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

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:12 pm

TJrandom wrote: I have read various news articles on coral since that last post (Okinawa, Australia) and each pointed to climate change, so no real reason for me to think otherwise. ...

But as I do so, please tell me – do you still believe in your above quote, or have you possibly modified your position?
TJ climate changes due to ocean oscillations that occur over 30 to 60 year cycles.

A consensus of researchers using models and satellite data to examine ocean productivity admit "[anthropogenic] climate change-driven trend will not be unambiguously separable from decadal variability until∼2055" goo.gl/uagrbK

If those very active and prominnent scientists can not unequivocally detect an anthropogenic effect, then what is the evidence that rising CO2 has had any effect on coral??? How can you claim a consensus?

There is an agreement among climate models that marine productivity will decline due to stratification of the surface layers preventing nutrient mixing into the sunlit layers, as well as a decline in oxygen as warmer waters are less soluble (which should reduce invasions of both O2 and CO2. However our best proxy data shows that warming since the little Ice Age, (aka preindustrial time) that a century of warming has raised nutrients to the upper layers, has increased ocean productivity and in doing so, as newly produced organic carbon is consumed, lowers oxygen concentrations. Read "Marine Primary Production in Relation to Climate Variability and Change" by a highly respected oceanographer

goo.gl/dbvqbs

When I read news outlets claiming a consensus that we are all going to climate hell, while in contrast I read numerous peer reviewed papers showing just the opposite, I realize my only choice is to examine all the evidence and engage in critical thinking rather than follow the sheeple who retreat to the political theater of a nebulous consensus. I am always amused how everytime a warmunista is forced to face contrary evidence from good scientists, they retreat to "I believe the consensus", despite not knowing who comprises the consensus and without knowing exactly what they believe.

Finally to bobbo, you have it all wrong--- again!! I have never suggested organisms are avoiding harm by moving upwards to cooler elevations. I argue that such claims are BS. For example a few researchers have suggested pIka are being forced upslope and off the mountain top into extinction. However the majority of researchers find no such thing. In fact 13% of the most newly encountered colonies are found by experts at elevations lower than documented in the early 1900s. The researchers that claimed they were being pushed upslope, did so by eliminating all the colonies found at lower elevations, arguing they "must have been missed" in earlier survveys. Shameful science, yet still published and hyped by the media

http://landscapesandcycles.net/pika-not ... ring-.html
“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 » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:30 pm

TJrandom wrote:
JIm Steele wrote, Polar bears, penguins, butterflies, pika, amphibians, bees etc are not being harmed by climate change whether you think its natural or man made. Some are being hurt by habitat destruction and invasive species and disease, but not climate change and that is easily proven.
please tell me – do you still believe in your above quote, or have you possibly modified your position?
Absolutely I still believe. ! I thoroughly researched each species that has been claimed to be harmed by rising CO2, and found that in each instance other factors provided offered far superior explanation. As research continues my conclusions are mostly supported!

Sadly researchers under "publish or perish" pressure, observe a population change they can not explain. So the default is it must be climate change. I pitiful decline in scientific research. Population change and so did climate, therefore it must be climate. Hilarious reasoning if was not so destructive by obfuscating the real problems!!!
“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 Feb 11, 2017 11:51 pm

JIm Steele wrote:A consensus of researchers using models and satellite data to examine ocean productivity admit "[anthropogenic] climate change-driven trend will not be unambiguously separable from decadal variability until∼2055" goo.gl/uagrbK...
Thanks for providing a link to your reference. I word searched it: no mention of "coral" anywhere. The study concerns the production of chlorophyll. Seems to me that has ZERO to do with clams or anything else...like corals. Indirect...of course. Everything is indirect....become a matter of degrees.
JIm Steele wrote:If those very active and prominnent scientists can not unequivocally detect an anthropogenic effect, then what is the evidence that rising CO2 has had any effect on coral???
The evidence given was huge record breaking BLEACHING events on the Breat Barrier Reef ...elsewhere around the world on smaller less known and studied reefs? Given the temps are not returning to normal.... like animals moving up a mountain slope........this appears to be a "permanent" change in the ecology of the reef. What continuing affects this will have........is not known.
JIm Steele wrote: How can you claim a consensus?
The consensus is established by a study of published papers and review of scientific organization public position papers.

