Jayb, I can only urge you again to get informed. Those responses are flippant and not based on any serious knowledge. I won't waste my time offering you any more information except to correct one point about the GB Reef.

The GB Reef is being threatened by a rise in ocean acidity, as well as a rise in ocean temperature. So going south won't save it, even if it could migrate. How long do you think it took to build the largest reef structure in the world, three weeks?

rstuart,

The end of Permian extinction coincides with a "flood basalt" eruption in Siberia that poured out a few million cubic kilometers of lava and probably a lot of acidifying gas including CO2, so a plausible cause is known. The end of Cretaceous extinction, on the other hand, was plausibly due to a large meteorite impact. The imminent extinction is not likely to be on the scale of either of those though.

The GBR is being threatened by dumbed down people listening to CO2 ETS propaganda while not reducing sewage nutrient pollution that is feeding algae that is smothering coral.

The GBR and world coral is already seriously impacted by nutrient pollution.

Why waste time with propaganda? How can all the water in ocean become acidic, where is the data?

The problem in the ocean including fish devastation and stocks not recovering is due is too many nutrients dumped daily by over 7 billion humans into the water ecosystem of this planet.

Perhaps the real problem is gagging of science and debate.

Was the site out over the week end? I'd run out of posts. Most annoying.

But wait there's more.

Sea level rises of 1-15 meters, if not this century then next. Most major ports out of action, Bangladesh and many other places flooded. Most major cities in deep trouble.

That's, Ports, at present. These would have to be replaced in 50 years anyway. The new ones would accomodate the higher coast line.

Our global financial/industrial system nearly collapses under its own internal dysfunctions. It’s extremely doubtful it could survive even the mild end of these external shocks. That means potentially massive poverty, starvation, major loss of human life, wars, who knows what, until we localise economies again.

So what's so different from now? The more things change the more they stay the same.

Remember there’s also peak oil, peak soil, peak fresh water, globally disruptive pollution, destruction of forests, etc., whether there’s global warming or not. We have to change the way we live on the planet. It’s not infinite.

Oh My God! you'll have to change the way YOU live. Sob! Sob!

Well, that’s a start. Ditto

going south won't save it, even if it could migrate.

I is migrating now. Newly formed reefs have been found at Gladstone. I've been through, dirty warter, Ag. runnoff polution, Crown of Thorns, cyclones, etc, etc. It's still there.

How long do you think it took to build the largest reef structure in the world, three weeks? No, but It'll still be here in one form or another when Humans have gone extinct & some other form of life has taken over from us.

And still they come...

rstuart: Actually, it is lowish by geological standards. If all the ice melted, it would be around 80 meters higher.

It's been there before. Ever been to the Whitsundays. you can see the highwater mark on the rocks. About 80 meters up. So what?

But you have to spell it correctly when you refer to it.

Sorry, I did the first 2 times. You should have looked then.

RObert: If any of the income stream from it becomes part of consolidated revenue or an asset for electoral pork-barreling they won't be able to afford to give it up.

Therein lies the crux of the whole matter. Money. ETS, It sounds like another, "Tulip scam" to me.

Geoff Davies: "so a plausible cause is known"

Yes. Several in fact. But from the Wikipedia no primary cause can explain what happened on its own. For example, the "flood basalt" activity in the north can't explain what happened south of the equator. To get the full impact observed various feedback loops triggered by that primary cause are added. Some of them (eg, Methane hydrate gasification, algae blooms) would to do more damage than the original cause. This means the flood basalt or whatever primary cause you favour is reduced to a trigger, rather like the rising CO2 levels we have now.

JF Aus: "How can all the water in ocean become acidic, where is the data?"

It is not that hard to find, assuming you are in the slightest bit interested in going looking. For example, the second sentence of the the Wikipedia entry on the subject gives two sources of data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Jayb: "So what?"
Jayb: "Did anyone look at the Sahul Chart by Monash? Would someone like to comment on that?"

It was a comment on that chart. If doesn't even show the levels we are going to hit the century, never mind the levels we could hit in the next few. I am not sure you were hoping I would see in the chart, but whatever it was I missed it.

Jayb: "So what's so different from now? The more things change the more they stay the same."

Most people, if told we had to move most our major cities in this next century would not take it as sanguinely as you do. It took us 2 centuries to build them in the first place. With respect to sahultime, a 15M rise in two centuries appears to be 4 times faster than any point shown on it. It would be quite a shock, given in the last 2 millennia we have operated under the assumption the sea level remains constant.

Oh dear, the government will go ahead no matter what comes to light
from "The Emails" and the attached data.
It seems that even though the CRU people have acknowledged their
fiddling, it is being simply ignored.
At the very least everything should be put on hold until it is all
sorted out.
It is not just the data fiddling, they fiddled the computer program
also produce the desired results.
It is not just that either, they censored papers from authors of whom
they did not approve.
They put pressure on scientific publication to not publish "deniers".
They pressured government officers to ignore FOI requests from persons
who they did not approve.

They were the gatekeepers for the IPCC publishing of documents.
Other scientists are now examining the data to try and sort out what
is real and which is suspect. It will take some time for all this to be done.

In these circumstances the call for resignations seems the very
least that is acceptable.
They also should be prosecuted for interfering with the function
of public servants in the FOI office.

The UK government should institute a Royal Commission enquiry.
An enquiry is needed because of the international implications.