Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

[babe]

today you can't get research money unless you're "on the team" politically. Pretty sure that's where "Publish or Perish" goes when the govt is the source of grants to do the research.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data


LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XpUUq1PM

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.

The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.

One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.

Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.

Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.

President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.

President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.

‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.

Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’

It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.

Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.

Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.

Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?

And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?

 

[DutchJazzer]

tldnr: hahhahahhahahahahaahha




ofcourse lefty punks on here will scream and claim fake news. while they autistically screech!

 

[DutchJazzer]

 

[DutchJazzer]

sooo, we are just gonna act like the bombshell did not happen?

 

[LogGrad98]

sooo, we are just gonna act like the bombshell did not happen?

That has been the MO yes. But the falsified and manipulated data is nothing new. They've been tap dancing around it for some time now. I posted a link to an essay about it that cited 3 books and got nothing but crickets. If it doesn't fit the dogma just ignore it so it will go away is the normal response.

 

[DutchJazzer]

That has been the MO yes. But the falsified and manipulated data is nothing new. They've been tap dancing around it for some time now. I posted a link to an essay about it that cited 3 books and got nothing but crickets. If it doesn't fit the dogma just ignore it so it will go away is the normal response.

just like all the models that failed and failed. in a few weeks they will claim again that it is settled science!

 

[DutchJazzer]

The Silence of the lame stream media and the lefties is DEAFENING beyond belief. would like to make a new thread on this. but the lefty mods might delete it and ban me for it!!!!!!!!

 

[Red]

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data


LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XpUUq1PM

LMAO....

https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/

"The new article by Mr Rose demonstrates that ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is still using fake news to mislead the public and policy-makers about the scientific evidence for climate change."

So, one of the guys who cries "fake news!" more then most, uses fake science to promote his misguided beliefs.....

My dad was a clinical psychologist. He never brought his work home with him, but one lesson he learned he wanted to impart to me: the people who complain the most about a certain behavior are usually the people who practice that very behavior themselves...

 

[Red]

Mr. Ebell's views are known well enough I believe. If what he describes here reflect the plans of the Trump administration, then, since climate science is not fake at all, what they are planning represents a crime against humanity. All in the interests of the fossil fuel industry and the almighty $$$.

These people are the enemies of the human race. It really is that fundamental...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ironmental-protection-agency?CMP=share_btn_fb

"In a key speech in North Dakota last May, Trump lashed out at what he said were “totalitarian tactics” by the EPA, as he promised to save the US coal industry, build the Keystone XL pipeline and “cancel” the Paris climate agreement.

Doing so would mean “we will be ceding global leadership of climate policy to China,” Ebell said after the meeting. “[But] I want to get rid of global climate policy, so why do I care who is in charge of it? I don’t care. They can take it as far as I’m concerned, and good luck to them.”

They will be guilty of a crime against humanity.

 

[RandyForRubio]

LMAO....

https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/

"The new article by Mr Rose demonstrates that ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is still using fake news to mislead the public and policy-makers about the scientific evidence for climate change."

So, one of the guys who cries "fake news!" more then most, uses fake science to promote his misguided beliefs.....

My dad was a clinical psychologist. He never brought his work home with him, but one lesson he learned he wanted to impart to me: the people who complain the most about a certain behavior are usually the people who practice that very behavior themselves...

That's funny, because you're on here complaining an awful lot.

 

[DutchJazzer]

ooh look they come out the wood workd, and they use the fake news excuse

 

[Red]

It's pretty simple from my point of view. Since climate science is real, since climate science is not the BS its deniers want everyone to believe, and since we are talking about dire consequences for future generations, then those who would trash climate science and go full speed ahead with fossil fuels are the enemies of mankind. That's simple enough, no?

If Myron Ebell, Trump's EPA transition chief is accurate in what he describes as being Trump's plans for his environmental policy, then the Trump administration will be guilty of crimes against humanity. And that is the side of history where climate change deniers stand. They are proponents of crimes against humanity. Simple enough.
-----------------------------------------
"From health care and tax policy to environmental protections, this will undoubtedly be a government of the looters, by the looters, and for the looters, and a Congress of the same. As of yet, however, we’ve seen only the smallest hints of what is to come.