My goodness. No Cherry Picking here........... just a blind grab bag.
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 Feb 12, 2017 12:53 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Thanks for providing a link to your reference. I word searched it: no mention of "coral" anywhere.
Stop trying to create false problems. I never said that reference was to coral. TJ had asked a broader question. I commented that climate experts and their models can not detect an anthropogenic effect in our oceans. I wrote

However our best proxy data shows that warming since the little Ice Age, (aka preindustrial time) that a century of warming has raised nutrients to the upper layers, has increased ocean productivity and in doing so, as newly produced organic carbon is consumed, lowers oxygen concentrations. Read "Marine Primary Production in Relation to Climate Variability and Change" by a highly respected oceanographer
followed by goo.gl/dbvqbs
JIm Steele wrote:If those very active and prominnent scientists can not unequivocally detect an anthropogenic effect, then what is the evidence that rising CO2 has had any effect on coral???


I was adding to the information provided in the essay at the beginning of this post.

If global warming is affecting reefs globally, then why are there hundreds of reefs that scientists say look as good as they did 1000 years ago. Clearly the variable affect bleaching is not CO2 but regional dynamics

And you are wrong about consensus. Consensus is a claim made that had been made by by Society administrators, psychologists, and political advocates based on a survey of abstracts that include papers from travel agents asking what to do if climate change is real. NOt one of the vast marjority of papers cited in those so-called consensus papers, provided any evidence showing observed climate change was natural or man-made. The man-made attribution claimed by a select few is simply echoed by the many whose research tell us nothing one way or the other. Most of the scientists that echo that claim, likely have not read the literature but only believe its man made, based on faith like TJ and Bobbo.

Because the majority of scientists investigating anthropogenic effects in the ocean productivity acknowledge it will take at least until 2055 to get a clear pciture, I asked "How can you claim a consensus?"

Bobbo replies with another irrelevant remark trying to spin his definition of consensus, despite that my link to the paper showing they have no consensus on marine productivity. Why do you keep denying real science, when it contradicts your beliefs??
“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 Feb 12, 2017 1:01 am

Here are the results from the upwelling zone of Peru, considered the most productive region in the world. Note how PP, primary production has steadily increased since the LIttle Ice Age. Because high productivity generated the greatest oxygen minimum zone, the sediments are well preserved, and provide science with the best record of marine productivity.

Image

So all the believers in this consensus nonsense", please provide your evidence why this documented increased productivity is not real!
“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 Feb 12, 2017 1:04 am

1. "If global warming is affecting reefs globally, then why are there hundreds of reefs that scientists say look as good as they did 1000 years ago. Clearly the variable affect bleaching is not CO2 but regional dynamics.' //// Each reef has its own story. Lots of variables....... AGW being only one of them, as would be Ocean Productivity as a general concept and chlorophyll production even more specifically.

2. "If global warming is affecting reefs globally," /// Nobody said that....and thats NOT what GW would do...or Global Cooling, or more rain....or any other general activity.

3. the consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_o ... ate_change

4. Why do I deny? //// the consensus told me to. Also: the sea level keeps going up.
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 Feb 12, 2017 1:48 am

[quote="bobbo_the_Pragmatist"] Each reef has its own story. Lots of variables....... AGW being only one of them, as would be Ocean Productivity as a general concept and chlorophyll production even more specifically.


ROTFLMAO When I argue temperature change is not global but regional and due to many factors, the warmunistas accuse me of cherrypicking. But when it is pointed out there is not a global decline in marine productivity, the warmunista switch horses, and argue there are many different variables. No apparent intellectual integrity.
“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 Feb 12, 2017 4:37 am

You misstate what you say. What you SAY is: "Over here in this limited area or time frame it is Cold, therefore there is no Global Warming." The Average Global Temperature IS GLOBAL. See....its right there in its name. You (try to) make a false equivalency.

You do the same attempted conflation/misdirection/word play in using the term "global marine productivity". The study you linked to was NOT global marine productivity as you use it but rather the production of chlorophyll.....as always with your data sets: only a subset of what you call it and how you try to use it.

Really, a whole more "precise" approach would .................. note the sea level keeps going up....... even though global marine productivity won't be known until 2050.

