Guest post by Bob Fernley-Jones
The 12th International Coral Reef Symposium (ICRS) was held in Cairns, Queensland, Australia last July. Not a bad venue for embracing subject field trips and the exotic and spectacular hinterland attractions. Yet they had time to reach a grand consensus statement endorsed reportedly by thousands of scientists.
Step 1) Back in June, three eminent scientists including the convener gathered at Stanford and drafted the consensus.
Step 2) They also launched an endorsement form on their websites at COS (Centre for Ocean Solutions) and ICRS which although aimed at scientists could be actioned by the unqualified without any affiliations other than their hometown name. (Click HERE in link in 1).)
Step 3) They also made the following request on the COS and ICRS websites:
“To build a large base of support in preparation for the pubic launch of the statement (during the opening ceremony of the 12thInternational Coral Reef Symposium on July 9, in Cairns, Australia), please click HERE to join other scientists from around the world by adding your name to the list of endorsees.”
Step 4) The ICRS website published a list of almost 2,500 endorsees dated 6/July/2012 that being three days before the five-day symposium started.
Step 5) The consensus statement launched at the opening ceremony and various sympathetic press reports announced that over 2,000; 2,200; 2,400 or 2,500 scientists had endorsed the alarmism, depending on source.
Step 6) Convener announces success of the Symposium and the return home of 2,000 (two thousand) “of us” to 80 countries. Also a plea to continue endorsing the consensus statement….. more than 3,000 signatures so far and we would like to keep the momentum going. [signatures?]
Needless to say there were some rather controversial consensus claims originated at Stanford, but does anyone think it is a bit strange to reach a consensus before the five-day symposium started?
Oh but just for laughs, I would imagine that the loudest cheering of all probably went for this gem from Prof Jeremy Jackson of the Smithsonian:
…”reefs around the world have seen severe declines in coral cover over the last several decades. In the Caribbean, for example, 75-85 percent of the coral cover has been lost in the last 35 years. Even the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, the best-protected reef ecosystem on the planet, has witnessed a 50 percent decline in the last 50 years.”
If they wish to save some reef for their grandchildren, I’d recommend encasing in a block of epoxy resin.
Two coral articles on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
@Latimer Alder
“I’d never heard of the Dobu Island phenomenon before, Is there anywhere it is fully documented? And I’d love to know the measured pH and temperature while you were there :-)”
Never got there unfortunately. My knowledge of the place comes from a former colleague, Misty Buloiloi, architect, Vice-Chancellor, PNG University of Technology, who comes from Dobu.
Some people in Australia might remember Misty from his lecture presentation: “The Traditional Architecture of the Cannibals of Dobu”.
There is some images and links at:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/07/ocean-acidification-photographs-from-bob-halstead-and-a-note-from-floor-anthoni/
http://goo.gl/k6qpZ
Regards,
Martin C
Bob Fernley-Jones wrote:
“Regardless, where is your sense of humour?”
Yeah, I was being a bit overbearing -not enough sleep. I just don’t like to give the catastrophists any ammunition.
George Carlin – Saving the Planet
Latimer Alder referred in his PS to “Climatologits” – whilst the term may well apply to some climate scientists I feel the label may be rather over-abusive. Or am I just being too danged pedantic?
@John Silver:
“You are a blasphemer, Sir! The cardinals may have a surprise for you.”
LOL. The cardinals already know about me I’m afraid. I don’t get invited to give guest lectures.
If I do get to talk to students, I try to preface my comments, eg “those of you who haven’t yet graduated might be better off putting in ear-plugs …” (The comment often has the opposite effect of course.)
@Bill Tuttle:
“Did those 2,000 conventioneers contribute anything to the local economy?”
I suppose the overseas visitors did. Local ones probably funded directly or indirectly by Australian Research Council, Department of Climate Change etc – in other words, Australian taxpayers.
“pubic launch?”
Possibly a freudian error. On the other hand, this current crop don’t seem to have the predilections of their hippy predecessors.
More likely a phenomenon I call a “Pink Elephant”. It doesn’t manifest itself until it is too late to do anything about it. I have seen this before. Common problem with Town Planning Schemes, eg “Place of pubic worship” (sic), and “Convention Centre” defined as “premises for the incineration of human remains”.
I saw some nice corals in the Hawiian Islands and off Mexico. On the other hand, I saw just coral rubble in several parks in the Carribean. This was disappointing, especially these reefs were far from sources of pollution. The corals and their dinoflagellate symbionts require warm water but are also near the edge of their thermal limits. It’s not the average temperature that kills off the corals. Rather, it’s a few weeks during summer when temperatures are 2-3 oC above normal. It’s the really fast temperature changes that we have been experiencing in the last 50 years that cause problems. When temperature changes occur over thousands of year, it’s much easier for corals to shift their geographical ranges.
