There is a widespread belief, cultivated at least in part by Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg that global warming has resulted in more coral bleaching.
Given the interest in the subject, I have copied the following comment from Dr Walter Starck, from yesterday’s rather long and tedious thread:
“Bleaching events result from extended periods of calm weather during which mixing from wave action ceases and surface water becomes exceptionally warm. Such warming is especially marked in very shallow water such as on reef flats. At the same time the absence of waves also eliminates the wave driven currents that normally flush the reef top. Bleaching conditions require at least a week or more of calm weather to develop and this may happen every few years, only once in a century, or never, depending on geographic location. On the outer GBR it is uncommon due to ocean swell and currents even in calm weather. In the mid-shelf and inshore areas it is much more common due to the absence of swell and reduced currents.
Characteristic bleaching scars and isotope temperature records from coral cores commonly show evidence of past bleaching events going back thousands of years. There is no evidence for a recent increase in frequency and/or severity of bleaching events and nothing to link extended periods of calm winds with global warming.
In past geologic periods when global climate was warmer than at present corals enjoyed greater latitudinal distribution. The most likely effect of a warming climate on reefs would seem to be an expansion of their geographic distribution and there is some evidence this is already happening. In Florida recent growth of coral has occurred farther north than it did a few decades ago and in the same areas sub-fossil corals indicate previous such advances in the recent geologic past.
Hoegh-Guldberg has found an attractive GW niche in the well established guild of GBR doomscryers. It has provided notoriety, acclaim and generous research support. Whether his prophesies will stand up to the reality test remains to be seen. Based on the track record of science based doomscrying his odds don’t look too good. In fact sheep’s entrails and tea leaves seem to produce better results, probably because they at least incorporate some element of intuitive judgment.”
Last year Walter wrote a review titled ‘Threats to the Great Barrier Reef’, published by the IPA, it can be downloaded by clicking here.
This picture was taken at the Great Barrier Reef by Roger Steene:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Dr Stark – “The most likely effect of a warming climate on reefs would seem to be an expansion of their geographic distribution and there is some evidence this is already happening”
If warming does have this effect then surely the reefs would in effect creep south or north rather than expanding. As the lower latitudes warm, and possibly warm quite quickly this, in my view, would tend to kill reefs at these equatorial latitides leading to no net expansion of the reef area, just a creep effect to higher latitudes with cooler or more optimal temperatures.
Do you have any information on this?
Hi Jennifer,
Agreed that the last couple of threads on GW have been tedious.
My suggestion to help avoid giving rise to the kind of personal and catty commenting that we have seen is to avoid it in your own posts and your own comments. This is your blog, you set the tone.
Also avoid petty debating points such as
“But these same commentators will ignore the more ridiculous claims from Ove and other ‘believers’ who spin stories that result in completely nonsense predictions.”
its very easy to invent someone’s opinion for them, and then attack it, and generally doesn’t put people in a constructive frame of mind to debate without tedious personal attacks.
And for Dr Starck: surely creative name calling such as ‘doomscryer’, and calling another researchers analyses as ‘prophesies’ and further references to ‘sheeps entrails’ etc is beneath someone with a doctorate when they are commenting on another’s research?
In another thread the claim was made that geologists are not properly trained to comment on climate. This appears to deny the fact that geologists are well trained to identify climate markers in geological structures eg
Geologists Create 5-Million-Year Climate Record
Brown University geologists have created the longest continuous record of ocean surface temperatures, dating back 5 million years. The record shows slow, steady cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific, a finding that challenges the notion that the Ice Ages alone sparked a global cooling trend. Results are published in Science.
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-57766.html
Following from Starck’s comments; “Bleaching events result from extended periods of calm weather during which mixing from wave action ceases and surface water becomes exceptionally warm” it would appear that more storms=less bleaching
Steve,
Thanks for your comments – noted.
But in defence of Walter, this is a blog, not a scientific journal, and his reference to sheep’s entrails was in the context of Ove H-G’s work, rather than person. 🙂
What I’ve perhaps learnt most from this blog is the extent to which many seem incapable of seeing an issue except from the perspective of politics – they often ascribe a particular motivation where none exists – and the inflexibility of the positions held.
In short, I have come to see just how much interpretation is coloured by perspective.
Yeah, your defense of Walter makes sense, a bit harsh from me 🙂
“Doomscryer” is a new one, very colourful, almost puts Louis’ name-calling creativity to shame (almost, but not quite – it doesn’t compare to “climosenkoists” which is my all time favourite)
Ender,
The same coral species that have bleached on the GBR thrive elsewhere at considerably higher temperatures and in some bleaching locations subsequent events have shown less effect even at higher temperatures. The reason is believed to lie in differing clades of algal symbionts adapted to different temperatures. How far such adaptation can go is not known but species distributions of corals and associated water temperatures indicate that the temperatures associated with bleaching events on the GBR are several degrees below what the same coral species routinely survive elsewhere.
Combined with the AGW climate predictions of less warming at lower latitudes and past distributions of reefs in much warmer geologic periods a hollowing out in the middle seems unlikely. In any event it is wind (or rather lack of it) plus local geography and currents, not air temperature that is the key factor in bleaching events. On the GBR they are more likely to occur at the southern end of the reef than at the top where the strong currents of Torres Strait assures mixing and the flushing of reef tops even in calm weather.
rog,
Indeed storms do prevent bleaching. The recent storm up here has already been accredited with saving the reef from this years bleaching that had been predicted by OH-G. However we were already past the time of higest temperatures and calmest weather and temperatures were falling but, any storm in a punt.
This discussion seems to have started with a visit by scientists of a working group of the Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management (CRTR) Program.
This program is a major initiative by the World Bank, IOC/UNESCO and a range of partners, with support from the Global Environment Facility, to support coral reef resource managers with the best available scientific advice on coral reefs response to human disturbances and climate change.
The Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management (CRTR) Program is addressing gaps in our basic knowledge and understanding of coral reef ecosystems, so that management options and policy interventions can be strengthened globally.
The Program’s goal is to: “Build the scientific capacity needed to provide information essential for management and policy, so that coral reef ecosystems under threat from climate change and multiple human stressors can be sustained for current and future generations”
Steve,
Since when has having a PhD ever been a barrier to spirited debate? I used the terms ‘doomscryer’, ‘prophesies’ and the reference to sheeps entrails with some consideration. For 40 years I have listened to a litany of supposed threats to the GBR none of which were well founded and none of which have shown any evidence of becoming manifest. I think that the picture is now clear enough to justify referring to such tenuous claims of immanent disaster as doomscrying.
I used the term prophesies rather than predictions because the latter usually implies some degree of evidence and analysis whereas the former is based more on faith and hope. The former understanding appears to better fit this situation than the latter.
As for the reference to haruspicy, it was only a literary device to underscore the lack of evidence and understanding implicit in many such prophesies. Call them predictions if you prefer, but under either name they have failed equally.
In all fairness those that call for less catty and personal comments should set the example by not doing same..and not discriminate against any one person but apply the criteria to all.
Walter – “The reason is believed to lie in differing clades of algal symbionts adapted to different temperatures”
Thank your for your reply – one further question.
Given that there is possibly a certain sort of algal symbionts in any one coral reef that thrives in a certain water temperature what is the effect of rapid climate change. To me this would not give time for the coral to adapt to the differing temperatures.
My and other’s concern is that while the coral could adapt without much trouble to gradual shifts in climate rapid climate change of the type that might be preciptated by AGW could tip some corals over the edge and lead to large scale loss. With coral under stress, as they are in many parts of the world, rapid climate change could be the final nail in the coffin.
My point is that corals as you say could, and probably have, in the past coped with gradual climate change in the absence of human stress quite well. However the fear for me is that AGW could lead to rapid changes, particularly if there are in fact climate tipping points, that the reefs cannot cope with. This also goes for other ecological systems as this study in Nature observes. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html
A PhD is not a barrier to spirited debate, nor did I imply it was.
Emotive and colourful labelling =can= be a crutch for someone with a weak debating point, or an indicator that someone could be letting emotion get in the way of their objectivity. If your argument is good, you shouldn’t need to use such terms.
You wouldnt use these terms or any literary devices in a journal publication. Ask yourself why.