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
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 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:53 am

JIm, I have read the posts above in this thread and have quoted from you, provided the links to the posts from which the quotes were taken, and have added the date of the post within the quote. Each followed by a thought.
… I have always said CO2 probably has a small effect. (May 20)
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=26817#p513297

Jim, it seems to me that in this quote, you have admitted that climate change has indeed caused damage to species of coral.
… 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. (May 22)
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=26817#p513297

Jim it seems rather irrelevant that a year or two increase in temperature in the past did not cause all coral species to become extinct. It isn`t a year or two of warming that we are talking about – but rather one possibly lasting hundreds of years and at temperatures that haven`t been seen by mankind.
Blaming the extinction of a rat only found on a small atoll with a vegetated area the size of a football field is just another example of mindlessly blaming everything on global warming. Paleogeologists have determined that sea levels in that region were higher by a meter to 3 meters between 1 and 5 thousand years ago. If global warming and sea level rise was the cause of the extinction, then these rats would have been extirpated long ago. This "species" may have rafted to the atoll within the last 1000 years but where did it come from? No One Knows! Is this "species" just a recent mutant? (June 17)
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=26817&start=40

In reference to an article that Bobbo referenced – Scientists attribute mammal extinction to climate change for the first time …The Bramble Cay melomy is a rodent… (June 17) It seems to me that you belittle the demise of a species due to climate change (raising sea levels) as claimed by the scientists in that article. IMO, to continue with a claim of no harm having occurred to any species due to climate change, whether man made or natural – you would need to show that this species is not extinct (and hopefully is flourishing somewhere). It should not matter that it might have been a recent mutation that gave rise to the species, within the past 1,000 years, while the ocean level was lower.

Your graph of Turtle Head Island sea levels – shows a high in 2001 (preceding the 2002/4 finding of few(er) Bramble Cay melomys, and another high in 2010 (preceding the 2011 finding of extinction). It seems to me that the ecologists, when reporting a here-to-fore un-exceeded lower high-tide land mass, and similar loss of vegetation area – particularly for the freshwater plants it depended upon, have made a very reasonable case for the extinction to be caused by climate change. (From my personal experience with freshwater plants, a single high tide would probably be sufficient to kill the plants, so it matters little what the monthly, or annual averages were.)

OK – so I have now read each post, and have read a few of the links – but not all. I will go back over the following weeks and try to get my head around corals. If your contention that corals are sufficiently adaptive to recover in 10 years or so, then we have a relatively short timeframe within which to see that happen.

I have been fortunate to have dived in the South China Sea – and have witnessed cyanide damage there, have seen the agricultural runoff from cut-flower greenhouse production off of Okinawa, and I have also dived off of Australia, Malaysia, and other coral blessed areas of Japan – so will try to find out how these areas have fared. I hope to find that all is well and will be very happy (and I admit surprised) if we find in 10 years` time that Australia`s Great Barrier Reef has recovered.

As Bobbo implies above – just exactly what needs to happen for you to agree that a species has been harmed? Extinction? IMO you have not proved your case, given the Bramble Cay melomys, and should now abandon the claim that no species has been harmed.

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 Feb 12, 2017 4:04 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You misstate what you say. What you SAY is: "Over here in this limited area or time frame it is Cold, therefore there is no Global Warming." The Average Global Temperature IS GLOBAL. See....its right there in its name. You (try to) make a false equivalency.
Bobbo your constant attempt to re-state my arguments is tiresome and dishonest. FOr the umpteenth time when I point out how different regions respond, my argument has always been there are different levels of sensitivity to CO2, and examples of cooling regions suggest there are natural climate dynamics that overpower any CO2 effects and thus the science is not yet settled.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The study you linked to was NOT global marine productivity as you use it but rather the production of chlorophyll.....as always with your data sets: only a subset of what you call it and how you try to use it
Again you mangle what was written. You deny the science in your never ending dishonest attempts to denigrate me. I linked to 2 studies. One study was about how climate scientists use satellite data to estimate productivity. Changing chlorophyll is the key to their calculations of productivity but the ability to do so has only existed since the 80s They concluded, "[anthropogenic] climate change-driven trend will not be unambiguously separable from decadal variability until∼2055" goo.gl/uagrbK

The take home lesson from that consensus, any claim that productivity has declined is mere speculation.

The second paper measures productivity over the past 700 years by measuring changes in proxies in sediments in an anoxic basin were organic matter is best preserved. That paper and I post thei graph again shows since the end of the LIttle Ie Age (aka preindustrial) , marine productivity has increased dramatically. The take home message here is based on past changes in productivity and demonstrate that a century of warming has increased productivity.

