[Coral-List] Reassessing Coral Reef Scientists
Douglas Fenner
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Wed Apr 15 00:01:53 EDT 2015
For the Chowdhury article, just check Google Scholar.
Cheers, Doug
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Douglas Fenner <
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dennis,
> Thanks for this! I had read that there were some surprising regional
> differences in the rate of sea level rise. Initially, that didn't make any
> sense to me. If I remember, there has been a lot of sea level rise on the
> US east coast. Thinking about it, I think sea level has to be isostatic.
> So, for instance, tiny perturbations in sea level can reveal hidden
> seamounts that add just enough gravitational pull, to very slightly
> increase the sea level over them. A very small effect that can be detected
> by satellites to map the unseen sea floor, but one that won't change over
> our lifetimes. Another effect is shifting wind patterns, that push water
> west in the Pacific in some periods, but not others, leading to changes in
> sea levels of up to about 20 cm I believe. These wind changes in the
> Pacific tend to happen during El Nino periods, as documented by Chowdhury
> et al, 2007. Very ephemeral event, happens over periods of months. But
> fully capable of killing corals on shallow reef flats. Still another is
> due to differences in the water itself. If there is slightly warmer water
> somewhere in the water column in one area, that water expands, lifting the
> surface water. But, correct me if I'm wrong, that water remains isostatic,
> so it doesn't flatten out quickly, like it would if water was suddenly
> added to the area. This could happen, say, if on the Antarctic coast,
> water was not quite as cold as normal, say, one degree warmer. Water there
> is more saline and colder than elsewhere, so it sinks, then spreads as a
> deep water layer northward in the oceans. Antarctic deep water, or some
> such name. If it is slightly warmer, that layer could lift the surface
> slightly, and it could stay that way as long as the deep water layer stays
> there and stays warmer. Converse for cooler water. I think it is the case
> that these could stay for at least years, if not decades or longer.
> Thanks for pointing this out and reminding us.
> My own guess is that the increase in coral cover on shallow reef
> flats, which is documented in two studies so far and fits with logic and
> observation, that coral that grows faster than the reef and grows faster
> than current sea level rise, some of it growing very fast, and between the
> lowest tides from one year to the next can grow high enough that when the
> lowest tides happen, exposure kills the exposed fast growing coral. (By
> the way, I think sea level was rising at 3 mm a year during the period that
> data was taken in both of those two papers I referred to, so it can happen
> in spite of current sea level rise.) That means that the live coral cover
> that fast growing species provides (which is likely to be a small part of
> all coral cover and even a smaller portion of all cover on the reef flat),
> will go up and down over the course of a year or a few years, as the two
> published studies I referred to document, and as I have personally seen. I
> think that means that the variability in coral cover on reef flats varies
> over time enough that will make it harder to detect any effect of overall
> increasing coral cover due to increasing depths. (I also suspect there are
> rather few coral cover baselines on reef flats around the world, most reef
> scientists don't seem to consider them important and study reef slopes
> instead. It is true that they can be hard to access on snorkel since you
> get bashed by waves at high tide, and walking around at low tide your eyes
> are farther from the reef and tapes can be pulled or ripped by waves, etc
> etc. Not an easy place to work.) That and the fact that you point out
> that sea level in different places is likely to be going up and down,
> faster or slower, over time scales of at least years if not decades or
> longer. I agree with you that over the long haul, sea level rise has to be
> the same at all locations, if it should end up being an average of 60 cm
> higher in 2100, it could be 60 cm + the current local effects of these warm
> bulges in one place, and 60 cm - effects of cold bulges another place, but
> they will all average out to 60 cm. Plus any effects of changing wind
> patterns. That kind of variability will make it even more difficult to
> detect the effect I was predicting.
> Add to that, what I've always said along. The sea level is rising
> only 3 mm a year now, and within 3-4 decades or less, it is highly likely
> mass coral bleaching will be killing lots of coral. Almost surely not all
> coral, because not all corals are equally sensitive, and because corals
> have been demonstrated to be able to acclimate and/or adapt at least some..
