Climate change effects are accumulating quickly. It looks like the Great Barrier Reef is done for.

The heat content of the ocean is rising rapidly. Next will be rising acidification from CO2.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-28/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-95-per-cent-north-section/7279338


Quote:

An aerial survey of the northern Great Barrier Reef has shown that 95 per cent of the reefs are now severely bleached — far worse than previously thought. Key points: 95 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef's northern reefs rated as severely bleached Only 4 out of 520 reefs surveyed were found to be unaffected by bleaching Third global coral bleaching event since 1998 Professor Terry Hughes, a coral reef expert based at James Cook University in Townsville who led the survey team, said the situation is now critical. "This will change the Great Barrier Reef forever," Professor Hughes told 7.30. "We're seeing huge levels of bleaching in the northern thousand-kilometre stretch of the Great Barrier Reef." Of the 520 reefs he surveyed, only four showed no evidence of bleaching. From Cairns to the Torres Strait, the once colourful ribbons of reef are a ghostly white. "It's too early to tell precisely how many of the bleached coral will die, but judging from the extreme level even the most robust corals are snow white, I'd expect to see about half of those corals die in the coming month or so," Professor Hughes said. Do you know more about this story? Email 7.30syd@your.abc.net.au What is coral bleaching? Occurs when abnormal environmental conditions cause coral to expel tiny photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae Loss of colourful algae causes coral to turn white and "bleach". Bleached coral can recover if the temperature drops and zooxanthellae are able to recolonise them, otherwise it may die -Source: ARC Centre of Excellence Coral bleaching is caused by abnormally high sea temperatures that kill the tiny marine algae essential to coral health. This is the third global coral bleaching since 1998, and scientists have found no evidence of these disasters before the late 20th century. "We have coral cores that provide 400 years of annual growth," explains Dr Neal Cantin from the Australian Institute of Marine Science. "We don't see the signatures of bleaching in reduced growth following a bleaching event until the recent 1998/2000 events." "There's good and bad news — the bottom three quarters of the reef is in strong condition," he said at the time. "[But] as we head north of Lizard Island it becomes increasingly prone to bleaching." The northern part of the Great Barrier Reef is the most pristine part of the marine park — and that is one possible glimmer of hope. "On the bright side, it's more likely that these pristine reefs in the northern section will be better able to bounce back afterwards," Professor Hughes said. "Nonetheless we're looking at 10-year recovery period, so this is a very severe blow." 'We're seeing climate change play out across our reefs' Professor Justin Marshall, a reef scientist from the University of Queensland, said the reason for these bleaching events was clear. "What we're seeing now is unequivocally to do with climate change," he told 7.30. "The world has agreed, this is climate change, we're seeing climate change play out across our reefs." 2016 northern Great Barrier Reef coral survey PHOTO: Coral bleaching is caused by abnormally high sea temperatures that kill the tiny marine algae essential to coral health. (ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies) I'm really angry that the government isn't listening to us, to the evidence we've been providing to them since 1998. Reef scientist Justin Marshall Professor Hughes said he is frustrated about the whole climate change debate. "The government has not been listening to us for the past 20 years," he said. "It has been inevitable that this bleaching event would happen, and now it has. "We need to join the global community in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "For me, personally, it was devastating to look out of the chopper window and see reef after reef destroyed by bleaching. "But really the emotion is not so much sadness as anger. "I'm really angry that the government isn't listening to us, to the evidence we've been providing to them since 1998." Mr Hunt told 7.30 that he was confident in the advice from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority — that the southern and central parts of the reef had so far escaped serious bleaching. He said the Government had committed $2 billion over the next decade to protect the reef through initiatives such as improving water quality and removing the crown-of-thorns starfish. A spokesperson for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said it would be following up the aerial surveys with in-water surveys over the next two weeks to determine the true extent of the coral bleaching.

Its really sad news.  I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.   

I wonder what would Andrew Bolt say now.  He did a show on it once, and invited his own panel of specialist.  One of them, apparent a marine biologist claim that ocean warming is in fact GOOD for the great barrier reef.  What a fraud he is.

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.

Telling people the reefs rooted for political reasons when in fact its perfectly fine is far worse for the tourist industry.  ;)

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 1:09pm:   I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.    Telling people the reefs rooted for political reasons when in fact its perfectly fine is far worse for the tourist industry.  ;)

The truth will set you free.

Svengali wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 2:22pm: tickleandrose wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 1:09pm:   I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.    Telling people the reefs rooted for political reasons when in fact its perfectly fine is far worse for the tourist industry.  ;) The truth will set you free.

You Asian guys blow coral reefs up to kill fish. Shame on you pin dick.

it is the THIRD bleaching even since 98 which means... tada...

IT HAS RECOVERED THREE TIMES IN THE PAST 20 years.

coral bleaching is a feature of coral in the first place. 

firstly the water HASNT risen byt more than a few centimetres. It HASNT warmed by more than a few hundreths of a degree.. perhaps.  and PH levels havent changed at all.

nothing new to see here.

Wow, look what El Nino, a natural event, has done to the water temperatures.

