"Letting coral reefs die will cost us more than saving them".

[sghera64]

@sghera64 why not try using something better for information than the news channels for science? There are plenty of amazing journals presenting real research instead of pushing agendas.

Honestly it’s because I’m lazy and I do enjoy sharpening my critical thinking skills this way.

I do read research articles, but often I’m not familiar enough with the author or their sponsors to know if they too have an agenda. I’ve found that many objective and competent scientists suffer from “unconscious bias” of the scientific kind.

I’m a scientist and recall many arguments between colleagues where folks really blurred the lines between deductive reasoning (factual rejection of a null hypothesis) and inductive reasoning (using facts to construct a hypothesis). I fall into this trap too often myself.

In contrast, I have been led to many clear and objective research from scientists by other reefers and scientists who do a nice job of pre-filtering for me (us) - - like the. articles Randy Holmes-Farley links us to.

I will share, that when it comes to matters like global warming and failing reefs I think the entire jury pool is spoiled. It seems like everyone alive and mature enough to understand either of these has taken a side. It is rare to find someone who will admit with unadulterated objectivity that they really don’t know what is really happening and how much of it can be explained by human activity. Those that might actually know what is going on from primary data analysis are so sorely lacking in humility that their conviction is likely mistaken for political bias and they get dismissed out of suspicion. A shame and our loss. We can’t separate signal from noise; so to speak. Hence the reason for some of the disputes in previous posts above.

 

[Don Lidtke]

Just out of curiosity, where do you get your news from?

I can get various news channels as I adjust my tinfoil hat. [emoji12]

All kidding aside I find it very difficult to find any news source that I would trust.

Having said that the BBC seems less likely to be spin doctors. Now isn’t that a sad statement for USA news outlets.

 

[biophilia]

Be careful not to fall into the “science” trap. I see too many people who blindly accept whatever “science” has to say at this moment in time. Don’t be naive enough to think that all, or even most, scientists are perfectly unbiased.

Which is why it's important to look for overall trends that lean towards emergent truths and is also why meta-analysis studies can be helpful.

... and precisely why suggestions that there is some meaningful debate about whether or not anthropogenic warming of the lower troposphere contributes to thermal stress and bleaching in coral reefs can be dismissed for exactly the same reasons that any other pseudo-scientific or conspiratorial claim can. The fact that there is nearly 50 years of rigorous, peer-reviewed research on the effects of global warming that has been stress-tested relentlessly by the enormously powerful forces of industry that seek to suppress it should be reason enough to accept it as the "best available truth" -- especially when the consequences of playing contrarian and betting against the scientific "consensus" could have disastrous results for ourselves and our planet.

That there is still "debate" outside of academia about the most evidenced effects of global warming may say a lot about the fluidity of cultural cognition and how perceptions of risk can vary wildly from one ideological group to another, but it says almost nothing about any actual inconsistencies in the mountain range of empirical data. While one could argue that we can never know anything with absolute certainty, sometimes the best way forward is to accept what is most likely the emergent truth and go from there.

 

[Mark Gray]

This isn't really empirical evidence that heat waves don't cause bleaching in wild reefs. 85-88 is actually pretty close to the average high temperature of reefs around the world. The Great Barrier reef commonly gets into the mid 80s during the summer for example. Corals from the Red Sea are routinely exposed to temperatures in the high 80s and low 90s so their zooxanthallae clades can handle even higher temps than those of the GBR. The issue comes when temperatures exceed their maximum thermal tolerance for prolonged periods as they have in recent years. The heat waves that decimated the GBR recently were 1-2 degrees C above the hottest temperatures corals in that region are adapted to.

I used to many years ago worked for a company that put equipment in to fishing trawlers, These huge machines strip the ocean of fish by a scale that most people have no idea about. I wish I had the money to test my theory in the ocean but I think really if the reefs were dosed with nutrient, I think they might come back. But There are a lot of reefs that are not really effected to so it may just be a cycle. I know that there is a Reef off Brazil where the Amazon dumps into the ocean a lot of pollution and a lot of nutrient it is doing fantastic. But the barrier Reef is not doing so good but there are huge amounts of Trawlers in the area also

 

[Scorpius]

Just out of curiosity, where do you get your news from?

I look at all of them and usually come away with not a whole lot. They all suck.

