AF Aus

What is terrigenous sediment? That is what your abstract reference was about.

Scientists say that the Northern areas of the Great Barrier Reef were pristine before the bleaching last year. Most coral reefs around Earth have been hit hard by Ocean warmth in 2016. That is what scientists are saying, I'm more inclined to believe what Professor Hughes states.

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/life-and-death-after-great-barrier-reef-bleaching

Quote:

“Most of the losses in 2016 have occurred in the northern, most-pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef. This region escaped with minor damage in two earlier bleaching events in 1998 and 2002, but this time around it has been badly affected,” says Professor Terry Hughes, Director of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies based at James Cook University, who undertook extensive aerial surveys at the height of the bleaching."

Also:

https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2017/03/16/scientists-mobilise-as-bleaching-resumes-on-great-barrier-reef/

Quote:

"The collaborative study between institutions across the world, published in the prestigious journal Nature today, examined whether past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 made reefs any more tolerant in 2016. Sadly researchers found no evidence that past bleaching makes the corals any tougher."

More information from those on the spot conducting science:

http://theconversation.com/ocean-acidification-is-already-harming-the-great-barrier-reefs-growth-55226

Quote:

"As our research published in Nature today shows, the reduction in seawater pH – caused by carbon dioxide from human activities such as burning fossil fuels – is making it more difficult for corals to build and maintain their skeletons."

You nor mhaze are able to dispute that:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

Here is what scientists in Siberia are investigating:

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/

Quote:

"Scientists have discovered as many as 7,000 gas-filled 'bubbles' expected to explode in Actic regions of Siberia after an exercise involving field expeditions and satellite surveillance, TASS reported.

A number of large craters - seen on our images here - have appeared on the landscape in northern Siberia in recent years and they are being carefully studied by scientists who believe they were formed when pingos exploded.

Alexey Titovsky, director of Yamal department for science and innovation, said: 'At first such a bump is a bubble, or 'bulgunyakh' in the local Yakut language.

'With time the bubble explodes, releasing gas. This is how gigantic funnels form.' "

Scientists at work:

Experimentation is occurring in relation to corals showing the impact of warming of Ocean waters and CO2 plus sea water creating a weak acid.

Coral Reefs in the Caribbean have virtually been destroyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVJBltmAfqM

A further clip from Years of Living Dangerously showing damage to a reef in the Phillipines and comments are made in relation to the impact on a number of island Nations in the future. The matter of security is touched on; an issue dealt with in the last ABC Four Corners program (20/03/'17).

http://youtu.be/YZXBawQGONs

The following reference discusses the Maldives; it discusses the science behind what is happening to coral reefs and impacts:

http://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/climate_change_and_coral_reefs_brochure.pdf

ant,

I reply to your post above as follows.

Energy within the eastern Australia alongshore current I have referred to is strong enough to transport heavy terrigenous sand northwards so that same current is obviously strong enough to transport dissolved nutrient bonded to fresh water.

In my view based on empirical evidence the more northerly damage to GBR coral occurred downstream/northward from the unprecedented deep excavation of ancient and other nutrient matter that was re-suspended during the more northerly coast Gladstone port development that was even situated within the GBR ecosystem.

Professor Hughes has apparently not measured and assessed the nutrient load flowing into GBR waters from south of the southern GBRMPA boundary. Nor did he scientifically measure nutrient re-suspension on a daily and tidal basis at the Gladstone ecosystem excavation.

Let's say the blue sky was pristine before clouds appeared with heavy flooding and damaging rain. It's similar with nutrient travelling in water.

Re universities, I expect CO2ist study would be mobilising to gather warmister 'data' from coral bleaching.

Institutions across the world are handicapped by gagging of information of substance from long term underwater exploration and observed changes in the marine environment, just consider change to chemistry of water dumped in the relevant alongshore current.

The situation is confusing, CO2ist claim of acidification is said to be hampering growth of GBR coraline based coral but in reality the delicate coraline base of coccolithaphore phytoplankton algae is thriving and is being seen in historically unprecedented blooms.

JF Aus

Coral reefs around the planet have been impacted over the last few years. Previously mentioned have been coral reefs in Caribbean, Pacific off the Philippines, Indian Ocean off the Maldives, and Great Barrier Reef. The unanimous verdict by scientists is that warming Oceans have been the cause. Scientists being people who have studied science for years and then spent years working in the Ocean environment. But, you virtually say they are clueless, you know better.

No matter what you write you cannot break down:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

Somehow you would need to deny that motor vehicles don’t emit CO2, aircraft do not emit CO2, coal fired power stations do not emit CO2, and transport generally does not emit CO2.

You need to be able to explain the disappearance of glaciers, be able to answer how India was in a pickle last year through depleted water resources and why that could be the case again in 2017. Some further questions, how is California fairing in relation to agriculture, what is Munich Re saying about climate costs, what is happening in permafrost areas of Siberia, and what changes have happened in the troposphere and stratosphere?

"Coral Reefs in the Caribbean have virtually been destroyed."

See Brocas et al., 2016 for evidence that, while there has been a rise in Tropical Atlantic temps in the recent past, they have been much higher for much of the previous 5000 years. (Besides Brocas there are several other papers that I know of that show similar data).

So the question becomes: if these corals are currently harmed by rising temps then how did they survive previous higher temps? Is there something else causing the problem? Is there in fact no problem and we just think there is because we haven't been looking long enough? Perhaps these coral regularly die back and then recover. We know Caribbean coral was virtually wiped out during the last ice age but enough survived to repopulate when things were more benign.

I've spoken before about the issue of 'presentism' ie the unstated belief that conditions in the present or recent past are normal and that any change is abnormal. Maybe the corals are returning to their normal state. Or perhaps they go through cycles of growth and decay and after we have been studying them for a longer period we'll better understand that cycle.

Trends of a decade or three or five aren't necessarily permanent trends. They may just be part of the standard cycles