JF Aus.

Deep upwellings from the continental shelf, bring sediment laden cold water close to shore, (poor visibility water). These have been disturbed from their normal flows, which have allowed warmer currents to predominate in areas like the Barrier Reef, but not only. Their decline has brought dramatic temperature rises close inshore!

The differing clarity you point out in the SMH report, are probably caused by a local rain event!

Warmer currents a causing coral bleaching and the death of kelp beds, to the fringes of the East Coast in particular. This has been steadily increasing over many years.

ant, (or is it Tony.. or are you calling yourself something different today?),

"Homewood is not a scientist".

Well that may be true. You don't know one way or the other. But he says things you don't like so, facts be damned.

Nevertheless his credentials are entirely beside the point in this case. In the link I posted, he was summarising a paper by rooly-trooly scientists. But since that paper says things you'd prefer to ignore, you'll find any excuse to do so.

So do you accept The Science as expressed by Stein et al., 2017 or do you reject science?

Just to repeat,,,Stein et al., 2017 shows that the sea ice extent in the Arctic over the past few centuries is the greatest its been in the last 10000 years. Little wonder that those of a certain faith want to only look at what happened in the past few decades.

mhaze

No Tricks is merely a blog site, run by Kenneth Richard.
I believe the paper by Stein et al is genuine, though do wonder about its interpretation by Kenneth Richard is suspect.

An article by Kenneth Richard has a headline: Most Polar Bears Live In Canada, Where There Has Been No Net Warming For Centuries. So Why Are They Endangered?

Here is a reference to a recently published paper:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia

It describes huge thawing of permafrost in North West Canada. Permafrost only thaws when there are consistent warm themperatures.

There is an article by Kenneth Richard about the Thomas Karl et el paper being corrupted, there was much discussion afterwards and the allegations were found to be wrong.

No Tricks wrote about 20 W m-2 CO2 Climate Forcing, that is the first time I've ever seen such a figure, the forcing when taking all greenhouse gases is about half of that figure when discussed in 2015... absolute fake news. From memory in 2015 it was 9.793 WM2 for all greenhouse gases.

The No Tricks site doesn't live up to its name it provides fake news ...bs.

The Great Barrier Reef is once more undergoing a bleaching event, a clear indication of a continuation of warmer waters that coral cannot sustain.

http://theconversation.com/year-on-year-bleaching-threatens-great-barrier-reefs-world-heritage-status-74606?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=facebookbutton

In the Arctic Ocean acidification has been shown to be a matter of concern:

http://phys.org/news/2017-02-international-team-ocean-acidification-rapidly.html

As people would generally realise, Oceans are a sink for CO2, colder water draws in more CO2 than warm water. Also, a more open Arctic Ocean allows for more CO2 to be drawn in.

A further illustration of climate change stated by a CSIRO scientist:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/15/australian-coastline-glows-in-the-dark-in-sinister-sign-of-climate-change?CMP=soc_567

Quote:

"The phenomenon, which is best seen in calm, warm seas, is foreboding. “The displays are a sign of climate change,” Anthony Richardson, from the CSIRO, told New Scientist after an occurrence in Tasmania in 2015."

These examples provide observed data displaying climate change.

Immutable facts:

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 dispose of it very quickly and release CO2.

Scientists speak about the rapidity of climate change currently compared to previous eras.

ant, (or is it Tony.. or are you calling yourself something different today?),

Of course the Stein 2017 paper is genuine. I'd just like you to advise whether you accept or reject the science. I know why you're avoiding the issue. You don't want to say you reject the science but you can't accept it either because the paper shows that the current decrease in ice cover is from the highest levels seen in the Holocene and that its just returning to more normal levels.

So accept or reject?

"A final thought"

Hope you keep that promise Don.