By Kenneth Richard on 24. February 2022
Corals thrive in multiple-degrees-warmer-than-today waters and their growth is stunted in cooler environments.
The warnings peddled by climate alarmists often characterize Earth’s 500 billion corals as critically endangered by modern global warming.
But the science itself says corals have been and continue thriving in the Current Warm Period – just as they have in past warm periods.
Within the span of a few pages, one study (Long et al., 2022) squelches at least 4 false climate alarm narratives.
Scientists have determined:
- Coral reefs “develop rapidly in the warm period” (Roman, Medieval), and “coral reefs develop slowly in the cold period” (Little Ice Age, the Dark Ages Cold Period). Why? Because “warm periods are conducive to coral growth.”
- Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.
- Sea levels were 2 meters higher than they are today ~4,000 years ago, and still about 1 meter higher than today 1,000 years ago, or during the Medieval Warm Period. Lower sea levels produce a “decline in the coral reef development rate”.
- The South China Sea surface temperatures were “3 to 6°C higher than today” from about 5,000 to 4,000 years ago; coral reefs developed rapidly in that warmth.
How much attention will an iconoclastic study like this receive? None, probably. Studies that don’t advance the climate alarm narrative are usually dismissed and ignored.
I’m not holding my breath to see or hear this reported in any MSM outlet.
You could do worse than watch the BBC documentary series from 2012. This was a production from the time when some truth found it’s way on to the screen.
It not only covers how reefs develop and grow, it also shows ‘denier’ Parrot Fish eating the coral to destruction and how the coral then grows back.
It doesn’t have any voiceovers from David bloody Attenborough either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019851n
This is the accompanying blurb.
“A celebration of the Great Barrier Reef is presented in three parts by trained marine biologist and former Royal Marine Monty Halls, who travels from the wild outer reefs of the coral sea to the tangle of mangrove and rainforest on the shoreline, and from the large mountainous islands to tiny coral cays barely above sea level. The in-depth portrait is captured using the latest in filming technology, including remote mini-cameras, motion-controlled underwater time-lapse photography and remotely operated vehicles”
It is currently being shown again on BBC, as well as being available on iplayer…_
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0198pww
Yes, parrot fish consume corals, digesting the soft tissue and discharging the granulated coral skeletons in their poop, creating white or pink “sand”.
Anyone who has spent any time in the Bahamas Bank and knows its geologic history, that wide area surrounded by the Bahamas islands contains vast quantities of such “sand”, ranging to thousands of feet thick, all created by eons of parrotfish eating corals. This calcium sand is much softer than the typical more coarse rock-based sand, and depending upon the local corals, ranges in color from pure white to pink. It beggars the imagination that so much “sand” is created by little fishies.
But go diving or snorkeling on a coral reef in the Bahamas, the Caribbean or other parts of the tropics, and the cacophonous sound created by zillions of parrot fish munching on corals is pretty amazing.
“But go diving or snorkeling on a coral reef in the Bahamas, the Caribbean or other parts of the tropics, and the cacophonous sound created by zillions of parrot fish munching on corals is pretty amazing.”
Only broken by the sound of climatist environmentalist grad students out there on research grants which subsidize their hobby. Real scientists have to do things like stand and work in front of a fume-hood for five years.
what’s a real scientist?
The coral reef disaster narrative was always in direct opposition to Geology.
Thanks to Charles Darwin’s reports in The Voyage of the Beagle, he provided a grounding in observational data on which a sound explanatory model could be constructed.
Not to mention the fact that anyone who has ever done any fishing, diving, or snorkeling knows that the warmer the waters, the greater the concentration of coral reefs, with the greatest concentration in the tropics. If for some reason the waters in the tropics got too warm for their taste, the corals would simply migrate northward to get to the ideal temperatures. Really, it ain’t “rocket science” as they say.
Not to mention the proliferation of life. I have dived the 45 degree waters off of the Northern California coast where I live to Southern California to the Caribbean. Both areas are warmer than the 45 degree waters near me. The amount of sea life appears to go up with the temperature. Is there census data to see if this anecdotal set of observations is correct?
And remember that just 18 000 years ago coral reefs would have been 120 metres lower. So they survived massive sea level rise.
