Way back in 2005 when climate science retained a modicum of integrity, questions were raised about the accuracy of the climate temperature record following the revelations from Anthony Watts that showed enormous numbers of temperature sites which were corrupted by development.(eg a site that might have been rural in 1950 but now very much urban due to development). It was claimed that adjustments to the data corrected for this, but that was open to question.

So NOAA created the USCRN database of temperatures using only pristine temperature sites that hadn’t been corrupted by development for decades. The results are here… http://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
there is no discernible increasing trend in the temperature over the 18 years of data.

Recently a new study was published in Climate (http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179) which, long story short, showed that the temperature record is overstated by as much as 40% due to the urban heat-island effect. These numbers were determined by comparing rural only sites with data from combined rural and urban sites.

The result is to call into question the claims about the current temperature records derived from surface records, making the satellite records much more appropriate. It has been known for a long time that the satellite record shows a much lower warming than the surface record, which is why it is ignored by the climate cultists.

In a similar vein, a new interesting article from a climate scientist who explains how we are being misled… http://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published due to publication bias. In the new anti-science world of climate, papers that don’t tow the sky-is-falling line just don’t see the light of day as regards the media. Thus, in this case, we see climate being blamed for the recent fires in Hawaii and western America, when the real causes lie elsewhere.

Catastrophic climate change is a con that results in the massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy investment classes

Dear Mhaze,

How dare you?

Challenging the ruling class?

If they were not able to take away your wealth by fraud then they would take it by force as they did for centuries - which one do you prefer?

WTF?

We need to thank mhaze for deviating from his usual rants as this time he has actually referenced the National Centers for Environmental Information.

This organisation concludes: "Over the global domain, the NOAAGlobalTemp version 5 trends are statistically consistent with the previous version. These trends further support earlier research findings over decadal and longer timescales, showing the robustness of the warming trends and no slowdown or warming hiatus on decadal scales."

And later concludes: "Warming rates are even higher in the most recent period beginning in the late 1990s (0.18°C and 0.19°C/decade for 1990 to 2018 in versions 4 and 5, respectively) and early 2000s (0.19°C and 0.20°C/decade for 2000 to 2018 in versions 4 and 5)."

So thanks for the link mhaze - it reinforces the scientific conclusion that global warming is taking place.

The word 'corrupted' in the same sentence as 'climate science' is very appropriate. Everything about the false climate "emergency" is corrupt.

The final paragraph of this worthy post says it all. I would add the creeping totalitarian power that Australian politicians are accruing to themselves. Democracy in Australia is looking more like the sort in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

From Jo Nova today:-

"Using the same ClimateChange reasoning the UN Secretary General uses, it’s clear fossil fuel use dramatically reduces the number of dangerous cyclones in the Northern Indian Ocean. A new study revealed an astonishing 43% decline in the number of equatorial cyclones in recent decades (1981–2010) compared to earlier (1951–1980) when fossil fuel use was vastly reduced. The researchers also point out that this is especially interesting because “the Indian Ocean basin has warmed consistently and more than any other ocean basin.” Could it be that warmer oceans are not necessarily terrible?" (joannenova.com.au)

WTF?

ttbn your source appears to have used Google to gauge the uptake in interest in this research " A Google News search today shows that in the seven days since the press release came out, exactly no mass media outlets have reported this good news."

I didn't think you trusted Google?

Also from the research your source refers to : "When this tug-of-war between the natural and anthropogenic forcing changes, and they begin to work synergistically, the risk of severe cyclones in the post-monsoon north Indian Ocean may be amplified."

Also, the research referred to states: "the Indian Ocean basin has warmed consistently and more than any other ocean basin.” and also "the risk of severe cyclones.... may be amplified".

So the concept of global warming causing less frequent but more severe cyclones is not new.

Further the research states: "... 3 other studies have questioned the reliability of the TC data in the pre-satellite era due to the changes in technology and analysis protocols".

There is nothing new to see here.

The implication that "fewer cyclones is a good thing, right?" that appears in JoNova's title is downplaying of the expected more severe cyclones.

Well all WTF has got is "expected more severe cyclones". Probably some clown modeled it with typical lack of real imputes, but readily believed by the useful idiots & the likes of WTF & his Labor activists.

Based on the data in the papers I talk about at the beginning of the post, it is clear that the warming has been overstated by up to 40%. That's not to say that the majority of people don't experience the warming since most people live in urban environments that suffer greater levels of warming due to asphalt, concrete, lack of trees etc. But in terms of actual world wide warming outside the cities, while it continues to occur, it is way less than the headline numbers.

