The annual data on coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels.
Record high, despite all the doom stories by our reef science and management institutions.
Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years, and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.
This data is good news. It could hardly be better. But somehow, our science organizations have convinced the world that the reef is on its last legs. How has this happened?
One reason is that occasionally colossal amounts of coral are killed, mostly by cyclones, but also by the crown of thorns starfish and bleaching.
So the media, with its predilection for bad news, can be fed a regular diet of doom. Our scientists are always happy to oblige.
The quiet recovery is generally downplayed or ignored.
Growing up in Innisfail, adjacent to the reef, in the early 1970s, I recall the initial doom stories about the reef.
The scientific study of the reef had only just started, and plagues of starfish that eat the coral had just been discovered and were making headlines worldwide. The reef had, supposedly, only a decade left.
It was reasonable in the ’70s to be concerned about these plagues and they ultimately precipitated AIMS’ long-term monitoring of coral and starfish in the ’80s.
I was working at AIMS when this important work started, and it is interesting to look back on what has changed.
The coral cover is no less, the number of starfish is no more, but the number of scientists and managers working on the reef has exploded. Perhaps this is the problem.
In 50 years we have now learned a great deal about the cycles of coral death and regrowth. The data reported every year by AIMS shows all areas go through these cycles every decade or two.
Remarkably, even the excellent news of record coral still has the scientists pessimistic. The reef is, apparently, still doomed from climate change and this is just a temporary reprieve. How well does the data need to be to make them admit the reef is fine?
The science institutions have been claiming that there have been three disastrous bleaching events in the past five years, which does not accord with the latest statistics.
Record coral cover means there was no disaster on the reef. The only disaster is the quality assurance at the science organizations.
An examination of the data shows that, while there have been three events, they occurred in largely different regions in each year. The reef has thus effectively had one major bleaching event in the past five years and the previous major event was in 2002.
So the reef has had roughly one event in 15 years, and most of the coral on the reef did not bleach and most that bleached did not die. Therefore, it is not surprising that the reef is in good shape.
The science institutions have been caught out by their own deception. They exaggerated the bleaching events – as usual.
Luckily, we have the AIMS long-term coral monitoring surveys, which are done professionally with good-quality protocols, to demonstrate the state of the reef.
The bad news is that the record high coral cover means it is likely that coral cover will decline in the next few years.
Prepare for the headlines saying the reef has lost much of its coral and is indicative of climate change and farmers polluting the reef. And the reef will be predicted to be gone by 2050 – or whenever.
When will these doom stories about the reef, which have been going for 50 years, cease? Will it be like the Ancient Greek legend of Prometheus, who was chained alive to a rock so that his liver could be eaten by an eagle, only for the liver to grow overnight so that it could be eaten again and again? Will the agony ever end?
According to legend, Heracles saved Prometheus. Who will be our Heracles, and support a better quality assurance of the science?
It should be the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, but so far it has not been interested. The various ministers could also take an interest.
In the meantime, don’t forget we have record-high levels of coral. It is time to stop scaring the children with doom stories about the reef.
Peter Ridd has researched the Great Barrier Reef for decades and is the author of Reef Heresy Science, Research and the Great Barrier Reef, published by Connor Court. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
Read more at The Australian ($)
Dear Peter, I published the link to your article on my Facebook page on 21st July, I have my post flagged by FB independent fact checker as “partially false” and am getting threatening messages that if I continue my account can be restricted. here is the link to independent fact checker report on your article. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/despite-2021-being-a-good-year-for-coral-health-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-declined-over-the-past-decade-and-is-threatened-by-climate-change-contrary-to-claims-by-peter-ridd/?fbclid=IwAR0sezzs2K_b4LCOVQRtN3XRr-CCAcxvFKfVYrpKx5f8Od1shQjovNxYOys. Can I request if you can take up this issue with the fact checker/FB as this is disparging your imageas a writer and scientist?
same thing happened to me. The “fact checkers” sited their own “facts as a rebuttal
Man-made Global Warming is fake, climate change is real. It’s what the earth does, it changes and not because of what the leftist agenda ridden scientist say. Earth has seen millions of climate changes throughout it’s history, from a land scorching hot, to a land covered in ice to a mini ice-age to a warming period in the 20th century. Man was not around for 99.9% of earths changes, but these so called scientist claim it’s man’s fault. Lies after lies after lies.
