Thomas: Jen’s last was a timely post, at least for me, as I have just finished analyzing the De’ath data at NOAA to which I was helpfully linked by you. As you will recall, De’ath & co claimed to have evidence showing declining calcification rates at the GBR between 1990 and 2000/2001.

For the record, of the 14 GBR sites they report, only THREE do not yield increasing calcification rates, this in a paper trumpeted around the world as showing that “climate change” would bring about the collapse of the GBR sooner rather than later.

It seems that empty vessels make the most sound. Please, show us your analysis.

Thomas

I was eventually able to open the De’ath archive at NOAA, to find that of their 14 cores/samples, no fewer than 9 exhibited INCREASING calcification rates from 1990-2000/2001, pace their media release and assertions in their Science article. The density trends on their data are mostly flat.

I fear that De’ath and Lough, et al. are merely (like most “scientists” these days) just a variant of the Bernie I “Madoff with our money” school, given that they are all funded by half-witted Ponzi taxpayers like you-me. The sooner AIMS at Townsville is shut down the better for all of us. The Media Release on their “discovery” is a travesty, like the rest of their work. What is it that impels no doubt well-meaning scientists to sell their souls to the devil, again and again? One supposes that De’ath et al are reasonable human beings like the rest of us, but that they cannot bring themselves to submit their work to a half-intelligent statistician to check their findings?

For the record, of the 14 GBR sites they report, only THREE do not yield increasing calcification rates, this in a paper trumpeted around the world as showing that “climate change” would bring about the collapse of the GBR sooner rather than later.

http://www.timcurtin.com

Regards

Tim

Coral index (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/indexcoral.html)

Multi-site – Density, Extension, and Calcification Data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-coral-1863.html)

Try using something other than Internet Explorer. Firefox is good. Let me know if you are still having problems.

Thomas

However I was able to open the plots for calcification etc, and found for the first (Darnley) and last (Masthead) that neither went beyond 1990. Obviously it is not possible to analyse the plots unless one has the raw data, which is what you promised I would find. I have noticed before that Science et al consider plots to be data but that is not the case.

Strange that the SI and data archive for a paper claiming to show declining trends since 1990 offers plots that end in 1990. It is however apparent from the plots that there are no obvious trends in any direction. So the ball is in your court. If you can locate the data, perhaps you could send it to me direct please.

Regards

Tim

Tanzil et al. 2009 Coral Reefs – DOI 10.1007/s00338-008-0457-5

“Decline in skeletal growth of the coral Porites lutea from the Andaman Sea, South Thailand between 1984 and 2005″

Of the few studies that have examined in situ coral growth responses to recent climate change, none have done so in equatorial waters subject to relatively high sea temperatures (annual mean >27degC). This study compared the growth rate of Porites lutea from eight sites at Phuket, South Thailand between two time periods (December 1984–November 1986 and December 2003–November 2005). There was a significant decrease in coral calcification (23.5%) and linear extension rates (19.4–23.4%) between the two sampling periods at a number of sites, while skeletal bulk density remained unchanged. Over the last 46 years, sea temperatures (SST) in the area have risen at a rate of 0.161degC per decade (current seasonal temperature range 28–30degC) and regression analysis of coral growth data is consistent with a link between rising temperature and reduced linear extension in the order of 46– 56% for every 1 degC rise in SST. The apparent sensitivity of linear extension in P. lutea to increased SST suggests that corals in this part of the Andaman Sea may already be subjected to temperatures beyond their thermal optimum for skeletal growth.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c3plnq6522742616/

http://www.floodsclimbers.co.uk/globalwarming.html

Just wanted to add that the Plankton / DMS discussion was pretty intriguing.

Thomas

The long core data from the De’ath paper is lodged at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/

Put your money where your mouth is, and go show us exactly how De’ath et al are wrong.

Thomas.