Klimadebatt

Klimadebatt => Aktører og hendelser => Topic started by: Telehiv on 23.04.2019, 10:34:53

Title: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: Telehiv on 23.04.2019, 10:34:53
Selv om norske MSM-media systematisk unngår å omtale saken, er altså Cook University i Australia dømt for å ha brutt lovverket for ytringsfrihet ifm. avskjedigelsen av professor Peter Ridd. Avskjedigelsen kom bl.a. etter at Ridd ønsket bedre kvalitetskontroll av påstandene om at Great Barrier Reef faktisk var katastrofalt truet av klimaendringene, og at dette var menneskeskapt.

(https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Peter-Ridd3.png)
Professor Peter Ridd, marin geofysiker

Det er nå lagt ut en podcast der Ridd selv orienterer om saken:
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/fired-for-telling-the-truth-about-climate-alarmism-guest-peter-ridd

WUWT har slått opp saken flere ganger tidligere; senest ifm. med denne podcasten:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/23/podcast-fired-for-telling-the-truth-about-climate-alarmism-guest-peter-ridd/

Tidligere oppslag på WUWT er bl.a. disse:
- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/17/hubris-on-steroids-jcu-uni-digging-in-on-peter-ridd-decision/
- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/victory-climate-skeptic-scientist-peter-ridd-wins-big/
- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/29/dr-peter-ridd-vs-james-cook-university-arguments-completed/

Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: Administrator on 23.04.2019, 12:15:07
Fins det aviser som har omtalt dette som ikke er satt i bås (fortjent eller ikke) som høyreekstreme?
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: stjakobs on 23.04.2019, 19:04:51
The Guardian har nevnt saken: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/05/peter-ridds-sacking-pushes-the-limit-of-academic-freedom (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/05/peter-ridds-sacking-pushes-the-limit-of-academic-freedom)

The Spectator (Australia) har vist til dommen (bak betalingsmur - Try A Month Free):  https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/peter-ridd-has-defeated-the-climate-inquisition-thanks-to-you/ (https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/peter-ridd-has-defeated-the-climate-inquisition-thanks-to-you/)

Andrew Bolt har tatt opp dette flere ganger (Sky News Australia). Her er ett eksempel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X3ljAiDSvQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X3ljAiDSvQ)



Title: Re: Prof. Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten - Dr. Sheliagh Cronin slutter i protest
Post by: Telehiv on 20.05.2019, 12:26:24
En kollega av Peter Ridd ved James Cook University har nå sagt opp sin stilling i protest mot behandlingen av Ridd, og sier hun skammer seg over å ikke ha gjort dette før.

(https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sheliagh-Cronin.jpg)
Dr. Sheliagh Cronin

Link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/19/academic-quits-in-disgust-over-university-sacking-of-peter-ridd/
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: PetterT on 09.06.2019, 11:53:35
Det er mange klimarealister som er blitt trakassert i jobben. Her er en til:
The Curious Case of Dr. Miskolczi
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/
Title: Re: Utdrivingen av Peter Ridd og NASAs blokkering av Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi
Post by: Telehiv on 09.06.2019, 15:58:07
Det er mange klimarealister som er blitt trakassert i jobben. Her er en til:
The Curious Case of Dr. Miskolczi
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/

Som det kommenteres i PetterTs linkede artikkel, så sluttet Ferenc Miskolczi hos NASA i 2005 etter at han ble nektet å publisere materiale som reiste tvil om det teoretiske grunnlaget for den rådende klimamodellering både på dette og andre områder.

Denne artikkelen er nå 2 år gammel, men orienterer greit om Dr. Ferenc Miskolczis brannfakkel i den teoretiske drivhus-diskusjonen, bl.a. om hans empirisk baserte kritikk av antakelsene om tilbakestråling, jfr sitat fra artikkelen:

ClimateTruth: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.

(https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ferenc-miskolczi.png)
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi

Han sier bl.a. dette i artikkelen om hvorfor IPCCs (les: den konvensjonelle drivhuseffekts) modellforutsetninger er feile:

ClimateTruth: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
Dr. Miskolczi: The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.

ClimateTruth: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
Dr. Miskolczi: Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.

Men enn så lenge er altså Dr. Miskolczi feid ut av NASA, og jobber nå fra sitt hjemland Ungarn.
Artikkelen linker til arbeidene som gjorde at NASA blokkete hans arbeider.