> But coral cover is highly likely to go down, especially during the big
> events like the 1998 El Nino. In 40 years, at 3 mm rise a year, that's a
> total of 120 mm or just 12 cm rise. Spread out over 4 decades. I think
> likely the effect I was predicting will be very small at any one point in
> time, because some corals grow much faster than the sea level rise, and get
> killed back all the time. Maybe slower growing corals like massive
> *Porites* will show it better, since they won't be growing so much faster
> than the sea level. That's so many variables that it would likely take a
> quantitative model to find out what is most likely to happen.
> Net effect, is that while I predicted a positive effect on coral
> cover on shallow reef flats, I think it is going to be hard to detect, and
> be ephemeral, lasting at most a few decades.
> There is no way that this effect I predicted is going to save reefs
> or negate the effects of high temperatures or acidification, or anything
> like that. It will surely be a tiny blip, if anything. But it is a
> positive prediction based on what we know about coral growth rates, what
> limits coral growth on reef flats, and rising sea levels. I think people
> have been inclined to dismiss it out of hand, because it is a possible, if
> tiny, positive effect of climate change.
> Cheers, Doug
>
> Chowdhury, M.R., Chu, P-S., Schroeder, T. 2007. ENSO and seasonal
> sea-level variability - a diagnostic discussion for the U.S.-affiliated
> Pacific Islands. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 88: 213-224.
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Dennis Hubbard <
> dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug:
>>
>> I didn't want to just go dark, but it's the time of year when student
>> theses, end-of-year chair duties and all those other fun parts of academia
>> get superimposed. So, I'll have to get back to you when I'm out of the
>> weeds.Actually, Lucien and a few of us have been discussing this quite a
>> lot over the past 18 months. The one outlier that we weren't aware of is
>> the new Topex-Poseidon data show that sea level is rising at very different
>> rates in different places for reasons having nothing to do with subsidence,
>> tectonics or the usual cast of characters for regional differences in SL
>> rise on a scale of centuries to millennia. Near Australia, it's going up at
>> ca 10 mm/yr while in other places it is actually dropping. What seems to be
>> emerging is a relationship with ENSO like cycles that operate over scales
>> of decades to perhaps 60 years. Obviously, sea level can't continue to rise
>> at these differential rates indefinitely or else we're going to see people
>> water skiing without boats from Australia to the US on the resulting
>> water-surface slope.
>>
>> So..... if these areas of "winners" and :losers" are ephemeral and
>> operate on time scales of several decades, that's going to mean that all
>> those new corals on GBR reef flats (IF SL rise does encourage coral
>> recruitment or survival) are going to get whacked when SL starts dropping
>> on the GBR and rising across the pond. I don't claim to understand the
>> dynamics, but it seems inescapable that what goes up must come down - and
>> if there are places where SL is rising faster (and presumably there are
>> fewer low tides) over the next two decades, they are in for a big
>> disappointment down the line. I'm hoping that somewhere the modelers can
>> give us a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the periodicity and amplitude
>> of these excursions. In the meantime, it seems like trying to extrapolate
>> from what we're seeing on a decadal scale to even a few centuries ignore
>> the likelihood that the variability is going to totally swamp the success
>> rate in the longer run. So, unless we're going to open a market for "coral
>> futures", these short-term patterns are not going to be helpful. I can't
>> even begin to predict what the magnitude of these might be, but from what
>> little I've read these patterns we're just beginning to see may end up
>> being the critical piece of the puzzle.
>>
>> I wish I had a better answer,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Douglas Fenner <
>> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis,
>>> I agree with much of what you say. I was very unspecific about
>>> what I meant by reef flat, sorry. I was thinking of reef flats that are
>>> very close to the lowest tide levels of the year. I agree that corals 2-3
>>> m deep can grow without being limited by exposure to air at low tides.
>>> I was trying to make the point that on reef flats that shallow, any
>>> corals that grow above the level of the lowest tides of the year will be
>>> killed by exposure during those low tides. They can grow higher than that
>>> the rest of the year, but will be killed by exposure to air by the lowest
>>> tides. Low tides limit the growth of corals on reef flats, that is for
>>> sure, corals die in air (though they can last for perhaps a few hours at
>>> most in air).