Having said that, I agree with Jennifer, this is a blog, and a bit of colour can add to everyone’s enjoyment, though its a difficult balancing act – emotive and colourful descriptions also usually result in the people you are debating with responding in kind. I wonder how Prof OHG would respond if reading your comments?
Jennifier have you contacted Hoegh-Guldberg about his comments? Has anyone? Or do we live in a if it’s not posted on a blog it doesn’t really exist world here? Also does anyone have a link to what he actually said? Could it be, in reference to the ‘quite a minimal impact’, some thing like this:
“Well, if you look at what was bleaching on the reef, as you went north of Mackay reports got less and less in terms of bleaching, and so the estimated region was probably about a thousand square kilometres of the reef having experienced moderate to severe bleaching.
But given the size of the Great Barrier Reef, that actually was quite a minimal impact compared to things like the event in 2002”
So minimal compared to 2002 when you had more severe bleaching.
Simon,
Ove H-G has been making public comment on these issues for years – it is this comment that Andrew Bolt commented on (see previous thread), and that is being commented on here. His media releases, publications and public statements have significantly shaped public opinion and public policy.
Cinders and others provide links to recent media releases.
PS I am as confident that Ove H-G knows about these threads as I am that Bob Carter knew about the ’60 scientists’ thread.
Of course we could inject some local information, but why bother with facts when you’re in crusade mode to wind up the anti-AGW campaign.
Let’s check the opinions from the Marine Science practitioners shown at the Nov 2005 Greenhouse conference.
Janice Lough, Ray Berkelmans, Craig Steinberg, Madeleine van Oppen and Scott Wooldridge
http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511161400_3.ppt
The authors note:
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is the best managed and protected reef in the world
1. 30% no-take
2. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan
3. Representative Areas Program
4. Permits and zoning actively control use of reef
5. GBRMPA – Climate Change Response Team
=> Minimize local stresses and enhance resilience
BUT
Global climate is changing
1. Already observed regional consequences are warmer temperatures over Queensland and warmer waters on the GBR
2. increased risk of coral bleaching (1998 & 2002)
3. coral diseases
4. coral growth hiatuses
5. effects of changing ocean chemistry not seen as yet….
6. changes in river floods, ENSO & tropical cyclones would all impact reef
7. little evidence that corals can respond successfully to rapid changes
8. the appearance, community structure & biodiversity of the GBR will change
Highlights that the authors add:
BUT even thermally-tolerant species like Porites show recent growth hiatuses unprecedented in centuries-long cores (1998)
Corals can change their algae but:
coral grows more slowly with D
also affects competition and reproductive ability
D is less light tolerant (inshore, turbid waters)
=> MAY NOT BE THE PANACEA
Clearly there is plenty of room for future concern and prudence. And this presentation from our premier Reef Science organisation well supports Ove’s concerns about multiple clmate stressors. The powerpoint is worth viewing.
BTW – does anyone have the membership list for the “established guild of GBR doomscryers”.
Methinks Starck’s review needs its own review.
perhaps storms can prevent bleaching episodes but increased severity of storms, expected from global warming, can damage shallow reefs.
Regarding the potential movement of the reef south:
Is this a limiting factor? “In the Great Barrier Reef, sea surface temperatures have increased 0.46 C per century in the north to 2.59 C per century in the waters off Townsville.”
If the (most attractive) soft corals are more prone to bleaching in higher SSTs then they’d be the ones that need to migrate to cooler waters, but do they need the hard (less attractive) reef-building corals (more heat resilient) to generate the reef structure? (a slow process that may be inhibited by oceanic acidification by CO2)
Dr Stark says “There is no evidence for a recent increase in frequency and/or severity of bleaching events..” Can he kindly explain why others have found that there is?
“..Since the late 1970s there has been a global increase in the number and scale of coral-bleaching events and the extent, timing and severity of many such events have been correlated with warmer than normal seawater temperatures (Jones et al. 1997; Lough 2000).
.. The mortalities that followed these events were higher than any in the previous 3000 years (Aronson et al. 2002). The geographic extent, increasing frequency, and regional severity of mass bleaching events are an apparent result of a steadily rising baseline of marine temperatures, combined with regionally specific El Niño and La Niña events (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999; Lough 2000).
Austral Ecology (2003) 28, 423–443
Climate change and Australia: Trends, projections and impacts LESLEY HUGHES
“..episodes of coral bleaching and disease that have already increased greatly in frequency and magnitude over the past 30 years (9-14).”
Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs , Hughes, T. P., et al Science, 00368075, 8/15/2003, Vol. 301, Issue 5635
“Same-site comparisons of Maldive–Chagos reefs in the 1990s with studies before 1980 have found large losses in coral cover that were probably associated with warm El Niño events. .. Coral cover was the lowest recorded for this region, at 8%, and evidence for the local extirpation of species was found.”
Bleaching Damage and Recovery Potential of Maldivian Coral Reefs T. R. McClanahan
etc
Also: “What is known is that most coral diseases occur at higher-than-normal sea-water temperatures. As temperatures are expected to rise considerably during the next few decades, it is likely that coral diseases will become more prevalent. ”
Microbial diseases of corals and global warming
Eugene Rosenberg* and Yael Ben-Haim
Environmental Microbiology (2002) 4(6), 318–326
Dr Starck points to geologic periods when global climate was warmer as a reason why our corals won’t suffer from climate change. But there are more factors at work – more intense storm damage, pollution, sediment, more water runoff (changes salinity), nutrient change, acidification, direct human interference, fewer mangrove areas (mangroves and corals often occur in proximity create structural barriers and nurseries):
“Based on this past history, we can expect regional and global-scale disruption to coral reefs due to climate change to accelerate markedly in coming decades. Already, relative abundances of corals and of other organisms are changing rapidly in response to the filtering effect of differential mortality (from bleaching and other, more local human impacts) and differences in rates of recovery of species from recurrent mortality events (16,17,41,42).
There are two major differences, however, between current climate-driven changes and the recent past. First, because the oceans today are already at a high sea-level stand, the projected rise [0.1 to 0.9 m in the next 100 years (10)] will be very small compared with sea-level changes during the Pleistocene. Second, unlike the past, the response of reef-dwelling species to projected climatic trends will be profoundly influenced by people. As outlined below, human impacts and the increased fragmentation of coral reef habitat have preconditioned reefs, undermining reef resilience and making them much more susceptible to future climate change.”
Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs , By: Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R., Folke, C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J. B. C., Kleypas, J., Lough, J. M., Marshall, P., Nyström, M., Palumbi, S. R., Pandolfi, J. M., Rosen, B., Roughgarden, J.,
Science, Vol. 301, Issue 5635
Steve,
Climosenkoist?
I admit coining that term, but in your case it might be regarded as an over-enthousiastic effort, on my part, to reward you for your previous homilies.
Rog mentioned “In another thread the claim was made that geologists are not properly trained to comment on climate. This appears to deny the fact that geologists are well trained to identify climate markers in geological structures”.
As a geologist I was taught, not trained.
Just noticed the comments above by “Pinxi”, and the comment “There are two major differences, however, between current climate-driven changes and the recent past”.
Climate is defined as a 30 year period. Hence the recent past has to be in terms of data aggregated in 30 year periods, or climate (Tim Lambert would be expert in this I suspect).
Debating idiots is an interesting experience which present circumstances offer few clues.
Sigh.
Who is the idiot Loius? that quote refers to the Pleistocene (the recent past, relatively speaking)
I realize that no matter what reason and evidence may be presented rarely will anyone ever change their mind. Even if presented with irrefutable evidence that negates a given point it is simply dropped and others raised. Although those who choose to believe that the GBR is doomed express great concern their commitment is clearly more to the doom than to the health of the reef and any argument that the situation isn’t as bad as they fear/hope is met with rejection, not hopeful interest.
Rather than continuing to address an endless litany of mis-informed objections I will close with a few general comments.
* About 25% of reefs globally have been estimated to be heavily impacted. About 75% have not. Whether this situation will improve or grow worse in the future is unclear. There is evidence in both directions.
* The GBR comprises almost 30% of the global reef area and is in near pristine condition. Over most of the reef you can spend days and rarely or never see another boat.