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYOC131.+000.jpg

It just means you will see some coral when you look at a map of Tassie

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 4:32pm:

Svengali wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 4:17pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 2:22pm: tickleandrose wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 1:09pm:   I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.    Telling people the reefs rooted for political reasons when in fact its perfectly fine is far worse for the tourist industry.  ;) The truth will set you free. You Asian guys blow coral reefs up to kill fish. Shame on you pin dick.

He's confused, 95% of his bum buddies have a bleached anus.

miketrees wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 5:28pm:

It just means you will see some coral when you look at a map of Tassie

Just watch out for the "crabs" ;)

GordyL wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 5:45pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 4:32pm: Svengali wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 4:17pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 2:22pm: tickleandrose wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 1:09pm:   I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.    Telling people the reefs rooted for political reasons when in fact its perfectly fine is far worse for the tourist industry.  ;) The truth will set you free. You Asian guys blow coral reefs up to kill fish. Shame on you pin dick. He's confused, 95% of his bum buddies have a bleached anus.

;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

it is the THIRD bleaching even since 98 which means... tada... It HASNT warmed by more than a few hundreths of a degree.. perhaps.  and PH levels havent changed at all.

Longweekend58 lies again. Longweekend58 doesn't understand that people won't accept his fantasies as fact.

https://agenda.weforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BIO_Ocean_Acidification-1024x749.jpg

http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzEwLzIwLzNlL29jZWFudGVtcHNjLjAxODJhLnBuZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/3d0639c7/2f6/oceantempschart.png

Wow ocean acidification again?

'The rate presented in Table 2 and Figure 3 represents a mean instantaneous rate of change in pH hr−1'

'In terms of general patterns amongst the comparative datasets, the open ocean sites (CCE1 and Kingman Reef) and the Antarctic sites (Cape Evans and Cindercones) displayed the least variation in pH over the 30-day deployment period. For example, pH range fluctuated between 0.024 to 0.096 at CCE1, Kingman Reef, Cape Evans, and Cindercones (Figure 2A, B and Table 2). In distinct contrast to the stability of the open ocean and Antarctic sites, sensors at the other five site classifications (upwelling, estuarine/near-shore, coral reef, kelp forest, and extreme) captured much greater variability (pH fluctuations ranging between 0.121 to 1.430) and may provide insight towards ecosystem-specific patterns.'

' At the Palmyra fore reef site, pH maxima occurred in the early evening (∼5:00 pm), and pH minima were recorded immediately pre-dawn (∼6:30 am). On a fringing reef site in Moorea, French Polynesia, a similar diel pattern was observed, with pH maxima occurring shortly after sunset (∼7:30 pm) and pH minima several hours after dawn (∼10:00 am).'

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028983

Greater changes per hour than the postulated overall changes. Ocean acidification  is not a problem. Readings are shown to depend on time of day, where min/max occur at different times.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/


Quote:

Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation—the massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean—has received far less attention. The planet’s seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind’s CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the ocean’s surface. We have “disposed” of 530 billion tons of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences, but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several mass extinctions throughout the earth’s waters. That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibrium among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1. Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than 25 million years. About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonate ion, about 10 percent as carbonate ion, and 1 percent as dissolved gas. Modern marine life has evolved to live in this chemistry. A wide variety of organisms use carbonate ion to manufacture their skeletons: snails, urchins, clams, crabs and lobsters. And notably, it forms the calcified plates of microscopic phytoplankton that are so abundant and crucial to the entire marine food chain. Meanwhile carbon dioxide levels influence the physiology of water-breathing organisms of all kinds, which for most creatures has been optimized to operate in a narrow range of dissolved CO2 and ocean pH. We are now carrying out an extraordinary chemical experiment on a global scale. Our fossil-fuel emissions raise the dissolved CO2 levels in the ocean, which reduces carbonate ion concentrations and lowers pH. The ocean’s sunlit surface layer (the top 100 yards or so) could easily lose 50 percent of its carbonate ion by the end of this century unless we reduce emissions dramatically. Marine animals will find it harder to build skeletons, construct reefs, or simply to grow and breathe. Compared with past geologic events, the speed and scale of this conversion is astonishing. We therefore have a dilemma. The ocean’s absorption of CO2 helps to keep atmospheric change in check. For decades, climate scientists described the uptake as a blessing for society, and ocean chemists hoped that calcium carbonate sediments on the seafloor would dissolve in sufficient quantities to offset a drop in pH. But research has shown that the rate at which sediments dissolve cannot possibly keep pace with the far faster rate of acidification. Society can continue to depend on the ocean for help, but the cost is a rising threat to all marine life. Although our understanding remains murky, the fossil record shows that ocean life has suffered massive extinctions during periods of rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels. Marine animals’ metabolic functions are typically tuned to narrow, internal pH ranges. In addition to reducing the calcification of skeletons, more acidic water will acidify body fluids, likely raising respiratory stress and depressing metabolism. Some organisms may tolerate a certain amount of change, but thinner shells will make others more vulnerable to damage or predators. Some organisms might also tolerate acidification of internal fluids to a point, yet even so many will expend more energy to maintain their optimal acid-base balance or will struggle to supply their body with oxygen and to sustain cellular functions vital to life. The extra expense of coping with acidification may make them more prone to dying. These stresses will be particularly severe for deep-sea animals, which have adapted to an extremely stable environment. And even if animals survive, the stresses will sap energy they would otherwise use for growth and reproduction. We would probably see the effects of ocean acidification first in animal groups that have finely tuned environmental ranges, particularly those already “living on the edge” such as coral reefs, which have already suffered widespread bleaching and death from warming ocean temperatures. Less appreciated are effects on massive communities of tiny animals that live in the ocean’s midlevels. These creatures migrate en masse to the surface layer at night to feed yet sink to deep water during the daytime to avoid predators. In so doing, they form a critical link between the warm, oxygenated surface layer and the cold, oxygen-depleted waters of the deep, as well as a critical link ...

