. To suggest that we could design and execute ways to affect it is, well, insanity.
Of course there has been enormous climate change in the past – much of it caused by changes in GHGs and much of it disastrous for whatever life there was at the time.
The key thing is how quickly did it happen?
Yes. There is a great deal that we do not know.
And quite a lot that we do:
‘“It‘s terrible. I think it’s a disaster. There’s a stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves, and it’s very counter-productive,”
“I’m not a contrarian. I‘m pretty mainstream in a very large [academic] department, and I think most of these claims are unfounded and problematic”.
“If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we‘re coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850”.
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Washington
The earth’s climate has been changing naturally for hundreds of milions of years.
There is no signficant relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and the change in climate in the past.
There is in the past no correlation between CO2 and temperature. It is totally random with high levels of CO2 even in an ice age. People like you who see only CO2 and nothing else are like a hammer that sees everything as a nail.
Regarding climate, there is a great deal that needs, has always needed, explaining. ‘The Science’ still has a long way to go:
‘The temperature trend at Syowa (Antartica), also called Showa, has been modestly downward since 1973′
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/view/monthly_s3.php?prec_no=99&block_no=89532&year=&month=&day=&view=
Last month wasn’t extraordinarily warm. It was extraordinarily cold for July (I had to turn the heating on several times) and very rainy for summer. Here’s a gratis clue for people spending too much time with M$-Excel: Weather is what happens outside and not in a spreadsheet.
The UK is not the world!
The world has no weather.
So no ice ages and the satellite record is a waste of time?
It’s difficult to put you straight, MTF. You are labouring under so many fundamental misconceptions that to find the right place to start is almost impossible.
Since when is ice age weather? The definition of ice age is permafrost regions exist on earth (ie, regions which remain frozen all year round).
When I recently looked this up, the averaged temperature of July was given as 16.95C, up 0.32C from July 2022 with 16.63C. Sixteen degrees centigrade is cold enough to be uncomfortable, not hot. A change of less than 1/3 of a degree from one year to another is no change for all practical purposes. Lastly, the notion of averaging temperatures measured in different location is still humbug. It was probably much hotter in the Arizona desert or in southern China. But these are localized phenomenons, not global ones.
A way to get an idea of global temperature trends would be to create a frequency distribution of temperature readings. A month could then said to have been hotter than another if the number of higher temperature readings increased by a significant margin (should occur for more than 50% of all readings). But that’s obviouslty already much too complicated for the climate pseudoscientists. They want a single number they can put into a screaming headline.
A typically idiotic comment from a Climate Cultist.
You think it was with how they bang on about the uk solving global warming!
Correct. Which is precisely why beggaring ourselves to stop our measly 1% contribution to global CO2 will achieve the square root of SFA.
But Europe and it’s wild fires are the world are they?
Oh for crying out loud – no one here seriously misunderstands the difference between weather and climate. RW is perfectly entitled to be fed up – as are a great many people in the UK in particular – hearing about how yet another record has been broken…hottest May/June/July ever blah blah blah, when a) the data is unrealiable, b) the data is a lot of crap, c) the data is manipulated, d) they can’t take the dog out again in Basingstoke because it’s pouring and cold and depressing. Experts, shmexperts – there’s a very good argument for ignoring the ‘experts’, sticking your head out the front door and seeing if the world is really burning up. I’ve asked this before: what are you so frightened of? Produce some evidence this time, rather than just making statements – because as we all know, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without etc etc. Very good of you to keep everyone on their toes, but actually you’re not very good practice. Other than Marseille and Toulon, France is in the mid- to low-twenties; Rhodes (as a friend who’s there right now) is not burning up – far from it; it’s very hot in Phoenix, Riyadh and Lahore – what’s new; and yesterday, in Dereham, Norfolk, it was 14C, windy, overcast and raining until midday, when it went up to about 17C – on August 4th. Today, no different but raining evening more. How you manage to be so terrified of heat when your own little world is so cold, wet and depressing is beyond me. CO2 – not dangerous. Methane – not dangerous. Sea levels – not dangerous. Hurrianes, floods, fires – nothing to worry about, data exaggerated. IPCC – dangerous lying gobshites. Get a grip MTF! YOU WILL MAKE IT THROUGH THE DAY!
