This is another crock from the global warmers' collection of scare templates.

It works like this:

"Unless we [do something that involves giving lots of money to people like this author] there will be [insert desired fantasy catastrophe] and we will leave a devastated world for our children."

The scam's been exposed. Give up. Find another gravy train.

KenH, You being an expert will be able to point out errors in the report.
Until you do then your posting is meaningless.

PeterA,

The author's own comments describe the historical scare stories.

The Crown-of-Thorns starfish scare back in the 1960s claimed that the starfish would destroy the GBR. They didn't. But research funds were poured into the "problem".

Farm run-offs were the next generation of scare. The GBR's still there.

And the "global warming" scare in relation to the reef has produced only a generation of marine biologists working as waiters in Cairns.

And, of course, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's regular predictions of imminent disaster, followed by his "not as bad as expected" admissions.

The number of believers in the fake religion of global warming is falling all around the world for very good reason. Scammers have been confronted with reality, in which no catastrophic warming is occurring. Governments have spent hundreds of billions for 30 years and none of the beneficiaries have been able to come up with anything that is mildly persuasive, let alone conclusive.

Have you been paying attention? Climategate,the hockey stick, the doctoring of temperature data, the careful selection of sites from which data is collected and all the other scams have finally caught up with the true believers.

KenH

All the points that you have raised have been totally investigated and dismissed you just have not caught up with it yet (if ever).

Again where are your sources.

Have you read 'The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism'? or are you going to dismiss it out of hand or do you have some constructive criticism, if so the author would love to hear from you.

I can remember when I was at school. The GBR was in danger then. Marine scientists were predicting the reef would be dead by the year 2000! Now at the age of 54 I am hearing it all again. I agree that reef ecosystem is fragile but it obviously is not as fragile as some would have us believe. "researching the effects of climate change on reefs" does not sound to me like a sound scientific proposition.

Peter, you only require 2 references to know it all about global warming.

One is "Hide the decline" a reference to a con man, & the other is, "It is a travesty that we can't explain it", referring to the lack of warming for 10 years at that time.

Just those 2, among thousands, are adequate to see the character of the AGW "scientists".

"In a long period of deep personal anguish, I turned to specialists in many different fields of science to find anything that might suggest a fault in my own conclusions...."

You must have missed these ones, then:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/record-cold-in-florida-kills-reef-coral/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/not-as-bad-as-we-thought-coral-can-recover-from-climate-change-damage/

Maybe next time, after you turn to them, you should LISTEN to them...

Relax mate and do some real science by asking some real questions. Many of the general public are sick to death of alarmist who are rarely held accountable for there failed predictions. The recent senior Australian of the year made many ridiculous predictions that now should see him with egg all over his face.
The author writes

'This is not what is happening today. Ponder these facts: The atmospheric levels of CO2 we are already committed to reach, no matter what mitigation is now implemented, have no equal over the entire longevity of the Great Barrier Reef, perhaps 25 million years.'

'perhaps 25 million years.' perhaps indeed! and then again it might be 60 million or 2 billion. Take your pick as long as it does not muck up the model.

KenH is correct in exposing the Crown of Thorns and subsequent exaggerations.

The author failed to mention that the crown of thorns problem was not, at the time, seen as causing limited damage at all. It was seen as the end of the reef.

The author seems to have pulled back from his earlier statement that the reefs would be gone within 20 yrs.

http://opentravel.com/blogs/great-barrier-reef-to-die-in-20-years

Sadly, he uses the old "What will we tell our children and our children's children?" The answer? We will say with confidence that Scientists are often wrong in their predictions of the future but they are smart enough to make predictions so far in advance they cannot be held accountable.

wattsupwiththat the totally discredited web site of misinformation and cherry picked data.
No credible climate scientist, including those quoted so often by the denialst movement – Lindzen, Christy and Spencer – denies that CO2 is increasing and that we’re mostly responsible. Neither do they deny that the existing increase in CO2 has caused planetary heating that will continue and that future increases in CO2, due to us, will cause increased heating (and ocean acidification).

"No credible climate scientist, ..." etc.

And what makes a climate scientist 'credible', Peter? Oh yes, that's right: piously mouthing profitable nonsense about AGW. Cancun has just had record low temperatures for December, but even that doesn't appear to penetrate. No, it's AGW, AGW all the way...

Nothing is wrong. Nothing was ever wrong. Nothing will ever be wrong. It is still here because we did nothing to save it. The world will be saved by doing nothing. Ecological threats to the reef do not exist. Bleaching is good for the reef, because reefs can recover.

snort

NASA released its monthly global temperature data, revealing November was easily the hottest in the temperature record. The “meteorological year” — December to November — was also the hottest on record. Calendar year 2010 appears poised to be the hottest on record.