>>> The two papers I referred to document that when there are longer
>>> periods without the lowest tides, coral cover increases on these shallow
>>> reef flats. That makes sense to me, because when the lowest tide occur,
>>> they kill corals that have grown too high. Most of us would see increased
>>> coral cover as a good thing, and these two papers plus the observation of
>>> low tides killing corals on the reef flat, indicate that sea level rise
>>> will lead to increased live coral cover on shallow reef flats. Actually,
>>> if the reef flats don't grow upward at all, the effect should be larger
>>> than if the reef flats do grow upward, since the water will be deeper as
>>> sea level rises, and thus there will be more room for corals to grow. That
>>> might well lead to more coral cover on shallow reef flats than would be the
>>> case if the reef flats grow upward. But the more live coral there is on
>>> the reef flat, the faster the reef flat should be able to grow upward I
>>> would think, since the corals are the fastest growing calcifiers on the
>>> reef flat, the more corals the faster the reef flat would grow upward, I
>>> would think. I don't know if that's been documented.
>>> I don't know how many reefs will manage to keep up with sea level
>>> rise. The article I read on reef growth rates, Montaggioni, 2005, says
>>> that average growth of catch-up reefs is 3-4 mm a year, and the average
>>> growth of keep-up reefs is 6 mm a year. Reefs with flats near the water
>>> surface presently would be considered keep-up reefs I would think, and thus
>>> reefs with shallow reef flats would be predicted to grow upward at an
>>> average of 6 mm a year, twice the present rate of sea level rise. That is,
>>> if Montaggioni's review of the evidence is correct. Those figures can't
>>> apply to reef flats, or else during periods of stable sea level, the reef
>>> flat would grow up into the air. Surely they apply only to reef areas
>>> below low tide level. I believe that he says that there is considerable
>>> variation between reefs in the rate that they grow, the 6 mm is only an
>>> average. So a minority of keep-up reefs would grow at less than 3 mm a
>>> year. Corals can clearly grow much faster than both sea level rise and the
>>> average rate of growth of a reef. Staghorns can grow 100 mm or more a year
>>> on their branch tips, massive Porites grow around 5-10 mm a year, but
>>> encrusting corals probably add very little to their thickness in a year..
>>> So it does make a big difference which kind of coral. If most corals on
>>> reef flats can grow faster than present sea level rise, my guess is that
>>> higher coral cover with deepening water will lead to a faster reef growth
>>> rate. But if such an effect exists, I don't know how big it might be, I
>>> don't know how much faster the reef flat could grow upward, though I'd
>>> predict that would depend on how much coral cover there is, and how fast
>>> that coral grows. Local human impacts are indeed likely to slow coral and
>>> reef growth I would think, but there are lots of atolls with no people, and
>>> the longest fringing reef in the world, Ningaloo Reef, on the west coast of
>>> Australia, has almost no human impacts and the coast is a desert so little
>>> if any runoff.
>>> But my main point that rising sea levels will lead to more coral
>>> cover on reef flats is supported by those two articles.
>>> Coral growth is encouraged by water motion, up to the point at which
>>> skeletons start to break. Most of the energy of a wave is dissipated where
>>> the wave breaks, which is usually on the crest. Thus, reef flats receive
>>> much less wave energy than the crest, and don't have the concussion from
>>> the falling wave, which I've read is the strongest force breaking
>>> skeletons. For reefs with coral on the crest, increasing wave action on
>>> the reef flat should be good for corals, unless they are on unstable
>>> substrate such as rubble. For reefs with only coralline algae on the
>>> crest, it might be that waves on the reef flat will break corals during the
>>> heaviest wave periods, such as during storms. So for those reefs, I don't
>>> know what the net effect would be. Could be that deeper water would allow
>>> more coral growth between storms, but storms would break the coral. But
>>> for reefs with corals on the crest, increasing waves on the reef flat
>>> should help coral growth there. Unless it is along a coast with lots of
>>> terrestrial sediment, which a good number of reefs have, but other reefs
>>> like atolls and Ningaloo Reef don't have.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Doug
>>>
>>> Montaggioni, L.F. 2005. History of Indo-Pacific coral reef systems since
>>> the last glaciation: Development patterns and controlling factors.