Image
“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 Feb 12, 2017 6:58 pm

TJrandom wrote: Jim, it seems to me that in this quote, you have admitted that climate change has indeed caused damage to species of coral.
… 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. (May 22)
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=26817#p513297
TJ you seem to miss the point, and loosely use of the phrase "climate change" that only creates misunderstanding. Indeed coral have adapted to climate change over the last 12000 years, as sea level that had dropped by 400 feet killing the exposed coral, as sea level rose to current levels reefs like the Great Barrier quickly colonized new territory. Nothing to do with CO2. Coral have also adapted to the PDO and El Ninos that have sloshed around solar-warmed ocean water for millennia and encouraging bleaching. Nothing to do with CO2. As researchers have published, (see below) the greatest cause of coral bleaching is hurricanes/cyclones. Nothing to do with CO2. Has CO2 impacted coral? Well the consensus concludes in order for their symbionts to photosynthesize, coral lower their internal pH to below 5.0. From that perspective more CO2 has been beneficial. How much has CO2 contributed to bleaching? Nobody knows because the effects of hurricanes, starfish and El Nino create too much "noise" to be able to unequivocally extract a CO2 signal. From Osborne 2011, bleaching warm water due to natural El Nino or CO2, is a relatively minor problem.

Image
TJrandom wrote:it seems rather irrelevant that a year or two increase in temperature in the past did not cause all coral species to become extinct. It isn`t a year or two of warming that we are talking about – but rather one possibly lasting hundreds of years and at temperatures that haven`t been seen by mankind.
You are ill-informed. The Holocene experienced temperatures several degrees warmer than today for thousands of years. It is not a matter of a few years. That was never the point of any arguments I made. Just 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period , ocean temperatures were as warm or warmer than today, as demonstrated by proxy evidence in the sediments

TJrandom wrote:I will go back over the following weeks and try to get my head around corals. If your contention that corals are sufficiently adaptive to recover in 10 years or so, then we have a relatively short timeframe within which to see that happen.
No. There is a lengthy time frame. We already have evidence that coral have rapidly recovered from devastating El Nino events. We already have evidence that bleaching is not a global phenomenon. As I linked to, studies find reefs undisturbed by humans are doing perfectly well, and resilient to El NIno disturbances after just one year. Pointing to bleached coral that have suffered from starfish depredation, or excess fishing or sediment release from landscape disturbances or bleached during an El Nino, is cherry picking. And as studies have shown coral recovering from hurricanes and starfish, underwent bouts of bleaching but still continued to recover.

Image
TJrandom wrote:I have been fortunate to have dived in the South China Sea – and have witnessed cyanide damage there, have seen the agricultural runoff from cut-flower greenhouse production off of Okinawa, and I have also dived off of Australia, Malaysia, and other coral blessed areas of Japan – so will try to find out how these areas have fared. I hope to find that all is well and will be very happy (and I admit surprised) if we find in 10 years` time that Australia`s Great Barrier Reef has recovered.
More troubling is China's practice of creating islands by covering reefs.

TJrandom wrote: just exactly what needs to happen for you to agree that a species has been harmed? Extinction?
As always the case to attribute human caused harm, it needs be shown that population changes are outside natural oscillations. Everyone that studies wildlife, as I have done, knows they must account for natural cycles. Second to attribute a population change to CO2, researchers must prove their case by showing the research that shows as "CO2 has risen, populations have declined, and therefore the population change must be due to human climate change " Simpiistic assertions are not scientific. Alternative explanations must be explored and studies must happen over a period of time that are long enough to eliminate natural climate oscillations. Snapshot evidence inevitably has led to bad conclusions, and such bad conclusions litter the peer reviewed literature. Are you are aware the PDO can raise sea level in the region where the Bramble Cay disaapeared?

There are so many holes in the Bramble Cay assertions. So why do you obfuscate a discussion about coral with that. Lets stay focus on coral in this thread. If you want to discuss the Bramble Cay, create a new thread dedicated to it, otherwise it is just a distraction.
Last edited by Jim Steele on Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:52 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
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:17 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: the sea level keeps going up.
Yesterday I drew a bath. After I put the stopper in the drain and turned on the water, the water level kept rising!

Help! How do I get the CO2 out of my bathtub! :lol:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

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 Feb 12, 2017 9:36 pm

Paul: you should be ashamed of yourself..............giving JS good arguments 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 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:40 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Paul: you should be ashamed of yourself..............giving JS good arguments like that.
More of Bobbo's typical replies. No science but more stupid attempts at personal denigration. Please grow up Bobbo!
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:35 am

JIm Steele wrote: ... There are so many holes in the Bramble Cay assertions. So why do you obfuscate a discussion about coral with that. Lets stay focus on coral in this thread. If you want to discuss the Bramble Cay, create a new thread dedicated to it, otherwise it is just a distraction.
Nope - not at all. You contended that no species was harmed by climate change, manmade or natural I did not raise Bramble Cay melomy as a distraction - it was already in this thread when I came upon it.

