Acropora made the NYTimes today

Status
Not open for further replies.

hatfielj

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
2,321
Reaction score
1,941
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
They summarize a recent study released in Nature by the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Australia. It's one of the first studies to show that important ecosystem processes are being disrupted by climate change, even on scale as big as the great barrier reef. Unfortunately, they showed that acropora were hit the hardest of all coral species studied. It's scary news, but they are still optimistic that there is a chance to change things and save these ecosystems from total collapse if we act soon.

NYtimes Article
 
Tax Carbon and jail all climate deniers;-)
 
Never let a good crisis go to waste, we all know that slight temperature shifts don't affect corals. If it did all of our tanks would crash.

Anyone else notice that the "muh all scientists agree" usually spread bad information? Like they call zooxanthellae an algae, but we all know they are dinoflagellates, GBR is dying but the Red Sea is growing. An appeal to popularity is still a fallacy, show me the data.
 
If old men want to sit around and complain about how the world has gone to hell with the current generation by only choosing the narratives that illustrate their points, then why cannot scientists and nature people want to hold on to the ocean as it is today? Neither are all that reasonable as the only constant is change. The more reasonable approach is that old men get dumber when gathered into groups, deniers are still ignorant since they never seek any opinions other than their own and that new reefs will form/migrate into cooler waters probably like they have for millenia, but we just did not know then (there was a coral reef covering most of Utah at one point). However, it is still OK to listen to old men since they might have something useful to say every once in a while, and also listed to scientists for the same reason... seeking out a different opinion is part of enlightenment.

I do not know that slight temp shifts don't affect corals. I know the opposite. Turn your tank up to 83-84 and let it sit there for a year or two. A few few swings up that high during the summer might not hurt much, but constant high temps will ruin your reef. Do it and see.
 
If old men want to sit around and complain about how the world has gone to hell with the current generation by only choosing the narratives that illustrate their points, then why cannot scientists and nature people want to hold on to the ocean as it is today? Neither are all that reasonable as the only constant is change. The more reasonable approach is that old men get dumber when gathered into groups, deniers are still ignorant since they never seek any opinions other than their own and that new reefs will form/migrate into cooler waters probably like they have for millenia, but we just did not know then (there was a coral reef covering most of Utah at one point). However, it is still OK to listen to old men since they might have something useful to say every once in a while, and also listed to scientists for the same reason... seeking out a different opinion is part of enlightenment.

I do not know that slight temp shifts don't affect corals. I know the opposite. Turn your tank up to 83-84 and let it sit there for a year or two. A few few swings up that high during the summer might not hurt much, but constant high temps will ruin your reef. Do it and see.

What do people ages have to do with truth or facts? Why are opinions even considered in the scientific community? It is supposed to be an exclusively objective field. As an electrical engineer/solid state physicist myself I understand that the only objective sciences are chemistry and physics. All other fields of science are based around subjective observations. The only thing that makes physics and chemistry objective is because they formulate physical phenomenon with math.

Yes if you turn your tank up to 83-84 degrees things die, but "climate change" is a change of average temperature around a fraction of a degree a year. Our tanks fluctuate probably up to a degree a day.
 
New York City is one of the largest cancerous blights on the face of the earth. Then there is the sewage and trash it produces.

I am not interested in environmental opinions from people that ship their trash all the way to China.
 
New York City is one of the largest cancerous blights on the face of the earth. Then there is the sewage and trash it produces.

I am not interested in environmental opinions from people that ship their trash all the way to China.

Or their sewage to Alabama. There is a train full of it in Hamilton that they won't move.
 
You are only seeing what you want to see. Agree or disagree, but the temps in the dying parts of the GBR are up to 83-84 almost constantly... much more than the fraction that you might see elsewhere. This is where the dogma of the "old man" syndrome sets in where you cannot see past your past influence and knowledge - trying to compare biology with math is another example of this dogma like trying to compare people who love their dogs with people who love their kids (both are false equivalencies.) There are hundreds of sources out there that will tell you that it is not the daily flux, but the constantly higher temps that are the problem, like I just did, yet you still post something different. Will this change the next time around with this enlightenment, or will you post this again? I can guess that it will be something like "where is the proof."

I have no stance on climate change. The climate has changed forever and always will. I am interested to see what part we play in it, but I am not naive to think that the climate was ever stable, nor not naive enough to think that humans are not playing a part. 10,000 years ago, we were in an ice age, which was not that long ago in the 4.56 billion year old earth.
 
I find interesting that people that have erased all traces of the natural ecosystem from 1000s of feet above the ground to 100s of feet below as far as the eye can see think they are experts on how to protect it.

The view is very poor when you live inside a concrete septic tank. The fumes give you delusions of grandeur.
 
Stating opinions to counter repeated, well documented scientific consensus isn’t worth the pixels / bandwidth used...

If folks feel they can have an intelligent scientific debate, not throw sophomoric political red herrings by all means go ahead. All I’ve seen from people who complain in this thread (for reasons that are difficult to comprehend) - I know better, scientists are wrong, I’m right because I’m right...earth is old, climate changes yadda yadda..

that said, being offensive to people who live in a specific area should be unacceptable at this forum. #mods #reefsquad
 
New York City is one of the largest cancerous blights on the face of the earth. Then there is the sewage and trash it produces.

I am not interested in environmental opinions from people that ship their trash all the way to China.

Ignoring the topic at hand and pointing fingers, I love your take on the issue.

What a crock of crap.

Also love how you refuted the article with such a valid point.

Climate change is a real and NATURAL phenomenon that is being exacerbated by humans. Understanding concepts such as rate of change and scale are very important. If you deny anthropocentric climate change, I am interested in knowing what you think to be the cause(s) of increasing coral bleaching . Things like pollution, untreated sewage, etc. are known to kill reefs, but it is know fact that lasting high temperature events have cause massive coral bleaching. As atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased in the past 80 years (fact), which strangely mirrors fossil fuel use, which in turn increases global temperatures, I am just curious your reasons in refuting the effect of climate change on reefs.
 
I just don't see why anyone brings up this subject.

It causes arguments, insults and never ever results in anything good.

Just stop!

BTW, @jda you really need to watch insulting folks (old people as you say). It's childish and uncalled for.
 
Suppose global climate change was true, then why is the Red Sea growing and GBR bleaching? The west coast of the Red Sea is hotter than GBR. There would be a global bleaching event not just a cherry picked GBR. China is notorious for pollution and Australia does nothing about it. Japan's ecosystem disrupting whaling can't help either.

According to http://data.aims.gov.au/aimsrtds/yearlytrends.xhtml: GBR's temperature even at its hottest times during the year don't exceed 84 degrees. I would double check your facts. Red Sea is even hotter than GBR too and doing just fine.

My person view is humans are contributing to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, that's pretty easy to prove. CO2 then goes into the oceans due to gas exchange. That's probably a factor that will impact the health of the reefs that I can agree with, but there is little evidence of increases of atmospheric CO2 having heat trapping abilities or nonreciprocal polarizing light abilities like Al Gore says. I think we should give heavy thought on what causes these things before we give more power to politicians to try to solve them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%

New Posts

Back
Top