From: The Australian
A GOVERNMENT-run research body has found that the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for the growth of corals spanning more than 1000km of Australia’s coastline.
The findings undermine predictions that global warming will devastate coral reefs, and add to a growing body of evidence showing corals are more resilient than previously thought – up to a certain point.
The study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, peer-reviewed findings of which were published today in the leading journal Science, examined 27 samples from six locations from the West Australian coast off Geraldton to offshore from Darwin.
At each site, scientists took cores from massive porites corals – similar to a biopsy in humans – and counted back to record their age in much the same way tree rings are counted.
Although some cores extended to the 18th century, they focused on the period from 1900 to 2010.
The researchers found that, contrary to their expectations, warmer waters had not negatively affected coral growth.
In fact, for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years.
For their northern samples, where waters are the warmest and have changed the least, coral growth still increased, but not by as much.
“Those reefs have actually been able to take advantage of the warmer conditions,” said Janice Lough, a senior AIMS research scientist and one of the study’s authors.
Read the rest here.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
so let’s see if I got this right: there is no global warming/climate change as it relates to man as a cause .. but if there is, it’s actually good for the planet
I think I got it now
Juice, I’ve never, not once said that man doesn’t affect his environment, including global temperatures. What I believe is that the IPCC and the global alarmist’s estimates of feedback due to CO2 are incorrect. I believe the feedback is much much lower than their estimates.
It is amazing to me that you forget (ignore?) that the climate has been warmer than it is now, and also colder than it is now. Is it a surprise to you that there is still an amazing diversity of wildlife? This diversity will continue, as evidenced by this latest GOVERNMENT study of coral and warming seas (the Australian gov’t is notoriously alarmist when it comes to warming).
As for whether or not it is good for the planet, there are numerous studies that suggest that a slightly warmer environment is better. Google it. Read. Think. Consider the diversity of life in a rain forest vs. the Arctic tundra. Also remember that warmer does not equal drier.
This study, again funded by the alarmist warming gov’t of Australia shows that despite their looking for a negative effect, warmer seas have had a net positive effect on corals. It’s up to you to consider whether or not it is good for the planet.
the issue isn’t that the climate has been warmer or colder in the distant past, it’s how civilization is affecting the climate & as a result, how mother nature is affecting civilization … by throwing off more primeval storms, earthquakes … it is coming back to bite us like a boomerang … mostly because of overpopulation which is getting more insanely overpopulated every year, every decade … you’re a country boy more or less, I can’t imagine you’d like to be rubbing elbows with more & more & more people
personally I am loving this warm winter in the northeast .. I am all for global warming in my neighborhood .. although last winter sucked
Your statement, “the issue isn’t that the climate has been warmer or colder in the distant past…” is mind-blowing. Of course it is about that. We have seen nothing, no data, that suggests our current temperatures are higher than what is suggested by natural variability. Really man, you can’t mean what you just wrote.
There is absolutely no evidence of storms or earthquakes, nor of hurricanes or tornadoes increasing.
Overpopulation is not something that can be controlled unless you have a way of culling the human population that is politically and morally tenable. I’m not aware of one.
Personally, I am hating this super northward jet stream as we have had no snow yet in Virginia and I love snow. And, my daffodils are popping up and it is way to early for that.
Juice, we are getting better at communicating. That is good stuff.
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/trends/123103-new-nasa-study-confirms-man-made-influence-over-global-warming.html
“A new NASA study confirms the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity – not changes in solar activity – are the primary force driving global warming.”
——-
Regarding overpopulation – of course we can control that. It won’t be easy. I think we should have to apply for a permit to have a child. You need a permit to build a home, why not one to bring a human being into this world? If one is financially able, mentally balanced, over 25 years of age, etc. No more teenager parents. No alcoholic/drug addicted parents. No mentally unbalanced parents. A limit of 3 biological children per family. None like that LA nutcase who just had another 8 thru some irresponsible doctor and she is already on welfare.
All this naturally goes against all of the largest religious cults on the planet. People for the most part have no idea how deeply these falsified teachings are in their DNA .. “go forth and multiply”.
What was truly said:
“But also be concerned that you do not have to suffer the misery of hunger (famine) if you breed a superfluity
of descendants, therefore you shall not multiply like vermin; if you do however breed too many descendants then you are evidently acting in a mistaken way because by doing so you invoke a calamity in great measure on yourselves, for your wellbeing (health) as well as for your world; and truly it is through your excessive descendants that you bring about great and worldwide battles (wars) and destruction, as well as hardship, misery, calamity and cataclysms in the extent of huge collapses (catastrophes) which you cannot set anything against, so you are helpless.