Coral was simply a suspected area on my part at the beginning - as being species that have been harmed by climate change, and still are being harmed. I am still reading thru `coral` to learn more, and thank you for the information you have provided. If you do not agree that an extinction occurred, or of the cause, then you should point out those holes, or change your assertion. This thread can handle more than coral.

I do not agree that to demonstrate harm, one must first eliminate any possible natural cause, or show that the population isn`t significantly declining because of that one death. When a murderer pulls a trigger, he has harmed his victim no matter that his tendency to violence is natural, or that he, intended to do a natural act such as eating the newly deceased, or that the human population in India is still increasing. The same of course with multiple murderers, which is why prisons house many such people.

With coral, or any of the other critters you initially listed, is it your contention that not one animal has been shown to have died due to climate change – or that there are so few that it doesn`t matter? I suspect not, but I also do not agree on the other extreme - that if evolutionary magic kicks in, that no harm has been shown.

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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:47 am

TJrandom wrote:I do not agree that to demonstrate harm, one must first eliminate any possible natural cause, or show that the population isn`t significantly declining because of that one death. When a murderer pulls a trigger, he has harmed his victim no matter that his tendency to violence is natural, or that he, intended to do a natural act such as eating the newly deceased, or that the human population in India is still increasing. The same of course with multiple murderers, which is why prisons house many such people.
TJ you have created an irrelevant false equivalency that has no bearing on the issue at hand. In your imaginary scenario you know the gun did harm. You know your murderer pulled the trigger.

In the real world we don't know if CO2 caused a death or a declining population. We can only hypothesize. You MUST first determine natural oscillations before you can make sense of what the population naturally does. Standard ecology reports naturally oscillating populations when they reach carrying capacity. That is undeniable science. No scientists of any merit will ever assume that there is only one possible cause for a decline. Regards symbiotic coral it is proven that in order to photosynthesize coral must use CO2, and will lower their internal pH below 5.0 in order convert bicarbonate ions into CO2. More CO2 reduces the cost of photosynthesis. Thus more CO2 is a good thing.

Furthermore coral are not in danger from acidification that can reduce aragonite saturation. Coral inhabit the most super-saturated waters on earth

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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:52 am

"Its hard out here being a coral!" //// We love the increased co2 aka acidification. Now.... if only the warmer water didn't kill us.

Adding to "harm" that still needs to be defined/agreed upon, we also have "coral". JS appears to be using it as the entire Family of Corals. Any coral remaining on earth is...........coral. When individual species of coral are wiped out but replaced by other species of coral, there is still..........coral. The colder warm water corals are dying out in their trillions, bleaching the reefs...but being replaced by warmer warm water corals.

Still Corals.

There is no correlation, no evidentiary likelihood, that can meet the standard of "proof" that is argued for here. The standard I suppose is that while co2 is a green house gas in laboratory conditions.........there is no proof at all that in the real world it has any effect at all........except all the good ones like increasing plant growth.

What other definitions are beyond our reasonable approach?
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Adding to "harm" that still needs to be defined/agreed upon, we also have "coral". JS appears to be using it as the entire Family of Corals. Any coral remaining on earth is...........coral. When individual species of coral are wiped out but replaced by other species of coral, there is still..........coral. The colder warm water corals are dying out in their trillions, bleaching the reefs...but being replaced by warmer warm water corals.?
Bobbo your psychobabble is incomprehensible. And stop the lies and fabricating what I mean.

Try to name the species of coral that CO2 wiped out??
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:17 am

I will after you define what you mean by harm.
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I will after you define what you mean by harm.
ROTFLMAO
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:30 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I will after you define what you mean by harm.
ROTFLMAO
Actually, that was what I was trying to get at. JIm - exactly what in the context of climate change do you mean by the word `harm`? I had asked if you meant extinction, but suspect that you would accept a lower level of `impact`. Please do define harm.

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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:41 am

JIm Steele wrote:
TJrandom wrote:I do not agree that to demonstrate harm, one must first eliminate any possible natural cause, or show that the population isn`t significantly declining because of that one death. When a murderer pulls a trigger, he has harmed his victim no matter that his tendency to violence is natural, or that he, intended to do a natural act such as eating the newly deceased, or that the human population in India is still increasing. The same of course with multiple murderers, which is why prisons house many such people.
TJ you have created an irrelevant false equivalency that has no bearing on the issue at hand. In your imaginary scenario you know the gun did harm. You know your murderer pulled the trigger.

