Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

See above re lobbying. It's amazing what you'll ignore from those with obvious vested interests, in your continued efforts to tear down the science.

I'm sorry that the IPCC hasn't met your purity test.

I'm amazed (yet again) that you can only see the lobbying & vested interests on one side. If acknowledging dissent from a minority of otherwise respected scientists means "tearing down the science," then the majority position is far too fragile to be relied upon. Acknowledgment of contrary positions, followed by science-based rebuttals, is part of the scientific method. There's nothing impure about it, and there should be nothing to fear from it. Unless it challenges pre-determined outcomes desired by vested interests. You can't have it both ways. Decrying "vested interests" and at the same time professing objectivity rings awfully hollow.

[Buzzman]

The issue with Larcombe (Ridd's co-writer) is that he claims increased levels of sedimentation related to human-induced runoffs are having no effect on reef quality or resilience, based on his own research into sedimentation deposits.

This is again cherry-picking of the available data to make a point, rather than expose a real issue of concern. It's not the sediments that are the sole problem (although they are important) as much as it is the nutrients carried in the run-off stream, many of which are bound to sediments.

The issue is the fertilisers, especially nitrogen, and the turbidity in the water column after rainfall events (suspended sediments), that are the issues. Focusing on sediments is just sleight of hand to distract from the main issues.

It's abundantly clear from other researchers' works that the rain events, flooding events, raised nitrogen levels, increase in Crown of Thorns, are all inter-connected, and that this overall is having a negative impact on the reef. And is directly related to post-Colonial land clearing and the increased run-off, increased turbidity and increased nutrient load in the water column that results from that.

There's further research on the existence of chlorophyll a in the reef cores, from both inner and outer reefs, that supports the increased nitrogen/photosynthesis since Colonial times hypothesis

Ridd and Larcombe's (2003) central anti-claim was that "there was no GBR in pre-human times" so how could Pandolfi et al say with any relevance that early humans in Australia had had any impact on the reef - what RM refers to as "scraping it with their nulla nullas and bullroarers" (which is in and of itself a complete nonsense).

It appears as far as I can see from looking at the original study and Ridd/Larcombe's critique of the methodology that this was their main issue of complaint.

In Pandolfi et al's chart of the relative rates of decline of global reefs, they show the GBR as being degraded by some percentage (like 28% or whatever) around 10,000 years ago. R/L's point being that indigenous people had been in Australia for longer than that, and the reef as it exists was only formed after the last glacial period which ended about 8,000 years ago, when sea levels were substantially lower.

Have to be honest, I'm not sure I understood the science or the critique of it, but can't find a rebuttal from Pandolfi that directly references this. Not saying there isn't one, but just that I can't find it. But it's important to note that it was only the Moreton Bay reefs that were so described, so, potentially, there could have been indigenous impacts. Perhaps related to changes to landscape caused by firestick farming. Dunno, pure speculation on my part. But certainly no-one has EVER suggested the aborigiens were "scraping the reefs with their bullroarers". Pure hyperbole and utterly irrelevant.

[For the record, a bullroarer is a short flat-ish piece of wood with a hole in that is attached to a string and whirled around the head to create an eerie 'roaring' sound, used for communication and during ceremonies. Since you asked...]

But other researchers in the field, in subsequent articles, have expounded on the whole 'relative decline' issue, and it seems to me the two camps are arguing different issues.

R/L claim the reef is dynamic and goes thru cycles of decline and rebuilding, and that cyclonic activity is a large part of this, which is evident from reef rubble of Cairns they've studied. Ergo, their conclusion is that AGW and human activities are probably not the principal cause of any reef decline. "It's all natural cycles". Quote unquote. Not "caused by human activity". Quote unquote.

But that argument falls down when the suspended nutrients in the runoff events are considered, along with the turbidity levels (and lack of photosynthetic activity as a a result) and the apparent causal relationship between these events and spikes in CoTS populations and the effect this has on localised reefs.

And this is futher countered by the science that demonstrates those previous 'recovery cycles' after Ice Age melting, exposure due to Ice Ages, and more recent cyclonic activity patterns, happened over much longer time scales than what we are expecting the reef will have to adapt to over the next 50 years or so.

Essentially, R/L argue that the reef has already demonstrated over the observable time frame that it is resilient and bounces back.

The problem with this hypothesis (and that's all it is) is it has done so without any other interference by humans, and without the effect of AGW speeding up the time cycle within which it will have to adapt.

