Coral Reef Status

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

They've replaced the placard waving "the end is nigh" crazy nutters of yore. This would be relatively harmless and even somewhat humorous if it wasn't for the fact that it takes the attention off of a lot of other serious issues that really should be given an equal or higher billing.

I'd give more credibility to that concern, if someone could point to the serious efforts to manage the other problems, and how "climate change" has robbed those issues of oxygen. Seriously, name ONE, and how the concerns over climate change have caused delays in addressing them.

I see it from the other end of the telescope: by letting climate change be the proxy for all serious ecological/sustainability issues, a focused attack on climate change puts the brakes on all such initiatives, to the delight of those benefiting from the status quo. All the greenies and green initiatives get demonized, no matter the cause. And this is what's happened on many fronts.

The thing is, climate change, and just about all the other big issues you're concerned about, have a common cause: overconsumption. And ANY effort to moderate consumption will lead to improvements on several issues at once. Surely you can see how some sensible reductions in fossil fuel consumption would impact other areas, like pollution.

[smacksman]

Originally Posted by bstreep

As a molecular biologist, and a lifetime reef keeper (I grow corals),

As the polips are filter feeders, do you find more evidence of micro plastics in them and if so, does it harm them or does it just change the composition of the coral?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by bstreep

First answer, which does tie to the second. Realistically, what should we do about it? Being a realist. Almost nothing. I mean, we can all work at it, but. If we were to remove the entire US CO2 output right NOW, it would delay whatever is inevitable by 3 years, according to recent studies.

We fool ourselves with wind and solar. They are really not very good alternatives. Read "Apocalypse Never" to get a good idea as to why they really don't work. Financially, except for those who OWN them, it doesn't. They are hugely supported by tax dollars, which is just a payoff by government to rich folks who own them. The only real solution to our energy needs is nuclear. And that's probably not going to happen.

As to positions. As I said, I'm a molecular biologist (geneticist). After all those years of education and lab work, never used it. The process was just so disillusioning. We've all heard "publish or perish", but most people really don't understand what this means. For some reason, the public thinks that scientists are immune from the call of the almighty dollar (Euro, or whatever currency you like). They aren't. There's no money in proving that something horrible isn't happening. There is no research money for a guy like Peter Ridd. Please don't take this as I'm supporting the guy. I'm not. It's just that the community bans those that don't toe the line. And by banning, I mean "no money for you!".

Whether you agree with guys like Peter Ridd, or not, you should be in favor of them getting funding. And in favor of them being able to publish results. If we only get one side of the story (the side they want us to get), we can't make good decisions.

Same thing with Covid "vaccines". I'm one of those that's firmly in the camp of "no mandates". That being said, my wife just got her booster, and I'm strongly considering getting mine (Moderna, not yet recommended/approved). Just because I'm against mandates doesn't mean I'm an anti-vaxxer. I've actually accumulated many hours digesting trials and studies. And I certainly understand those that won't get a shot. I think they are wrong, but who am I to tell them what they have to do?

Which brings me to one of my pet peeves: "reef safe sunscreen". See, I've gone thru his studies. My high school science teacher would have given him a D. His studies are just so, so sloppy. Does that mean I think sunscreens are safe for the reefs? Nope. It just means that the studies, so far, are so poorly done that you can't tell. I can also tell you that if a scientist were to do a good study, and if the end result is "sunscreens are fine for the reefs", he or she would be drawn and quartered by the scientific community, and would never get a research grant again. The study would get zero publicity. THAT is how bad it is.

Covid is the proof we've all been wanting for years about science BS. Because what's going isn't science, it's politics. This is those in charge, keeping us fighting each other. Because if we aren't fighting each other, or if there's no crisis, we all might actually have time to figure out that the politicians and their cronies are all just screwing us. Really. Notice how they keep changing their positions, changing the goal posts. Politics, not science.

So, that's a LONG explanation. Science isn't about science anymore. It's about money, self promotion and politics.

Final thought: Great Barrier Reef (and others). Sure, let's keep developing heat tolerant corals. Why not. Let's also put plans in place to help the process, when things go bad. We've done this in lots of other arenas. Replanted forests, captive breeding programs for sea turtles, etc. They work. Stopping the earth from warming? Probably not doable.

Second final thought: We are headed to Tahiti/French Polynesia for 5 weeks, next week. We were there 2 years ago. I'll be interested to find out what kind of effect the lack of tourism has had on reefs. In the BVI, they have had huge reef recoveries. FP, their top reef problems are agriculture runoff and pearl farms. The Tahaa Coral River is right across from one of the biggest pearl farms. The runoff from the daily cleanings of oysters has really affected the water - to the point that algae has taken over the Coral River. Sad.

It is clear that you have a huge chip on your shoulder regarding science, as may Ridd. The not so secret secret is that most cranks who are scientists get in these rows not because they do good science that is contrary to orthodoxy (that is just a baseless conspiracy theory). Instead, they get in trouble because they just aren't that good at their job and do crap science.

