HAVE you ever wondered what happens when corals grow so tall they are above sea level or whether the Great Barrier Reef could extend its range further south with global warming?
If you are curious you will probably enjoy and learn much from a new 81-page report by Craig D. Idso on global warming and coral reefs [1].
The report doesn’t come to any quick conclusions, but rather, in plain English, explains how corals grow, how they can change and adapt following “coral bleaching” and why it is important to consider real-world observations rather than theoretical predictions.
Dr Idso is clearly no believer in Gaia or Medea, but rather an empiricist with a knack for explaining the complex in plain English.
His new reports conclusions include comment that:
As living entities, corals are not only acted upon by the various elements of their environment, they also react or respond to them. And when changes in environmental factors pose a challenge to their continued existence, they sometimes take major defensive or adaptive actions.
A particularly ingenious way by which almost any adaptive response to any type of environmental stress may be enhanced in the face of the occurrence of that stress would be to replace the zooxanthellae expelled by the coral host during a stress-induced bleaching episode by one or more varieties of zooxanthellae that are more tolerant of the stress that caused the bleaching.
Rising sea levels may actually have a positive effect on reefs, permitting increased coral growth in areas that have already reached the upward limit imposed by current sea levels.
The rising CO2 content of the atmosphere may induce changes in ocean chemistry (pH) that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates; but potential positive effects of hydrospheric CO2 enrichment may more than compensate for this modest negative phenomenon.
Theoretical predictions indicate that coral calcification rates should decline as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by as much as 40% by 2100. However, real-world observations indicate that elevated CO2 and elevated temperatures are having just the opposite effect.
*******************
1. CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs – Prospects for the Future, 2009. Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_coral_warming.html
Craig D. Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges.
Photograph taken at the Great Barrier Reef in April 2006 by Dave.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jen. This is a timely post, at least for me, as I have just finished analyzing the De’ath data at NOAA to which I was helpfully linked by Anthony Moore. As you will recall, De’ath & co claimed to have evidence showing declining calcification rates at the GBR between 1990 and 2000/2001.
I was eventually able to open the De’ath archive at NOAA, to find that of their 14 cores/samples, no fewer than 9 exhibited INCREASING calcification rates from 1990-2000/2001, pace their media release and assertions in their Science article. The density trends on their data are mostly flat.
I fear that De’ath and Lough, et al. are merely (like most “scientists” these days) just a variant of the Bernie I “Madoff with our money” school, given that they are all funded by half-witted taxpayers like you-me. The sooner AIMS at Townsville is shut down the better for all of us.
What’s Up With That is fighting against a combination of other blogs, and needs your help in the Weblog Awards!
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/ refers.
Yet more “sceptic science” which is not peer reviewed.
Hi Tim,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner – post your data and analysis! Who is Anthony? Did you hear back from De’ath yet?
The Idso brothers are kinda a joke in certain circles. Check out “The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” over at Source Watch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change).
Before the junk really starts, i’ll get in first and state that the reason this would NEVER make it past peer review isn’t because it’s revolutionary and against the scientific norm, it’s because it’s scientifically incorrect. There is no conspiracy theory here, only poorly understood science.
There was a great comment by Gordon Robertson in a previous post:
If you’re dealing in an intelligent scientific debate, there should be no emotion. It should be objective. The emotion comes when egos and beliefs get involved.
I can imagine this isn’t going to hold for more than, oh, five minutes.
Thomas
The thing that isn’t very surprising is that none of the conclusions conclusions mentioned in the report are novel, and have been discussed in the literature in literally hundreds of papers.
What surprises me the most is how the report manages to reach completely the opposite conclusions than every other published paper.
I note the abstract for the De’ath study refers to it covering 328 reef colonies from 69 reefs. Tim
Curtin talks of 14 core samples, 9 of which show increased calcification.
Something doesn’t sound quite right here, but I would not be taking bets on review by Tim Curtin being more effective than peer review. I need Luke’s help here though, not having access to the full paper and such.
I see – so Dr Craig D. Idso spends the time to create this extensive 85 page paper with it’s 26 pages of references purely because he is a hoaxer in the pay of Exxon mobil.
that makes sense.
