The Reef Ain't Dead

[StuM]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

You have an incorrect concept of how corals grow.

Again you reveal that you are the one with the "incorrect concepts".

Corals ( ie hard corals) lay down a substrate "skeleton" of calcium Carbonate that their tissue uses for support. They lay down this skeleton continuously. As far as we know, they do not die, they are immortal and will keep growing and multiplying when conditions are suitable

Totally false!



https://sciencing.com/long-do-corals-live-5908177.html

"Coral polyps are actually the animal that is coral. One branch of "coral," or the exoskeleton produced by coral, is covered in thousands of polyps known as a coral colony. Coral polyps consist of a tiny bag-like body with an opening lined with tentacles. As these polyps grow, they produce a limestone skeleton. After they die (usually a few years), the skeleton is used as a foundation for a new polyp, eventually building the formations of a reef."

"While entire reefs may grow this old, each coral colony has a significantly smaller lifespan of hundreds of years. And individual coral polyps may only live for a couple of years."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral.html



In the case of stony or hard corals, these polyp conglomerates grow, die, and endlessly repeat the cycle over time, slowly laying the limestone foundation for coral reefs and giving shape to the familiar corals that reside there.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

So therefore if what you are saying is true, there is no delta in the solar energy, and therefore there are never any glacial periods and inter- glacial periods, right? It's a steady state, energy wise, right?

Nope. Not right.



The energy delivered by the sun is "steady state" as an average. We still have seasons book ended by winters and summers; and it's these that are ultimately affected by Milankovitch cycles.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

So what is the meaning of this statement in the NASA document?

" These cyclical orbital movements, which became known as the Milankovitch cycles, cause variations of up to 25 percent in the amount of incoming insolation at Earth’s mid-latitudes (the areas of our planet located between about 30 and 60 degrees north and south of the equator).

I'll try to put it in simple terms that you may have less difficulty in understanding.


The movements may result in 12-13% less insolation than average at 45° N with a corresponding 12-13% more insolation at 45° S at one cycle extreme .

i.e. 25% variation in a specific location from one extreme to the other, but total planetary insolation remains unchanged.


I'll say it again: the average distance from the sun during the year that the earth takes to orbit the sun isn't affected by any of those "Milancovitch wobbles" so the same total amount of solar radiation hits the Earth over a year regardless of the cycles.

.

[BigBeakie]

Stu,

Thank you, you are quite correct I confused the individual polyp vs the colony longevity. A real brain fart, and admittedly they are becoming more frequent as years pass.

However, I believe it is correct that after the colonydies from coral bleaching, the exoskeleton does not get re-populated with same species adult polyps and carry on business as usual. That was the point I was thinking, as I wrote the wrong bit.

[GordMay]

Excerpted from the NASA webpage, BigBeakie cited:
“... Milutin Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages)...
... Small variations in how Earth moves around our Sun influence our climate over very long timespans, but they can't account for Earth's current period of rapid warming...
... The small changes set in motion by Milankovitch cycles operate separately and together to influence Earth’s climate over very long timespans, leading to larger changes in our climate over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years...
... In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation.
Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work ...
... Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted.”

See also:
"Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming”by Alan Buis (NASA, JPL)
“... So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren’t to blame?
First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries...
... Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present...
... Then there’s carbon dioxide...
... Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.”
➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/w...rrent-warming/

[StuM]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

OK, they aren't immortal. But some Diploria species are very large, as in 8 meters diameter, and the coral grows perhaps 0.5 cm/yr. So isn't that, like 8,000 years old, maybe more? I was told they may well be the oldest living organisms on Earth.

You are confusing the things that live/die (coral polyps) with the structures that develop over time through coral polyps anchoring themselves on the carcases of their dead ancestors.


Diploria coral structures/colonies may be 8 m in diameter, but the Diploria corals (animals/polyps) are more like 1 mm in size.



The only living part of a Diploria structure is the thin surface layer.



Maybe you should think about your two previously linked videos

[StuM]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

So therefore if what you are saying is true, there is no delta in the solar energy, and therefore there are never any glacial periods and inter- glacial periods, right? It's a steady state, energy wise, right?

The first statement is correct. Your conclusion however is incorrect and completely misses the whole point of Milankovitch's theory.


I repeat an earlier quote:


"Milankovitch assumed changes in radiation at some latitudes and in some seasons are more important than others to the growth and retreat of ice sheets."

[barnakiel]

That's exactly what we need, I think.


We do not want to delegate thinking to scientists, just as we do not want to delegate government to politicians.


