Oceanic Disaster: The death of the Reefs (1 Viewer)

[Jack Hays]

Maybe you haven't paid your bill.

Coral Reefs in West Hawaiʽi Showing Signs of Recovery

January 22, 2019, 12:32 PM HST · Updated January 22, 12:32 PM
16 Comments

• Text Size:​
  
  [*=center]A
  [*=center]A
  [*=center]A

Nearly four years after the worst bleaching event in the state’s history, coral reefs in West Hawaiʽi are stabilizing and poised to recover, according to scientists from The Nature Conservancy.

Photo: The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i.

Higher than usual ocean water temperatures in 2015 caused the first statewide coral bleaching event. TNC surveys revealed that an average of 60% of corals in West Hawaiʻi bleached, with some reefs experiencing up to 90% mortality. Corals bleach under stress, and severe or prolonged stress can lead to death.
For the last three years, TNC scientists have studied West Hawaiʻi’s coral reefs to identify the most resilient, meaning they can resist or recover from the stress of warmer ocean temperatures.
“Bleaching events like what occurred in 2015 can overstress a coral reef to the point where it may never recover,” said Dr. Eric Conklin, director of marine science for TNC’s Hawaiʻi program. “We surveyed over 14,000 coral colonies at 20 sites along the West Hawaiʻi coast from Kawaihae to Keauhou and were thrilled to see that many of the area’s reefs have stabilized, which is the first step toward recovery.”
Surveys showed that many of the most resilient reefs are in remote areas with limited shoreline access and exposure to human impacts. These reefs had lots of corals and little or no coral disease, and there was evidence that new corals were beginning to grow.
The least resilient sites all had multiple “stressors,” including fishing pressure, land-based pollutants and runoff. “Interestingly, the number of stressors affecting an area, not the severity of a single one, was the most important factor,” said Kim Hum, the Conservancy’s marine program director. “Reefs that are fighting the impacts of several stressors are more susceptible to temperature stress, making them more likely to bleach and less able to recover if they do.”. . . .​

 

[Lord of Planar]

The link is fine.

Yes, it is.

I get this:

 

[RobertU]

Using "coral reefs show signs of recovery" to ignore man's abuse of the ocean is like saying, "What, you arrested the shooter? What's the big deal? The gunshot victim is recovering in the hospital."

 

[Jack Hays]

Using "coral reefs show signs of recovery" to ignore man's abuse of the ocean is like saying, "What, you arrested the shooter? What's the big deal? The gunshot victim is recovering in the hospital."

The reefs are doing just fine.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Coral Reefs Can Take The Heat, Unlike Experts Crying Wolf[/h][FONT=&quot]From The GWPF Date: 26/12/18 Peter Ridd, The Australian This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. Scientists from…
December 28, 2018 in coral reefs.
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Dr. Peter Ridd climate skeptic dismissal case finally heads to court[/h][FONT=&quot]Dr. Peter Ridd writes on his GoFundMe Page. My court case is scheduled for 26-28th March in Brisbane. The main arguments of both sides have been submitted to the court and the James Cook University arguments will certainly make interesting reading when they become public during the hearing. My legal people have been excellent and…
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

Super El Ninos Are Like London Buses – You Wait 100 Years For One To Turn Up, Then Three Arrive

Posted on 09 Mar 19 by JAIME JESSOP • 10 Comments
I am prompted to write this post following a long and somewhat fractious conversation at Ken Rice’s blog, ATTP, in response to a guest post by Geoff Price on coral reef bleaching. As the post referred to me personally and to a blog post I wrote on Cliscep over a year ago, I … Continue readin

. . . My argument, which the denizens at ATTP steadfastly refused to grasp in its utter simplicity, expressed on that thread and in my original blog post, was that the series of mass and global coral bleaching events since the early ’80s were caused primarily by the occurrence of three super El Ninos (plus lesser ones in between) between 1982 and 2016 and not by the long term secular global warming trend since 1850. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

More Evidence for Rapid Coral Adaptation

By Jim Steele Good news continues to accumulate regards corals’ ability to rapidly adjust to changing climates. The view of coral resilience has been dominated by the narrative of a few scientists. In the 1990s they advocated devastating consequences for coral reefs due to global warming, arguing coral cannot adapt quickly enough. Since the Little…