>>> Earth-Science Reviews 71: 1-75.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Dennis Hubbard <
>>> dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Doug, Regarding your comments on SL rise, this conflates coral
>>>> growth and reef building. The work of Peter Davies, David Hopley and others
>>>> clearly showed that these reef flats broadened after reef caught up with
>>>> slowed (actually stable or falling) sea level after 8 CalBP. The reefs
>>>> built at their fastest rates after initial start-up, but it is unclear
>>>> whether this was a response of faster sea-level rise or just the background
>>>> accretion rate. In the Caribbean, it is clear that reefs in 20+ m of water
>>>> build just as fast as those in 2-5 m of water. Our preliminary analyses of
>>>> other data suggest that this is mimicked in other oceans. To me, the fact
>>>> that the depth-related patterns of coral growth is not mirrored by reef
>>>> building suggests that coral growth is a very poor proxy for what will
>>>> happen as accelerating sea level opens up accommodation space atop reef
>>>> flats. Very careful and thoughtful studies have shown that even 20 cm of
>>>> freeboard atop the reef crest can more than double the wave energy normally
>>>> filtered by the reef. Also, increased storm intensity will dramatically
>>>> increase export from the ref proper (either across the reef flat in the GBS
>>>> and the Indo-Pacific or down-slope in the Caribbean. Reef building is a
>>>> complex process and coral growth, while providing the building blocks, is a
>>>> very small part of the total budget. Existing data on reef building
>>>> suggests that the present rate of sea-level rise is faster than the
>>>> Holocene accretion rates of more than half of the reefs where coring has
>>>> occurred (and this was with plenty of available accommodation space). Also,
>>>> we must remember that this was at a time before *Homo stupidus* was
>>>> providing the myriad stresses that are common today. To me, it is not
>>>> comforting to realize that so many reefs are already lagginf behind is the
>>>> most optimistic picture available.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Dennis
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Douglas Fenner <
>>>> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't notice the date of the article, Feb. 2012, initially, it
>>>>> is in
>>>>> such small, light print. This article is not recent news. Thanks to
>>>>> everybody for pointing out the article it was based on, and the
>>>>> informative
>>>>> comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> My take on the Cooper 2012 Science article is that decreases in the
>>>>> rate of calcification had been reported in a previous paper based on
>>>>> GBR
>>>>> (Great Barrier Reef) data, and there had been speculation that it could
>>>>> indicate that acidification had begun to slow coral growth. But the
>>>>> Cooper
>>>>> paper found that on the west coast of Australia, calcification had
>>>>> increased along with increasing temperatures, and increased most in the
>>>>> south where temperatures were lower and the increase greater. So they
>>>>> conclude that the dominant effect at this point is the effect of
>>>>> warming
>>>>> temperatures, because increasing temperatures strongly increase the
>>>>> rate of
>>>>> calcification (and linear extension, the main contributor to
>>>>> calcification). They explain the GBR result as likely being due to
>>>>> the GBR
>>>>> having reached higher temperatures at which growth may begin to slow,
>>>>> or
>>>>> due to decreased growth there due to bleaching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Articles have previously documented that massive *Porites* corals
>>>>> growth
>>>>>
>>>>> rate increases with temperature. Such as in:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lough, J.M. 2008. Coral calcification from skeletal records
>>>>> revisited.
>>>>> Marine Ecology Progress Series 373: 257-264. Figure 2b shows skeletal
>>>>> extension rate increasing with increasing temperature. Figure 2a shows
>>>>> skeletal density decreasing with increasing temperature, and Figure 2c
>>>>> shows calcification increasing with temperature. The range of annual
>>>>> average sea temperature was 23-29.5 C.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v373/p257-264/ open access
>>>>>
>>>>> People do tend to assume that all effects of climate change and global
>>>>> warming will be negative. Not true, I would argue. For instance,
>>>>> melting
>>>>> Arctic sea ice will make ship navigation there possible, with likely
>>>>> economic benefits. It may also make drilling for oil in the Arctic
>>>>> ocean
>>>>> easier, with all of the possible effects on economics and the
>>>>> environment.
