Coral always recovers, and ocean temp changes are not unprecedented even during ninos.

Extraordinarily complacent and factually wrong. We are losing coral at the rate of 1% per year. Yes, it can be very resilient, if the cause of stress is removed. Recovery after a bleaching event takes around 10 years. The frequency of bleaching events on the Great Barrier reef has increased from about once every 27 years, to once every 5.9 years. Many reefs are already at the upper limit of their temperature range, and there is no reason to expect SSTs suddenly and magically to reverse the long term trend. If reefs are more frequently stressed beyond the ability to recover, the long term effect is coral death.

Tropical reef systems are transitioning to a new era in which the interval between recurrent bouts of coral bleaching is too short for a full recovery of mature assemblages. We analyzed bleaching records at 100 globally distributed reef locations from 1980 to 2016. The median return time between pairs of severe bleaching events has diminished steadily since 1980 and is now only 6 years. As global warming has progressed, tropical sea surface temperatures are warmer now during current La Niña conditions than they were during El Niño events three decades ago. Consequently, as we transition to the Anthropocene, coral bleaching is occurring more frequently in all El Niño–Southern Oscillation phases, increasing the likelihood of annual bleaching in the coming decades.

Science

No coral can withstand annual bleaching.

Corals are an ancient species and have survived worse than this before, goes the argument. This ignores the historical fact that the species extant today are very different to the tablose species that thrived in the Ordovician, all of which are now extinct. In fact corals have suffered several extinction events, including one caused by rising sea temperatures, according to the Global Reef Project

The climate of the globe is currently undergoing a rapid PETM-like event (a warming period), driven by greenhouse gases as in the PETM. Evidence now suggests that coral reefs will pass a point of no-return around 2040, and go into terminal decline, eventually disappearing at the end of this century. If so, based on past evidence, it is likely that many millions of years will pass before they return. 

Or do we need to add the Global Reef Project and the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies to the spouters of tosh?

Because it is plainly bollocks.

Obvious innit?

I have literally no answer to that devastatingly well-argued, thoroughly evidenced, laser-like,surgical dissection and critique. You have rocked my world, I'm off to read the latest science at Wattsupwiththat

You are OK with large scale loss of coral reefs (the 1997-1998 El-Nino alone wiped out 16% of all coral on the planet). ?.

The link between an observed increase in extreme weather events (e.g. droughts) and GW was elusive but has now been demonstrated.

So just to be clear, given that I included copious references, is it the World Health Organisation, Richard Tol, the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, Oxfam or Ross Garnaut who are spouting or publishing this 'tosh'?

Mar 14, 2018 at 3:18 PM | Phil Clarke

Is that one of Entropic Man's galloping gishes?

When were the phenomena known as el Nino and la Nina first named and why?

Were these phenomena appreciated or understood by Climate Science, to be more significant that a local issue when Mann fabricated his Hockey Stick?

The climate of the globe is currently undergoing a rapid PETM-like event (a warming period), driven by greenhouse gases as in the PETM. Evidence now suggests that coral reefs will pass a point of no-return around 2040, and go into terminal decline, eventually disappearing at the end of this century. If so, based on past evidence, it is likely that many millions of years will pass before they return. 

Or do we need to add the Global Reef Project and the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies to the spouters of tosh?

Mar 14, 2018 at 5:14 PM | Phil Clarke

Yes.

In the meantime, can they answer the simple questions I asked earlier, if you can't?
Mar 14, 2018 at 6:33 PM | golf charlie

Rhoda. I'm sorry to say that bleached corals do not always recover. Bleaching involves the expulsion of the symbiont zooxanthellae that constitute or make the majority of the food the coral polyps eat. If after bleaching the coral polyps do not recruit new zooxanthellae the corals starve to death.

Climate Change is by no means the only threat to the reefs, the crown of thorns starfish, pollution and overfishing also play a part in the decline. That said, a major environmental crisis is happening out there - out of the sight and mind of most people.

