Coral Reefs Defy Climate Alarmists
By Paul Homewood
More evidence that the Great Barrier Reef scare was fake:
Scientists studying the southern edge of the Great Barrier Reef report remarkable recent growth in coral. The findings defy alarmist predictions of doom and gloom after a cyclone damaged the reef and warming temperatures followed.
Australian researchers conducted a four-year study off One Tree Island, which is one of the southernmost locations of the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists considered this portion of the reef in decline since the 1970s. According to the Brisbane Times, scientists expected a 2009 cyclone that hit the area would be the final knockout blow for the reef. Instead, scientists conducting a four-year study of the reef from 2014 through 2017 found remarkable growth and recovery.
Kay Davis, one of the study’s researchers, told the Brisbane Times that she expected warming temperatures and ocean acidification, caused by global warming, to be the final death blow for the reef.
“The ocean is warming and acidifying so we wouldn’t think the coral would be able to fight that,” said Davis.
To her surprise, her research showed the reef’s calcification, a measure of coral growth, increased 400 percent during the four years of her study.
“One Tree Island is a special case because it was given that time it remained relatively isolated from humans and human impact, apart from the global impact of climate change,” said Davis in the Times.
The whole idea was always absurd, that sea temperatures are now so much hotter than they were in the past, when corals have flourished during massive swings in climate.
And of course this latest study backs up what Peter Ridd and other independent experts have been saying for some time.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Maybe one day climate alarmists will say something that doesn’t turn out to be false. But don’t hold your breath waiting.
I won’t believe this until I hear it as ‘real new’ on the BBC.
I won’t believe this until I hear it as ‘real new’ on the BBC.
‘global impact of climate change’
Whatever ‘climate change’ means.
Organisms react to local conditions. ‘Global’ means nothing to them.
I’d like to know exactly why she expected the opposite to happen, in scientific terms of course. I suspect she cannot give a scientific explanation.
At the time the scare was in full cry, I looked-up the ‘TripAdvisor’ to see if any actual tourists had registered their disappointment at finding nothing but dead coral. But no, they were all uniformly in praise of the state of the reef as they found it.
About the same time, colleagues travelled to the Red Sea – where the sea is much hotter than the GBR (but there is no ENSO-related sea-level fluctuation (?)) – and they too were blown away by the beauty of the reefs there.
“ . . . she expected warming temperatures and ocean acidification, caused by global warming, to be the final death blow for the reef.” [researcher Kay Davis]
Seems Kay Davis is a paid-up member of the Climate Cult.
She ought not to be in a scientific profession.
I am intrigued that someone describing themselves as a scientist thinks the earth is rapidly warming and that the seas are being acidified.
Presumably she has a guide to get to the reef.
None so blind as will not see.
“The One Tree Island research confirms ongoing research from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography that much of the world’s coral continue to thrive with warming temperatures.”
I thought that would have been obvious and you don’t have to be a climate scientist.
As for “Acidification.”
‘The Total Myth of Ocean Acidification’
David Middleton / June 5, 2018 Guest Blogger at ‘Wattsupwiththat’ website
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
The observations and measurements of the Coral does not appear to match predictions.
This might be taken as failure of the predictions.
But can it be taken as falsification of the theory behind the prediction?.
If the observations and measurements of the Coral did appear to match predictions.
This might be taken as success of the predictions.
But could it be taken as proof of the theory behind the prediction?.
The answer to both questions should be no. As many other factors are occurring that might produce an apparent correlation or lack thereof.
It is society or those that control society that chooses to trumpet one result and a spurious conclusion from it. If the result matches the current fashion of views.
While ignoring or making an excuse for a different result that is not in vogue.
But if those that control society can get society to champion the views they wish all the better.
The Slave masters love it when there slaves demand there own enslavement.
CIA Director William Casey “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”
When parts of the reef were bleached environmentalists leapt onto it as a chance to show ‘proof’ of climate change. Now those reefs have recovered we see their cynical opportunism for what it was; yet another green lie. Nothing more or less.
That’s only because they haven’t yet got round to sorting out the new line to take.
But I’m sure you will have noticed:
“One Tree Island is a special case because it was given that time it remained relatively isolated from humans and human impact, apart from the global impact of climate change.”
So we’re getting the fudge ready even if it’s not quite right yet!
I wonder how the Scottish reef-forming corals are doing (?), here they are https://www.nature.scot/landscapes-and-habitats/habitat-types/coast-and-seas/marine-habitats/cold-water-coral
Has the BBC not yet done programs on them and how ‘climate change™’ will soon wipe them out?
“ . . . she expected warming temperatures and ocean acidification, caused by global warming, to be the final death blow for the reef.” [researcher Kay Davis]
If this researcher had taken the short time to look at the actual sea surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef she would not have been so embarrassed…
https://seatemperature.info/december/great-barrier-reef-water-temperature.html
Will this be reported by the BBC, Guardian etc? I think the answer is obvious. Indeed non of the alarmist media (to the best of my knowledge) have ever published pictures of reefs that were badly affected by bleaching, lets say, 10 years ago and are still dead. If coral bleaching events are caused by sudden rises in Ocean temperatures resulting from strong El Nino’s then there should have been a lot of bleaching during the big 1998 El Nino. Where are the pictures of the reefs that are still dead? To me it seems obvious that bleaching can have devastating short term impacts but few if any long term impacts.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.