What other scholars (separate to Pandolfi et al) argue is that it is largely the run off issue that is adding *additional* stress, plus the global warming heat stress that is (likely) the cause of the widespread bleachings.

What the original Pandolfi et al (2003) article showed was that all the other reefs in the world were even more degraded, and that this has been happening over a longer time scale - a 'gradual decline' - compared to the 'tipping point' situation the other (collective group) is arguing for the GBR.

So basically the consensus view is that the gradual decline that was already evident (i.e. natural) has been accelarated by human activity, and current planning (e.g. Reef2050) is designed to maintain status quo at least, to avoid any catastrophic 'crash' of the reef systems that would have an immediate and detrimental economic and ecological effect on QLD and Australia (and the world).

[The "likely" is to accommodate the scientific and mathematical/probability 'uncertainties' that exist in modelling dynamic natural systems.]

But the bottom line is, Ridd claimed the reef did not exist in pre-indigenous times, which clearly from the cores, it did. And Larcombe's later papers acknowledge/clarify this...

Larcombe's solo research papers use his knowledge of sedimentation to argue that their is no human activity impacting on the reef, which clearly, all the other evidence refutes.

So while I'm no clearer to understanding 'precisely' why Ridd was sacked (none of that stuff is readily available) I'm as a certain as a non-scientist can be that whatever his complaints about the methodologies, the underlying claims by the AGW-accepting scientists are more likely correct than his assertion that they are not.

What nobody can predict with any accuracy - and everyone seems to agree to this - there is no way to know for certain how badly the reef will be affected by AGW (if we don't hit net zero and keep under 1.5), just that it will 'most probably' be seriously affected.

It's one of those 'you need a time machine' to be able to 'prove' it conclusively enough to satisfy the 'doubters' so it is, in effect, unprovable.

So we're back to "accept" or "deny".

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm curious how Pandolfi came to the conclusion that Australian Aborigines destroyed 25% of the Inner Barrier Reef. What did they use, boomerangs and bullroarers?

I'm also curious how Ridd came to the conclusion that sea levels have dropped 1.5 meters in the last 4,000 years. A cursory search suggests that sea levels world-wide have risen in the last 4,000 years, albeit slowly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

He didn't.

Once again this unsourced, unattributed accusation comes directly from propoganda written by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a (non)think tank primarily funded by Hancock Prospecting, designed to radicalize (primarly) innocent and gullible members of society.

"The IPA has been significantly funded by Hancock Prospecting, of which Gina Rinehart is the Executive Chair. Hancock Prospecting paid the IPA $2.3 million in financial year 2016 and $2.2 million in financial year 2017, which represents one-third to a half of the IPA's total revenue in those years. These payments were not disclosed in IPA annual reports, and Rinehart's daughter Bianca Hope Heyward submitted in court that the Hancock Prospecting payments were credited to Rinehart in an individual capacity. Gina Rinehart was made a life member of the IPA in November 2016."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...ces_and_donors



How do I know he didn't come to that conclusion? Because I found the conclusions to which he came, in 2001, the source of the IPA's spurious and dishonest, and RM's gullible, claim.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/3084305

or

https://faculty.washington.edu/steve...verfishing.pdf


"...We exploited data from many disciplinesthat span the period over which anthropogenic changes may have occurred. Because our hypothesis is that humans have been disturbing marine ecosystems since they first learned how to fish, our time periods need to begin well before the human occupation or
European colonization of a coastal region.Broadly, our data fall into four categories and time periods:

1) Paleoecological records from marine sediments from about 125,000 years ago to the present, coinciding with the rise of modern Homo sapiens.

2) Archaeological records from human coastal seftlements occupied after about 10,000 years before the present (yr B.P.) when worldwide sea level approached present levels. These document human exploitation of coastal resources for food and materials by past populations that range from
small-scale aboriginal societies to towns, cities, and empires..."



It bears no resemblance to the BS in RM's IPA propoganda 'report'.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If DeSmogBlog is ever looking for new staff, you guys ^^^ would be absolute sitters for the job.


To bad there's one teeny eeny little thing you guys forget about Ridd. He's claim that the reef will do just fine post 2016/17 while all "your" guys were curled up and crying for their momma's over its demise was the correct call.


All you guys have demonstrated is that scientists with the unique combination of expert knowledge and a moral compass who refuse to sell themselves out, are in short supply.

Except none of it comes from Desmog...

Except that, according to the people who systematically study and assess the condition of the reef, it's not 'doing just fine'.

Except in the minds of the deluded.


Yep Ridd 's paradigmatic of one possessing a 'shining moral compass'.

