[Coral-List] RESULTS OF OPINION POLL ON BLEACHING IMPACT

[martin pecheux]

Hello dear Obura,

Did you remember our conversation ? I don't know on what and where, around Panama ICRS.

No, you don't stick in the mud; "no kidding, stupid questions are the most welcome" likes to say my late Pr. L. Hottinger, Geol Inst, Basel. But the question of using it is not stupid.
In fact, it is free for anyone to use it as it wants, I guess me included. Now quoting Coral-list archives I suppose, and in ~8 months with a new round, printed in Reef Encounter for all scientists. I never imaging that in 2000 poll, however thinking of periodic  ones. One graphic at IGRS can be done, is what you mean as tool ?.

For the time scale, I know that there is question. The answer of Alan Strong is indeed pertinent. For the beginning, I think for "future"; if catastrophic or almost/total disappearance, the time scale is previous five mass extinctions, not at Paleocene Eocene Thermal Event (CO2, perhaps CH4, >=+4°C but on rise of 10-20 000 years), K/T boundary, of course impact - local -, nuclear winter (large forums survive badly but living, to months of darkness), but long, >10kyr (?) CO2 world with strong reduction of coral species, and all large forums dead, all but 2(-15 ?) planktonic ones. But I know that not all people project onto geological time scale. So the longer the better, so no precision was given in the poll.

About transparency and reporting abstentions (how ?) NO, YOU ARE WRONG. The statistical theory is straight. Every day commercial and political opinion polls never report it, an of course. As said, the poll sample error is independent of the size of the panel, and it is calculated only from the proportion p and the absolute number of responses n. Just like picking from a bag black or white balls. Demonstration : the error is high for catastrophic reply, 40%±14% (n=12) and disappearance one, 12%±17% (n=3.5), but pooled to "catastrophic or more", 51.7% (n=15.5), the poll sample error is only 4.0%. Believe elections. I was very impressed by this last result.

Dr. Martin Pêcheux
    IPCC 2007 ( so Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore ! for not so much)
    IPCC 2013 WG I (Science of Climate Change), 2014 WG II (Impact, Adaptation and 
    Vulnerability) 2014 WG III (Mitigation) Expert Reviewer (better, I write badly, indeed)
    Coming IPBES (Intergovernemental Plateform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)
Institut des Foraminifères Symbiotiques
16, rue de la Fontaine de l'Espérance, 92160 Antony, France
martin.pecheux at free.fr, soon www.martin-pecheux.fr, +33 (0)9 5324 3374

Le 20 déc. 2011 à 07:41, David Obura a écrit :