 

[calamity]

[FONT=&][/FONT]
More Evidence for Rapid Coral Adaptation

[FONT=&]By Jim Steele Good news continues to accumulate regards corals’ ability to rapidly adjust to changing climates. The view of coral resilience has been dominated by the narrative of a few scientists. In the 1990s they advocated devastating consequences for coral reefs due to global warming, arguing coral cannot adapt quickly enough. Since the Little…
[/FONT]

Half Of The Great Barrier Reef Has Died Since 2016

 

[Jack Hays]

Half Of The Great Barrier Reef Has Died Since 2016

Your link is "Page Not Found."

Doesn't really matter because it's obsolete anyway.

From the link in #207 (citing a more recent paper):

[FONT=&quot]. . . A recent peer-reviewed paper titled A Global Analysis of Coral Bleaching Over the Past Two Decades (Sully 2019) compared 20 years of ocean temperatures at which coral bleaching was initiated. From 1998 to 2006, the average sea surface temperature that initiated bleaching was 82.6 °F. But that temperature limit proves not to be “fixed” as earlier researchers incorrectly believed. From 2007 to 2017 the average temperature limit that initiated bleaching was higher, 83.7 °F. This indicates coral have been rapidly adapting to warmer regional climates much faster than once believed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Based on these new observations the scientists concluded, “past bleaching events may have culled the thermally susceptible individuals, resulting in a recent adjustment of the remaining coral populations to higher thresholds of bleaching temperatures.” Furthermore, they suggested, “Localities that commonly experience large daily, weekly, or seasonal SST ranges [Sea Surface Temperature] may harbor corals, and strains of coral symbionts, that are more resistant to SST extremes.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Other studies also observed similar rapid adaptations. Studies in Indonesian waters determined that two coral species, both highly susceptible to bleaching, had experienced 94% and 87% colony deaths during the 1998 El Nino. Yet those same species were among the least susceptible to bleaching in the 2010 El Nino despite a similar increase in water temperatures with only 5% and 12% colony deaths. . . . [/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

Look. Real news.

Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find - The New York Times

“We didn’t expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years,” said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature. “In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs — literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead.”

The damage to the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s largest living structures, is part of a global calamity that has been unfolding intermittently for nearly two decades and seems to be intensifying. In the paper, dozens of scientists described the recent disaster as the third worldwide mass bleaching of coral reefs since 1998, but by far the most widespread and damaging.

 

[Jack Hays]

Look. Real news.

Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find - The New York Times

“We didn’t expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years,” said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature. “In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs — literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead.”

The damage to the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s largest living structures, is part of a global calamity that has been unfolding intermittently for nearly two decades and seems to be intensifying. In the paper, dozens of scientists described the recent disaster as the third worldwide mass bleaching of coral reefs since 1998, but by far the most widespread and damaging.

A Global Analysis of Coral Bleaching Over the Past Two Decades (Sully 2019)

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Blowing the whistle on the climate of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef[/h][FONT=&quot]A brief overview of on-going climate research. by Dr. Bill Johnston Background Australian taxpayers spend inordinate amounts of money each year on “saving” the Great Barrier Reef and to keep the bucket brimming with cash there is little wonder that the myriad of organizations involved want careful control over the spin and the people who…
[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

A Global Analysis of Coral Bleaching Over the Past Two Decades (Sully 2019)

And the conclusion of the paper?

“Coral bleaching has had unprecedented negative effects on coral populations worldwide, and immediate action globally to reduce carbon emissions is necessary to avoid further declines of coral reefs.”


I think we can all agree here. Another JH denier fail.

 

[calamity]

And the conclusion of the paper?

“Coral bleaching has had unprecedented negative effects on coral populations worldwide, and immediate action globally to reduce carbon emissions is necessary to avoid further declines of coral reefs.”


I think we can all agree here. Another JH denier fail.

If I bother, I read those posts for the comedy.

 

[Jack Hays]

And the conclusion of the paper?

