Coral Reefs Can Take The Heat, Unlike Experts Crying Wolf

From The GWPF

  • Date: 26/12/18
  • Peter Ridd, The Australian

This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws.

Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.

It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.

To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.

The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.

Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.

But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.

Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.

They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.

The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.

However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun.

A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.

But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.

A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were ­serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.

This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.

Read the full GWPF story  here.

Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.

Original source paywalled. The Australian, 26 December 2018

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roger Knights
December 29, 2018 7:24 am

Suggestion: Take samples of reef organisms from the Red Sea, cultivate them in a large tank, and inject or spray them along the reef. Problem solved?

Charles Eisenstein
December 29, 2018 9:00 am

The coral reef issue illustrates a common phenomenon: blaming AGW diverts attention from other environmental issues. Coral reefs have suffered all around the world from bottom-trawlers, dynamite, poison, and other direct assaults. In addition, the trophic cascades resulting from overfishing of keystone species probably have unpredictable effects on reefs. All of these issues become invisible when we focus on AGW as the cause. The same thing happens when a worsening flood-drought cycle is blamed on AGW, when in reality it is much more likely due to disruptions in the hydrological cycle caused by deforestation, poor agricultural practices, and urban development. (see for example the work of Kravcik et al: http://www.waterparadigm.org/download/Water_for_the_Recovery_of_the_Climate_A_New_Water_Paradigm.pdf
The general point I want to make is that the AGW narrative, which seemed such a boon for environmentalism, may turn out to be quite a Faustian bargain. In fact I think it is a disaster for environmentalism. The coral reefs and marine biodiversity and would be better served if we put our energy into establishing marine preserves, fishery conservation programs, and reducing toxic pollution, rather than pinning environmentalism to a scientifically questionable theory. I know most commenters on this site do not identify as environmentalists, yet there are those of us who do identify as environmentalists who are skeptical of the conventional AGW theory.
It is astonishing how those on the so-called Left can be so credulously enamored of the pronouncements of authority, whether it is scientific authority or, say, the MSM with regard to “Russiagate”. I thought the Left ws supposed to question authority, not smear anyone who disagrees with it. As we enter a time when established authority is rapidly losing its legitimacy, environmentalists are on shaky ground if their main message is “Believe what the establishment tells you.”

HD Hoese
Reply to  Charles Eisenstein
December 29, 2018 10:20 am

For some time, having lived long enough to have experienced serious pollution or worse, I have also been suspicious about this diversion of attention. Also there is the question as to how much (am certain some occurred) this has skewed the research, not only on environmental, but on other matters in science. There was a successful operational scientific world well before 1980, now it seems to be started around 2000 in some quarters.

When NSF started throwing money around it allowed for more freedom of research. When accountability rose its ugly head it, counter-intuitively, removed a lot of the freedom. Actually, it wasn’t the accountability, it was top-down control along with other associated failing policies. Atomic science, among others, was successful by looking at numerous hypotheses, most not useful. Failures, statistically, are what are what help produce success. Now statistics produce (hypothetical) success.

Johann Wundersamer
December 29, 2018 7:16 pm

“Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.”

Best wishes from 2019 to further.

richard
December 30, 2018 7:31 am

Bikini Atoll coral took 50,000 degrees from nuclear testing and today is in pristine condition and growing like a forest.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  richard
December 30, 2018 5:55 pm

yes… but… that was… ummmm… UO2… So that doesn’t count. 😀

(/snark) 😀

Also kids, remember if the Reef has been destroyed and can no longer be saved, then best we cancel all that Marine Park status and start strip mining the entire area, right?? 🙂

AGW is not Science
Reply to  richard
December 30, 2018 9:36 pm

There you go with inconvenient facts and logic again!