This of course means that the (fictitious) upper acceptable limit of warming of 1.5c is unlikely to occur, net-zero or no net-zero.

All of that is interesting and not unexpected. The great John Daly predicted this city/rural divide back in the 1990s.

But the last paper I liked is what I find most interesting. Here we have a rooly-trooly climate scientist admitting that we are basically not getting the full picture and only approved messages are acceptable to the climate mafia. Translation - we are being lied to.

WTF?

Hasbeen says: " Probably some clown modeled it with typical lack of real imputes...."

Well let me hold your hand through this - ttbn quoted from the Jo Nova website.

Jo Nova sited a research paper to support a particular point of view.

Jo Nova was supporting the idea that ocean warming may reduce the number of cyclones - this was mentioned in the research paper.

What was also mentioned in the research paper was the possibility of more severe cyclones. Severe tropical cyclones are rated as category 3,4 and 5.

So I was simply following the logical steps to find this information from the research paper.

I cannot speak for them but I suggest the researchers might take offence at being called clowns.

ttbn has indicated that he no longer wants to engage in conversation with me.

Are you perhaps "white-knighting" on his behalf?

WTF?

mhaze says: "But in terms of actual world wide warming outside the cities, while it continues to occur, it is way less than the headline numbers."

The suggestion is data from cities causes a bias in data.

But if we take a closer look at the first reference that mhaze provides the following can be found:

"The most notable improvement currently in progress addresses the incomplete coverage in the Arctic, where evidence of climate change is greatest; the lack of full coverage has been shown to underestimate the global warming rate".

So few if any people in the Artic and mhaze's reference is saying that there is an underestimation of the global warming rate.

One thing that mhaze and I do agree on is that warming will continue to occur.

Guess what, I don't give a damn what researchers might take offense at, when they stop making ridiculous claims, like CO2 is making fish left handed, I might stop thinking of them as clowns. I guess pigs will be flying long before that.

Do you think that global boiling could come from anything but a clown?

I have a question of my own and I challenge climate science for the answer.

What percentage of melted polar and glacier ice water is taken up in the atmosphere while not included in sea level rise?

JF Aus says: "I have a question of my own and I challenge climate science for the answer".

I don't think you'll find any climate scientists in the general discussion area so I doubt your question will be answered here.

I do know that there is a lot of research on line so I suggest you start your search there.

It is an interesting question so get back to us when you have completed your answer.

Hasbeen says: "Guess what, I don't give a damn what researchers might take offense at."

I doubt that researchers in general will be caring about input about their work that is essentially childish name calling.

But somehow I do not think Hasbeen will reduce his emotional name calling when confronted with evidence that challenges his world view.

Here is a life tip Hasbeen -The facts don't care about your feelings.

There is stronger evidence now that snowball Earth resulted from volcanic eruptions and subsequent weathering of the volcanic rock. Is there any chance of better understanding the process and seeing whether it might be used for our benefit? Not on your life as any such proposal would get screamed down by the global boiling catastrophists. Like nuclear power, anything that might work or be economically viable is off the table with these zealots.

"So few if any people in the Artic and mhaze's reference is saying that there is an underestimation of the global warming rate."

It would be the height of naivety to think that the warming would be uniform around the world. AFAIR, all research into previous NATURAL warming periods finds uneven warming around the globe.

So one place warming more or less than another place is really a mere curiosity although of vital importance for the folk in those places.

Nonetheless, the overall conclusion from the paper is that the currently most favoured databases of temperature over estimate the level of warming; that, from USCRN, it is likely that, outside the urban concrete jungles, warming is virtually non-existent this century; and from the publication bias exposed, we are not getting anywhere near the full story.

Its all designed to transfer vast sums from the poor to the rich

"Its all designed to transfer vast sums from the poor to the rich".

Yes. It probably is that simple, and the usual simpletons have fallen for it. The old adage, 'The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer' has never been truer.

The poor are certainly suffering under the 'climate emergency' confidence trick, which is backed by the rich who can afford to pay for it. The difference in the percentage of income the poor pays for electricity compared with the percentage the rich pays is enormous.

The carbon dioxide scam is undoubtedly the worst in history, given its vast effect on so many people, and the fact that the con is being operated by governments.