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

Its really sad news.  I wonder what it would do to the billion dollar tourism industry which are based on the great barrier reef.    I wonder what would Andrew Bolt say now.  He did a show on it once, and invited his own panel of specialist.  One of them, apparent a marine biologist claim that ocean warming is in fact GOOD for the great barrier reef.  What a fraud he is.

Andrew Bolt is the modern day Tokyo Rose spreading propaganda on behalf on the conservatives.

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Wow, look what El Nino, a natural event, has done to the water temperatures. http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYOC131.+000.jpg

and the el nino is now disappearing.

why is it that the hysterics have to blame every climate event on humans?

[quote author=Svengali link=1459306847/13#13 date=1459350908]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

[quote]Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation—the massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean—has received far less attention. The planet’s seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind’s CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the ocean’s surface. We have “disposed” of 530 billion tons of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences, but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several mass extinctions throughout the earth’s waters.
That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibrium among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1.
Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than 25 million years.
About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonate ion, about 10 percent as carbonate ion, and 1 percent as dissolved gas. Modern marine life has evolved to live in this chemistry. A wide variety of organisms use carbonate ion to manufacture their skeletons: snails, urchins, clams, crabs and lobsters. And notably, it forms the calcified plates of microscopic phytoplankton that are so abundant and crucial to the entire marine food chain. Meanwhile carbon dioxide levels influence the physiology of water-breathing organisms of all kinds, which for most creatures has been optimized to operate in a narrow range of dissolved CO2 and ocean pH.
We are now carrying out an extraordinary chemical experiment on a global scale. Our fossil-fuel emissions raise the dissolved CO2 levels in the ocean, which reduces carbonate ion concentrations and lowers pH. The ocean’s sunlit surface layer (the top 100 yards or so) could easily lose 50 percent of its carbonate ion by the end of this century unless we reduce emissions dramatically. Marine animals will find it harder to build skeletons, construct reefs, or simply to grow and breathe. Compared with past geologic events, the speed and scale of this conversion is astonishing.
We therefore have a dilemma. The ocean’s absorption of CO2 helps to keep atmospheric change in check. For decades, climate scientists described the uptake as a blessing for society, and ocean chemists hoped that calcium carbonate sediments on the seafloor would dissolve in sufficient quantities to offset a drop in pH. But research has shown that the rate at which sediments dissolve cannot possibly keep pace with the far faster rate of acidification. Society can continue to depend on the ocean for help, but the cost is a rising threat to all marine life.
Although our understanding remains murky, the fossil record shows that ocean life has suffered massive extinctions during periods of rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels. Marine animals’ metabolic functions are typically tuned to narrow, internal pH ranges. In addition to reducing the calcification of skeletons, more acidic water will acidify body fluids, likely raising respiratory stress and depressing metabolism.

We would probably see the effects of ocean acidification first in animal groups that have finely tuned environmental ranges, particularly those already “living on the edge” such as coral reefs, which have already suffered widespread bleaching and death from warming ocean temperatures. Less appreciated are effects on massive communities of tiny animals that live in the ocean’s midlevels. These creatures migrate en masse to the surface layer at night to feed yet sink to deep water during the daytime to avoid predators. In so doing, they form a critical link between the warm, oxygenated surface layer and the cold, oxygen-depleted waters of the





Did scientific american just describe the Industrial Era as having taken place just in the last 50 years?  I beleive they did. Along with believing that sensitive pH measurements of the ocean 200 years ago are pinpoint accurate.

too easy.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:16am:

lee wrote on Mar 30th, 2016 at 5:26pm: Wow, look what El Nino, a natural event, has done to the water temperatures. http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYOC131.+000.jpg and the el nino is now disappearing. why is it that the hysterics have to blame every climate event on humans?

because like yourself a lot of humans are selfish greedy c..ts who would stop at nothing to put more printed dollar bills in their pockets at the expense of wrecking the planet.

its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 8:23am:

its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change

The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;)

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Wow, look what El Nino, a natural event, has done to the water temperatures.

Look what the drop in the ASX200 has done to the ANZ shares  ;D ;D ;D

This proves that you have learnt nothing. 

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 8:37am:

Look what the drop in the ASX200 has done to the ANZ shares  Grin Grin Grin This proves that you have learnt nothing.

But changes in water temperature has been postulated as a cause of bleaching.