Men for dem som vil lese mer om/av denne forskeren i senere år, her er noen linker:

Miskolczi, F. M. & M. G. Mlynczak (2004) The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation IDŐJÁRÁS Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 108, No. 4, 209-251.
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf

Miskolczi, F. M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres IDŐJÁRÁS Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

Miskolczi, F. (2010) The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness Energy & Environment, Vol. 21, No. 4, 243-262.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

Miskolczi, F. (2011) The stable stationary value of the Earth’s global average atmospheric infrared optical thickness Presented by Miklos Zagoni at the EGU 2011 Vienna.
http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/EGU2011_FM_MZ.pdf

Miskolczi, F. M. (2014) The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere Development in Earth Science, Vol. 2, 31-52.

Han finnes også på Research Gate her:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ferenc_Miskolczi

Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten - grumset bekreftes enda mer
Post by: Telehiv on 21.11.2019, 09:41:02
I dagens WUWT legger Jennifer Marohasy fram en rekke eksempler på samme tendensiøse forskning som Peter Ridd ble straffet for å kritisere.
Peter Ridds beskjed kunne enkelt summeres opp slik: Det er ikke revene som er problemet, det er forskerne....

(https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/P8250026-copy-2-768x576.jpg?zoom=1.25&resize=700%2C526&ssl=1)

På sin blogg, gjengitt hos WUWT, utfyller Marohasy dette bildet med omfattende dokumentasjon på hva hennes synfaringer med kamera og droner osv. i områdene rundt Stone Island sier om revenes tilstand. Som Ridd, finner hun at tidligere alarmismestudier umulig kan ha undersøkt nøytralt de områdene hun dokumenterer på, men derimot valgt ut små soner, i.e. soner som bl.a. eksponeres for tørrlegging i visse El Niño-faser, som kan illudere "rev-krise".   

Et grelt eksempel hun viser til er hvordan også hun ble angrepet på det sterkeste ved å dokumentere helt andre revtilstander, bl.a. i det hun kaller en "nonsens" artikkel i The Guardian som hun kommenterer slik:

"According to the nonsense article by Mr Readfearn, quoting academic Dr Tara Clark, I should not draw conclusions about the state of corals at Stone Island from just the 25 or so hectares (250,000 square metres) of near 100 per cent healthy hard coral cover filmed at Beige Reef on 27 August 2019. Beige Reef fringes the north-facing bay at Stone Island.
This is hypocritical – to say the least – given Dr Clark has a paper published by Nature claiming the coral reefs at Stone Island are mostly all dead. She based this conclusion on just two 20-metre long transects that avoided the live section of healthy corals seaward of the reef crest
[/u]. !!! (Mine utropstegn)

Noter dette: ”two 20-metre long transects” som grunnlag for narrativet "The Great Barrier Reef is doomed"....er ikke dette et uttrykk for selve inkarnasjonen av cherry-picking? Er det rart man må sparke folk som stiller spørsmål?

Les om resten av denne sørgelige "vitenskapen", begått av enda en rev-alarmist, dr. Tara Clark, betimelig dokumentert av Jennifer Marohasy her:

Link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/20/why-deny-the-beautiful-coral-reefs-fringing-stone-island/
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: Administrator on 02.01.2020, 14:33:22
Peter Ridd med innlegg i The Australasian, Is the reef really in danger or not? (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/great-barrief-reef-truth-may-be-inconvenient-but-it-is-out-there/news-story/7584d10cde9ed9f7b900059be3118f81?btr=1e8bf1e547621d048f6c4e5cf8957da6)

Siden det er betalingsmur har Jennifer Marohasy gjengitt innholdet her: No data on coral growth for 15 years (https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/01/no-data-on-coral-growth-rates-for-15-years/).

Ridd påstår altså at det ikke har blitt foretatt vitenskapelige målinger (kjerneboringer) av korallvekst de siste 15 årene, samtidig som han gjentar sin tidligere kritikk av de eksisterende målingene.

Dette skal bli interessant å se responsen på, for hvis det ikke finnes slike kjerneboringer, har koralarmistene (yay, nytt ord) tung slagside. Av foreløpige svar så jeg en som henviste til en studie fra 2014, som ikke omhandler GBR annet enn før 2005, en som sa at man ikke kunne bruke tid på dette nå som skogbrannene raste i hele Australia, samt noen som henviste til en side der det bare stod en del påstander a la "climate change IS real".