WTF?

mhaze states "Nonetheless, the overall conclusion from the paper is that the currently most favoured databases of temperature over estimate the level of warming; that, from USCRN, it is likely that, outside the urban concrete jungles, warming is virtually non-existent this century."

Also " we are not getting anywhere near the full story."

It is you who are getting nowhere near the full story.

Quoting from your linked resources:

"All six major global temperature datasets used for analysis in the report agree that the last eight years (2015–22) were the eight warmest on record. The annual global mean surface temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.14 to 0.16 of a degree F (0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C) per decade since 1880, and at a rate more than twice as high since 1981."

More from your linked resources: The July Global Land and Ocean
July Temperature Anomalies have not had a negative value from the mean since 1976 and the negative variation from the mean has not been less than 0.2 degrees since 1935.

As I have said before, mhaze, you do agree with me that warming continues to occur.

Global warming is increasing - that we all agree on that.

The lowest income families spend 15% of their income on electricity; the highest income families spend 1%.

Thanks to the net zero/unreliable generation of electricity and subsidies to foreigners, prices have risen by 50% over the past two years.

We now have the highest electricity prices in the world.

In the latest outrage, foreign company BP, with Australian taxpayer subsidies, intends to install 740,000 Chinese solar panels on prime grazing land on Gundary Plains near Goulburn.

This is an area which has a mere 88 days of clear sunny weather a year; snow in winter, and severe frosts.

No compensation for the 60 farming families - unless you call free solar panels for their homes compensation. One grazier has already installed his own panels as an experiment. OK in the short sunny period, useless the rest of the year.

When these 740,000 panels reach the end of their lives, there is no requirement for whichever robber barons are operating them at the time to pay for their removal.

As mhaze says, the whole scheme is to make money for rich people and leave the mess to the rest of us when the obvious happens.

Relax ttbn.

British company BP with its 740,000 solar panels near government and associated businesses linked to Canberra, would likely gain vast promotion from that albeit subsidised caper.
Plus a return from whatever electricity they might produce.

WTF,

I don't expect an immediate answer to my question.
Climate science is definitely incomplete.

The answer to the percentage of melted polar and glacier ice water that is evaporated into the atmosphere where it adds to cloud on this planet should be known in order to assess any AGW linked increase in sea level.

I will let you know if I see such data and would appreciate you and anyone else doing the same for me.

As when we found that WTF didn't have the faintest understanding of how anomalies are used in climate science, we now find that he's completely missed the point of the study I linked.

Even though he claims to be quoting from the report I linked, he's actually quoting from a completely different report. Go figure!!

The point, which he appears to have utterly missed, is that the report I linked shows that the traditional temperature records over-estimate the actual temperature increase over the previous 150 years by up to 40%. WTF seems to think that all the databases being in broad agreement means something. Yes, it does, It means they all over-estimate temperature by roughly the same amount.

I had previously schooled SR on why the major surface temperature databases are in broad agreement, being that they all basically use the same raw data. I haven't got the heart to do it all over again with WTF.

So when he says temperatures are increasing by "0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C per decade" the new study shows this is more likely to be 0.05c per decade. Of course, you can't build a scare on 0.5c warming be century, so they use the larger, fictitious number.

JF Aus,

Ya what?

mhaze,

WTF doesn't have "faintest understanding", period; which is why I intend to give him a wide berth in future. It's futile trying to deal with such people. They are as entitled to their opinions as anyone else, and that's it.

"As I have said before, mhaze, you do agree with me that warming continues to occur."

Yep, but our reaction to that fact is very different. The sky-is-falling crowd think that any warming is a harbinger of disaster.

I think that the mild warming we've experienced to date and are likely to experience in the next century or so is beneficial to humankind and is to be welcomed. Monitor the warming to be sure. And adapt where necessary. But jumping at shadows isn't rational.

mhaze states: "Even though he claims to be quoting from the report I linked, he's actually quoting from a completely different report. Go figure!!"

Dear oh dear mhaze.

Think about it for a minute - you linked to the NCEI website as your first source of evidence. The NCEI is not just one webpage it has multiple resources and I am quoting directly from them.

When researching look beyond just 1 page.

The page you direct to shows only data from the U.S. and you also agree that "So one place warming more or less than another place is really a mere curiosity although of vital importance for the folk in those places."

That is why the big picture needs to be considered and your source states that the big picture is:

"Over the global domain, the NOAAGlobalTemp version 5 trends are statistically consistent with the previous version. These trends further support earlier research findings over decadal and longer timescales, showing the robustness of the warming trends and no slowdown or warming hiatus on decadal scales."