To wit,

https://www.gofundme.com/f/peter-rid...tion-fund-2019

Now at 3/4 of a million. Pretty good return for selling something as useless as 'scientific credentials'...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Except none of it comes from Desmog...

Except that, according to the people who systematically study and assess the condition of the reef, it's not 'doing just fine'.

Except in the minds of the deluded.


Yep Ridd 's paradigmatic of one possessing a 'shining moral compass'.

To wit,

https://www.gofundme.com/f/peter-rid...tion-fund-2019

Now at 3/4 of a million. Pretty good return for selling something as useless as 'scientific credentials'...

Ridd's GoFundMe was to raise funds to fight "Big Education". He had no control over the amount of donations. I can only assume the amount of support he received annoys you.



And again I'll ask. What date was it when UNESCO officially declared the reef endangered?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

He didn't.

Once again this unsourced, unattributed accusation comes directly from propoganda written by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a (non)think tank primarily funded by Hancock Prospecting, designed to radicalize (primarly) innocent and gullible members of society.

"The IPA has been significantly funded by Hancock Prospecting, of which Gina Rinehart is the Executive Chair. Hancock Prospecting paid the IPA $2.3 million in financial year 2016 and $2.2 million in financial year 2017, which represents one-third to a half of the IPA's total revenue in those years. These payments were not disclosed in IPA annual reports, and Rinehart's daughter Bianca Hope Heyward submitted in court that the Hancock Prospecting payments were credited to Rinehart in an individual capacity. Gina Rinehart was made a life member of the IPA in November 2016."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...ces_and_donors



How do I know he didn't come to that conclusion? Because I found the conclusions to which he came, in 2001, the source of the IPA's spurious and dishonest, and RM's gullible, claim.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/3084305

or

https://faculty.washington.edu/steve...verfishing.pdf


"...We exploited data from many disciplinesthat span the period over which anthropogenic changes may have occurred. Because our hypothesis is that humans have been disturbing marine ecosystems since they first learned how to fish, our time periods need to begin well before the human occupation or
European colonization of a coastal region.Broadly, our data fall into four categories and time periods:

1) Paleoecological records from marine sediments from about 125,000 years ago to the present, coinciding with the rise of modern Homo sapiens.

2) Archaeological records from human coastal seftlements occupied after about 10,000 years before the present (yr B.P.) when worldwide sea level approached present levels. These document human exploitation of coastal resources for food and materials by past populations that range from
small-scale aboriginal societies to towns, cities, and empires..."



It bears no resemblance to the BS in RM's IPA propoganda 'report'.

You seem very hung up on the IPA. Did a member run over your dog or something?


Gina Rinehart's (inherited) wealth is primarily from iron ore. You know, the stuff used to make your car, phone, coffee machine and lots of other stuff.



Aboriginals are nomadic and had no established villages. They did not cultivate food or domesticate livestock. They used dug out canoes for fishing and rarely strayed far off the coast. By today's scale, there wasn't even that many of them in total, let alone living along the shores of the GBR. Yet they damaged "an estimated" 1/4 of the reef?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... You'd need to ask the authour that ...
... Well Ridd claimed he "said" it and it hasn't been refuted, apparently. In my interpretation the paper itself was pretty much nonsensical based on topic alone and it did assign loss of reef health from "pristine" due to "hunter/gatherers". As SailOar noted (in the case of the GBR), what did they do? Use boomerangs (which were mainly used for ceremonial purposes) and bullroars (whatever they are) to flay the reef?

In their response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018), the [9] authors write:

Appendix A
Rebuttal of Larcombe and Ridd's (2018) criticism of recent influential publications on the GBR. We did not address the criticisms of the Pandolfi et al. (2003) and the Bellwood et al. (2004) papers here, not because we agree with their criticisms but we felt it more appropriate for the authors of these earlier studies to write such response.

Here ➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...425?via%3Dihub

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... And again I'll ask. What date was it when UNESCO officially declared the reef endangered?

Your implication is correct, the GBR's status remain "under review".

The decision on the reef’s status was deferred, until the next World Heritage Committee meeting in 2023; and Australia has been required to send a progress report, to the World Heritage Committee, by February 1, 2022.