>>>>> Also, people often say that rising sea levels will hurt reefs. Indeed,
>>>>> where there are soft terrestrial sediments, increased wave action due
>>>>> to
>>>>> less friction with the substrate in the deeper water on reef flats will
>>>>> mobilize sediment and negatively impact corals. But where there is no
>>>>> such
>>>>> sediment, like on atolls, more water depth allows more coral growth on
>>>>> reef
>>>>> flats. There are a lot of atolls, and reef flats around the world have
>>>>> about 6 times the area of reef slopes, so that's not a minor
>>>>> consideration,
>>>>> though sea level rise of 3 mm a year is way slower than most corals can
>>>>> grow, so corals will likely hit the surface and be limited anyhow.
>>>>> Plus,
>>>>> once mass coral bleaching kills them, they won't be growing any more.
>>>>> So a
>>>>> temporary positive effect. References listed at the end of this
>>>>> message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another paper adds some perspective:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wooldridge, S. A. 2014. Assessing coral health and resilience in a
>>>>> warming ocean: why looks can be deceptive. BioEssays 36(11):
>>>>> 1041-1049.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201400074/abstract
>>>>> (not
>>>>> open access, click on "author information" to get the author's email
>>>>> address)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He writes in the abstract, "In this paper I challenge the notion that a
>>>>> healthy and resilient coral is (in all cases) a fast-growing coral,
>>>>> and by
>>>>> inference, that a reef characterised by a fast trajectory toward high
>>>>> coral
>>>>> cover is necessarily a healthy and resilient reef." and "Moreover, it
>>>>> explains the somewhat
>>>>>
>>>>> paradoxical scenario, whereby at the ecological instant before the
>>>>> reef-building capacity of the symbiosis is lost, a reef can look
>>>>> visually
>>>>> at its best and be accreting CaCO3 at its maximum."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, I believe it is the case with most poikilothermic or
>>>>> ectodermic
>>>>> animals, that as temperature rises, metabolism increases, gradually and
>>>>> reversibly, up to a point. Above that point, it decreases,
>>>>> precipitously
>>>>> and irreversibly. Corals are no different. The two processes are
>>>>> quite
>>>>> different, the precipitous drop at high temperatures is due to the
>>>>> denaturing of proteins primarily, I would think, and it leads to
>>>>> death. In
>>>>> other words, for any animal, indeed any organism, if the temperatures
>>>>> gets
>>>>> too high, they get cooked and die.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So increasing temperatures seem great, but beyond a certain point are
>>>>> lethal. The problem for corals is that in many places, they live
>>>>> close to
>>>>> their upper thermal limit in the summer, and global temperatures are
>>>>> increasing. In places where they live well below their thermal
>>>>> maximum,
>>>>> temperature increases may not be a threat, and increase growth rates,
>>>>> which
>>>>> seems good. Mind you, much of the threat doesn't come directly from
>>>>> gradually increasing temperatures, it comes from hot water events,
>>>>> such as
>>>>> the 1998 El Nino event that killed about 16% of the world's corals.