In the real world we don't know if CO2 caused a death or a declining population. We can only hypothesize. You MUST first determine natural oscillations before you can make sense of what the population naturally does. Standard ecology reports naturally oscillating populations when they reach carrying capacity. That is undeniable science. No scientists of any merit will ever assume that there is only one possible cause for a decline. Regards symbiotic coral it is proven that in order to photosynthesize coral must use CO2, and will lower their internal pH below 5.0 in order convert bicarbonate ions into CO2. More CO2 reduces the cost of photosynthesis. Thus more CO2 is a good thing.

Furthermore coral are not in danger from acidification that can reduce aragonite saturation. Coral inhabit the most super-saturated waters on earth

Image
JIm - but yet you seem to accept that cyanide and dynamite fishing, and agricultural runoffs harm populations of coral... Must I first deduct the rainwater that brought the agricultural chemical to the coral? Or in the case of dynamite and cyanide, must I first eliminate the residual diesel exhaust from the boat? After all, rainwater is natural, and so is the greed of man - hence the dynamite, cyanide, and diesel fuel.

My use of harm, is standard usage IMO. What is your deffinition of harm to species in the context of climate change?

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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:21 pm

Let's define YOUR definition of harm and go from there.
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:45 pm

TJrandom wrote: JIm - but yet you seem to accept that cyanide and dynamite fishing, and agricultural runoffs harm populations of coral...
That you find that odd is telling that you do not understand the problem. What existential rabbit hole are you trying to divert the debate?

Clearly I have pointed out various causes of "harm" to coral. The debate is 1) how much harm has CO2 caused and 2) how do you distinguish hypothesized CO2 harm versus all the other causes .

Bobbo couldnt answer but perhaps you can. What species of coral has been driven to extinction by CO2, or just endangered? And how do you/researchers determine that CO2 was the problem?
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:56 pm

co2 traps heat in the atmosphere which is transferred to the ocean directly and the warm melts on land snow and ice. both events causing the sea level to constantly rise and in one known case the extinction those island rats.

It is harming many species by changing and moving their naturally occurring habitat at a faster rate than normal evolution can accommodate.
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:44 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:co2 traps heat in the atmosphere which is transferred to the ocean directly and the warm melts on land snow and ice. both events causing the sea level to constantly rise and in one known case the extinction those island rats.

It is harming many species by changing and moving their naturally occurring habitat at a faster rate than normal evolution can accommodate.
I am deeply confused. In your scenario, exactly which coral species are you claiming is harmed or endangered by CO2?

And no regional cherry picking. It must be a global species to be hurt globally by global warming. Otherwise you would have to examine regional factors and separate them from
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:02 pm

I don't actually care "that much" about corals... or bears.... or tree stumps. I care about the human species and our culture. I care about avoiding what is predicted to happen 100 years from now.......as demonstrated right now.

But a quick google for anyone who does care: "A fifth of the Great Barrier Reef’s corals are dead after the worst bleaching event on record. "

"Current trends in ocean temperature and future predictions suggest bleaching will occur each year within the coming decades. Some reefs around the world have just experienced consecutive years of bleaching, with barely any opportunity for colonies, let alone reefs, to recover."

http://theconversation.com/will-the-gre ... hing-67063
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:31 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I don't actually care "that much" about corals... or bears.... or tree stumps.
That has been obvious. You just like to argue.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But a quick google for anyone who does care: "A fifth of the Great Barrier Reef’s corals are dead after the worst bleaching event on record. "
So Bobbo as many researchers have shown, coral are far more often killed and thus bleached by storms and starfish. Do you know that when they fly over an area, they can not tell if bleaching happened from storms, sediments or starfish. Studies such as OSborn 2011 (below) showed less than 6% of the bleaching in the past has been attributed to warm water, and that is connected to El Nino events.

Image

As I reported in the essay for this post, reefs/species that undergo heavy bleaching during one EL Nino quickly evolve and are barely effected during the next event.

Simply linking a commentary about severe bleaching, tells us nothing about coral resilience as my essay has documented from hundreds of coral experts.
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:58 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
TJrandom wrote: JIm - but yet you seem to accept that cyanide and dynamite fishing, and agricultural runoffs harm populations of coral...
That you find that odd is telling that you do not understand the problem. What existential rabbit hole are you trying to divert the debate?

Clearly I have pointed out various causes of "harm" to coral. The debate is 1) how much harm has CO2 caused and 2) how do you distinguish hypothesized CO2 harm versus all the other causes .

Bobbo couldnt answer but perhaps you can. What species of coral has been driven to extinction by CO2, or just endangered? And how do you/researchers determine that CO2 was the problem?
So are you now accepting that a species has been harmed by climate change?

