The Coral Bleaching Debate

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Wed May 18, 2016 11:52 pm

A few weeks ago TJ suggested we engage in respectful scientific debate about coral bleaching. I hope we can have a respectful scientific discussion in this thread. If the paranoid alarmists want to flame me a la Gord, please do so on other threads. But lets make this thread a civil scientific discussion based on evidence.

After perusing over 200 peer reviewed papers I wrote an essay about the debate over coral bleaching within the scientific community titled
The Coral Bleaching Debate: Is Bleaching the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism or A Prelude to Extirpation?
The whole essay with embedded links to peer reviewed literature can be accessed at http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bl ... ebate.html

I will post excerpts here starting with the essay's first section

Image

A Warm Evolutionary Legacy

Despite increasing confirmation of the Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis and its ability to explain coral resilience, most people are unaware of its debate within the scientific community. The ability to rapidly adjust to changing environments by modifying their symbiotic partnerships has been the key to their success for millions of years. As one expert wrote, the “flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms”.

Our modern day reef-building corals first evolved in exceedingly warm and stable climates when deep ocean temperatures were 10°C higher than today and palm trees dotted the Antarctic coast. As ice caps began to form in Antarctica ~35 million years ago sea levels fell and warm epi continental seas dried. After ocean depths had cooled for another 30 million years, Arctic ice caps began to form and the earth entered an age with multiple episodes of glacier advances and retreats causing sea levels to rise and fall. Just eighteen thousand years ago during the last glacial maximum, all our shallow reefs did not exist, as sea levels were 400 feet lower than today.

The 35 million year cooling trend increasingly restricted reef-building corals to more tropical latitudes where winter water temperatures remain above 16 to 18 °C. As their evolutionary history would predict, today’s greatest concentrations and greatest diversity of corals are found in the earth’s persistently warmer waters, like the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Likewise species inhabiting our warmest waters have undergone the fewest episodes of severe coral bleaching. Given their evolutionary history, coral’s greatest achievement has been enduring bouts of sustained climate cooling and rapid temperature swings. Even during warm interglacials coral battled cold temperatures dips. Studies of 7000-year-old fossil coral reefs in the South China Sea revealed high coral mortality every 50 years due to winter cooling events. Indeed most researchers believe past coral extinctions were most commonly due to cold events. Accordingly research has estimated that during the cold nadir of each ice age, coral reef extent was reduced by 80% and carbonate production was reduced by 73% relative to today.

Image

As the last ice age ended, coral expanded their range with warming temperatures. At the peak of the Holocene Optimum 10,000 years BP (Before Present), coral adapted to tropical ocean temperatures in the heart of the Coral Triangle were 2.1 °C warmer than today. As illustrated above, temperatures cooled since then but frequently spiked or plummeted by 2 to 3 degrees over the course of a few centuries. One thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, coral thrived in Pacific water masses that were ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades, then cooled ~0.9°C by the 1700s. Given coral’s evolutionary history, it is unlikely coral were better adapted to 1800s Little Ice Age temperatures versus Medieval Warm Period or 20th century temperatures. Emerging research now suggests coral bleaching has been an integral part of corals’ adjustment mechanisms to an ever-changing environment.

Coral Mortality and Resilience

There are 4 widespread misconceptions about bleaching propagated by tabloid media hyping climate doom and researchers like Hoegh-Guldberg. To clarify:

1 Bleaching is not always driven by warming temperatures
2 Bleaching is not responsible for most coral mortality.
3 Coral can rapidly respond to disturbances and replace lost cover within a decade or less.
4 Bleaching, whether or not it results in coral mortality, is part of a natural selection process from which better-adapted populations emerge.

to be continued
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12204
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by TJrandom » Thu May 19, 2016 3:47 am

Thanks for this start... I don`t have the time right now to engage, but will do so once I have a bit more time.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 19, 2016 4:46 am

TJrandom wrote:Thanks for this start... I don`t have the time right now to engage, but will do so once I have a bit more time.
Same here, but first thoughts on welcoming JS back:

There are 4 widespread misconceptions about bleaching propagated by tabloid media hyping climate doom and researchers like Hoegh-Guldberg. To clarify:

1 Bleaching is not always driven by warming temperatures /// No need to research that obvious logical fact.
2 Bleaching is not responsible for most coral mortality. /// I think that is the very issue. Of course bleaching is not the "cause" of coral mortality but rather the result....in response to warming water and co2 increases BOTH causes by increasing co2 in the air from fossil fuel burning.
3 Coral can rapidly respond to disturbances and replace lost cover within a decade or less. //// Again: no need to research that (...) fact. Other warm temperature species will take over eventually if not eaten by the first by all the jellyfish.
4 Bleaching, whether or not it results in coral mortality, is part of a natural selection process from which better-adapted populations emerge. /// Yep.

to be continued //// So...the relevant point is that bleaching/die off/migration/change of species is EVIDENCE of increases co2 percentages in the Atmosphere. Just went over 400PPM in someplace known for its very stable steady readings. In won't be zig zagging back and forth as such readings in other places have done...also going over 400PPM.