What you appear to be saying is that coral bleaching is causing temperature change.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:19am:

Did scientific american just describe the Industrial Era as having taken place just in the last 50 years?  I beleive they did. Along with believing that sensitive pH measurements of the ocean 200 years ago are pinpoint accurate. too easy.

Then of course we had so many readings taken from all over the globe, that we could precisely determine the true global mean./sarc

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 8:30am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;)

they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30.

not 'fine' at all

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:08am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 7:19am: Did scientific american just describe the Industrial Era as having taken place just in the last 50 years?  I beleive they did. Along with believing that sensitive pH measurements of the ocean 200 years ago are pinpoint accurate. too easy. Then of course we had so many readings taken from all over the globe, that we could precisely determine the true global mean./sarc

another good point.  and the 'increase' has been the smallest possible measurable change and yet it is somehow both significant and anthropogenic. what caused the previous acidification incidents?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:29am:

they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30.

Life expectancy at that time kept nature in balance. Now it is out of balance with overpopulation, deforestation, overgrazing and large holes everywhere.

Svengali wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 4:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. Life expectancy at that time kept nature in balance. Now it is out of balance with overpopulation, deforestation, overgrazing and large holes everywhere.

Like all your crappy Asian cesspools?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:29am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all

but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake oil economies :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :(

Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think.

the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd.

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd.

Well if you have such disrespect for current Australia then why don't you sell up the modern conveniences, car, home, stop getting medical treatment, don't eat the food those environmental vandals the farmers grow etc etc and go f ark off  into the bush so you don't look like a stinking hypocrite.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd. Well if you have such disrespect for current Australia then why don't you sell up the modern conveniences, car, home, stop getting medical treatment, don't eat the food those environmental vandals the farmers grow etc etc and go f ark off  into the bush so you don't look like a stinking hypocrite.

OK hammer head then give us electric cars instead of forcing 100 yo old fossil fool junk onto us ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:04pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 7:27pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd. Well if you have such disrespect for current Australia then why don't you sell up the modern conveniences, car, home, stop getting medical treatment, don't eat the food those environmental vandals the farmers grow etc etc and go f ark off  into the bush so you don't look like a stinking hypocrite. OK hammer head then give us electric cars instead of forcing 100 yo old fossil fool junk onto us ;)

I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:17pm:

I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car.

Don't forget your recharging points. Especially for long trips.

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:25pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:17pm: I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car. Don't forget your recharging points. Especially for long trips.

Tesla has plenty in other countries which is not surprising and they are free to use for Tesla owners ;)

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:17pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:04pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 7:27pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd. Well if you have such disrespect for current Australia then why don't you sell up the modern conveniences, car, home, stop getting medical treatment, don't eat the food those environmental vandals the farmers grow etc etc and go f ark off  into the bush so you don't look like a stinking hypocrite. OK hammer head then give us electric cars instead of forcing 100 yo old fossil fool junk onto us ;) I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car.

No I don't have respect for australia. It's a country run by f.ckwitts for f.ckwitts.

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:17pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:04pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 7:27pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd. Well if you have such disrespect for current Australia then why don't you sell up the modern conveniences, car, home, stop getting medical treatment, don't eat the food those environmental vandals the farmers grow etc etc and go f ark off  into the bush so you don't look like a stinking hypocrite. OK hammer head then give us electric cars instead of forcing 100 yo old fossil fool junk onto us ;) I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car. No I don't have respect for australia. It's a country run by f.ckwitts for f.ckwitts.

Geez I hope you don't live here.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:52pm:

Geez I hope you don't live here.

Yes I do unfortunately for myself :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:52pm: No I don't have respect for australia. It's a country run by f.ckwitts for f.ckwitts. Geez I hope you don't live here.

Yes I do unfortunately for myself :(
[/quote]
I couldn't bite the hand that feeds me like you do. What a pity you don't  go somewhere else.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:58pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:56pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:52pm: No I don't have respect for australia. It's a country run by f.ckwitts for f.ckwitts. Geez I hope you don't live here. Yes I do unfortunately for myself :(

I couldn't bite the hand that feeds me like you do. What a pity you don't  go somewhere else.[/quote]

no c,,t feeds me here.

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 10:00pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:58pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:56pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:52pm: No I don't have respect for australia. It's a country run by f.ckwitts for f.ckwitts. Geez I hope you don't live here. Yes I do unfortunately for myself :( I couldn't bite the hand that feeds me like you do. What a pity you don't  go somewhere else.

[/quote]

no c,,t feeds me here.
[/quote]So you don't eat. Are you a zombie?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 10:01pm:

So you don't eat. Are you a zombie?

I feed myself hammer head.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. the abos have done f.ckall damage to the land in 50,000 years compared to the wholesale clearance by the whites in 200 years. Your comparison is absurd. Well if you have such disrespect for current Australia then why don't you sell up the modern conveniences, car, home, stop getting medical treatment, don't eat the food those environmental vandals the farmers grow etc etc and go f ark off  into the bush so you don't look like a stinking hypocrite.

Talk about political correctness: no one wants to LOOK like a hypocrite  ;D ;D ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think.

