batguano
New member
Anyone see this? Quite disturbing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/08/global.warming.reefs.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/08/global.warming.reefs.reut/index.html
speaking of global warming ...
- Thread starter batguano
- Start date
airinhere
New member
Sounds like another case of 'six degrees of global warming'. The studies centered on the great barrier reef and the carribean. Six year studies showed a clearly observable link between coral disease and warmer tmperatures. Most reefers should understand that elevated temps are dangerous to corals, but that the corals we keep are able to withstand substantially higher temps and variations on water quality than anything likely to be encountered on a living reef.
My skepticism comes from knowing that the crown of thorns starfish is responsible for causing serious damage to the great barrier reef. And the longspined urchins dissapearance and resulting macroalgae growth in the carribean has caused widespread coral damage. No mention is made of either of these issues. And I am sure there are other pertinent factors that I am not aware of. Blaming coral bleaching on global warming is a gross oversimplification. I dont doubt the impact of rising temperatures, but I do think the global warming issue is unfair to use in this argument because it is so misleading. And for anyone interested in reefkeeping, this sort of study should be especially scary. This is just the sort of incomplete and misleading report that can be used to justify unnecesary and ill-concieved rules limiting this hobby.
My skepticism comes from knowing that the crown of thorns starfish is responsible for causing serious damage to the great barrier reef. And the longspined urchins dissapearance and resulting macroalgae growth in the carribean has caused widespread coral damage. No mention is made of either of these issues. And I am sure there are other pertinent factors that I am not aware of. Blaming coral bleaching on global warming is a gross oversimplification. I dont doubt the impact of rising temperatures, but I do think the global warming issue is unfair to use in this argument because it is so misleading. And for anyone interested in reefkeeping, this sort of study should be especially scary. This is just the sort of incomplete and misleading report that can be used to justify unnecesary and ill-concieved rules limiting this hobby.
airinhere
New member
Just read the story. Posted on CNNs website.
And with a little searching I do have a link to the brand newly printed report on its first day in the public sphere.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124
I am about to start reading the report myself. I hope the report is not a myopic view of the bleaching problem.
And with a little searching I do have a link to the brand newly printed report on its first day in the public sphere.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124
I am about to start reading the report myself. I hope the report is not a myopic view of the bleaching problem.
airinhere
New member
And a good read. A little bit too technical for me to absorb in a single reading. From what I gathered, they put a serious amount of effort into studying numerous sites during a six year period. They even had data going back much further than that. (about 20 years) The results indicated that there is a serious emergent issue of coral disease that is impacting on heavily encrusted parts of the reefs. They readily admit that the data is not conclusive about the actual cause, but do indicate that in the most encrusted areas, the disease seems to be doing the most damage during warm periods. There are references to numerous other potential causes or factors. But the study is on temperature impact and that is what data they do have..
This research does not show anything but an observable relationship to increasing temperature and coral disease. It goes so far as to say that the higher temperatures could actually have a reverse effect on disease by reducing its impact on the reefs.
The information presented in the research is not a dire warning about the danger of global warming. It is an effort to decipher the reason for a serious new disease outbreak in the GBR. The impact of temperature is certainly the focus of this research, but the results are frustratingly vauge. There is no smoking gun responsible for the corals decline.
And untill we can find out the real reasons behind the corals decline, its safe and politically correct to say that its Global Warming.
And the CNN writer should get slapped for writing such a lopsided writeup about the research.
This research does not show anything but an observable relationship to increasing temperature and coral disease. It goes so far as to say that the higher temperatures could actually have a reverse effect on disease by reducing its impact on the reefs.
The information presented in the research is not a dire warning about the danger of global warming. It is an effort to decipher the reason for a serious new disease outbreak in the GBR. The impact of temperature is certainly the focus of this research, but the results are frustratingly vauge. There is no smoking gun responsible for the corals decline.
And untill we can find out the real reasons behind the corals decline, its safe and politically correct to say that its Global Warming.
And the CNN writer should get slapped for writing such a lopsided writeup about the research.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
airinhere: You're wrong, and I think you're being a bit harsh on the CNN author when the science article says "Our results suggest that climate change could be increasing the severity of disease in the ocean, leading to a decline in the health of marine ecosystems and the loss of the resources and services humans derive from them." directly in the author summary. It is an article about the potential effects of global warming.
batguano
New member
I did not read the report of the study, only the CNN story. I will try to read the report at some point in the near future (perhaps this evening). What I found of interest is the suggestion by the research that temperature change does not need to be drastic to have such a wide reaching effect. Anyway, I think that we need to watch our oceans and reefs are a really good indicator zone for overall ocean and sea health. jmo.
airinhere
New member
"Alternatively, rising ocean temperature or an increase in summertime anomalies could inhibit marine epidemics. Environmental stress is often assumed to increase disease severity, but stresses that directly reduce host density can have the opposite effect [8] (Figure 3). "
This is straight from the report I posted a link to. The scientists are looking at the relationship between temperature and disease outbreak in order to understand what is happening. They do not make any statement that the higher temperatures are definetly causing the disease outbreaks. They even admit that the outbreaks are not always consistent with higher temperatures. The CNN writer irresponsibly took a good piece of scientific research and used statements like:
"Our results suggest that climate change could be increasing the severity of disease in the ocean, leading to a decline in the health of marine ecosystems and the loss of the resources and services humans derive from them."