Peter Harris, these are hardly the words to be used to engage in honest debate. The person who wrote the above lengthy explanation is providing evidence, not empty, unbacked accusations nor insults. The sheer facts that the person wrote anonymously and intelligently, would suggest to me that they are a scientist or an employed specialist of an organisation which may not like their point of view as it does not fit the popular narrative of AGW (Anthropogenis Global Warming) ideas.
We need as world citizens to embark on a search for TRUTH, not starting with conclusions and then bringing evidence to support their conclusions.
From Melanie Philips:
“Back in 2005, the eminent MIT meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen, who is scathing about AGW theory and the corruption of science in its service, wrote:
The primary implication would be that for over 25 years, we have based not only our worst case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration…
The public discourse on global warming has little in common with the standards of scientific discourse. Rather, it is part of political discourse where comments are made to secure the political base and frighten the opposition rather than to illuminate issues. In political discourse, information is to be “spun” to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition. The chief example of the latter is the perpetual claim of universal scientific agreement. This claim was part of the media treatment of global cooling (in the 1970’s) and has been part of the treatment of global warming since 1988 (well before most climate change institutes were created). The consensus preceded the research.
That media discourse on climate change is political rather than scientific should, in fact, come as no surprise. However, even scientific literature and institutions have become politicised. Some scientists issue meaningless remarks in what I believe to be the full expectation that the media and the environmental movement will provide the “spin”. Since the societal response to alarm has, so far, been to increase scientific funding, there has been little reason for scientists to complain.”
Samuel… you lost me on your first comment.
However, your last paragraph has some truth in it.
But what you fail to realise, is that the far-right has politicised this issue more than the left.
Read up about some of the debates and motivations around climate change here in Australia…
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs
Again, fake news from a confirmed liar and climate change denier.
Since coral reefs are made of calciumCARBONate, this brief outline describing the role that calcium carbonate plays in soaking up atmospheric CO2 is relevant.
All of this is fairly well established science and all of my sources here are from Wikipedia (a fine source as long as you understand their priorities) unless otherwise noted.
Chalk is the easiest place to start but other sources are discussed afterwards.
According to statista.com, the surface area of all of the world’s oceans sums to 608.83 million square kilometers (the sum of all the numbers here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/558499/total-area-of-global-oceans/ )
Since Wikipedia indicates that calcareous oozes cover 35% or 48% of the ocean floor, at least two estimates of the annual uptake of CO2 from this source alone can be made.
Check my math, but I believe it would work out like this: 35% x 608.83 square kilometers = 213.09 million square kilometers. With a square meter being covered by, say, 0.4 cm/1000 yr of calcareous ooze, that would make a volume of about 4 cc of calcareous ooze per square meter per year, or 1.2 cc of calcareous microscopic shells per square meter per year (4 cc x .30), a very thin dusting, or 1.2 cubic meters per square kilometer per year or 255.71 million cubic meters per year of calcareous microscopic shells for 213.09 million square kilometers.
At 48% x 608.83 square kilometers it comes to 292.24 million square kilometers x 1.2 cubic meters = 350.69 million cubic meters per year of calcareous microscopic shells. Regardless of how much CO2 it takes to make 1.2 cc of calcareous microscopic shells, that’s a lot of carbon stored for a very long time at the bottom of the ocean every year.
Please note that these estimates don’t include the carbon stored in the ocean sediments that contain less than 30% calcareous microscopic shells (i.e., those that contain only 15%, 20%, etc., of calcareous microscopic shells) nor that in the sediments included in the estimates where the sediments contain more than 30% calcareous microscopic shells (those comprising, say, 50%, 70%, or more calcareous microscopic shells).
The many species of hard corals also secrete calcium carbonate to build coral reefs, so all the world’s coral reefs, both living and fossil, represent carbon stored by organic processes. According to Wikipedia, “many shallow-water corals contain symbiont unicellular organisms known as zooxanthellae within their tissues . . . Zooxanthellae are photosynthetic organisms, which contain chlorophyll a and chlorophyll c . . . During the day, they provide their host with the organic carbon products of photosynthesis, sometimes providing up to 90% of their host’s energy needs for metabolism, growth and reproduction. In return, they receive nutrients, carbon dioxide, and an elevated position with access to sunshine.”