My comments on the De’ath paper are here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/global-warming-unlikely-reason-for-slow-coral-growth/
David: “Yet more “sceptic science” which is not peer reviewed.”
As it is a report, written by a very qualified scientist with abundant references which can be checked for accuracy, peer review does not come into it unless the paper is a political statement and then it needs to be peer reviewed to ensure it sticks to policy.
It isn’t.
Incidentally sceptical science is science per se – all scientific theories are provisional because scientists uinderstand that any theory is limited to what we know NOW, and that tomorrow someone, somewhere might make a new discovery that causes the theory to be wrong.
Does anyone doubt Corals can adapt… it would be a very foolhardy scientist to suggest that corals are not just like any other living entity.
The genuine concern of scientists, and this applies to all species not just corals, is that the rate of change will surpass the ability of many species to adapt quickly enough, leading to extinctions.
“why it is important to consider real-world observations rather than theoretical predictions.”… well surely there is no point to many real-world observations in science if one is not using them to predict things. And predictions being “wrong” should not be used to prevent bravery and risk in science should it? “THis is what we know, so this is what we think will happen, wow it didn;t happen, great now we know even more than before!” That is science.
THis seems like a useful scientific contribution to me, one which I’m certain coral scientists will digest with interest and critique or accept in their own time.
It is a shame when every piece of science that gets published is pounced on as an opportunity to wedge in the climate science debate. I’d have thought you’d have been above that Jen.
Also: “As living entities, corals are not only acted upon by the various elements of their environment, they also react or respond to them. And when changes in environmental factors pose a challenge to their continued existence, they sometimes take major defensive or adaptive actions”… STOP THE PRESS!!!! oh no hang on Darwin said this donkey’s ago.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/coral/greatbarrier.html
Here’s the raw data archive
1. Apologies to Thomas, I did get your name right on the original thread.
2. Steve: De’ath et al reported growth rates from 1990 to 2001 for cores taken from 13 reefs(not 14, apologies). They compared those rates with data from earlier sampling from 56 reefs in 1993 and before. Their paper stressed alleged declining calcification growth rates after 1990, so the 13 reefs are the applicable samples. Only 3 of these 13 reefs show declines in growth with linear trends, and only 2 with logs, over their whole life, some going back as far as 1606. For example, Abraham Reef (ABR 01H) has data from 1606 to 2001; over the whole series the trend in calcification growth (grams/cm2/p.a.) of that reef is upward, and it requires De’ath et al to cherry pick 1990-2001 to achieve a declining trend, which of course they do. Please explain why this procedure is any different in inverse from that of Bernie Madoff? He rightly showed other fund managers could not report sustained year after year growth rates from 1970 to 2008, while he could and did? Why is not Janice Lough the Madoff of Townsville for reporting rising growth rates of calcification in 2000 and joining De’ath in claiming declining growth rates in 2009? Perish the thought that she followed the money, as obviously her media release 2 weeks ago was all in the cause of disinterested science.
Tim – their position changed from 2000 as the data have changed. Growth went from positive to negative -whcih is what their paper shows.
In 2007 another smaller studied was showing similar issues.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119416703/abstract A decline in coral calcification of this magnitude with increasing seawater temperatures is unprecedented in recent centuries based on analysis of growth records from long cores of massive Porites
Luke & Tim: thanks, I don’t have time to check this out today, and besides which, it may be beyond easy checking anyway (for me.)
As to the Idso report Jennifer brings to our attention: I’ve had a quick scan, and it does rely on the fact that there is a fair amount of uncertainty and contradictory stuff regarding coral reefs and their response to environmental change. It seems to me that all Idso has done is survey the studies and emphasised all of the “optimistic” ones and played down the pessimistic ones, as well as speculate on some mechanisms which may work in coral’s favour even though they have not been properly studied yet, and bring up some dubious parallels to the adaptability of other species to climate change.
