Archives quotidiennes :

better to know...?

The Hill’s Crazy Coral Claims Challenged By Reef Recovery, Record Growth

by L. Lueken, Oct 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

reef coral

A recent article in The Hill, “Climate change is not a ‘con job’,” claims that catastrophic, human-caused climate change is killing reefs via ocean heatwaves. This claim is false. [emphasis, links added]

In reality, corals have existed for millions of years, through warmer and colder periods, and in the recent past, coral reefs have recovered from bleaching events and even die-offs, proving the species is adaptive and resilient in the face of climate change.

The Hill article, from Rebecca Vega Thurber, the director of the UC Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute, is framed by Thurber’s annoyance that President Donald Trump says climate change is a “con job.” She claims her personal research experience refutes his comment.

Thurber explains that pollution from fertilizer runoff can kill corals, which is true, but goes on to assert:

“[E]very result we have collected, in every one of these well-intentioned and carefully designed experiments, was waylaid by the increasingly frequent and severe heat waves that have arisen in the last decades.”

She says their efforts to mitigate pollution were “overwhelmed by high water temperaturesdriven by climate change, or worse, climate change killed our whole experiment.”

Thurber claims marine heat waves in the French South Pacific hampered her work by “transform[ing] these normally bountiful reefs from habitats where there was once 60 percent of the seafloor covered with healthy corals to barren plains with less than 1 percent live coral.”

In point of fact, one long-term study from 2019 showed that rather than a “barren plain,” French Polynesian reefs have an “outstanding rate of coral recovery, with a systematic return to pre-disturbance state within only 5 to 10 years.”

A second study from 2024, published in Nature, sought to understand why reefs bounced backso readily after major heat waves, concluding that:

“Over the past three decades, there have been five main warming events that have caused mass bleaching around Moorea and Tahiti, in 1994, 2002, 2007, 2016, and 2019. Despite bleaching levels up to 100% for some coral species, reefs experienced as high as ~76% recovery following each event. …

“It is currently unknown what controls the ability of coral coverage to recover quickly at these locations. It has been suggested that reefs may develop an increased tolerance to higher SSTs following each bleaching event, and that the increased resilience would allow for a shorter recovery period with less die-off under subsequent SST extremes.”

In short, the scientific literature does not support Thurber’s contention in The Hill that coral reefs are dying off in vast numbers.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

We Need to Talk About Climate (To Each Other)

by N. Komar, Oct 1, 2025 in WUWT

Among professionals who work on the climate issue (the “Climate Community”), there is a long-standing reluctance to engage in conversation with people who don’t consider that the climate is in crisis.

Due to this reluctance, there are exceedingly few recorded debates between members of the Community and those from the outside with an appropriate level of expertise to make for a lively and educational dialogue (but there are some, and below, I’ve listed all of the debates that I have been able to find).

I find the lack of debate to be frustrating.  In my case, I am skeptical of the idea that the earth’s climate is in crisis.  To me, the skeptical arguments seem to be more likely to be correct than the alarmist arguments.  Two important reasons for my skepticism: 1) The few actual debates I have had the pleasure to witness have been won by the skeptic(s). 2) The skeptics I speak to appear confident in their views and are eager to debate people from the Community; members of the Community, conversely, display what seems like a tribal attitude and either are hesitant, or in many cases, just unwilling to debate.

I am willing to be proven wrong regarding my skepticism.  But I can’t be bullied into changing my view.  It would take a reasoned argument, juxtaposed against arguments from the skeptic side of the debate.  And I’ve been following this issue for over 25 years.  For the average person curious about climate, but new to the issue, I would guess that it is quite hard to find arguments on both sides in order to make an informed decision for themselves.  While the question of how climate works is a question of Science, the culture that has developed around the issue is a culture of Politics.  Consequently, a search on the internet for articles on climate will return a politically curated batch.

I’ve been working on a project for the last 2-½ years to transform the situation described above.  It’s called Climate Verso.  Currently the project consists of a podcast, with only a few episodes published to date.  It can be found on any podcast platform: https://theclimateversopodcast.buzzsprout.com/

More episodes will be dropping over the next few months, and I’m totally open to help from anyone interested in getting involved.  The format of the podcast is a dialogue between two climate professionals with differing perspectives.  I am the moderator of the discussions.  Please listen to either or both of the episodes published so far. The first is Matthew Wielicki and Peter Fiekowsky debating the efficacy and risks of Ocean Fertilization.  The 2nd is a wide ranging conversation between Judith Curry and Andrew Revkin about how the climate issue became polarized over the last 40 years.

…