Gee....I have a fear JS you are going to do all this good research but still miss the point entirely? but I'll give it a fair and interested read. Your intro doesn't give me much hope.

//////////////////////// The issue coming on strong that is closely related is the growing possibility of huge areas of de-oxygenated/dead areas of the Ocean... as in more than we have now due to pesticide induced algae blooms. Might hit in 20 years....give or take.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Thu May 19, 2016 5:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So...the relevant point is that bleaching/die off/migration/change of species is EVIDENCE of increases co2 percentages in the Atmosphere.
How in the world do you make such a contrary claim????

For starts please explain how rising Co2 cause more cold water bleaching?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by zeuzzz » Thu May 19, 2016 6:33 pm

Aren't other gasses in the atmosphere worse in terms of the greenhouse effect than Co2 ? Like methane? And probably others ... the political fixation on Co2 perplexes me a bit.

edit: Hmm I guess that is off topic ... ignore.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Thu May 19, 2016 6:44 pm

zeuzzz wrote:Aren't other gasses in the atmosphere worse in terms of the greenhouse effect than Co2 ? Like methane? And probably others ... the political fixation on Co2 perplexes me a bit.
Indeed! Experimental studies estimate that between 85 and 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by zeuzzz » Thu May 19, 2016 7:00 pm

JIm Steele wrote:85 and 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor!
Its hard for me to believe it's that high ... though I am aware that water vapour can contribute. I've not gotten involved in the global warming literature in years now. Is a rabbit hole I could take a journey down again though.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 3:15 am

Well.......all the more reason to read your paper when I'm well rested.

......................BUT.............the bleaching of concern...like 80% of the Great Barrier Reef is caused by the water warming. The water getting warmer and expanding and melting off the land all part of the continuous seal level rise. Now...I'm sure there is cold water bleaching too, just of no concern as it isn't happening..........but you ought to start, instead of just finishing?...your studies with the difference between cause and effect firmly in mind?

co2 is the most relevant because water vapor is relatively constant without an overload forcing leading to catastrophic climate change and civilization collapse if not the Anthropocene completely taking down life on earth. Methane is some 20 times more powerful than co2 but it has about a 10 year life cycle in the atmosphere before degrading into safer compounds whereas co2's half life is like 50K years....or something like that.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Fri May 20, 2016 4:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well.......all the more reason to read you paper when I'm well rested.

......................BUT.............the bleaching of concern...like 80% of the Great Barrier Reef is caused by the water warming. The water getting warmner and expanding and melting off the land all part of the continuous seal level rise. Now...I'm sure there is cold water bleaching too, just of no concern as it isn't happening..........but you ought to start, instead of just finishing?...your studies with the difference between cause and effect firmly in mind?

co2 is the most relevant because water vapor is relatively constant without an overload forcing leading to catastrophic climate change and civilization collapse if not the anthropocene completely taking down life on earth. Methane is some 20 times more powerful than co2 but it has about a 10 year life cycle in the atmosphere before degrading into safer compounds whereas co2's half life is like 50K years....or something like that.
Bobbo please read the entire essay before commenting. Your comments are totally irrelevant to the essay and important issues.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 4:12 am

From the google:

What is coral bleaching? - NOAA's National Ocean Service
oceanservice.noaa.gov › Ocean Facts
National Ocean Service
Warmer water temperatures can result in coral bleaching. When water is too warm, corals will expel the algae (zooxanthellae) living in their tissues causing the coral to turn completely white. This is called coral bleaching.

But................on to the link. I'm sure JS's considered article doesn't make the same mistake his throw away blog entry does. .........Image
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 4:15 am

Sorry JS--I see you posted. Yes........going right now. I do hope you are right. but if you are right.....how is your analysis relevant to anything relevant? You know: bleaching as evidence of co2 pollution and the great ocean die off that is coming. Seems to me once again you make a simple error of natural slow change in nature being benign while THE RELEVANT ISSUE for HUMANITY is such changes taking place in very short time frames: like within our own. btw: I do plan to stop wasting my time if this error or irrelevancy arises. I mean..... I do have my limits.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Fri May 20, 2016 4:17 am

Essay continued,

(I have not embedded the essay's links here, as most posters here do not read scientific peer reviewed papers. But for those who want links to the scientific papers that support this essay go to http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bl ... ebate.html)

1. Multiple Causes of Bleaching

In contrast to researchers like Hoegh-Guldberg who emphasizes coral bleaching as a deadly product of global warming, bleaching is a visible stage in a complex set of acclimation mechanisms during which coral expel, shift and shuffle their symbionts, seeking the most beneficial partnership possible. Bleaching can be induced by stressful interactions between temperatures, disease, heavy rains, high irradiance from clear skies and competition with seaweeds. Indeed abrupt warm water events like El Nino have induced widespread bleaching and high mortality. But cold winters or La Nina induced upwelling of colder waters have also induced bleaching.

NOAA has also contributed to these misconceptions by overemphasizing just warm-event bleaching. On NOAA‘s web page “What is Coral Bleaching”, NOAA reported, “the U.S. lost half of its coral reefs in the Caribbean” in one year due to warmer waters. But the Caribbean’s main cause of lost reefs was due to an outbreak of the White Band disease in 1981-82. White band specifically targets members of the genus Acropora, like the Staghorn and Elkhorn coral, reducing by 80% of their cover that once dominated the Caribbean reefs. However since the mid 80s experts reported coral cover has changed relatively little.