>>>>> Such
>>>>> events can push even corals in cooler water over their limits, since
>>>>> their
>>>>> limits tend to be lower, usually just a couple degrees above the local
>>>>> mean
>>>>> summer high temperature. Janice Lough tells me that the corals on the
>>>>> west
>>>>> coast of Australia bleached in 2011, 1-2 years after they collected
>>>>> their
>>>>> coral cores. The high temperature of El Nino events and the like, are
>>>>> on
>>>>> top of the gradually warming baseline, so as the baseline goes up, the
>>>>> peak
>>>>> event temperatures go up as well (though they vary greatly depending
>>>>> on the
>>>>> strength of the El Nino) and thus likely the damage. If I remember,
>>>>> the
>>>>> maps of where coral bleaching on the GBR occurred in the major events
>>>>> of
>>>>> 1998 and 2002, didn't show that they only bleached at the northern end,
>>>>> they bleached at the southern end too (where average water
>>>>> temperatures are
>>>>> lower). In fact, they bleached more at the southern end than the
>>>>> northern
>>>>> end, judging from Fig. 2 in the following article:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Berkelmans, R., De’ath, G., Kininmonth, S. & Skirving,W. J. 2004 A
>>>>> comparison of the 1998 and 2002 coral bleaching events on the Great
>>>>> Barrier
>>>>> Reef: spatial correlation, patterns and predictions. Coral Reefs 23,
>>>>> 74–83.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Cooper paper says in the next to last paragraph that "The
>>>>> influence of ocean acidification is expected to occur first at higher
>>>>> latitudes that inherently have lower seawater saturation states with
>>>>> respect to
>>>>>
>>>>> carbonate minerals due to their increased solubility at lower water
>>>>> temperatures (10, 30)."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The following paper predicts that while bleaching will degrade corals
>>>>> in
>>>>> the future mainly at low latitudes, acidification will degrade them at
>>>>> high
>>>>> latitudes, and so there is no latitude that offers a refuge from
>>>>> climate
>>>>> change:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> van Hooidonk R, Maynard JA, Manzello D, Planes S (2014) Opposite
>>>>> latitudinal gradients in projected ocean acidification and bleaching
>>>>> impacts on coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 20, 103–112.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12394/abstract Not
>>>>> open
>>>>> access, but click on author information for the author's email address.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Doug
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fenner, D. 2012. Reef flat growth: comment on “Rising sea level may
>>>>> cause
>>>>> decline of fringing coral reefs.” EOS 93 (23): 218.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brown, B. E., R. P. Dunne, N. Phongsuwan, and P. J. Somerfield (2011),
>>>>> Increased sea level promotes coral cover on shallow reef flats in the
>>>>> Andaman Sea, eastern Indian Ocean, Coral Reefs, 30, 867–878.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scopélitis, J., S. Andréfouët, S. Phinn, T. Done, and P. Chabanet
>>>>> (2011),
>>>>> Coral colonization of a shallow reef flat in response to rising sea
>>>>> level:
>>>>> Quantification from 35 years of remote sensing data at Heron Island,
>>>>> Australia, Coral Reefs, 30, 951–965.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vecsei, A. 2004. A new estimate of global reefal carbonate production
>>>>> including the fore-reefs. Global and Planetary Change 43:1-18.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Listers, Here is a report of work done by coral scientists in
>>>>> Australia
>>>>> > readers might want to reassess. Gene
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/study-finds-coral-reef-growth-thrives-in-warmer-waters/story-e6frg8y6-1226261278615
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>>>>> > ------------------------------------
>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>> > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>>>>> > University of South Florida
>>>>> > College of Marine Science Room 221A
>>>>> > 140 Seventh Avenue South
>>>>> > St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>>>> > <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>>>> > Tel 727 553-1158
>>>>> > ----------------------------------
>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Greg Challenger <
>>>>> GChallenger at polarisappliedsciences.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Below is a link to the paper. I don't believe there is any longer
>>>>> any
>>>>> > doubt that media outlets have agendas on all sides.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The researchers found both decreases and increases in Porites growth
>>>>> with
>>>>> > no widespread pattern. They did find contradictory evidence of
>>>>> increasing
>>>>> > growth in higher latitudes. I didn't get into the power or
>>>>> significance.