“Coral bleaching has had unprecedented negative effects on coral populations worldwide, and immediate action globally to reduce carbon emissions is necessary to avoid further declines of coral reefs.”


I think we can all agree here. Another JH denier fail.

Interesting because, as pointed out in this review, the comment has nothing at all to do with the research results in the paper. It appears to have been added by a consensus commissar.


More Evidence for Rapid Coral Adaptation

By Jim Steele Good news continues to accumulate regards corals’ ability to rapidly adjust to changing climates. The view of coral resilience has been dominated by the narrative of a few scientists. In the 1990s they advocated devastating consequences for coral reefs due to global warming, arguing coral cannot adapt quickly enough. Since the Little…

[FONT=&quot]". . . Unfortunately, the last sentence in Sully 2019, reveals how some editors and journals are politicizing the science, and downplaying any optimism. Sully 2019’s last sentence read “immediate action globally to reduce carbon emissions is necessary to avoid further declines of coral reefs.” But Sully 2019’s research never tested or analyzed the effects of CO2 on temperature and bleaching. Their research only revealed resilience and rapid adaptation to warming, whether that warming was natural or CO2 induced. Furthermore, their research reported susceptibility to bleaching varied over time and location and did not detect a CO2 fingerprint. Their research did not determine whether rapid changes in regional ocean temperature were caused by changes in El Nino, shifting ocean currents, changes in upwelling, cloud cover or CO2 concentrations. In the past, honest and objective scientific journals restricted comments to conclusions based on the author’s actual research.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Over the years I have had several researchers thank me for posting information in my blogs that their editors had not allowed. They tell me editors have insisted on more catastrophic CO2-biased conclusions in order for them to publish. We also know from published emails that alarmist scientists like Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth have actively “persuaded” journal editors, via bullying or other means, to obstruct publication of any skeptical scientific research that undermines Mann’s and Trenberth’s dire predictions. Sully’s CO2-alarmist, non-sequitur closing sentence is most certainly the fingerprint of another such enforced distortion that is now being superimposed on otherwise objective science."[/FONT]

 

[Sunsettommy]

What I see here are several published science papers and science presentation by people who have the background for the science are getting mocked, while the mockers themselves provide nothing substantial in opposition to the posted science Jack has been making.

Maybe you are just being closeminded and irrational?

 

[Threegoofs]

Interesting because, as pointed out in this review, the comment has nothing at all to do with the research results in the paper. It appears to have been added by a consensus commissar.


More Evidence for Rapid Coral Adaptation

By Jim Steele Good news continues to accumulate regards corals’ ability to rapidly adjust to changing climates. The view of coral resilience has been dominated by the narrative of a few scientists. In the 1990s they advocated devastating consequences for coral reefs due to global warming, arguing coral cannot adapt quickly enough. Since the Little…

[FONT=&quot]". . . Unfortunately, the last sentence in Sully 2019, reveals how some editors and journals are politicizing the science, and downplaying any optimism. Sully 2019’s last sentence read “immediate action globally to reduce carbon emissions is necessary to avoid further declines of coral reefs.” But Sully 2019’s research never tested or analyzed the effects of CO2 on temperature and bleaching. Their research only revealed resilience and rapid adaptation to warming, whether that warming was natural or CO2 induced. Furthermore, their research reported susceptibility to bleaching varied over time and location and did not detect a CO2 fingerprint. Their research did not determine whether rapid changes in regional ocean temperature were caused by changes in El Nino, shifting ocean currents, changes in upwelling, cloud cover or CO2 concentrations. In the past, honest and objective scientific journals restricted comments to conclusions based on the author’s actual research.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Over the years I have had several researchers thank me for posting information in my blogs that their editors had not allowed. They tell me editors have insisted on more catastrophic CO2-biased conclusions in order for them to publish. We also know from published emails that alarmist scientists like Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth have actively “persuaded” journal editors, via bullying or other means, to obstruct publication of any skeptical scientific research that undermines Mann’s and Trenberth’s dire predictions. Sully’s CO2-alarmist, non-sequitur closing sentence is most certainly the fingerprint of another such enforced distortion that is now being superimposed on otherwise objective science."[/FONT]

No. It’s literally the last sentence in the paper.

