The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Someone using their ‘credentials’ to churn out unsubstantiated, malicious, loaded, manipulated data for the sole purpose of proving a point isn’t science, it’s propergander. Nothing personal here, I just like mine impartial and factual thanks. Don’t need a degree or accreditation to read any one of Ridds ‘press realease style science papers’ just a susceptible unquestioning mind apparently. They bear absolutely no resemblance to the legitimate, peer reviewed and published papers he’s written, it’s weird! But they are a really dull read with no pictures...so don’t bother.

http://https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/view/jcu/DA5453C168D269833E636FF058546F84.html

Someone with his ‘credentials’, I’m sure as you do, uses their words carefully and deliberately. Weather his motive was manipulation susceptible agent-driven adults, target a specific demographic or just a personal gripe I’ll leave for others to speculate. The guys been sacked as a result and Isnt it hypocritical to presume jcu is anything but innocent of their actions until proven otherwise...so Ridds current status is errr, guilty! The Credentialed poster boy martyr for the everyday Australian guy (and conflicted politicians), cant “win”

Has anyone noticed the clownfish pic at the top of the IPA page (link below) shows a clownfish RIDDled () with parasites, (the white spots around the eye) and disease? Difficult to say without a microscope but probably cryptocaryon irritants, but deff increased mucus and signs of necrotic tissue. Nice to see the reef inhabitants are doing JUST FINE (well unless you’re a taxonomic snob and think a fish has more rights to the reef than a tick)

http://https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/peter-ridd-and-the-science-of-reef-science

But yes you’re right, a lot of the more nuanced scientific banter I’m sure is lost on us average reader. So the irony that One of Ridds last jcu papers was about ‘quality control’ is probably lost on me. See below for a ‘truther’ quality scientific Statement



I could go on but fear the real subtleties would be lost

I'm no fish expert, but I'm going to take a wild stab and suggest that this is a photo of an aquarium fish.


Secondly, increased mucus??? Ask any kid that's seen "Finding Nemo" and they'll tell you, quick smart, that it's a requirement for a fish that makes its home inside a stinging anemone.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You have a valid point regarding the use of the word "sludge" in the title of the article, but to be fair, in the article itself, when The Guardian uses the word "sludge" it is only when quoting Senator Larissa Waters.

“The last thing the reef needs is more sludge dumped on it, after being slammed by the floods recently,” Waters said. “One million tonnes of dumping dredged sludge into world heritage waters treats our reef like a rubbish tip.”

and

“The backflip by state and federal Labor and Liberal governments several years ago, after sustained pressure from the Greens and the community, to ban offshore dumping from capital dredging shows they understand the damage this sludge can do to the marine environment – all the more so now that 50% of the corals have died from successive bleaching,” Waters said.

“Government policy needs to change to ban all offshore dumping, so GBRMPA is not allowed to permit the reef’s waters to be used as a cheaper alternative to treating the sludge and disposing of it safely onshore.”

The authors of the article use the more correct term "dredge spoil". Nowhere in the article was it suggested that the dredge spoil was contaminated by coal. Furthermore it also made clear that “Maintenance dredging involves relocating sediment which travels along the coast and accumulates over the years." The article also indicated that North Queensland Bulk Ports "dumping plan was peer-reviewed and considered best practice."

Frankly, I think you need to calm down, take a deep breath, and try reading the article for what it says, and not what you want/expect it to say.

The headline, accompanying photograph, and caption describing the photograph are likely what most people read, would you agree? If that weren't true, then why bother with sensationalist headlines?

In this case, the headline/title reads:

Great Barrier Reef authority gives green light to dump dredging sludge

Then the sub-title reads:

Great Barrier Reef authority gives green light to dump dredging sludge
A million tonnes of spoil to be disposed of in marine park – prompting calls for a ban on all offshore dumping

Then comes the photograph showing a half dozen large piles of coal at the port terminal, with a caption underneath that reads:

"The Hay Point coal terminal south of Mackay. Sludge from maintenance dredging is to be dumped in the Great Barrier Reef marine park."