 

[biophilia]

I used to many years ago worked for a company that put equipment in to fishing trawlers, These huge machines strip the ocean of fish by a scale that most people have no idea about. I wish I had the money to test my theory in the ocean but I think really if the reefs were dosed with nutrient, I think they might come back. But There are a lot of reefs that are not really effected to so it may just be a cycle. I know that there is a Reef off Brazil where the Amazon dumps into the ocean a lot of pollution and a lot of nutrient it is doing fantastic. But the barrier Reef is not doing so good but there are huge amounts of Trawlers in the area also

Given that the scientific literature says basically the opposite, your theory might have disastrous consequences if tested. The problem with extrapolating observations in our reef tanks out to wild reefs is that there are immensely complex interactions at the species level in coral reef ecosystems that can't fully be accounted for. Especially given that many of the species present in those complex systems have yet to be discovered at all -- and many of those that have been discovered have yet to be studied in depth. As an example (found in the first link below), elevated inorganic nutrient loads, even if in themselves not harmful to coral species, can trigger phytoplankon blooms that strip the water of limiting nutrients like Iron. The same goes for associated algal blooms, which can smother coral tissue.

I'd like to believe that there are other things we can do to limit the susceptibility of reefs to bleaching events in the wake of global warming, but there is so much remaining to be studied in these ecosystems that it is almost like what performing surgery was before early discoveries in anatomy, physiology, and microbiology.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513001917

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1661#article-info

 

[sghera64]

I used to many years ago worked for a company that put equipment in to fishing trawlers, These huge machines strip the ocean of fish by a scale that most people have no idea about. I wish I had the money to test my theory in the ocean but I think really if the reefs were dosed with nutrient, I think they might come back. But There are a lot of reefs that are not really effected to so it may just be a cycle. I know that there is a Reef off Brazil where the Amazon dumps into the ocean a lot of pollution and a lot of nutrient it is doing fantastic. But the barrier Reef is not doing so good but there are huge amounts of Trawlers in the area also

Interesting. Kind of like those low bioload reed tanks. No fish => low nutrients => poorly colored SPS, slime algae, diatoms

 

[DMan]

It costs more money to keep people homeless than it does to house them. So if we can't or won't even take care of our own species, coral reefs don't stand a chance. That is until humanity dies off and the world heals itself.

 

[KMench]

Interesting. Kind of like those low bioload reed tanks. No fish => low nutrients => poorly colored SPS, slime algae, diatoms

The articles posted by @biophilia contradict this exact argument, "increased dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations have been linked to a reduction of the temperature threshold of coral bleaching". Sounds like increased nutrients in the water are not friendly to corals when the water temps rise.

The article makes it sound as if it's not necessarily the increase in nutrients that causes corals to bleach and lower the threshold temp for bleaching, but the fact that when excess nutrients run off, they aren't in the appropriate ratios for corals which causes changes in the lipid membrane. This in combination with increased light, or temp leads to breakdown of the symbiotic relationship and expelling of zooxanthellae.

 

[Mark Gray]

The articles posted by @biophilia contradict this exact argument, "increased dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations have been linked to a reduction of the temperature threshold of coral bleaching". Sounds like increased nutrients in the water are not friendly to corals when the water temps rise.

The article makes it sound as if it's not necessarily the increase in nutrients that causes corals to bleach and lower the threshold temp for bleaching, but the fact that when excess nutrients run off, they aren't in the appropriate ratios for corals which causes changes in the lipid membrane. This in combination with increased light, or temp leads to breakdown of the symbiotic relationship and expelling of zooxanthellae.

And that might be true but I know when my nutrient's go down my coral bleaches in the summer my tank is between 82 to 87

 

[klp]

Full article is not loading. The part I read makes a novel case for the value of reefs based on their ability to stem tropical storm damage from tidal surge.

Other arguments I’ve read, possibly more important, are the reefs ability to permanently “sink” atmospheric CO2. When trees decay, the process releases CO2 back into the atmosphere.

What is disturbing is the vicious cycle that ensues: less coral => less CO2 reduction => more atmospheric CO2 accumulation (from human activity, perhaps).

CO2 accumulation is a double whammy: ocean acidification and global thermal energy retention. Ocean acidification leads to slower SPS coral growth - a vicious cycle.

Oh, and higher average temperatures means stronger and numerous storms - - which takes us back to the OP’s article citation.

The plants live on CO2 and release O2. There will just be more plants and trees no greater CO2 accumulation.