In such a leave-no-billionaires-behind era, forget the past swamps of Washington (whichwasn’t really built on swampland). The government of Donald J. Trump seems slated to produce an American swamp of swamps and, somewhere down the line, will surely give new meaning to the phrase conflict of interest. Yet these processes, too, are barely underway.

From a government of 1% looters, what can you expect but to be looted and to experience crimes of every sort? (Ask the citizens of most Arab lands.) Still, whatever those may turn out to be, in the end they will just be the usual crimes of human history. In them, there will be little new, except perhaps in their extremity in the United States. They will cause pain, of course -- as well as gain for the few -- but sooner or later such crimes and those who commit them will pass from the scene and in the course of history be largely forgotten.

Of only one future crime will that not be true. As a result, it’s likely to prove the most unforgivable of them all and those who help in its commission will, without a doubt, be the greatest criminals of all time. Think of them as “terrarists” and their set of acts as, in sum, terracide. If there’s a single figure in the Trump administration who catches the essence of this, it is, of course, former ExxonMobil CEO and present Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. His former company has a grim history not just of exploiting fossil fuels come (literally) hell or high water, but of suppressing information about the harm they’ve done, via greenhouse gas emissions that heat the atmosphere and the Earth’s waters, while funding climate denialism; of, in short, destroying the planet in an eternal search for record profits.

Now, he joins an administration whose president once termed climate change a “Chinese hoax,” and who has, with a striking determination, appointed first to his transition team and then to his government an unparallelled crew of climate change deniers and so-called climate skeptics. They, and largely only they, are taking crucial positions in every department or agency of government in any way connected with fossil fuels or the environment. Among his first acts was to green-light two much-disputed pipelines, one slated to bring the carbon-dirtiest of oil products, Canadian tar sands, from Alberta to the Gulf Coast; the other to encourage the frackers of the Bakken shale oil fields of North Dakota to keep up the good work. In his yearning to return to a 1950s America, President Trump has promised a new age of fossil-fuel exploitation. He’s evidently ready to leave the Paris climate agreement in the trash heap of history and toss aside support for the development of alternative energy systems as well. (In the process -- and irony is too weak a word for this -- he will potentially cede a monster job-creation machine to the Chinese, the Germans, and others.)"...........

"............So those, including our new president and his administration who are focused on suppressing both scientific knowledge about climate change and any attempt to mitigate the phenomenon, and who, like Rex Tillerson’s former colleagues at the big energy companies, prefer to suppress basic information about all of this in the name of fossil fuels and personal enrichment, will be committing the most basic of crimes against humanity.

As a group, they will be taking the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter out of the climate change sweepstakes for years to come and helping ensure that the welcoming planet on which humanity has so long existed will be something so much grimmer in the future. In this moment’s endless flurries of “news” about Donald Trump, this -- the most basic news of all -- has, of course, been lost in the hubbub. And yet, unlike any other set of actions they could engage in (except perhaps nuclear war), this is truly the definition of forever news. Climate change, after all, operates on a different time scale than we do, being part of planetary history, and so may prove human history’s deal-breaker."

https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/17...a_plane..._it's_the_donald_in_the_news!/#more

 

[Red]

That's funny, because you're on here complaining an awful lot.

Where complaining is described as points of view that undermine your own? OK, that's true as far as it goes. You post the lying BS, and I'll post the corrections. I don't think they're the same thing at all. Unless you're saying truth and bald face lies are equivalent.

 

[Red]

A photo from the 2016 Climate Change Deniers Conference?

Remember, now. If you support Trump's enviornmental opinions, and soon to be policies, then you too are an enemy of mankind. How's that feel, knowing history will judge you an enemy of the human race? You should be so proud of yourself.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Where complaining is described as points of view that undermine your own? OK, that's true as far as it goes. You post the lying BS, and I'll post the corrections. I don't think they're the same thing at all. Unless you're saying truth and bald face lies are equivalent.

You can be wrong and complain, you can be correct and complain...complaining isn't about correctness, it's just a mentality, and you sir, do a lot of it.

 

[Red]

You can be wrong and complain, you can be correct and complain...complaining isn't about correctness, it's just a mentality, and you sir, do a lot of it.

