bznoo
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: The Starck Facts On The Great Barrier Reef And Wacko AGW Pro |
 |
|
The Great Barrier Reef And The Prophets of Doom
Walter Starck
8 May 2008
QUOTE: The alarmists have gone too far out on a very long limb for any
retreat. A cooling trend in climate would be disastrous for the whole
anthropogenic global warming ideology and result in a catastrophic loss of
credibility for a large sector of the scientific community. The escalating
fears they express appear to be based not so much on any important new
evidence as on their own increasingly desperate hopes.
I would like to make the following points in response to Charlie Veron>s
article here in On Line Opinon.
Although Charlie Veron is a highly respected coral taxonomist many of the
statements he made regarding climate change are at best doubtful. Like most
biologists he appears to have accepted the "consensus" view of catastrophic
climate change without being aware of a vast body of peer reviewed
non-biological research that casts doubt on or directly refutes all of the
major climatic claims he asserts as unqualified facts.
Here are some examples followed by my comments:
*****
The severe global bleaching event of 1998 has not been repeated in a decade
despite an ongoing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and oceanic
surface temperatures have markedly decreased. Projections from highly
dubious climate models are anything but certain.
"On present forecasts, the worst bleaching year we have had to date will be
an average year by 2030. And it will be a good year by 2050."
This is an assertion based solely on an unqualified faith in the projections
derived from unverified climate models which differ widely among themselves.
These projections are also constantly changing with new "adjustments", are
highly dependant on numerous uncertain assumptions and estimates,
incorporate greatly simplified treatments of complex poorly understood
phenomena and can be readily adjusted to produce a broad range of equally
plausible projections. Most such models, in fact, predict little warming in
the tropics but much greater increase at high latitudes.
*****
"If we keep increasing greenhouse carbon dioxide, by 2050 at the very
latest, the only corals left alive will be those hiding in refuges such as
deep outer reef slopes. The rest of the Great Barrier Reef will be
unrecognisable. Bacterial slime, largely devoid of life will be everywhere."
This isn>t even supported by any model but might better be described as
emotive dramatisation. Even the more extreme model projections only depict
tropical oceanic warming still well within the limits that thriving reefs
now tolerate in the Red Sea. Warmer water could also be expected to expand
the geographic extent of reefs to higher latitudes.
*****
"I cannot escape the conclusion that ocean acidification has played a major
role in all five mass extinctions of the past."
"Cannot rule out the possibility ." would be the strongest statement sound
science could support. It is entirely unclear whether past acidification
episodes caused the mass extinctions or were simply one of a number of
disastrous accompaniments to massive volcanic or impact events which were
the primary cause of the extinctions.
Three widespread studies of reef coral calcification rates in South-East
Asia, on the Great Barrier Reef and in the Caribbean, all found
substantially increased calcification rates during the past half century:
however, the reef catastrophists have now come up with a much smaller scale
study that found reduced average calcification during a 16-year period
encompassing two bleaching events in a few specimens from inshore reefs on
the Great Barrier Reef. Much has been made from this barely detectable trend
in a very limited, highly varied, sample. Without the tenuous suggestion of
a link to global warming it is doubtful the study would have even found
publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
During the Cretaceous period when vast marine carbonate beds were deposited
carbon dioxide levels were far higher than anything projected in connection
with anthropogenic emissions.
*****
"Corals speak unambiguously about climate change. They once survived in a
world where carbon dioxide from volcanoes and methane was much higher than
anything predicted today. But that was 50 million years ago. The
accumulation of carbon dioxide then took millions of years, not just a few
decades. Then there was time enough for oceans to equilibrate."
Many current reef coral genera survived this event. The idea that the
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with massive vulcanism or
meteoritic impact events took millions of years is only a convenient but
unlikely assumption.
*****
". the rate of carbon dioxide increase we are now experiencing has no
precedent in all known geological history."