;D

You say 'system' but you won't say 'socialism'!

Lol, you are a f"n junior  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I think you can well and truly count yourself out of the business acumen club of Australia!


;D

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:06am:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:37am: Look what the drop in the ASX200 has done to the ANZ shares  Grin Grin Grin This proves that you have learnt nothing. But changes in water temperature has been postulated as a cause of bleaching. What you appear to be saying is that coral bleaching is causing temperature change.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmn: what are they putting in the boring crack these days?  :o

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:25pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:17pm: I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car. Don't forget your recharging points. Especially for long trips.

Can't you just use an extra long extension cord?

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:34pm:

lee wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:25pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:17pm: I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car. Don't forget your recharging points. Especially for long trips. Can't you just use an extra long extension cord?

That's harking back to the old ideas of wireless in someones name ::) ::) ::) ::)

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:34pm:

lee wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:25pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:17pm: I'd give you nothing seeing what disrespect you have for modern Australia. Make your own electric car. Don't forget your recharging points. Especially for long trips. Can't you just use an extra long extension cord?

No problems in Europe. From Osla to London 1200 miles for 5 Euros and NO extension cord !!

When it comes to electric car charging network australia is far behind like the NBN is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdNjSZWe21U

95% bleached? Rubbish

I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene.

And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:19pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. ;D You say 'system' but you won't say 'socialism'! Lol, you are a f"n junior  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I think you can well and truly count yourself out of the business acumen club of Australia! ;D

Haven't you got an internet connection to fix numptoid?

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas

Was that on Foxtel :D LOL

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas

Gnads, the perennial dupe.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Svengali wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 10:14am:

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

you try all the time.

lee wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 10:25am:

Svengali wrote on Apr 1st, 2016 at 10:14am: You can fool some of the people all of the time. you try all the time.

Denizen lee is my crash test dummy.

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas

You will never get a government grant with that attitude. 

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:31am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: 95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas Was that on Foxtel :D LOL

No ... mainstream media  ::)

Svengali wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 10:14am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: 95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas Gnads, the perennial dupe. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

You ought have your mouth washed out with bleach
might change your stinking BS disposition.

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 11:41am:

Svengali wrote on Apr 1st, 2016 at 10:14am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: 95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas Gnads, the perennial dupe. You can fool some of the people all of the time. You ought have your mouth washed out with bleach might change your stinking BS disposition.

Gnads is a master debater.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

it is the THIRD bleaching even since 98 which means... tada... IT HAS RECOVERED THREE TIMES IN THE PAST 20 years. coral bleaching is a feature of coral in the first place.  firstly the water HASNT risen byt more than a few centimetres. It HASNT warmed by more than a few hundreths of a degree.. perhaps.  and PH levels havent changed at all. nothing new to see here.

This is the third time. 

1998 - first ever recorded bleaching: 50%  and about 5 to 10% death
2002 - 60% bleaching, and about 5 to 10% death.
GBR had a lucky escape in 2010 - global bleaching event.
2016 - so far, 95% bleaching. 

Backed up by the observation that the abundance of coral has remained stable in the northern sector of the Great Barrier Reef, whereas the central and southern sectors have declined by 50% over the past 27 years (before this breaching event.  So, the real consequence of this event, we will know in the future but the numbers are not good).

Bleaching:

Many types of coral have a special symbiotic relationship with a tiny marine algae (zooxanthellae) that live inside corals' tissue and are very efficient food producers that provide up to 90 per cent of the energy corals require to grow and reproduce.

Coral bleaching occurs when the relationship between the coral host and zooxanthellae, which give coral much of their colour, breaks down. Without the zooxanthellae, the tissue of the coral animal appears transparent and the coral's bright white skeleton is revealed.

Corals begin to starve once they bleach. While some corals are able to feed themselves, most corals struggle to survive without their zooxanthellae.

If the stress persist, then the coral dies. 

One poster talked about how China blow up the coral for fish.   But with mass bleaching event like this, scale wise its MUCH MUCH worse than blowing up the coral.   It depletes fish stocks, and basically negates all the good work that we have done in Australia in terms of fishing management, and with that severe economic repercussions. 

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 11:06am:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:37am: Look what the drop in the ASX200 has done to the ANZ shares  Grin Grin Grin This proves that you have learnt nothing. But changes in water temperature has been postulated as a cause of bleaching. What you appear to be saying is that coral bleaching is causing temperature change.

Lee, Once again, the SOI uses two datapoints - the standardised barometric pressure in Tahiti and the standardised barometric pressure in Darwin. An El Nino is defined as sustained (eight months or more) when the SOI is -8 or below.

Probably the major feature of an El Nino is the precipitation.  Temperatures are related to precipitation (and ocean currents). At the previous stage of the El Nino episode which relates to the Coral bleaching event, the probability of below average rainfall was around 50-60%.

In short, you can't say that warm conditions are caused by an El Nino because the metrics for an El Nino are just an extended index based on barometrics pressures of two points that are quite some distance from the equator. It worked well in the past, but the model is being adapted to changing conditions.

If you look at the precipitation map, it becomes obvious to most people that it's not as cut and dried as you say. 