NOAA also downplayed cold temperature bleaching stating the 2010 cold event just “resulted in some coral death.” However NOAA’s statement stands in stark contrast to coral experts who reported the January 2010 cold snap was the worst coral bleaching and mortality event on record for Florida’s Reef Tract. They reported, “the mean percent coral mortality recorded for all species and subregions was 11.5% in the 2010 winter, compared to 0.5% recorded in the previous five summers, including years like 2005 where warm-water bleaching was prevalent.” Globally there has been an increase in observed cold bleaching events and 2010 was Florida’s first cold bleaching since the 1970s. Globally there have been several more reports of cold induced bleaching and then recovery as the waters warmed.

There is a perception that bleaching suddenly became more common only since the 1980s, leading some to speculate bleaching is due to rising CO2 and global warming. However, whether warming since the Little Ice Age is natural or anthropogenic, warming does not explain the increased observations of cold bleaching. More frequent observations of bleaching events may be partially due to the advent of remote sensing satellites that have allowed greater global coverage only since the 1980s. Furthermore determination of bleaching severity and mortality requires teams of divers to ground truth satellite data and fine-tune percentages of affected reefs. But SCUBA diving only became possible in the decades after Jacques Cousteau invented the Aqualung in the 1940s. Although natural rates of warming during the 30s and 40s were similar to today, coral reef studies were also hampered by the unsafe battleground between Japan and the Allies. War-time efforts such as the Battle of the Coral Sea, and fights to control the islands of Peleliu, Midway, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, or subsequent nuclear testing on the Bikini Atoll. The resulting reef devastation likely obscured any natural bleaching events.

We now know bleaching regularly happens due to seasonal fluctuations between high solar irradiance and warm temperatures of summer versus lower irradiance and cooler temperatures in winter. High irradiance can damage the corals’ symbiotic algae when photosynthesis runs too rapidly, while low irradiance detrimentally reduces photosynthetic output. Thus coral undergo natural adjustments to seasonal changes by expelling a portion of their symbiotic algae in summer. This leads to temporary or partial bleaching. Low light and colder temperatures slow photosynthesis, so coral increase their symbiont density in winter.

Similarly in response to changes in sunlight, the same species will alter their symbiotic partnerships as irradiance declines at increasing depths or when and where water turbidity alters irradiance. Bleaching is often temporary and mild as coral shuffle and switch their symbiotic algae in order to adapt, but sustained extremes, warm or cold, can prolong bleaching and starve the coral. Whether coral die or not depends on how quickly new symbionts are acquired relative to how much energy the coral has stored, or coral’s ability to feed on plankton as an alternative energy source.

All recent global bleaching events have been driven by El Nino events. The 1998 El Nino caused widespread mortality, an estimated 16% globally. Observed bleaching in response to warm tropical waters invading cooler regions aroused fears that climate change had contributed to this “unprecedented” event. However researchers have noted the relationship between warmer ocean temperatures and “bleaching has been equivocal and sometimes negative when the coolest regions were not in the analyses.” In other words coral living in the warmest waters were well acclimated to the warmest waters redistributed by an El Nino. Furthermore mortality did not always occur during periods with the warmest temperatures, but during the winter or ensuing cold La Nina conditions. Such observations suggest the rapid swings between anomalously warm El Nino and anomalously cold La Nina conditions are the most stressful.

Stressful rapid temperature variations due to El Nino events have occurred throughout the past 10,000 years. As illustrated below from Zhang 2014, the frequency of El Ninos during the past century has been neither extremely high, nor extremely low. Most living coral species have survived over a million years of climate change and have endured the extreme El Nino frequencies of the past 3000 years including the Little Ice Age. El Nino events are a function of natural ocean variability and there is no consensus regards any effect from rising CO2 on El Nino frequency or intensity. To survive extremes from past natural variability, coral species had to be extremely resilient in ways that are just now being understood.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 4:24 am

Ha, ha....First Line/Heading of the Link: "The Coral Bleaching Debate:

Is Bleaching the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism or

A Prelude to Extirpation? //// No...its a Prelude to Total Global Annihilation aka the Anthropocene. Sounds like the totally fallacious argument of "The Climate is always changing" type of BS. SO FALLACIOUS: it can't be written without evil intent. Are you evil JS?...... Why you so evil???????....but lets see what the second sentence says?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 4:35 am

I see your propaganda continues in the first paragraph of your screed. The last sentence sounds as if coral bleaching is natural and normal and even a good thing: "As one expert wrote, the “flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms”. But the full link http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1408003405 actually sounds warning bells that many reefs are not recovering and its ending sentence is what you ought to be paying attention to: "If significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved within the next two to three decades, maximizing coral survivorship during this time may be critical to ensuring healthy reefs can recover in the long term.