Men jeg tar gjerne imot noe med mer substans.
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: translator on 02.01.2020, 15:55:06
For noen uker siden så jeg på denne presentasjonen av Jennifer Marohasy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVlu-7_FxD8&feature=youtu.be

Interessant er også diskusjonen med publikum i etterkant (etter ca. 40 min). Der kommer det frem mye rart om hva folk blir fortalt.
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: Telehiv on 16.03.2020, 14:27:17
Denne tråden har tatt for seg at Petter Ridd ble oppsagt for å påpeke feilaktig forskning rundt Great Barrier Reef (GBR) ved James Cook University (JCU).
Grunnlaget for at han fant å måtte kjøre slik kritikk blir enda tydeligere når han 20. januar i år la ut denne artikkelen som beskriver hva forsøk på "replication" av JCU-arbeid nå har vist (vellykket replikering er jo det helt sentrale kriteriet for å godkjenne noe som vitenskap):

(https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-10-at-10.12.35.png)

Ridd skriver on Nature-artikkelen som dokumenterte den dårlige forskningen:

"The paper by Timothy Clark, Graham Raby, Dominique Roche, Sandra Binning, Ben Speers-Roesch, Frederik Jutfelt and Josefin Sundin (Clark et al., 2020) is a magnificent example of a comprehensive and very brave scientific replication study. The 7 scientists repeated experiments documented in eight previous studies on the effect of climate change on coral reef fish to see if they were correct.

Clark et al. (2020) found 100% replication failure. None of the findings of the original eight studies were found to be correct."


Les resten her: https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

Link til Clark et al 2020 i Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1903-y

Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: ConTrari1 on 16.03.2020, 15:01:51
Ja, det er nok viktigst å hindre kritikk, heller enn å sørge for god forskning.

Klima-feltet må være noe av det minst seriøse i vitenskapens verden. Når det ikke finnes "klima" for kritikk, er det stor fare for at kvaliteten synker. Antatt seriøse fagpersoner kommer med de mest absurde påstander:

"Forskjellen mellom 1,5 grader og 2 grader er for eksempel om det fortsatt vil eksistere korallrev i verden, sier Anne Olhoff."

https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/verden/2020/03/16/195656001/forsker-opprop-utslipp-av-drivhusgasser-ma-halveres-pa-10-ar

Et oppegående fagmiljø ville øyeblikkelig ha påpekt at korallrev har eksistert i lange perioder med varmere klima enn +2 oppvarming (fra ca. 1850, det skrives det heller ikke noe om, bare 1,5 og 2 grader, mange tror sikkert at dette er stigning fra i dag). Og selvsagt smeller ABC til med juksebildet av skorsteiner som spyr ut det som ser ut som brun, skitten røyk.
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: ConTrari1 on 16.03.2020, 15:11:40
Takk til Telehiv for å ha "forlenget" denne tråden. Her er det også nyttig inof om Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi og hans kritikk av drivhusteorien, som medførte at han ble kastet ut av NASA. Noe nytt om den saken?

Og oppe i nord driver Polarstern i isen, og forbruker 15 tonn diesel om dagen;

"På ekspedisjonens egne hjemmesider leser vi at på reisen tur/retur Arktis-Bremerhafen bruker skipet 54 tonn diesel hver dag. Når det driver gjennom polisen, går det fortsatt 15 tonn diesel per dag til lys, varme og aktiviteter ombord.

Totalt dieselkonsum for ekspedisjonens 390 dager er anslått til 7 100 tonn. Anslått utslipp av CO2 er 22 100 tonn. Da er ikke dieselforbruket til 4 isbrytere som engasjeres sporadisk, medregnet."

https://resett.no/2020/03/16/polarstern-bruker-7100-tonn-diesel/
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: Telehiv on 16.03.2020, 15:38:51
Takk til Telehiv for å ha "forlenget" denne tråden.

Med glede, det er viktig å prøve å holde fokus på hva som er troverdig forskning eller ikke, da hele klimasaken til slutt vil måtte avgjøres mot hvem som har vært mest i nærheten av de faktiske/observerte forhold.
Det er på en måte greit å avsløre dårlig forskning slik som Ridd viser til her, men i en rekke andre uavklarte klimasaker er bildet så komplekst og komplisert at det er mest graden av institusjonell maktstøtte som avgjør hvem som får dra sitt narrativ lengst.
Jeg har sagt det før, dog med et glimt i øyet, at klimaalarmismen derfor ikke vil kunne stoppes med teoretisk forskning, men først når bilder av et mye mer tilfrosset Arktis gjør det vanskelig for media + de mest cherrypickende forskere å kjøre på videre.
Man får bare vente og se om det går i retning tydelig naturlig 30-års syklus også denne gangen, jfr. 30 kalde år 1946-76, 30 varme år 1976-2006, og nå en antatt påbegynt kald periode som skal vare fram til 2036. Den lille istid snudde brått på 1850-tallet til en 30-årig varmeperiode til 1886, mens for begge de siste kalde periodene 1886-1916 og 1946-76 (etter den varme mellomkrigstiden 1916-46) startet dette med at man registrerte gradvis kaldere vann nordover i Atlanteren, Barentshavet og til slutt Polhavet. 