* No evidence of adverse effects from land runoff has been detected on the main body of the reef.
* Nutrients from farm runoff amount to only a few percent of the natural nutrient flux and fertiliser use has decreased in recent years, not increased.
* The commercial fishing catch on the GBR is now limited by quota to 3061 tonns per year. This comes to 9 kg/square km/year of reef and lagoon area. The sustainable harvest rate for reef fisheries is estimated to average 4000 kg/square km/year.
*The 0.7 C. increase in temperature over the past century and a half coming out of the LIA is comparable to the rate of decrease entering into it.
* Corals can and do change their algal clades from one bleaching event to the next. They even do so seasonally without apparent bleaching.
*In a number of areas healthy corals tolerate seasonal temperature ranges of as much as 15 C. and at the high end this may regularly be 3-4 C higher than those on the GBR.
* Although bleaching does result in a temporary growth hiatus in corals the increased water temperatures over the past century has been associated with substantially inreased growth and calcification.
* Intense tropical cyclones do immense damage to reefs but they are a natural element in many reef areas. Whether they will increase in frequency and intensity due to GW is unclear. Proponents of AGW claim they have storm experts say they there is no evidence for this. A storm like the recent one hitting the coast evey few years would be far more devastating to humans than to the reef.
Interesting juxtaposition of comments walter:
“Even if presented with irrefutable evidence that negates a given point it is simply dropped and others raised.”
“Rather than continuing to address an endless litany of mis-informed objections I will close with a few general comments.”
Having a last say and then pushing off is a dissappointing approach to online debate, and in this instance is hypocritical given your opening points.
You are obviously an expert in your field, you came here for discussion, why are you bugging out now with the broad assessment that nobody’s mind will be changed? Why did you bother in the first place?
You can add to the discussion here and teach at least some of us a thing or two, and I’m assuming you intended that when you began commenting. Don’t slink away with the last word, that would be a shame.
Steve, I agree with you that Walter Starck is obviously an expert in his field. I was interested in his comments on the earlier thread and was glad that Jennifer reposted them and drew our attention to his review paper on threats to the GBR that was published by the IPA last year. I thought that Dr. Starck’s responses to comments made by Ender, Rog and you were valuable contributions to what was promising to be a useful discussion.
Unfortunately, Phil then got on to his AGW hobby-horse and demanded to know ‘why bother with facts when you’re in crusade mode to wind up the anti-AGW campaign’ (a rather odd allegation given that Walter Starck had said in his paper that ‘the topic of global warming is somewhat beyond the scope of this present consideration’). Phil asked us to ‘check the opinions from the Marine Science practitioners shown at the Nov 2005 Greenhouse conference’.
Phil, does this mean that Dr. Starck doesn’t count as a marine science practitioner in your eyes? Maybe the power-point presentation from the AIMS scientists was worth viewing, but I didn’t find responses to the key points in Walter Starck’s paper, and I certainly didn’t find confirmation of the views recently expressed by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg. The AIMS team referred to the coral bleaching that occurred in 1998 & 2002, but so did Walter Starck.
Then Pinxy weighed in with ‘Dr Stark (sic) says “There is no evidence for a recent increase in frequency and/or severity of bleaching events..’ and querulously demanded that he ‘kindly explain why others have found that there is?’ Pinxy cited several papers that said so, including one in ‘Science’ of which Professor Hoegh-Guldberg was a co-author (with 16 others). But I don’t think this paper cited evidence in support of the view that there has been a recent increase in bleaching episodes.
Instead, the paper quoted six references in support of this contention, one of which was the IPCC Synthesis Report, without any page reference. I can’t find the statement in this Report, which is in any case supposed to be no more than a drawing together of assessments from the Working Group Reports, which are in turn meant to be no more than assessments based on the peer-reviewed literature.
I looked at the most likely section of the TAR (s. 6.4.5 of the WG II Contribution), but couldn’t find any statement about ‘a recent increase in frequency and/or severity of bleaching events.’ I did however find the following statement :
‘Several authors [not specified] regard an increase in coral bleaching as a likely result of global warming. However, Kushmaro et al. (1998) cite references that indicate it is not yet possible to determine conclusively that bleaching episodes and the consequent damage to reefs are caused by global climate change.’
I’m not denying that there may be evidence of increases in coral bleaching somewhere in the papers that you’ve cited, Pinxy, but if the IPCC hasn’t determined conclusively that there is a connection between bleaching episodes and global climate change it would seem that evidence of increasing bleaching episodes must also be inconclusive. That supports Walter Starck’s conclusion that ‘Open, objective, rational, evidence-based analysis is essential to identifying real environmental problems and finding workable solutions.’
I agree with Phil that ‘Starck’s review needs its own review’. The paper is well-documented and I’d like to see it reviewed – maybe by AIMS or by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and his team at UQ.
Now Ian is quoting the IPCC as an authority !! Hah !
And isn’t it strange how we Aussies like to use US experts and not our own local researchers. Most of Starck’s paper is irrelevant to this issue – dealing with water quality and fishing intensity.
What I find utterly incredible is that you guys seem to be saying if AGW is linked to coral bleaching we should find the reef in tatters right now. That’s really stupid.
(Actually this theme lurks in many of these debates on various climate change issues).
What actually would you expect to see as climate change emerges from the sea of climate variation. The AIMS researchers simply present a case that coral bleaching, increased cyclone intensities, unknown effects on El Nino and ocean acidification pose a reasonable possible future hazard to the reef. This requires more research and a watchful eye.
The authors did also show an unprecedented hiatus in growth on fairly tough corals from the 1998 event.
And of course once you’ve got the CO2 up there you’re stuck with it (major technical breakthroughs in CO2 sequestration excepted). No point whinging then.
A very disappointing response by Dr Starck. Does he consider the articles I’ve quoted from as “mis-informed objections” as he hasn’t responded? The quotes also make a lie out of Jennifer’s alleged ‘scholarly piece’ claims that there’s no scientific evidence that that the corals are at risk from climate change. Jennifer hasn’t responded on this science either. Ignoring inconvenient scientific information again.
Ian Castles I find myself dismissing the IPCC now you’ve convinced me that they’re the anemone and their panels are filled with clown fish, slimy eels and left-clawed crabs.
“A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters”
“In the past, only some coral species would bleach during hot water spells and the problem would occur only at certain depths. But in 2005, bleaching struck far more of the region at all depths and in most species.
A February NOAA report calculates 96 percent of lettuce coral, 93 percent of the star coral and nearly 61 percent of the iconic brain coral in St. Croix had bleached. Much of the coral had started to recover from the bleaching last fall, but then the weakened colonies were struck by disease, finishing them off.
Eakin, who oversees the temperature study of the warmer water, said it’s hard to point to global warming for just one season’s high temperatures, but other scientists are convinced.
“This is probably a harbinger of things to come,” said John Rollino, the chief scientist for the Bahamian Reef Survey. “The coral bleaching is probably more a symptom of disease — the widespread global environmental degradation — that’s going on.”
Crabbe said evidence of global warming is overwhelming.
“The big problem for coral is the question of whether they can adapt sufficiently quickly to cope with climate change,” Crabbe said. “I think the evidence we have at the moment is: No, they can’t.
“It’ll not be the same ecosystem,” he said. “The fish will go away. The smaller predators will go away. The invertebrates will go away.” ”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html
“Coral reefs in the Caribbean experienced more heat stress in 2005 than the past 20 years combined, said Eakin, who coordinates NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch satellite monitoring program.
“This was the most devastating bleaching event that we’ve seen in the Caribbean,” he said.
Record Bleaching
Jeff Miller, a National Park Service fisheries biologist based at Virgin Islands National Park in St. John, says the bleaching episode is the most extensive he’s seen in 21 years of marine studies. ”
“..coral colonies more than 800 years old die in a matter of weeks.
“..surprised to see die-offs caused by the disease occurring as far down as 90 feet (27 meters).
“This mortality is occurring on many different species there, the very slow-growing, major reef-building species,” he said. “And that’s what makes it so dramatic and so alarming.”
.. “That coral has undoubtedly been there for hundreds of years, and it died over the course of several weeks.”
..the rapid die-off is particularly distressing, because some reef-building corals grow only the width of a dime in a year.