OK.........I'll force myself to continue reading....but this overt manipulation really is galling.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 4:51 am

The second main argument is more sophisticated that “bleaching has been equivocal and sometimes negative" as discussed at the link: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 015-1399-x The title of the Link makes the more important point though:

Title
Regional coral responses to climate disturbances and warming is predicted by multivariate stress model and not temperature threshold metrics

Which restated can be understood as "corals are affected by many variables with THE WARMING OCEANS being only one...and right now not the most determination one." But THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT: the oceans aren't going to cool back down with co2 concentrations only going up. Wanna bet how long before the rising ocean temps SWAMP all the other factors?

But I assume you are still arguing the oceans aren't even getting warmer, the ice isn't melting .....and so forth, leaving me only wondering how much you are paid to pump this nonsense out?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Fri May 20, 2016 6:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The last sentence sounds as if coral bleaching is natural and normal and even a good thing: "As one expert wrote, the “flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms”. ....but this overt manipulation really is galling.
Seriously, Scientists are finding out that bleaching is part pf a marvelous adaptation mechanism and you find that galling???!!!?

If we are not all gonna die then you are upset?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 7:58 am

The constant error you foist on the public here is the false choice of change being EITHER natural or man made. Then you link to several researched articles showing certain changes can be explained by Natural Causes AS IF THE MAN MADE FACTORS PLAYED NO ROLE AT ALL. As is: the man made factors are not on a hockey stick projection.

Yes.... very galling. Because its harder to spot in the isolation of a single thread. But add up all the threads and issues you have posted here..... and the BS is substantial.

Very galling...............because yes, we are all gonna die. Whether paid to do so or tilting at your own windmills, the result is the same: delay past the point of correcting. You might live long enough to admit that to yourself. The great consensus of qualified scientists already know it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Fri May 20, 2016 1:10 pm

Bobbo this thread is about how coral deal with change. BUt you persistently try to hijack the thread to spout off about your obsessed belief with gloom and doom end of the world and ad homs against me for enlightening you about the natural wonders. You make a straw man argument I am forcing an Either or choice. Never have! I have always said CO2 probably has a small effect. The evidence however continues to say most change is natural. Either way the coral have t deal with it. You just hate hearing that organisms living in an ever changing world for millions of years would have ever developed adaptations to deal the change. Every climate scientist will tell you to before we can attribute any change to CO2 we must understand the bounds of natural variability That is what I am detailing. But somehow reality threatens your beliefs.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 20, 2016 9:29 pm

JIm Steele wrote: I have always said CO2 probably has a small effect.
Correct. You turn your head away from where that small BUT CUMULATIVE effect IS GOING. It is creating the Anthropocene the early aspects of which are on display RIGHT NOW...........as in Coral Bleaching. You make the same (intentional?) error with championing co2 as being BENEFICIAL for plant for god's sake. IGNORING its an early product of our eventual demise.

Let me call on your actual expertise: will a great production of methane being released all over the world sufficient to kill off most if not all animals on land also kill: green plants? How about the corals? Will they survive given how methane is dissolved in the ocean and made available to coral?

Again the point: the issue of Coral Bleaching arose in the context of it being evidence for Global Warming. For you to say I'm hijacking this thread is just your attempt to keep the straw man clothed. On that note, it is interesting your first link to the ebb and flow of coral species in various areas of the oceans admits to Global Warming being the cause of the upset. "It not natural" as you like to distinguish. I assume your author and expert was counted as one of the qualified scientists that supports the notion of GW if not AGW because their paper is predicated upon it without directly addressing it. A further note: the article was all about warm water bleaching coral, and then the water cooling and the coral restablishing itself. But what happens when the water just keeps getting warmer? And the answer is: in the best case another species of coral will establish itself with whatever consequences apply. BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS: coral bleaching is evidence of MAN MADE global warming that is affecting the base of our food chain.

If I could, I would right now force a diet of jelly fish and sea weed....maybe cockroaches on Sunday...on you. You should be made to reap what you sow. and you know: its natural.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Fri May 20, 2016 10:18 pm

Essay continued,

(I have not embedded the essay's links here, as most posters here do not read scientific peer reviewed papers. But for those who want links to the scientific papers that support this essay go to http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bl ... ebate.html )

2. Bleaching Causes the Least Mortality

Most extreme bleaching events are associated with El Ninos, but the high mortality rates are not just a function of higher temperatures. Due to associated flooding and high rainfall, the resulting change in salinity disrupts coral osmosis, which can result in coral death. Furthermore tropical storms and heavy wave action are a major cause of lost coral reefs, but storms also bring heavy rains that also induce bleaching. Although some try to link storm-related mortality to climate change, there is no evidence of an increasing trend in tropical storms. As illustrated by the pie graph from Osborne 2011, in the Great Barrier Reef the explosion of the coral-eating Crown of Thorns starfish (A. planci) and tropical storms contributed to the greatest loss of coral colonies, 70.5%. Bleaching is a very minor contributor to coral mortality, just 5.6%, and that bleaching can be induced by warm or cold temperatures, heavy rains and floods or high irradiance from anomalously clear skies.