The most famous and revered scientists are those that turned over orthodoxies. Like, "a creature you cannot see can't kill you" or "mass is conserved in all reactions" or "you can measure both the speed and position of an object". All of these things were overturned by stupendously bright, hard-working scientists who convinced their colleagues by using beautifully designed experiments. The ACC cranks aren't getting funded for the overwhelmingly likely explanation that their 'theories' are pathetic and their experimental designs suck.

Remember, if alternative explanations for a phenomenon are either incompetence or a nefarious scheme - bet everything you own on the former.

The harsh truth is that lousy science and lousy scientists don't get funded. Heck, even a lot of good science doesn't get funded. Mostly only excellent science gets funded. So, the failures, the posers, the mediocrities, rant and rave about how unfair it all is. How there is a vast conspiracy against them because it absolutely, positively must not be true that they just aren't any good.

Here what we have is mostly cranks and armchair wanna-be's - analogous to the overweight, lazy guy sitting on his couch yelling at the TV because he could have caught that ball, made that pass, kicked that goal. Pathetic.

[merrydolphin]

Very sad. I had the privilege to have started1 diving in early sixties. Wow, what a change. Still dive but it’s just not the same.

[genaea]

Thank you to most everyone so far on this thread for remaining civil. A nice start to having an 'open' exchange of ideas.

I am not a science denier, and really enjoy all of what science can attempt to solve. I enjoy science enough to have obtained a masters degree in science.

With that said, I find myself agreeing with bstreep in that many people who call themselves 'scientists' are now, to a large degree, driven by something other than the search for truth. I often wince at people who hold advanced degrees in these fields who pass off correlation as causation using studies that are able to easily dupe lay people (and even others who have degrees but hold a similar belief system).

In our current environment, I am reminded of the quote - 'I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail'. Which is attributed to Maslow in his book 'The Psychology of Science' and relates to Cognitive Biases. Cognitive Biases is 'a systematic error in thinking that occurs when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them and affects the decisions and judgments that they make'.

Global Warming/Climate Change is one of these areas where science (in my opinion) is significantly affected by Cognitive Bias. This is not to infer that I oppose the testing and measurement that supports the earth is currently warming. I do not refute that. What I do not accept, from a scientific perspective, is everything that gets linked to this heating as being the cause without doing due diligence (scientifically speaking) to prove it. This could be a result of many things, but at best it is the case of intellectual laziness or at worst intellectual dishonesty.

Taking coral bleaching as an example (since this is the thread), while it may be the result of global warming, this may also be one of a myriad of factors (as suggested by some of the posters in this thread). If you are studying coral bleaching in a laboratory, and you find there are 25 (or 50 or 100) different ways in which you could induce coral bleaching, it would take a significant bias to only focus on a single element and conclusively state the cause is due to this single factor world wide. And, once again for people who may be coming from a place of a significant bias, I am NOT refuting the largest contributor to coral bleaching COULD be global warming. I am only attempting to explain why there are people who could be potentially dismissive of the 'science' behind such findings. And while it is easy for some to dismiss these people as being 'science deniers' or 'quacks', the people who do so may be guilty of the same biases some of these scientists appear to be afflicted by.

Thank you for your thoughts in this matter.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by genaea

Taking coral bleaching as an example (since this is the thread), while it may be the result of global warming, this may also be one of a myriad of factors (as suggested by some of the posters in this thread). If you are studying coral bleaching in a laboratory, and you find there are 25 (or 50 or 100) different ways in which you could induce coral bleaching, it would take a significant bias to only focus on a single element and conclusively state the cause is due to this single factor world wide.

You may have received this impression from some media reports, or from people's interpretation of same, but i don't think it's true that scientists themselves have claimed that warming is the only significant cause of bleaching.

And if you look at many of those other other causes, they are also due to our actions. So better behaviour from us on all fronts, including fossil fuel use and current agricultural practices, would generally be beneficial to coral.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by genaea

Thank you to most everyone so far on this thread for remaining civil. A nice start to having an 'open' exchange of ideas.

I am not a science denier, and really enjoy all of what science can attempt to solve. I enjoy science enough to have obtained a masters degree in science.

With that said, I find myself agreeing with bstreep in that many people who call themselves 'scientists' are now, to a large degree, driven by something other than the search for truth. I often wince at people who hold advanced degrees in these fields who pass off correlation as causation using studies that are able to easily dupe lay people (and even others who have degrees but hold a similar belief system).

...

Thank you for your thoughts in this matter.