In the climate scare agenda the proponents can and do say anything they want. There is no way to falsify any of it. So, they keep making evidence free pronouncements knowing that they can never be wrong. —-This is NOT science. There is huge amount more to climate than fossil fuels, but climate policy by western governments continues to act like hammer that sees everything as a nail. When you mix science and Politics you end up with —-Politics.
August hasn’t been much cop so far either, in my part of England.
Ditto Norfolk.
When something warms it does not automatically mean humans warmed it. —–But even in the last 2 thousand years there have been periods just as warm if not warmer. ——What caused those? There is nothing unusual about current temperature or climate. I often hear determined climate activists claim that we have warmed the planet by 1.2 C since 1860 or so. —-Nope. Half of that warming occurred before we were emitting much in the way of CO2 as only a few countries were starting to be industrialised. So, at most only about half a degree of warming could have been caused by us and that assumes that all natural variability has suddenly ceased and only our CO2 decides what the temperature is going to be. Even the IPCC admit they cannot see a human signal in the data. They cannot tell the difference between what would happen naturally and alleged changes caused by humans. ——You are getting mixed up between “science” and “official science”
To solve this new, unprecented volcano problem, we must introduce a new global tax which will fund Volcano Abatement Measures.
TheScience™ is clear – since humans began massively increased drilling into the earth’s crust, volcanic eruptions have become more frequent and more severe.
Kids, this is sarcasm.
Ah, but as Jeff Childers points out ‘Here’s why corporate media is ignoring the most dramatic climate even[t] in modern history: you can’t legislate underwater volcanoes. You can try, but they won’t listen. So what’s the fun in that? Corporate media only exists to further political ends. Since volcanoes aren’t subject to politics, why bother?’
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/overheated-friday-july-28-2023-c
The Summer in Europe climate change narrative is firmly centered on all of it turning into a desert due to rainfall stopping basically forever. Lots of rain due to lots of additional water in the atmosphere and cool weather conditions due to water vapour reflecting entering sunlight out of the atmosphere (seems likely) simply doesn’t fit into that.
Even more to the point, you can’t conceivably tax a volcano.
But you sure can tax “Carbon” (in the shape of the colourless trace gas CO2, essential to all life on Earth).
And your tax calculations, can be produced to demonstrate that Chinese CO2 is harmless, even if 30 times as great as UK CO2.
The aims of this 35 years of barefaced lies and fraudulent data, was behind the politicians adopting this racket.
First a tax unrelated to earnings, inherited wealth, spending etc. Secondly, yet another way of taxing BigOil. Thirdly a way of enriching themselves (e.g. David Cameron’s father in law, Sir Reginald Sheffield and his eight modest turbines sited in a corner of his estate, yielding a nice £1,000 per day). Fourthly a great way to frighten and control the plebs and make them pay for it all.
Lastly the way to destoy the West and boost Marxism, as admitted by Edenhoffer and Figueres.
“Volcano Abatement Measures”
VAMTAX!
So now we need to cut our water emissions, or we’re all going to DIE!
Add in food rationing to that and (planned) shortages because, er, we’re all going to die if we keep on eating what we normally eat…
Bugger no tea and coffee for me today. Infact there will probably be a kettle ban in future, kills two birds with one stone water vapour and CO2.
We should all start wearing suits as in the film Dune to prevent putting our water into the atmosphere. Then we take it to a collection point and it’s taken away to be safely stored underground.
After you’ve sorted it out into the correct bins!