Image


Due to coral’s symbiotic efficiency and recycling of nutrients, corals dominate in nutrient-limited tropical waters. Normally those low nutrient conditions also prevent predators like the Crown of Thorns starfish (COTS) from rapidly reproducing because their plankton-feeding larvae typically starve. But increased inflow of nutrients due to landscape changes, agriculture run-off and sewage, has increased plankton blooms and thus the survivorship of COTS’ larvae. The ensuing population explosions of coral eating adults have decimated many reefs. COTS does not exist in the Caribbean. Instead coral there are battling bacterial diseases like white-band that can be spread by coral-eating snails. Humans have indeed tipped the balance in favor of COTS and in addition to destructive over fishing with dynamite and cyanide, those causes of coral death are the only factors we can remedy.

To understand coral resilience in the face of the variety of onslaughts, coral reefs must be seen as dynamic systems that oscillate over decadal periods, as well as centuries and millennia. Snapshots focused only on a few years when coral reefs decline misrepresents coral resilience and promotes false gloom and doom, as well as useless management plans. A long-term study of coral ecosystems of an island in French Polynesia demonstrates corals’ dynamics response to 32-years of storms, Crown of Thorns starfish and bleaching. Coral mortality is often measured as a function of the change in “coral cover”, and 45 to 50% of the healthy reef system around the island of Tiahura was covered with coral.

As illustrated below in Figure 1 from Lamy 2016, an outbreak of COTS removed 80% of the live coral cover between 1979 and 1982, reducing total coral cover to 10% of the reef. However by 1991 the coral had fully recovered. As designated by the small gray arrows at the top, three bleaching events occurred during that recovery period. Later destruction from a 1991 cyclone again reduced coral cover but again coral recovered reaching its greatest coverage of 50% by the year 2000. And again during that recovery there were 3 more bleaching events. Since 2006 the coral suffered their greatest loss due to another outbreak of COTS, quickly followed by another cyclone. High mortality promoted high seaweed cover (dotted green line) that has inhibited coral recovery. Over that time, coral bleaching was associated with periods of recovery, suggesting little if any detrimental effects. As will become clear shortly, one also could reasonably argue those bleaching events were beneficial.

Image
Last edited by Jim Steele on Fri May 20, 2016 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Fri May 20, 2016 10:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: On that note, it is interesting your first link to the ebb and flow of coral species in various areas of the oceans admits to Global Warming being the cause of the upset.
Bobbo you fail to distinguish between a scientist repeating a belief in CO2 global warming versus a scientist who researches the effects of CO2 on climate. Indeed in the first link I provided, he mentions global warming is now perceived as a threat to coral. But they have not researched the issue and are no more qualified than Bobbo regards to estimate the earth's sensitivity to CO2 or determining how much of the recent change in climate is natural or man made.

However the authors are experts in how coral respond to change. And coral's natural resilience is the point of the essay. Bleaching causes only about 5% of coral mortalities and only a portion of that is due to warm temperature induced bleaching. Cold temperatures, high solar irradiance, disease and heavy rains cause bleaching. Coral need to be resilient to respond to the much greater devastation from cyclones , predators, pollution and disease that have caused over 90% of the deaths.

So we must ask ourselves what kind of person would be upset to learn that coral are very resilient? What kind of person would think that global warming has been the biggest problem when it is not? What kind person embraces only speculation of coral demise and hates all hopeful possibilities? What kind of person argues about thinks he knows noting about?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 21, 2016 12:17 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: On that note, it is interesting your first link to the ebb and flow of coral species in various areas of the oceans admits to Global Warming being the cause of the upset.
Bobbo you fail to distinguish between a scientist repeating a belief in CO2 global warming versus a scientist who researches the effects of CO2 on climate. Indeed in the first link I provided, he mentions global warming is now perceived as a threat to coral. But they have not researched the issue and are no more qualified than Bobbo regards to estimate the earth's sensitivity to CO2 or determining how much of the recent change in climate is natural or man made.
Here's the link: http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bl ... ebate.html

and the first sentence of the abstract says "Since the early 1980s, episodes of coral reef bleaching and mortality, due primarily to climate-induced ocean warming, have occurred almost annually in one or more of the world's tropical or subtropical seas." /// No equivocation there at all. The FACT OF GW is simply assumed....ie...not worthy to dispute.

...........I decided to read the short abstract to see if I could pinpoint where you get your rewrite of what is so plainly stated. I couldn't find anything at all.

The last sentence of the abstract: "If significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved within the next two to three decades, maximizing coral survivorship during this time may be critical to ensuring healthy reefs can recover in the long term."

YOUR OWN REFERENCES ACCEPT GW as the driving force of various ecological threats and destructions to the established reefs. GIVEN THAT IS SETTLED ======BY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS====I agree, they go on to evaluate the multiple other "natural" factors at play.

Your only VALID come back is to admit the foregoing and say that part of your own sources is "wrong" as shown by your other sources.

Good Luck with that..........................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sat May 21, 2016 6:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The last sentence of the abstract: "If significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved within the next two to three decades, maximizing coral survivorship during this time may be critical to ensuring healthy reefs can recover in the long term."
Indeed the authors of the linked paper accept AGW as a threat. But for those who read the entire paper it is clear they have not done any research to validate or refute the global warming hypothesis. And indeed there is a gatekeeper effect imposed by editors, (and that many researchers have confided with me that editors often insist that a paper include an assumption ciimate change was involved) that authors include acknowledgement of climate change, that could be natural or CO2 driven. Alarmists ignorantly assume that such statements are "proof" of CO2 driven climate change when nothing could be further from the truth! Coral have been recovering despite climate change.