>>>>> > It is not shocking to learn that ranges can change as a result of
>>>>> physical
>>>>> > forcing, even if contradictory. The study involves one size class
>>>>> of a
>>>>> > single species (Porites) and doesn't speak to diversity as far as
>>>>> can be
>>>>> > discerned from the abstract. As always, there are likely winners
>>>>> and
>>>>> > losers when it comes to change. It doesn't surprise me that massive
>>>>> > Porites lobata may be doing well because we find it in the most
>>>>> polluted of
>>>>> > industrial harbors doing quite well throughout the Indo-Pacific and
>>>>> Red
>>>>> > Sea. There was an in situ test (accident) that I cannot mention that
>>>>> > removed oxygen from a certain harbor for a number of days and many
>>>>> members
>>>>> > of this species survived while some others did not.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > One of the better Elkhorn Stands I have seen in recent years in the
>>>>> > Caribbean was recently removed from the entrance of Kingston Harbor
>>>>> to make
>>>>> > way for Post Panamex Vessels in some of the dirtier water I care to
>>>>> swim
>>>>> > in, while some of the most recently devastated elkhorn I have seen
>>>>> was 100
>>>>> > miles offshore in the Silver Banks, D.R., both within the past few
>>>>> years.
>>>>> > I'm not sure we've got our fingers on the pulse of this thing,
>>>>> which
>>>>> > makes it more challenging to convey a sense of urgency to the
>>>>> public. I
>>>>> > usually ask for examples of positive ecological outcomes from
>>>>> unintended
>>>>> > consequences of man and then I might worry less. I'm still waiting
>>>>> for
>>>>> > some of those examples.
>>>>> > ____________________________
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Growth of Western Australian Corals in the Anthropocene, Science 3
>>>>> > February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6068 pp. 593-596. DOI:
>>>>> 10.1126/science.1214570
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Read more at:
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://phys.org/news/2012-02-coral-growth-western-australia-warmer.html#jCp
>>>>> > -
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Abstract
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Anthropogenic increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide lead to warmer
>>>>> sea
>>>>> > surface temperatures and altered ocean chemistry. Experimental
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> > suggests that coral calcification decreases as aragonite saturation
>>>>> drops
>>>>> > but increases as temperatures rise toward thresholds optimal for
>>>>> coral
>>>>> > growth. In situ studies have documented alarming recent declines in
>>>>> > calcification rates on several tropical coral reef ecosystems. We
>>>>> show
>>>>> > there is no widespread pattern of consistent decline in
>>>>> calcification rates
>>>>> > of massive Porites during the 20th century on reefs spanning an 11°
>>>>> > latitudinal range in the southeast Indian Ocean off Western
>>>>> Australia.
>>>>> > Increasing calcification rates on the high-latitude reefs contrast
>>>>> with the
>>>>> > downward trajectory reported for corals on Australia's Great Barrier
>>>>> Reef
>>>>> > and provide additional evidence that recent changes in coral
>>>>> calcification
>>>>> > are responses to temperature rather than ocean acidification.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:
>>>>> > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Tim
>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 7:49 AM
>>>>> > To: Eugene Shinn
>>>>> > Cc: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> list
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Reassessing Coral Reef Scientists
>>>>> >
>>>>> > .......more on "The Australian" newspaper.....
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Instead of engaging their vast resources to help finance genuine
>>>>> marine
>>>>> > research, and using some of their influence to drive corporate
>>>>> > accountability, particularly in "developing" economies, the paper
>>>>> > specialises in selective editing of scientific papers and peddling
>>>>> their
>>>>> > own business agenda.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Some of us familiar with the Maldives, take exception to News Corp
>>>>> > chairman Rupert Murdoch's disheartening comments at the newspaper's
>>>>> 50th
>>>>> > anniversary last year.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > He said climate change should be treated with "much scepticism".
>>>>> > If the temperature rises 3 degrees in 100 years, "at the very most
>>>>> one of
>>>>> > those [degrees] would be man-made," he said.
>>>>> > "If the sea level rises six inches, that's a big deal in the world,
>>>>> the
>>>>> > Maldives might disappear or something, but OK, we can't mitigate
>>>>> that, we
>>>>> > can't stop it, we have to stop building vast houses on seashores".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Perhaps we should all give up, like drowned reefs, on reading his
>>>>> > papers......
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fight-climate-change-by-building-away-from-sea-rupert-murdoch-20140713-zt66s.html#ixzz37oiOo25z
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 8 Apr 2015, at 16:31, Osmar Luiz wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > For those who were not familiar with "The Australian" newspaper
>>>>> points
>>>>> > of view and its strong right-wing trend, some quotes below from The
>>>>> > Wilkpedia...
