ON Friday in Paris the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will launch a new report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, with an up-to-date assessment of likely temperature rises because of global warming. Three related reports will be released later in the year, including a report on the likely effects of the rise in temperature. The report on impacts is likely to include a chapter on Australia and a warning that corals on the Great Barrier Reef could die as a consequence of global warming.
The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth. The expected rise in sea level associated with global warming may benefit coral reefs and the Great Barrier Reef is likely to extend its range further south. Global threats to the coral reefs of the world include damaging fish practices and pollution, and the UN should work harder to address these issues.
Read the complete article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-7583,00.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So water isn’t more acidic due to carbonic acid? Or more acidic water doesn’t reduce carbonate available for coral reefs?
I’ll just quickly re-write my chemistry text.
Please explain how it is a myth that more acidic seawater and excess warmth COMBINED with fishing and pollution will not potentially lead to a tipping point.
After all, the reality of the situation involves looking at all factors that can negatively impact a reef, particularly if they are likely to reinforce each other, as appears to the case here.
Jennifer what evidence, what sources, can you provide to explain your opinion piece that GW may benefit corals and bring more opportunities than threats? You make some vague references to warming and growth but you haven’t established a causal relationship there. Please provide one to back your argument or admit it’s weakness.
Can you substantiate your claim that “The expected rise in sea level associated with global warming may benefit coral reefs and the Great Barrier Reef is likely to extend its range further south.” There are 2 points there and they need justifying in light of predicted rates of sea level rise and expected SSTs v’s the rates of growth and time taken for new colonies to establish and new reefs to form, or recolonise. They don’t turn on like a lightbulb. As for reproduction, some corals take years to mature. Where’s the evidence in direct support of those 2 claims?
You qualified your piece at the end by writing ‘some warming’. So how much warming do you expect then (which climate model did you use for your examination of the risks to the GBR)? If there’s more than ‘some warming, whatever that means, how much warming would cause the threats to outweigh those opportunities that you claim?
What climate support do you have for your idea that extended periods of calm will be less likely. Are such events incompatible with climate change? (Source please so we know it’s not just your industry funded opinion)
You conveniently ignore storm damage to corals, especially prone in the shallow waters where you seem to think they’ll spontaneously regenerate. You don’t consider potential changes in currents & wind patterns and timing (there was a spawning episode where it was all pushed onshore & died).
You forgot to write how reefs will also benefit from increased runoff sediment, especially the sticky stuff that clogs juvenile corals and tires them until they die.
Biggest inconvenient idea of them all, you blatantly ignore species composition. The corals most likely to thrive in hotter waters are the less attractive ones and macroalgae can outcompete stressed corals. There’s a reason the GBR is so beautiful! Number and type of species present. The prettiest are more vulnerable. Quantity (area) and quality too. You’ve ignored the latter. I suppose you want tourists of the future to see corals in the zoo alongside the polar bears eating watermelon in air-con.
Yes the GBR is well managed and we can be reasonably optimistic about its adaptability if there are no sudden climate shocks but we can’t be complacent about the risks because they are real risks. The GBR brings in a billion dollars a year so it’s also an important economic asset to protect. Do you support more scientific research to manage the GBR and mitigate the risks from climate change and other human impacts?
You also ignore the connection that needs more research: heat stress may invite disease which bleaches the coral. If there’s sediment runoff, increased storm damage, modified water chemistry eroding reef-building ability of hard corals, changes in SSTs, currents, and if the hotspots land on critical parts of reef (sometimes we’ve been lucky and the hotspot epicentres have missed the corals) and happen more frequently etc then all of these factors can work together to reduce the extent, position, viability and attractiveness of the reef.
I see no evidence, and certainly none to meet your test of ‘conclusive evidence’ to support a certain claim that GW will benefit the reef. I invite to you to provide this.
Nexus,
Growth rates of massive porites at the GBR increased last century… can you explain this wrt your concerns about acid water?
According to ‘Status of Coral Reef of the World: 2002’ (edited by Clive Wilkinson), “There has been no field evidence of corals having reduced calcificiation and growth rates under the influence of increased concentrations of C02 in seawater, however, there has been confirmation of the potential for these effects during research conducted in Biosphere 11 in Arizona as well as in other mesocosm studies”.
I guess I could have also written about crown-of-thorn star fish?
LPR,
Thanks for your comment, but I see you are unimpressed with the piece. The Australian did publish it, so it must have made a bit more sense to their editor than it apparently does to you. Try re-reading it.
I understand one of the first responses to someone when their ‘paradigm’ is challenged is to 1. not see the data, then 2. change the data, then 3. stress and then possibly 4. break through.
Nice junk science piece Jen.
Pity that even year 8 high school level science teaches you about carbonic acid acidifcation of water with CO2.
Trying to make it sound like the editor of a newspaper has any expert insight and understanding of the greater scientific effects and implications is also drawing a long bow.
This whole AEF/IPA sham is about as transparent as glass.
In other words you have no sources Jen. Come on, cough up your evidence base. Do you ever do any research or just run around repeating 2nd hand ideas from others to suit your party line?
Did you make it all up?
You’ve made denialist allegations but as usual you’ve provided no references and no evidence in support. Surely you must be scrabbling around now to bring in the heavy artillery to take over the blog discussion for you?
Well done Jen, it read fine i thought.
But there are a few more reefs around that might like a bit of sea level lifting. Wonder what the perched cliffs above ningaloo might think about all of this? Or those hosting zinc currently mined 100km east of Derby in the Kimberley WA. Some people have no appreciation of geological time, and its relationship to a dynamic planet.
I am not saying who cares about the GBR, but coral reefs come and go, and will continue to do so. Stopping fishing in 70 odd % of the GBR is no solution either. Politics at its finest. Australian fisheries are some of the most over managed, and as a consequence, sustainable in the world. This was also the case off the shores of northern Queensland.
I am surprised, and disappointed that your comments were published in the Australian. Since when does being a public affairs practitioner qualify you make scientific assertions?
Your field of expertise seems to be in making unqualified, controversial statements to get your name in print. Well done, but are you going to back up your article with some concrete answers, as Nexus 6 asks you to do?
Your arguments pander the the dangerous doubters – those who don’t want to be aware of the full implications of climate change. The reef is an iconic and valuable attraction. Warning Australians about the potential damage to it posed by climate change has thus far been a sucessful way of jolting the public out of selfish inaction. Please don’t dilute this effort with pseudo-science.
It’s good practice for journalists/authors on a subject to declare their conflicts of interest. Why has Jennifer not declared, for eg, on the take from big irrigators and corporations that oppose climate change?
It’s no accident of planning that the IPA’s name comes across to the unaware reader like a scientific based, authoritative kind of organisation. Conveniently Jennifer denies having any interest in knowing who signs her paycheck. But where does her policy direction come from? It just be a free for all, anything goes. Applying Schiller’s criteria, if the members don’t vote then the organisation is corrupt.
LPR, I suggest you start by reading the work of David Barnes (AIMS) on coral growth rates, there is also on sediments and cyclones (two topics you have raised) many published papers by Piers Larcombe (previously JCU). I’ve a filing cabinet full of them, but it was a review piece that I wrote for The Australian, and like the IPA magazine, they don’t publish references.
If you have a specific technical/scientific paper that you would like to discuss on the issues raised then you might make it raise it for discussion here.
I provide this information in good faith, but please desist from making more comments suggesting I am somehow misleading readers and not informed when it comes to reef issues.
In regards to increased carbonic acid and acidification of sea water. Just what level of increase is forecast at how many ppm or even better for a lay person what percentage increase?
There is an awful lot of wzater out there and it would appear that there would have to be an awful lot of carbonic acid to make a difference.
Piss weak try Jennifer, I’ve researched widely on this subject already, including Barnes, T Hughes, et al.
If you are informed as you make out, and given you only recently (yesterday?) wrote an article for the Australian it must be fresh in your mind. Therefore in the time it took you to write that last post you could have provided short succinct summary answers on how and why;
– it’s likely the GBR will move south
– hard coral reef building activities will not be compromised
– shallow reefs will not be adversely affected by storm damage (as the literature says)
– that the GBR will take advantage of the opportunities (eg shallow reefs) at a faster rate than it is affected by the threats (eg more submerged reefs), (meaning that growth rates, reproduction and colonistion exceeding die back and habitat loss)
– that the composition of corals will not be simplfied
– that warming will not lead to more bleaching affects from disease (this appears in the literature which you seem not to have read)
– that hotspots are incompatiable with climate change
Just a bullet point or 2 will do. My questions are informed and reasonable. If you can’t reply with short answers showing your position is evidence-based then this will be my last post because it’s clear that it’s an opinion piece, nothing more, and your conflict of interests should have been declared. Good faith my arse. Your denialist arguments apply a standard of evidence that you have never a hope in hell’s chance of meeting yourself. ‘Conclusive evidence’ that GW will BENEFIT the GBR or industry funded crapola? You should be ashamed of your attempts to undermine good science with not one source to support your opinions.
Myth???????
Title: Coastal ocean CO2-carbonic acid-carbonate sediment system of the Anthropocene
Author(s): Andersson AJ, Mackenzie FT, Lerman A
Source: GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 20 (1): Art. No. GB1S92 MAR 2 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 91 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: [1] There is little doubt that human activities such as burning of fossil fuels and land use practices have changed and will continue to change the cycling of carbon in the global coastal ocean. In the present study, two biogeochemical box models were used to investigate the consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 and subsequent ocean acidification and increasing riverine transport of organic matter and nutrients arising from human activities on land on the global coastal ocean between the years 1700 and 2300. Numerical simulations show that the net flux of CO2 between coastal ocean surface water and the atmosphere is likely to change during this time from net evasion to net invasion owing to increasing atmospheric CO2, increasing net ecosystem production arising from increasing nutrient loading to this region, and decreasing net ecosystem calcification due to lower carbonate ion concentration and subsequent lower surface water saturation state with respect to carbonate minerals. Model calculations show that surface water saturation state with respect to calcite will decrease 73% by the year 2300 under a business-as-usual scenario, which in concert with increasing temperature will cause overall biogenic calcification rate to decrease by 90%. Dissolution of carbonate minerals increased by 267% throughout the model simulation. This increase was in part due to increased invasion of atmospheric CO2, but mainly due to greater deposition and remineralization of land-derived and in situ produced organic matter in the sediments, producing CO2 that caused pore water pH and carbonate saturation state to decrease. This decrease, in turn, drove selective dissolution of metastable carbonate minerals. As a consequence, the relative carbonate composition of the sediments changed in favor of carbonate phases with lower solubility than that of an average 15 mol% magnesian calcite phase. Model projected changes in surface water carbonate saturation state agree well with observations from the Hawaiian Ocean Time series and the calculated air-sea CO2 exchanged agrees well with a recent independent estimate of this flux derived from measurements from diverse coastal ecosystems scaled up to the global coastal ocean area.
But wait, there’s more myths!!!!!
Title: CO32- concentration and pCO(2) thresholds for calcification and dissolution on the Molokai reef flat, Hawaii
Author(s): Yates KK (Yates, K. K.), Halley RB (Halley, R. B.)
Source: BIOGEOSCIENCES 3 (3): 357-369 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 63 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: The severity of the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO(2) to coral reef ecosystems depends, in part, on how seawater pCO(2) affects the balance between calcification and dissolution of carbonate sediments. Presently, there are insufficient published data that relate concentrations of pCO(2) and CO32- to in situ rates of reef calcification in natural settings to accurately predict the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO(2) on calcification and dissolution processes. Rates of net calcification and dissolution, CO32- concentrations, and pCO(2) were measured, in situ, on patch reefs, bare sand, and coral rubble on the Molokai reef flat in Hawaii. Rates of calcification ranged from 0.03 to 2.30 mmol CaCO3 m(-2) h(-1) and dissolution ranged from -0.05 to -3.3 mmol CaCO3 m(-2) h(-1). Calcification and dissolution varied diurnally with net calcification primarily occurring during the day and net dissolution occurring at night. These data were used to calculate threshold values for pCO(2) and CO32- at which rates of calcification and dissolution are equivalent. Results indicate that calcification and dissolution are linearly correlated with both CO32- 3 and pCO2. Threshold pCO(2) and CO32- 3 values for individual substrate types showed considerable variation. The average pCO(2) threshold value for all substrate types was 654 +/- 195 mu atm and ranged from 467 to 1003 mu atm. The average CO32- threshold value was 152 +/- 24 mu mol kg(-1), ranging from 113 to 184 mu mol kg(-1). Ambient seawater measurements of pCO(2) and CO32- indicate that CO32- and pCO(2) threshold values for all substrate types were both exceeded, simultaneously, 13% of the time at present day atmospheric pCO(2) concentrations. It is predicted that atmospheric pCO(2) will exceed the average pCO2 threshold value for calcification and dissolution on the Molokai reef flat by the year 2100.
Title: Effect of nutrient enrichment and elevated CO2 partial pressure on growth rate of Atlantic scleractinian coral Acropora cervicornis
Author(s): Renegar DA, Riegl BM
Source: MARINE ECOLOGY-PROGRESS SERIES 293: 69-76 2005
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 53 Times Cited: 2
Abstract: The growth rate of Acropora cervicornis branch tips maintained in the laboratory was measured before, during, and after exposure to elevated nitrate (5 and 10 mu M NO3-), phosphate (2 and 4 mu M P-PO43) and/or PCO2 (CO2 similar to 700 to 800 mu atm). The effect of increased PCO2 was greater than that of nutrient enrichment alone. High concentrations of nitrate or phosphate resulted in significant decreases in growth rate, in both the presence and absence of increased PCO2. The effect of nitrate and phosphate enrichment combined was additive or antagonistic relative to nutrient concentration and PCO2 level. Growth rate recovery was greater after exposure to increased nutrients or CO2 compared to increased nutrients and CO2. If these results accurately predict coral response in the natural environment, it is reasonable to speculate that the survival and reef-building potential of this species will be significantly negatively impacted by continued coastal nutrification and projected PCO2 increases.
Pantera,
Maybe the IPA members *do* vote. But you wouldn’t like that, either, I bet.
I once found the skeleton of a brain coral on the beach at Esperance, on the south coast of Western Australia. I think (may be wrong) that the water there is too cool for brain coral, so I assumed it was a relict of a warmer past, when such coral grew further south. Anybody got any scientific insights?
Ask jennifer Schiller, but she wouldn’t know right? Right. Ignorance is bliss, just have faith. The senior policy makers are ignorant who the donors are and apparently free to pursue policy direction as they choose. No guidance from the donors. Any corrupt process is invariably one that lacks transparency.
Jennifer if you’re unwilling to provide summary bullet points to support your arguments (although it should be fresh in your head) can you instead provide the 3-4 references that lend most support to your argument?
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH
Carles Pelejero,1*. Eva Calvo,1*. Malcolm T. McCulloch,1.
John F. Marshall,1 Michael K. Gagan,1 Janice M. Lough,2
Bradley N. Opdyke3
The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. …
Experimental evidence indicates that such reductions in surface-ocean pH and carbonate saturation state could have major effects on calcifying marine biota (7), especially calcareous plankton (8) and coral reef communities, where the degree of carbonate supersaturation has been shown to have a major effect on calcification rates (9–11).
