|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 7, 2010 14:57:25 GMT 1
Read "The Hockeystick Illusion" abacus...please. The 'Hockey-stick' graph seems quite clear cut to me. Why would you call it an illusion? Because it is - read the book.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 21, 2011 22:46:59 GMT 1
A hot-off-the-presses paper in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml by a team of Japanese scientists finds that warming oceans expand the range of tropical corals northward along the coast of Japan. At the same time, the corals are remaining stable at the southern end of their ranges. That’s right. Corals are adapting to climate change and expanding, not contracting. But, you don’t have to take our word for it. Here is the news, straight from the authors: We show the first large-scale evidence of the poleward range expansion of modern corals, based on 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan, where century-long measurements of in situ sea-surface temperatures have shown statistically significant rises. Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress.This certainly throws buckets of cold water on all the overly heated talk about how the decline in coral reefs as a result of anthropogenic global warming is going to decimate fisheries and tourism the world over. Perhaps it actually will have a negative impact in some locales, but in others, it seems that it could have quite the opposite effect. And it is this opposite effect—a positive impact of coral reef communities and their dependents—that is routinely left out of climate change impact assessments. More here: Coral Reefs Expand As the Oceans Warm www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/02/18/coral-reefs-expand-as-the-oceans-warm/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 2, 2011 8:36:09 GMT 1
Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009)Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess, and Kerryn A. Johns Abstract Coral reef ecosystems worldwide are under pressure from chronic and acute stressors that threaten their continued existence. Most obvious among changes to reefs is loss of hard coral cover, but a precise multi-scale estimate of coral cover dynamics for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is currently lacking. Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. Persistent decline of corals occurred in one subregion for hard coral and Acroporidae and in four subregions in non-Acroporidae families. Change in Acroporidae accounted for 68% of change in hard coral. Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease. While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980′s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 4, 2012 10:38:21 GMT 1
From the Australian Herald Sun 3 Feb 2012 www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/century-of-ocean-warming-good-for-corals-research-shows/story-fn7x8me2-1226261714210Century of ocean warming good for corals, research showsAustralian researchers have found warmer waters have not harmed coral growth. Picture: Getty Images A GOVERNMENT-run research body has found that the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for the growth of corals spanning more than 1000km of Australia's coastline. The findings undermine predictions that global warming will devastate coral reefs, and add to a growing body of evidence showing corals are more resilient than previously thought - up to a certain point. The study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, peer-reviewed findings of which were published today in the leading journal Science, examined 27 samples from six locations from the West Australian coast off Geraldton to offshore from Darwin. At each site, scientists took cores from massive porites corals - similar to a biopsy in humans - and counted back to record their age in much the same way tree rings are counted. Although some cores extended to the 18th century, they focused on the period from 1900 to 2010. Related Coverage Rising sea temperatures boost coral growth Perth Now, 12 hours ago Cucumbers could save coral reefs Herald Sun, 4 days ago Sea cucumber's poo a saviour The Daily Telegraph, 4 days ago Barrier Reef put on ice in rescue attempt Herald Sun, 8 days ago Warming no barrier The Australian, 24 Jan 2012 The researchers found that, contrary to their expectations, warmer waters had not negatively affected coral growth. In fact, for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years. For their northern samples, where waters are the warmest and have changed the least, coral growth still increased, but not by as much. "Those reefs have actually been able to take advantage of the warmer conditions," said Janice Lough, a senior AIMS research scientist and one of the study's authors. The key question is how warm the water can get before the positive effects are reversed. Lab studies have typically measured the effect of short-term, rapid changes in temperature and water chemistry; these mimic, for example, coral-bleaching events that are known to be devastating. Much harder to measure are the long-term effects of gradual warming, such as those caused by climate change. ------- Another story the BBC won't be covering. Far too "balanced" and "contrary to expectations"!
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 5, 2012 11:54:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 5, 2012 13:57:46 GMT 1
“serious long-term threats to coral reefs”.
Crystal ball gazing. Not science. It may satisfy you, it doesn't cut it for me.
There are threats to reefs, of course, but not from climate. Why don't you turn your attention to the real instead of the merely imagined?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 6, 2012 19:44:45 GMT 1
So you are quite happy to accept the opinion of these researchers when you thought that they were reporting facts contrary to AGW. When the same people make comments confirming AGW you dismiss them out of hand.