Ability to observe and draw conclusions is not in some magic way given to you, when you graduate with a science degree. It is rather a common trait of all humans. People without degrees are as good thinkers and observers as anybody else. It is just those in the positions of power and privilege that want us to think otherwise.



We all can, and have to: look, see and to experience. And discuss.


And when we think a scientist or a politician is blowing smoke into our eyes, it is our duty to ACT.


barnakiel

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'll say it again: the average distance from the sun during the year that the earth takes to orbit the sun isn't affected by any of those "Milancovitch wobbles" so the same total amount of solar radiation hits the Earth over a year regardless of the cycles.

.

Yep. Folks need to remember that the sun is closest to the earth in January during winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yep. Folks need to remember that the sun is closest to the earth in January during winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

And closest in the southern hemisphere in mid summer. No wonder Australia is a sunburnt country of drought and flooding rains!

Fortunately, eccentricity is just about nothing at the moment, but just wait until it literally goes egg shaped!

[BigBeakie]

Originally Posted by StuM

You are confusing the things that live/die (coral polyps) with the structures that develop over time through coral polyps anchoring themselves on the carcases of their dead ancestors.


Diploria coral structures/colonies may be 8 m in diameter, but the Diploria corals (animals/polyps) are more like 1 mm in size.



The only living part of a Diploria structure is the thin surface layer.



Maybe you should think about your two previously linked videos

Believe me, there is plenty of Dunning Kruger effect to go around on this thread. We are all subject to cognitive bias, and self over estimation.

Coral (colony) growth is measured by the amount of solid exoskeleton laid down per year. Diploria's are relatively slow growing , while Acropora species can be 1.5 cm per year.

What did you think I meant by 0.5cm/year?

[StuM]

Back to the original topic:


Peter Ridd: It’s the science that’s rotten, not the Great Barrier Reef

Date: 07/12/20
Peter Ridd, The Australian

It is remarkable that the world has been convinced that one of its most pristine ecosystems is on its last legs. The science behind this claim is wrong … but no-one wants to remedy the problem.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature has released its latest report on the state of the Great Barrier Reef. It has turned up the volume by one notch, claiming the threat to the reef has gone from “significant concern” to “critical”. It blames climate change, agricultural pollution, coastal development, industry, mining, shipping, overfishing, disease, problematic native species, coal dust — you name it, it is killing the reef.

But the report is just a rehash of old, mostly wrong or misleading information produced by generally untrustworthy scientific institutions with an activist agenda and no commitment to quality assurance.

It is remarkable that the world has been convinced that one of its most pristine ecosystems is on its last legs. Part of the problem is that, being underwater and a long way from the coast, very few people visit the reef. The truth is hidden. Those of us in North Queensland living adjacent to the reef, and tourists from elsewhere, can report the water is iridescent clear blue and totally unpolluted. The fish and coral are fabulous.

The reef occasionally conspires to give the impression it is dying. An area of coral the size of Belgium can be killed by cyclones (hurricanes), native starfish plagues or bleaching. All these events are entirely natural and are part of life on the reef. In fact, each of the 3000 individual reefs, along the entire 2000km length of the Great Barrier Reef, is a 50-100m high plateau of dead coral rubble that has built up over millennia. The live coral lives on the surface of this pile of dead ancestors.

Sixty years ago, when these cycles of death and destruction were first being discovered by scientists, it was legitimate to be concerned about whether they were unnatural. But there is now abundant evidence, almost totally ignored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, that the reef is fine. The coral always recovers vigorously after major mortality events. Coral remains abundant on all 3000 reefs. The amount of coral, while fluctuating dramatically from year to year, is about the same today as when records began in the 1980s. The coral growth rates have not declined — if anything they have increased, as would be expected from the slight increase in temperature over the past century. Corals like it hot and grow faster in warmer water.

Ignoring evidence of the obvious good condition of the reef is not the least of the problems with this IUCN report. It also uses evidence that is patently false. For example, the report claims that coal dust blowing from ship-loading facilities is a risk to the reef, which is 100-1000km from the ports. This ridiculous claim is based on a report that was discredited by unquestioned experts on this subject, Dr Simon Apte and other scientists from the CSIRO, who showed that the results were in error by 3000 per cent. It is also highly doubtful that the original scientists were actually measuring coal dust. They were measuring poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, which are common, naturally occurring molecules not specific to coal.