Idso also really gives no pretence of the agenda from which he approaches this in his last sentence:
“We have got to realize that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the bane of the biosphere, but a boon to the planet’s many life forms”
We’re in Graeme Bird territory there. I don’t care how good it is for the biosphere overall (that is, how many more trees and bugs it may encourage) if in fact it is bad for a large proportion of humanity.
As I am sure has been covered at this blog before, but bears repeating again and again, the problem is that if this optimism that there will be no significant detriment with higher CO2 is wrong, the price to be paid is extremely high for humanity, not to mention a large number of other species. Furthermore, waiting until all uncertainties are absolutely resolve will virtually make any remedial action impossible anyway.
But that’s what most of the followers of this blog want the world to do: always look on the bright side, but hey if we’re wrong, well, we’ll be dead by the time the really serious s**t hits the fan anyway.
Luke said; “their position changed from 2000 as the data have changed. Growth went from positive to negative -which is what their paper shows”. The long term trends are up; they produced downs by using data from the aftermath of the 1998 El Nino against the 1990-91 La Nina- but heaven forfend that De’ath or any other CC believer be charged with cherry picking their data. BTW, the locations of the 13 reefs in the archived data set are different from those in Fig.1A of their Science paper, eg. 3 of the latter are at about 14oS, while in the archive all 12 are between 18 and 22.23oS (Reef #13 appears to have gorn already). Is this another fine example of the meticulous peer review process in Science?
so now Barnaby Joyce has put the cat amongst the pigeons with remarks like this:
“He warned of the rise of “eco-totalitarianism” and said he would not be “goosestepping” along with environmentalists.”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24911151-3102,00.html
Go Barnaby!!
Turnbull has since commented that LIbs support the principles behind an ETS (in some format), so possibly Barnaby is the pigeon amongst the cats…
Yes Turnbull supports the ETS but the coalition front bench hasn’t decided yet. There’s quite a few sceptics in the Libs and the Nats.
Tim,
BTW, the locations of the 13 reefs in the archived data set are different from those in Fig.1A of their Science paper, eg. 3 of the latter are at about 14oS, while in the archive all 12 are between 18 and 22.23oS (Reef #13 appears to have gorn already). Is this another fine example of the meticulous peer review process in Science?
Read the methods in the Science paper. You are so busy falling over yourself trying to find holes in the paper, you seem not to have noticed that a subset of 10 long cores were used.
Still looking forward to the analysis – any word from De’ath?
Thomas
Thomas; I accessed the data you linked me to and found that it was like the shonkier financial advisers’ work. Remind me, why do I need to contact De’ath? If I did would I get a reply? For example, I could ask why his team refers to pH without offering any data thereon, although it is known that varies by night and day and season. Given the prominence their paper gives to alleged declining pH of 0.1, we deserve better. But do forward our correspondence to him. The absence of any responses from him to Jennifer’s 3 threads is telling, don’t tell me he can’t use Google to find refs. to his paper. I think Madoff would be more forthcoming, at least he admitted he was running a Ponzi, De’ath never will although he is, with his bogus rates of return.
Tim,
I accessed the data you linked me to and found that it was like the shonkier financial advisers’ work.
Great! Show us your analysis.
Remind me, why do I need to contact De’ath
To ask him for his data set, and to critique his research.
Given the prominence their paper gives to alleged declining pH of 0.1, we deserve better.
You deserve better?
But do forward our correspondence to him.
Why would I have any intention of forwarding any of this to De’ath?
The absence of any responses from him to Jennifer’s 3 threads is telling, don’t tell me he can’t use Google to find refs.
Absence of responses from De’ath? Why on earth do you assume that De’ath et al read Jennifer Marohasy’s blog? What refs are they googling for?
I think Madoff would be more forthcoming, at least he admitted he was running a Ponzi, De’ath never will although he is, with his bogus rates of return.
Still looking forward to your analysis, Tim.
Thomas
Thomas: tell me where I can forward to you my analysis of all the 13 reefs archived by Dea’th showing that the trend on almost all of them is positive for the whole periods archived, unless you take only the series from La Nina 1990 to the bleaching caused by El Nino 1998.
Vanity being what it is, most authors if only secretely like to know what is being said about them. Moreover Jennifer is known for having some savvy about the GBR.