Welcome back ttbn - that didn't last long.
As I said denialism is a powerful drug.

JF Aus says: "would appreciate you and anyone else doing the same for me."

Sorry - not for me but I might look at anything you find if it interests me at the time.

I am having way more fun with mhaze linking me to resources that provide us with such substantial data supporting global warming.

WTF

Are you really that thick! It is YOU that I'm not having anything to do with. I'm giving you the same cold shoulder as I give the Three Stooges, not main, sensible posters or OLO on general. This entails not reading your idiotic threads, and not reading your dumb opinions of other's threads.

You might have noticed that I have been sent to Coventry myself by most posters, and my only interest these days is expressing my OPINION on whatever interests me. That’s what On Line OPINION is about. It is not about arguing with idiots whose ideas are set in concrete, or idiots who think that they can change other people's opinions.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but my own, and and those of people with the same or similar opinions to mine are the only ones I care about. You do not figure in my world at all, buster.

ttbn says: "It is YOU that I'm not having anything to do with."

Also: "Are you really that thick!"

You can't make this stuff up.

"I am having way more fun with mhaze linking me to resources that provide us with such substantial data supporting global warming."

You only think that since, as you demonstrated in an earlier thread, you don't understand the nature of the data or even how anomalies work or the reasons why the data you rely on to maintain your beliefs is highly questionable.

Its all rather comical.

WTF?

mhaze states: " the data you rely on to maintain your beliefs is highly questionable."

I'm using the data that you directed me to so maybe it is your research skills that are questionable.

And don't forget that you agree with my beliefs about the upward trend in global warming.

"I'm using the data that you directed me to so maybe it is your research skills that are questionable."

See, now I don't know if WTF is just a monumental dill or just playing the clown to ignore evidence he doesn't want to be true.

The clown thinks that if I link to a page on a site that says something of interest then I must support everything on that site. Its the type of idiocy that thinks that if I link to an article in The Age then I must support everything put out by The Age. Moronosity reigns supreme.

"And don't forget that you agree with my beliefs about the upward trend in global warming."

And then I draw entirely different conclusions about that. The problem with many of the chicken littles of the climate debate is that they have no notion of proportion. We're warming therefore catastrophe is imminent is the childish level of their thinking. Really quite pathetic.

The Age newspaper is biased against local knowledge of evidence about ocean phenomena linked to marine animal starvation and ocean water quality and weather.
That bias has prevented quality communication of new information involving evidence of substance and impact and consequences and solutions to preventable humanitarian and economic catastrophe.
Therein is evidence The Age newspaper is presently not a reliable source of news and information that may indicate early and due solutions.

N.B.
I am aware of defamation law.
There is evidence to prove my opinion above is of substance and true beyond reasonable doubt.

P.S
Contribution on this forum would do well to stop using each other. Then concentrate on due discussion.

.... to stop abusing each other.....

WTF?

mhaze - I am not talking about The Age.

I am talking about U.S. National Centers for Environmental Studies and their mission is "NCEI provides environmental data, products, and services covering the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun to drive resilience, prosperity, and equity for current and future generations."

So everything is on topic unlike your irrelevant Age comparison.

mhaze you previously stated "It would be the height of naivety to think that the warming would be uniform around the world."

Yet you naively direct us to a webpage that contains - information about just one part of the world and then use that as evidence to support your point of view - about warming.

And later: "So one place warming more or less than another place is really a mere curiosity..."

This is why I refer to your sources conclusion that:
"All six major global temperature datasets used for analysis in the report agree that the last eight years (2015–22) were the eight warmest on record. The annual global mean surface temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.14 to 0.16 of a degree F (0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C) per decade since 1880, and at a rate more than twice as high since 1981."

"All six major global temperature datasets used for analysis in the report agree that the last eight years (2015–22) were the eight warmest on record. The annual global mean surface temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.14 to 0.16 of a degree F (0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C) per decade since 1880, and at a rate more than twice as high since 1981."

WTF, by constantly quoting that you show me three things:

1. You have no idea how anomalies work
2. You have no idea how these databases are constructed
3. You've completely misunderstood the point of the paper I linked which shows that these databases overstate the warming

"Yet you naively direct us to a webpage that contains - information about just one part of the world".

I'll try one more time and then if you still can't get it I have to conclude this is either too hard for you to comprehend or you're determined to pretend you don't get because the conclusions are so detrimental to your case.

