NPR could get sued for putting out false news just like any newspaper. So, that would make NPR pretty conscientious and reliable. As a large worldwide organization, they would have people always available to cross-check their stories for reliability.

Some climatologist applies for a federal grant in which he proposes to do a study to show coral reefs are decreasing due to human activity. Since his proposal meets the approval of the flavor of the month club, he gets $2 million. He completes his study, and surprise of all surprises, he concludes man's activity is killing the coral reefs. If he's really good and instills fear that this is happening very quickly, he'll probably get another grant for being such a good lap dog. Now NPR reports it. It's not "false news", they can't be "sued". It's just wrong. NPR's due diligence would be to verify that this scientist is real, and he really did a study, but not to critique it.

But I like the idea----there's about a million "reports" that I'd like to sue the MSM for airing.

With a quick Google of the Great Barrier Reef, I have seen several underwater pictures of DEAD bleached-out white coral. And stories of scuba divers that are very unhappy about the sad condition of the reef. The water around the reef is exceptionally warm this year. That combined with the excess CO2 not being absorbed by land plants is causing slight acids to kill and bleach the coral. All the world's coral reefs are predicted by scientists to have decreased by 90% in about 75 years.

You'll notice that NPR does not provide data, because the corals are at their 36 year high ... Advance

Been away for the day. Are we still doing the green agenda conspiracy? Or have we moved on?

Really? Doesn't appear that way when I swim by.

No, I'm pretty sure the green agenda conspirators are still at it

Oh, good. Can I play too?😃

Hurricanes and Climate Change - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions

A good source.

This will be debated ad nauseam for years unless someone in authority makes it go away

There are all kinds of data out there.

Coral Reefs and Corals | Smithsonian Ocean

Advance hardly looks like an objective site.

Parts of Australia'''s Great Barrier Reef show highest coral cover in 36 years | Reuters

And underwater volcanoes had nothing to do with it? Sure, man did it. The Great Barrier reef did NOT decrease by 90% in 75 years, so conveniently grouping it with others is in my opinion, to be just as irresponsible as some of these bogus scientists.

I have been diving there on various occasions and witnessed it first hand. Spoken with those who live there, make their livelihood there and study the causes and effects. The truth is not good, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

Well........a quick lookup in Wikipedia says that Advance Australia (AA) is a conservative political lobbying group that emphasizes a Judeo-Christian heritage. AA started a campaign around Australian children with an E-book titled,"10 climate facts to expose the climate change HOAX" in an attempt to go against the established SCIENTIFIC view. AA has received a large amount of RIDICULE from the Australian media.

Judging by Wikipedia I would conclude that AA is merely a group with an agenda against SCIENCE - reminiscent of America's old Flat-Earth-Society. So, I will continue to believe the PICTURES of the bleached white and dying coral in the Great Barrier Reef. And the prediction by REAL SCIENTISTS (not AA want-to-be-s) that 90% of all earth's coral reefs will be DEAD in about 75 years!

Also, any individual that does not want to contribute is welcome to contribute to another thread.

I agree about Advance Australia. A careful reading of the posted link reveals that the LARGER southern region is in big trouble and dying. The other SMALLER sections ARE increasing, but with a type of coral that scientists feel will be very vulnerable to future conditions.
........So this is another environmental situation (like US forest health) that can be interpreted in either a pessimistic manner or an optimistic one. I believe that in 8 or 10 years the total environmental picture and man's deterioration of it will become so apparent that scientists and laymen alike will agree. That picture will come into clear focus!
........and to remind folks of one alarming man-caused environmental problem.......we have the war in the Ukraine - which LIKELY has led Russia to blow 4 holes in the gas pipeline sitting on the sea floor in order to let Europe freeze this winter. These pipeline ruptures are spewing methane gas straight into the upper atmosphere. That would be a good example of man-made Global Warming.

That is the most interesting and informative link that I have ever read on this forum or anywhere. Period. Kudos to the Smithsonian.

All reefs around the world are predicted in the FUTURE 75 years to be down 90%. In other words, reefs WILL be down to only 10%. According to that link on the Smithsonian warm water corals in shallow water have an ENORMOUS effect on all marine life. Basically, I take that to mean that people will not be seeing fish in the Publix supermarkets of the Future.

In the Smithsonian article, it was stated........that the past 200 years ocean water has become 30% more ACIDIC and that is FASTER than any CHANGE in the LAST 50 MILLION YEARS
........I can imagine that the last 200 years of increased ocean acidity relates to man's increased CO2 production which increased dramatically with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Are those the same "real" scientists who predicted the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010?????

Really????? They've plotted out the acidity of the oceans for every 200 year span out of the last 50 million????? Quite an accomplishment. You do realize that is 250,000 spans of 200 years-----I'd love to see that data chart. So, no matter who made that statement, it is plainly idiotic

I believe that we will know the truth in about 8 to 10 years. I can wait. P.S. There is a Cat 4 hurricane in the Pacific heading toward Mexico.