…Our findings suggest that the effects of progressive acidification of the oceans are likely to differ between coral reefs because reef-water PCO2 and consequent changes in seawater pH will rarely be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Although the relatively large variations in seawater pH at Flinders Reef suggest that coral reefs may be resilient to the shorter termeffects of ocean acidification, in the coming decades many reefs are likely to experience reduced pH that is
unprecedented relative to natural levels. …
Reread that last bit. Likely to have pH unprecedented. Some scientific uncertainty (as always) on precise response especially due to conditions at the time, but likely to reduce calficification. Among other things, it means Jennifer has no basis for arguing that BGR won’t be adversely affected. She definitely doesn’t have any eerrr what does she call it.. ‘conclusive evidence’.
For the perplexed bystander: there’s good general coverage of climate change & corals here http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Coral_Reefs.pdf
(see AIMS also)
If you’re wondering what this fuss is about, it includes an explanation of CO2 altering the chemical composition of the oceans and important organisms. For example:
—————
Effects of CO2 on the Carbonate Chemistry of Seawater
The chemical behavior of CO2 in water is well understood, but it is complex and counterintuitive. ….
…carbon can occur simultaneously in several forms: CO2 (dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid), HCO3–, and CO32–. Increasing atmospheric CO2 drives more CO2 into the ocean, lowering the pH (making the ocean more acidic) and changing the relative proportions of the three forms of carbon (Figure 5). In tropical water of normal salinity (35 Practical Salinity Units, or PSU), average temperature (25°C; 77°F), and preindustrial levels of CO2 (280 ppmv), about 85 percent of the dissolved CO2 in seawater exists as bicarbonate, and the remaining 15 percent exists as carbonate ion. Doubling the CO2 concentration in seawater without changing the other conditions would increase bicarbonate ion concentration to 90 percent and decrease carbonate ion concentration to 10 percent. Calcifying organisms combine calcium and carbonate ions to build their skeletons (Ca2+ + CO32– ↔
CaCO3), so a reduction in carbonate ion concentration slows the calcification process.
… The pH of shallow ocean waters was about 8.15 in the preindustrial period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were 280 ppmv. Today, pH is about 8.05. This relatively small change in pH has caused a large shift in the balance of bicarbonate and carbonate ions.
—————-
and..
“Many marine organisms use calcium (Ca2+) and carbonate (CO3 2–) ions from seawater to secrete
CaCO3 skeletons. Reducing the concentration of either ion can affect the rate of skeletal deposition, but the carbonate ion is much less abundant than calcium, and appears to play a key role in coral calcification
(Langdon, 2003). The carbonate ion
concentration in surface water will decrease
substantially in response to future atmospheric
CO2 increases (Box 7; Figure 5),
reducing the calcification rates of some of
the most important CaCO3 producers. These
include corals and calcareous algae on coral
reefs and planktonic organisms such as
coccolithophores (Riebesell et al., 2000)
and foraminifera in the open ocean (Barker
and Elderfield, 2002).
In laboratory experiments that simulate
doubled atmospheric CO2 conditions,
coral calcification rates decrease by 11–37
percent…”
Funnily enough, they ask “Will Global Warming be Good for Reefs?” … concluding, with both suitable habitat and the potential for coral and reef growth reduced, future immigrant corals will face very different prospects than their predecessors.”
We’re still lacking any evidence, let alone ‘conclusive evidence’ to support a claim that GW will benefit the GBR. Bearing in mind the GBR’s beautifully rich and diverse composition.
In the thread Best Blog Posts of 2006, Jennifer wrote:
“I was actually surprised at what little potentially good material there is here.”
I am unsure what the point of this thread is. Jennifer writes:
“but it was a review piece that I wrote for The Australian, and like the IPA magazine, they don’t publish references.”
It has been put here now, presumably to spark debate, but in the interests of treating us with a little more respect than the general populace who reads the Australian (noted for its well-researchered journalists I sneer), surely there should be something more substantial?
When I read a comment here or in a newspaper that states “The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth”, I want some evidence. I am not saying I have opinions either way, but I would at least like some facts to back up such a strong claim. I think you owe it to us Jennifer, and there have been quite few here asking for it.
LPR,
You’ve posted six times in the last few hours. You are starting to clog up the blog with your ‘copying and pasting’. Further comments from you are likely to be deleted today unless you have something substantive and new to add in your own words.
The general rule at this blog is 2-3 posts from any one individual in any one 24 hour period.
———–
Update, 12.45 pm Brisbane time
LPR has continued to try and post at this thread — so I have temporarily turned off comments for this thread.
if LPR now attempts to disrupt/clog another thread I mayhave her IP banned.
I think we understand her position on the issue, her first 6 comments are part of the above thread.
—————————–
Update, 1.30 pm
Thread reopened.
Lets try this for evidence that the GBR is not threatened by AGW.
The BOM data from Rockhampton PO from 1871 to 1939 when compared to the more recent data from the new station at Rockhampton Aero (5km away) makes it clear that mean annual temperature has actually declined by 0.45 degrees over the past 63 years.
The mean maximum temperature has gone down by 0.2 degrees from 28.5 to 28.3 degrees while the mean minimum has gone down from 17.2 to 16.6 degrees.
The DNRM data on the frequency of extreme temperature events (from only 1939 to 2003) show that the number of days with maximum greater than 35 degrees has only increased from 15 to 19 days a year, in a range of zero to 45, while the number of days with minimum less than 5 degrees has dropped from 16 down to 6 days a year, in a range from zero to 35 days.
Rockhampton is located in one of the “hot spots” of temperature increase over the interval from 1910 to 2003 as mapped by the BOM so the actual observed decline from the 1871-1939 data set to 1939-2003 must be from very high readings prior to 1910.
And what this means is that;
Rockhampton, has actually cooled down by 0.45 degrees,
Rockhampton’s climate is actually getting milder,
Rockhampton can undergo 0.45 degrees of warming before it exceeds the mean from 1871 to 1939,
If Rockhampton’s climate does get warmer it will be due to a reduction in cold weather, not an increase in warm weather,
A reduction in cold minimums poses no threat of increased bleaching of coral,
Rockhampton was chosen as a representative, worst case site, by Qld DNRM, not as a best case site by myself or Jennifer,
Furthermore, The length of coastal rainfall events has declined from 3.5 days to 3.2 days while the intensity has increased from 5mm to 6mm per rain day. And this means that each rainfall event will deliver an improved mixing of surface waters and thereby disrupt the warm surface layers that build up in calm conditions and which cause most bleaching events.
Both DNRM and CSIRO have either misinterpreted the data or have deliberately misinformed the public. The substitution of the word “impact” for the word “change” in relation to extreme events implies that any change in extreme events is adverse. And the subsequent reliance on that assumption allows one to falsly conclude that the Great Barrier Reef is under serious threat.
The Rockhampton temp data is available from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_039083.shtml And the DNRM Report “Climate Change, The challenge for natural resource management” should be at http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au
If you delete this it’s because it reveals the way in which you approach your pieces – something you’d rather hide. Jennifer you when asked for supporting references you mentioned AIMS & Barnes although you seem to have read very selectively of their work:
Not all species are expected to adapt.
” corals may be able to alter their symbiotic algae to more thermally tolerant partners though this may be at the expense of growth rates. This change may, however, only occur in a few species and not be sufficiently rapid to keep pace with temperature rises”
****BUSTED CHERRYPICKING, when mentioning growth rates and impacts of warming, you left this important bit out:
“studies focused, however, on the most heat resistant type of coral and did not consider the overall effects on reef calcification rates of the widespread death of the majority of corals that are less heat resistant. How much ocean warming reefs can withstand will, however, be limited by when temperature thresholds for coral bleaching are regularly exceeded. The general scientific consensus is that changes in ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 has serious implications for coral reefs and other calcifying marine organisms of the open ocean and could well alter the makeup of marine ecosystems, alter food webs and weaken coral reef structures”.
conclusion does not support your optimistic piece:
” The enhanced Greenhouse effect (through bleaching and ocean chemistry changes) is likely to alter the community structure of reefs, including the world’s best-managed reefs of Australia. There is a clear scientific consensus (eg Wilkinson 2004) that reducing and reversing local human pressures on coral reefs has to be accompanied by reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if coral reefs are to survive.”
2006 ttp://www.aims.gov.au/pages/about/communications/issues/coral-reefs-and-climate-change-2006.html
Note Jennifer that I did all this hard work in response to a request from yourself! You said “If you have a specific technical/scientific paper that you would like to discuss on the issues raised then you might make it raise it for discussion here.” Scientific issues and sources raised for discussion, I await your informed response and sources. Meanwhile I make this my last post. Not having to list your references with an article is not an excuse for ignoring the balance of the science.
Ian the issues affecting the GBR are more complex and interconnected and wet then your simple assumptions about air temps. To counter the science on the impact of GW on the GBR, first read the science, then address the relevant points.
Your ‘Myth Buster’ and The Australians editorial instincts have combined well to create Blog Warming. A free kick to the IPA!
Sure, ice ages come and go, species become extinct and new ones evolve, CO2 goes up and down as does global temperatures while reef communities adapt, get abused or disappear but to be blunt I am disappointed by your review piece because it says nothing new or scientifically compelling.
Your piece appears to be spiked for the knee-jerking eco-couch-pundits and your closing sentence was close to being a throw away platitude, but it sure gets the blog boiling.
Come on Jennifer, give us the real dirt on the IPA’s stance on global warming, CO2 emissions and sustainable development so that we actually have something to throw around here.
cheers, Dave
“Rockhampton was chosen as a representative, worst case site, by Qld DNRM, not as a best case site by myself or Jennifer, ” – says who. Mr Windbag says? There goes one of the aero-pigs again. Woo hoo !
So we now have the last 100 years of Rocky temps as a proxy for future reef water temperatures across the Barrier Reef. Integrating future ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, ongoing sediment runoff from poorly managed grazing lands, excessive tree clearing, and aboricides from possible illegal activities. All hail the Rocky met station – ROTFL – this is better than the Snowy Snow job – keep arguing Ian. Tell us some more please. Don’t stop. LMAO.
Not only Rockhampton, but the BoM’s Willis Island station, right out on the Reef east of Cairnes, shows no increase in temperature over a similar period.
Psych majors would be detecting some of the classic frustration reactions in Luke’s increasingly shrill and content starved posts. He knows that the climate change river he has been following has been flowing west and it is increasingly obvious that the supporting data flow is drying up. So rather than question the validity of his beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, he displays aggression towards the source of his frustration prior to leaving the field. Just go.
Jens post has flushed out the usual bunch of ocean acidity desperadoes. When a prediction of the extinction of the entire GBR in 30 years is knocked over by common sense and science, out comes the acid rainers.
This whole acidification scenario is bunk for some very basic reasons.
1 It is dependent on, at least, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 which not even the barking mad have suggested will occur within 30 years.
2 Even a doubling by 2100 is dependent on no substitution of nuclear for coal etc, and assumes that India, Africa and China will not only achieve fully developed status by 2100, but do so under the USA model rather than the Japanese/Taiwanese model that produces much less CO2.
3 The doubling of atmospheric CO2 is dependent on a slow rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans which is supposed to cause the build up in the atmosphere but for acidity to get within cooee of harming the GBR in 30 years the ocean absorption would need to be faster than the projected emission rate.
4 The modelling done by the UK Royal Society on ocean acidity then assumed that the mixing of CO2 in sea water only took place in the top 100 metres. The average ocean depth is actually 4000 metres so the CO2 was assumed to be concentrated in the top 2.5% of ocean volume.
5 This ignored the fact that eddies from the Gulf Stream reach depths of 1.2km and also ignored the presence of thermohaline circulation of deep ocean water. They also pretended that deep ocean upwelling, like the one that produces EL Ninos, don’t exist.
The general conclusion is that complete ocean circulation needs about 400 years to complete. And this means that a modelled projection of ocean CO2 absorption over 100 years must assume that CO2 will be absorbed by 25% of the entire ocean volume.
The UKRS used only 2.5% of ocean volume or a tenth of the correct volume and consequently has produced results that indicate a concentration of acidifying CO2 that is 10 times stronger than the correct result.
It is a complete crock of bollocks.
Thanks, Sid. That covers the other half of the GBR. So where does that leave us?
No warming at all but a modest cooling with increasingly milder climate range and scope for 0.45 degrees of warming before we get to the temps that the reef has already survived from 1871 to 1939.
Better and more frequent mixing of surface layers to prevent bleaching and the total absence of any increase in acidity.
These climate wonkers will all go blind.
*The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. …*
Hang on, how can you differentiate between human induced CO2 and natural CO2?
(answer; you can’t, CO2 is just CO2 irrespective of its source)
More junk science.
Down the east coast we are getting a stronger than usual northerly current, this is causing turbulence bringing cold watewr to the surface, around Xmas on Newcastle beaches peoiple were being treated for;
a. sunburn and heatstroke (air temp 40deg C)
b. hypothermia (water temp 14deg C)
Such is life
In fact, scientists can tell anthropogenic CO2 from ‘natural’.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Correction:
I have a small correction to the above posted data from Rockhampton. The drop in mean temperature from the 1871-1939 sequence to the 1939-2003 sequence is 0.4 degrees, not 0.45 as I had written above. It makes no material change to the underlying situation of temp decline but it is important to ensure the correct numbers are used. At least for us sceptics it is anyway.
No just wising up Ian – you get a lot of work done for you then you put the boot in – no building of derived opinion nor consensus. You just want to hear how wonderful you are with your Intel Core 2 Duo envelope. Meaningful discussion does not occur – it’s simply combative and resolves nothing except inflate your already montrous pomposity a few more psi. So bad faith gets nothing back but position posts. So no more work for Ian (fella!).
Case in point note extensive discussion on Snowy.
BTW Ian forgets the discussion on ocean acidification (see archives) – alas it doesn’t turn over as he suggests and the experimental evidence as opposed to salty soggy bankcard envelopes says different. Tsk tsk.
Jen , I think your article reads very well and suggests logical reasons for what you are saying. There is no doubt many reefs in the world are in trouble for reasons other than climate change, many of which you listed. One you did not list is anchor chains from dive and tourist boats (something they are very conscious of now on the GBR, but not before considerable damage was done){anecdotal comments from a diver…..not peer reviewed!}.
That said as much as I hate to say it, Pinxi (LPR) has raised some interesting points that I for one would like to hear your response to.
If you do not respond to her that is fair enough because of the way she abuses you. But I think that means you should never respond to her. I do not think it paints a good picture if you ‘ cherry pick’ your responses!
regards, Toby
Hi Toby,
Thanks for your comment and advice.
Given the extent to which my piece appears to have upset many (Pinxi included) and based on the responses to on my two early comments at the thread, and also past experience, I suspect that if I make further comment I will just get more angry responses and there will be just more ‘cutting and pasting’ … and I have other things to do.
Others are more than welcome to explore the interesting issues raised.
All very well this talk of air temperatures. But surely the relevant issue for the survival of the reef is sea surface temps and in particular instances of periods of unusually high sea surface temperatures. As rog points out, quite validly, there can be a disconnect between the two.