Again, an unlikely assumption unsupported by any evidence. Although there is
credible evidence for past carbon dioxide levels greater than any increase
we may experience before all fossil fuel is consumed there is no evidence to
indicate that past such increases took place much slower than the present
one or that slower or faster would make any real difference
*****
"Reefs are the ocean>s canaries."
The canary in the coal mine analogy has been so overused for so many
different things it is almost embarrassing to see any literate person employ
it, all the more so for something as vast, ancient and tenacious as coral
reefs.
*****
"Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced."
Only in the event that it proves to be both real and as damaging as the
prophets of doom proclaim. On the other hand, if it is indeed real but it
prevents another ice age it could be the most fortunate event in human
history.
*****
"A brief look back at the staggering and accelerating technological advances
of the past century is persuasive evidence that humans can find solutions if
the political will is there to focus innovations in the right directions. We
must buy ourselves time. Time for the innovators to do their job, to develop
solutions and to create a future that is not dependent on fossil fuel. We,
the citizens of the wealthy countries, are capable of achieving 50 per cent
cuts in greenhouse emissions virtually immediately."
Australia>s annual carbon dioxide emissions are about 1.5 per cent of the
global total and barely equal to China>s increase in six months. Estimates
of natural uptake in our land and EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) area are
greater than our emissions. As a nation we should be accumulating surplus
carbon credits.
Without liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation and mobile machinery our
existing economy cannot continue to function or to even feed the current
population. It doesn>t run on hypotheticals. At least several decades will
be required for development and widespread implementation of alternative
energy solutions. Premature attempts to adopt immature, unproven technology
fostered by ill conceived subsidies and regulations entails a high risk of
resulting in more harm than help. The emerging bio-fuels disaster is an
example.
The biggest problem we face is not an unquantifiable risk of climate change
at some unknown future time. It is keeping the economy functioning until
energy alternatives are a functional reality. Inability of current fuel
supplies to meet growing demand is confronting us now. Production of synfuel
from coal is a proven technology that could fill the energy gap we face. The
only obstacle to implementation is objections arising from the hypothetical
danger of anthropogenic global warming.
The emerging choice is becoming more and more apparent. Do we adhere to the
dogma of the climate change cult and endure consequent mass economic
hardship including global hunger or risk a dubious prophesy to take a clear
path to the future? Do we take the direct route down Easy Street or a detour
through Jonestown?
The absence of ongoing global warming over the past decade and pronounced
global cooling of the past year cannot credibly be dismissed as simple local
variability in weather. It is clearly global and contrary to all predictions
of carbon dioxide governed global warming.
The media are beginning to find news value in anthropogenic global warming
doubts and the costs of ill-conceived countermeasures. Skeptical scientific
opinions are increasingly being heard and conflicting new evidence
appearing.
The alarmists have gone too far out on a very long limb for any retreat. A
cooling trend in climate would be disastrous for the whole anthropogenic
global warming ideology and result in a catastrophic loss of credibility for
a large sector of the scientific community. The escalating fears they
express appear to be based not so much on any important new evidence as on
their own increasingly desperate hopes.
As for coral bleaching, the central fact never mentioned is that the high
surface water temperatures associated with bleaching events are not the
result of exceptionally high air temperatures. They result from extended
periods of calm weather during which mixing from wave action ceases and
surface layer becomes exceptionally warm. Such warming is especially marked
in very shallow water such as on reef flats. At the same time the absence of
waves also eliminates the wave driven currents that normally flush the reef
top.
Bleaching conditions require at least a week or more of calm weather to
develop and this may happen every few years, only once in a century, or
never, depending on geographic location. On oceanic reefs it is less common
due to ocean swell and currents even in calm weather. In coastal areas it is
more common due to the absence of swell and reduced currents.
There is nothing to link extended periods of calm winds with global warming.
In fact the climate models project increased winds.
Incidentally, I am a great admirer of Charlie Veron>s outstanding work on
coral systematics and have high regard for his knowledge of reefs but feel
compelled to respectfully disagree with his pronouncements on climate
change.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322
Warmest Regards
Bonzo |
|