Re Death’s pH, “we” are the readers of his paper, and very poorly served by the absence of any data on the most critical variables of his paper.
Thomas: I have just sent this message:
Dear Dr De’ath
I gather from Thomas Moore (at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com) that you could let me have additional data used in your recent science paper, e.g annual pH along the GBR by season, day and night, since 1990, along with your regression analysis of the relative impacts of pH and temperature changes on calcification rates since 1990. I would also like to see your data on the relative abundance/scarcity of CO2 and Ca on the GBR since 1990 being the building blocks of CaCO3.
Tim
Tim,
Thomas: tell me where I can forward to you my analysis of all the 13 reefs archived by Dea’th showing that the trend on almost all of them is positive for the whole periods archived, unless you take only the series from La Nina 1990 to the bleaching caused by El Nino 1998.
Either post it at your ‘cyberhome’, so all can see (http://www.timcurtin.com/), or get Jennifer to post it here as a new topic.
Vanity being what it is, most authors if only secretely like to know what is being said about them. Moreover Jennifer is known for having some savvy about the GBR.
I don’t think Jennifer is known for having any savvy about the GBR.
I gather from Thomas Moore (at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com) that you could let me have additional data used in your recent science paper
I said nothing of the sorts, and I strongly doubt he’ll hand over his data to a complete anonymous random without a much better justification than you just gave him, but hey, i’m intrigued: let’s see what becomes. Try and remain objective and not fly off the handle this time? Keep us updated.
I would also like to see your data on the relative abundance/scarcity of CO2 and Ca on the GBR since 1990
Tim, that’s cringe-worthy. Did you honestly just email that sentance to him?
Before you gain any ‘credentials’ so to speak, let’s see you post your analysis of the long core data for all to see. At best it might help convince De’ath that you actually know what you are doing with data. At worst, it’ll be mildly embarrassing.
Thomas
I sent the following by email to Thomas Moore on 20th at 4.30 pm but would welcome any comments.
“I have started writing a paper for Science making use of my analysis.
This will include the following points:
1. De’ath et al state they use linear growth rates. These notoriously relate only to the first and last years of a series, unacceptable in this case as 1990 was a La Nina and by 2000-2001 the GBR had not recovered from the bleaching of the 1998 El Nino.
2. I have computed the log linear rates in which each year has full value (see Feinstein, Making History Count, for an explanation of why these are the preferred tool).
3. As you can see below, from the 12 (not 13) reefs in the De’ath archive, it is not truthful for De’ath et al to state that “Of the 13 reefs (sic), 12 (92.3%) showed negative linear trends in calcification rate, with an average decline of 1.44% year−1 (SE = 0.31%)”. On the contrary the 12 reefs in the archive showed an increase on average in the respective calcification growth rates for the start year to 2000 or 2001 over start year to 1990, with six showing a decline and six an increase.
4. Why do the archived data sets end in 2001 at latest if as they claim they sampled the 13 (sic) reefs in 2005?
5. De’ath et al state (p.119) that “Our data (sic) show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the GBR are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years”. This is a lie worthy of Bernie Madoff. Of the 12 data sets extending to 2001 at latest, only one goes back 400 years, ABR, and that one shows a decline in the calcification growth rate of only from 0.1114% pa to 1990 to 0.103% pa by 2001. I suspect that is within the error range and hardly significant.
(3) Changes in Growth rates 1990-2001
Density Calcification Extension
Reef % % %
KEL 02A -0.002 0.010 0.004
KEL 02B -0.002 0.004 0.029
SWL 01A -32.500 -41.045 -57.736
SWL 01B -62.252 57.287 142.888
SWL 02A 35.862 12.343 -8.281
SWL 03A -46.882 -3.364 14.357
SWL 03B -61.642 106.519 71.618
ABR 01H -6.865 -10.188 -6.637
RIB 02A -2.828 -6.248 -3.835
RIB 02B 1.628 8.208 3.603
RIB 03A 29.436 -20.882 -22.021
RIB 03B -16.706 -40.623 1808.397
Averages -30.985 0.270 -14.836