So like the coccolithophorids discussed above, CO2 is food for these types of corals.
Much if not most of the world’s limestone deposits represent organically-derived carbon sinks as well. For example, in central Texas bright white limestone bluffs can be seen from miles away while driving along the highway, but upon close examination it’s evident that they’re made from countless numbers of accreted seashells which are made of calcium carbonate and which are made anew by the millions every day today (all of those zebra and quagga mussels whose shells make deep drifts along the shores of the Great Lakes in the U.S. are sequestering a lot of carbon for a long time, too).
It’s worth noting that much of the Earth’s chalk and limestone was deposited in the cretaceous period of 145 to 66 million years ago when there were no ice caps, the average atmospheric CO2 content was six times our pre-industrial level, the mean surface temperature was 4 °C above modern levels – and life was quite abundant and varied ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous ).
Calcium carbonate deposits like the ones described above lie across vast areas of the Earth’s crust and suggest that a large, long-running, and concerted program to build well-designed artificial reefs would be a win-win way to store carbon and build up valuable fish stocks. These man-made reefs can utilize inexpensive and scrap materials like concrete rubble that can be moved cheaply by barge to relatively barren ocean floors in suitable locations, of which there are many around the world. As is well known, decomissioned ships that have been properly prepared are used as well and it is often cheaper to dispose of them in this manner than it is to scrap them. Depending on their depth and location, it doesn’t take long for carbon-storing corals, barnacles, and shellfish to colonize the new reef, and the fish that are drawn to them grow in number and variety as it is colonized.
Although the science of artificial reefs is just in its infancy, this one study concluded that the use of inexpensive, locally-obtained materials for artificial reefs was just as effective at building up biomass as the most advanced artificial reef design: https://www.saba-news.com/design-of-the-optimal-artificial-reef-tested-on-saba/
Very funny.
THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE
THE EARTH IS NOT FARGILE
No Gile, the Earth is not far, but for some the truth about it is a long way off.
A stable climate was, without doubt, an essential precondition to the development of human civilisation. This, however, has made us prone to the expectation that a stable climate necessarily is a normal state and, if such stability should not continue, then that it is largely or, even, entirely our own fault.
We cannot control the climate, any more than the people of Iron Age Britain could, we can merely ameliorate its effects or understand it better, if we choose to. If we fail to do so, our civilisation could well end.
In that respect, our civilisation is less robust than is life on our planet. Coral exists, not because it is extremely fragile, but because it is a durable partnership between algae and animal that has withstood whatever has been thrown at them by a fickle climate for five hundred million years. To put that in perspective, that’s about a hundred thousand times longer than our metal-shaping civilisation.
The partnership that has driven civilisation is fundamentally one of us and thought. As we think deeply about the World, we have begun to understand it more, such as how to shape metals or how to harness the power of coal (the latter being the product of plants laid down long after coral first appeared). But there is a catch. Our thinking can also be counter-productive. Rather than observing the obvious, such as the healthy state of the Great Barrier Reef, we can descend into melancholic and entirely destructive catastrophism.
We have a choice. We can see the natural World for what it is and strive to protect it, as we should, or we can make our civilisation subservient to both the false prophets of the impending fake apocalypse and the false profit that comes with their nonsensical solutions.
The answer to marine conservation cannot be found by building offshore wind turbines or wave generation plants. Of course, the proponents of such a scheme don’t say that renewables on the Reef are a logical extension of their illogical thought, for they understand well enough the absurdity of such a proposal. Yet, that is fundamentally part of their pseudo-solution.
Why should we follow blindly those who won’t tell us that in order to achieve their Zero Carbon green nightmare, the Reef would need to be populated with unreliables? Either that, or the World will need to be depopulated!
Starfish mentioned. The wife and I took the glass-bottomed boat ride at Green Island, offshore from Cairns, on April 23, 1970. Starfish were in the news – “They’re killing the entire reef.” Must admit about half the photos I took were colorless.
How do I remember the date? On the 24th we took the rail-motor ride up past the falls.
At midday on the 25th, listening to the ANZAC Day ceremonies rebroadcast from Canberra, we were standing looking at the Curtain Fig Tree. That experience was the real memory, never to be forgotten.
I have to disagree that this great news shames climate alarmists. They have no shame.