Again, all these researchers have shown is that coral can rapidly adapt to change, no matter what the cause. Their research neither confirms or refutes CO2 climate change. They simply support the growing understanding that coral can rapidly adapt by shifting and shuffling their symbionts.Their acceptance tells us nothing about the causes climate change, only that coral can adapt to change and that bleaching is not confirmation or refutation of a CO2 effect,

quote]We suggest that, in reef corals (and other diverse microbial symbioses), adaptation involves natural selection acting, at the level of the coral colony, on the diverse metacommunity of symbionts already present on reefs. These symbiont metacommunities exhibit the properties of Complex Adaptive Systems leading to the emergence of coral colonies, dominated by very unusual symbionts, with novel physiological capabilities. Applying this definition of adaptation to reef corals (and other microbial symbioses) is not only in keeping with evolutionary theory, but leads to new perspectives that promote, rather than suppress, further research. Although the extent to which this phenomenon might enhance coral survival in an era of rapid climate change remains to be fully determined, corals that are capable of hosting diverse symbiont communities are not mere ecological curiosities; indeed flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms[/quote]
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 21, 2016 6:36 am

JIm Steele wrote:Their acceptance tells us nothing about the causes climate change, only that coral can adapt to change and that bleaching is not confirmation or refutation of a CO2 effect,
Yes...........AND THAT: they are having to change/react/adapt to WARMING OCEANS.

The entire import of coral bleaching.

Thank you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sat May 21, 2016 2:20 pm

Coral have adjusted to much warmer temperatures in their recent past. If you read the whole essay you would find that he researchers that did actually look ocean temperartures found Great Barrier Reefs were warmer in the 1700s

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 22, 2016 12:44 am

Warmer temps in the past is not denied.

Colder temps in the past is not denied.

THE POINT IS: our current fossil use has locked us into a temp increase of 2C with higher temps now in the 6C range almost a certainty, changing the chemistry of the oceans, the circulation, the resulting climate, food chain, sea levels, agricultural zones,....etc.

Whether or not a warmer water tolerant species of coral will be more prominent ISN'T EVEN THE ISSUE.

Your inability to address the issue admits the central fact while you incessantly dither at the edges.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sun May 22, 2016 4:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:THE POINT IS: our current fossil use has locked us into a temp increase of 2C with higher temps now in the 6C range almost a certainty, .
NO! It is far from a certainty. That claims is pure BS that Bobbo incessantly pushes as if it was a predetermined truth ordained by god. Those projections are merely untested hypotheses based on circular reasoning that are also contradicted by numerous observations.

Such hyperbolic claims arise when a researcher believes rising CO2 will raise global temperatures and so builds a model according to his beliefs. Then he/she runs the models they created and argues the models prove it will get warmer. But thats all circular reasoning.

Bobbo sidesteps the issue that researchers found temperatures were warmer in the 1700s than they are now, which reveals that the models of CO2 warming have been wrong at least on a regional level. Claims by paranoid alarmists that coral will die if temperatures increase are contradicted by the FACTS that coral have recently thrived in much warmer conditions over the pas 7000 years.

The models also failed to simulate the cooling trend of the late Holocene when CO2 levels were slightly rising.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.abstract

Coral's marvelous adaptation of shuffling and shifting symbionts has allowed them to survive far greater temperature changes than has been observed in recent decades, and further suggests coral will adapt to even the wildest claims by climate alarmists.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 22, 2016 5:21 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:THE POINT IS: our current fossil use has locked us into a temp increase of 2C with higher temps now in the 6C range almost a certainty, .
NO! It is far from a certainty.
Sorry Jimmy---its science. The question you always avoid: what happens to an atmosphere when you add co2 to it? And your answer used to be ice increased in the Antarctic, then polar bear numbers increased, then green plants grew more, and now its corals will flourish. All avoiding the simple answer referenced below.




JIm Steele wrote:NO! It is far from a certainty. That claims is pure BS that Bobbo incessantly pushes
Not "me" Jimmy but the CONSENSUS OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS.....including the one's you use...you just avoid that foundational fact as you dither with the irrelevant. I'm rather happy that someone as informed on the subject can't make any better an argument........ ha, ha.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sun May 22, 2016 2:00 pm

You confuse hypotheses with consensus and false certainty.

You fail to understand the scientific process.

The World of Real Science

Hypotheses are made to make sense of observations: ie Co2 is a greenhouse gas and has the potential to warm the earth

Hypotheses make predictions from which we can test the that validity of that hypotheses

Observations suggest our climate has low sensitivity to CO2 based numerous failed predictions and evidence that contradicts the hypotheses.

