JF Aus

You have repudiated (denied) thermodynamic laws. Thermodynamics is part of science.
You state you believe in science; clearly, not true.

The damage of runoff from farming etc is acknowledged for the Southern portion of the Great Barrier Reef; your mistake is to try and generalise this fact to remote areas.

There is no sense in responding any further to your comments.

ant,

Your method of operation as others know on this site, is for you to attack the person and not debate relevant evidence.
Then you run away from responding any further, as you have done previously.

As a matter of courtesy, would you kindly provide reference to the damage from farming etc, especially the etcetera, being acknowledged for the southern portion of the Great Barrier Reef?

There is no debate in relation to climate science.

There are immutable facts that deniers are not able to debunk:

Laws of Thermodynamics.

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.

As indicated by critique of Boston Globe article, the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold is dependent on the amount of CO2.

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

We know that temperatures have been higher than current temps for 25% of the past 12000 years.

So if there are problems in the GBR and if those problems are caused by higher temps then we can say that those problems were experience by the reef in those past times when temps were higher than now. And we can say (since the GBR is still extant) that the GBR survived those problems. Hence there is either no problem or the problems are caused by things other than temps.

QED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold is dependent on the amount of CO2"

During the decade starting in 2000 the volume of stratospheric water vapour declined by 10%. At a time was atmospheric CO2 was increasing. So the link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and stratospheric water vapor would be...err doubtful.

According to NOAA "The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown". But the science is,apparently, settled.

mhaze.
Where did your information come from?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Quote

"..."Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle."

And:

"Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Phys.Org, states in a 2014 study states:

"... Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

Says:

" ... the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes ...."

"Where did your information come from?"

A NOAA paper. I didn't bother linking to it since we know that you're not interested in reading anything that doesn't support your faith.