Declining Coral
Biologists fear the die-offs will further degrade coral reefs in the Caribbean, a region that by one estimate has already lost 80 percent of its coral cover over the last three decades.
“You’re down to the point where you really can’t afford to lose that much [more],” NOAA’s Eakin said. ”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_coral_2.html
The reports cited above are certainly the kind of impression that I had about the coral bleaching problem. I was surprised to read Starks’ dismissal of the danger and I share the disappointment expressed by others at his hit and run approach used here. The concerns raised were reasonable and substantiated and for the most part politely expressed, why should someone with a reason for their disagreement run away from that?
And remember guys – we’re just getting started !
Let’s face it – the dominant tactic is to keep up a constant barrage that any concern about the reef is un-Australian and made by commies. Deny deny deny.
It’s just IPA pre-positioning propaganda.
Did anyone ask a tourist lately?
acording to recent posts –
What we need to know now (IMHO of course), is the reef shonky or the IPA shonky?
bam bam, I don’t believe that either the IPA or the GBR is shonky. Of course I agree with Phil on the need for more research and a watchful eye, and that includes the water quality and over-fishing issues canvassed by Prof H-G and Dr Starck as well as global climate change issues.
Phil, Don’t let me interrupt you if you and your team are just getting started. By all means keep it up, because your posts nicely illustrate Walter Starck’s point that ‘any argument that the situation isn’t as bad as [you] fear/hope is met with rejection, not hopeful interest.’
I thought that someone might have wanted to pursue some of Dr. Starck’s claims – e.g.’The same coral species that have bleached on the GBR thrive elsewhere at considerably higher temperatures and in some bleaching locations subsequent events have shown less effect even at higher temperatures’;’the temperatures associated with bleaching events on the GBR are several degrees below what the same coral species routinely survive elsewhere’; ‘it is wind (or rather lack of it) plus local geography and currents, not air temperature that is the key factor in bleaching events’; and ‘storms prevent bleaching.’
These are important questions upon which it would have been useful to have a discussion of the evidence and the way that it should be interpreted.
My apologies for quoting the last IPCC Report, Phil – I thought that you & others might have been interested in the Panel’s citation of Kushmaro et al (1998) in support of the view that the connection between global climate change and bleaching episodes hadn’t been demonstrated.
Anyway I take it that you reject the findings of the papers cited in Kushmaro et al without seeing them. I realised that I may have been indiscreet in mentioning the work of Israeli scientists, because they’re probably in cahoots with those Americans.
Incidentally, the note by Kushmari et al that demonstrated that coral bleaching is caused by a bacterial infection was published in Nature, 4 April 1996, p. 380, and was also cited in the IPCC TAR. (Now Ian’s quoting the IPCC as an authority again !! Hah ! Great debating point Phil).
If your comment that Aussies ‘like to use US experts and not our own local researchers’ was directed at me, it misfires. I visited AIMS when it was very young, I’m all in favour of maintaining Australia’s world class research effort in marine ecology and, speaking for myself, I’d like to use our own local researchers if at all possible, especially on the GBR.
I’d be particularly interested in any comments you might have on the abstract of a paper by AIMS researchers, published since the last IPCC Report, that is pasted below. They find that the capacity of oceans to store CO2 is greater than assumed in all of the models that have been used to make climate predictions. So even if the IPCC emissions scenarios were right, these researchers believed that the CO2 concentrations and temperature projections were off-beam. Anyway, here’s the abstract:
Proxy Records Of Coral Calcification And Rising Atmospheric CO2
D.J. Barnes and J.M. Lough
Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Mail Centre, Townsville Qld 4810
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/auscore/auscore-abstracts-2001-01.html#03
A number of papers in the past two years have suggested that coral reefs are threatened by rising atmospheric CO2. The basic arguments for this are contained in the first of these papers (Kleypas et al., 1999). It is proposed rising atmospheric CO2 acidifies surface ocean waters because atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater to maintain air-sea equilibrium. This acidification shifts the seawater carbonate equilibrium such that surface seawater contains less carbonate ions. Experimental evidence suggests that calcification in reefal organisms is decreased by decreased carbonate ion concentration. Thus, reefal constructive processes will decline and eventually be outweighed by natural destructive processes. Kleypas et al (ibid.) calculated that coral calcification should have declined 6-11% between 1880 and 1999.
We used annual skeletal density variations to determine calcification rates over the past 200 years in 10 large colonies of the major reef-building coral, Porites. These colonies came from sites along and across the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Calcification rates for the latest 50-year period, 1930-1979, were significantly higher than in the previous three 50-year periods. Calcification rates in the previous periods were not significantly different. This increase in calcification can be ascribed to increase in seawater temperature on the GBR.
At least 3 factors may be involved in this difference between predicted and measured coral calcification. (1) Seawater pH is not wholly controlled by the concentration of dissolved CO2. (2) Coral calcification may not depend upon the concentration of carbonate ions. (3) Solution of shallow water carbonates may return seawater pH towards its original value while increasing the concentration of carbonate ions.
As an experimental test of the third factor, we raised concentrations of CO2 in seawater to levels approaching the doubling level now predicted to occur in 2065. We then added various forms of powdered carbonate. We followed pH throughout. Addition of calcite and aragonite did not affect the pH of the acidified seawater. However, addition of high magnesian calcite and magnesium carbonate returned pH to values approaching or higher than initial values. Dilution of seawater showed that carbonate supersaturation values were considerably lower than the theoretical values. It is these theoretical values that have been used to indicate that solution of shallow marine carbonates will not occur as atmospheric CO2 rises.
Under this scenario calcification in reef organisms may be increased by increased atmospheric CO2 because possible effects of slightly deceased pH on calcification are likely to be offset by an increase in calcification due to increase in carbonate ion concentration, and in total dissolved inorganic carbon.
These results also affect predictions of atmospheric CO2 levels. All models used to make such predictions assume no solution of shallow marine carbonates. Under such an assumption, the capacity of the surface ocean to remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere becomes more and more limited as atmospheric CO2 rises. The capacity of solution of the oceans to store CO2 is greatly enhanced if there is solution of shallow marine carbonates.
Joan A. Kleypas, Robert W. Buddemeier, David Archer, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Chris Langdon and Bradley N. Opdyke. 1999. Geochemical consequences of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on coral reefs. Science, 284, 118-20.’
Incidentally, the last named of the authors of this paper, Bradley Updyke, was at the ANU at the time of publication of this paper. Did this make him more of an Australian than Walter Starck, Phil? I understand that Dr. Starck has lived here for more than 20 years. Perhaps the journals should require the authors of papers to declare their nationality, and whether or not their commies, so that readers can protect themselves from the risk of imbibing propaganda from suspect sources.
According to AIMS News, 25 June 1999, Bradley Opdyke and the AIMS researchers participated in a Special ANU-AIMS seminar on the ocean chemistry issue. AIMS News reported that
‘… the scientific debate has been widened by Barnes and Lough who suggest that the ocean chemistry is more complex than portrayed above [i.e., as in Kleypas, Opdyke et al]. They argue that the ocean can buffer the changes in acidity, and any changes in coral growth will be positive and driven more by temperature changes than by carbonate changes.’
I know that Janice Lough was a co-author of the Greenhouse 2005 presentation, and also of the 2003 paper in Science cited twice by Pinxi. I don’t want to misrepresent Dr. Lough’s position, so I’ll simply observe that, according to the papers I’ve read so far, the connection between bleaching and global warming isn’t as firmly established as some posters on this thread suppose it to be.
Connection? Would you expect to see a connection right now. Wait till you get to to 2 x CO2 or your favourite equilibrium scenario. With all these things we’re just getting started. I you had to script it yourself Ian – when would expect to start detecting changes? Now? Or would it be unclear and confusing right now. As it may also be with cyclones and hurricanes.
And this is the greatest managememnt call of all time therefore – empircal evidence for some AGW phenomena will be foggy – you only have scenarios, models and the science to date – but once you put the CO2 in the atmosphere – it’s then a tad late to change your mind based on future empirical evidence of damage.
I’m simply saying there are very good reasons for keeping a watchful eye on our prize asset, currently in good condition. You’re the statistician – can you inform us how much it’s worth to our economy and what a reasonable figure might be to keep the research going.