The authors obviously felt it was critically important.

But you obviously feel that continually embarrassing yourself in these matters is also important.

 

[Threegoofs]

What I see here are several published science papers and science presentation by people who have the background for the science are getting mocked, while the mockers themselves provide nothing substantial in opposition to the posted science Jack has been making.

Maybe you are just being closeminded and irrational?

Yes. It reminds me of how the last paper I read on prophylaxis of thrombosis in cancer patients completely avoided all the ‘science papers’ on crystal healing, homeopathy, faith healing, and leech therapy.

Any talk of that stuff is just mocking and everybody is being close minded and irrational.

 

[Jack Hays]

No. It’s literally the last sentence in the paper.

The authors obviously felt it was critically important.

But you obviously feel that continually embarrassing yourself in these matters is also important.

I believe you have it exactly backwards. If the authors really believed it was important, this would have appeared as something other than bolted-on boilerplate at the end.

 

[Threegoofs]

I believe you have it exactly backwards. If the authors really believed it was important, this would have appeared as something other than bolted-on boilerplate at the end.

LOL.
The last sentence is generally the summary of how the research will impact the future.

You wouldn’t know that since you read blogs, not ‘science papers’, as scientifically illiterate people refer to them.

 

[COTO]

Having now digested all 220 posts in this thread:

@calamity and @Threegoofs: I don't claim to be an expert in AGW, and your advocacy for the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is responsible for coral bleaching may well prove correct, but for the love of sweet snowy leopards, learn how to conduct yourselves in a scientific debate.

Jack Hays (and to a lesser extent, Lord of Planar) are kicking your arses to the Great Barrier Reef and back in this thread. By my count, Jack has thus far submitted six peer-reviewed journal articles--all germane--in addition to dozens more articles from his aggregator site which themselves cite peer-reviewed literature. Lord of Planar has likewise submitted one. You haven't rebutted a single one of these with anything other than genetic fallacies, ad hominems, and ipse dixit, all of which (I'm sure you're aware) are logically invalid counterarguments.

In support of your position, you've supplied a handful of Wikipedia links as well as three summary articles by CNN, The Economist, and the NYT, respectively, all of which relay secondary (sometimes tertiary) accounts of actual studies, complete with journalistic slant. I couldn't even access The Economist piece (behind a paywall). The NYT article provides compelling evidence that bleaching is occurring, particularly in Australia, but while it suggests the bleaching is anthropogenic, it provides no scientific evidence or references to back up this claim. Threegoofs gets your side's sole point for primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature (the paper by Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). This lone point of light makes the tally "just" 7-to-1 against.

I don't know whether it's arrogance or intellectual laziness, but you gentlemen (?) are doing your side no favours here. If you took half the time you've spent typing out the words "junk science", "liar", and "climate change denier" and invested it in citing primary research and presenting counterfactuals, you might actually give Jack a run for his money.

What I'm particularly interested in knowing is if the pro-AGW community has put out whitepapers on the measures they believe are necessary specifically to halt/reverse coral bleaching, if they even consider this possible. I want to know the other side of the scales, presuming the hypothesis is correct. Are we talking about punishing carbon taxes? International carbon credits exchanges? Everyone living in yurts? How much pain and deprivation are TPTB asking us to suffer to putatively fix this?

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL.
The last sentence is generally the summary of how the research will impact the future.

You wouldn’t know that since you read blogs, not ‘science papers’, as scientifically illiterate people refer to them.

Sorry, but your pretended knowledge cannot substitute for the real thing. I'll stick with the other 99.9% of the paper.

 

[Threegoofs]

Having now digested all 220 posts in this thread:

@calamity and @Threegoofs: I don't claim to be an expert in AGW, and your advocacy for the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is responsible for coral bleaching may well prove correct, but for the love of sweet snowy leopards, learn how to conduct yourselves in a scientific debate.

Jack Hays (and to a lesser extent, Lord of Planar) are kicking your arses to the Great Barrier Reef and back in this thread. By my count, Jack has thus far submitted six peer-reviewed journal articles--all germane--in addition to dozens more articles from his aggregator site which themselves cite peer-reviewed literature. Lord of Planar has likewise submitted one. You haven't rebutted a single one of these with anything other than genetic fallacies, ad hominems, and ipse dixit, all of which (I'm sure you're aware) are logically invalid counterarguments.