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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:14 pm

TJrandom wrote: So are you now accepting that a species has been harmed by climate change?
Whaaaattttt??????? Are you seriously asking that question after all that has been said?????

Ice Age?... yes CO2 ...NO!!! Why are you trying to turn this into a silly meaningless discussion.

Again name the coral species that has been harmed by CO2! And show how you know it was CO2 and not another factor.
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:17 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
TJrandom wrote: So are you now accepting that a species has been harmed by climate change?
Whaaaattttt??????? Are you seriously asking that question after all that has been said?????

Ice Age?... yes. CO2 ...NO!!! Why are you trying to turn this into a silly meaningless discussion.

Again name the coral species that has been harmed by CO2! And show how you know it was CO2 and not another factor.

For the umpteenth time, the discussion is has CO2 harmed coral?? Climate has changed over the hundreds of million years of coral existence. Populations swing up and down. Your question is totally without context and totally irrelevant.
“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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:19 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Simply linking a commentary about severe bleaching, tells us nothing about coral resilience as my essay has documented from hundreds of coral experts.
the linked commentary was about coral resilience and ocean warming.
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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:09 am

It is quite telling. Bobbo and TJ start down a linguistic rabbit hole demanding I define harm even though it should have been clear from my posts.

When asked how they define harm and we can go on from there, nothing but crickets! When bobbo fabricates my beliefs about harm to coral, suggesting I treat all coral the same. So I ask both bobbo and TJ what species has CO2 harmed???

And if they can name one, then how do they separate disease and other real human effects from CO2? Again just crickets and obfiscations

I now wonder if we are sincerely trying to discuss the effects of CO2 on coral, or are they just engaging in obfuscation?
“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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:11 am

Using the same definition of proof, can JS prove anything else killed those rats?

"Should have been clear" and "I've answered that many times before." Darn..... I need to start using those too.
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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:26 am

The Bramble Cay rat was first discovered in the 1800s. Bramble Cay is a small 300 meter by 150 meter sandy island atop a small coral atoll. It grows and shrinks from season to season as shifting currents alter sand deposition. The rats likely arrived via the boats of fishermen or exploring saiiors. Or perhaps arrived on drifting logs exported from the mainland in a storm. There is no evidence that rats had opportunistically inhabited the Cay for more than 2 hundred years. No other related populations have been found. The Cay likely only ever hosted a few hundred rats and, have been isolated from all others since their arrival. They have likely weakened and suffered severe inbreeding depression over that time period.

The Cay has little vegetation to feed and shelter the rats and the vegetation is almost 99% one plant species. Sea birds breed there and nest in the vegetation, which forces out the rats. Depending on local fish abundance, sea birds can breed in huge numbers that could have a huge negative impact on the rats. Data on rat populations are snapshots from episodic surveys. Data on sea bird numbers and other human disturbances are lacking,

Green turtles breed there as well. As protein is precious in the region, the locals visit the Cay to hunt turtle and sea bird eggs. They unleash their dogs to chase seabirds off their nests, but the dogs could also devour all rats on such a small island that's no bigger than 3 football fields. In addition people of SE Asia are also fond of rat meat. So it is likely that subsistence scavengers hunting turtle eggs would also harvest all encountered rats along with the eggs.

The island is only 3 meters at it highest point. La NInas can cause the regions sea level to rise by a few centimeters, and strong storm surges often reaching 4 to 6 meters can easily wash across the island whether or not there has been sea level rise or not. Nonetheless according to the PSMSL tide gauges for the region, there is no trend i sea level rise. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr ... 0_high.png

After considering all these facts it is clear that the extinction of the Bramble Cay rat could only be due to rising CO2. And by extrapolation to the entire globe, we are all gonna die! ROTFLMAO
“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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:53 am

JIm Steele wrote:...After considering all these facts it is clear that the extinction of the Bramble Cay rat could only be due to rising CO2. And by extrapolation to the entire globe, we are all gonna die! ROTFLMAO
Well JIm, you said it. So please go back and edit that post that said that no species has ever been harmed by climate change whether manmade or natural.

BTW IMO, harm would be physical injury or damage. I would add that harm for a coral colony, or reef could be limited to a small portion/area; need not be ever-lasting; and need not include death. As a diver, if I kicked the coral and broke off portions, I cause harm. As a farmer, if my pesticide is washed out to sea and the coral dies, I caused harm. If I dynamite fish or use cyanide off the coast of Florida, my best guess is that the Coast Guard will say that I caused harm.

