No Grief For the Great Barrier Reef, Only For the Warmists !

Oh God....spare us from the inflated, brain-dead predictions of Australia's biggest global warmist dickhead!  You know who I'm talking about by now if you've been a regular reader of my blog postings over the 3 and half years.  Yes.....Tim Flannery, Australia's very own Climate Commissioner. The man who was given the job by another douche bag, our very own inept Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Tim, ambles into the Climate Commission Office only 3 days a week and takes home his ill-gotten gains of $180,000 per. So now his office has a new Climate Report released and I see this fellow (right) again this morning spreading his climate alarmism on channel 9s TODAY SHOW duping, the also not so smart, Karl Stefenovic into believing that there still is global warming going on, the seas will rise and the Great Barrier Reef is bleaching and will die if we ignore his dire warnings. He needs a good Bitch-Slapping!

Let's get to the real truth. Not the fabricated, government grant-induced conclusions that another alarmist residing at The University of Queensland has maintained over and over again. He's enjoyed earning that largess swimming around the Reef for the past thirteen years at $80,000-$100,000 per year. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is the Director of the Global Change Institute and Professor of Marine Science he heads a large research laboratory (over 30 researchers and students) that focus on how global warming and ocean acidification are affecting and will affect coral reefs. Obviously, living in his ''Ivory Tower'' he hasn't read anything in the last 9 months that would make him shockingly aware that there hasn't been any appreciable warming (0.03 degrees) in the last 17 years!  Coral reefs are recovering from bleaching and acidification isn't a problem for sea creatures in general. Ove, you've got to read more, not just the crap your fellow deluded warmists have been publishing!

Here' some of Ove's warming alarmist claims over the past 13 years:  2000 - ''Reef building corals are likely to become very rare if warming continues. We now have more evidence that corals cannot fully recover from bleaching episodes as the overall damage is irreparable.''  2006 - ''No-one with any credibility in this field is doubting that we're seeing the signs bleaching as a major change to an ecosystem due to climate change. About 30 to 40% of coral on the Great Barrier Reef could die within a month.'' (By this time there was no warming for 9 years)  2009 - ''As we've seen CO2 rising, the Great barrier Reef has started to slow its calcification.''  (Implying that acidification of the oceans has started)  2011 -  ''We will see large-scale mortality of reef-building corals (30% or more) and many other organisms of reefs. Reefs in will take more than 10 years to recover.''  2013 -  How does Professor Hoegh-Guldberg respond to people who contrast his predictions with reality? Andrew Bolt was subjected to baseless slander and called a bad journalist, and a climate denialist for deliberately misleading Australians by listing Ove's dud predictions. So much for Truth for Truth's sake, if you can't take the heat...stay out of the water. ( low left )

However, now a government-run research body has found in an extensive study of corals spanning more than 1000km of Australia's coastline that the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for their growth. ( see my June 19, 2011 posting: "Warming Gives Us More reefs !) The findings undermine the blanket predictions of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Tim Flannery that global warming will devastate coral reefs, and add to a growing body of evidence showing corals are more resilient than previously thought and recover from bleaching sooner than expected. The study by the commonwealth-funded Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), peer-reviewed findings of which are published in the leading Journal of Science Today, examined 27 samples from six locations from the West Australian coast off Geraldton to offshore from Darwin.

The researchers found that, contrary to their own expectations, warmer waters had not negatively affected coral growth. Quite the opposite, in fact: for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years.. For their northern samples, where waters are the warmist and have changed the least, coral growth still increased, but not by as much. ''Those reefs have actually been able to take advantage of the warmer conditions, and that would also apply to the Great Barrier Reef'' said Janice Lough, a senior AIMS research scientist and one of the study's authors. Maria Byrne, a professor of marine biology at Sydney University, said after reading the paper that its findings ''made perfect sense''. She added, ''Temperature rules metabolism, so it's a no-brainer that if you get more temperature you will get more metabolism.''  Yesterday's denialism is today's no-brainer....hmmm!

More unexpected news!  ''Global warming could actually mean fish breed better,'' says a new paper published in Global Change Biology.  Author, Gabrielle M. Miller adds, ''Increased CO2 stimulates reproduction in coral reef fish. This discounts what many marine experts kept saying, that ocean acidification is predicted to negatively impact the reproduction of many marine species, either by reducing fertilization success or diverting energy from reproductive effort.'' I guess CO2 is like Viagra for fish. These researchers investigated the effects of near-future levels of pCO2 on the reproductive performance of two types of Anemone-fish from the Great Barrier Reef. Breeding pairs were held under three CO2 treatment levels (Present-day Control (430atm), Moderate (585atm) and High (1030atm) for a 9 month period that included the summer breeding season. The increased CO2 dramatically stimulated breeding activity that resulted in pairs in the High CO2 group having their reproductive output 82% higher than the Control group and 50% higher than the Moderate group.

Well the BEAT (of the ''No Warming'' drum) goes on. Last month the diehard warmists running the British Broadcasting Company finally conceded what the Australian Broadcasting Company still can't.  They announced, ''We concede that since 1998, there has been an unexplained 'standstill' in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.''  Mind you, this was 2 months after their own British Meteorological Office came out to admit the reality of no warming staring them and their data in the face. Now, to add the coup de grace to the global warming movement, Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, says the question now is not whether global warming has paused, but whether global cooling has started.

She writes, ''Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ''pause'' to the actual cooling trend since 2002. This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the 'climate shift' (circa 2001/2002) posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 year pause with CO2 playing no part at all.'' Christopher Monckton, who has been consistently mocked for his anti-warming stance over the past decade, declares the climate models of warmists are now broken!  Looking at the temperature chart , by superimposing the temperature curve and its least-squares linear-regression trend demonstrates that there has been no statistically-significant warming in 17 years and 4 months.

The Way I See It.....it is better to focus on the ever-widening discrepancy between predicted and observed warming rates. The IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report backcasts the interval of 34 computer models'' warming projections to 2005. Since then the world should have been warming at a rate equivalent to 2.33C/century. Instead, it has been cooling at a rate equivalent to a statistically, somewhat insignificant 0.87C/century. I'd like to see Al Gore choking on those stats.

Lord Monckton confirms the cooling but says the real issue is the discrepancy between the ''science is settled smugness, the debate is over'' climate models and the real ''inconvenient truth'' revealed by the data. The graph above asserts that the difference between the models and reality is now statistically significant. To those dogmatic warmists shouting ''I accept the science'' we can only respond: ''I wish you would.'''