The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[RaymondR]

I wonder what the breakdown of pro versus anti was for the phlogistin theory?? I would imagine the pros pretty well had it nailed down until that mongrel Priestley came along and discovered Oxygen??

[GordMay]

If I understand correctly, this new paper supports much of what Reefmagnet has told us of his observations on the GBR.


The lead author's discussion of their published research*:

“Life and death of the Great Barrier Reef” ~ by Aaron MacNeil
➥ https://natureecoevocommunity.nature...t-barrier-reef

“The depth and breadth of human impacts on the Great Barrier Reef has made it hard to decide what kind of shape it is in, and what we might do about it...
... First it was that the reef had recovered well from recent storms and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks. Then came cyclones Hamish (2009) and Yasi (2011), two particularly devastating storms whose direction and size led to vast losses of hard coral, particularly across the southern GBR. As if that wasn’t enough, a new wave of crown-of-thorns outbreaks began toward the northern end of the reef, leading to extensive coral losses that are ongoing. Finally, the massive double El Niño between 2015 and 2017 laid waste to the previously ‘pristine end’ of the reef - the northernmost third. Each year seemed more disheartening than the last.
All the while, in comparison to other reefs we were studying around the world, the Great Barrier Reef looked to be in comparatively good shape. My colleague Nick Graham pointed out over a beer in 2010 that this was due, in part, to the relatively low fishing effort on the GBR. While there are important commercial and recreational fisheries present, they pale in comparison to the magnitude of fishing across most of the tropics (MacNeil et al. 2015), where nearly all fish species are targeted, with often devastating effects on ecosystem function (McClanahan et al 2011). Australian fishers on the other hand, primarily target a few emperors and groupers whose populations are supported by closed areas within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Emslie et al. 2015). The dominant chronic disturbance on the GBR is different - it is runoff pollution...
... Our results* showed that water quality is the major chronic disturbance on the Great Barrier Reef, leading to up to 25% reductions in hard coral recovery rates post-disturbance. Poor water quality also enhances coral loss from disease and crown-of-thorns starfish, providing important support for the hypothesis that riverine-borne nutrients increase their impacts. Yet, based on a hunch by co-author Tim McClanahan, we also looked into the effects of poor water quality on bleaching severity, finding that areas with greater runoff are buffered somewhat from the worst effects of coral bleaching due to shading by turbid water...”
Note: Emphasis mine.

The paper:
“Water quality mediates resilience on the Great Barrier Reef” ~ by M. Aaron MacNei et al. *
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...ZgQBj_LA%3D%3D

Media Release ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University:
“No silver bullet for the Great Barrier Reef”
➥ https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-re...t-barrier-reef

[Reefmagnet]

Yes, I totally agree with that. Hamish was very unusual in that it ran basically along the entire length of the outer reef, and yasi was one of the largest diameter cyclones ever recorded. Both reached cat 5 IIRC.

[GordMay]

Reefmagnet:
I hope you read Aaron MacNeil’s full discussion (“Life and death of the Great Barrier Reef”), and perhaps the paper itself (“Water quality mediates resilience on the Great Barrier Reef”); and would invite your comments (as an informed layperson) on their observations, and conclusions (beyond the storm damage).

[Lake-Effect]

Thanks Gord.


Reefmagnet seems most interested in the future of the GBR as a vehicle for conveying his anti-CC stance, and downunder is just mad at politicians; the reef doesn't even seem to enter into it. Whatever guys; it's your reef.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks Gord.


Reefmagnet seems most interested in the future of the GBR as a vehicle for conveying his anti-CC stance, and downunder is just mad at politicians; the reef doesn't even seem to enter into it. Whatever guys; it's your reef.

Boy, is this response revealing. Since you thanked Gord for his post, I assumed you had read the studies he posted. I haven't yet, but they appear to lay out a number of human & natural factors that scientists believe are impacting the GBR negatively. I suspect some of the human causes are attributed to CC, but cause & effect may be debatable (dunno, need to read it). Either way, rather than discussing the science that's just been posted and is the topic of the thread, you fixate on impugning the personal motives of individual posters. All the more ridiculous in the case of Reefmagnet who's own cruising grounds are large parts of the GBR itself!

Can't you contain your own anger directed towards people who don't agree with your particular brand of partisanship and allow civil discourse for a change? Or are you still incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy? Here, try this:

"Reefmagnet Lake-Effect seems most interested in the future of the GBR as a vehicle for conveying his anti pro-CC stance, and like downunder, Lake-Effect is just mad at politicians who oppose his agenda; the reef doesn't even seem to enter into it. Whatever guys; it's your reef."

No actually, it's our reef, and there's nobody reading this thread who isn't interested in preserving it. So let's try and learn a bit about what's actually going on by avoiding brain-numbing partisanship, hyperbole, and personalization. We already know what motivates you, so there's really no need to continue broadcasting it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... No actually, it's our reef, and there's nobody reading this thread who isn't interested in preserving it. So let's try and learn a bit about what's actually going on by avoiding brain-numbing partisanship, hyperbole, and personalization ...

Indeed.
Even if you spell personalisation wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...are you still incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy?

Reefmagnet was dismissing the reports provided by his government; I acknowledged that he was going to have a better picture than me, I asked FOUR TIMES for some references that he considered more accurate about the health and future of the reef. You saw the non-responses I got. Let's not forget TripAdvisor...

Only Gord shared anything relevant. All I was asking for.

How about you shelve your uncritical defense of any skeptic/denial position, no matter how weak or preposterous, thereby giving your own hypocritical maximus some much needed rest?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think it's incumbent upon you to prove whether and how much genuine scientific dissent there really is, since it's your assertion that despite all evidence to the contrary, it's there.

