JK Aus
You wrote in response to my comment:

“… nor do I have any ambitions whatsoever to be a politician.”

My comment was:

“I'm not a member of any political party nor do I have any intention to join one.”

It displays poor comprehension, there was not a comment about wanting to be a politician, something you conjured up.
In the past when you have provided references, my comments were along the lines of you have misinterpreted them.

In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, how big are the farms and towns off Cape York?
My point being that coral bleaching occurred in areas where there are National Parks and no run off of fertilisers or sewage. Water quality was not an issue; whereas, much further South water quality is part of the problem with the reef.

Likewise, with the death of mangrove forests, in the past I purposefully mentioned it in a fairly vague manner, hoping you might research the matter.
You brought up the issue of human pollution in relation to that. I knew full well that the mangrove forest dying was in the isolated Gulf of Carpentaria.

A take down on the comments made by Pruitt, per Boston Globe:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/why-are-climate-change-models-so-flawed-because-climate-science-is-so-incomplete-jeff-jacoby-boston-globe/

Quite a discussion in relation to CO2, Also, about the relationship between CO2 and water vapour. A warmer atmosphere is able to hold more water vapour.

Quote from Mark Zelinka:

“…That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the present of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor.”

Quote from Andreas Schmittner:

“The water vapor feedback, which is referred to here as “creation of water vapor” but in fact is higher water vapor in a warmer atmosphere, is a basic prediction of thermodynamics, one of the most well-tested branches of physics. Water vapor has been observed to increase*. So, there is nothing speculative about it.”

Physics part of science?

Floodlist, gives an indication of major floods that have been experienced around Earth causing numerous people to be killed and billions of dollars of damage.

http://floodlist.com/news

Morocco provides an interesting example, average yearly rainfall is about 300 mm; a rain bomb at the beginning of February 2017 dropped 100 mm in a few hours.

The following reference provides some idea of the precipitation normally experienced

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCCode=MAR

According to Insurance Company Munich Re there were 160 natural disasters in the US in 2016. Records began in 1980, and 2016 produced the most disasters recorded in that time span. The company stated that 54% of properties damaged were not insured.
Munich Re states they define any disaster creating $3 million dollars of damage as being a disaster.

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/natural_disasters_caused_55_billion_in_damage_in_north_america_2016

My previous note stated that the amount of precipitation is reliant on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Floodlist provides many examples of major precipitation events which are generally not reported in the mainstream media.

A very clear statement previously provided:

“The water vapor feedback, which is referred to here as “creation of water vapor” but in fact is higher water vapor in a warmer atmosphere, is a basic prediction of thermodynamics, one of the most well-tested branches of physics. Water vapor has been observed to increase*. So, there is nothing speculative about it.”

ant,

You said I said so what, ant. I posted my view.

You have not replied about truth of the sediment transportation system running north with sewage nutrient through GBR lagoon/coastal waters.
Surely you think truth of the matter is important in order to find solutions.
Why should ignorance of 2016 Australian warming or not continue?
Do you have any scientific evidence proving AGW is the only cause of coral bleaching?

Would you be surprised if I said at least some sewage nutrient from Sydney would likely reach Cape York and that some may then flow into the Gulf of Carpentaria?

Can anyone prove it absolute fact that the unprecedented mass of Gulf of Carpentaria mangroves did die of thirst, when clearly some of those mangroves are well out from the shore and would likely not dry out because of 20 CM (200mm) less tidal depth?

What exactly is causing the difference in water clarity in the before and after photos of those mangroves?

Does anyone have scientific evidence proving it impossible for an ocean dead zone to flow into and inundate that mangrove forest area?

http://mangrovesunderpressure.wikispaces.com/Eutrophication+on+Mangroves
and
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005600

A big wake up is needed. Too many people have been dumbed down for too long. Try to understand. See:
http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/55/7/552/306721/Dead-Zones-Spreading-in-World-Oceans

JF Aus

Your references in relation to mangroves where do they fit with the mangrove forests that died in the Gulf of Carpentaria?

What direction does the East Australian Ocean current move in? JF hint, tropical fish have been sighted off Sydney, marine species have moved South to Tasmanian waters, kelp forests are dying in Tasmanian waters. Temperature is measured of sea water by UTAS off Maria Island; temperature has been found to be warming.

How many thousand kilometres would effluent from Sydney have to move against the predominant current to make its way to the Gulf of Carpentaria, as you suggest?

Getting to the very basis of science, I previously quoted Andreas Schmittner, Associate Professor, Oregon State University, who made comments about the laws of thermodynamics.
Ages ago I quoted Professor Roger Jones, who made the comment that Malcolm Roberts would fail high school science through his lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

Quote from Professor Jones:

"“Malcolm Roberts broke the first law of thermodynamics, which is the simplest — the conservation of energy — and then broke the rest of them.”"

http://reneweconomy.com.au/senator-malcolm-roberts-fails-high-school-science-in-maiden-speech-66398/

Where do your opinions differ from the firmly understood laws of thermodynamics?

ant,

I think death of the mass of mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria was likely due to nutrient overload pollution, and evidence indicates the majority of the total load has come from all point sources along the east coast of Australia. Those point sources include sewage outfalls at Sydney and Brisbane.

Here is where a lot of people go wrong or become confused.
The East Australian Current (EAC) is a warm water predominantly surface current that streams southward from equatorial waters to off Bass Strait and sometimes off the east coast of Tasmania.

The EAC is situated usually about 20nm off the east coast of Australia but very very occasionally tongue-like currents lick in and touch the coast, sometimes snatching unsuspecting broken down boats and occupants.
The 'tongues' then flow eastward out to sea and form 200 km diameter anti clockwise eddies before that then join back into the southward flow to ocean off Bass Strait and Tasmania.

The ALONGSHORE current on the east coast of Australia that I have been referring to is the current that transports heavy sand that often blocks river mouths. It is a current driven northward by energy within prevailing winds from the south and southeast.
Google: alongshore or longshore current.

With the offshore sewage outfall off North Head, Sydney, the fresh water with BONDED nutrients rises to the surface where S and SE winds drive surface water toward the coast and into alongshore current already loaded with sewage nutrient from other outfalls. The mix of fresh water in the ocean is called fresher water.

At Cape York almost all water exiting the GBR lagoon flows into the Arafura Sea that usually runs westward into the Indian Ocean, and some of that Arafura Sea water must drift around Cape York into the Gulf Of Carpentaria. There, N and NW winds would press that fresher water against the western coast of Cape York where the mangrove mortality occurred.

Continued……….

Cont’d………

I think the difference between my view of thermodynamics and GBR science understanding, is that my view is of reality and real science, and I am not controlled by political agenda that excludes eastern Australia alongshore current and sewage and the unmanaged nutrient load dumped daily by government.

Proof of the political or whatever it is, agenda, is that you will not find any data showing the various point sources of nutrient, or the nutrient load from each point source.
Yet farmers are blamed for nutrient 40nm offshore in actual GBR coral reef waters, where nutrient from east coast cities is also present.

Failure to complete science on nutrient point sources and the total nutrient load entering GBR waters is allowing or causing GBR coral and other biodiversity to be choked and destroyed.