The USCRN data isn't important because of what it shows about the US record. Its important because of what it shows about the data from pristine rural sites as compared to data from corrupted urban sites ie that the data using corrupted urban sites overstates the warming by a wide margin. It seems fairly obvious and easily understood as far as I can see, but if you can't get it....well so be it.

mhaze,

Is flare and other activity on the sun also measured with data included in sea surface temperature science?

http://www.space.com/sun-blasts-highest-energy-radiation-ever-recorded-raising-questions-solar-physics?fbclid=IwAR2xDzxcRavs5JCutFG5Kue02D-UWoNLTT9TiET55WcDF3t9IqqqCVVBlDw

WTF?

mhaze says:

"Its important because of what it shows about the data from pristine rural sites as compared to data from corrupted urban sites"

on one hand while stating on the other:

"So one place warming more or less than another place is really a mere curiosity although of vital importance for the folk in those places."

Once again mhaze your resource concludes that " "Over the global domain, the NOAAGlobalTemp version 5 trends are statistically consistent with the previous version. These trends further support earlier research findings over decadal and longer timescales, showing the robustness of the warming trends and no slowdown or warming hiatus on decadal scales."

This is not going to change regardless of what you say.

"Is flare and other activity on the sun also measured with data included in sea surface temperature science?"

Not directly. The surface temperature records simply record the temperature in (normally) Celsius at the surface. On land the measurement is taken, about 2 metres above the surface, whereas on the sea it is taken within 1 metre of the sea surface.

The action of the solar flares has nothing to do with temperature. Nonetheless, it is clear that the solar flares do act upon the upper atmosphere and these effects devolve down to having some effect on the surface. The IPCC thinks these effects are very minor and are basically ignored. OTOH, some scientists such as Svensmark think the solar flares are the main drivers on cloud formation and that clouds are a major driver of surface temperature. Svensmark theory is that most climate change cycles, including the ice ages, can be explained by changes in solar flare activity as well as the earth's interaction with intra-galactic gamma rays.

WTF,

Well that confirms it. Not only do you not understand these issues but you don't have the intellectual curiosity to try to understand them.

If you ever decide to go beyond just regurgitating what your climate gurus tell you, a starting point would be to try to understand how anomalies are used in climate science....and other areas of statistics for that matter.

mhaze states:

"just regurgitating what your climate gurus tell you,"

No I am restating what your climate gurus are saying.

You directed us to your gurus' website that provides a much more comprehensive and authoritative summation than I could provide so I will continue to quote them.

There is no point in me trying to rephase this comprehensive research to simplify it for others.

Very noteworthy in the summation from your gurus "....the robustness of the warming trends and no slowdown or warming hiatus on decadal scales."

Let's focus on where we can do something-Pollution because we can't do anything about Climate !
Recreation is also a two-edged sword. Killing fauna & destroying flora for fun, entertainment or recreation is no longer an acceptable way to perpetuate frivolous activities !
We humans need to curb just about everything we identify with modern existence.
Frivolous Plastics off the list is nr 1.
Frivolous burning of fuel is nr 2.
Frivolous tearing up country is nr 3.
And, so on ! Frivolity is killing the environment as is warfare & training for warfare which is merely frivolity for a handful of people having excess fun & games at the expense of everyone & everything else ! Curb the intellectual elite by having it depend on & live off merit !

"Let's focus on where we can do something-Pollution "

No need.... 'Earth’s atmosphere can clean itself, breakthrough study finds'

http://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220228120

There is no climate crisis.

1600 scientists including Nobel laureates explain why they dissent from the rubbish put out by the we're-all-gunna-die crowd.

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/09/13/heres_the_climate_dissent_youre_not_hearing_about_because_its_muffled_by_societys_top_institutions_978511.html

You heard it here first....and probably last. because this type of information is actively suppressed in a supposedly free society.

'Earth’s atmosphere can clean itself, breakthrough study finds'
mHaze,
These researchers obviously don't stick their heads underwater ! The plastification & acidification of the oceans has reached alarming levels. Add to that overfishing, sound pollution etc etc !
The oceans can't do as the atmosphere is doing. This breakthrough study is just a little too convenient for big environmental terrorists !

"These researchers obviously don't stick their heads underwater !"

Probably not.

I think the word 'atmosphere' in the heading is the give-away here.

I fail to understand how CO2 emissions are causing damage underwater.
Damage underwater in fresh water and ocean ecosystem waters is being caused by sewage point source nutrient overload pollution linked to over-abundance of algae blooms leading to hypoxia, dead zones, eutrophication, marine animal starvation and undernutrition and NCD among seafood dependent people.