And beware of breeding too many of people of your kind (human beings) so that the breadth of the earth
does not become too narrow for you and there is no longer any refuge for you on it; therefore do not turn in
pity to those who wish to create descendants if there are too many of all the people of your kind (humankind),
otherwise a cataclysm (catastrophe) is unavoidable when the appearance (nature) turns against you and you
can no longer do anything about it; truly, the number of all people of your kind (humankind) is restricted for
your world, but as you exceed the number then calamities of all kinds sweep over you, which you can no longer
control.
All who are fruitful in (bear) cleverness (rationality) and insight (intellect), consider that you shall show esteem
and honour (respect) to the appearance (nature) of your world and shall keep it in health and benevolence so
that your world does not suffer its downfall (is not destroyed) through you.
It is not seemly for you as inhabitants of Earth that you commit misdemeanours against it and destroy it in itself
and in its appearance (nature) through your might and unsageness (irrationality); but if you do this, then you
make yourselves into enemies of your world, which is your home, from which will spring misery, hardship and
affliction for you, which must be ascribed to you as a disparaging (despicable) work; and truly your reward for
this is terrible cataclysms (catastrophes) with enormous destruction and wholesale (mass) deaths of people of
your kind (human beings).
And if you subject your world to an ordeal (torture), then you cannot give any amount (sum/money), whether
great or small, to ward off the resulting calamity, because all the cataclysms (catastrophes) will be so great that
you will no longer be able to resolve them, therefore the blame for it must be laid at your door, for which you
will receive your reward of terrible things heaped upon terrible things and calamity upon calamity.”
Juice, I can’t take you seriously when you post your alien prophecies.
Let’s take on your Hansen paper.
Wow, I can’t believe any rational person would be able to take this statement seriously: “”The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn’t a surprise given what we’ve learned about the climate system, but it’s worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming,” Hansen said.”
YEAH, let’s just forget about that PESKY LITTLE SUN, shall we? LMAO.
First of all, those ARGO floats he is using, surprisingly, were showing a COOLING ocean. So what did NASA do with the floats that were showing cooling? LOL, they threw them the fuck away. You can read about it below.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
And then, NASA, knowing some of their floats were showing excessive warming, went ahead and USED the data from the excessively warm floats. VOILA! The cooling ocean is fixed.
Secondly, you’ll note he starts talking about aerosols. This is because their CO2 model is falling apart. As CO2 continues to rise and temperatures stabilize, it is falling apart in front of yours, theirs, and the world’s eyes. Thus, they need another fudge factor. They decide they they must have underestimated the cooling of aerosols. This allows them to say that their CO2 models are correct. It’s just that they’ve underestimated the aerosols.
Finally, most of the paper, save for the artificially warmed ARGO temperature data sets, relies on Hansen’s modeling. Keep in mind the failure of ALL of his models to predict the temperature over any length of time greater than a few years.
FWIW, if you want to read the actual paper rather than the press release, here you go. This paper has been sliced and diced by the skeptics for weeks now.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
Juice, here is evidence, both in NASA emails and in the temperature record that NASA changes temperature data without informing anyone and without any explanation:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/
Keep in mind, this is from their_own_emails.
Hansen’s own words:
“I am being besieged by these… The appropriate response is to show the curves for U.S. and global temperatures before and after McIntyre’s correction. Makiko doubts that his is possible because the earlier result has been ‘thrown away’. We will never live this down if we give such a statement. It must be possible to reconstruct the “before” result. Unfortunately this needs to be done soon as there are various writers with deadlines this afternoon. .. By the way, I think that we should save the results of the analyses at least once a year, so we will have a record of how they change.”
And this is the guy that you think can accurately model an energy imbalance in a system as complex as our Earth and its atmosphere, to .58 watts per square meter.
Juice you must be a lawyer or politician. That is exactly the type of dumbass thinking that plagues the majority of politicians (who’s primary degree or occupation is law). They think they can pass a law against human nature. I would love to fly, let’s pass a law against gravity!
Gun control…. The law abiding citizens turn in their guns, but the people who don’t then do not have to worry wbout robbing someone and are then given free reign and the number of violent crimes goes up. Not to mention nearly every gun control in history is followed by government takeover and government turning against the people.l as the military who then have the instant possibility of dictatorial powers with the military with no ability for people to defend themselves.
Same thing banning short sellers. It only prevents the short covering rallies and makes things worse. You cannot simply pass a law and make things better… Nt in the REAL world.
Zombie bankers and sociopath lawyers.
Yep, circuitous problem pontificators. By design.
Don’t ask me how I know… X ]
Malthusianism is a mental disease.
____________
Not if it is for the good of the planet. Malthus loved his ideas as long as they weren’t applied to him. NIMBY applied to the person. Good times.