See this discussion at:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001209.html
And the Royal Society bumf can be seen at:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314
Hallo Jennifer,
I like your stuff because it reflected many of my views and you were refreshing and there was a good cross-section of opinions to peruse thru. But when you did that bear thread I started to wonder a bit. Many people wanted you to provide some information to back up what you had written, but nothing happened except arguing. Then on this post you write that you wont back up what you have written here because you are afraid of comments from others. That is a real laff! I can no longer take you seriously, which is very disappointing. I thought you were a good scientist. On that Ness thread which I was reading today there were comments being deleted and changed all over the place, and some seemed quite fine. One Trevor guy wrote something and you deleted part of it altho I don’t no why. Surely it is no longer Trevor’s comment now that you have changed it? I no longer know if what I am reading is what others have really written or your cleansed version. Its like a dictatorship now, what do we believe? Please don’t delete my comment, as I am only trying to make a point for fairness and a return to good values and stuff.
Thanks,
Winston.
Hi Winston,
Thanks for your comment.
I can’t agree with all of it, but I will make two points.
1. My first comment at this thread made reference to a specific book the ‘Status of the Coral Reefs of the World’ which is probably available on line. This reference was ignored. I then made reference to a block of work by Barnes and work by Larcombe. Comment was then made that this was not good enough… I think the specific comment was along the lines of ‘piss weak’ or something.
2. I made comment at the Ness thread that I reserved the right to edit and delete comment. I deleted several comments including one by Rog (by the way Rog never complains when I delete his comments) and I then deleted the paragraph in the comment by Travis that mentioned the comment by Rog which I had just deleted. I thought this was only fair to Travis.
I attempt to do my best under what I consider to be difficult circumstances and I am human and no doubt make mistakes.
I have received some emails off line from scientists supporting my post, but reluctant to comment online given the “angry” and “abusive” comments beginning this thread … and “all the hand waving”.
Cheers,
Jen – I’ll have one go at this.
I think the blog has gotten itself into quite a mess in recent days, coming for some time perhaps. I myself have actually been trying to disengage but David Archibald and Ian Mott have been deliberately provocative so one has responded (foolishly and with some angry relish).
Ian used to be fun to debate with as his frankness, intellect and use of vernacular was quite a challenge. I sued to think “wow this is what they really think – and think of us – sheee-it”. Alas now it simply descended into a pub brawl. We just wanna smack each other (rhetorically of course).
So we have two sides that are prepared to take up the issue here and give no quarter.
I used to learn something here even from Rog. Yes he did get me to think about human health expenditure in the long run. I remember all the insults and fights.
But the tone has definitely become quite ugly overall. Put ny name down as one of those who needs to report to the headmaster for fighting in the playground but I’m not going alone.
Do we really wish to discuss issues here? Do we wish to hear alternative points of view.
If you want this blog to be essentially a right wing blog that would be more comfortable discussing things with like-minded sympathetic souls well maybe the more green sympathetic of us should decamp and leave it at that.
I agree with Winston that given a somewhat provocative opening post by yourself it is reasonable for pundits to ask you for the essential references/reports/opinions that would support your position.
I am at the moment perusing Janice Lough’s Greenhouse 2005 presentation powerpoint on climate change threats to the reef. Quite a comprehensive view with unknowns discussed. I could share with Ian the warming oceanic trend data therein but why would I now. He’ll just scream about Rocky and say it’s all lies etc.
I have learned more from reviewing that presentation than here today.
There is no doubt that our reef is in good condition. Let’s keep it that way.
There is no doubt corals have survived through different periods of geological history.
But upon review of a fair bit of data I dare suggest there is at least a reasonable chance of rapid change. We have a multi-billion dolalr tourist industry on the reef – will it be happy with geological change time adaptation?
Anyway I’m discussing the issue again which is not the point really.
If we bloggians cannot improve the tone and style of the debate there is little point in continuing. At least for me. Some may say “yay”.
And if you are unwilling to debate a little yourself and provide some information – well it makes you “untouchable” in terms of a debating position.
I would have thought some of your traffic may have been generated by those wanting to see a very frank exchange between philosophical positions. The fact that there is robust challenge is somewhat the attraction.
Perhaps you would prefer that lefties, greenies, feisty non-aligned individualists, general bad bastards, those who may not always put economy over the environment to desist and depart.
Perhaps you should tell us if this is so.
I’d miss it – but so be it if you want us out of here !
Luke,
Thanks for your comments. Appreciate your frankness. I also appreciate comments from all perspective (left and right), but am tired of the tirade from Pinxi/LPR.
Incorrect Jennifer as I did follow up on your mention of Barnes (& AIMS) and there I discovered that you had misrepresented the whole story. Hence my post above January 31, 2007 01:41 PM
I have invited you to substantiate your key points. As compromise, I requested your top 3-4 references on which your piece relied but you didn’t provide them. The names you loosely mentioned don’t support your piece. The sources should still be fresh in your mind from writing the Australian piece so you should be able very quickly and easily summarise the key aspects of the science.
Are you open to learning and informed debate or do you just want to unilaterally push your opinions? Your was an opinion piece published in the Australian after all, it’s in the opinion section not the science section.
If you don’t want to answer legitimate questions or substantiate your controversial claims then by all means, declare this a dissension-free blog. Put that in the tagline so the purpose is clear.
Jennifer
from what I have read, the acid content of the sea will be a significant effect on the oceans, and coral and particular.
Would you like to address that point, since it appears it was not raised in your opinion piece.
I for one would miss you Luke!
I am sure Jen does not want people of a different view leaving the blog……just some of the abuse.
cheers
Anyway, this alarmist line has been peddled by GP and others for many years, official situation as of today is;
“Current Conditions Report January 2007
On the basis of current conditions and forecasts the threat of widespread coral bleaching for the Great Barrier Reef region is currently rated as low. ”
Don’t worry about it Jen, the blog’s not in a mess. I just skip over discussions that descend into invective, and I bet most people do the same.
There’s a few posters whose comments I almost always read, and a few I skip over due to the fact they seem to have excessive verbal diarrhoea (and mental constipation). If I miss the odd pertinent comment, so be it. It would be nice if everyone was polite and concise, but the topics discussed here attracts some people with strong emotional ties to their viewpoint.
There is only one question here: do we believe Jen Marohasy or do we believe these American scientific bodies-
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the National Science Foundation (NSF),
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
who wrote this report last year: http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
Call me old fashioned if you will, but I’ll go with evidence based science.
Jen,
Could you please indicate what scientific papers informed your article in “The Australian”.
cheers
One should expect trash from the garbageman’s (Murdoch) newspaper. Marohasy ignores the scientific consensus and the facts. Read this and learn about the new “real estate” corals will claim under higher temps.
Guinotte, J.M., Buddemeier, R.W., Kleypas, J.A. 2003. Future coral reef habitat marginality: temporal and spatial effects of climate change in the Pacific basin. Coral Reefs 22:551-558
Abstract Marginal reef habitats are regarded as regions where coral reefs and coral communities reflect the effects of steady-state or long-term average environmental limitations. We used classifications based on this concept with predicted time-variant conditions of future climate to develop a scenario for the evolution of future marginality. Model results based on a conservative scenario of atmospheric CO2 increase were used to examine changes in sea surface temperature and aragonite saturation state over the Pacific Ocean basin until 2069. Results of the projections indicated that essentially all reef locations are likely to become marginal with respect to aragonite saturation state. Significant areas, including some with the highest biodiversity, are expected to experience high-temperature regimes that may be marginal, and additional areas will enter the borderline high temperature range that have experienced significant ENSO-related bleaching in the recent past. The positive effects of warming in areas that are presently marginal in terms of low temperature were limited. Conditions of the late 21st century do not lie outside the ranges in which present-day marginal reef systems occur. Adaptive and acclimative capabilities of organisms and communities will be critical in determining the future of coral reef ecosystems.
Electronic supplementary material is available for this article if you access the article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/(s00338-003-0331-4). A link in the frame on the left on that page takes you directly to the supplementary material.
Wow
What hypocracy in these comments.
The original peice, filled with the usual doom and gloom ‘by 2050 there will be no GBR’, was sheer hype that referenced no study either.
There sure is a heap of studies most of them pure speculation supporting either argument.
The garbage parrotted by people like David Suzuki that he was diving in the reef and discovered it was in a disasterous state is played on the doom and gloom media over and over again.
The reef remains in great health and that is the most important aspect of this debate.
Despite the attempted bullying of the usual two posters on here because they have googled a couple of speculative studies is typical.
Then they whine about censorship despite their record of trying to humiliate and gang up on anyone who doesnt agree with them.
Perhaps they would do better getting out there and raising money for the laughable ‘shade cloth’ solution advocated by some.
Jennifer, by writing your Australian article, you are saying that a scientific body, ie the IPCC, is going to come out with a report that the reefs of the world are in danger from global warming, but that this is flatly wrong (at least for the GBR).
(You stated: “The idea that the Great Barrier Reef *may* be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth.” This is pretty strong stuff. You are literally saying here that there is *no possibility* that global warming will destroy the reef. I presume you actually meant to say: “The idea that the Great Barrier Reef *will* be destroyed by global warming is … a myth.” This is much less provocative.)
You are therefore putting yourself up as an opponent to a (future) official scientific position. If your opinion is to have credibility in this context you should therefore be able to justify your position in a similar way to the scientific body you are refuting. Although there may not be room in the Australian for you to list the scientific references that justify your opinions, you could easily have ended your article with mention of your blog and invite readers to find your scientific references there.
I think that the Pink Panther has made a long list of good points (although with some digs thrown in) and that they are worthy of answers. Acidification may not be an issue in the short term but the level of your response to her other issues is scientifically inadequate.
If people are genuinely interested in the threats to the Great Barrier Reef, then I suggest they start by reading the Chapter on Australia and Papua and New Guinea in the latest issue of ‘Status of the Coral Reefs of the World: 2004’.
There is a link here: http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004/ .
And it is important to always read more than the executive summary.
The guts of my piece for The Australian was that while global warming will impact the Great Barrier Reef it may provide more opportunities than threats and that in the scheme of things across the world coral reefs have more than climate change to contend with.
It is interesting to consider the state of the Great Barrier Reef as described in the above mentioned book relative to various claims (including in today’s The Australian http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/barrier_reef_is_indeed_threatened_by_warmer_globe/ ) that the reef is already in trouble from global warming.
Perhaps a good place to start/continue this discussion is if we get some agreement about the current state of the reef?
We perhaps could start with the following paragraphs from the book/above link:
“Extensive monitoring on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in particular shows that the reefs are
highly dynamic and generally resilient, with short periods of decline due to disturbance, followed by longer periods of recovery. While Australian coral reefs remain in generally good condition due to relatively low levels of human pressures, there is rising concern about the increasing threats from land runoff from the wet tropical areas, climate change and over-fishing on the GBR. While the major stresses damaging reef resources are ‘natural’ disturbance events, such as cyclones, floods, coral bleaching and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks (COTS), increasing and cumulative human pressures on the GBR could hinder recovery from these disturbances,
and could lead to long-term declines in the health of the GBR.
COTS continue to be the major source of coral mortality on the GBR, and currently there is
a wave of outbreaks on reefs in the central GBR that originated in the Cairns section, and has
‘drifted’ slowly south through the GBR reef complex since 1992. A separate, and persistent,
outbreak in the isolated Swain Reefs, in the far south, has caused extensive coral mortality.
The coral bleaching events of 1998 and 2002 have also contributed to declines in some regions.
Damage due to terrestrial runoff, while difficult to quantify, appears mainly to be restricted to the wet tropical regions in northern Queensland. Coral disease is an emerging issue, although
the high levels of disease seen in 2002 have not persisted, and mortality from disease is generally low. Coral cover has generally increased on reefs that have not suffered disturbances.”
In summary can we get some agree from what is written in the above mentioned book, above is just one excert, of the current state of the reef?
Is this book a good place to start?
PS I have various meeting to attend today and things I must write on water, so I may not respond immediately to comments posted here. I will, hopefully, have more time tomorrow or on the weekend.
The BOM provides a nice graph of sea surface temp trends around australia for reference, as well as other climate trend maps. can look at the trend from 1990 to present, or trends over more recent periods.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
Jennifer,
Don’t be discouraged. You may wander into an intellectual thicket now and again, but it happens to us all. I find your blog highly stimulating, and it helps me with my thinking in other aspects of my life.
Three topics which attract much attention on this blog are climate change (whew!), water, and bushfire. The three are intimately connected, and, in my view, are the three major environmental issues for Australia. They connect further to economically important isses such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, energy etc. Keep up the good work.
Luke and Panthera – I enjoy your wit, and bursts of information. How about one (or both) of you starting a really interesting thread, useful to Australians and others. You both have the talent. I think Jen would appreciate it.
Jen,
The current state of the GBR is not at issue here. What matters is what AGW and ocean acidification will mean for its future, and the future of other reefs. Since you cite Clive Wilkinson’s 2002 and 2004 AIMS reports, let me quote the cocnclusion from his 2006 report Coral Reefs and Climate Change:
“In Summary, coral reefs of the world are under threat from both local and global-scale stresses. The enhanced Greenhouse effect (through bleaching and ocean chemistry changes) is likely to alter the community structure of reefs, including the world’s best-managed reefs of Australia. There is a clear scientific consensus (eg Wilkinson 2004) that reducing and reversing local human pressures on coral reefs has to be accompanied by reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if coral reefs are to survive.” http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/about/communications/issues/coral-reefs-and-climate-change-2006.html
You have been caught red-handed misrepresenting the science. I think you owe your readers an apology.
Current state of the reef? How’s this as a good place to start…
“The Great Barrier Reef along the northeast coast of Australia suffered two mass coral bleaching events in the summers of 1998 and 2002. While most reef areas recovered with relatively low levels of coral death, some locations suffered severe damage, with up to 90% of corals killed.
Other coral reef provinces have been permanently damaged by warm sea temperatures, most severely in the Indian Ocean. Up to 90% of coral cover has been lost in the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Tanzania and in the Seychelles and Congo.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
Without doubt, they are not all dead yet, so any good AGW denier will find some facts to cherry pick in the bits that manage to live despite the many and varied threats. But you cannot deny there is abundant evidence that more coral is threatened than enjoying opportunity, right?
Jennifer, you say here your article proposed that GW “may provide more opportunities than threats”, when in fact you called the reverse assumption a myth. I’m sure I don’t need to explain the definition of a myth to you. That doesn’t state “may”, that states “definitely”. Please don’t try to water down your baloney after the fact.
I’d like to propose that within your distorted view, you are actually, partially, right. If the GW was a natural cycle of warming, then there is likely to be roughly as many opportunities as threats to the average coral population. This is because a natural cycle occurs over tens of thousands of years – allowing natural growth and even some evolutionary change such as the adaption of new symbiont populations. If, however, GW is anthropogenic – as even that highly respected international scientist, George W Bush, has now admitted – the change is occurring over a century, and the threats will far outweigh the opportunities.
So, in your increasingly isolated role as an AGW denier I understand why you say our coral reefs will be just fine from warming in the future and we won’t see any more catastrophic bleaching events. Hurrah!
The cheque’s in the mail.
I find many people’s posts here stimulating, and it is good to have multiple points of view. That is how we learn and can make our own informed decisions.