Notice the words: suggest and could. This does not say that there is a proven link between climate change and disease in the ocean. This says that there could be a link. And thats what is being investigated. If there is a link, I am all for doing what is needed to correct the issue. But if they are not linked, why would I want to try and change a factor in the corals enviroment that will not help them? That is a good way to end up hurting the coral more than helping.
And for what its worth, I find that much of the literature cited to support global warming initiatives have faulty logic like I found in this CNN article. Not that real problems dont exist, but that the problems are not being studied and understood well enough for anyone to actually fix the problem. Who is to say that the proposed fix will not make things worse? This has happened before many times.
This is straight from the report I posted a link to. The scientists are looking at the relationship between temperature and disease outbreak in order to understand what is happening. They do not make any statement that the higher temperatures are definetly causing the disease outbreaks. They even admit that the outbreaks are not always consistent with higher temperatures. The CNN writer irresponsibly took a good piece of scientific research and used statements like:
"Our results suggest that climate change could be increasing the severity of disease in the ocean, leading to a decline in the health of marine ecosystems and the loss of the resources and services humans derive from them."
Notice the words: suggest and could. This does not say that there is a proven link between climate change and disease in the ocean. This says that there could be a link. And thats what is being investigated. If there is a link, I am all for doing what is needed to correct the issue. But if they are not linked, why would I want to try and change a factor in the corals enviroment that will not help them? That is a good way to end up hurting the coral more than helping.
And for what its worth, I find that much of the literature cited to support global warming initiatives have faulty logic like I found in this CNN article. Not that real problems dont exist, but that the problems are not being studied and understood well enough for anyone to actually fix the problem. Who is to say that the proposed fix will not make things worse? This has happened before many times.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
That's because the density has been reduced. That's not good because it means the community is already damaged. Basically, it says warming might increase diseases that thin out the coral, and that reduced density decreases the severity of diseases that thrive in high density areas.
Using words like "suggest" and "could" are common in scientific literature. That's just the way it is, it doesn't mean the conclusions are weak in any way, it just means the scientists want to cover their behinds and leave room for further research. PROVING things is very difficult and isn't usually striven for.
It's not faulty logic, you just don't understand scientific writing. And the last point you made is a pet peeve of mine. I hear this argument a lot, that we will only make things worse. When ecologists want to fix things, it usually means that they want things to go back to the way they were. They're trying to undo what we altered that messed it up in the first place. So, I guess you're right in a way, as we do usually mess things up, but environmentalists want things to be left alone for the most part. In the case of GW, it's a no brainer. Not only do reduced emissions mitigate climate change, it lowers pollution levels.
airinhere
New member
Hippiesmell, did you read the scientific report? I quoted from the first sentence of a section explaining that the scientists agree that the data they have collected is not conclusive about the effects of oceanic warming on the coral reefs. The exact opposite of what was presented in the CNN story could just as well be true. Personally, I think the warming is an enhancement to the list of other impacts on the reef.
As far as "suggest" and "could". These are words used frequently in our media to allude to something when there is no real proof. It is unfair to the scientists and all their hard work. (who by the way are careful not to make such comments.)
Proving things is exactly what all scientists are trying to do. Even if its hard. Philosophers and religous leaders go on faith. Scientists look for proof.
The CNN article is nothing but faulty logic. It is highly irresponsible and while it does build support for the scientists, the support is based on unreal concepts that the scientists might not agree with.
And not to get onto a GW sidetrack here, but Global Warming is not a "no-brainer". What if the actions we take to fix our current understanding of GW cause far more harm than good, simply because we failed to try to understand the real issues. Some stuff is simple. Most of it is very complex, and we have to avoid the urge to try whatever ideas pop into our heads regarding what should work, untill we have a chance to work all the kinks out.
I agree that something has got to be done. The potential risk is not acceptable. We have got to fix the harm we have wrought. But lets have a plan. Something that is well thought out and has realistic goals. Lets get everyone involved. Otherwise we are screwed.
And I like the Earth. Its where I keep all my stuff!
As far as "suggest" and "could". These are words used frequently in our media to allude to something when there is no real proof. It is unfair to the scientists and all their hard work. (who by the way are careful not to make such comments.)
Proving things is exactly what all scientists are trying to do. Even if its hard. Philosophers and religous leaders go on faith. Scientists look for proof.
The CNN article is nothing but faulty logic. It is highly irresponsible and while it does build support for the scientists, the support is based on unreal concepts that the scientists might not agree with.
And not to get onto a GW sidetrack here, but Global Warming is not a "no-brainer". What if the actions we take to fix our current understanding of GW cause far more harm than good, simply because we failed to try to understand the real issues. Some stuff is simple. Most of it is very complex, and we have to avoid the urge to try whatever ideas pop into our heads regarding what should work, untill we have a chance to work all the kinks out.
I agree that something has got to be done. The potential risk is not acceptable. We have got to fix the harm we have wrought. But lets have a plan. Something that is well thought out and has realistic goals. Lets get everyone involved. Otherwise we are screwed.
And I like the Earth. Its where I keep all my stuff!
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Exactly.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I did read it, the paper is not conclusive and I never said it was. My point is you need to understand that in most cases scientists will always stop short of saying their conclusions are 100% correct. That doesn't mean you can dismiss the conclusions, especially when there are many other papers that say the same thing. It's a collage, not a stand alone piece of evidence. Stand back a bit and it all comes into focus.
Anyway, I'm off for vacation. Have a great weekend.
Similar threads