Perhaps Jen should make a few phone calls or emails. (Like she should have done before quoting a dubious partisan source like Bolt – what happened to evidence based and checking sources!!) I would suggest the Greenhouse 2005 presentation is quite recent and this field evolving quickly.
And it is a debate ongoing – and we should not shut it down, or think we know everything yet.
And I don’t care about scientists’ nationalities – it’s always worrisome though when you do have local experts at AIMS and you wouldn’t at least canvas their position. Dr Starck’s written pieces cited here don’t give the impression he is a local, but I accept what you say on the issue.
But by all means challenge the evidence – that’s utterly fine in any debate.
Ian Castles; It seems there is nothing fresh (2006) since this report, (on the internet at least). That leaves us wondering what’s wrong with statements like the following
“Rising sea temperatures increase the frequency of mass coral bleaching events. Corals live only 1-2oC below their upper thermal limit and sustained periods of water temperatures above this threshold stresses the coral and the symbiotic algae (the essential partner for reef-building corals) are expelled. The host coral may die, partially die or recover though coral growth and reproduction can be affected in surviving corals. 16% of the world’s reefs were seriously damaged during the 1998 bleaching event – probably the warmest year experienced by modern corals” –
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal greenhouse gas) is changing the chemistry of the oceans. About 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activities since the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by the oceans. This changes the chemistry of the oceans, which become more acidic (lower pH) and these change the concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate ions. Many marine organisms (corals, calcareous algae, shells, benthic and planktonic organisms such as foramanifera and coccolithophores) use calcium and carbonate ions from seawater to secrete calcium carbonate skeletons. Changing the ocean chemistry essentially shifts the geochemical equation by which these organisms “calcify”
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/about/communications/issues/coral-reefs-and-climate-change.html
Ian, IMHO each of us has to come to or own conclusion at this point, particularly as I for one can’t find where the IPA has actually contributed to reef research.
On a more practical issue though, very few of us should see lab models for adding CO2, lowering Ph and calcifying life in seawater as in any way representing the real GBR over time with all the other side shows like dirty run off to contend with.
Neither can I see a Ph probe bobbing around in the briny under the waves lasting too long in terms of calibration. Ph measurements in the presence of numerous micro organisms used to be pretty tricky stuff.
Looking back, what happened to Captain Sensible and Ian Mott?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001209.html
Ian asks why no-one pursued Dr Starck’s claim ‘The same coral species that have bleached on the GBR thrive elsewhere at considerably higher temperatures ..”
Ian you’ve overlooked that I did comment with some compatible information to this and I did touch on issues that I thought were related to this eg that corals may switch to more heat-tolerant symbionts and it’s expected that the more heat-tolerant heavier, less-attractive corals will be more likely to adapt. I did politely ask (I most definitely did NOT “querulously demand” as per yr rubbish allegation) Dr Starck to elaborate on some areas where other professionals disagree with him but he declined to do so. This would have been a rare opportunity to fill in the gap between expert views, an opportunity missed in an area in which you now rubbish me ‘n me comrades as lacking in hopeful interest.
From what I’ve read, it seems that the corals more likely to adapt are not those particularly attractive and delicate corals which make the GBR a renowned unique world attraction. I commented earlier that we’re not likely to see the reef disappear (ie spotting glimmers of hope contrary to your description) but it’s likely to become less diverse, ie it might change from being the Great Barrier Reef to being Just Another Reef.
I also suspect, from reading the various sources and as per questions above which weren’t answered, that such an adaptive response would require a progressive and relatively evenly distributed increase in temperatures, or if there are a few sudden episodes of much hotter temperatures, they’re not so hot or so prolonged that they kill the corals completely as has now happened in the caribbean and in parts of the GBR earlier. It seems that the question is not about an average rise in SSTs and nor can we assume that the upper thermal range experienced by the GBR is gradually or evenly increasing, but the issue is the location, duration and frequency of hotspots and the additional factors such as diseases, pollution, storm damage, direct human effects, acidification etc that can combine with raised temperatures to make the corals more vulnerable to bleaching (as well as less successful reproduction and inhibited reef-building), and repeat events occurring in the same location which increase the risk of non-recoverable bleaching and unsuccessful reproduction. The corals will not adapt if they get killed off before they can. Nor will they ‘move’ if the changes are too sudden or severe for them to do so or if the young are broiled or washed to shore in unusual currents.
We have reason to hold some hope for the GBR because we’re reasonably good, by world standards, at trying to monitor and look after it. But that’s not reason to throw caution to the wind or assume that we understand all the factors involved. Of Dr Starck’s writing, I haven’t read anything new (ie that I haven’t already read recently – I’m not diminishing his contributions or original work). It only seems to differ in his interpretation of the data. Dr Starck is an unusual voice in suggesting that we don’t need to worry at all because all be fine so don’t question this. He has some evidence, as do other researchers, that reefs so far have been reasonably resilient in recent times – this does not show that they can continue to bounce back, particularly if more frequent or severe damaging events occur as expected with GWa and increased human impacts, and nor does it show if the wonderful diversity and lifesupport characteristics of the GBR will thrive.
Ian; the signs of change associated with global warming should first appear as subtle differences to the norm then accelerate as the affects bite and accumulate. Rate of change in natural phenomena is much more insidious to detect than the proportional in the short term. It’s hidden in the cycles of many minor variables.
Are we smart enough to see the various forms of sensitivity across the board? I think not based on response in this blog.
I became accustomed to managers everywhere blaming their instruments many years ago. Proof always depended on me finding some other means. Here I reckon we have the ice dripping away as we think.
Phil, you ask whether I’d expect to see a connection right now, when would I start detecting changes and – specifically – what will happen when we get to a 2 x CO2 scenario. According to the AIMS scientists Barnes and Lough, writing some years ago, any changes in coral growth from a 2 X CO2 scenario by 2065 would be positive. You seem to be criticising me for disregarding Australian scientists, and Australian scientists for getting it wrong.
bam bam, thanks for drawing my attention to the AIMS report in 2005. You ask what is wrong with the statement that “Rising sea temperatures increase the frequency of mass coral bleaching events.” There may be nothing wrong with it, but I can’t know that unless AIMS names its source. Does David Barnes agree with the statement? Amorphous institutional opinions are no substitute for documented statements in peer-reviewed papers.
I can’t reconcile your statement about the change which has occurred in the chemical composition of the oceans with what is said in the first two paragraphs of the abstract of the Barnes & Lough paper I quoted. Can you elaborate on your point about managers blaming their instruments? I don’t understand how this bears on the issue at hand.
Ian – Jen should make a phone call or email.
I read your excerpts from earlier papers but reecntly on 16 Nov 2005, Janice Lough (apparently as presenter) is saying:
CHANGE IN OCEAN CHEMISTRY
ocean pH already decreased by 0.1 as oceans absorbed ~30% excess CO2
increased acidity lowers concentration of carbonate that corals (& other marine calcifiers) use to build their skeletons
weakened skeletons in addition to other stresses
Myself I would tend to go with the later concerns if it’s their considered view but Jen should consider clearing this up for us.
As far as the now and 2065 is concerned – Ian simply saying that IMHO you not expect to see vastly major changes in episodic behaviour like bleaching, cyclone speeds, and El Nino frequency (if there is going to be any !) at this early stage of global warming. Unless there is an abrupt climate shift I would think you would see a trend of departure form the current cloud of climate variability on a new trajectory. And the statistics on this would be non-significant in the early stages. It’s called a problem of signal detection.
What some of the more knucklehead commentators seem to be saying (not including your good self here Ian) is that well lookey here – the Reef is still there, it’s hasn’t bleached, so hahahahaha we’re OK and therefore AGW is baloney. Well that’s a very dumb – not even clever argument. It’s the same style as cherry picking any cold spell or anomaly and saying – gee a brief trend otherwise.
I personally think the problems with the Reef are still ahead of us. We need to keep an eye on things.
Jen needs to phone a friend at AIMS for us and clear up the latest science ! Otherwise we may be talking out of our collective butts.
I await being informed .. ..