 
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: ConTrari1 on 16.03.2020, 17:30:51
Bilder kan endres, bare tenk på "bløffebjørn"Ursus Bogus...
Og i Arktis blir det nok er konstant terping av trenden fra 1979, dersom sommerminimum ikke utvikler seg den @riktige@ veien.
Title: Sterk og langvarig Svalbardk
Post by: Boris den nye on 17.03.2020, 06:48:11
Det er i hvertfall årevis siden jeg har  observert en så langvarig og sterk kulde på Svalbard.
I skrivende stund er temperaturen 26 kuldegrader i Longyearbyen, og den har ligget stort sett mellom 20 og 30 minus i ukesvis.

Dessuten har vel også Island opplevde en uvanlig kald vinter.
Title: Sterk og langvarig Svalbardk
Post by: Sabben on 17.03.2020, 08:47:17
Denne kulden gjenspeiler seg også på sjøtemperaturen i Isfjorden,

https://svalbardposten.no/kronikker/ny-oppdatering-pa-sjotemperaturen-i-isfjorden/19.12131
Title: Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
Post by: translator on 17.03.2020, 12:44:26
Patrick Moore har i sin bok Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout (2013), som også finnes digitalt, foretatt en grundig behandling av alle aspekter knyttet til global oppvarming/klimaendringer, også dette.

Quote
Coral Reefs, Shellfish, and “Ocean Acidification”
It has been widely reported in the media, based on a few scientific papers, that the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in “ocean acidification,” threatening coral reefs and all marine shellfish with extinction within 20 years.  The story goes like this: The oceans absorb about 25 percent of the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere each year. The higher the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the more CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. When CO2 is dissolved in water, some of it is converted into carbonic acid that has a weak acidic effect. If the sea becomes more acidic, it will dissolve the calcium carbonate that is the main constitu-ent of coral and the shells of clams, shrimp, crabs, etc. It is one more doomsday scenario, predicting the seas will “degrade into a useless tidal desert,”
 
In his latest book, Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben claims, “Already the ocean is more acid than anytime in the last 800,000 years, and at cur-rent rates by 2050 it will be more corrosive than any time in the past 20 million years.” In typical hyper-bolic fashion, McKibben, the author of the well-known essay, “The End of Nature,” uses the words acid and corrosive as if the ocean will burn off your skin and flesh to the bone if you dare swim in it in 2050. This is just plain fear-mongering.

Results of research published in the journal Science by M.R. Palmer et al., indicate that over the past 15 million years, “All five samples rec-ord surface seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today, and they all show a decrease in the calculated pH with depth that is similar to that ob-served in the present-day equatorial Pacific.” The five samples recorded pH values for 85,000 years ago and for 2.5, 6.4, 12.1, and 15.7 million years ago.
 
First, one should point out that the ocean is not acidic, it has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline, the oppo-site of acidic. A pH of 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic, above 7 is alkaline. Researchers have reported in scien-tific journals that the pH of the seas has gone down by 0.075 over the past 250 years, “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approxi-mately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).”  One has to wonder how the pH of the ocean was measured to an accuracy of three decimal places in 1751 when the concept of pH was not introduced until 1909.
 
It turns out that just as with climate science in general, these pre-dictions are based on computer models. But oceans are not simple systems whose components can just be plugged into a computer. First, there is the complex mix of ele-ments and salts dissolved in the sea. Every element on Earth is present in seawater and these elements in-teract in complex ways. Then there is the biological factor, tens of thou-sands of species that are consuming and excreting every day. The salt content of seawater gives the oceans a very large buffering capacity against change in pH. Small addi-tions of acidic and alkaline sub-stances can easily alter the pH of freshwater, whereas seawater can neutralize large additions of acidic and alkaline substances.

One of the most important biological phenomena in the sea is the combining of calcium, carbon, and oxygen to form calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the primary constituent of corals and shells, including the skel-etons of microscopic plankton. The formation of calcium carbonate is called calcification. All of the vast chalk, limestone, and marble depos-its in the earth’s crust are composed of calcium carbonate, which was created and deposited by marine organisms over millions of years. The carbon in calcium carbonate is derived from CO2 dissolved in seawater. One might therefore im-agine that an increase in CO2 in seawater would enhance calcifica-tion rather than destroy it. It turns out this is precisely the case.