The reefs are amazing. They occupy a tiny proportion of the ocean surface, about the area of France, at the same time providing a home for a quarter of marine species. I've drift-dived the reefs of the Red Sea, an experience that will remain with me for the rest of my life, but one which may be denied to my grandchildren. If you are not impressed by the bio-diversity argument, the reefs have an immense commercial value, providing livelihoods to millions of people through fishing and tourism.

And if you don't care about that. Well exactly what do you care about?

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/04/dying-coral-reefs-threaten-livelihood-of-millions

If after bleaching the coral polyps do not recruit new zooxanthellae the corals starve to death.

Mar 14, 2018 at 10:34 PM | Supertroll

Yes, but..... new corals colonise dead corals, and coral reefs keep growing?

Wikipedia:
"Zooxanthellae are particularly associated with reef-building corals but they also inhabit other invertebrates and protists; their hosts include many sea anemones, jellyfish, nudibranchs, certain bivalve molluscs like the giant clam Tridacna, sponges and flatworms as well as some species of radiolarians and foraminiferans.[5] Many different species of zooxanthellae are present in host organisms, each species with its own adaptive capabilities and degree of tolerance of varying environmental factors.

A juvenile organism or newly established colony can acquire its zooxanthellae via sexual reproduction or directly from the environment. The egg from which the individual developed may have already been infected by zooxanthellae at the time of fertilisation, or cells of the symbiont may have been transferred from the mother in a period during which the larva was brooded by its parent. Alternatively, the new individual may acquire the zooxanthellae direct from sea water in which the dinoflagellates freely live at some stages of their life cycle. "

There does not seem to be a Zooxanthellae recruitment crisis, but I expect Climate Science could fabricate one for an appropriate fee.

"Climate Change is by no means the only threat to the reefs, the crown of thorns starfish ........ "
Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM | Phil Clarke

The Crown of Thorns Starfish was going to destroy the Great Barrier Reef in about 1980(?) I remember the TV programme. Does manmade CO2 cause Crown of Thorns Starfish to breed and multiply???

Next you will be telling us that "Biblical Plagues of Locusts" only started after Mann invented the Hockey Stick.

Heh, Phil, as I told Nick Stokes recently:

We know, we know, we know, we know,
You know, you know, you know, you know.
===========================

Phil Clarke, do you know how often outbreaks of Crown of Thorns Starfish occurred, before scuba diving became popular in the 1960s-1970s?

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/crown-of-thorns-starfish/history-of-outbreaks
History of crown-of-thorns outbreaks on the Great Barrier Reef

"Interviews with Torres Strait trochus* divers indicate that crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks may have occurred in the early part of the nineteenth century. However, the first documented outbreak was recorded at Green Island in 1962.

Crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks follow a pattern where they tend to spread north and south from the northern Cairns–Cooktown region, migrating south towards Innisfail between three and five years later, hitting the Townsville area five to eight years later, and reaching as far south as the Mackay region about 12–15 years after the start of the outbreak. There also appears to be a separate population near the Swains Reefs.

There have been four major outbreaks on the Great Barrier Reef since the 1960s (in the 1960s, late 1970s, early 1990s and 2010) and the time between the start of each outbreak has been 15–17 years."

*trochus-marine snail, popular with keepers of marine aquaria

Do the experts know why previous outbreaks ended, or do they like to cause a panic to generate publicity and funding, which they take, leaving no money for any genuine scientific research?

Mar 15, 2018 at 12:57 AM | Radical Rodent

Stay tuned, the Norwegian Blue Great Barrier Reef Parrot Fish, faces extinction, as Crown of Thorns Starfish can climb trees to eat their eggs.

And if you don't care about that. Well exactly what do you care about?

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/04/dying-coral-reefs-threaten-livelihood-of-millions

Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM | Phil Clarke

Ok Phil, I read the article can found this:
“We conducted our research in the marine park to understand the difference between these environments in the absence of fishing, then we used the results to create a tool for analysing reef fisheries.”