I don’t however, agree with what Ian has posted, claiming that Luke and Pinxi’s posts have been uninformed, and find his claim that there have been ‘too many rude cop outs, too many snide red herrings’ highly hypocritical. I find Ian’s posts some of the most wanting for information, insulting to people who have done the hard work, as well as downright rude, and offensive to women. I can cite many examples of these.
That being said, I welcome anyone’s contribution, but Ian, spare us the victimisation and look at lifting your own game. Please.
I shouldn’t be posting again, but comments at the Oz here, for example:
“JENNIFER Marohasy (“Reef may benefit from global warming”, Opinion, 31/1) presents the Australian public with a flawed biology lesson on climate change and coral reefs that has no scientific credibility.
Her claim that the severity and frequency of coral bleaching is not increasing is just plain wrong…
Marohasy’s article is the latest in a series of pseudo-scientific reports from the Institute of Public Affairs. Earlier articles posted on their website downplay the importance of runoff from land on to the Great Barrier Reef, and deny any impacts of overfishing. Now, at least, Marohasy admits to the overwhelming evidence about these two threats to Australian reefs, while still denying any impact of climate change. But don’t take my word for it alone – ask any coral reef scientist or reef manager to provide the facts.”
Terry Hughes
Director,
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
James Cook University
Townsville, Qld
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/barrier_reef_is_indeed_threatened_by_warmer_globe/
Well aint that the last word?
PS: Jennifer has now raised a tangent and responses by Steve M & Gary B are spot on. (Let’s not be led on a similar time-wasting ruse of discussing the science like occurred with the PBs.) My 1st post acknowledged the GBR is well managed & somewhat adaptable etc. I also said the relevant questions were how and why;
– it’s likely the GBR will move south
– hard coral reef building activities will not be compromised
– shallow reefs will not be adversely affected by storm damage (as the literature says)
– that the GBR will take advantage of the opportunities (eg shallow reefs) at a faster rate than it is affected by the threats (eg more submerged reefs), (meaning that growth rates, reproduction and colonistion exceeding die back and habitat loss)
– that the composition of corals will not be simplfied
– that warming will not lead to more bleaching affects from disease (this appears in the literature)
– that hotspots are incompatiable with climate change
But T Hughes says it all. (Note that’s one of the names whose work I mentioned to Jennifer earlier above.)
1. Gary has suggested Wikepidia is a better source of information than the book that I suggested. I disagree? ‘The Status of the Coral Reefs of the World 2004’ has been written by reef specialists – ideally we would go to the original journal articles. Also, there is not agreement within ‘the community’ that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information on all subjects.
2. Steve has suggested the present situation is not the issue. But in fact when there is disagreement about the future, its often best to start with an understand of the present, particularly given that Hughes has suggested right now global warming is impacting on the reef. Getting a handle on this might give us some idea of what the future holds?’ Indeed if we consider the data at hand, we might at least be able to work out whether Hughes claims are correct … is the reef right now being significantly impacted by global warming?
I have just deleted several comments posted at this thread this morning on the basis they did not add value to the discussion at hand, but rather were snipping and distracting. I have not edited any comments.
I have never followed the argument, put forth here by several posters, that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to increased acidity in the oceans. If sea temperatures rise as a consequence of GW, and as the solubility of CO2 in water varies inversely with temperature, the movement of CO2 will be FROM the oceans TO the atmosphere, not the other way round, so we should expect a decrease in acidity. If the oceans are, in fact, becoming increasingly acid, then the source must come from somewhere else.
Carbonic acid can be delivered by rain, thats why rainwater is slightly acid. What is the correlation between carnbonic acid and the reef (and please, not a thesis with 9 links plus a bit of politicking tossed in)
Here’s some more opinion from today’s The Australian:
“James Cook University physicist Peter Ridd said while global warming posed a serious threat, its impact on the reef was unproven. He said the reef was one of the least-threatened natural systems on the planet.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21151303-601,00.html
Jen Marohasy,
You have provided a quote from a physicist. I’m not sure how this is relevant.
I also note that Terry Hughes appears to have been misrepresented in the article you link to as his letter to “The Austtralian” harshly criticises your article.
Obviously The Australian and yourself are involved in an “agenda pushing” exercise.
And we’re all still waiting for the bibliography of peer-reviewed papers that informed your article. Could we have these at your earliest convenience.
Cheers and best wishes
With the issue of climate change, we should not be having a debate on whether climate change is bad or not, it is simply not a relevent arguement anymore and is counter-productive to do so. Rather, we should be debating about about the best ways to reduce and manage climate impacts.
There is no place for articles like yours, Jennifer. Just because the Australian published it, does not mean its credible. It is littered with incorrect and illogical points.
You must acknowledge, and people must be aware of, your right-wing, corporate funded, liberal party connection, perspective on things. Biased opinions have no place in communicating scientific facts and the general public do not need it.
Allan Ford & rog see above post La Pantera Rosa at January 31, 2007 11:34 AM
(sorry for commenting again despite Jennifer censoring me, but trying to encourage learning. Apologies rog who asked for a short answer but it takes more than 1-3 lines)
Steve M,
My article was informed by a filing cabinet full of papers, years of reading and thinking about reef issues, and the latest ‘Status of the Coral Reefs of the World'(link above) and also the 2002 and 2000 editions.
I am happy to discuss the content of the ‘Status of the Coral Reefs of the World’ (last three editions) with you/others at this blog.
But I am not sure why you think you have a right to demand a list of publications from me?
I wrote an opinion piece for The Australian, I have not asked, for example, that you republish it, though I note OLO did today.
Cheers,
Well Clive Wilkinson and Terry Hughes have made very unambiguous comments about the current state of the GBR that do not contradict the fully referenced science documented on Wikipedia. But hey, they aren’t physicists like Peter Ridd, so I guess they probably are not qualified to comment.
But what about this whole AGW story Jenn’? Has Georgey B got it wrong like the rest of us?
You are highly skilled at picking a single point out of every comment that disagrees with you that you can attack the credibility of (in your view) and neatly ignoring all the rest of a solid argument that shoots your position down in flames.
Come on – tell us ‘alarmists’ is this global warming anthropogenic or not? I wanna hear you say it again. Come on, we’ll all promise not to laugh.
I think you’ll find Peter Ridd is a physicist who specializes in water, mud, mangroves and corals of the Great Barrier Reef: http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/mathphys/staff/physics/Ridd.shtml .
But let’s not accept his opinion, or Hughes opinion or my opinion … lets consider some of the available evidence in ‘The status of the coral reefs of the world’?
Why do you keep ignoring my question? Are you still skeptical of the significance of human effects on climate change?
Peer Review?
AGW is the quintessential Deduced theory where an empirically unproven axiom, that if climate sensitivity, is assumed correct.
“It seems reasonable -even essential – that scientific publications and funding agencies not be swamped with “I just thought it up” ideas. So they have set up a system wherein a scientist’s peers first examine and then pass judgement on whether his work ought to be funded and his results published. It sounds eminently reasonable.
But there is a hidden danger in peer review. If experts who have collectively accepted a deduced theory control both the funding of future research and what results get published, their self-interest may lure them to reject competing hypotheses. There may be little chance for any legitimate alternative viewpoints to develop. Reviewers may judge a submission not on its scientific merit but on whether it conforms to the reviewers’ beliefs. Because of this conflict of interest, the peer-review system has also been called “competitor review.” It can take the atmosphere of an “old boys club,” wherein newcomers with new ideas are scrutinised more rigorously than established members.
Peer-review committees are anonymous. They do not allow the applicant representation or a say in the selection of the jury. This anonymity of review committees can become an irresistible opportunity for reactionaries to censor any innovative ideas. Inertia tends to keep a body or institution moving in the same direction as in the past. An unintended consequence of the peer-review system is that it can keep science permanently locked into the presently accepted paradigm. The selection for publication of only the data that support a presently accepted theory is the likely result of this system. Little if any research that challenges accepted scientific models will get substantial funding – so it will almost never get performed or its results published.
Even more dangerous than the suppression of new ideas that are not supportive of accepted theory is the reflexive acceptance for publication of pseudoscientific results that concur with accepted theory.
Peer review works well in areas such as engineering, chemistry, and applied physics – areas where erroneous ideas are easily falsified experimentally because they quickly result in obvious failures. But in research areas wherein no real-world testing of hypotheses is possible, it can completely obstruct progress. It can also prolong the life of accepted but unsound paradigms.
The acceptance of the primacy of theory over experiment in astrophysics has led reviewers reflexively to accept just about anything that supports established theory. Inevitably this has lured some astrophysicists into publishing statements that ought to be embarrassing for a legitimate scientist. For an example, in an old college debating technique trick one side challenges the other to disprove the existence of something that doesn’t exist – “Prove to me there isn’t a rhinoceros under this table. It is an invisible, unsmellable rhino, and you can’t feel it – it has no mass. But it is THERE. Prove to me it isn’t.” Such debating techniques should not be used in science.
Obviously it is impossible to falsify a non-falsifiable hypothesis such as this one. Earlier we pointed out that a hallmark of a pseudoscience is that is poses non-falsifiable hypotheses. When this happens, a red flag should go up in our minds. We must reject quickly and forcefully any demand that we falsify a non-falsifiable theory. Non-falsifiable theories are, by definition, not scientific.”
Munn, are you competing in some sort of stupid contect? (hey, you win)
first you ask ”
Could you please indicate what scientific papers informed your article in “The Australian”.
Then you respond “You have provided a quote from a physicist. I’m not sure how this is relevant.”
Just to refresh your burnt out braincells, your very own peer group (Wiki) says that physics is ” attempts to describe the natural world by the application of the scientific method”
You cant see that physics is relevant to the natural world?
So what is your problem (in 25 words or less)
Well I’m glad that Louis thinks peer review works well at in the field of chemistry – so meanwhile back at the seawater chemistry.
The following two studies indicate that the oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units since pre-industrial times from additional anthropogenic CO2. Some clever delta carbon tracer chemistry allows indentifaction of the anthropogenic CO2. The majority of the anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean is confined to the thermocline, i.e., the region of the upper ocean where temperature changes rapidly with depth. Concerns are held for corals and plankton maintaining exoskeletons under the IS92a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
Christopher L. Sabine et al.
Science 305, 367 (2004);
Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the
1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic
anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118
19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for 48% of the total fossil-fuel
and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was
net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 – 28 petagrams of carbon for
this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the
ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential.
Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
James C. Orr at al.
Nature Vol 437 29 September 2005
Today’s surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate
saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and
some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become
undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this
undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live
pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their
aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude
ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.
I suggest that the essential point of debate is whether the Great Barrier Reef is under threat from emissions of anthropogenic CO2 in the 50-100 years time scale (or sooner).
I suggest that for the sake of debate (and some might argue) we assume that the current reef is in very good condition. Let us not debate that red herring to progress the essential question.
So to decide whether there is a credible threat the following questions need an answer
(1) will warmer oceans from AGW – and with or without El Nino additional warming bleach the coral more regularly and more widely
(2) will decreasing ocean pH detrimentally affect coral formation
(3) do 1 and 2 interact
(4) can coral and the reef adapt and how quickly
(5) would the tourism industry survive a few decades/centuries if the reef “adapts” slowly
(6) is this threat serious enough to warrant additional research and an addition to our list of risk management factors for controlling global greenhouse emissions
Luke,
I more-or-less agree.
And suggest we consider how warm GBR waters are relative to reefs in other parts of the world?
Thanks,
Jen don’t have an exact answer to your question.
Also from Janice Lough et al’s Greenhouse 2005 Conference (Adelaide) powerpoint I can report:
World Heritage since 1981, bigger than Italy, 2900 reefs, >300spp hard coral, 1500 spp fish, 4000 spp molluscs, >400 spp songes
1.9 million visitor days – in 2004 $1.4B year marine based
Commercial fisheries $120M year 24,000 tonnes
Recreational fisheries >800000 $240M year to catch 3.5-4.3 tonnes
A sea surface temperature (SST) graph zeroes at 25.8C shows a rapid warming in the 70s – level to the 80s, dips sharply in the ealy 90s then rises steeply to 2005 to 26.3 C
Rate of last 30 years 0.4 C per year
In the calculated annual SST graph back to 1870 there was a much smaller warm period in the 1940s – other periods below the line or near zero (25.8)
Projecting to 2090 at current rate give an SST of 27.3. Under +1C B2 scenario 27.7 at 2090; under +3C A2 scenario 28.5 at 2090.
SST Source ? says Hadley/Reynolds/CSIRO
The Feb 1998 bleaching distribution was much less than the March 2002 bleaching. The Cairns 2002 SST satellite image was much more severe in 2002 (Cooktown to Mackay inner reef, and off Rockhampton)
Occurrence and intensity of bleaching:
1988 2002
Whole GBR 42% 53%
Inshore 74% 71%
Offshore 21% 41%
Prediction +1C would give 82% bleaching
+2C 97%
+3C 100%
By 2100 every 1-2 years frequency
Bleaching thresholds vary depending on location:
Southern reef 29.1 ~ Rocky ; lower mid 29.5 ~ Macky; Townsville off-shore 29.9 – inshore 30.5-31.5; Cooktown 30.5.
There are days at temperature graphs for different locations so you can see bleaching thresholds
Mortality thresholds are ~1C above the bleaching thresholds
Wind, tides and currents are a factor in on-shore conditions. Ocean mixing has been modelled spatially.
Even in thermally tolerant Porites spp there are growth hiatuses present in centuries long cores. So in recent years growth growth has stopped in some years).
Coral can change their zooanthellae – C to D type gives 1-1.5 C increase in thermal tolerance but D causes slower growth – less competition and reproductive fitness.
Other compounding problems are El Nino (more warming) and tropical cyclones under climate change.
Also sediment runoff into inner reef lagoon (5x-10X pre-European) – epicentre of some of worst 2002 bleaching near Burdekin. How does a good dose of terrestrial runoff go down with some bleaching?
Sea level rise too gradual to be an issue.
Mu conclusion is that these guys seem to know their stuff. SSTs are on the way up. Limited data but perhaps a trend to bleaching increasing.
If I were P Beattie of J Howard I’d like to know a lot lot more !
But of course that would mean giving researchers money – gee what if they put in their pockets. Might they just be saying this to get really rich. What is they’re part of a global conspircacy with UN (world govt!) and are on the take? Maybe they vote Labor or belong to greenie organisations. Can they be trusted?
And gee if people think Rocky is cooling some of the nastiest bleaching seems to be nearby – coral must have selflessly sucked out Rocky’s heat and killed themselves to fit the data trend for Rocky. Man that’s selfless !
Jen says:
“And suggest we consider how warm GBR waters are relative to reefs in other parts of the world?”
This makes no sense at all. Let’s have some background here. There are literally thousands reef forming coral species and they are adapted to their own particular environment. Most species are stressed if water temperatures rise by one or two degrees and may die if their is a prolonged temperature increase of this magnitude or more.
It is also probable that coral species will have differential responses to increased ocean acidification caused by AGW, as mesocosm studies appear to demonstrate.
It may well be the case that the GBR will “survive” global warming but its composition may be severely altered and this may in turn wipe out many of the fish and other oceanic species that have adapted to its current composition.
As certain GBR porite coral species increase calcification in response to a certain degree of sst increase and acidification- unlike other coral species- could this be evidence that we can look forward to the GBR turning into a monoculture?
