Great Barrier Reef Reprise

During one of my recent climate change presentations a member of the audience broke into the middle with an obvious challenge about the Great Barrier Reef dying because of ocean acidification. Rather than go off track I expressed my doubts saying that’s not what I recalled and tabled it until the end. I had some understanding about the GBR, but had to do more research. The claim is wrong on two points.

 

Point 1)
Above a pH of 7.0 a solution is alkaline and becomes more or less alkaline.
Below a pH of 7.0 a solution is acidic and becomes more or less acidic.
The ocean's pH is about 8.0. That's alkaline. Variations are more or less alkaline, not more or less acidic. The obvious reason for incorrectly using the term "ocean acidification" is a propaganda gambit to scare the gullible and uninformed who associate acid with bad, like alien blood and spit.
Highly alkaline compounds such as caustic soda can be just as dangerous as acidic compounds, e.g. concentrated bleach, sodium hypochlorite, pH 9 to 13. On the other hand: rain has a pH of 4.5, lemon juice has a pH of 2.0, tomatoes a pH of 4.5, and vinegar a pH of 2.2. If they get on your hands the flesh doesn't melt and they don't burn a hole in the kitchen counter.
Improperly using the term "acidification" to scare the public over bogus CAGW is a disgrace to science. Spit out the Kool-Aid and grow a backbone.


Point 2)
Bleaching is not dying. There have been numerous bleaching incidents in the past. Bleaching is caused by, among other causes, warm water temperatures especially those caused by El Ninos and NOT pH. The GBR has always mostly recovered. Long term damage or death has been relatively minor. The polyps and other life that inhabit the coral structure die when the water gets too hot or too cold or too fresh and when the conditions revert they recolonize. That’s the way it has been going for millions of years.


Also during the post presentation the same person stated another BS MSM sound bite and another member of the audience pronounced it BS whereupon they got their undies in a knot and stomped out of the room like a six year old possibly to go whine at their mommy.


If you thin skinned uppity millennial snow flakes don’t want your BS challenged quit believing the MSM and green web site sound bites & do your own homework and thinking!!! Yes, saving the world makes one all warm and fuzzy. Too bad it’s not real.

 

Per GBRMPA over 75% of the GBR is just fine. 22% is badly damaged, 85% of that is in the northern sector and El Nino was at fault.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/media-room/latest-news/coral-bleaching/2016/the-facts-on-great-barrier-reef-coral-mortality

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/media-room/coral-bleaching

 

Comments

Shane Dean Added Mar 14, 2017 - 7:19pm
Wait, you mean global warming propagandists aren't using proper science???  Say it ain't so!!!
 
Ok, silliness aside, even as a non-scientist I have run circles around most people I talk with, simply because they have not done the research themselves and are just regurgitating talking points of other non-scientists.  Like Al Gore, who majored in journalism. 
 
I will not deny our climate is shifting, because numbers do not lie.  I merely hold contention with WHY.
 
Yesterday I saw a science journal (can't remember which one) said that preliminary results showed soils releasing CO2 as they warmed. Not American cars, but the soil.  Today I saw an article stating up to 50% of Arctic ice change of state was due purely to nature.  It also stated there is a very good chance that natural processes could right the balance irregardless of what humans try to do.
 
I could rant on and on, but my point is this is NOT settled science, despite what non-scientific professional tantrum throwers try to tell us.  Mainly because to a TRUE scientist, NOTHING is settled science.  Good science is doing everything you can to try to prove and idea WRONG, not doctor and cherry-pick your science to make sure you prove yourself right.
 
Good info, thank you for posting.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 15, 2017 - 6:37pm
Certainly there are many examples of science we thought we "knew" that turned out not to be true.   The earth is not at the center of the universe, just for starters. 
 
There are some things in science that are known to be true, but these are the very simple things, like the sun rises in the east.  The causes of  growth or not of barrier reefs, climate, and many other things, are not simple, and not completely understood.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 15, 2017 - 6:46pm
We are now so used to people in politics and in the media using spin to prove their  point, that we forget this is not science.  Cherry picking a few stats to prove the President has increased jobs, does not mean he increased jobs, or did anything else he claimed to have done.  In fact Presidents dont do much, so the best he could claim is that something happened on his watch, but it doesnt mean he caused it.
Jeff Jackson Added Mar 16, 2017 - 10:02am
Nice Post Nicholas. As I say a lot, to anyone who knows someone who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old or that evolution is just speculation, have them talk to me. After our conversation, they will either believe that earth is 4 billion years old and evolution is a fact, or they will tell you that I'm going to Hell, one of the other. My suggestion is all of the scientists that insist that global warming is real and openly advocate it, if they are wrong, they should have their credentials removed, terminated from their academic position, and have their pensions revoked. 
In the 1970s they said the world was getting colder, and we would have another Ice Age, and they were wrong. They also said we would be out of oil by 2020, and we're nowhere near that point.  Public advocacy of false or unproven science should have consequences. 
George M Brenckle Added Mar 16, 2017 - 12:41pm
The real point is not to argue over whether the average temperature is increasing of decreasing (it is increasing), or whether the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing or decreasing (it is increasing).
 
The real point is to decide rationally what (if anything) we need to do about it.  Policy is not Science.  Policy is taking action and all actions have positive and negative impacts on human beings.
 
We've got to stop the "chicken little", "we're all going to die" hysteria and think rationally about our stewardship of our planet.