More on Hunga Tonga and its huge lingering effects but JD worries about our few coal fired power stations:

"Even though Hunga injected 146 million metric tons of water vapor into the stratosphere —an unprecedented amount, roughly 10% of the total stratospheric load— Wikipedia’s editors would have you believe the effect was negligible...

... More significantly, it appears that Hunga Tonga not only filled the atmosphere with unprecedented amounts of extra water —what goes up must eventually come down— it also knocked the oceans off kilter. It sent a boiling tsunami around the entire world. It shot a global sonic wave around the planet twice. The explosion was more powerful than Russia’s biggest nuclear bomb, Tsar Bomba...
The blast delivered an extraordinary vertical impulse —akin to a megaton-class hammer strike— directly above a complex subduction zone sitting right at the edge of the Pacific Plate. The imaginable geologic knock-on effects are potentially staggering. Earthquakes. Secondary eruptions. Tsunamis. And so on...

What causes boiling-hot, deep-ocean vents? Volcanic activity. Magma from the Earth’s core is heating up the water, which is venting out, raising ocean temperatures and putting even more water vapor into the atmosphere, which heats the air through greenhouse effects.
Needless to say, activity inside the Earth’s core has nothing to do with manmade carbon dioxide.
Hysterical corporate media articles about global warming ignore all these facts.

In conclusion, Hunga Tonga is the prime suspect for all the recent weird weather and bizarre oceanic activity. Geoengineering isn’t off the hook for causing flash floods— cloud seeding when the skies are oversaturated with record water vapor levels might not be such a terrific idea. But climate science is a bad joke when it ignores the flaming mountain in the room— the biggest potential driver of everything we’ve been seeing." (- Jeff Childers)

Mikko2,

Nobody’s denying Hunga Tonga was an extraordinary eruption. Yes, it injected an unprecedented amount of water vapour into the stratosphere, but that effect will fade within a few years. That’s not speculation, either, it’s what’s been observed after every major eruption in recorded history.

That’s why scientists distinguish between short-lived forcings like volcanic aerosols or water vapour pulses, and long-lived forcings like CO2. The latter stays in the atmosphere for centuries, continually trapping heat. Even if Hunga Tonga were the “prime suspect” for recent anomalies, it can’t explain the steady multi-decade rise in global temperatures, ocean heat content, and bleaching frequency documented well before 2022.

Jumping from “Hunga Tonga was big” to “it’s the main driver of everything” is exactly the kind of post hoc fallacy conspiracy blogs love. Science accounts for volcanic impacts - it doesn’t need to ignore them to recognise the dominant role of human-driven greenhouse gases in long-term warming.

In short, we have denialist blogs and volcano conspiracies on the one hand, and on the other... science.

and on the other... science.
John Daysh,
There are several sciences, proven, the guessed, the blatantly off, the convenient & the fund procuring !
The last is the most popular-among scientists that is !

p.s. You still haven't come forward with your view on the impact & harm to the ecology of the GBR from "recreational" fishing.

Indyvidual,

The climate science on the GBR is based on decades of peer-reviewed research and open data, not guesswork or blog speculation. Dismissing it as “fund procuring” without evidence is just an unsubstantiated smear.

As for recreational fishing, I already addressed that: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23598#399753

Repeating the same question after it’s been answered is just sealioning.

If you want to reduce fishing pressure, great - I'm with you - but that’s not an argument for ignoring the main stressor affecting the entire 2,300km system.

John Daysh,
The whole 2300km are hammered by recreational fishing !
p.s. Peer review means that all other than academic is ignored !

That's a mere assertion, Indyvidual:

//The whole 2300km are hammered by recreational fishing !//

If you have system-wide survey data showing that, present it. AIMS’ long-term monitoring does measure fish abundance and biodiversity, and their reports identify overfishing as a localised stressor.

The system-wide stressor is marine heatwaves. That’s why bleaching events correlate directly with temperature spikes, not fishing trips.

//Peer review means that all other than academic is ignored !//

No, it means findings are tested, replicated, and checked against evidence before being published - usually anonymously, too.

Anecdotes and personal impressions aren’t ignored because they’re non-academic, they’re insufficient because they can’t stand in for systematic, reproducible data.

If you want to argue fishing is the dominant factor, bring the science that shows it. Otherwise, it’s just your gut feeling against decades of published research.

Repeating assertions without data doesn’t make them true, it just makes the gap between evidence and opinion more obvious.