Thanks Phil. Not so long ago Jennifer argued that we didn’t need an IPCC. As she saw it, the need was for ‘honest reporting of scientific findings, open and honest discussion so best policies can emerge from the best science and best economic analyses.’
You strongly contested this view. You said that it was a recipe for ‘anarchy’; that we’d have ‘no “reasonably accepted” global summary of the science’; and that we’d ‘have to get someone to wander around and collect all the “best” bits and compare them.’
Now you seem to have changed sides. I invited your comments on the most recently accepted IPCC assessment which recognised that there were differing views on whether a link had been established between coral bleaching and global warming, but you haven’t responded.
If you’re happy to ‘go with’ what AIMS scientists have said in a power-point presentation in November 2005, then you don’t need the IPCC assessment, you don’t need the papers that were reviewed in that assessment, and you don’t need journals to decide after proper review processes that papers are worthy of publication. All you need to do is wander round and collect the latest opinions of those whom you count as experts.
You say ‘it’s always worrisome when you do have local experts at AIMS and you wouldn’t at least canvas their position.’ But I did canvass the position of two experts at AIMS, as reported in a paper published since the last IPCC assessment report, and I acknowledged the POSSIBLY different position that one of them had taken in a power-point presentation in November 2005. I was careful to say that ‘I don’t want to misrepresent Dr. Lough’s position, so I’ll simply observe that, according to the papers I’ve read so far, the connection between bleaching and global warming isn’t as firmly established as some posters on this thread suppose it to be.’
I stand by that, and I don’t accept that I’m obliged to check with each author of a paper published five years ago that their position is still as represented in that paper. Why should a recent position that hasn’t been reviewed take precedence over an earlier position that was – and if it does take precedence, why bother to have a review process at all?
You point out that Dr. Lough as presenter said in November 2005 that ocean pH had already decreased by 0.1 as oceans absorbed ~30% excess CO2. But that wasn’t new. In their 2001 paper, Barnes & Lough reported that they had raised concentrations of CO2 in seawater to levels approaching the doubling level now predicted to occur in 2065. They then added various forms of powdered carbonate and found that
‘[A]ddition of high magnesian calcite and magnesium carbonate returned pH to values approaching or higher than initial values..
Under this scenario calcification in reef organisms may be increased by increased atmospheric CO2 because POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF SLIGHTLY DECREASED pH ON CALCIFICATION ARE LIKELY TO BE OFFSET by an increase in calcification due to increase in carbonate ion concentration, and in total dissolved inorganic carbon (EMPHASIS added).
‘These results also affect predictions of atmospheric CO2 levels. All models used to make such predictions assume no solution of shallow marine carbonates. Under such an assumption, the capacity of the surface ocean to remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere becomes more and more limited as atmospheric CO2 rises. The capacity of solution of the oceans to store CO2 is greatly enhanced if there is solution of shallow marine carbonates(EMPHASIS added).’
You’ve made no comment on the offsetting effects on calcification identified in the earlier paper and you’ve set up a straw man by implying that Barnes & Lough (B&L) overlooked the effects of global warming between now and 2065.
Three questions:
(1) Are you suggesting that B&L overlooked the problem of signal detection in their 2001 paper?
(2) Do you have any comment on the view expressed in B&L (2001) that predictions of the increase in CO2 are overstated in all models used to make such predictions? Do you have any reason to believe that B&L have resiled from this view?
(3) Do you agree that B&L (2001) misinterpreted the IPCC Third Assessment Report by referring to the doubling level now PREDICTED to occur in 2065? The IPCC made no predictions, and the only emissions scenarios that project a doubling of CO2 concentrations by 2065 are those in the A2 and A1 families (but not including the A1T scenarios). These are recognised as highly improbable, even by those who produced them. Under the scenarios that now seem to be the most realistic (some of the scenarios in the B1 family), CO2 concentrations will stabilise at less than twice the pre-industrial level.
I’m not being highly critical of B&L’s misinterpretation of the IPCC scenarios, because many scientists (and some economists) have made the same mistake. But the cumulative effect of exaggerating the prospective growth in CO2 emissions and therefore in concentrations and exaggerating the growth in climate sensitivity (including for the reason identified by B&L) could well be substantial.
Thank you for recognising that I’m not saying that ‘hahahahaha we’re OK and therefore AGW is baloney.’ But if you’re serious about the ‘need to keep an eye on things’, you should support peer-reviewed science against the ‘dumbing down’ process that is epitomised in Prof. Ove H-G’s main solution to the problems of the GBR: ‘sign the Kyoto Protocol.’
Ian – I am confused given the differing information and awaiting an update hopefully via Jennifer.
Janice Lough representing AIMS and being a scientist of some repute has recently summarised AIMS position in that conference. It’s pretty darn clear to me what they’re saying on a range of hazards.
So we need to be informed. No point in speculating further until that point.
My signal detection issue was with bleaching not calicification rates.
Ian – on CO2 – less than twice then – whatever the number is. Whatever you favourite scenario(s) are. Not prediction.
meanwhile, a top candidate for the precautionary principle
Incidentally that creep Andrew Bolt has made another tirade in the Brisbane Sunday Mail today.
Rubbish listed:
Says the scientist are suggesting:
Rain won’t fall
Storms will devastate forests !???
Cows fart GHG emissions (they actually belch methane – wrong end!)
If warmer weather gives us more pests – scientists will surely find more cures? Oh yea – that explains all those new pesticides and antibiotics we’re swamped with.
There’s fierce argument about whether the warming is caused by man. There is ? where’s the literature on this then ??
The WMO is now a hurricane centre
The WMO “insist” hurricanes are not getting worse – actually they report the science community is divided on the issue.
60 “top” experts in climate science and related disciplines wrote to the Canadian PM – a try-on – most have retired or aren’t in the operational climate change research field. Doesn’t pass the giggle test I’m afraid.
The old plants will grow better line.
Ian if the the IPA is going to going to quote right wing Shock Jock stirrers like Bolt for references you’ll be sitting ducks for anyone that knows anything about the science. Jen should know better.
One thing this thread has identified; considering the size and importance of the GBR we are scratching for both LOCAL science and scientists.
Ian; this makes peer group review from within our own expert fraternity a bit on the light side to say the least and all research work too easy to pick off by any bunch of would be experts in the media including the more determined like IPA.
We need to identify who we are working for here too, in retirement and on the job.
After a bit more reading – it appears to me that this area is in early phases of research.
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/McNeil_et_al,2005.pdf
Reply to comment by Kleypas et al. on ‘‘Coral reef calcification and
climate change: The effect of ocean warming’’
Ben I. McNeil,1 Richard J. Matear,2 and David J. Barnes3
Says in conclusion: “There can be no doubt that the response of corals,
coral reefs and other significant reef organisms to climate
variability will be complex. MMB04 took into account
factors not previously included in equivalent analyses and
obtained a result different from those previously reported.
We are aware of uncertainties in our findings. Even so, we
feel they provide a useful addition to our understanding of
the issue. In our view, they would be useful even if they
served only to highlight those uncertainties. To us, the
fundamental research question that remains to be answered
is, ‘‘Can organisms and ecosystems accommodate, acclimatise
to or adapt to rising temperatures faster than ocean
temperatures may rise?’’”
Note the wording – remains to be answered !
Phil, Thanks for posting the conclusion of this reply by McNeil et al (M05) to a comment by Kleypas et al (K05) on an earlier paper by McNeil et al (M04). The exchange has taken place in Geophysical Research Letters. I note that David Barnes of AIMS is a co-author of M04 and M05.
I applaud M05 for their carefully-stated conclusions. The authors criticise K05 for ‘choos[ing] to assume that corals will not adapt or acclimatise’, and agree that it is implicit in their own paper that corals WILL adapt or acclimatise. They add that:
‘Interestingly, a similar problem arose with regard to coral bleaching. The position initially adopted was that corals have no defences against factors bringing about bleaching [e.g. Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999]. It is now apparent that corals have a variety of mechanisms by which they can accommodate changes in environmental factors that bring about bleaching [Baker et al, 2004; Brewer et al, 2002; Little et al, 2004; Rowan, 2004].’
Note here that M05 cite four papers published since the IPCC TAR that contest conclusions drawn by Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg in 1999.