No, it was your assertion that I was questioning, the one you labeled as "fact" but I strongly suspect (as usual) was mere hyperbole:

I am of course also reassured by the fact that if there really was significant scientific dispute, all those institutions and organizations of scientists would not have endorsed the prevailing conclusions. And that the opponents of any AGW response would have already ferreted it out.

Happy to hear you're reassured, but others are not. There are many reasons, already highlighted ad nauseum for years throughout these threads, why qualified dissenters have not been heard.

And that the fossil-fuel industry would not have had to create bogus "institutions" and go in search of rent-a-scientists.

I have yet to see anything other than insinuation suggesting that the fossil fuel industry has done anything other than facilitate trying to get dissenting scientific opinions out there, and am unaware of evidence demonstrating conclusively that the professionalism of scientists on either side of the debate has been compromised.

Could it simply be an assumption based on YOUR own personal inclinations and dominant exposure to US right-wing views? We don't want to drag this political/personal like that, but you went there first.

I'm not inclined towards extreme views from either side of the political spectrum, but do try and stay abreast of what the more extreme right & left are saying. If you mean do I have some bias due to my personal political views when it comes to CC, then yes I would agree. I think everyone does, unfortunately, because the issue has become so heavily politicized. The problem is too many people are unaware of their own bias, and so too often confuse politically influenced opinion with scientific fact.

That would be playing to the sensational, not the scientific. How about we stick to the science - what is happening to the GBR (including but not limited to CC), and what the net effect is predicted is likely to be, absent any intervention?

Apparently this is easier for you to say than to allow it to be done.

If the Australian government can't be trusted to speak honestly about the condition and future of the GBR... where should we look?

Who suggested the Australian govt. wasn't being "honest?" Maybe they're just wrong? Maybe Professor Ridd is simply wrong for that matter? Or maybe he isn't? I'm not seeing credible allegations of "dishonesty" about the science from either side, except from the partisans that is.

Even most of those dissenters believe that some bad stuff will likely happen if we don't change. Why haven't they convinced you of that?

I'm not aware of Spencer, Christy, Curry et al. making these sorts of predictions, but maybe I missed it. Please advise.

If your case(s) are so fragile that they require extensive lawyering and rationalization over a tiny number of outliers like Spencer and Ridd...

A "tiny" number of dissenters? We've been through this little dance before, and can do it again if need be. Last time it was debunked through a simple Wiki as I recall. More accurate to characterize it as minority & majority views I think, especially since it's apparently never been credibly quantified.

I don't understand how "extensive lawyering and rationalization" entrees into a scientific discussion. Sounds like more hyperbole.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Reefmagnet was dismissing the reports provided by his government; I acknowledged that he was going to have a better picture than me, I asked FOUR TIMES for some references that he considered more accurate about the health and future of the reef. You saw the non-responses I got. Let's not forget TripAdvisor...

Only Gord shared anything relevant. All I was asking for.

How about you shelve your uncritical defense of any skeptic/denial position, no matter how weak or preposterous, thereby giving your own hypocritical maximus some much needed rest?

Your only criticism of skeptical/dissenting views that I've read thus far is that they are in the minority. Certainly worth pointing out, but hardly dispositive in the science arena.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
Even if you spell personalisation wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Exile, I can't see how your flurry of responses to me is entirely in accord with your stated desire for "avoiding brain-numbing partisanship, hyperbole, and personalization." Should we maybe stop it, then?

[GordMay]

... Who suggested the Australian govt. wasn't being "honest?" Maybe they're just wrong? Maybe Professor Ridd is simply wrong for that matter? Or maybe he isn't? I'm not seeing credible allegations of "dishonesty" about the science from either side, except from the partisans that is ...

Peter Ridd criticised his colleagues, and claimed they were untrustworthy.

For instance, he wrote a December 2016 email to a News Corp Australia journalist with a report attached, claiming the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which is based at JCU, was knowingly using “misleading” historical pictures of degraded reef.
Ridd later spoke about the disciplinary proceedings, repeating some of his criticisms and then, in later interviews, claimed the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies “can no longer be trusted”.
Emphasis mine.
L-E: Yes, please stop.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exile, I can't see how your flurry of responses to me is entirely in accord with your stated desire for "avoiding brain-numbing partisanship, hyperbole, and personalization." Should we maybe stop it, then?

You may have also noticed that my responses -- "flurry" or otherwise -- to other posters who are better at containing their partisanship and personal attacks are much more measured. So it's entirely up to you what sort of response you will get. I, for one, would much rather try and learn about the science and what is driving views about the GBR and other parts of the planet without your uniquely strident brand of divisiveness & derision.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Peter Ridd criticised his colleagues, and claimed they were untrustworthy.

For instance, he wrote a December 2016 email to a News Corp Australia journalist with a report attached, claiming the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which is based at JCU, was knowingly using “misleading” historical pictures of degraded reef.
Ridd later spoke about the disciplinary proceedings, repeating some of his criticisms and then, in later interviews, claimed the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies “can no longer be trusted”.
Emphasis mine.
L-E: Yes, please stop.

OK, maybe that's what L-E was referring to (allegations of dishonesty against the Australian govt). As a layman, I'm more inclined to believe it's just part of the back & forth that occasions legitimate scientific debate, but in this case I'm sure the court case has personalized it for Ridd (and the university) to some degree.

In general I'm hesitant to ascribe bad intentions or deliberate misconduct to scientists and scientific institutions, and believe (or maybe want to believe) it's more a function of human nature to try and defend one's positions & professional reputation. But there are obviously others who are more inclined to believe conduct is more malicious if not conspiratorial. We all try and reconcile such inconsistencies differently.