Jen – SSTs
see pdf maps
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html
something more for up-to-date SSTs
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst.shtml
Well let’s see how gloomy the reef predictions are tomorrow – and for those who think it’s all a conspiracy.. .. .. ..
PARIS, France (AP) — Running well behind schedule, top global warming experts huddled Thursday for a marathon last day of talks with bureaucrats from more than 100 countries on a closely watched report that could influence government and business policy worldwide.
The scientists and government officials worked behind closed doors until well past midnight Wednesday and planned another late night session Thursday to finish the report in time for its Friday morning release.
Some expressed concern that the document would be too cautious and too far from the original research, since participants must reach consensus on each word of the 12- to 15-page summary report for the world’s policymakers.
The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will warn the world that global warming is here and worsening, using its bluntest language yet. It is the fourth such report to be issued since 1990.
goes on .. .. .. .. .. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html
For those wanting to be armed and comforted with crucifixes, the King James Bible, and garlic at the time – the actual 4AR release in Paris will be web-cast 6:30 pm Friday 2/2/2007, Brisbane time (adjust for daylight saving). But check my math – 9.30 AM Central European Time on Friday, 2nd.
The press conference will be webcast live and access details will be made available from web sites: http://www.ipcc.ch and http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu beforehand. The Summary for Policymakers will also be made available in English from these web sites on 2 February.
Sell your coal and Hamilton Island shares tonight and buy uranium stocks.
Luke,
It’s great to see you back at your constructive and humorous self.
I’ve been visiting Jennifer’s blog for the last couple of months and it wouldn’t be the same without you.
Jennifer,
An observation if I may … In the event that a thread gets heated up, you have to allow the argument to flow and develop. Your limit to 3 or so posts per day won’t work (especially when you have a hundred or so posts).
It would be far better to put a limit on ad homs / personal attacks. If a poster is consistently guilty of this, by all means suspend / delete / censor at will.
cheers
Arnost
Not so fast Luke. Your post regarding CO2 in the thermocline is misleading and certainly does not excuse the modelling that assumed CO2 only mixes in the top 100 metres of ocean.
For a start, the thermocline routinely extends to 900+ metres with a range from 50 metres and thermohaline circulation does circulate water between the thermocline and the ocean depths.
And given that anthropogenic CO2 is only of comparatively recent origin, ie, most emissions have taken place in the past half century, then blind freddy could see that “most CO2” would still be in the thermocline.
If a complete ocean circulation takes 400 years and most emissions have taken place in 50 years then, at this stage, only 12.5% of ocean volume has been circulated. And given that a 100 metre depth is 2.5% of total ocean volume then 12.5% is only 500 metres deep.
But to then assume that this state will continue for another one or two centuries in a dynamic cycle is totally inappropriate.
There is nothing in the material you supplied that shows that ocean acidity has already increased by 0.1 of a pH unit. All the work on this has been by estimates only, based on the usual cabal of dodgy assumptions. The most dodgy of all being that only 2.5% of ocean volume absorbs CO2.
Admit it, Luke, THERE IS NO SET OF PAST OCEAN SAMPLES THAT CAN CONFIRM ANY CHANGE IN OCEAN ALKALINITY.
And tell us, are SST’s on their way up the same way the Rockhampton air temps are on their way up? Or are we now suggesting that the two are unrelated?
After a review to satisfy myself I have to be tedious and tender this list of abstracts citing experimental evidence to show how CO2 affects coral growth, plankton growth and water chemistry. I can’t see how you could easily do this in “the field” given currents, waves, tides etc. Not as simple as a terrestrial Free Air Carbon Dioxide Experiment (FACE).
Global Change Biology
Volume 6 Issue 3 Page 329 – March 2000
CO2 partial pressure controls the calcification rate of a coral community
N.I.colas Leclercq,**Observatoire Océanologique Européen, Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Avenue Saint-Martin, MC-98000 Monaco, Principality of Monaco;
J.E.A.N.-Pierre Gattuso††Observatoire Océanologique, ESA 7076 CNRS-UPMC, BP 28, F-06234 Villefranche-sur-mer Cedex, France and
J.E.A.N. Jaubert**Observatoire Océanologique Européen, Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Avenue Saint-Martin, MC-98000 Monaco, Principality of Monaco;
*Observatoire Océanologique Européen, Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Avenue Saint-Martin, MC-98000 Monaco, Principality of Monaco; †Observatoire Océanologique, ESA 7076 CNRS-UPMC, BP 28, F-06234 Villefranche-sur-mer Cedex, France
Previous studies have demonstrated that coral and algal calcification is tightly regulated by the calcium carbonate saturation state of seawater. This parameter is likely to decrease in response to the increase of dissolved CO2 resulting from the global increase of the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2. We have investigated the response of a coral reef community dominated by scleractinian corals, but also including other calcifying organisms such as calcareous algae, crustaceans, gastropods and echinoderms, and kept in an open-top mesocosm. Seawater pCO2 was modified by manipulating the pCO2 of air used to bubble the mesocosm. The aragonite saturation state (Ωarag) of the seawater in the mesocosm varied between 1.3 and 5.4. Community calcification decreased as a function of increasing pCO2 and decreasing Ωarag. This result is in agreement with previous data collected on scleractinian corals, coralline algae and in a reef mesocosm, even though some of these studies did not manipulate CO2 directly. Our data suggest that the rate of calcification during the last glacial maximum might have been 114% of the preindustrial rate. Moreover, using the average emission scenario (IS92a) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we predict that the calcification rate of scleractinian-dominated communities may decrease by 21% between the pre-industrial period (year 1880) and the time at which pCO2 will double (year 2065).
*****************
Primary Production, Respiration, and Calcification of a Coral Reef Mesocosm under Increased CO2 Partial Pressure
Nicolas Leclercq, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Jean Jaubert
Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Mar., 2002), pp. 558-564
The effect of increased CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) on the community metabolism (primary production, respiration, and calcification) of a coral community was investigated over periods ranging from 9 to 30 d. The community was set up in an open-top mesocosm within which pCO2 was manipulated (411, 647, and 918 matm). The effect of increased pCO2 on the rate of calcification of the sand area of the mesocosm was also investigated. The net community primary production (NCP) did not change significantly with respect to CO2 and was 5.1 +/- 0.9 mmol $O_2\> m^{-2}\> h^{-1}$. Dark respiration (R) increased slightly during the experiment at high pCO2 but this did not affect significantly the NCP : R ratio (1.0 +/- 0.2). The rate of calcification exhibited the trend previously reported; it decreased as a function of increasing pCO2 and decreasing aragonite saturation state. This re-emphasizes the predictions that reef calcification is likely to decrease during the next century. The dissolution process of calcareous sand does not seem to be affected by open seawater carbonate chemistry; rather, it seems to be controlled by the biogeochemistry of sediment pore water.
*****************
Nature 407, 364-367 (21 September 2000) | doi:10.1038/35030078; Received 2 August 1999; Accepted 18 July 2000
Reduced calcification of marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2 Ulf Riebesell1, Ingrid Zondervan1, Björn Rost1, Philippe D. Tortell2, Richard E. Zeebe1,3 and François M. M. Morel2
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, P.O. Box 120161, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany
Department of Geosciences & Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton , New Jersey 08544, USA
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964 , USA
The formation of calcareous skeletons by marine planktonic organisms and their subsequent sinking to depth generates a continuous rain of calcium carbonate to the deep ocean and underlying sediments1. This is important in regulating marine carbon cycling and ocean–atmosphere CO2 exchange2. The present rise in atmospheric CO2 levels3 causes significant changes in surface ocean pH and carbonate chemistry4. Such changes have been shown to slow down calcification in corals and coralline macroalgae5,6, but the majority of marine calcification occurs in planktonic organisms. Here we report reduced calcite production at increased CO2 concentrations in monospecific cultures of two dominant marine calcifying phytoplankton species, the coccolithophorids Emiliania huxleyi and Gephyrocapsa oceanica . This was accompanied by an increased proportion of malformed coccoliths and incomplete coccospheres. Diminished calcification led to a reduction in the ratio of calcite precipitation to organic matter production. Similar results were obtained in incubations of natural plankton assemblages from the north Pacific ocean when exposed to experimentally elevated CO2 levels. We suggest that the progressive increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations may therefore slow down the production of calcium carbonate in the surface ocean. As the process of calcification releases CO2 to the atmosphere, the response observed here could potentially act as a negative feedback on atmospheric CO2 levels.
*****************
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 18, Issues 1-2 , July 1998, Pages 37-46
Effect of calcium carbonate saturation of seawater on coral calcification
J. -P. Gattusoa, *, M. Frankignoulleb, I. Bourgeb, S. Romainea and R. W. Buddemeierc
a Observatoire Océanologique Européen, Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Avenue Saint-Martin, MC-98000 Monaco, Monaco
b Université de Liège, Mécanique des Fuides Géophysiques, Unité d’Océanographie Chimique, Institut de Physique B5, B-4000 Sart Tilman, Belgium
c Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, 1930 Constant Ave., Lawrence, KS 66047-3720, USA
Received 28 July 1997; revised 27 November 1997; accepted 1 December 1997. Available online 28 January 1999.
The carbonate chemistry of seawater is usually not considered to be an important factor influencing calcium-carbonate-precipitation by corals because surface seawater is supersaturated with respect to aragonite. Recent reports, however, suggest that it could play a major role in the evolution and biogeography of recent corals. We investigated the calcification rates of five colonies of the zooxanthellate coral Stylophora pistillata in synthetic seawater using the alkalinity anomaly technique. Changes in aragonite saturation from 98% to 585% were obtained by manipulating the calcium concentration. The results show a nonlinear increase in calcification rate as a function of aragonite saturation level. Calcification increases nearly 3-fold when aragonite saturation increases from 98% to 390%, i.e., close to the typical present saturation state of tropical seawater. There is no further increase of calcification at saturation values above this threshold. Preliminary data suggest that another coral species, Acropora sp., displays a similar behaviour. These experimental results suggest: (1) that the rate of calcification does not change significantly within the range of saturation levels corresponding to the last glacial-interglacial cycle, and (2) that it may decrease significantly in the future as a result of the decrease in the saturation level due to anthropogenic release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Experimental studies that control environmental conditions and seawater composition provide unique opportunities to unravel the response of corals to global environmental changes
***********************
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 14, NO. 2, PAGES 639–654, 2000
Effect of calcium carbonate saturation state on the calcification rate of an experimental coral reef
Chris Langdon
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York
Taro Takahashi
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York
Colm Sweeney
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York
Dave Chipman
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York
John Goddard
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York
Francesca Marubini
Columbia University’s BIOSPHERE 2 Center, Oracle, Arizona
Heather Aceves
Columbia University’s BIOSPHERE 2 Center, Oracle, Arizona
Heidi Barnett
Columbia University’s BIOSPHERE 2 Center, Oracle, Arizona
Marlin J. Atkinson
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Kaneohe
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is projected to reach twice the preindustrial level by the middle of the 21st century. This increase will reduce the concentration of CO32− of the surface ocean by 30% relative to the preindustrial level and will reduce the calcium carbonate saturation state of the surface ocean by an equal percentage. Using the large 2650 m3 coral reef mesocosm at the BIOSPHERE-2 facility near Tucson, Arizona, we investigated the effect of the projected changes in seawater carbonate chemistry on the calcification of coral reef organisms at the community scale. Our experimental design was to obtain a long (3.8 years) time series of the net calcification of the complete system and all relevant physical and chemical variables (temperature, salinity, light, nutrients, Ca2+,pCO2,TCO2, and total alkalinity). Periodic additions of NaHCO3, Na2CO3, and/or CaCl2 were made to change the calcium carbonate saturation state of the water. We found that there were consistent and reproducible changes in the rate of calcification in response to our manipulations of the saturation state. We show that the net community calcification rate responds to manipulations in the concentrations of both Ca2+ and CO32− and that the rate is well described as a linear function of the ion concentration product, [Ca2+]0.69[CO32−]. This suggests that saturation state or a closely related quantity is a primary environmental factor that influences calcification on coral reefs at the ecosystem level. We compare the sensitivity of calcification to short-term (days) and long-term (months to years) changes in saturation state and found that the response was not significantly different. This indicates that coral reef organisms do not seem to be able to acclimate to changing saturation state. The predicted decrease in coral reef calcification between the years 1880 and 2065 A.D. based on our long-term results is 40%. Previous small-scale, short-term organismal studies predicted a calcification reduction of 14–30%. This much longer, community-scale study suggests that the impact on coral reefs may be greater than previously suspected. In the next century coral reefs will be less able to cope with rising sea level and other anthropogenic stresses. © 2000 American Geophysical Union
************************
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Issue: Volume 270, Number 1511 / January 22, 2003
Pages: 179 – 184
Suppression of skeletal growth in scleractinian corals by decreasing ambient carbonate-ion concentration: a cross-family comparison
Francesca Marubini A1, Christine Ferrier-Pages A1, Jean-Pierre Cuif A2
A1 Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Avenue Saint-Martin, MC-98000 Monaco, Principality of Monaco
A2 Laboratoire de Géologie, UniversitéParis XI, Orsay, F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France
Abstract:
Biogenic calcification is influenced by the concentration of available carbonate ions. The recent confirmation of this for hermatypic corals has raised concern over the future of coral reefs because [CO32-] is a decreasing function of increasing pCO2 in the atmosphere. As one of the overriding features of coral reefs is their diversity, understanding the degree of variability between species in their ability to cope with a change in [CO32-] is a priority. We cultured four phylogenetically and physiologically different species of hermatypic coral (Acropora verweyi, Galaxea fascicularis, Pavona cactus and Turbinaria reniformis) under ‘normal’ (280 wmol kg-1) and ‘low’ (140 wmol kg-1) carbonate-ion concentrations. The effect on skeletogenesis was investigated quantitatively (by calcification rate) and qualitatively (by microstructural appearance of growing crystalline fibres using scanning electron microscopy (SEM)). The ‘low carbonate’ treatment resulted in a significant suppression of calcification rate and a tendency for weaker crystallization at the distal tips of fibres. However, while the calcification rate was affected uniformly across species (13-18% reduction), the magnitude of the microstructural response was highly species specific: crystallization was most markedly affected in A. verweyi and least in T. reniformis. These results are discussed in relation to past records and future predictions of carbonate variability in the oceans.
*********************
Luke has provided some valuable information in answer to your question Jennifer. Also, above you indicated that you would consider some of the available evidence in \’The status of the coral reefs of the world\’. (05:13 PM).
Do you have any updates to your GBR + GW position?
Luke has provided some valuable information in answer to your question Jennifer. Also, above you indicated that you would consider some of the available evidence in \’The status of the coral reefs of the world\’. (05:13 PM).
Do you have any updates to your GBR + GW position?
Woops, that double post was an unintentional postback.
In response to Arnost, blocking people might force them to go underground. Better to apply even handed blog standards in the 1st place as is often requested. Favourites get away with all sorts of vile remarks.
I would add unsubstantiated efforts to undermine scientists and scientific findings to Arnost\’s recommendation. If there are genuine concerns with the work, contact the scientists or the body directly in the 1st instance. Why attempt to publicly deny their work without a solid reason unless you have a particular agenda to disseminate?