In support of your position, you've supplied a handful of Wikipedia links as well as three summary articles by CNN, The Economist, and the NYT, respectively, all of which relay secondary (sometimes tertiary) accounts of actual studies, complete with journalistic slant. I couldn't even access The Economist piece (behind a paywall). The NYT article provides compelling evidence that bleaching is occurring, particularly in Australia, but while it suggests the bleaching is anthropogenic, it provides no scientific evidence or references to back up this claim. Threegoofs gets your side's sole point for primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature (the paper by Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). This lone point of light makes the tally "just" 7-to-1 against.

I don't know whether it's arrogance or intellectual laziness, but you gentlemen (?) are doing your side no favours here. If you took half the time you've spent typing out the words "junk science", "liar", and "climate change denier" and invested it in citing primary research and presenting counterfactuals, you might actually give Jack a run for his money.

What I'm particularly interested in knowing is if the pro-AGW community has put out whitepapers on the measures they believe are necessary specifically to halt/reverse coral bleaching, if they even consider this possible. I want to know the other side of the scales, presuming the hypothesis is correct. Are we talking about punishing carbon taxes? International carbon credits exchanges? Everyone living in yurts? How much pain and deprivation are TPTB asking us to suffer to putatively fix this?

LOL.

You think this USA scientific debate because jack spam posts denier blogs with no commentary.

If you were actually interested in what the scientific community was thinking about doing (and newsflash- reef destruction is a tiny part of the issue), you’d know it, instead of reading 200 pages of denier blog spam.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL.

You think this USA scientific debate because jack spam posts denier blogs with no commentary.

If you were actually interested in what the scientific community was thinking about doing (and newsflash- reef destruction is a tiny part of the issue), you’d know it, instead of reading 200 pages of denier blog spam.

Your data-dodging exposed.

 

[calamity]

Having now digested all 220 posts in this thread:

@calamity and @Threegoofs: I don't claim to be an expert in AGW, and your advocacy for the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is responsible for coral bleaching may well prove correct, but for the love of sweet snowy leopards, learn how to conduct yourselves in a scientific debate.

Jack Hays (and to a lesser extent, Lord of Planar) are kicking your arses to the Great Barrier Reef and back in this thread. By my count, Jack has thus far submitted six peer-reviewed journal articles--all germane--in addition to dozens more articles from his aggregator site which themselves cite peer-reviewed literature. Lord of Planar has likewise submitted one. You haven't rebutted a single one of these with anything other than genetic fallacies, ad hominems, and ipse dixit, all of which (I'm sure you're aware) are logically invalid counterarguments.

In support of your position, you've supplied a handful of Wikipedia links as well as three summary articles by CNN, The Economist, and the NYT, respectively, all of which relay secondary (sometimes tertiary) accounts of actual studies, complete with journalistic slant. I couldn't even access The Economist piece (behind a paywall). The NYT article provides compelling evidence that bleaching is occurring, particularly in Australia, but while it suggests the bleaching is anthropogenic, it provides no scientific evidence or references to back up this claim. Threegoofs gets your side's sole point for primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature (the paper by Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). This lone point of light makes the tally "just" 7-to-1 against.

I don't know whether it's arrogance or intellectual laziness, but you gentlemen (?) are doing your side no favours here. If you took half the time you've spent typing out the words "junk science", "liar", and "climate change denier" and invested it in citing primary research and presenting counterfactuals, you might actually give Jack a run for his money.

What I'm particularly interested in knowing is if the pro-AGW community has put out whitepapers on the measures they believe are necessary specifically to halt/reverse coral bleaching, if they even consider this possible. I want to know the other side of the scales, presuming the hypothesis is correct. Are we talking about punishing carbon taxes? International carbon credits exchanges? Everyone living in yurts? How much pain and deprivation are TPTB asking us to suffer to putatively fix this?

Your first mistake: taking LP and JH serious.

We know better.

And, if, by chance, we are wrong, meaning they are serious, then...woo boy!