As is the case with terrestrial plants, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that increased CO2 concentration in the sea results in higher rates of photosynthesis and faster growth. Photosynthesis has the effect of increasing the pH of the water, making it more alkaline, counteracting any minor acidic ef-fect of the CO2 itself.  The own-ers of saltwater aquariums often add CO2 to the water in order to increase photosynthesis and calcifi-cation, a practice that is similar to greenhouse growers adding CO2 to the air in their greenhouses to pro-mote the faster growth of plants. The vast bulk of scientific literature indicates increased CO2 in the ocean will actually result in in-creased growth and calcification, as opposed to the catastrophe scenario pushed by the NRDC, Greenpeace, and many other activist organiza-tions.
   
A long list of scientific publications that support the view that increased CO2 in seawater results in increased calcification can be found on the CO2 Science website.  A paper by Atkinson et al., published in the journal Coral Reefs, states that their finding “seems to contradict conclusions ... that high CO2 may inhibit calcification.” [100]

“Ocean acidification” is a perfect example of a contrived catastrophe scenario. The average person does not have a grasp of the complexities of marine chemistry and biology. The activists simply coin a new, scary term like “acidification” and then effectively extort money from people who are concerned for the future. And all this emphasis on the dangers of CO2 tends to divert people from thinking about the real dangers to coral reefs like destruc-tive fishing methods and pollution from sewage.

Our little house by the Sea of Cortez in Cabo Pulmo in southern Baja, Mexico, looks out over a Na-tional Marine Park that contains the only large coral reef on the west coast of the Americas. Pulmo Reef is a popular dive site, known for its rich abundance of reef fish, many of which school in the thousands. It was after a dive on the reef during our first visit to Cabo Pulmo in 1999 that Eileen and I decided to make a base there. Since then we have dived and snorkelled on the reef many times each year.

In September of 2002 a tropical storm brought torrential rains that dumped over 20 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. It must have been a once in a 100-year event as the flooding was the worst the locals could remember. A lens of freshwa-ter about 20 feet deep spread out over the reef as a result of the run-off from the mountains. This killed all the coral, as coral cannot live in freshwater. Only the corals below the 20-foot depth of the freshwater layer survived.

For a few years after the event virtually no living coral could be seen in the shallower waters. The reef turned white and became cov-ered in green algae, which in turn resulted in an explosion of sea ur-chins where there had been very few before. By 2006 the reef began to recover noticeably with nodules of new coral becoming established. Coral polyps from the deeper re-gions of the reef were recolonizing the shallow waters. The sea urchins died out and fish returned in greater abundance. Today the reef is in full recovery as the coral is now grow-ing substantially each year. It may take another 20 years or more to recover completely, and will only do so if there is not another torrential rainstorm.

I imagine some people who believe we are causing catastrophic climate change would suggest we were responsible for the torrential rains that killed part of the reef. I don’t believe we can be so certain, especially as such events have been occurring since long before humans began emitting billions of tons of CO2 each year. And regardless of the storm’s cause, it is comforting to know that the reef can recover despite the dire predictions of the early death of coral reefs worldwide.

Sources:

[91]. Frank Pope, “Great Barrier Reef Will Be Gone in 20 Years, Say s Charlie Veron,” Sunday Times, July 7, 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6652866.ece

[92]. Richard Girling, “The Toxic Sea,” Sunday Times, March 8, 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5853261.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178

[93]. M. R. Palmer et al., “Reconstructing Past Ocean pH-Depth Profiles,” Science 282, no. 5393 (November 20, 1998): 1468–1471, http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/282/5393/1468 (Register with Science to see full article free-of-charge)

[94]. James C. Orr et al., “Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the Twenty -First Century and Its Impact on Calcify ing Organisms,” Nature 437 (September 29, 2005): 681–686,
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf

[95]. “pH,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

[96]. “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification—A New Propaganda Film by The National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test,” Science & Public Policy Institute, January 5, 2010,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf

[97]. “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem,” Natural Resources Defense Council, September 17, 2009, http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/default.asp

[98]. “Putting a Stop to the Arctic Meltdown,” Greenpeace International, January 26, 2010, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hands-off-the-arctic-260110

[99]. “CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future,” CO2 Science, http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/corals/part2ref.php

[100]. Atkinson, M.J., Carlson, B.A. and Crow, G.L. 1995, “Coral Growth in High-Nutrient, Low-pH Seawater: A Case Study of Corals Cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii,” Coral Reefs 14, no. 4, pp. 215–223,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2554037454q13wp/

Patrick Moore, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, pp. 374.377