Now, that’s a coincidence. Considering that we decidedly had a summer-without-summer in the UK (and also on the continent, cf W.O.A being closed to people with tickets due to too much rain), I jokingly said to someone about a fortnight ago: “Presumably, another volcano exploded somewhere and the news has been kept secret because it doesn’t fit into the climate change narrative.” If past events count as reference, we’re probably in for some global cooling now. If the mostly water statement is accurate (but there’s no reason to assume that it is), it hopefully shouldn’t become too severe.
Not long now before they start talking about anthropogenic global cooling and how we need to stop fossil fuels and blahblahblah…
Pah! Old hat, we had that in the 70s. We don’t realise it but we are 20 foot under the snow.
It’s probably 20 feet of asymptomatic snow.
Interesting stuff. Many thanks Chris for the informative article.
Puts the mockers on hydrogen fuel, as it ‘only’ produces water vapour as a bi-product ! Oh no! More steam in the atmosphere
The new threat is Global Steaming.
Fantastic! What’s more natural after global boiling than global steaming?
And then ,the biggest cup of tea ever poured!
It’s all a steaming pile of….
The biggest threat to the Planet Earth is the Planet Earth itself! We need to STOP THE PLANET EARTH!
On further reflection it occurs to me that Greenpeace activists out to climb to the top of this volcano and cover it with black cloth.
Just Stop Steam!
Brilliant. And if they could glue themselves to the crater’s edge, that would be splendid
And they need to do it to all volcanoes, everywhere. Especially those just about to blow!
The whole point, to me, of the climate “crisis” has never been whether there really is global warming or not, nor how much there is if there is, but what it might be due to. I always presumed that the Tonga eruption was a major recent factor but on the basis that it had caused major heating within the Pacific. What I hadn’t thought of was the water vapour release. So it’s nice to know I was right even if for the wrong reason.
Now onwards, to why goats cause deserts and what effect the drying out of the Aral Sea has has on weather patterns… oh, and the surface warming effects of wind farms!
Is there any way water content in the stratosphere can be measured?
I recall 1995. ——-In that year there were blue skies from April all the way through to the middle of September. ——When I say “blue skies” I don’t just mean some very nice days. I mean BLUE SKIES everyday. (Anyone can check this for themselves, as it was something that happened all over the Northern Hemisphere))——-Now let us suppose that instead of that happening in 1995, it actually happened this year and this years weather scooted back to 1995.————-Just think of the headlines on BBC. They would be ecstatic. They would be glowing with wide beams of confirmation bias on their faces. On SKY NEWS their “Climate Show” would be shifted to the peak 8 pm slot and be extended to one hour. The Guardian and Independent would have front page exclusives of dead cattle with birds falling from the sky due to dehydration.(All cartoons ofcourse because no such thing would be taking place)——- King Charles would be in Davos with Sunak and Starmer slurping on Caviar and telling Schwab that they were going to rip out all of our gas boilers by next Thursday. The silly activist groups would have the shops sold out of super glue and no sporting event would be able to get started for the hang gliders dropping in. ——Climate Change is the pseudo science and religious cult that relies on seeing every bit of weather they can regard as extreme, from anywhere in the world and assuming immediately that it was all caused by humans. But in the real world there is no increase in the frequency or intensity of any type of weather event.—OOOPS. So if there is no increase in extreme weather where is the “crisis”? ——There isn’t one. It is a manufactured emergency for political purposes using junk science, and as we all know when you mix science and politics you end up with POLITICS.
Here is a theory, just proven in Tonga. Water vapour causes cooling on a large scale, many degrees in Tonga. The answer is pure physics and therefore not understood by “climate scientists”. Did anyone notice that water (vapour or liquid) is a powerful transporter of heat? Probably not because it is all about energy, the least understood part of Physics to the masses. Water has a very high specific heat, therefore it transports a lot of energy when it moves, and move it does in the atmosphere. Mainly upwards when vapour, then downwards when it rains. But the water in cloude has already lost most of the heat when it has risen in the atmosphere. Simple enough surely?