Please .....then quickly inform the Smithsonian Institute of their grievous error. Anyway, they're just a bunch of out-of-touch scientists. And at the end of that Smithsonian Institute link, there are pictures of and the educational qualifications of three Smithsonian Ocean scientists with Doctorates that would be glad to have a debate. Maybe tickets could be sold!

Actually. I imagine they know the ocean acidity levels back 50 Million years because they did core samples of ancient coral reefs. When reading the Smithsonian article I found out that living coral form rings just like ancient redwood trees do. I assume from that and core samples they can date the rings and come to the conclusion back to 50 Million years. And I enjoyed learning that !

It doesn’t work that way

So, you are not disagreeing with my statement directly, just adding a bunch of verbiage that you think will impress others as well as predicting what might happen in the next 75 years? And you "imagine" that the increase in the ocean acidity is related to automobile exhaust fumes? I don't "imagine" that volcanoes can cause disruptions in the ocean environment. It's fact, not imagination.

In BOTH of my posts about the 75 years, I was talking about the FUTURE, not the LAST 75 years. It somehow got misinterpreted from my 1st post. (possibly if it was read rapidly) Regardless, I did not make that prediction, it was made by an ocean scientist that is an expert on the world's coral reefs. I just passed that prediction along because it was important to the Climate Change topic that is being discussed. I am just like everyone else a CONTRIBUTOR to the discussion, no more, no less.
.........When I say I "imagine" that the increased ocean acidity is caused by CO2 from IC engines (because the last 200 years of increased acidity - that time period OVERLAPS with the invention of the automobile. When I say I "imagine" something, that means that it is my OPINION.
.........as far as ocean volcanoes causing the rising level of oceans worldwide as measured by scientists (not my opinion) - that is NOT something that I have ever heard or read from any scientist as a cause of their measurements increasing at a large rate in recent years. They have always said that the cause is the melting of glaciers and polar ice, which in turn is caused by Global Warming. Again.NOT my OPINION, just a statement from scientists that I am relaying or adding to this discussion.

There is NO increased ocean acidity -- only a tiny decrease in alkalinity. Plus, coral diversity was much higher in the past when CO2 levels much higher than now. Oceans convert CO2 to carbonates which corals use to build coral reefs. CO2 is plant food on land and in oceans -- it is the foundation of earth's food chain -- and more is better.

Once again, stop trying to confuse the truly indoctrinated with the facts. Maybe we need a professional deprogrammer.

This climate propaganda has been going on for 30 years ... so deprogramming may take 29 more years.

From the source The Smithsonian Institute. Ocean water has become 30% more acidic during the last 200 years. I am just the messenger and the message is everyone should read the Smithsonian Institute ocean science article.

As a life-long student of atmospheric and climate science, I also study how people and governments manipulate data and alter statistics -- this has been going on ever since man arrived on earth. Most people also do this by studying fantastic claims as seen by TV ads before buying. At the Weather Club, we discuss these types of claims all the time. But regarding the 30% acidity claim, please tell me what the pH level was before the Smithsonian claim and what it is now. It's amazing what you'll find when looking at "data" versus "narrative." Data always trumps narrative.

I think it sorta does. Check with the scientists who are experts in that field. Read scientific research and journals. I think we can find out, if we want to.

No, the climate experts who predicted the polar ice caps would be gone are climate experts from the other side.

The Smithsonian says pH levels are more acidic and dropped by 30% ... saying it dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 pH. So just how does 30% reflect that 0.1 drop using the 0-14 pH scale? Answer: they failed the "new math" course and now push junk science. And exactly what does a pH of 8.1 mean? Answer: a pH of 8.1 is alkaline -- not acid. Furthermore, a simple scan of historic ocean pH levels shows it has been cycling between 8.3 and 8.1 for hundreds of thousands of years -- and probably more. The oceans were never acidic even when CO2 levels were 15 times higher than today. In the meantime, no one has ever dissolved while swimming in the ocean.

pH is a logarithmic scale (log base 10, not natural log). In case you don't understand logarithms, a logarithm is an exponent. A drop of about 0.1 of pH is about a 20-30% change in the ion concentration. Nobody said the oceans were becoming an acid (pH less than 7). They are becoming less alkaline. The Smithsonian article is correct.

Thank you. I was going to respond similarly, but without your eloquence.

Perfect pH answer. This is not my first pH rodeo. This is how climate alarmism works -- pick the most alarming scale -- and/or cherry pick data. Yes indeed, the ocean became less alkaline (and not more acidic like the Smithsonian said). This "less alkaline" cycle happens about every 100,000 years during Interglacial Warming Periods -- like the one we are currently in. And here we come to the bottom line -- these changes all fall within historic natural cycles. There is no climate emergency -- and there is no proof "man-made" CO2 has caused any climate to change.

Apparently it is your first pH rodeo as your previous post showed that you didn't understand that pH was a logarithmic scale since you accused the authors of the Smithsonian article of not being able to do math. Ironic, don't you think. You should just stop now.

Thanks. I am continually amazed at the nonsense I see posted.