Climate capers are a waste of time distraction.

Is anything incorrect in this report?
http://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/12/shocking-failures-of-climate-and-covid-science-highlighted-by-critical-new-report/?fbclid=IwAR3vUUOPun4YDTW30T6wuNQkcTTagY7mCAggL5d0SQJ13v4xFwIh0417r8A

The report is essentially correct.

I'm seeing more and more of these cases of scientists and medical experts being brave enough to challenge the so-called consensus on climate and other issues like Covid. I'm not sure if its a case of people becoming more inclined to tell their truths as they find like minded others, or if the errors in climate and covid research become ever more egregious.

Probably a combination of the two.

Another example of what I was talking about...

http://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/14/the-corruption-of-climate-science-in-australia/

Some insight to climate capers.

http://www.science.org/content/article/peak-solar-activity-arriving-sooner-expected-reaching-levels-not-seen-20-years

Nothing in hot weather news about heat from climate change or about heat from solar flares.
Truth could expose their alternative energy marketing caper.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/temps-tipped-to-soar-1015c-above-monthly-averages-as-nsw-warned-of-potentially-severe-heatwave/news-story/c1ef6915a2c3148b02a67af5782c1884?amp

Nothing in hot weather news about heat from climate change or about heat from solar flares.
Truth would expose their alternative energy marketing caper.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/temps-tipped-to-soar-1015c-above-monthly-averages-as-nsw-warned-of-potentially-severe-heatwave/news-story/c1ef6915a2c3148b02a67af5782c1884?amp

I believe the Skeptics report is generally quite correct.
We have a prime example right in front of us in Prof Peter Ridd and
the UN scandal about the Great Barrier reef.

The Prof Ridd point of view is also flawed.
Coral is damaged generally worldwide including on parts of the GBR.
It's not possible for all GBR to remain undamaged because damage to coral worldwide is being caused by nutrient overload pollution.
Just like heat from mid 2023 solar flares has not been included in news about dry conditions and fires in Greece and Hawaii, nutrient pollution and eutrophication damaging GBR coral is not publicly reported by the UN or Dr Ridd.
The nutrient load resuspended and/or dumped in GBR waters from harbour deepening works at Gladstone was not scientifically measured and added to the dissolved nutrient load in coastal sediment dispersal current flowing northwards from southern city point sources.
Therefore the vitally important total load of dissolved nutrient was not measured.
Therefore damage to GBR coral that followed the Gladstone works was not attributed to nutrient pollution.
Real science is urgently needed.
Numerous ecosystems of the ocean and world seafood sustainability are in danger, not just areas of the GBR.
Complete science and genuine solutions are urgently required.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946114

Obviously JF Aus you have no idea of how the east coast currents & tidal flows protect the main bulk of the great barrier reef from anything coming from the Oz continent.

Up to about 40 years ago there was a lot of effect on inner reefs of nutrients feeding sea weeds, but only in areas adjacent to population areas.

However with improved treatments of effluent, & reduced fertaliser usage many inner reefs partially smothered with this growth are again returning to rampant coral growth.

I have spent quite a bit of time on isolated atolls & indeed isolated coral reefs with no land with in tens or hundreds of miles. These were the most disappointing to dive on, with less varied coral & much less fish life compared to our reef.

Actually it is not just the Reef theories that are falling apart.
I see that Germany is looking at scrapping its Net Zero plan.
Sweden has also scrapped theirs.
I think it is about time we did likewise.
The skuffle today and yesterday about nuclear energy has blown it all up.
It now seems certain that if we are to spend up to $2Trillion on solar
and wind that it will take the best part of 20 years to do it and by
then the solar panels and wind turbine will be reaching their end of
life expectancy.
We can then start again from the oldest ones installed doing it all over again.
It will be a perpetual treadmill.
I told you that Bowen was STUPID STUPID !

More late news, I mentioned it a while back that Royal Dutch Shell was
planning on how to exit the oil industry.
The company has restructured to be one company listed in the UK only.
Last week it sold half of it UK and German retail business to a company called Octopus.
Now the International Energy Authority is warning that oil prices
will rise in early 2024. They expect oil demand will rise well above supply. I paid $2.28 today for the cheapest petrol.

China of course is in what could turn out to be a major economic crisis.
And into this mess Bowen wants to stop us even getting tenders for
nuclear power.