Good post! I think the issue you are witnessing and frustrated by mostly relates to how the media portrays things, and much less about the underlying science. I think (hope?) that it is generally agreed that sewage and agricultural runoff, etc. are bad for reefs and for our inshore waters more generally. No controversy = no media. These things being givens means that the media look around to see what is controversial, and that is ACC. So they go on and on about it and in many ways doing us a disservice by amplifying the voices of a tiny minority to juice up the controversy. Kind of like the USA Today pro and con editorials - they really give the impression that the evidence for the two positions is in some way equivalent.
And don't forget that much of the ACC 'controversy' is fed by massive lobbying operations of energy companies. The American Petroleum Institute being a big one. Just like the Tobacco Institute did in decades past to delay and sow doubt on the link of smoking to cancer, etc. These lobbying groups are incredibly sophisticated and manipulate people into doing their bidding through a lot of shady techniques. They are very good at what they do.
Mostly scientists are guilty of the opposite - they naively think that if they just do solid science, that the truth is its own advocate.
So don't despair about science - think about who is communicating it to you and their agenda, which is to sell ads. And no, there is no vast media conspiracy to falsely endorse ACC, they are just selling ads. They are actually doing the deniers a favor by ginning up their side of the argument to make it seem like much more of a controversy than it is. And the deniers fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

[jaxsurfsail]

Great Barrier Reef improving???

https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/09/22/alex-epstein-great-barrier-reef-has-been-rapidly-improving-which-doesnt-fit-the-catastrophist-agenda-media-ignores-good-climate-news/

[dc9loser]

Originally Posted by bstreep

As a molecular biologist, and a lifetime reef keeper (I grow corals), I find it very interesting that folks think that reef builders (corals) disappear, and never come back. Corals have a big problem: When their environment changes for the bad, they can't just up and move. So, they bleach. Bleaching is not killing. It's a survival technique. But everyone SEEMS to think it's death. Corals also have a way of reproducing in massive numbers. This all means that while we see large annual changes in reefs, it's not always the dire news that it appears.



I know Gord isn't a fan of Peter Ridd. But here's his article (It can be found many places): https://iowaclimate.org/2021/07/23/p...ate-alarmists/


BTW, "The sky is falling" sells. "The sky is just fine" does not. Alarmists always win.

Maybe, but for sure if don't achieve universal vaccination and allow mass immigration from the third world the reefs will not survive.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by lestersails

... I think (hope?) that it is generally agreed that sewage and agricultural runoff, etc. are bad for reefs and for our inshore waters more generally. No controversy = no media. These things being givens means that the media look around to see what is controversial, and that is ACC.r..

Would that it were so.

However, Peter Ridd, for one, disputes the overwhelming consensus of reef scientists, and argues that pollution from farmland is not seriously damaging the reef.
Ridd has repeatedly, over many years, said that the multiple human threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are overblown.

“Peter Ridd’s questionable claims”
Statement by the Australian Coral Reef Society on Great Barrier Reef water quality claims
➥ https://australiancoralreefsociety.o...-statement.pdf

Publications by: Peter V. Ridd ➥ https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/vi...058546F84.html

“Will reducing agricultural runoff drive recovery of coral biodiversity and macroalgae cover on the Great Barrier Reef?” ~ by Peter V. Ridd et al
➥ https://www.jstor.org/stable/41417130

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Would that it were so.

However, Peter Ridd, for one, disputes the overwhelming consensus of reef scientists, and argues that pollution from farmland is not seriously damaging the reef.
Ridd has repeatedly, over many years, said that the multiple human threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are overblown.

“Peter Ridd’s questionable claims”
Statement by the Australian Coral Reef Society on Great Barrier Reef water quality claims
➥ https://australiancoralreefsociety.o...-statement.pdf

Publications by: Peter V. Ridd ➥ https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/vi...058546F84.html

“Will reducing agricultural runoff drive recovery of coral biodiversity and macroalgae cover on the Great Barrier Reef?” ~ by Peter V. Ridd et al
➥ https://www.jstor.org/stable/41417130

Oh my. This is edging perilously close to full-on bonkers. Kind of solidifies my point about arm chair cranks vs. brilliant scientists who overturn orthodoxies. One of the essential truths about science is that you have to focus your efforts. If you rail against all kinds of science you will fail, because you are just a crank.

But we really shouldn't focus very much on Ridd or any other individual. It is just a technique by the deniers to divert the discussion from how completely and totally wrong and clueless they are to paranoid conspiracy theories about how we are unjustly persecuting someone or against academic freedom or some other diversion.

[Hermia II]

O'kay,
Start with this:
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitor...mary-2020-2021
and please check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...d0&app=desktop

No worries mate

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Hermia II

O'kay,
Start with this:
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitor...mary-2020-2021
...

As StuM reported, back in July [24-07-2021]
Here ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3450669
"Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition 2020/2021" ~ AIMS, Gov't of Australia

[Enyar]

Hard to decipher what you all are arguing about but my 2 cents are at least here in Florida and the upper Bahamas, the habitat loss we've witnessed in the last 20 years alone has been substantial. I can't imagine what it was like back in the day.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by bstreep

Of course. Why not? Here's one definition: 'The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
As for your comment about "global warming", it's in quotes because back in the 70's it was "global cooling", and more recently it has been changed to "climate change". All encompassing.

No, I'm not a denier. For as long as earth has been around, the climate has changed. I'm just tired of the continued claims that the world will end in ___ (fill in the blank) years. In the 70s we were going to spread coal dust on the poles. In the 80s, the end was going to happen by 2000. Al Gore said we had 10 (or 15, or 20) years. AOC said we'd all be dead by 2030 (or something like that). The doomers were all wrong. Because we are all (most of us) still here.

Just because some people misjudged the height of the building doesn’t mean the ground isn’t there.

“ we’re still alright said the falling man “