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...yVKud-LEIYgz4w

As you correctly point out, the text of the article is more measured and accurate, but most people don't get that far. Even when they do, I for one was honestly waiting for the Senator or some other authority to tell me that there was spilled coal at the harbor bottom.

Hey, maybe the Senator & the Greens party are correct that there shouldn't be any additional dumping within the boundaries of the marine park, especially after the run-off from severe flooding along parts of the coast. If so, there was really no substantive (i.e. scientific) explanation why.

Are you starting to catch on to the problem of media bias, as least as applied to the CC issue? It really shouldn't matter whether it happens to be from The Guardian, The Daily Caller, or some other media source that leans towards whatever flavor you or I prefer. People simply don't take kindly to being manipulated, and when it's uncovered they are far less likely to rely on such a source again.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Someone using their ‘credentials’ to churn out unsubstantiated, malicious, loaded, manipulated data for the sole purpose of proving a point isn’t science, it’s propergander. Nothing personal here, I just like mine impartial and factual thanks. Don’t need a degree or accreditation to read any one of Ridds ‘press realease style science papers’ just a susceptible unquestioning mind apparently. They bear absolutely no resemblance to the legitimate, peer reviewed and published papers he’s written, it’s weird! But they are a really dull read with no pictures...so don’t bother.

http://https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/view/jcu/DA5453C168D269833E636FF058546F84.html

Someone with his ‘credentials’, I’m sure as you do, uses their words carefully and deliberately. Weather his motive was manipulation susceptible agent-driven adults, target a specific demographic or just a personal gripe I’ll leave for others to speculate. The guys been sacked as a result and Isnt it hypocritical to presume jcu is anything but innocent of their actions until proven otherwise...so Ridds current status is errr, guilty! The Credentialed poster boy martyr for the everyday Australian guy (and conflicted politicians), cant “win”

Has anyone noticed the clownfish pic at the top of the IPA page (link below) shows a clownfish RIDDled () with parasites, (the white spots around the eye) and disease? Difficult to say without a microscope but probably cryptocaryon irritants, but deff increased mucus and signs of necrotic tissue. Nice to see the reef inhabitants are doing JUST FINE (well unless you’re a taxonomic snob and think a fish has more rights to the reef than a tick)

http://https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/peter-ridd-and-the-science-of-reef-science

But yes you’re right, a lot of the more nuanced scientific banter I’m sure is lost on us average reader. So the irony that One of Ridds last jcu papers was about ‘quality control’ is probably lost on me. See below for a ‘truther’ quality scientific Statement



I could go on but fear the real subtleties would be lost

That's an impressive list of grievances against Professor Ridd. But thus far, all I'm reading as evidence in support of your lengthy indictment is that his scientific opinion differs from the (a) 100's, (b) 1000's, (c) 10's of 1000's [pick one] of other scientists that disagree with his assessment of the health of the GBR. How about motive for all the grief & discord he's earned for himself for such sins? Swiss bank account? Cayman's? Koch brothers again? Evil fossil fuel interests? Religious fundamentalism? I'm new to the entire drama, so maybe you can inform about some sort of evidence other than a disagreement over scientific opinion.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

The headline, accompanying photograph, and caption describing the photograph are likely what most people read, would you agree? If that weren't true, then why bother with sensationalist headlines?

Apparently that was all you (initially) read. Some of us prefer to read the whole article before jumping to conclusions.

Are you starting to catch on to the problem of media bias, as least as applied to the CC issue? It really shouldn't matter whether it happens to be from The Guardian, The Daily Caller, or some other media source that leans towards whatever flavor you or I prefer. People simply don't take kindly to being manipulated, and when it's uncovered they are far less likely to rely on such a source again.

No, the article presented both the Senator's point of view as well as North Queensland Bulk Ports' point of view. You've perseverated on one aspect they presented, while overlooking the other aspect.