It\’s disingenious that many of these blog posts start as an attempt to discredit the work of research scientists and scientific organisations without providing evidence to back the attacks, but requests to validate the criticism are dodged, edited or deleted. Even polite requests for evidence are ignored. Hypocritically all while evidence based science, learning and taking work on good faith unless demonstrated otherwise as touted as the blog rules.
There’s a substantial difference between deep ocean sequestration of carbon and the rapid exchange at the surface layers where coral lives.
Carbon dioxide dissolves more easily in cold water than in warm water. It also dissolves more easily in seawater compared to pure water because seawater naturally contains carbonate ions. Reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbonate produces hydrogen carbonate. Because of this reaction, only 0.5% of the inorganic carbon in seawater occurs as carbon dioxide gas. Since levels of carbon dioxide are so low in seawater, more carbon dioxide can enter the oceans from the atmosphere (the chemists will recognise this as an example of Le Chatelier’s Principle). If the water stays at the surface and warms up as it moves around the globe, the carbon dioxide will relatively quickly escape back to the atmosphere. However, if the water sinks to the deep ocean, the carbon can be stored for more than 1000 years before ocean circulation returns it to the surface. Cold waters sink to the deep ocean at high latitudes in the Southern Ocean and in the Nordic and Labrador Seas in the North Atlantic Ocean. These regions are therefore the major physical carbon dioxide removal areas of the ocean.
Deep-Sea Research II 49 (2002) 1601–1622
Taro Takahashi et al.
Global Warming Mechanism Laboratory, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0053, Japan
Surface waters in subtropical gyres mix
vertically at slow rates with subsurface waters
due to the presence of strong stratification at the
base of the winter-mixed layer. This results in a
long contact time with the atmosphere to exchange
CO2. Therefore, the pCO2 in these warm waters
follows the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2
as demonstrated by Inoue et al. (1995), Feely et al.
(1999), and Bates (2001).
Sabine, C. L., R. A. Feely, R. M. Key, J. L. Bullister, F. J. Millero, K. Lee, T.-H. Peng, B. Tilbrook, T. Ono, and C. S.
Wong, Distribution of anthropogenic CO2 in the Pacific Ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), 1083, doi:10.1029/
The deepest penetration of anthropogenic CO2 is found at
about 50 S. The shallowest penetration is found just north of the equator. Very shallow
anthropogenic CO2 penetration is also generally observed in the high-latitude Southern
Ocean. One exception to this is found in the far southwestern Pacific where there is
evidence of anthropogenic CO2 in the northward moving bottom waters. In the North
Pacific a strong zonal gradient is observed in the anthropogenic CO2 penetration depth
with the deepest penetration in the western Pacific. The Pacific has the largest total
inventory in all of the southern latitudes despite the fact that it generally has the lowest
average inventory when normalized to a unit area. The lack of deep and bottom water
formation in the North Pacific means that the North Pacific inventories are smaller than
the North Atlantic.
Global SST reconstruction methodology is found here. Smith, T.M., and R.W.Reynolds, 2005: A global merged land air and sea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880-1997) (J.Climate, in press)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-Reynolds-dataset-2005.pdf
There are quite good proxy techniques to map past ocean pH – e.g.
A 23,000-Year Record of Surface
Water pH and PCO2 in the
Western Equatorial Pacific Ocean
M. R. Palmer1* and P. N. Pearson2
18 APRIL 2003 VOL 300 SCIENCE http://www.sciencemag.org
Experimental studies have shown that the
planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides sacculifer
faithfully records the 11B of dissolved
B(OH)4 – in the seawater from which
the foraminifer grew its shell (4), and that this is directly related to the pH of the seawater.
By using the pH of the seawater and
either the alkalinity or the dissolved inorganic
carbon concentrations, the PCO2 of the waters
can be calculated (5).
To get serious about global warming problems, here is the latest victim to AGW:
The hedgehog with ‘global balding’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=432937&in_page_id=1770
“A nice, soft fluffy coat is of little use to a hedgehog. But poor old Glen is having to make do without any prickles – apparently thanks to global warming.”
Let’s all panic!
Gee, Woody, great point! Let’s write-off all climate science based on one article in the Daily Mail that appears a bit silly!
BTW, are you by any chance a scientist?
I’m outta here. As is becoming increasingly evident – this blog is a total waste of time.
I think an excellent point by Woody – shows the complexity and balance of natural systems, and how climate change can have unforeseen intercations – just like on the reef. Cute tagline.
I think you are right JD – Even this barrage of solid reason and science fundamentals, combined with Luke and LPR’s weight of extremely well researched and referenced evidence slides of Jennifer et al like a Polar Bear off a shrinking ice floe.
Too many holes in the sand here. Curiously all kinda head shaped. I’m out of here before I trip over one.
The leftists react one of two ways…either waste a life to write volumes trying to defend their positions or doing a cut-and-run from questioning–ironically with a condescending attitude.
Scientists need to be concerned not only with what they discover, but how that information is understood and used–or misused. I don’t have to be a scientist in the climate field to be concerned about how they arrive at their conclusions and to be concerned that they allow those conclusions used to dishonestly manipulate the public.
If someone wants to stick to just the science, then fine. However, if he wants me to fund his program when I still have serious doubts about it, then he better listen or I’ll close the purse strings.
I’m not going to let someone get away with “stick to the science” when they know that the politicans are misusing the information. It’s a dodge.
Jen,
I felt the need to get back to your original article and try to summarise some points.
You said – It will extend its range further south and this would be a good thing.
Firstly, there is minimal shallow water habitat along the East Australian coast south of the GBR.
This fact alone renders the whole premise of your whole article a fallacy. While every other issue about CO2 and calcification and adaption etc can rightly be debated (although I think you’ll find evidence stacked on one side), this fact cannot.
Even if ‘it’ did ‘move south’, what would be left behind would probably be of different composition and ecosystem function. That has consequences even for “Jon Citizen”. Same goes for the ‘new’ GBR to the south – is that a good thing? Do you know if the ‘invading’ corals can outcompete the existing communities? It is at a far greater level of complexity than a presence/absence issue.
You said – Sea level rise will benefit corals.
As noted by Luke in his summary of Janice Lough et al work – Sea level rise too gradual to be an issue in the context of benefitting the GBR before other climate change impacts.
You said – Corals resistent to climate change and have/can adapt.
The issue here is that the rate and magnitude of this recent change is quicker than corals have had to deal with in the past. If you look at the evidence I think you’ll find that the rate of climate change is greater than the rate of adaption. This is an active area of research atm.
Unfortunately for yourself and the general public, what you are actually doing is increasing the anomalies between fact and perception, which you unjustly claim to reduce.
So Woody – do we retort with “oh righties just bitch about funding, taxpayers money, assume conspiracies, don’t want to ever change anything”
Volumes may have been written because science has been denied and not propely divulged here on this issue (at least not in a well rounded way). Volumes may have been spammed in to “substantiate” positions which have been dismissed. You can’t have it both ways – I want the right answer but I don’t want to know any details. Then – that answer is too simplistic – how do you know that. Prove that. Etc – you can’t win.
Helpful – not really.
So how do you expect state of the art climate science, reef science, and oceanography is funded – Lotto, begging, corporate donations (what answer would you like pls)
There is a considerable effort made of getting documents like the 4AR right, precise and agreed. If politicians and media misuse it – or don’t read it ! – well who’s problem is that. There is a fair bit of effort to continually explain, rebuff and hose down incorrect spins. But look at yourself – you quote alarmist newspaper reports as definitive source !?
The current mood in Australia at least is “scientists on tap, not on top”. Back in your box. Policy and political preference rules supreme. Head chopped off for speaking out. Keep them on a tight leash. Vet reports through dept media groups. You expect more advocacy in this environment?
Anyway Woody – let’s be constructive – do you have a series of suggestions for improvment?
Luke tries to bamboozle with volume but I will get the time to examine it all. What I can see immediately is that the Langdon Study that Luke hopes is proof that coral cannot adjust to increasing CO2 levels is described as “long term” when it only lasted 3.8 years. Coral polyps are small creatures with short life span and a reproductive method that is very well suited to a sequence of minor adjustments to environmental change. So on that one the verdict is “not proven”.
As for the rest, I will get to them in due course. But generally, they all start from the assumptions in the IPCC projections, and try to replicate oceanic conditions in the lab. Luke agrees that this is difficult but that does not make the lab work a 100% accurate proxy.
And Luke still has not explained how a warming caused by a reduction in cold minima will harm coral.
Jen,
Forgot to add, I welcome your reply to my comments a few posts back.
Its quite simple
The reef is in great shape and by all reports is growing as it always did.
All the theory in the world is of little value when compared to what is physically occuring.
And what is physically occuring is that the reefs are doing well even with the small variation in temperature.
Googled copy and pastes notwithstanding.
I am not trying to bamboozle with volume and am not mindlessly googling – there are good reasons why I have selected the abstracts I did. The work of science surely involves looking some information.
There has been an insinuation that increasing CO2 does not affect calcification rates. I am merely citing there is some evidence. Abstracts tendered as proof. If you find them limiting or unconvincing but that is another story and a value judgement. The way most scientists work is to say “do we have ANY reasonable evidence of X”. So with these studies I think we do in mesocosms.
Longer studies will require “wasting taxpayers money” and “being on gravy trains”, “getting rich from grants”, and being “mindless clowns” etc. And we know the blog doesn’t like that.
All the available information has some difficulty – the only real proof this blog would seriously accept is the reef laying waste -reduced to rubble, covered in alage and rotting. Even then you’d say it was something else.
Janice Lough presents a higher IPCC projection, a low projection, and a current trend projection. I think that’s pretty fair.
I can’t see that a reduction in cold terrestrial minima alone would affect coral.
However in the end it’s a “risk management” issue. Does that data make you think there is “some” risk. Bazza has made a number of good points (BUT SUBTLE) in many posts saying attitude to climate change is about risk management.
This blog has turned into a one-on-one and seems to have lost a bit of focus. Since this blog is supposed to be about comments to the article – lets get to the point here.
There is no shallow water habitat to the south of the GBR (that is a hard fact and I challenge anyone to debate that), sea level change too slow, and altered composition and ecosystem functioning. How exactly does that benefit the GBR in the face of climate change Jen??
Debating about CO2, calcification etc is completely legitimate, but was not directly addressed in the article and not the only relevant issues that arise from the article.
Ian do you consider it \’proven\’ that the GBR will benefit from GW? If so you must support GW now and probably now believe in fairies too. If not you have nothing to argue. Do you plan to take up Jennifer\’s case and argue it for her (rather than your futile hobby of simplistically picking at isolated aspects of the literature)? You\’re trying to legitimise dishonesty.
risk manage: likelihood of risk x severity of threat
adapt to new information, adjust uncertainty estimates
consider unpriced externalities too
subjugate selfish interests
\”Scientists need to be concerned .. how that information is understood and used–or misused.
… be concerned that they allow those conclusions used to dishonestly manipulate the public.\”
Another good point Woody. Will you be 1st to show us how a claim that GW will benefit the GBR is an honest and balanced representation of the science? Or is it an attempt to dishonestly manipulate the public?
On SB\’s good point, the relevant questions have been listed above. Does Jennifer have any updates to her position based on the sources presented?
LPR/Pinxi, we had exchanged emails off line in which i asked you to stick to a few blog rules, or your IP would be blocked. you indicated you would respect no rules and continue to disrupt the blog. so i attempted to blocked your IP. you are now posting comment from a variety of differnt IPs. I am mostly treating them as junk and deleting them straight away. if you wish to email me off line and let me know you will 1. keep the same name, 2. not clog threads, 3. not deliberately defame etcetera i am happy to reconsider my approach.
A couple of recent comments deleted from this thread. Please try and stick to the topic, which is has already been very broadly defined.
I don’t think anyone has tried to claim that GW would be unambiguously beneficial to the reef but there seems to be plenty of people who take offense at the very mention of a suggestion that GW will NOT be unambiguously bad.
One of the points I have been trying to convey here is that even if the IPCC projections are accurate for 2060, it is wrong to assume that the reef will be subject to those conditions.
We know for a fact that the Southern Hemisphere is almost half a degree cooler than the Northern. We also know that atmospheric CO2 levels are lower in the Southern Hemisphere. And this means that there will be a significant lag before the global mean temperature and the global mean CO2 levels produce the modelled outcomes, even if they are correct.
And that lag means a higher sea level that will reduce the severity of coral bleaching and more time to understand the problem and develop solutions.
It should also be noted that the GBR is down stream from the Eastern Pacific upwelling that delivers low carbon deep water to the surface before the currents bring it to our shores. True, it is a long way but there are also no major emissions to mix with it along the way. So the worst case scenarios should not be applied to the GBR.
There is a lost of clutching-at-straws going on here; if el Nino causes bleaching then how? in the GBR water temps drop during an el Nino event.
Luke says that el Nino causes warmer ocean temps – but this is not the case in the GBR so based on the evidence another one theory bites the dust.
Fact is, no one knows what causes the changes on ocean temps, oceanographers are busy collecting data on the latest cooling. Hasn’t stop the press, or the froggies from expressing their considered and educated opinion.
Steve Munn (cheers and best wishes!) might like to provide an answer.
Well rog, 98 saw a particularly strong ENSO event and SSTs were generally very hot all over the shop. (But GBR bleaching was worse in 02 – hotspots located over reef).
The effect and precise location of an ENSO event varies, there can be variances in the depth of the thermocline affecting the temperature of the upwelled water (ie upwelling mixed rather than colder deeper water), and the strength of shear with the undercurrent. Affected by winds and rain – calm conditions meant less dispersion of that warmer SST. Lots of mind boggling stuff about teleconnections and undercurrents you see.
In addition to your SSTs from el Niño and warming near the GBR during la Nina, it may be affected by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation too and even longer term events that we understand less well, and you also need to consider other localised effects on the corals during events, such as salinity (& rainfall), runoff, turbidity and light and radiation intensity (especially for the shallower corals). Hope I made it simple enough, tried to keep it short.
Ian, the statement that has me up in arms is “The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth.” Published in the Australian – a publication considered credible by many/most – this statement reassures the Aussie masses that our World Heritage listed site is actually safe and action to combat the climate crisis may be wasted effort.
But this statement is absolutely at odds with all current scientific thought and evidence. Even JM’s own cited reference, when you actually take the 2006 paper, and not the 2002 or 2004 papers she likes to use, shows how junk her science really is. I refer to
The posted by: steve munn at February 1, 2007 10:51 AM
Look at it this way, if Australia listens to people like Wilkinson or Hughes and we go into damage control doing what we can to save the reef and they turn out to be wrong, we will still have a reef. If Australia listens to Marohasy and sits back and opens another beer, and it turns out she’s wrong, we won’t have a reef.
Risk management people.
(1) This comparison a more dynamic annual range of CO2 in the northern hemisphere and a much flatter response at the South Pole.
But there’s not that much in it really. (Comparison graphs included)
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations at 10 Locations Spanning Latitudes 82°N to 90°S
Contributed by
Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92092-0244
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf
Because of the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared to the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of up to 6 ppmv (± 3 ppmv), peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
(2) On CO2 in seawater as it says above: “Surface waters in subtropical gyres mix vertically at slow rates with subsurface waters due to the presence of strong stratification at the
base of the winter-mixed layer. This results in a long contact time with the atmosphere to exchange CO2. Therefore, the pCO2 in these warm waters follows the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2.”