> Hi Martin, all,
> 
> I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but it looks like you are going to use this poll as some sort of meaningful measure of the opinions of 'coral reef scientists' in some way. It was not clear from your initial email, nor were the questions so clear in terms of their time scale, as pointed out by an immediate response. 
> 
> For transparency you should note the number of 'abstentions' from the poll, recorded for me here. In my case it reflects a sense of low credibility of the poll, and it is always best NOT to participate in a poorly designed and presented survey!! 
> 
> I'd hate to block up coral list with the 100s of other responses it would take record this figure, so perhaps you should request other listers to record their abstentions directly to you, and you should present this number at ICRS too!
> 
> regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> CORDIO East Africa
> #9 Kibaki Flats, Kenyatta Beach, Bamburi Beach
> P.O.BOX 10135 Mombasa 80101, Kenya
> www.cordioea.org       //      www.iucn.org/cccr
> Mobile: +254-715 067417
> Email: dobura at cordioea.org; davidobura at gmail.com
> Skype dobura
> 
> On 19 Dec 2011, at 17:49, coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov wrote:
> 
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:37:07 +0100
>> From: martin pecheux <martin.pecheux at free.fr>
>> Subject: [Coral-List] RESULTS OF OPINION POLL ON BLEACHING IMPACT
>> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> Message-ID: <F56A2701-8949-460C-95AA-DC95C2B5BDB8 at free.fr>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=windows-1252
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> And the winner is: Dr Gert Jan Gast, first at 08/12/11 13:30:36 HNEC (HNEC ?).
>> 
>> RESULTS BELOW
>> 
>> Thanks to those who answered. Indeed, there was less answers than in 2000 and 2004, only 31 (29 replies which were meaningful, plus mine).  There was a computer failure (PS 1), as seen in geographical distribution. However, it is still rather informative, even with increasing error margin.
>> 
>> 
>> To publish the results as one ask, I see nowhere else than in Reef Encounter, but I have already a submission. And to get more reliable data, I think to send another poll, one or two monthes after the 12th ICRS, perhaps to see evolution (change of paradigm) and to have a statistical software (PS 2), to be submited thereafter.
>> 
>> Geographical distribution of replies of known origin is 3 Europeans, 11 US plus 4 Caribeans, 1 Hawa?an and 1 Australian. In the previous polls, there were half from US and a quarter from Australia, so probably something wrong. There were 7 .net, .org, .com, as before, and 10 .gmail !! (google sponsoring).
>> 
>> Comments where clearly less numerosous in 2004 than in 2000. This time, they are almost lacking. In any case, we don't have to be silent against Global Change.
>> 
>> One says "catastrophic for solar flares in two years but recovery after", a pity not counted. Another says at long that the poll was skewed toward negative questions, better to laugh.
>> 
>> One says "worrysome for managed areas, catastrophic otherwise", that I absolutely don't believe but count 0.5 in the two categories. Nancy Knoltown says "4 if not more", I counted 4. Alan Strong says (pertinent) "1 tomorrow, 2 next year, 3 next decade 4 next century", I counted 4 albeit I am asking for millenium, for future.
>> 
>> I am confident that the coral-list joins the best reef experts (as they bear this professional list, indeed >9/10 to trash, but there are jewels).
>> 
>> 
>> Results
>> 
>> Number of replies with % on 30 opinions (2004 results on 45 ones) (2000 results on 56)
>> 
>> Would you say that Coral Reef Mass Bleaching will be :
>> 
>> A benefit to coral reefs, reply 0
>> 
>> 00, 00% (00, 00%)   (00, 00%) I love
>> 
>> Of no overall effects, or balanced negative and positive influences , reply 1
>> 
>> 00, 00% (01, 02%)   (03, 05%)
>> 
>> Worrisome, reply 2
>> 
>> 3.5, 12% (12, 27%)   (13, 23%)
>> 
>> Seriously damaging , reply 3
>> 
>> 11, 37% (16, 36% )  (24, 43%)
>> 
>> Catastrophic, reply 4
>> 
>> 12, 40% (14, 31% )  (15, 27%)
>> 
>> Almost or total disappearance of reefs, reply 5
>> 
>> 3.5, 12% (02, 04%)   (01, 02%)
>> 
>> Distributions are normal. There is a greater shift to higher danger: no one states now for balanced effects, half less for worrysome, growing to 40%?14% for catastrophic, and a minority but now weighing 12%?17% for diseappearance (one in 2000 ? me, I am proud -, two in 2004, 3.5+ now). Next time, I will split in two this reply, between almost or total disappearance. The poll sample error is squared root [p(1-p)/n], independant of the size of the panel.
>> 
>> 
>> It is terrifying that 51.7%?4.0% of reef specialists think that the effects of mass bleaching on reefs will be catastrophic or worst.
>> 
>> See you at the 12th ICRS, kindly,
>> 
>> Martin P?cheux
>> 
>> PS 1. Problem of computer transmissions. I had, and still have small risky problems to send email. But in a while after having send the poll question, a danger symbol appeared at my email receiving window. It was a disaster, help from the hot line, the symbol disappeared alone, but I did not receive any more reply. And one-two day later, Jim Hendee manager of Coral List apologizes for serveur problems of the coral list.
>> 
>> 
>> PS 2. I was an user of Statview, above all very interactive. It don't exist any more on "modern" computer generation, and impossible to emulate. Do you have an advice for a cheap but handy statistical software, no needed of sophisticated functions ?
>> 
>> Dr. Martin P?cheux
>> 
>> IPCC 2007, 2013 WG I (Science of Climate Change), WG II (Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability) Expert Reviewer (I write very badly, and in French not better)
>> Institut des Foraminif?res Symbiotiques
>> 16, rue de la Fontaine de l'Esp?rance
>> 92160 Antony, France
>> martin.pecheux at free.fr
>> soon www.martin-pecheux.fr
>> +33 (0)9 5324 3374
> 
>