You ask me to note the wording ‘remains to be answered’. I do, and I also note the question ‘Can organisms and ecosystems accommodate, acclimatise to or adapt to rising temperatures faster than ocean temperatures may rise?’ For that purpose, there is a need for rigour in assessing how fast ocean temperatures may rise. I believe that Barnes and Lough (2001) unintentionally exaggerated the prospective temperature increase because they were under the mistaken impression that a doubling in CO2 concentrations had been ‘predicted’ to occur by 2065. As I’ve indicated, it may well be that a doubling in the pre-industrial level of CO2 won’t occur at all.
Since Walter Starck has been accused on this thread of dismissing the threats to the GBR, let me quote exactly what he said in his paper for the IPA:
‘About all we can say at present is that GW probably isn’t going to be as dramatic as the alarmists predict, that recent coral bleaching on the GBR is not unprecedented, that corals can adapt to considerably warmer water than that which produced the recent bleaching, and that the damage done is less than claimed.’
I don’t see that there is a big gulf here between M05 and Walter Starck. I do see a big gulf between M05 and the alarmist pronouncements of Ove G-H and also, I have to say, with CSIRO’s assessment in its recent report for the Business Roundtable.
The latter assessment asserts that ‘Historically unprecedented rates of bleaching have occurred over the past 2 decades’ (no evidence is cited), and that an increase of 1-2 deg. C over an unspecified period would mean that ’58-81% of the GBR is bleached every year.’ I’d be interested to know whether the authors of M05 and of the four recent studies cited above agree with these propositions.
Now let me recall what Walter Starck said on this blog in the course of our earlier discussion of the ‘hockey stick’ debate (on the ‘Richard Lindzen on Hockey Sticks’ thread, Feb. 12, 2006);
‘The existence of a medieval warm period and little ice age as global climatic phenomena has been repeatedly indicated by numerous studies from all continents. These have been widely published in the peer reviewed primary literature and stem from a broad spectrum of mainstream scientific institutions.’
You thanked Dr. Starck for drawing attention to a ‘very interesting url’, and said you were taking the sources seriously.
Now, two months later, you say ‘Hockey stick – we’ve filled pages on this. Recent studies are if anything confirming the Hockey Stick despite the blathering.’
Thanks for providing, in response to my request for examples of such studies, a link to the RealClimate review, with special reference to Osborn & Briffa (O&B). This was of course the paper that we were discussing in mid-February. At that time I read the review in Real Climate, the O&B paper itself and the comments thereon on the RC site.
Did RC ever make any response to the devastating critique of O&B that Steve McIntyre posted on ClimateAudit within 24 hours of the publication? Has there been any response by the mainstream climate community to McIntyre’s serious criticisms, including of the failure of peer reviewers and editors at ‘Science’ to ensure that this paper complied with the journal’s data archiving policies? This seems to me to be a remarkable omission, given the consistently poor track record of ‘Science’ in this respect in the recent past.
You wondered how McIntyre produced a response to O&B so quickly. The most likely reason lies in the fact that ‘Science’ seeks to promote media interest in papers of this sort by circulating them to selected journalists under embargo several days in advance of publication. McIntyre probably gained access to the paper through a friendly journalist.
As was only to be expected, Osborn and Briffa grabbed significant media attention, whereas the paper by D’Arrigo, Wilson and Jacoby (D’A, W & J) that was published several days earlier in Geophysical Research Letters was ignored.
The latter paper reached a different conclusion. One of the authors, Rob Wilson, pointed out in a posting to Climate Audit that their paper had concluded that ‘There is not enough data prior to ~1400 to make such definite statements comparing MWP and recent conditions.’ In other words, D’A, W & J found that there was no evidence for the proposition that late 20th century experience is unprecedented. (This doesn’t mean that it wasn’t, but IPCC Chair Rob Watson told the UNFCCC that it was indisputable that the last two decades of the 20th century WERE the warmest of the millennium, and 1998 the warmest year).
O&B do not cite any of the M&M papers, so Briffa will now be able to use his position as Lead Author of the chapter in AR4 to present his co-authored paper as the authoritative source on the climate of the past 2000 years, just as Mann used his position as Lead Author to give added authority to his own papers (co-authored with Bradley and Hughes).
Rob Wilson noted in his post to Climate Audit that Briffa had refused to provide him with information needed for the D’A, W & J study. This too is reminiscent of Mann’s failure to respond to McIntyre’s reasonable requests for information three years ago. Strange behaviour for leading figures in an organisation that presents itself as making assessments ‘on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis’.
As you know, the US National Research Council has a study under way on this subject, and the panel has heard from (among others) McIntyre, McKitrick, van Storch, d’Arrigo and Mann. Their conclusions will be interesting.
Ian – the Hockey Stick issues comes down to use of proxies, statistical analysis, and the worldwide nature or otherwise of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. Of course it’s AN argument in many AGW arguments. Perhaps we may never know definitively due to the paucity of global data. (Yes I have every CO2 science listed paper on the issue and am working through them). In any case – what if the Hockey Stick were wrong – well if you were asserting Medieval Warming temperatures it would have been hotter still. The radiative physics of CO2 doesn’t depend on the Hockey Stick.
Incidentally nobody is immune from goofs – Lambert got McInytre and McKitrick on a radians/degrees conversion blue.
O&B don’t need to cite M&M – it’s a different analysis technique.
Basically – Hockey Stick is an interesting sideline, and it has become quite hysterical really. Nobody is giving in yet !
I personally think we may never know 100% – definitively. It may remain unresolved – incomplete.
While you all debate the merits of the science AGW, oceans, GBR etc there is another issue I want to get to the bottom of, its called turning off the alarms. Who authorized this process and why?
A previous comment “I became accustomed to managers everywhere blaming their instruments many years ago” should have included witnessing people switching of alarms when there was confusion over events.
Loud ringing tones still annoy folk in their business and relaxation, ask anyone standing beside a strangers phone when it goes off. But of course, it’s not your communication each time there is an alarm, is it? Silencing alarmists is quite a natural human reaction for many of us.
Ian “Fix that instrument” was more familiar. Over time I devised a number of simple tests, the first was ask the nearest operator for an opinion, the second was get another yard stick. When all three agreed we had a useful measurement.
Ian, the master of cherry picking, discusses only a very narrow subset of points to suit his line of debate that bleaching/degradation warnings are exaggerated. Found guilty of excessive unwarranted optimism. He ignores the contributing factors that have been raised above that affect the corals, he ignores the potential for these factors to work together to cause lasting bleaching in ways unprecedented in our understanding of historical records, and he ignores the mentions of this complexity in the papers he discusses.
* Not all corals are alike and not all reefs are alike yet the GBR is being compared to other reefs. Do the heat tolerant corals include many soft corals?
* How much diversity in the GBR is expected to endure a combination of direct and indirect human impacts and climate change? How will this impact the important life-support functions of coral reefs?
*It’s not a simple question of average or evenly distributed or gradual increase in water temperatures but it’s generalisations of average temperatures that Ian keeps blindly debating. It’s location location location of the epicentre of abnormally high temperatures, the duration and the frequency. It’s also other potentially related factors such as abnormal currents, storm damage, runoff, diseases.
* Coral reefs are unaffected by argumentative logic. Unfortunately they can’t be convinced with well-referenced writing not to bleach permanently.
I’d like to see Dr Starcks’ explanation of the stark death events which have just occurred in the carribean. Just a natural occurrence?
Excellent comment on turning off alarms hammerbambamboy, it’s all clear now.
Ian Castles is known to be an important ally of the IPA and what we’ve witnessed lately is that he’s not just concerned with the working process of the IPCC and good science as he says, but he’s keen to argue any line against AGW and against any negative effects expected from climate change. Good science is increasingly rare these days, eh? We should prepare a museum for it. Ian’s agenda is clear: silence alarms and tell people that their instruments are broken.
Looking at trends is an art form, ask any lady.
I reckon finding useful parallels for complex events is another art. I wondered about the limits of measuring reef response to Ph change and reckoned the first problem was probe sensitivity. That is what I used to work on decades ago with a Beckman type potentiometers as the Ph meter in a variety of solutions.