UNESCO [UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)] first warned in 2014 that an “in danger” listing was being considered, for the Great Barrier Reef. Furious lobbying, and a conservation plan [“Reef 2050 Plan”] bought the Australian government some time, but improvements in the reef’s health haven’t come quick enough. In 2019, an Australian government report on the GBR concluded that the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef had deteriorated, from poor to very poor.
On June 21/21, the UNESCO committee recommended that the Great Barrier Reef be placed on a list of World Heritage sites that are “in danger,” citing climate change as “the most serious threat” to the site.
The move prompted another fierce backlash, from the Australian government.
On July 23, the 21-country World Heritage Committee agreed to delay the decision, and instead asked Australia to deliver a report, on the state of the reef in Feb. 2022 for reconsideration, with the vote on the reef’s status now slated for 2023.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Your implication is correct, the GBR's status remain "under review".

The decision on the reef’s status was deferred, until the next World Heritage Committee meeting in 2023; and Australia has been required to send a progress report, to the World Heritage Committee, by February 1, 2022.

UNESCO [UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)] first warned in 2014 that an “in danger” listing was being considered, for the Great Barrier Reef. Furious lobbying, and a conservation plan [“Reef 2050 Plan”] bought the Australian government some time, but improvements in the reef’s health haven’t come quick enough. In 2019, an Australian government report on the GBR concluded that the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef had deteriorated, from poor to very poor.
On June 21/21, the UNESCO committee recommended that the Great Barrier Reef be placed on a list of World Heritage sites that are “in danger,” citing climate change as “the most serious threat” to the site.
The move prompted another fierce backlash, from the Australian government.
On July 23, the 21-country World Heritage Committee agreed to delay the decision, and instead asked Australia to deliver a report, on the state of the reef in Feb. 2022 for reconsideration, with the vote on the reef’s status now slated for 2023.

Now that's funny. The "2019 Australian Government Report" is this one


The rating you quote is from the last section titled "Long term outlook". Which should come as no surprise considering the document is compiled by the very types Ridd is trying to warn everyone about. For a report about the health of the GBR and it's many aspects, the constant references to climate change take up far too much of the content. This report also rides on the coat tails of 2016/2017 bleaching and 2011 and 2017 cyclones. What they've essentially done is taken a combination of factors that did bite into the health of the reef and have then projected those same factors forward (and worsening, of course, due to climate change) and, hence, the rating.



Which perfectly explains why there has been a stay of execution.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm also curious how Ridd came to the conclusion that sea levels have dropped 1.5 meters in the last 4,000 years. A cursory search suggests that sea levels world-wide have risen in the last 4,000 years, albeit slowly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...Probably as a result of his 30 years experience as a marine physicist would be my guess. The reef's big but it aint as big as Australia. My basic geography skills also tell me the "Ring of Fire" passes to the east and north so tectonic plate movement may have something to do with it....

The assertion in the article you posted was that sea level has fallen globally over the past 4,000 years, not just in Australia. I've presented evidence that suggests otherwise. Do you have any data to support your "guess"?

[GordMay]

What SailOar said.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... Sea levels began to rise 18,000 years ago sea levels after the arrival of Aborigines. They would have witnessed the very dramatic rise in sea levels that occurred up to 10,000 years ago with coastlines eroded by up to 50 metres each year. Evidence from geology suggests that sea-levels have since fallen globally by 1.5 metres over the last 4,000 years ...

What evidence from geology?

According to NASA [for instance]:
“... From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia ...”
➥ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how...-the-previous/

Or, according to the Australian Department of Climate Change [for instance]:
“... Over the last 6,000–7,000 years sea level around Australia has been relatively stable, which has generally allowed current landforms and ecosystems to persist without large scale modifications ...”
➥ https://www.environment.gov.au/syste...ull-report.pdf

"... Based on geological data, global average sea level may have
risen at an average rate of about 0.5 mm/yr over the last 6,000
years and at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr over the last
3,000 years ...”
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo.../03/TAR-11.pdf



Relative sea level change refers to how the height of the ocean rises or falls, relative to the land at a particular location. Tide gauges measure relative sea level change at points along the coast, andrepresent a combination of absolute sea level change, and any local land movement
In contrast, absolute sea level change refers to the height of the ocean surface above the center of the earth, without regard to whether nearby land is rising or falling. Satellite instruments measure absolute sea level change over nearly the entire ocean surface.
On average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ridd's GoFundMe was to raise funds to fight "Big Education". He had no control over the amount of donations. I can only assume the amount of support he received annoys you.

Why would that 'annoy' me? (rhetorical question) I think the concept of money is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind, is specifically designed as a means of power and control, and should be abolished. I use it as little as possible.