This El Nino event was not necessarily very typical either.

---

tickleandrose wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 12:26pm:

One poster talked about how China blow up the coral for fish.   But with mass bleaching event like this, scale wise its MUCH MUCH worse than blowing up the coral.   It depletes fish stocks, and basically negates all the good work that we have done in Australia in terms of fishing management, and with that severe economic repercussions.

Good post.

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

95% bleached? Rubbish I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene. And they will regenerate the southern bleach affected areas

I'm not sure it's that simple: you are basically talking about the equivalent idea of atmospheric-tele-connnection however as regards living things.

I call shennanigans!

Feel free to call it back why don't you  ;)

..perhaps a reference would help ?  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:16am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:19pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:15pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 11:29am: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:30am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 8:23am: its time for the inner city greens to turn off their air conditioners and sell their Jeep Grand Cherokees , go jump off the harbour bridge and save the environment from man made climate change The Abos were doing quite fine before the white trash got here and screwed everything up with their hole drilling mentality. No destruction of the barrier reef when the Abos were running the show ;) they were doing fine?  stone age culture with a life expectancy of 25-30. not 'fine' at all but they lasted 50,000 years whilst leaving the environment in pristine condition. We will be lucky to last another 100 years with our paper money and fake economies :( Actually the aborigines made quite a few animals extinct and burnt the land so much that it's still not the same. Human beings leave a mark on the land no matter where they go. I will grant you that the whiteman has done some real damage to the land but we must remember that the system feeds us and we owe it more than we think. ;D You say 'system' but you won't say 'socialism'! Lol, you are a f"n junior  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I think you can well and truly count yourself out of the business acumen club of Australia! ;D Haven't you got an internet connection to fix numptoid?

You're nothing bro: you are mr can't handle me aren't you broseph!!!!!!!!?

:o

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 1:05pm:

If you look at the precipitation map, it becomes obvious to most people that it's not as cut and dried as you say.

What does a precipitation map of the land area say of SST's?

lee wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 6:19pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 1st, 2016 at 1:05pm: If you look at the precipitation map, it becomes obvious to most people that it's not as cut and dried as you say. What does a precipitation map of the land area say of SST's?

What does an El Nino say of SSTs?

You'll have to explain your model, which you obviously have great confidence in (albeit misplaced confidence). That would be the  model that links the barometric pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti, and SSTs.  What does your model say?

Darlings, its official. According to National Coral Bleaching Taskforce:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/great-barrier-reef-bleaching/7340342


Quote:

Great Barrier Reef: Only 7 per cent not bleached, survey finds Bleaching of this magnitude is affecting "virtually all" coral species. (Justin Marshall/coralwatch.org) RELATED STORY: In pictures: A close-up look at the Great Barrier Reef's bleachingRELATED STORY: 'Devastating' Great Barrier Reef bleaching worse than first thoughtRELATED STORY: Coral bleaching threat level increased by authorities Aerial and underwater surveys of the Great Barrier Reef have revealed 93 per cent of it has been bleached to some extent. Aerial checks of more than 900 individual reefs showed the spread varies dramatically along its 2,300 kilometres, from 90 per cent north of Port Douglas to less than 10 per cent south of Mackay. What is coral bleaching? Occurs when abnormal environmental conditions cause coral to expel tiny photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae Loss of colourful algae causes coral to turn white and "bleach". Bleached coral can recover if the temperature drops and zooxanthellae are able to recolonise them, otherwise it may die Professor Terry Hughes from the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce said the most severe bleaching had hit the northern section of the reef, which stretches 1,000 kilometres north of Port Douglas. "We've never seen bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef of that severity and when bleaching is that strong it affects virtually all coral species," Professor Hughes said. "We expect the central and southern corals to regain their colour and recover over the next few months. Close-up pictures show stark effects of coral bleaching Images document the ongoing bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef as ocean temperatures continue to be driven upward by climate change. "The southern third of the Great Barrier Reef fortunately cooled down late in summer due to ex-cyclone Winston. "The 2016 footprint could have been much worse." But Professor Hughes said the overall picture was much worse than the past two bleaching events. "In 1998 and 2002, 40 per cent of the reefs had no bleaching — it's only 7 per cent this time," he said. "We also know in 1998 and 2002 about 18 per cent of the reefs were severely bleaching — this time it's over half. "So by those metrics this bleaching event is three or four times more severe." Professor Andrew Baird from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has spent the past 17 days at sea recording the bleaching event. "Tragically, the northern section is the most remote part of the reef, and its remoteness has protected it from most human pressures but not climate change," he said. "North of Port Douglas, we're already measuring an average of close to 50 per cent mortality of bleached corals." Meanwhile, Australia's southern waters are experiencing an extended warm period that scientists say offers a glimpse into Tasmania's climate future. Water's off the state's east coast have been up to four degrees warmer than average for more than 100 days.

CO2 takes 40 years to show its ill effects: this will get worse before it gets better!