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > According to other commentators, however, the newspaper "is
>>>>> generally
>>>>> > > conservative in tone and heavily oriented toward business; it has a
>>>>> > > range of columnists of varying political persuasions but mostly to
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > right."[9] Its former editor Paul Kelly has stated that "The
>>>>> > > Australian has established itself in the marketplace as a newspaper
>>>>> > > that strongly supports economic libertarianism".[10]
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > In September 2010, the ABC's Media Watch presenter Paul Barry,
>>>>> accused
>>>>> > > The Australian of waging a campaign against the Australian Greens,
>>>>> and
>>>>> > > the Green's federal leader Bob Brown wrote that The Australian has
>>>>> > > "stepped out of the fourth estate by seeing itself as a
>>>>> determinant of
>>>>> > > democracy in Australia". In response, The Australian opined that
>>>>> > > "Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to
>>>>> wreck
>>>>> > > the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown's
>>>>> > > criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are
>>>>> > > hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should
>>>>> be
>>>>> > > destroyed at the ballot box."[12]
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On 8 Apr 2015, at 6:46 am, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> Listers, Here is a report of work done by coral scientists in
>>>>> > >> Australia readers might want to reassess. Gene
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/study-finds-coral
>>>>> > >> -reef-growth-thrives-in-warmer-waters/story-e6frg8y6-1226261278615
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> --
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>>>>> > >> ------------------------------------
>>>>> > >> -----------------------------------
>>>>> > >> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>>>>> > >> University of South Florida
>>>>> > >> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>>>>> > >> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>>>>> > >> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>>>> > >> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>>>> > >> Tel 727 553-1158
>>>>> > >> ----------------------------------
>>>>> > >> -----------------------------------
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> > >> Coral-List mailing list
>>>>> > >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>>>> > >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > Coral-List mailing list
>>>>> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>>>> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Coral-List mailing list
>>>>> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>>>> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Coral-List mailing list
>>>>> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>>>> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Douglas Fenner
>>>>> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
>>>>> PO Box 7390
>>>>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
>>>>>
>>>>> phone 1 684 622-7084
>>>>>
>>>>> "belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
>>>>>
>>>>> Politics, science, and public attitudes: What we're learning, and why
>>>>> it
>>>>> matters. Science Insider, open access.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learning-and-why-it-matters?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email
>>>>>
>>>>> Homeopathy ineffective, study confirms.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2015/03/homeopathy-ineffective-study-confirms
>>>>>
>>>>> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
>>>>>
>>>>> blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dennis Hubbard
>>>> Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
>>>> (440) 775-8346
>>>>
>>>> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
>>>> Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Douglas Fenner
>>> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
>>> PO Box 7390
>>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
>>>
>>> phone 1 684 622-7084
>>>
>>> "belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
>>>
>>> Politics, science, and public attitudes: What we're learning, and why it
>>> matters. Science Insider, open access.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learning-and-why-it-matters?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email
>>>
>>> Homeopathy ineffective, study confirms.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2015/03/homeopathy-ineffective-study-confirms
>>>
>>> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
>>>
>>> blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Hubbard
>> Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
>> (440) 775-8346
>>
>> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
>> Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Fenner
> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
> PO Box 7390
> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
>
> phone 1 684 622-7084
>
> "belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
>
> Politics, science, and public attitudes: What we're learning, and why it
> matters. Science Insider, open access.
>
>
> http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learning-and-why-it-matters?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email
>
> Homeopathy ineffective, study confirms.
>
>
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2015/03/homeopathy-ineffective-study-confirms
>
> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
>
> blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
>
>
--
Douglas Fenner
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
phone 1 684 622-7084
"belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
Politics, science, and public attitudes: What we're learning, and why it
matters. Science Insider, open access.
http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learning-and-why-it-matters?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email
Homeopathy ineffective, study confirms.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2015/03/homeopathy-ineffective-study-confirms
website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list