The Great Barrier Reef corals are in the main in relatively shallow surface waters where pCO2 should follow the atmospheric trend.
(3) At the low warming scenario (1 deg C ) Lough still projects 82% bleaching every 1-2 years.
On first look Rog has a point – are not El Nino warm in the central to eastern equatorial Pacific and cool off Australia?? El Nino 101
La Nina the opposite. Warm off Australia and cool on the other side of the Pacific.?
Alas it’s not quite as simple as that:
It’s worth having a look at the sea surface temperature evolution month by month here:
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SeaSurfaceTemperature/index.html
Check Feb 1998 and March 2002 – warm off Australia
Perhaps we do not need to be cautious generalising in El Nino impacts on bleaching.
http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/ohg/HG%20papers/Hoegh-Guldberg%20et%20al.%201997%20GBR.pdf
Major mass bleaching events coincide with El Niño years in some regions, as first
noted by Glynn (1984) for Eastern Pacific bleaching events.
However, on the Great Barrier Reef, the correlation is not nearly as
strong (figure 4). Bleaching has occurred on the Great Barrier Reef both before and
during ENSO events, and in once case (1980) several years distant from the nearest
ENSO. Last year’s Caribbean bleaching event is another example of a bleaching event
that did not correlate with strong ENSO events (Hoegh-Guldberg 1995).
Any better advice?
I understand you perspective, Gary, but do not share it because risk management is also dependent on proportionate responses to a set of probable outcomes. The good burgers of Salem were intent on risk managment when they burned witches at the stake but their response was totally disproportionate to the risk they faced.
In the case of climate change the evidence is only barely on the page to indicate that warming has gone outside the normal historical range, and even that is still in dispute. The IPCC has only just stated (as of tonight)that it is 90% certain that human activity is altering the climate. And in this context there is no excuse for a stampede into action and there is certainly no excuse for the disgusting displays of climate calvinism that I have seen attacking Jennifer’s post.
When I see that kind of crap my natural response is to oppose it no matter how sound the arguments may be. But in this case I still have a lot of questions that need answering and the more shrill the attacks become at the very fact that someone is questioning, the more important it is to resist the stampede and ask more, and more detailed questions.
I don’t think I have ever been rushed by an honest man who had my best interests at heart. But I note that the IPCC seriously expects me to accept what they say, today, without releasing their work papers until June this year. And that is the unmistakable MO of a bunch of Spivs. And there is nothing that Spivs like better than “peer review”.
That’s about as disingenuous as it gets. Jen has not substantiated or clarified her position which has been rebuked by the Reef CRC (assuming they may know the odd thing about reefs or maybe they just bake scones).
However the attacks beaome shrill in terms of a refusal to debate a stated contentious position. The position was made as an opening post and inviting comment if I am not mistaken? I can see here that she’s probably sick of the ragging and has declined to respond as a result.
I have not taken to attacking Jen and have concentrated on debating the proposition with some available information. Which we should continue.
As far as honest men (and women) are concerned, Susan Solomon, who presented the report findings tonight, was asked by the press what she recommended scoiety do about the issue. She said I’m going to disappoint you – that’s for other working groups and society to decide. I’m just presenting the science.
To insinuate that that IPCC drafting authors and contributing authors, which includes Susan Solomon (ozone, Antarctica and southern hemsiphere change fame), and Australians Neville Nicholls, Nathan Bindoff, Penny Whetton, and Julie Arblaster are a bunch of spivs is a disgrace.
You have impuned their integrity and insinuated that they must be “fiddling” the results or on the take.
Therefore your own integrity is seriously called into question.
Or are you just firing from the hip or speaking philosophically?
Face it – you aren’t even going to the read the final papers – it’s mock outrage.
Despite all his comments, Ian has not engaged with the relevant GBR + GW science. There\’s nothing to indicate he\’s read the references. He promised to go through each of the sources but zippo, nada, nilch, zero. He\’s no more capable of a balanaced review than is Jennifer. Ian did the same with the PB thread – yelled and abused but didn\’t engage directly with the specific issues (he got rather confused about genetics and species). Given his ignorance on the subject we can ignore his uninformed opinions. He should be deleted for being off topic and posting too much.
Ian engage directly with the relevant issues if you wish anyone to take notice. You\’re trying to legitimise dishonesty.
Luke & lpr, if Jennifer’s claims about the GBR reach the proportions and distribution of reports from Al Gore and other nuts, AND if she is wrong, then I’ll take a position.
The difference between me and you is that I don’t know that she is wrong, and you do know that Al Gore is lying through his teeth, for political purposes (and to seek redemption like our sorry former President Carter.) My standing back is prudent while I wait for more information. Your position of silence in face of dishonest use of science data is presumed acceptance of widesperad and intentional misinformation.
Regarding the dollars, I think all the proposed spending on AGW is almost a complete waste of money that could be used for better and more proven advances for mankind–or just left with taxpayers to use how then know is best for their families. I find it ironic that AGW hysterics claim that this is “for the children,” while most people who have children are not seriously concerned with AGW and have higher priorities.
If AGW is extremely serious (highly unlikely,) then we’re too far along now and simply need to adapt. If it’s not extremely serious and we wait, then we’ve helped people in better ways than you propose.
Okay, I’m going back to work, now.
What’s Al Gore got to do with anything. On thsi thread – keep him the US for heavens sake. And stop him flying around making unneeded GHGs.
Listen to the IPCC presentation at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ – note the comment about there are things you can do right now to reduce GHGs without affecting your quality of life one zot !
Ask yourself does Susan Solomon sound rabid or a raving greenie – or a very measured professional scientist.
and read the 4AR summary from same site for yourself Woody – don’t let anyone tell you what is says? Make up your own mind,
Then tell us what you think yourself.
I am seriously interested in your answers as I want to know how you react to, and feel about the material presented “at source” and not through media or blog filters.
If you can find the time the time in your busy schedule to listen and read I’d be interested in your feedback – either way – good or bad.
{in the web-cast presentation – slides with voice over – the slides tend to lag the voice but if you have a copy of the report you can easily see which figure she’s talking to)
OK, GBR bleaching events 1998, 2002 and 2006
El nino years 1997-1998, 2002-2003, and 2006-2007.
Are sea water temps greater now? Pick a station, any station
http://www.reeffutures.org/topics/bleach/loggers.cfm
“Corals are already showing signs that they are approaching or exceeding their temperature tolerance limits. It is unlikely that any coral species will become globally extinct, although in the eastern Pacific Ocean some local extinctions have been reported as a result of bleaching. Some coral populations will probably survive in cooler areas within the reef. Coral larvae from tropical regions may be carried by ocean currents to suitable habitats at higher latitudes, where temperatures remain within their tolerance limits. However after repeated coral bleaching mortality events, tropical coral reefs would be very different from the ones we know
Bollocks.
Rog – I certainly hope there is no super-alarming temperature trend right now. Shows nobody reads what I write – I said 0.4 C per year above – I should have said 0.4 in 30 years. (apologies) 0.13 C in a decade. Very hard to detect.
You pick some stations in bleach and non-bleach areas and inform us !!
All a question of how fast adaptation can occur Rog – do we really know. It’s more than just temperature too – you have that plus calcification problems.
Janice Lough is talking about 82% of the Reef bleaching every 1-2 years under a low SRES scenario. 100% unde rhigh scenarios.
woody – evidence based science, prudence to manage risk
rog you\’re welcome for answers above. But reread points from very top and please pay attention as you are missing some of the major issues and you\’re misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
makes it an utter waste of time
None so blind as …
Luke we found long ago that science usually gets ignored, even if summarised and even if representing a moderate position. The chief deniers repeatedly jump in at the end of a thread without even skimming the earlier responses to see if it their furphies have already been addressed. It reveals zero interest in understanding or learning.
They just want to read headlines and post cherries that they haven\’t tried to understand or draw a relationship with (in rog\’s case), or in Ian\’s case repeat the same point over and over to n and ignore the fact that it\’s been addressed multiple times. In Jennifer\’s case, just ignore the evidence and provide no references. Who is interested in balanced, professional science? Who welcomes evidence?
We haven\’t gotten anywhere on this thread since the earliest posts above where the issues were summarised (where I admitted the reef is currently in good condition, we have reason for optimism but not complacency). This exchange (science and denialist cherries) and the efforts to repress dissent (including deleting a couple of science journal quotes after inviting it) have confirmed some things we knew already, but there\’s nothing to suggest it\’s been other than a waste of time. Just let it be a conservative denialists\’ dream: authoritarian and ignorant. That\’s how they want it.
I find it extraordinary that this thread could go on for so long before someone, thanks Rog, provided a link that is able to inform us all that bleaching events are almost entirely limited to the inner reef. There have been no bleachings on the outer reef.
But surely, if GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is driving any sort of impacts on the reef then surely there would be some sort of evidence on the outer reef as well.
And thanks again Rog, for the link to water temperatures that show that the highly publicised 1995 to present spike in mean atmospheric temperatures is not matched by ocean temperatures on the GBR. In fact, I note that the trend at Herron Island, 100km due east of Rockhampton, is actually a mild decline in temperatures.
So what does this mean? It means that the morons who insist on regarding the GBR as a single entity, have been exposed. Parts of the reef may die from certain causes over the next century but other parts show NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of impacts outside the normal range. There is no evidence of global warming in the sea temperature data for the past 13 years.
What did that ACF moron claim the other day? The reef (the whole reef) will be extinct (completely dead) in 30 years. And as I look back over the posts above, what do we see? the same sort of intellectual plodders who extrapolate from specific incidents to cover the entire reef.
And it doesn’t really matter whether this was intentional or simply by mass hysterical default. Because either way it is garbage in, garbage out.
You can have all the experimental science in the world but someone forgot to tell that to 90% of the reef. Now get off my screen you bombed out bozos.
NO YOU STUPID GIMPS – Kerrrrchrist ….
“Hey Ian” – says Rog “I think they’re wrong on the reef coz the water in my tap isn’t hot”
“Cripes didn’t think of that” exclaims Ian “Ha we’ve got-em. This will be good. I’m gonna get on that net and poon those dweebs big time. Ha ha ha ha.”
{grinding noise as Ian mounts pedal bicycle on stand to generate power for Tandy TRS80}
type type type type “let’s see” .. . type type .. . consults thesaurus .. .. type type .. .. consults greenie abuse manual .. .. type.. .. “pig ignorant philistine green scum” .. type “nit-wits”.. .. type type “you can shove your opinions right up your .. .. .. ” type type “your mothers and a goat .. ..” type type
Gee the inner reef is more affected – I never knew that. Someone ring AIMS and tell them quick.
Why am I looking at the 1998 and 2002 reef survey – as you expect coz it’s shallower, warmer, less mixing, there is more bleaching inner reef very high (30-60%) and extreme classes (>60%) But there is a fair bit of bleaching in the moderate (1-10%) and high (10-30%) classes.
And gee in both events EXTREME bleaching cluster off Rocky – inner reef.
In both events the extent of bleaching over the entire reef is WIDESPREAD length of whole reef.
In 2002 an area of the furthermost reef off-shore – far off Sarina – is moderate and high bleached.
It is totally reasonable to expect worse bleaching inner shore – shallow, less mixing. You would also expect high CO2 exchange at atmospheric equilibrium into the shallow waters too. Future calcification problems will start there.
The temperature trend and predicted warming trend will put 82% of the reef into bleaching every 1-2 years IN THE FUTURE. Nobody is saying the whole reef is bleaching right now !!!
The facts are that there is a warming in the sea surface temperatures as confirmed by BoM and Reynolds papers. If you think otherwise ring Janice Lough up and tell her she is wrong.
The projections are for bleaching to get worse – the science is not saying AGW has a major component in contemporary events. You guys are DELIBERATELY trying to confuse the debate on this point.
So you morons are unable to do any research. Comprehend any data. You pull opinions out of your bottoms.
There may be an important moral aspect to the climate change debate which many of us, amidst all the name calling, are ignoring. Somebody (Ian?) mentioned witches.
There is a fascinating paper by Wolfgang Behringer on the social and moral reaction to the Little Ice Age. It included much burning of witches. Wolfgang points out how dangerous it is when climate change is discussed as a moral issue.
For those who actually read the references some of us offer:
Behringer, Wolfgang (1999) Climatic change and witch-hunting: the impact of the Little Ice Age on mentalities. Climatic Change 43(1)
There are a number of interesting web-sites and a book by Brian Fagan (2000) The Little Ice Age. Also see www2.sunysuffolk.edm/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
Erratum
But there is a fair bit of bleaching in the moderate (1-10%) and high (10-30%) classes on the OUTER REEF.
OK Luke (Im not bothering with the backslash in pink)
What happened in circa 1878 (apart from it being the year of the first weekly weather report published in UK)?
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/thermal-stress/images-tsi/fig06-thermal-480.gif
Extreme climate anomalies took place in many regions of the world during 1877
and 1878 in connection with the occurrence of a major El Niño episode (EN78/79).
The large magnitude of the global disturbance is revealed by the impressive positive
anomaly in surface air temperature during the boreal 1877-78 winter semester (October
1877 – March 1878), which according to some estimations exceeded +3.0 standard
deviations with respect to the 1870-1900 mean.
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/11033/EGU06-J-11033.pdf
Rog good to see you checking some facts !
The comments about what type of reef will replace the current one are important. There are plenty of coral reefs around the world that are not nearly as spectacular as the GBR. It’s not a case of never mind the quality, feel the width.
Yes but Luke, how was the data collected in 1878? Not downloaded from a satellite, obviously.
OK, we accept that climate change is a constant. So howabout this el Nino, it was only really ‘invented’ in in 1923 by Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker.
*Late Victorian Holocausts – El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World* is a book by Mike Davis concerning the connection between a set of large famines in the late 1870’s and again in the late 1890’s and a meteorological phenomenon called ENSO, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
In his book titled “Late Victorian Holocausts – El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World” Mike Davis writes about
“..famines in India 1876-1879 and 1896-1897/1899-1902, in China, Brazil, Ethiopia, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and New Caledonia as results of both climate (ENSO) and social and political circumstances…”
It says here: http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/thermal-stress/thermal-stress-indices.html
That:
These thermal stress indices have recently been extended back to 1871 using the UK Hadley Centre global monthly SST compilation up to 1999 and updated to the present using NOAA NCEP EMC CMB Global Reyn-Smith OIv2 blended satellite and observations data set.
It’s a computed index obvioulsy.
“Climate change is a constant” mmmmm .. . dunno
Perhaps not too far without a change in solar, aerosol or greenhouse gas changes. Some studies indicate that climate has some degree of stability unless perturbed(including variations like El Nino).
The point about this 21st century climate change may be the rate of change. Rapid change in the geological past has resulted in massive global species extinctions. Can the reef adapt and how fast?
Luke, in answer to an earlier comment of yours, I ALWAYS make up my own mind on issues, such as AGW, rather then simply following the herd like most people. I’m an individual–not part of group mentality.
*It’s a computed index obvioulsy. (sic)*
Computed not measured?