It is not surprising that the IUCN report made the error of using this discredited coal dust report. Other major Australian reports on the reef also quote it. It is notable that when Apte tried to get the scientific journal and the Australian Institute of Marine science, which was responsible for the coal dust data, to correct the mistake, they refused to do anything. The science institutions have become untrustworthy.

The IUCN makes other equally scandalous mistakes. It claims that agricultural pollution is a problem despite all the measurements showing concentrations of pesticides so low they are generally undetectable with the most sensitive scientific equipment. The effect of mud washed from farms is equally negligible.

The fundamental problem with the IUCN report is that it is based upon scientific evidence that is poorly quality assured. The scientific foundations are rotten and none of the science organisations want to remedy the problem — partly because the science organisations, and the IUCN, stopped being scientific long ago. They have recognised their political power. We must recognise they have become political.

Until genuine quality assurance measures can be put in place at the reef science institutions, the problem of untrustworthy scientific evidence, reported and repeated ad nauseam, will continue. The only good news is that the next IUCN report on the reef in 2023 will not be worse than “critical” because this seems to be the worst category they have.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Back to the original topic:


Peter Ridd: It’s the science that’s rotten, not the Great Barrier Reef

Date: 07/12/20
Peter Ridd, The Australian

.....

2023 will not be worse than “critical” because this seems to be the worst category they have.

I'd put the house on them adding an "11 on the dial" just like they did with the fire danger categories.

[GordMay]

Peter Ridd’s recent editorial*, in “The Australian”, is a rehash of his claims that everyone else, studying the GBR, is corrupt, untrustworthy, and unreliable.
Perhaps, this editorial opinion piece is conveniently timed to coincide with the release of his new book? Or Perhaps, as some think, that Ridd is the epitome of Diogenes one “honest man” (or a “true human being”).
*➥ https://www.theaustralian.com.au/com...7c4f9837750513
*➥ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/...-barrier-reef/

An expert panel, led by the former chief scientist, Ian Chubb, has warned that controversial scientist Peter Ridd is misrepresenting robust science, about the plight of the Great Barrier Reef, and compared his claims to the strategy used by the tobacco industry to raise doubt about the impact of smoking.
The warning, in a letter to the federal environment minister, Sussan Ley, and the Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, follows Ridd launching a lecture tour in which he has repeated his claim that farmland pollution does not significantly damage the reef.

“The fifteenth meeting of the Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel was held on 13 August 2019 in Brisbane. At the meeting, Panel members expressed their unanimous support for the science that underpins the evidence of the extent and probable causes of damage to the Great Barrier Reef. The Panel’s advice to Ministers is at ‘Attachment A’...”
➥ https://www.environment.gov.au/syste...3-aug-2019.pdf

Supported by the sugar cane industry, Dr Peter Ridd has been making several claims about coral reef science during lectures and in media interviews and articles. Several of Dr Ridd’s claims are not true, while others could be characterised as strawmen arguments that ignore much greater challenges faced by the Great Barrier Reef.

In the attached statement, we dispute those arguments and urge the public to reconsider the truthfulness behind Peter Ridd’s claims.

Peter Ridd’s questionable claims:
Statement by the Australian Coral Reef Society on Great Barrier Reef water quality claims
“As the world’s oldest dedicated coral reef science and conservation group, the Australian Coral Reef Society is deeply concerned that members of the Queensland public are being misinformed about the role of water quality in supporting a healthy Great Barrier Reef.Supported by the sugar cane industry, Dr Peter Ridd has been making several claims about coral reef science during lectures and in media interviews and articles.Several of Dr Ridd’s claims are not true, while others could be characterised as strawmen arguments that ignore much greater challenges faced by the Great Barrier Reef...”
➥ https://australiancoralreefsociety.o...-statement.pdf

“Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science. Reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” ~ by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126: 449–461, 2018)” ~ by Britta Schaffelke et al
“This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques...”
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...425?via%3Dihub


A treasure chest falls down from an airplane:
Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus, a corrupt scientist, and an honest scientist all run to the place, where it lands.
Who gets the treasure?
The corrupt scientist, because all the others are fictional characters.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Back to the original topic:


Peter Ridd: It’s the science that’s rotten, not the Great Barrier Reef

Date: 07/12/20
Peter Ridd, The Australian

...

It is remarkable that the world has been convinced that one of its most pristine ecosystems is on its last legs. Part of the problem is that, being underwater and a long way from the coast, very few people visit the reef. The truth is hidden. Those of us in North Queensland living adjacent to the reef, and tourists from elsewhere, can report the water is iridescent clear blue and totally unpolluted. The fish and coral are fabulous
...

Yep. You can't fake reality.