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5717581a1900002e0056ba95.jpeg

http://imgur.com/0mf6Ghn.gif http://imgur.com/MZ4IpEU.gif http://imgur.com/IJjL0Il.gif http://imgur.com/MZ4IpEU.gif http://imgur.com/IJjL0Il.gif http://imgur.com/MZ4IpEU.gif http://imgur.com/IJjL0Il.gif http://imgur.com/uKlzBwm.gif

Svengali wrote on Apr 21^st, 2016 at 12:40pm:

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5717581a1900002e0056ba95.jpeg

"522 reefs surveyed

81% severely bleached"

what percentage of each reef is bleached?

How does this equate to 95%?

If you average out the % of reefs not bleached it comes to 36%

That doesn't make 95%

First up Crown of Thorns was the greatest threat

now it water temp itself

we're DOOMED.

Gnads wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2016 at 8:17am:

Svengali wrote on Apr 21st, 2016 at 12:40pm: http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5717581a1900002e0056ba95.jpeg "522 reefs surveyed 81% severely bleached" what percentage of each reef is bleached? How does this equate to 95%? If you average out the % of reefs not bleached it comes to 36% That doesn't make 95% First up Crown of Thorns was the greatest threat now it water temp itself we're DOOMED.

The 95% figure has caveats.

It's bogus in my book!

Statistics must be carefully interpreted and bad journalism is simply pulp fiction!!

The truth Australia doesn’t want to hear about saving the Great Barrier Reef:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/the-truth-australia-doesnt-want-to-hear-about-saving-the-great-barrier-reef/news-story/d636e9dc5a85bcf5d2f6e1278697ae5a


Quote:

ONE of the country’s most loved landmarks is facing extinction and everyone is scrambling to do something about it — except making the one hard decision that could actually save it. The plight of the Great Barrier Reef has become a global concern with Hollywood superstars, legendary documentary makers and billionaire entrepreneurs drawing attention to its fragile state. On Thursday the ABC revealed secret modelling that showed it could cost up to $16 billion to meet water quality targets over the next 10 years just to meet water quality targets for the reef. Both sides of government have announced more money to improve reef’s condition but the funding has so far been millions, not billions. They are also ignoring calls for a coal moratorium, despite experts saying this will be crucial to preserving one of Australia’s most lucrative attractions. While it might seem like a crazy idea to some, experts say blocking the construction of new mines would actually be good for the economy. Is this something Australia should really be considering? And what would it cost us? A COAL MORATORIUM SOUNDS EXTREME, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? We all want to ensure the Great Barrier Reef survives but is it really necessary to block new coal mines? It may not be the answer people want to hear, but experts believe it’s something Australia needs to do. Climate change was identified as the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef, according to the government-funded Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s report. Australia has already promised to keep temperature rises to under two degrees as part of the Paris global climate change agreement, but meeting this target may not be enough to save the reef. “It is highly likely that two degrees of warming (above pre-industrial rates) would destroy the Great Barrier Reef as we know it,” Professor Will Steffen of the Climate Council told news.com.au. “There may be a few individual reefs or pockets of corals that survive, but the vast sweep of reefs along Australia’s northeast coast would be gone, converted into algae-based ecosystems.” He is not the only one who feels this way. In April, a group of 56 scientists signed an open letter calling for Australia to block new coal mines and phase out coal-fired power stations. WOULDN’T IT HURT US ECONOMICALLY? It’s all well and good to have the best intentions, but many Australians may not be willing to sacrifice economic growth in order to preserve the reef. The good news is, we don’t have to. Economist Stephen Bartos of Pegasus Economics told news.com.au that if Australia pulled out of coal abruptly there would be a short term impact on growth but in the longer term moving away from mining would actually be a good thing. This is because the growth we get from mining is mostly temporary and largely comes from jobs created during construction. Once they become operational mines don’t need as many people to keep them running. “Not investing in coal mines doesn’t harm the economy if we invest in other productive things instead,” Mr Bartos said. “People forget the economy is dynamic, what happens if we don’t invest in Project A, is we’ve got the resources for Project B. It’s not a negative in reality, the economy adjusts.” In particular, he said thermal coal used for power plants would probably not be a good future investment. “The cost of renewables is falling rapidly and will likely be more economical than coal in the very near future,” he said. The Australia Institute chief economist Richard Denniss said it might feel counterintuitive but stopping the development of new mines in Australia would be “very good” for the country. “The world’s demand for coal is flat or declining,” he said. “So if new mines are built in Queensland they will push the world price of coal down. “The best way to help existing coal miners is to prevent the construction of their competitors.” Assoc Prof Denniss said claims the new Carmichael coal mine would create thousands of jobs had been hyped up. Adani once claimed the new mine in the Galilee Basin would create 10,000 jobs, but has since admitted in court that it was more likely to be about 1400 jobs, including indirect jobs, over 30 years. “There are well over 150,000 unemployed people in Queensland, there is no scenario that building new coal mines will solve Queensland’s employment problem, especially when new coal mines harm the tourism industry in both the short term and the long term,” Assoc Prof Denniss said. In contrast the Great Barrier Reef is estimated to generate revenues of $6 billion each year while employing 70,000 people...

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 1:59pm:

On Thursday the ABC revealed secret modelling that showed it could cost up to $16 billion to meet water quality targets over the next 10 years just to meet water quality targets for the reef.