Interesting to note who makes all those 100.00 donations to the 'defense fund' of the sold-out Ridd. Which he can use as he pleases. Which he probably does. Because his lawyer's fees are probably picked up by the IPA. (see, I can do it too) Some dude named 'Anonymous'. Generally known (except to the clueless) to mean a vested-interest 'patron' who wants to avoid exposure.

Also, your assumption should be taken as just a childish diversionary ploy, since it was you who brought up the supposed imbalance of the incomes between Ridd and the hypothetically 'bought off' respectfully credentialled climate scientists.



And again I'll ask. What date was it when UNESCO officially declared the reef endangered?

And I should care about that why? Oh wait, I'll bet it's yet another conspiracy theory, much along the lines of the 'Big Education' one...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You seem very hung up on the IPA. Did a member run over your dog or something?

Says the one whose only supposed support for the ridiculous, discredited views of the dispicable Ridd come from an IPA propoganda lie-fest.

Are you a member of the IPA? Do you own stock in Hancock Prospecting?
That'd go a long way toward explaining your selective, wilful ignorance and obfuscation of the truth.


Gina Rinehart's (inherited) wealth is primarily from iron ore. You know, the stuff used to make your car, phone, coffee machine and lots of other stuff.

So what? That has relevance how? (another rhetorical question)

More meaningless illogic...

Aboriginals are nomadic and had no established villages. They did not cultivate food or domesticate livestock. They used dug out canoes for fishing and rarely strayed far off the coast. By today's scale, there wasn't even that many of them in total, let alone living along the shores of the GBR. Yet they damaged "an estimated" 1/4 of the reef?

Again, unsupported BS. Give us the citation showing exactly where that statement was made by the authors maligned by the IPA's propoganda piece.

Or any other of the cherrypicked misinformation 'fact'oids contained therein.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

If acknowledging dissent from a minority of otherwise respected scientists means "tearing down the science," then the majority position is far too fragile to be relied upon. Acknowledgment of contrary positions, followed by science-based rebuttals, is part of the scientific method.

Says who? I'm expecting that you haven't or won't read the latest IPCC report; so how do you know the dissenting positions haven't already been challenged and refuted, even if indirectly? Just because there isn't a tabbed large-print Q&A section addressing every published dissent doesn't mean they have not been considered.

And once again - the IPCC isn't where these competing ideas get presented and fought over, the IPCC was set up to address the concerns of the overwhelming majority, and of the governments that were persuaded. If you want to see how the dissenting opinions have been presented and addressed, read the scientific journals.

Decrying "vested interests" and at the same time professing objectivity rings awfully hollow.

Science isn't business. One seeks knowledge, one seeks profit. Nothing intrinsically evil about either; it's what they are supposed to be doing. But pretending that they are equally motivated to distort, lie, persuade is ridiculous.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The assertion in the article you posted was that sea level has fallen globally over the past 4,000 years, not just in Australia. I've presented evidence that suggests otherwise. Do you have any data to support your "guess"?

Originally Posted by GordMay

What SailOar said.


What evidence from geology?

According to NASA [for instance]:
“... From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia ...”
➥ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how...-the-previous/

Or, according to the Australian Department of Climate Change [for instance]:
“... Over the last 6,000–7,000 years sea level around Australia has been relatively stable, which has generally allowed current landforms and ecosystems to persist without large scale modifications ...”
➥ https://www.environment.gov.au/syste...ull-report.pdf

"... Based on geological data, global average sea level may have
risen at an average rate of about 0.5 mm/yr over the last 6,000
years and at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr over the last
3,000 years ...”
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo.../03/TAR-11.pdf



Relative sea level change refers to how the height of the ocean rises or falls, relative to the land at a particular location. Tide gauges measure relative sea level change at points along the coast, andrepresent a combination of absolute sea level change, and any local land movement
In contrast, absolute sea level change refers to the height of the ocean surface above the center of the earth, without regard to whether nearby land is rising or falling. Satellite instruments measure absolute sea level change over nearly the entire ocean surface.
On average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago.

I assumed that may be a typo, like this one...

Creation of the Modern Day GBR

The current form of The Great Barrier Reef was created following the most recent ice age. Sea level rose quickly, pushing the coastline back 100s of meters every years4,9

Good to see you alarmist types are denying the sea has not stopped rising in the last twenty thousand years. That's a step to redemption I suppose.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Again, unsupported BS. Give us the citation showing exactly where that statement was made by the authors maligned by the IPA's propoganda piece.

Or any other of the cherrypicked misinformation 'fact'oids contained therein.

Not my job to do your research.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I assumed that may be a typo, like this one...

.

What makes you think either statement is a typo?