Oh,what the hey, I can live with that. The people who promote climate change denial are the enemies of mankind. And, since it is very clear that we are in the midst of the 5th great extinction event in the planet's known history, driven in part by human influenced climate change, those same people are the enemies of life on Earth. I think that is much more then just a complaint along the lines of complaining about today's weather forecast. But, whatever, I complain a lot. But, per my dad's lesson, people complaining about fake science are themselves using fake science to support their delusions. I am not doing that at all. Climate change denial is bogus. It needs to be pointed out every time.

 

[Red]

You can be wrong and complain, you can be correct and complain...complaining isn't about correctness, it's just a mentality, and you sir, do a lot of it.

On the other hand, maybe you misunderstand the truism my dad was trying to convey to me. It is not a case of "people who complain about other people complaining are themselves devoted to complaining". The key here was complaining about specific activity. So, one might observe that people who complain about other people being intolerant toward others may themselves be very intolerant toward others. The lesson was not about the mere act of complaining, but rather people engaging in the same activity they are complaining about. In this instance, complaining that real climate science is fake, and utilizing fake science to support their own complaint. I'm not complaining about complaining, and neither was my father. Rather, it's engaging in the same activity being complained about, not the act of complaining in and of itself, devoid of any specific content. Heck, I've complained that we were setting ourselves up for a tragic mistake from the first day Trump descended the escalator in Trump Tower. And likely will till the day he too is history.

 

[babe]

The old criticism of those crying foul being fouler has been used in every argument for ages, Red. It's useless.

Clearly, you have lost your grounding in good sense on climate change/AGW, and science is everything that is good sense, when it is science and not a political tool.

It is reasonable to believe that increased CO2 should correlate----other factors held constant---- with increases in atmospheric heat content. oh, btw, that's not exactly going to be "temperature".... heat content is one aspect, temperature can be something else. A shallow pond on a sunny summer day will absorb and retain heat, and so will a sheet of metal. The metal will get a lot hotter, and can even produce burns on touch perhaps, but the pond will have more of an increase in "heat content". The metal will be cold by morning, but the pond will still be a little warmer. The Greenhouse Effect is real because of a molecular physics property known as heat capacity, which is greater for molecules that can roll, spin, vibrate, or stretch or bend. The more modes energy can be employed, the more heat a molecule will "store" at any given temp. Once stored in those modes, it can be retained better.

I don't dispute the temp data generally, though I might be concerned if "scientists" are being biased in their measurements. I just don't agree much with the long range fear-mongering that is politically convenient in the run up to getting a global carbon tax to redistribute world income and fund world government.

I'll take a recent estimate of polar ice and calculate a theoretical rise in ocean levels from it, and figure out how to plan development so it won't be encroached, so people can live somewhere above water, maybe. That would be a valid use of the "Science".

But mostly it is the other variables we refuse to include in our "science" that alerts me to the fact that people are being manipulated unnecessarily to the level of panic you suffer from.

Enlarging upon the point about the pond, it has always been the Oceans that are the far and away significant store of solar heat. Little thought has been given to studying the ocean temp profiles beyond the surface, so far, and that oversight is profoundly disturbing. It makes everything else pretty much making a mountain out of a molehill. This is how I judge that what you're learning is not real science. We haven't done "science" yet.

Here you are, wanting to call people criminal and everything, for no good reason.

Moreover, we are in an interglacial warm, with some as yet unidentified natural driver still out there, in the ocean I think, capable of lowering atmospheric temps 15 C, over ten times our carbon emission competence to raise temps, that will likely bring back an ice age in your lifetime. The more reasonable thing for you to fear, Red, is how your beaches will look in the next ice age, with a sea level dropped by 300 feet.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Here is another example. The Great Barrier Reef just had the largest die off coral because of increasing water temperature.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/australia/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching.html


If you believe scientists at all we cannot wait. We can't keep pumping carbon and pollution into the atmosphere.

Oh noes! That was terrible news. I'm sure you'll be happy to hear the Great Barrier Reef is fine.

Parts of Great Barrier Reef See Most Extensive Coral Cover In 36 Years

e360.yale.edu

A little closer to home the water temperature is also really warm, and the coral here is also doing great.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/texas-coral-reefs-gulf-of-mexico-18503548.php