Great Barrier Reef

14 Dec 2018

AGW activists and the media like to repeat certain overblown mantras regarding global warming. These include 'poley' bears (living close to the North Pole) starving as a result of declining ice floes - even though polar bears can swim long distances. Last year's heat wave (a magnificent summer in most parts of Britain) was a field day for the alarmists - but somewhat spoiled by the cold November and snow storms that struck large parts of the US and central Europe. Russia tends to get left out of these discussions. The PKK climate scientists in Germany have attempted to defend their global warming mantra by actually blaming the cold weather on global warming causing changes in the jet stream - totally ignoring the evidence that movements in the jet stream are influenced by incoming plasma (the solar wind). As ice in the Arctic is increasing at record levels (as far as recent years are concerned) and South Pacific islands are growing rather than shrinking, it is worth having a look at that other great doom saying belief so beloved of politicos and pushed to the brink by activists, the bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef. Go to .... where we learn from a comment that back in the 1960s enterprising boatmen used to take tourists to the reef but were inclined to switch location sometimes as a result of bleaching. It seems the people on the ground knew all about bleaching events long before the reef scientists decided to pitch up in favour of CAGW and blame it all on modern global warming. The little people don't matter in the eyes of the great and the good so this is all down to urban myth (lies and misinterpretation). Unfortunately, one of the reef scientists is an honourable man and he has been working on the Great Barrier Reef for most of his life, one Peter Ridd. He says it is a well known fact that corals can adapt to warmer conditions, and even at this moment reef scientists are in the process of back tracking on some of their more alarmist views. Are they frightened of being caught out and exposed to public ridicule? Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants called zooanthellae give the coral energy from the sun by photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water becomes suddenly warmer these little plants become effectively poisonous to the coral and the coral throws out the plants turning the coral white. In other words the coral bleaches (becomes white, lacking the microscopic plants). Most of the time the coral will recover from the bleaching and here is their trick. They take in new zooanthellae that floats around in the water quite naturally and can select different species of zooanthellae to be better suited to hotter sea water. This is why bleaching events very often occur during El Nino/La Nina events - incoming warm or cool waters from the central Pacific.

Ridd goes on to say the world has been completely misled by scientists on the affect of bleaching and they rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. It seems like coral bleaching falls into the same pattern as polar bear numerology and the benefits of growing palm oil to replace fossil fuels.

Over at ... is a post by Xavier. He asks, 'how does the Sun drive climate change?' His answe is interesting but probably not all the story. He then begins with a little history session (a couple of paragraphs that may appeal). He says it is all part of the catastrophist versus uniformitarian conflict that has seriously affected much of science in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would personally disagree with this deduction as uniformitarianism is inherent to both sides of this debate. Either theory can be mangled to fit into a gradualist agenda. He says the idea of orbital changes has swayed like a seesaw with ideas favouring  a greenhouse explanation (or GHGs, not just co2 but water vapour was popular at one time), often more popular than orbital change. Nowadays the consensus theory appears to combine both - but he explains how this came about. After the Milankovitch theory was brought in from out of the cold the orbital change people seem to have won the argument. Not to be deterred the GHG people (falsely according to Xavier) flatly rejected a significant climatic effect from periodic solar changes and hence we have the combined consensus view, a bit of a dogs breakfast. If one is antagonistic to Milankovitch the only other explanation on the table is GHGs influencing climate - so be careful what you wish for. Xaview goes on to show, over several pages, that orbital changes are the most likely explanation. What is absent are ideas based on the electric universe - or rather, the plasma universe. Is the choice just between GHGs and orbital changes? Are there legitimate other explanations?