Edit:
You will also note that in my original post I presented a fairly balanced synopsis of both points of view, not just the "sludge" viewpoint.

[RaymondR]

I go past both the coal ports a couple of times a year and from memory the nearest substantial bit of coral reef is about 45 nm from Hay Point and about 30 nm from Abbot Point.

To put this in context the Keppel Islands are about 20 nm north of the mouth of the Fitzroy River estuary which river drains extensively grazed cattle country with it's associated soil erosion problems and the waters of the Great Keppel's are noted for their clarity.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Apparently that was all you (initially) read. Some of us prefer to read the whole article before jumping to conclusions.

No, the article presented both the Senator's point of view as well as North Queensland Bulk Ports' point of view. You've perseverated on one aspect they presented, while overlooking the other aspect.

Edit:
You will also note that in my original post I presented a fairly balanced synopsis of both points of view, not just the "sludge" viewpoint.

Nope. I read the entire article first, then asked questions about the coal issue, then got the scivvy from Stu's post. Then re-read looking for an environmentally sound explanation to refute the port authority's conclusion. Maybe it's there, but it didn't come from the Senator. I agree with you that the article itself was reasonably balanced. But that only begs the question why the titles, photo and caption referencing "coal" and "sludge" were highlighted at the outset. I'm quite sure we both know the answer.

And no, I don't rely merely on article titles & photos presented in The Daily Caller either. I'd say you're better off sticking with the NYT, WaP, and more mainstream sources to try and spread your alarmism. Certainly biased but slightly more credible. I admire your effort in defense of the article, but I don't see anything worthwhile about this sort of deliberate deception other than selling copy. It was instructive, however, in demonstrating how so many people get their information, and then why they become so misinformed of course. So for that little nugget of information/confirmation, many thanks.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The headline, accompanying photograph, and caption describing the photograph are likely what most people read, would you agree? If that weren't true, then why bother with sensationalist headlines?
...Are you starting to catch on to the problem of media bias, as least as applied to the CC issue? It really shouldn't matter whether it happens to be from The Guardian, The Daily Caller, or some other media source that leans towards whatever flavor you or I prefer. People simply don't take kindly to being manipulated, and when it's uncovered they are far less likely to rely on such a source again.

sludge

noun \ ˈsləj

\

Definition of sludge

1 : mud, mire especially : a muddy deposit (as on a riverbed) : ooze

2 : a muddy or slushy mass, deposit, or sediment: such as
a : precipitated solid matter produced by water and sewage treatment processes
b : muddy sediment in a steam boiler
c : a precipitate or settling (such as a mixture of impurities and acid) from a mineral oil

I believe that the Guardian readership is, demographically speaking, more likely to read the whole article. It isn't the Daily Mail . Nor do I think the headline is demonstrably inaccurate or hyperbolic. Of course depending on your definition of sludge.

I won't disagree that the Guardian viewpoint is usually one of concern about ecological issues. Many people are. Perhaps you've noticed.

But there IS a coal terminal at the port where dredging is going on. No lies there.

I suspect the point has a bit more to do with reader bias.

[SailOar]

Mutually-assured destruction in heated coral-algae war

..."Coral and macroalgae principally compete through direct physical or chemical mechanisms, and more algae can mean an increase in coral bleaching and mortality," Dr Brown said.

"So far, our warming and acidifying oceans have led to a shift in competitive advantage between macroalgae and coral, generally in favour of algal species," she said.

"But in our experiments – using the branching coral Acropora and the green algae species Halimeda – we looked even further into the future, to see if macroalgal competitive mechanisms will increase at the expense of the coral.

"It turns out, both the algae and coral examined here fail to thrive in our business-as-usual climate predictions."...