Either something happened in 1878 or the evidence is incorrect.
Luke wrote: Some studies indicate that climate has some degree of stability unless perturbed(including variations like El Nino).
So it is stable except when it is unstable….
I challenge you to answer these 2 questions Like without waffle or insult.
Is another ice age within the next 10,000 years possible?
Is another ice age at some point in the future probable or improbable?
Paul – I’m saying that variability is contained within certain bounds (in built oscillations like El Nino and various multidecadal oscillations still exist) if there is no “external” change like Milankovitch orbital solar influences, large changes in solar output, massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid impact introducing aerosols into atmosphere (cooling), or a species like Homo sapiens liberating massive amounts of CO2 from stored fossil fuels. It’s a bit of an academic debating point but worth thinking about – does climate drift just anywhere without external influences.
So when people say “well gee climate has changed in the past so .. ..” – yep and with good reasons !
If you read the Holland and Berger references here at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
No ice age soon !!
The idea of regular ice ages comes from the last few being regular – the refs explain why that ain’t always so.
Rog – my take it’s a computed index of what the expected levels of bleaching would be at various places and times using sea surface temperature information from the above referenced SST data sets (with their obvious earlt limitations). Caveat emptor.
Thanks for the reply Luke.
I had a feeling you would avoid directly answering those questions.
I was not surprised at your avoidance.
WHAT ??? What exactly don’t you understand. If you think I have avoided your questions – far from it.
Let me be more direct:
Your Q1: Not possible
Your Q2: Possible/probable
If you read the reference I’ve supplied – the Milankovitch orbital modelling does give enough reduction in the insolation at 65N to give an ice age in the next 10,000 years
An ice age in the very long future is definitely possible unless atmospheric CO2 is too high and prevents such. But we’re talking many 10,000s of years and longer.
So HOW have I avoided the issue. Frankly I’m insulted – I give you a good answer and you say I have avoided the issue – HOW? Are you unable to read the references I provided.
Hollan 2000 actually says “The main result is, that the mid-summer insolation of relevant northern latitudes will be not as low as at the onset of the last glaciation (110 ka before) another 0.6 Ma. The first ever pronounced fall of summer insolation happens some 130 thousands years from now, but it is not at all so deep as those ones that started the last two Ice Ages. So, we can say there is no conceivable cause for another glaciation for at least those 130 ka. Quite probably, another glaciation cannot come sooner that 620 thousand years from now. ”
Berger 2002 says” When paleoclimatologists gathered
in 1972 to discuss how and
when the present warm period
would end (1), a slide into the next
glacial seemed imminent. But more recent
studies point toward a different future:
a long interglacial that may last another
50,000 years.”
The correct answer Luke was “oh, anything’s possible, or at least I can’t prove it isn’t so I’m keeping my moon boots just in case”.
On ENSO, I entertain the recharge oscillator theory. But they’re still unsure if there’s a causal link between MJO & ENSO. If there is a consistent relationship it’s affected by stochastic developments, so part of larger scale dynamics. Upgrade and network your envelopes! Decadal phenomena themselves vary and it’s not even clear what the direction of the relationship is with background conditions.
See McPhaden on the 02/03 el nino:
“A fundamental question is whether these largescale feedbacks are strong enough to result in an ENSO cycle that is unstable, with self-sustaining natural oscillations between unusually warm and cold conditions (Jin 1997; Neelin et al. 1998). Under these circumstances, ENSO predictability would be limited primarily by noise in initial conditions as with weather prediction. On the other hand, weaker feedbacks between the ocean and the atmosphere would result in a stable or damped ENSO cycle better characterized as a series of discrete warm events punctuating periods of neutral or unusually cold conditions. For a damped ENSO cycle, stochastic atmospheric forcing associated with weather variability would then be required
to initiate and sustain individual El Niño
events. …
Theory indicates that the system may be damped,
stable, or unstable, depending on the large-scale oceanic and atmospheric background conditions on
which ENSO develops (Fedorov and Philander 2000).
Arguments have been marshaled to support the full range of possibilities using statistical models, dynamical models, and empirical analyses (e.g., Penland and Sardeshmukh 1995; Kessler 2002; Fedorov et al. 2003; Chen et al. 2004). … the 2002/03 El Niño can provide valuable insights into the nature of the ENSO cycle.
In situ and satellite observations from the ENSO Observing System underscore the role played by both episodic atmospheric forcing and large-scale low-frequency ocean–atmosphere dynamics in the genesis and evolution of the 2002/03 El Niño.
… However, there is much room for improvement in
our ability to predict the details of individual El Niño and La Niña events and their climatic consequences both globally and regionally. The ENSO puzzle thus continues to challenge climate research and forecasting communities, not only because it is a compelling scientific problem, but also because of its widespread socioeconomic impacts.”
Luke usually tries to get out of a tight corner by multiple insults and sound and light but he still came up with the standard departmental tripe. While most people are familiar with the tables showing proportion of bleaching in inner and outer reef, it is not until the outbreaks are mapped that the real picture becomes apparent.
The parts of the outer reef that have bleaching events are almost all in locations where the outer reef is closer to land. The very severe ones are all very close inshore and sheltered.
Clearly, bleaching is not just a function of temperature but also of sheltered location and calm, cloudless conditions, and, quite likely, proximity to an inflow of fresh water.
So for global warming to destroy the whole reef one must establish that not only the temperature will increase but also that the calm location and calm conditions will somehow be transferred to the outer reef. This is bollocks.
It is all very well to model for sea temperature increases but it is a fact that sea temperature changes at the reef have not mimicked either the character or scale of the BoM atmospheric temperature changes since 1990.
But to extrapolate from specific inshore locations on the basis of sea temperature while assuming that locational, structural, and characteristic conditions will simply follow the temperature changes is bad science.
I am not suggesting that anyone in particular is dishonest or corrupt but I can say with certainty that anyone working for, with, or funded by the queensland government is compelled to work in the most ethically challenged intellectual millieu I have ever been exposed to. And even those with the highest integrity are in no position to make proper disclosures for fear of the repercussions.
Parts of the reef are vulnerable because they are located in vulnerable positions but it is my understanding that there has not been a single case where an entire discrete portion of reef has been completely destroyed and has failed to recover after the next mass breeding event.
The reproductive habits of coral are uniquely capable of remediation on a grand scale.
Ian – what utter utter tripe.
(1) department ? What dept. We’re talking AIMS research here fella – keep awake.
(2) does the reef bleach every year currently – no
(3) is the bleaching associated with high SSTs (El Nino) as well as appropriate tidal, wind, mixing conditions – yes
(4) are corals close to warming thresholds yes
(5) are SSTs increasing long term – yes measured not modelled
(6) I think there are cases of sections of reef that don’t recover well or take decades
(7) AGW is just starting
(8) it’s also calcification as well as temps we’re talking about
(9) we’re not talking now – we’re talking future
(10) why go on – he ain’t listening
Points of agreement. “Qld govt & those with the highest integrity are in no position to make proper disclosures for fear of the repercussions”
Remediation on a grand scale – over centuries yes – but you don’t have centuries. Sorry. Bye bye $1.4B tourism industry.
Far outer reefs – do bleach – it is possible and observed !
Ian \”Clearly, bleaching is not just a function of temperature but also of sheltered location and calm, cloudless conditions, and.. fresh water.\”
DERRRRRRRR!!! 100 posts later he twigs on something but still doesn\’t get it. Again proof that the chief denialists jump in with isolated bits at the end without reading the comments or science above. We\’ve covered that well & truly Ian. You\’re always being told it\’s not as simple as isolated aspects yet you usually argue isolated items and yet you\’re still searching for mirror patterns between averaged air temps and what.. SST hotspots? You\’ve ignored the recent posts on teleconnectivity, longer scale events and stochastic forcing. Tiresome trash trash deny deny loop loop.
Please try to read the science before dulling our senses with your boorish spasms Ian. Yes it\’s a multivariable function, but errrr so um what\’s your point, do you want to argue that GW will benefit the GBR ha ha ha?
\”global warming to destroy the whole reef\”
STRAW MAN AGAIN. We\’ve already burnt him. WHO here is saying that Ian? If you have a problem with some dumb greenie group claim then ring them up write them a letter. But you\’re WAY OFF THREAD on hot day without drinking water or a compass. You boorishly insist on ignoring the composition of the reef despite people\’s best efforts to relieve you of your misunderstanding of the real issue being discussed. Revert. Start from top and try to follow the discussion because right now you\’re coming across like an idiot.
Errr – most of the sediment comes from grazed catchments – cane ??
Extreme extrapolation. Organisms close to their thermal limits. An already warming world. And a known cause for the warming with a big swag of science that says it will continue.
It’s all risk management Ian. Someone has to decide whether it’s a risk of not.
DEAL! I accept your kind offer. Please delete every single post of mine from Jennifer\’s blog archive. Well I won\’t automatically disappear then because Im not lawnmower man but I give my full permission and agreement. It\’s a waste of time talking to you anyway, your ears and eyes are painted on. Once you\’ve deleted all my posts for me then I\’ll leave you to your cushy life in your autocratic small world. Jennifer please give Ian access to delete every post I\’ve ever made. I\’ll be checking to see the job\’s done properly and he\’s not jsut mouthing off.
Yes, Luke, but you still have not explained how gullible warming will shift the inshore calm conditions to the outer reef?
And while parts of outer reefs have been known to bleach the key question is, which parts? Obviously the more sheltered parts with less wave action etc, but for the entire section of reef to be destroyed would need the absence of wave action. And I have seen no science that shows a causal link between gullible warming and substantially diminished wave action. Have you?
And your suggestion of centuries for remediation to take place ignores the way coral reproduce. The mass spawning on a particular night results in a blanket tide of reproductive material that sees all bleached coral being restocked with polyps. It takes place every year and life on the reef goes on.
How can there be a serious threat when there has yet to be a sequence of two years of total bleaching at the one site?
Ian if you read some of the links above you\’ll find the answers to those questions.
The most active link is the link made in the minds of the research community between “threat” and “secure funding” and “no threat” and “no funding”.
Ian your desire to ignore the argument totally, trivialise and obfuscate is outstanding.
Some time in October 84, I was chatting to the chair of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a 50 something english professor, as I carted the entire authority board out to Hardie Reef, to inspect our new tourist facility.
She asked me if we still had any coral to show the tourists, with the bad Crown of Thorns star fish infestation we were experiencing.
When I told her we had seen only 2 C of T in the last 6 months, she assured me I was wrong. Their researchers had reported massive damage in the Whitsunday area. The damn things never got south of Townsville, in any numbers.
As I had to be diplomatic, I moved on, as soon as courteously possible. You see, I had no approval for the 180 Ton of gear I had dumped in the water to secure our instillation.
The area was to be declared a park the next year, so the Authority had no authority, if you see what I mean, & no Queensland, or Commonwealth public servant was going to a approve me putting my big toe in an area, soon to be Marine Park.
Academic jobs for the boys, [girls] had her many fathoms out of her depth, but she was quite a nice old duck, & basically, harmless.
I had a less pleasent encounter with one of the AIMS blokes we had on board, just a little later. It was the only time I saw any of them anywhere, but firmly ashore in Townsville, or Lizard Island.
This bloke asked me, what the acres of yellow, & brown scum was on the water. When I told him it was coral spore, he “humphed” in my face, & marched off. He must have thought I was having a lend of him. After all, It was another 6 years before they anounced their momentous discovery, that all coral release their spore simultaneously. The Qld fisherman would have told them, if they’d asked. They’re the ones who told me.
We had a good relationship with some of the James Cook marine biology PHd students. We used to cart them out to the reef, house, & feed them, fill their dive tanks, & let them use rubber duckies. We educated each other, but one of them told me, that he had learned more, getting drunk, one night, with the deck hand of a passing game fishing boat, than he had learned in the previous 6 months.
I spent 6 years & 53,000 nautical miles, sailing around the Pacific islands, where the yanks won the war. Believe me, the water there is a damn sight hotter than the GBR water is now, or will get for a long long time.
Guess what, I found some bl@@dy big attols, all of coral. I dived on hundred of Wrecks & thousands of reefs. Now, I may only be a BSc, but without my lab to test it, that coral looked a lot like the stuff back home.
I don’t know how much any of you know about the reef, or our marine scientists, but from the stuff you are saying, its not very much. Some of these blokes know a great deal about the left handed red spiny fish, but not much else.
In some eyes, it appears to have become a sin to be skeptical about GW, but some of you act as if its a sin, to be a little bit skeptical of anything. Wake up, & look at the world.
Only sleeping beauty could go through a year without seeing some diabolically bad science being pushed by government, or NGOs. Only a very dumb fool could agree with all this ideology.
Just when I thought all science is bunk, I remembered to look for evidence.
hasbeen says a short while later, ie in or after 1984 the AIMS blokes wouldn’t believe him about coral spore and the scientists discovered it 6 years later (ie 1990 or later).
But a quick search said “In 1981, Australian researchers on the Great Barrier Reef stumbled across an amazing natural phenomenon. …. The researchers had witnessed coral spawning, an annual event, which occurs in all coral, reefs around the world.”
So perhaps the discovery was told to fishermen who told hasbeen who told someone (an experienced coral scientist? the bookkeeper?) from AIMS. But the AIMS site mentions awareness of this phenomena in the mid 80s.
Conclusion: unable to distinguish chicken from egg in this tale and it doesn’t support negative allegations about the scientists. Does it really matter who noticed it 1st, as science tries to verify and explain and that process can often benefit from traditional and local knowledge.
So Hasbeen – indeed you have good practical experience and know you more than dumbo green students and appointed English professors.
So how much new reef science have you actually published? At some point the greenhorn dumbo students start to wise up.
You fallen into the same trap of Motty – saying the reef is OK now so it will always be OK. It’s just simply not the point. You guys cannot seem to separate now from the future.
The water around your “yank WWII area” will be even hotter by the time AGW is finished. Hotter than currently hotter.
Pinxi, I wasd washing the stuff [it stains] off the first yacht I took up the reef, in 1972, & thats when the fishermsn told me what it was.
I had hoped you pair may have picked up on the Crown of Thorns bit. In 84 this was going to wipe out the reef, & destroy Queensland. Funny how that threat disappeared when we found a “better” one, in GW, & bleaching.
Its like talking to a fence post, one of those thick strainer posts, but here goes.
Find that english prof, & get her to read you the one about the boy who called “Wolf”. You lot have been doing it for so long that thinking people have just turned off.
Coral is extremely sensitive to temperature change, even a small warming of the oceans would devastate reefs around the world. Don’t look to the future, we are seeing the gradual destruction of our coral reefs right now. I say this to everyone concerned about the environment – don’t just complain and wait for someone to save you, get up, stop whinging and join an environmental action group. Because changing your light bulb or any of the individual responsibility solutions amount to pretty much nothing in the scheme of things. This problem is MASSIVE and the solutions are more radical than most people would like to be, but you have to try and the biggest thing you can actually do is become an activist. Anything short of getting personally involved is just kidding yourself and putting your life in the hands of the incompetent leaders that got us into the global warming situation in the first place
oh dear I am so confused! I’m doing a report on Coral Bleaching and I’m AGW but I am having a difficult time proving all the facts. Can someone help me out a bit here?
help!