These records are especially impressive because we’re in the middle of a strong La Niña, which would normally cool off temperatures for a few months, and we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” It’s just hard to stop the march of man made global warming, other than by sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"The “meteorological year” — December to November — was also the hottest on record. Calendar year 2010 appears poised to be the hottest on record."

Fabulous! The real year isn't going to break any records, so you invent a new one that is! And it's 'poised', you say? It hasn't actually DONE it yet?

Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up.

You will note from Cancun, that emissions targets were put aside to achieve the REAL aim of this whole fiasco - wealth distribution.

Hope all the warmers are glad that they have pushed for,and now had committed through Greg Combet 1.5% of our GDP annually, to be handed to despotic 3rd world overseas regimes who are going to use it for 'climate abatement'. Of course there is no policing of how they use the money as this would be 'disrespectful' to other cultures. It is probably grossly disrespectful of me to suggest they will waste it on corruption and armaments.

So now every Australian family is about $2400 poorer per year. That's why Gillard needs to get a Carbon Tax through. To pay 3rd world despots.

How stupid are those who've led us into this mess and their eager, brainless, lackeys who keep quoting 'the science' like trained parrots while they drag us into a very dim future for ourselves and our children.

Anyone here actually dived the GBR lately?
The inner reefs are already mostly dead, though I believe this is more from cane farming than SST causing bleaching. The outer reefs are bleaching more and more with less live coral to be found each year.
Before you scream "alarmist"...just go there and chat to an older diver.
The damage due to acidification is a bigger worry in the outer Pacific islands as it impacts their resilience to storm damage. When coral stops growing, or slows, it can make entire islands become very susceptible to storm surges and other wave damage.
The big issue for nature is the sheer speed that we are changing things. Several million years worth of carbon released in less than 100 years will have some "snapping rubber band" like effects...these, not the gradual predictable ones, are the scary part of all this. Mind you, compared to a dino-killer asteroid GW will still be a relatively slow and easy cradle eviction for us humans!

Hay Andy, who told you all this stuff.

The worst thing for coral is fresh water, so this year is shaping up to be not a good one. However, if you investigate the reef cores, drilled many years ago, you will find many times when it was worse for the coral, & others when it was so dry, for so long, our land use would not survive.

Damage caused by farming, which was a real problem is much diminished today. Farmers can't afford to waste fertilizer these days, too expensive.

However, I ran tourist boats in the reef for many years. The blokes running those boats, to the same reefs, out from the Whitsundays tell me that the coral viewing is at its best right now.

Strange that those marine biologists, looking for grants always see a reason of worry, requiring research, just as it was when AIMS, & the authority first started.

1) Cyclical variation in solar irradiance is what drives climate change, not atmospheric CO2 levels. Only 3% of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic. As increasing solar energy warms the oceans their capacity to hold CO2 in solution is diminished and degassing into the atmosphere occurs. Elevated atmospheric CO2 levels are a consequence of global warming, not a cause.

2) Ocean warming will result in an expansion of coral reef growth towards higher latitudes. For example, a 130,000 year old fossil reef outcrops on the shoreline of Rottnest Island 20k west of Fremantle. It grew when sea level was at least 3m higher than at present and when higher seawater temperatures allowed coral growth. Global cooling and resultant lowering of sea level during the last Ice Age caused the demise of this reef. Today no similar coral reefs exist in WA waters south of Houtman Abrolhos, 500k north.

3) All ocean waters are alkaline even though CO2 dissolved in water is a mild acid. The least alkalinity occurs in the ocean depths where higher pressure and lower temperature results in a higher CO2 saturation. Conversely, shallow surface waters where coral reefs grow have the highest alkalinity.

4) The mass extinctions in Earth’s history that Dr Veron refers to are the result of cataclysmic events such as massive volcanicity on a continental scale or collision with a comet or asteroid, not ocean acidification. At such times not only corals but up to 75% of all species, marine and terrestrial, can become extinct.

5) Dr Veron claims to have consulted widely, and depressingly found no dissenters from his conclusions. Evidently consultations were limited to like minded scientists. Contrary opinions abound. To obtain a little cheer he could, in his own city of Townsville, have talked to marine geologist and environmental scientist, Professor Robert Carter of James Cook University. In his recently published book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” Bob Carter outlines a very different view to that of Dr Veron. I recommend this book to anyone seeking a balanced view on climate change.