BillD,
Thanx for your baseless opinion. Are you an educrat?
Global temperatures have not been ‘changing really fast’ for the past 50 years. Learn some science.
“pubic launch?”
Another theory – tempting providence?
Self-appointed high priest of Gaia Tim Flannery, predicting permanent drought, then there’s a massive downpour. Another one (name escapes me) invoking Poseidon.
Maybe they ought to be watching out for Loki instead …
Check out the papers at CO2science.com.
The coral reefs have been thriving over the last 50 years, enjoying the higher CO2. They do not care about acidification which is minimal, if any, due to the complex buffer called seawater. There is no evidence of the acidification they claim. Photosynthesis is an alkalizing process and reef water is very likely variable over the course of a day and tends to go up in pH and not down.
Coral bleaching occurs for several reasons. Sudden warming, sudden cooling, and diseases. With temperature insults, the corals expel their symbionts and adopt others more appropriate for the temperature. (They are changing their clothes.) Viruses can move for thousands of years with the deep ocean currents and cause problems when they eventually surface.
When a reef bleaches, the whiners run away yelling that the reef is dying. They pointedly neglect to go back a year later and find that the reef is doing quite well, thank you. The biggest threats to reefs are dynamite, dragging with nets, sediment suffocation, volcanic dust suffocation, real poisoning, and chemical pollution.
“To build a large base of support in preparation for the pubic launch of the statement …”
I believe that the typo is not with pubic but with launch for lunch.
There, that lowered the level of discourse a bit.
The Great Barrier Reef is so fragile, that it DID survive the last ice age.
A snipit from an information page:
The Great Barrier Reef first began to grow about 18 million years ago. Since this time, various geological events, such as Ice Ages and low seawater levels have interrupted reef growth. The reefs we see today have grown on top of older reef platforms during the last 8000 years – since the last Ice Age.
http://www.greatadventures.com.au/great-barrier-reef-info.html
Won’t coral just grow in the waters that were 2 degrees cooler and have warmed up? The water around PNG is warmer than the water at the northern GBR which is warmer than the water at the southern end of the GBR. And they all have coral. and i didn’t realise there had been a 50% decline in the Great Barrier Reef whatever that gobbledeegook means. Beware, the 2500 button pushes will be contorted to mean 2500 scientists and that will be deliberately confused with the 2700 scientists of several years ago of which 97% were supposedly saying CAGW was real and dire. The cynic in me says there are sneaky people in the CAGW camp who realise they must find a way of re-asserting the “thousands of scientists” survey.
@F. Ross says:
July 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm
“To build a large base of support in preparation for the pubic launch of the statement …”
I believe that the typo is not with pubic but with launch for lunch.
There, that lowered the level of discourse a bit.
===========================================
Well. I’m back from Wacky-Wicki-Land and I have found that official diplomatic protocol for a pubic lunch calls for (drum roll)…. Black Tie……(more drum roll)…….. only (rimshot).
Closer to the topic; if coral is so gosh-durn fragile and sensitive why has it survived so long? Is it fragile or not?
BillD
“….It’s the really fast temperature changes that we have been experiencing in the last 50 years that cause problems. When temperature changes occur over thousands of year, it’s much easier for corals to shift their geographical ranges.”
You obviously view corals as immobile fixtures waiting passively for victimhood in a world that is stable and static if but for man. They are actually quite dynamic and interactive, adaptive even. It is quite easy for them to shift their geographic range as the opportunity arises considering that during their larval stage they are planktonic active swimmers that are borne on the ocean currents to who knows where.
Study their biology a little: some disperse short distances, others are far ranging.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126081655.htm
From an abstract:
“Free-swimming larvae of tropical corals go through a critical life-phase when they return from the open ocean to select a suitable settlement substrate. During the planktonic phase of their life cycle, the behaviors of small coral larvae (<1 mm) that influence settlement success are difficult to observe in situ and are therefore largely unknown. Here, we show that coral larvae respond to acoustic cues that may facilitate detection of habitat from large distances and from upcurrent of preferred settlement locations. Using in situ choice chambers, we found that settling coral larvae were attracted to reef sounds, produced mainly by fish and crustaceans, which we broadcast underwater using loudspeakers."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871043/
Fear not, the biosphere is an orgy of opportunism. Not to mention mesmerizing in it's complexity.
@omegaman66 says:
July 27, 2012 at 12:05 am
New Environmental Friendly Marketing Plan: “Save the Rig” & “Save a Reef”!
I’m IN!