[Coral-List] Results of 2nd poll on bleaching
martin-pecheux at wanadoo.fr
Fri Nov 12 21:23:34 EST 2004
Here are the results of the second opinion poll on our "best guess" of
the future impact of bleaching, for every one use. There were 45
slightly less than the 56 replies of the first 2000 identical poll,
among the 1000-2000? members of the Coral-List. This is few.
Reply n°, number, %, (2000 number, %), meaning:
0-> 00, 00.00% (00, 00.00%) a benefit to coral reefs
1-> 01, 02.22% (03, 05.36%) of no overall effects, or balanced
negative and positive influences
2-> 12, 26.67% (13, 23.21%) worrisome
3-> 16, 35.56% (24, 42.86%) seriously damaging
4-> 14, 31.11% (15, 26.79%) catastrophic
5-> 02, 04.44% (01, 01.79%) almost or total disappearance of reefs
There are many caveats with such a poll, the first of which the
volontary reply, the second the degree of knowledge of mass bleaching.
However, theoritically the number of replies is enough.And the results
follow quite well a normal law (mean answer=3.09±0.92, no difference
with normal law Kolgomorov-Smirnov testp=0.00056, hand calculated). They
are very similar to the 2000 results (sorry, I do not have any more/not
yet a good stat software), with a little less "mean" opinion, and a
shift from "no effect" to "disappearance" (not of the same people!),
surely not significative: would the replies be random, the size poll
sample error is (squared root [p(1-p)/number]) for opinion 3=7.14%, and
for opinion 5=3.07%.
The validity of this poll is reinforced by the geographic distribution
of the replies, corresponding to the number of reef scientists:
15 USA, 8 Australians, 2 United Kingdom, 2 New Zealand, 1 in 8 other
countries (1 french speaker, me!), 10 from .org, .net or .com
The strincking difference with the 2000 poll was the fewer interresting
it already is at least 3.
a rather superficial approach to assessing opinion
I choise number 2. After knowing that bleached corals can recover
obtaining Clade D zooxantellae, I beleive there is some hope that a
catatrophe will not occur, but I do not stop worrying about. [remember
that for my next email, MP]
catastrophic (I thought it already was?!)
I will not object if you use a split value of 3.5 for your statistics!
[indeed there were 6 opinions between 2 replies, I split them by an half
While you have provided no time, I presume 'indefinite', about 100 yrs:
In any case, 31% for "catastrophic", 67% for "seriously
damaging"+"catastrophic" is a signal to wake up our politicals.
This time, I am not the only one with "worst guess" for reef
Dr. Martin Pêcheux, Scientific Consultant/IPCC
Large Foraminifer Institute
3, allée des Elfes, 94260 Fresnes, France
Phone: +33 1 4237 4196
martin-pecheux at wanadoo.fr
Publications at www.reefbase.org/* , Author=Pecheux (without ^)
L'homme descend du singe, la preuve, c'est qu'il croit en dieu.
Human' origin is monkey, proof the belief in god.
Nosotros descendemos de los monos, prueba se cree en dios.
Mannschaft stammen von Affe, Beweis gott glaube.
More information about the Coral-List