 

[KMench]

@klp lol except for the vast amounts of deforestation that are occurring. Humans contribute more anthropogenic CO2 than the planet can handle hence the increase in atmospheric concentrations since they industrial revolution.

 

[klp]

Which is why it's important to look for overall trends that lean towards emergent truths and is also why meta-analysis studies can be helpful.

... and precisely why suggestions that there is some meaningful debate about whether or not anthropogenic warming of the lower troposphere contributes to thermal stress and bleaching in coral reefs can be dismissed for exactly the same reasons that any other pseudo-scientific or conspiratorial claim can. The fact that there is nearly 50 years of rigorous, peer-reviewed research on the effects of global warming that has been stress-tested relentlessly by the enormously powerful forces of industry that seek to suppress it should be reason enough to accept it as the "best available truth" -- especially when the consequences of playing contrarian and betting against the scientific "consensus" could have disastrous results for ourselves and our planet.

That there is still "debate" outside of academia about the most evidenced effects of global warming may say a lot about the fluidity of cultural cognition and how perceptions of risk can vary wildly from one ideological group to another, but it says almost nothing about any actual inconsistencies in the mountain range of empirical data. While one could argue that we can never know anything with absolute certainty, sometimes the best way forward is to accept what is most likely the emergent truth and go from there.

NASA data there is no global warming. Global warming is a religion not science.
https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#5f67bc332892

 

[KMench]

;Hilarious I’m done

 

[klp]

@klp lol except for the vast amounts of deforestation that are occurring. Humans contribute more anthropogenic CO2 than the planet can handle hence the increase in atmospheric concentrations since they industrial revolution.

Trees are not the only plants.

 

[biophilia]

NASA data there is no global warming. Global warming is a religion not science.
https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#5f67bc332892

Edit: This is getting pretty off-topic at this point, but I'll just keep it simple and ask: what evidence would change your mind?

 

[jack5746]

New York Post. No thanks. Same goes for every other "big" media outlet. The SPIN ZONE.

Agree 100%

 

[Kent12456]

New York Post. No thanks. Same goes for every other "big" media outlet. The SPIN ZONE.

I’m with you sir.

 

[biophilia]

@jack5746 @Kent12456 I would argue the three sources below are devoid of the spin found in the NY Post article.

UCSC: https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/coral-reefs.html
Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/coral-reefs-keep-costly-waves-at-bay/
Pew Trust (includes a short video interview with the lead author of the study): http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-prevent-4-3-billion-in-flood-damage-annually

 

[Kent12456]

@jack5746 @Kent12456 Avoid the New York Post if you wish, but please don't use it as an excuse to avoid educating yourself on one of the most pressuring issues of the 21st century. We all owe it to our children and future generations to read a variety of sources and stay well-informed on this topic. I can understand the reluctance to trust sources in this age of hyper-partisanship, but ignoring important issues entirely as a result is incredibly dangerous for free and open societies, which depend on an informed populace to stay that way.

Fortunately, this has been reported on by many sources so you have plenty of alternatives. I would argue the three below are devoid of the spin found in the NY Post article.

UCSC: https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/coral-reefs.html
Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/coral-reefs-keep-costly-waves-at-bay/
Pew Trust: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-prevent-4-3-billion-in-flood-damage-annually

@jack5746 @Kent12456 Avoid the New York Post if you wish, but please don't use it as an excuse to avoid educating yourself on one of the most pressuring issues of the 21st century. We all owe it to our children and future generations to read a variety of sources and stay well-informed on this topic. I can understand the reluctance to trust sources in this age of hyper-partisanship, but ignoring important issues entirely as a result is incredibly dangerous for free and open societies, which depend on an informed populace to stay that way.

Fortunately, this has been reported on by many sources so you have plenty of alternatives. I would argue the three below are devoid of the spin found in the NY Post article.

UCSC: https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/coral-reefs.html
Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/coral-reefs-keep-costly-waves-at-bay/
Pew Trust (includes a short video interview with the lead author of the study): http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-prevent-4-3-billion-in-flood-damage-annually

And how do you propose solving the problem of over population? Because IF global warming is man made, (and it’s very debatable), I believe that is the issue. There’s not enough water, air, housing, jobs, food, etc. There are too many people on the planet, end of story. If Al Gore wants to save the planet, he should be handing out condoms instead of selling books. That is “The Inconvenient Truth”. But as you said, this is all way off topic. Just thought I’d mention it.