Your claim that no species has been harmed by climate change is ludicrous.

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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:36 am

TJrandom wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:...After considering all these facts it is clear that the extinction of the Bramble Cay rat could only be due to rising CO2. And by extrapolation to the entire globe, we are all gonna die! ROTFLMAO
Well JIm, you said it. So please go back and edit that post that said that no species has ever been harmed by climate change whether manmade or natural.
TJ you have been asked to specify what species of coral has been killed by CO2. You failed to offer any.

Instead you, failing to see obvious sarcasm regards claims of the Bramble Cay rat, you try to hoist it as an example.

The lesson learned is I am dealing with someone who has no intellectual integrity. You avoid discussing all the pertinent evidence presented to you and indulge bogus wordplay. I now realize my hope for a meaningful discussion with you is grossly misplaced, and you will never engage in sincere discussion of the facts.
“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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:14 am

JIm Steele wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:...After considering all these facts it is clear that the extinction of the Bramble Cay rat could only be due to rising CO2. And by extrapolation to the entire globe, we are all gonna die! ROTFLMAO
Well JIm, you said it. So please go back and edit that post that said that no species has ever been harmed by climate change whether manmade or natural.
TJ you have been asked to specify what species of coral has been killed by CO2. You failed to offer any.

Instead you, failing to see obvious sarcasm regards claims of the Bramble Cay rat, you try to hoist it as an example.

The lesson learned is I am dealing with someone who has no intellectual integrity. You avoid discussing all the pertinent evidence presented to you and indulge bogus wordplay. I now realize my hope for a meaningful discussion with you is grossly misplaced, and you will never engage in sincere discussion of the facts.
Easy there JIm - I left your floor antics in place – easy to see the sarcasm used to avoid the question.

You have failed time and time again to address your basic premise - that no species has been harmed by climate change. You continue to hide behind regional variation and need to eliminate every possible natural impactor no matter how many eons ago – and you refuse to define a rather simple four letter word, I presume because you want to play fast and loose instead of boiling it down to terms and definitions we can agree on. Hell, I don`t even require that you agree to my definition - rather just ask you to state yours, and you have not done so - bogus wordplay indeed.

I do not have a coral species that was – erm, wxyz`ed (can`t say harmed, since we don`t know what that means, do we?)

BTW – please do be careful as you thrash about…

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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:12 pm

Having taught evolution at secondary schools and the university level, corals' adaptive capability to evolve within days to changing conditions by acquiring new genomes for their symbiosis by shifting and shuffling their symbionts, is really one of the most amazing biological stories of this decade that transcends simplistic Darwinian evolution. I know most people here, as elsewhere, would not be aware of this coral awesomeness that has allowed them to flourish for hundreds of million years through all sorts of dramatic climate change far more severe than today. I had hoped it would evoke a more intelligent conversation by all. Researchers in the field of coral restoration are experimenting with manipulating this symbiont shuffling mechanism to plant more adaptive coral in disturbed areas.

When I posted this essay on a skeptic sites, there were numerous comments about this mechanism with people eagerly trying to understand it in better detail and others forwarding links to peer reviewed papers that added to the story. Its curious how skeptics quickly embraced their biological awesomeness.

In contrast here, not a peep. Instead of acknowledging this evolutionary marvel, warmunistas thrashed about the internet looking for a doomsday story, countering with an apocryphal claim about CO2 killing marooned rats, or trying to dig rhetorical rabbit holes about "harm", a term they themselves refused to define.

Sad that warmunistas are so blind to nature's marvels whenever it demonstrates nature's resilience. Its as if some need to believe in extreme fragility or nothing at all. Its as if they never see natural harm countered by natural resilience. They have a death grip belief that recent changes to a population can only be due to rising CO2, and then become blinded to all of nature's battles and wondrous tools of survival. Sad. They miss so much!
“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 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:08 pm

Again: using Coral as the entire family of corals rather than individual species. The linked article shows harm to the coral species in the Norther half of the Great Barrier Reef and concerns that with warming water those species will NEVER recover and be replaced by other more warmer water loving species.

Coral is known and reported to have been harmed by drag net fishing, dynamite fishing, tourists picking it, tourists walking on it, riverine sediment runoff, agricultural chemical run offs and other indignities....I want to say oxygen depletion...but I don't know if the "dead zones" humans are creating include the valiant coral family.

As an expert in coral, JS surely you agree that temperature affects corals? Affects: providing better and worse conditions for different species. And what causes oceans to warm????
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?