<html>
Dear Ove,<br>
<br>
Please, slow down a second! I appreciate you message, but let me remove
some confusion.<br>
<br>
I had nothing whatsoever to do with writing or publishing the GCRMN
study. (I wish I had; I think represents important work).<br>
<br>
Your questions and opening for debate seem like a fine idea, but I'm
afraid they go far beyond my brief comment. I assumed the questioner was
summarizing the GCRMN study as saying that "<blockquote>coral [will
be] gone in the next 20 years or so." That struck me as simplistic.
Now, perhaps I'm wrong, and that is the essence of the study. If so, I
will stand corrected.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>Regardless, the questions you raised are important ones and
I'm sure those qualified will rise to the challenge and debate it.<br>
<br>
Once again, let me make it absolutely clear: I don't want to take credit
for someone else's work. The <blockquote>"Status of Coral Reefs of
the World: 2000" was prepared by Clive Wilkinson, coordinator of the
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>By the way, I wrote a book for lay-readers about coral
reefs, published in 1998. I devoted several chapters to threats facing
coral reefs (including one on warming) and was criticized by some
reviewers for peddling doom and gloom. Now I'm perceived as being overly
optimistic? Have to admit, that's a new one for me.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Osha<br>
<br>
At 04:50 PM 11/12/2000, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg wrote:<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><blockquote type=cite cite>Dear Osha,<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">Congratulations to you and the others on publishing
the GCRMN study and brochure. Very useful indeed and a major
contribution to reef science and management.<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">Your email caused me some concern however. In
particular, your description of the "simplistic" nature of the
message "coral being gone in the next 20 years or so" (mainly
coined by journalists) seems to be simplistic in itself. To say
this is to miss the essence and careful study that resulted in
conclusions that perhaps underlie this paraphrasing of the science.
Perhaps a reading of the background to the broader statements underlying
this one would be useful at this point. In fact, I invite you to
tell me (and the others that have flagged this possibility) where the
science is flawed.<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">That aside, I see your email as an opportunity to
begin a wider debate.<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">As I am sure you realise, the fact that oceans are
warming rapidly (up to 5 degree per century according to a recent NOAA
press release) and we have seen increasingly (not decreasingly) severe
outcomes (as is recorded in the excellent GCRMN account - 19% lost in the
thermal event of 1998) from these increasingly severe thermal events,
there is a major issue brewing. One degree per century would be
enough. By 2020 (which I guess is your "simplistic"
reading of the Mar FW Res 1999 study), we will be regularly over the sea
temperatures that we currently know to cause (and can use to predict
today - see HotSpot program) major coral mortality events. What is
perhaps more worrying, we will regularly see anomalies that will be
double and even triple those we have seen in the past two decades by
2020. We have nothing to tell us that this wont happen.
Currently, we have little evidence of the ability for coral reefs to
evolve with a sea temperature that is changing at the rate of 1-5 degrees
per century. Again, we the evidence that corals will rapidly adapt
to an ever increasing sea temperature is not jumping out at us. In
fact, we mostly have evidence to the contrary (mortality events, no
decreasing trend in severity or frequency etc.). <br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">So - I ask you - where is the
"simplicity" in the Mar FW Research (1999) hypothesis
argument?<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">A. Is it in the sea temperature
measurements? Are the rapidly warming seas a figment of our
imagination? Has Al Strong at NOAA been misreading his data?<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">B. It is in the climate models? Are the
Max Planck, IPCC, CSIRO, Hadley Centre, UN atmospheric and geophysical
scientists got it all wrong? <br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">C. Is it in the coral biology and the
assessment of the impacts fundamentally flawed? Have we completely
misinterpreted the meaning of the thermal events and outcomes of the past
20 years? Can we say that bleaching is trivial and will not effect
coral communities in the long term? Are the Okinawan reefs going to
repopulate within the next 2 Years? Is 19% loss every few years
trivial - how many even 1998 thermal events could reefs sustain before
corals become minor components? Can we say that adaptation over a
few years is possible (with an ever increasing stress profile)?
Have the faunal changes that occurred during the interglacial transition
been misinterpreted?<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">Remember, this is not an argument about corals
going extinct. They probably wont. It is an argument about
reef health and function. That then flows over into the meaning of
this for human users. If corals become minor components to reef
communities, can we say that the reefs they built will continue to
function as they have when they were coral dominated? <br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">I look forward to your comments and to a wider
debate among members of the coral reef community. As I have
indicated, the 1999 study was in some ways a "target" ... one
which we needed to erect rigorously and one, which, if we can destroy
scientifically, we will all rejoice (me included). I stress the
word "scientifically" - it is not enough to say you don't
believe (as I have heard from some). We must debate this in hard
scientific terms with the idea of resolving the core issues. <br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">I look forward to joining the debate on my return
from COP6 on Nov 24th<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">Best wishes,<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">Ove</font></blockquote><br>
<div>Osha Gray
Davidson Home page:
<a href="http://www.oshadavidson.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.OshaDavidson.com</a></div>
<div>14 S. Governor
St. Phone:
319-338-4778 </div>
<div>Iowa City, IA 52240</div>
USA
</html>