Scienctist seek a better understanding more tuned to reality

Bobbbo's World

The hypothesis is certain

All contradictory evidence is irrelevant and dithering detail

The hypothesis is reality and everyone who does not accept is imaginary world is evil . Bobbo ignores contradictory evidence accusing people of ignoring his hypothesis

Example

Experts show models failed to simulate the cooling trend of the late Holocene when CO2 levels were slightly rising.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.abstract

Bobbo sidesteps blathering the "consensus"
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 22, 2016 10:45 pm

The GREAT CONSENSUS OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD: is meaningless.

I, JAMES STEELE, alone have the truth.

See that pile of coal belching co2 into the air?===it is meaningless: ignore it and follow me.

See the ocean level constantly rising?===it is meaningless: ignore it and follow me.

Any stock tips there Jimbo?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sun May 22, 2016 10:56 pm

Paranoid alarmists who can not debate the science and the evidence ALWAYS devolve into shoot the messenger tactics. All bobbo does is try hijack the thread with BS, unrelated to all the evidence provided. Again bobbo avoids the Holocerne temperature conusndrum and the evidence that Great barrier Reef temeprature were wawrmer in the 1700s. So shoot the messenger.

Its not follow me, but follow the evidence by the experts. It is explore alternative hypotheses that the evidence suggests. That is what us real scientists do.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sun May 22, 2016 11:01 pm

Essay continued,

(I have not embedded the essay's links here, as most posters here do not read scientific peer reviewed papers. But for those who want links to the scientific papers that support this essay go to http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bl ... ebate.html )

3. Rapid Coral Recovery:

Tiahura’s coral recovery periods typically required 7 to ten years, and appeared to be unaffected by the 1998 El Nino. Several other studies have reported similar recovery periods, but some locations required 10 to 20 years to fully recover. In Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBF), the 1998 El Nino induced above average sea surface temperatures and salinity changes for 2 months triggering massive coral losses in the reef’s upper 20 meters. At the GBF’s Scott Reef, the upper 3 meters lost 80 to 90% of its living coral and the disappearance of half of the coral genera. Yet researchers observed, “within 12 years coral cover, recruitment, generic diversity, and community structure were again similar to the pre-bleaching years.” A similar long-term study in the Maldives observed a dramatic loss of coral during the 1998 El Nino but by 2013 the reefs also had returned to “pre-bleaching values”. Although a reef’s recovery sometime requires re-colonization by larvae from other reefs, a process known as re-sheeting or Phoenix effect can facilitate a reef’s speedy recovery. Often a small percentage of living “cryptic” polyps with a more resilient symbiotic partnership were embedded within a “dead” colony and survive extreme bleaching. They then multiply and rapidly “re-sheet” the colony’s skeletal remains.

In addition to rapid recovery of coral cover, researchers are finding bleached reefs have been increasingly less susceptible to subsequent bleaching. For example studies in Indonesian waters determined that two coral species, highly susceptible to bleaching, had experienced 94% and 87% colony deaths during the 1998 El Nino. Yet those same species were among the least susceptible to bleaching in the 2010 El Nino, with only 5% and 12% colony deaths despite a similar increase in water temperatures. Similarly, changes in resilience were observed in response to cold water bleaching in the Gulf of California. Increased resilience in response to a variety of bleaching events prompted the Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis first proposed in 1993. The hypothesis suggests that although bleaching events are a response to stress, it creates the potential for coral to acquire totally new and different symbionts that are better suited to those stressful conditions. Contrary to Hoegh-Guldberg’s claim that coral reef systems will “experience near annual bleaching events that exceed the extent of the 1998 bleaching event by the year 2040”, scientists are increasingly observing the exact opposite. After reefs recover from severe bleaching, colonies have evolved enhanced resilience to future bleaching.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 22, 2016 11:35 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Paranoid alarmists who can not debate the science and the evidence ALWAYS devolve into shoot the messenger tactics.
Shoot the Messenger? I shot, hit, and killed YOUR MESSAGE....or the link you used to build your message on. We are all self referential little cretins....let me check this very thread for whether or not the statement I just made is true?...............................................Ha, ha.......well! I made the first character attack above by close association. totally accurate. Here it is, as its worth repeating: "Sounds like the totally fallacious argument of "The Climate is always changing" type of BS. SO FALLACIOUS: it can't be written without evil intent. Are you evil JS?...... //// My humor, my analysis, my concern. Mostly very much NOT respecting what you post...buy yeah, you can call that a character attack if you want, but not kill the messenger. Not pure, but not that close either.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JIm Steele wrote:All bobbo does is try hijack the thread with BS, unrelated to all the evidence provided.
That was argued and answered above. AGAIN: bleaching was brought up on another thread as proof of the Oceans warming up. Yes, yes...the Oceans have been warm before, and bleaching is natural, and the coral will be with us as there are warmer water species. But ITS YOU JS who are hijacking the original issue. As denied by yourself: your minimal impoact of co2 is enough to warm and raise the ocean AS YOUR OWN LINKS DEMONSTRATE...but you want to confuse the issue of AGW with natural cycles.
Are you evil JS---or just what you posts urge us towards?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JIm Steele wrote: unrelated to all the evidence provided.
No...I accept all the corals will still be with us evidence. As with Ocean Rise and temp rise its not the beginning or final state (sic when/if methane belches out in a feedback mechanism that Mother Gaia cannot recycle fast enough for our own survival) that is the issue==ITS THE RAPIDITY OF THE TRANSITION. Even hoomans need more stability in climate than the changes that are being dammed up here. 97% of Scientists know this.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JIm Steele wrote: Again bobbo avoids the Holocerne temperature conusndrum and the evidence that Great barrier Reef temeprature were wawrmer in the 1700s.
Not at all. Climate is a combination of interacting NATURAL and Hooman caused events. It was warmer in the Holocene...yep, along with 50 other variables. Its getting as warm NOW, by AGW....along with 51 other variables.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JIm Steele wrote:Its not follow me, but follow the evidence by the experts. .
CHECKMATE!