More information: Kristen T. Brown et al. Temporal effects of ocean warming and acidification on coral–algal competition, Coral Reefs (2019). DOI: 10.1007/s00338-019-01775-y

[boatman61]

Here is something that you may enjoy..
Live broadcasts from a research study going on in the Indian Ocean at the moment..

https://www.piratefm.co.uk/news/worl...-coral-atolls/

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Mutually-assured destruction in heated coral-algae war

However the fact that these areas are being fished out means that the natural balance that aids in the survival of coral has collapsed.. more down to mans greed and pollution than GW effects.

https://www.piratefm.co.uk/news/worl...-coral-atolls/

[StuM]

> "It turns out, both the algae and coral examined here fail to thrive in our business-as-usual climate predictions."...

No, the didn't use "business as usual climate [s]predictions] projections



As usual with these "we're all doomed" papers, they used the extreme RCP8.5 model projection.


See https://static-content.springer.com/...OESM1_ESM.docx


For a discussion on the assumptions behind RCP8.5 see here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a...enario-rcp8-5/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

However the fact that these areas are being fished out means that the natural balance that aids in the survival of coral has collapsed.. more down to mans greed and pollution than GW effects.

https://www.piratefm.co.uk/news/worl...-coral-atolls/

Agree, but it's all of a piece. The majority of those who deny CC, or rail against any proposals of mitigation of it, are equally unconcerned about greed and pollution.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I believe that the Guardian readership is, demographically speaking, more likely to read the whole article. It isn't the Daily Mail . Nor do I think the headline is demonstrably inaccurate or hyperbolic. Of course depending on your definition of sludge.

"Demographically speaking?" About peoples' reading habits? Another psych study coming up?

I'm not sure why you & SailOar are so intent on parsing out the definition of "sludge," or how many times/where it's used in the article, when there's an up front photo of the coal terminal that, as far as we know, has zero to do with the issue being reported on. Tell me how many readers -- especially those just learning about the issue -- wouldn't assume that coal deposits didn't also make up the "sludge" that was being dumped on the GBR? For those that actually read the rest of the article, the relevance of the coal depot and the "sludge" (a/k/a "dredge spoils" if you prefer) is left open, i.e. not resolved one way or the other. That appears to be a mistruth or, at a minimum, a gross distortion.

I won't disagree that the Guardian viewpoint is usually one of concern about ecological issues. Many people are. Perhaps you've noticed.

Which is exactly why I'm generally inclined to read their viewpoint despite being well aware of their overtly transparent if not cheezy level of politically motivated bias. I would not rely on them, however, for straight-up reporting on much of anything scientific, at least not without verification. Yes, it's partly my own reader bias, but in this case it's too close to supermarket tabloid to take all too seriously, and their level of click-bait is right up there with what you like to rant about from the Right. Sorry you're apparently not quite able to decipher this, or choose not to as I suspect is more likely the case.

Btw, please tell us exactly who you have in mind that you believe isn't "concerned about ecological issues." A scientist who chose to devote the past 35 years of his career to studying the GBR perhaps? You frequently seem to conflate scientific consensus with scientific truth, so it's not surprising that you would also have difficulty distinguishing between dissenting scientific opinion and "concern for ecological issues." But I bet all that self-righteousness feels awfully good, right?

But there IS a coal terminal at the port where dredging is going on. No lies there.

Correct. And there may also be daisies growing nearby. Hardly the point.

I suspect the point has a bit more to do with reader bias.

Congrats on finally acknowledging your own bias. It certainly took long enough!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Agree, but it's all of a piece. The majority of those who deny CC, or rail against any proposals of mitigation of it, are equally unconcerned about greed and pollution.

Ah, I just love it when you prove my point. A fresh dose of self-righteousness for a brand new morning! Got a Pew survey on this one too?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

However the fact that these areas are being fished out means that the natural balance that aids in the survival of coral has collapsed.. more down to mans greed and pollution than GW effects.

https://www.piratefm.co.uk/news/worl...-coral-atolls/

The cause for reef degradations appears to come down a myriad of different factors, including AGW perhaps, but the problem with so much focus on AGW is that other causes which are potentially preventable get downplayed if not ignored. It's ironic, if not tragic, that AGW is the one that's probably the least susceptible to counteracting but nevertheless consumes most of the attention.