"Using the tool they developed, the research team found that a complete loss of reef complexity would lead to more than a three-fold decrease in the production of large-bodied reef fish."

It seems that the authors have proved that if you build houses on a field, cows can't be grown on it anymore. How much funding did they need?

And if you don't care about that. Well exactly what do you care about?

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/04/dying-coral-reefs-threaten-livelihood-of-millions

Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM | Phil Clarke

I do care about science based on facts. Climate Science needs to understand that Science does require some facts and evidence.

Over at Watts up With That, some reliable Climate Science reporting.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/14/inconvenient-data-fewer-and-fewer-people-die-from-climate-related-natural-disasters/

"Inconvenient data: Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters

Anthony Watts / 16 hours ago March 14, 2018

Bjørn Lomborg writes on his Facebook page of a reverse hockey stick graph, one that is certainly inconvenient to the gloom and doom message of climate alarmists who try to link regular weather events to climate. So, Lomborg plays their game, and the results are surprising.

Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters

This is clearly opposite of what you normally hear, but that is because we’re often just being told of one disaster after another – telling us how *many* events are happening. The number of reported events is increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, lower thresholds and better accessibility (the CNN effect). For instance, for Denmark, the database only shows events starting from 1976."

Climate Science is worse than we thought. The Climate is fine.

Lomborg, Facebook and Anthony Watts. A Holy Trinity of reliability.

Mar 15, 2018 at 10:03 AM | Phil Clarke

You have no evidence to defend any of the lies and faked up rubbish you have posted in the last 24 hours alone?

Why should anyone believe lying Greens and Environmentalists if they cannot acknowledge their own mistakes?

Climate Science should have read McIntyre Watts Lomberg etc years ago.

Would that be the Anthony Watts who for years condoned one of his mods - Dave Stealey - posting under the sockpuppet 'Smokey', pushing the site party line, while Dave was busily editing, delaying and deleting inconvenient posts. All the time insisting that his site policy was that users could ' elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion by people that stand behind their words.'

Tells you all you need to know. I wonder what Nigel Persaud makes of it all?

The decline is climate-disaster deaths is clearly a good thing. The trend - that started well before AGW was significant - continues, however one notices (assuming the graph is accurate) that the rate of decline slows markedly around 1975. I wonder what happened then?

In other news the cancer death rate has declined 26% since 1991. Cease all research immediately.

Religious asteroids decimated by rampant Queensland cane toadfish. Great Barrier Reef ecology in flux as reflux from Foster's lager wells creates loutish behaviour in barriers.

That would be the Anthony Watts who puts up posts of climate science with no endorsement so people can read it and debate whether it is good science or not.. And who lets anyone comment provided they behave according to the rules. I find sceptic sites more tolerant than warmist sites, personally.

Is there such a word as hypercilious? I find supercilious won't do. Is there a term for playing the man when the ball is too difficult? I'm gonna need that too.

Rhoda

He stopped letting me comment some time ago.

HTH

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century'

- Anthony Watts 2010, in a 'report' still available for download.

The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention –  it is a straw man argument.

- Anthony Watts, on his website a year later.

He twists and turns like a twisty turny thing. And whatever happened to the 'bombshell' peer-reviewed paper that was going to reduce the US temperature trend by a half, announced with such fanfare in 2012?

Ho ho. He is clearly a liar and a hypocrite, but good for the odd giggle.

Mar 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM | Phil Clarke

As you keep proving yourself, the Green Party and Climate Scientists to be dishonest, why do you keep doing it?

William M Connolley has corrupted Wikipedia and been banned. His dishonesty has been exposed by Anthony Watts. Were you banned for similar reasons?

You can't even admit mistakes you have made in trusting so-called experts on this thread.

You don't actually have any honest science to offer. Does this represent your ability, Climate Science, the Green Party or all 3?