No-one reading these boards would be under any illusion that you approach the subject of AGW with an open mind but this is pretty ludicrous even for you!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 6, 2012 20:28:18 GMT 1
A brilliant piece of mis-reading there ... first it's said ... "Warmer sea temperatures have been promoting faster coral growth along the coast of Western Australia, federal government research has found." Well that's fair enough, I suppose. However they go on to say ... "However, the institute warned that both rising ocean temperatures and acidification would pose “serious long-term threats to coral reefs”." That's a comment over and above what is in their article, because they didn't deal with ocean temperatures and acidification, they dealt with "faster coral growth along the coast of Western Australia" In short, despite their best efforts, Mother Nature has seen fit to increase coral growth [perhaps, we'll take their word on that] over the stipulated 110 years [110 sounds dubious, but still] and they are finding it difficult to prove that despite their best efforts the Old Earth just keeps on turning, kangeroos are still hopping, the Sun still shines [only 4 billion years left] and surprise surprise that Island Continent is managing to not give a damn about 22 million Ozzies generally buggering about and digging the place up and complaining. Other than an obscure reference "The AIMS findings were recently published in the international journal Science" it is difficult to pinpoint the original material, so it is safely assumed that it has no bearing on AGW, CO2. Ps. Perhaps they'll freeze over next week. perhaps a big high from the Southern Ocean.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 6, 2012 20:36:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 7, 2012 10:18:54 GMT 1
NICK, IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE THAT WHEN "RESEARCHERS" COME TO OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS THE FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS ARE IN DISPUTE. LIVE WITH IT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BAMBOOZLE EVERYONE INTO ACCEPTING A FAR FROM CLEARCUT SITUATION.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT "INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY" IS A SYMPTOM OF? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY.
TIME WILL REVEAL WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING TO FEAR FROM CLIMATE. BE PATIENT, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BOUNCE ACTION BASED ON INADEQUATE INFORMATION.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 7, 2012 19:01:06 GMT 1
What opposite conclusions? They came to one conclusion about the effect of temperature rise so far. Fair enough. They have come to a further conclusion about what will happen if temperatures continue to rise. These are not opposite conclusions.
By the way, shouting doesn't make you any more convincing.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 7, 2012 19:03:50 GMT 1
What are you going on about? Please try to be more coherent.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 7, 2012 22:24:41 GMT 1
I must apologise for my incoherence, 110 years from 1900 to 2010, the span of the research. The Sun has a useful life [to us] of another 4 billion years. Population of Australia, projected 22,825,352 Mining is a large proportion of the industry of Australia
In fact, the study didn't do much for 'their cause' ...
"Although some cores extended to the 18th century, they focused on the period from 1900 to 2010.
The researchers found that, contrary to their expectations, warmer waters had not negatively affected coral growth.
In fact, for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years.
For their northern samples, where waters are the warmest and have changed the least, coral growth still increased, but not by as much.
"Those reefs have actually been able to take advantage of the warmer conditions," said Janice Lough, a senior AIMS research scientist and one of the study's authors.
The key question is how warm the water can get before the positive effects are reversed."
Well now, there's a thing, coral likes the warmth of the Sun and responds well, almost as though they were designed for it.
"examined 27 samples from six locations from the West Australian coast off Geraldton to offshore from Darwin."
The lack of location numbers is not very good, six locations for a land twice the size of greater europe is not representative.
The UV count for Geraldton for today is "UV Index predicted to reach 13 [Extreme]"
so the coral keep soldiering on, despite warnings from humans that UV will damage them.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 10, 2012 13:44:19 GMT 1
“A recent underwater expedition to the Red Sea offshore from Sudan and Eritrea[14] found surface water temperatures 28 °C in winter and up to 34 °C in the summer, but despite that extreme heat the coral was healthy with much fish life with very little sign of coral bleaching, and there were plans to use samples of these corals’ apparently heat-adapted commensal algae to salvage bleached coral elsewhere” Wikipedia
Wow!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 10, 2012 14:38:13 GMT 1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching#Other_areasFrom Googling the phrase "Up to 90% of coral cover has been lost in the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Tanzania and in the Seychelles" found in several entries and appears to have come from the reference - N. Middleton, Managing the Great Barrier Reef (Geography Review, January 2004) but unfortunately the article is not available. [that can be found] It has spread like an 'urban myth'. This was found about the GBR [Great Barrier Reef] ... "This study indicates that at the scale of the whole GBR there was no net decline in live hard coral cover between 1995 and 2009. Rather there have been contrasting and uncorrelated temporal trends in coral cover, driven mostly by Acroporidae corals, at subregional scales (10–100 km) resulting from localized disturbance events. Despite two category 5 cyclones and increased incidence of coral disease and bleaching since 1998, the level of hard coral cover throughout the system as a whole has changed little since 1995. We contend that 27–33% cover of hard coral represents a meaningful and accurate baseline range for average coral cover on the GBR since 1995. The patterns of temporal change within subregions were diverse but the overall pattern is of dynamic stability with the number of increases and decreases being similar both in number of subregions and numbers of reefs." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
|
|