With constant migration of microbes across the reference junction (Kcl) I found it was nearly impossible to measure neutral Ph conditions in any event, on the bench and in the process. Acid etching hardly ever improved that probe. More modern solid state ion detectors may well have overcome this problem though. But don’t ever consult a sales brochure on their erformance. .01 Ph indeed! and in whose lab?
Why not use disolved 02 as another yardstick?
However given marine organism are far more sensitive to say dissolved chlorine than we are, let’s agree the sensitivity depends on the organism rather than the dose. Also we can ask a silly question, how much acid in solution does it take to scrub clean the face of a new brick wall? How sensitive is our potential GBR limestone? Are we going to dissolve the reef from the topside, inside or the underside in our soup?
More likely it will be crushed to death by the hammerings from the water. My bet is the brick wall tells us as much as the Ph meter in some UNI lab if you believe in doing the science before the event.
Something we can say from the practice, a low Ph solution is a good brew when it comes to fermenting, hardening cellulose fibers and separating the elements from a crushed mineral matrix.
Climate science has a lot of catching up yet in regards to natural reef engineering.
So seawater – pH about 8.5. The slightly alkaline pH of seawater is due to the natural buffering from the carbonate and bicarbonate dissolved in the water.
Surely you’d be testing your electrode against reference solutions? And presumably only used for seawater (alkaline) application?
Incidentally some aquarists use injected CO2 to control their pH in both marine and freshwater applications every day. And regulated by a solenoid valve on the CO2 bottle controlled by a pH meter. CO2 does work ! My experience was that calibration monthly found little drift in the meter, but your mileage may vary.
Phil, First of all let me remind you of just what the IPCC experts said in Chapter 2 of the WGI Contribution to the Third Assessment Report:
‘Mann et al. (1998) reconstructed global patterns of annual surface temperature several centuries back in time. They calibrated a combined terrestrial (tree ring, ice core and historical documentary indicator) and marine (coral) multi-proxy climate network against dominant patterns of 20th century global surface temperature. Averaging the reconstructed temperature patterns over the far more data-rich Northern Hemisphere half of the global domain, they estimated the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature back to AD 1400, a reconstruction which had significant skill in independent cross-validation tests. Self-consistent estimates were also made of the uncertainties. This work has now been extended back to AD 1000 (Figure 2.20, based on Mann et al., 1999). The uncertainties (the shaded region in Figure 2.20) expand considerably in earlier centuries because of the sparse network of proxy data. Taking into account these substantial uncertainties, Mann et al. (1999) concluded that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium for at least the Northern Hemisphere.’
The chapter was the product of 2 Coordinating Lead Authors, 8 Lead Authors including Michael Mann and Jean Jouzel and over 140 Contributing Authors including both of Mann’s co-authors (Bradley and Hughes), Australians David Karoly and Kevin Hennessy, Keith Briffa and Hans von Storch.
The MBH reconstruction, charted as the ‘hockey stick’, attained iconic status in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The Panel fell for it hook, line and sinker. Until Steven McIntyre started asking questions of Michael Mann in 2003. In co-authorship with Ross McKitrick, McIntyre has ‘shown conclusively, in peer-reviewed journals, that [the] results lack statistical significance, depend on an improper application of Principal Component Analysis, and lack robustness because of their dependence on flawed bristlecone pine data. None of these points has been overturned’ (Pers. Comm, Ross McKitrick to David Henderson).
It is difficult to believe that any public or private sector organisation within a national jurisdiction could make such monumental blunders as did the IPCC in the TAR, and get away with it.
But, to their shame, many mainstream scientists won’t admit the errors even now. Barrie Pittock, in the Supplementary Notes and References to his recent book ‘Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat’, says that ‘Mann and co-authors are the recognised experts in this field, and thus best qualified to make the expert judgments on data quality and representativeness needed.’
As I’ve already noted, Keith Briffa is a lead author of AR4, and Jean Jouzel, a lead author of the ‘hockey stick’ chapter of the TAR, is the review editor of the relevant chapter of AR4.
‘Lambert got McInytre and McKitrick on a radians/degrees conversion blue’? Well actually he got you, Phil. The blue was made by M&M, but they were McKitrick and MICHAELS, not McIntyre.
Steve McIntyre had nothing to do with it. So far McIntyre found the most extraordinary number of serious errors by the multi-proxy scientists, but I don’t think he’s made any significant errors himself.
As for McKitrick, he acknowledged his mistake immediately it was pointed out. It was a minor glitch compared with the howlers he and McIntyre have identified in the work of the hockey team.
Incidentally there were two economists among the 20 Canadian signatories of the recent open letter to Canada’s PM. One of them (McKitrick) is the co-author of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The other (van Kooten) has a Degree with Distinction in geophysics as well as his qualifications in economics. I’d be interested to know how many leading climate scientists have peer-reviewed papers in economics journals, or honours degrees in economics.
Sorry more like 8.2 trending to 8.1
Oh Ian do rave on. McIntyre by now is so shrill that he could tell us anything. He’s so buried in the contrarian side that he can’t see daylight and he has surrounded himself with all the other nonsense of the contrarian side as well. I don’t see that the Hockey Stick has been conceded at all and all the howlers are because McIntyre says they’re howlers. It’s all just very esoteric mathematics that the average person has no hope of understanding. There’s been claim and counter-claim. Let’s spend hours getting all the papers from each side and line them all up.
ClimateAudit isn’t discursive – it’s just attack attack attack. The fact that McIntyre was into Osborn & Briffa 24 hours after publication makes his case laughable in my opinion (or he’s a genius!).
You’d get an Oscar Ian for your cries of “shame shame shame”. “It is difficult to believe that any public or private sector organisation within a national jurisdiction could make such monumental blunders ” – I’m rolling on the floor laughing – every day the paper brings more nonsense. It’s called Canberra !
Don’t get too precious !
At some point Ian you have to move on. But of course the IPA wouldn’t want this would it?
So trucked over to ClimateAudit after some absence.
Page 1
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=626
Uh-huh yea – oh really .. .. mmmmm. A brief perusal. Stopped browsing did the dishes at that point. Says it all to me !
Bambi would like to see Dr Starck’s explanation of the stark death events which have just occurred in the Caribbean. These events have presumably occurred in the ‘25% of reefs globally [which] have been estimated to be heavily impacted’ which Walter Starck referred to above.
He said that ‘Whether this situation will improve or grow worse in the future is unclear. There is evidence in both directions.’
Neither he nor I has said or implied that corals can’t bleach permanently.
Phil; whats your interest in CA? It’s just another ho hum blog, unauthorised bleating lot.
Did any of them actually do anything Phil?
BTW seems you have the edge in our seawater Ph debate. Mine was all about slops!
Ian; its time you conceeded, we know precious little about reefs from sitting on a stool in Canberra.
Ian should admit to the possibility of severe degradation of the GBR
Phil raves on Hockey Stick. Snore – grizzle.
More maths errors asserted.
http://timlambert.org/category/science/mckitrick/
Read the comments including Wag The Dog
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html
Amman and Wahl 2006 are in press.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html
Anyone any wiser?
I’ve already agreed with the three Australian researchers whose paper Phil cited above that the fundamental research question that remains to be answered is, ‘Can organisms and ecosystems accommodate, acclimatise to or adapt to rising temperatures faster than ocean temperatures may rise?’
I also agree with the researchers that ‘the response of corals, coral reefs and other significant reef organs to climate variability will be complex.’
I do not believe that these research findings support CSIRO’s unqualified assertion, stated as a matter of certainty, that an increase of 1-2 deg. C over an unspecified period into the future, would mean that ’58-81% of the GBR is bleached every year.’
This argues for Walter Starck’s presciption for
‘Open, objective, rational, evidence-based analysis.’
I agree with bambam that, considering the size and importance of the GBR, we are scratching for both LOCAL science and scientists. But I find it encouraging that the authors of the McNeil et al papers recently published in Geophysical Research Letters come from three different Australian research institutions.
I for one don’t want to see research of this calibre picked off by ‘any bunch of would be experts in the media’ – or even by the expert at another institution whose position in 1999 was ‘that corals have no defences against factors bringing about bleaching.’ (I don’t know what Prof. H-G’s present stance is, but I’m not impressed with his statements in press releases over the past few months).