And by "follow the experts" do you mean follow the 97% consensus or the 3% fringe?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[quote="J It is explore alternative hypotheses that the evidence suggests.[/quote] Exactly correct. And when 97% do that, they accept AGW. I do wonder what percentage of scientists reject evolution, quantum mechanics, plate techtonics, age of the Universe and so forth. I would not Kill the 3% fringe---but nor would I engage them with respect. You JS are right on the edge of actually still trying to make a scientific sounding case all wrapped in logical fallacies, strawmen, and diversions.

You never have answered: are you paid to do this, or tilting at your own windmills? (((Is that Killing you or guessing at the obvious?)))

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JIm Steele wrote:That is what us real scientists do.
What real scientists do is accept the CONSENSUS until a better idea comes along.

Try it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 22, 2016 11:38 pm

Ha, ha.-------------------I missed the "us" in "That is what us real scientists do."

You do recognize you are NOT a qualified climate scientist? Evaluating the altitude shift in species along the Sierra Nevada does not a Climate Scientist make. Hmmmmm..... the evidence is: tilting at your own private windmills. What set you off?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Mon May 23, 2016 12:18 am

Bobbo this is a thread about coral bleaching. You admittedly do not read or understand the scientific literature, INstead you persist in trying to hijack the thread with your meaningless ad hom blather.

Debate the evidence or go do your ignorant trolling elsewhere.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Mon May 23, 2016 12:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:Its not follow me, but follow the evidence by the experts. .
And by "follow the experts" do you mean follow the 97% consensus or the 3% fringe?
There is no 97% consensus. In this case we are discussing coral bleaching. Why don't you show me your bogus 97% regards coral bleaching!!

But you cant because there is no consensus on coral beaching, and that is just another bogus Bobbo BS diversion
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Mon May 23, 2016 12:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What real scientists do is accept the CONSENSUS until a better idea comes along.

Try it.

ROTFLMAO. Another proof of total scientific ignornace. How many NOBEL prizes go to scientists for simply accepting the consensus!?!?!? ROTFLMAO

The great sceintists show how wrong the consensus was. Only those who do not understand the science at hand blindly accept the consensus. Good science demands that researchers check and test every hypothesis.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 23, 2016 1:02 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:Its not follow me, but follow the evidence by the experts. .
And by "follow the experts" do you mean follow the 97% consensus or the 3% fringe?
There is no 97% consensus. In this case we are discussing coral bleaching. Why don't you show me your bogus 97% regards coral bleaching!!

But you cant because there is no consensus on coral beaching, and that is just another bogus Bobbo BS diversion
Gee whiz Jimmy---you just did tons of research and have done an excellent job of crafting together the article that you did...and I agreed with the conclusion before I even read the article and have stated three times that coral will be with us after "le deluge." I said corals will establish themselves in time THAT IT WAS THE RAPID CHANGE that was the issue.

Yep........tilting at your own windmills for whatever reason, AND....stuck on disagreeing with anything I post as if that shotgun will find a mark............even when you post as if not even understanding your own links and positions. Being hit by a few windmills will do that.

BTW----you are still in: CHECKMATE!
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 23, 2016 1:19 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What real scientists do is accept the CONSENSUS until a better idea comes along.

Try it.

ROTFLMAO. Another proof of total scientific ignornace. How many NOBEL prizes go to scientists for simply accepting the consensus!?!?!? ROTFLMAO

The great sceintists show how wrong the consensus was. Only those who do not understand the science at hand blindly accept the consensus. Good science demands that researchers check and test every hypothesis.
A perfect example of an excellent knowledge base unhinged by fixation. YES...Nobels are often won by those who break with tradition IN THE BEGINNING. BUT by the time they win the Nobel.....their new ideas have been accepted by the GREAT CONSENSUS OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS..... not the fringe element.

Ha, ha. I can only comment farther by Killing the Messenger.

But here is the Cherry: I don't know, but I'm going to google: how many Nobels have been given to AGW researchers? ....doesn't matter........I know such Nobel Winners aren't real scientists like you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 23, 2016 1:23 am

Well, that was easy: Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To 'Minimize The ...
thinkprogress.org/climate/.../nobel-laureates-climate-chang...
ThinkProgress
Jul 6, 2015 - In a signed declaration, 36 Nobel laureates call climate change a threat of "comparable magnitude" to nuclear war.

.............but you do have that one Nobel winner who says its all a hoax. Gee...another 97 to 3. How did THAT happen.

Last time you will mention NOBEL LAUREATES... or will you focus on the one fringe outlier?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?