Ah, the "models". Just exactly what did they model? Did they factor in a la Nina? Was it a water quality model without inputs from El Nino/La Nina?


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 1:59pm:

“It is highly likely that two degrees of warming (above pre-industrial rates) would destroy the Great Barrier Reef as we know it,” Professor Will Steffen of the Climate Council told news.com.au.

Will Steffen studiously ignores the science that says it is abrupt change, both  warmer and cooler, that causes bleaching. Not a slow 2ºC.


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 1:59pm:

In April, a group of 56 scientists signed an open letter calling for Australia to block new coal mines and phase out coal-fired power stations.

Only 56? What happened to the 97%?


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 1:59pm:

Economist Stephen Bartos of Pegasus Economics told news.com.au that if Australia pulled out of coal abruptly there would be a short term impact on growth but in the longer term moving away from mining would actually be a good thing.

You notice he doesn't quantify " a short term impact on growth "? I wonder why that is?

Surprise surprise surprise

"Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b

mitasol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 8:42am:

Surprise surprise surprise "Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b

Of course the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority would say that because he has been left behind by the protests of others at the threat to the GBR. If he has not been doing anything except collecting his pay cheque he has an interest in clouding and diverting the protests.

Opinion posted in your article:


Quote:

This opinion from Russell Reichelt, the same chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, who approved the proposal for dredge spoil from the Abbott Point coal port expansion to be dumped on the reef?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 10:55am:

mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 8:42am: Surprise surprise surprise "Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b Of course the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority would say that because he has been left behind by the protests of others at the threat to the GBR. If he has not been doing anything except collecting his pay cheque he has an interest in clouding and diverting the protests. Opinion posted in your article: Quote: This opinion from Russell Reichelt, the same chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, who approved the proposal for dredge spoil from the Abbott Point coal port expansion to be dumped on the reef?

You obviously missed this bit

A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.

So I suppose AIMS is in on it too, damn these non-activist scientists!

mitasol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 12:50pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:55am: mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 8:42am: Surprise surprise surprise "Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b Of course the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority would say that because he has been left behind by the protests of others at the threat to the GBR. If he has not been doing anything except collecting his pay cheque he has an interest in clouding and diverting the protests. Opinion posted in your article: Quote: This opinion from Russell Reichelt, the same chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, who approved the proposal for dredge spoil from the Abbott Point coal port expansion to be dumped on the reef? You obviously missed this bit A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed. So I suppose AIMS is in on it too, damn these non-activist scientists!

Were they paid for that report by the government?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 1:36pm:

Were they paid for that report by the government?

Anything against the meme is government funded. Anything that supports the meme is pure research. With no funding from Big Green.  Got it. ;)

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 1:36pm:

mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 12:50pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:55am: mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 8:42am: Surprise surprise surprise "Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b Of course the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority would say that because he has been left behind by the protests of others at the threat to the GBR. If he has not been doing anything except collecting his pay cheque he has an interest in clouding and diverting the protests. Opinion posted in your article: Quote: This opinion from Russell Reichelt, the same chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, who approved the proposal for dredge spoil from the Abbott Point coal port expansion to be dumped on the reef? You obviously missed this bit A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed. So I suppose AIMS is in on it too, damn these non-activist scientists! Were they paid for that report by the government?

I know some of the scientists involved, both at AIMS and GBRMPA, trust me they are rather green, but they are also real scientists, as opposed to alarmists

mitasol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 1:49pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 1:36pm: mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 12:50pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:55am: mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 8:42am: Surprise surprise surprise "Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b Of course the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority would say that because he has been left behind by the protests of others at the threat to the GBR. If he has not been doing anything except collecting his pay cheque he has an interest in clouding and diverting the protests. Opinion posted in your article: Quote: This opinion from Russell Reichelt, the same chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, who approved the proposal for dredge spoil from the Abbott Point coal port expansion to be dumped on the reef? You obviously missed this bit A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed. So I suppose AIMS is in on it too, damn these non-activist scientists! Were they paid for that report by the government? I know some of the scientists involved, both at AIMS and GBRMPA, trust me they are rather green, but they are also real scientists, as opposed to alarmists

Liberal voters?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 1:50pm:

mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 1:49pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 1:36pm: mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 12:50pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:55am: mitasol wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 8:42am: Surprise surprise surprise "Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b Of course the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority would say that because he has been left behind by the protests of others at the threat to the GBR. If he has not been doing anything except collecting his pay cheque he has an interest in clouding and diverting the protests. Opinion posted in your article: Quote: This opinion from Russell Reichelt, the same chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, who approved the proposal for dredge spoil from the Abbott Point coal port expansion to be dumped on the reef? You obviously missed this bit A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed. So I suppose AIMS is in on it too, damn these non-activist scientists! Were they paid for that report by the government? I know some of the scientists involved, both at AIMS and GBRMPA, trust me they are rather green, but they are also real scientists, as opposed to alarmists Liberal voters?

No idea, we don't tend to discuss politics, perhaps remaining independent of activism and alarmism results in better science, who'd have thunk it?