Did coral reefs not exist before the recent ice age started 3.2 million years ago ?
This runs counter to the narrative. There is a fix
“ Geology needs to reinvent itself as we fight against climate change”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25333723-300-geology-needs-to-reinvent-itself-as-we-fight-against-climate-change/
Once upon a time the NS was worth reading. It would have probably reported on this paper. But geologists need to get with the programme
Maybe Peter Ridd could use this study to help defeat the bogus narrative.
From a geologist who has walked many thousands of miles through the preserved geologic record of past climate cycles, I am of the firm belief that the Mesozoic, the “Age of Dinosaurs”, when the planets’ temperature was higher and the CO2 level was also, was the optimal climate for supporting life in whatever local environment, sea, land, or even flying around. The thought of another glacial cycle is far scarier than a little warming. The fact that the CAGW crowd sells the fear of warming is against the honesty of some and against the intelligence of others.
Is the Great Barrier Reef healthier at Brisbane where the water is cooler or at Cairns where the water is warmer?
If the global warming narrative is correct, the reef will be healthiest at Brisbane and extinct at Cairns.
But guess what. The opposite is true. The reef is spectacular at Cairns and all but non existant at Brisbane.
Explain that climate science.
I’ve read somewhere that the sea temp difference from one end of the GBR to the other is about 5 C.
I agree with your point but the GBR doesn’t reach as far south as Brisbane.
That is the point. The GBR doesn’t go as far south as Brisbane because in winter the water can get cool enough to not facilitate coral growth. Those pesky corals like to be warm so they stay north in the winter and hover best around the equator.
It is true that corals run as far down the Australian coast as a cooler Lord Howe Island and the Solitary Islands off Coffs Harbour BUT they do not have the complexity and extensive coverage of the Northern GBR. I was diving in the Solomon Islands a few years ago after an earthquake flattened 100’s of Sq Km’s of coral, after 5 years it was already nearly half a meter high.
The writer is correct coral loves warm water and bleaching has been going on for 1000’s of years. Where do these scientists get their ideas from and how poor must their education be when they can deny the simplest of concepts?
No GBR as far south as Brisbane (I live here) though we do have some coral growing around here and in Moreton Bay … I have some of these corals growing in my display. In years gone by this area must have been substantial reefs in and around Moreton Bay … when recent dredging and filling for new port hardstand was undertaken, the aggregate was almost entirely old reef calcium carbonate.
I visited OZ in 2014 and I was told to head to Agnes Water as from there is was a boat trip out to the southern most part of the GBR.
All those Roman built ports and fortifications designed for coastal defense in the UK, but far from any shore now, are proof that sea levels were higher at that time.
The picture is complicated by isostatic uplift. In the UK there was an ice-cap in Northern England and Ireland which pressed the land down. When the ice melted, it rose up again (over thousands of years) and so the west of England has gone up while the East has gone down. For instance Harlech Castle’s water gate is now about a mile from the sea whereas Maldon has remains of salt evaporation ponds only about 3 feet above high tide level.
The artificial boat docking facility, built by the Romans to offload supplies for Rome, is now almost 8 metes above sea level, and is in Italy. Roman Warm Period, anyone?
Although most corals can cope with higher temperatures for short periods of time, they don’t like it if temperatures stay high for long periods—a coral that lives in 27°C water may cope with the water being 29°C for a day or two, but wouldn’t like to be in 31°C for a week.
and that is the problem: the rapid rise in sea temperatures generally and in specific events.
corals don’t have time to adapt…
This is again misrepresentation of the science. Yes, some corals can live in warmer temperatures… but the existing ones on a reef will likely die off/get bleached.
YOU seem to be misrepresenting the science™.
Reef-building corals cannot tolerate water temperatures below 64° Fahrenheit (18° Celsius). Many grow optimally in water temperatures between 73° and 84° Fahrenheit (23°–29°Celsius), but some can tolerate temperatures as high as 104° Fahrenheit (40° Celsius) for short periods.
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Absolute twaddle Griff. Give it a rest.
I used to do a lot of scuba diving all around the world (before having to give up for medical reasons). Hence I’ve dived in all sorts of temps, from just above freezing to warm as a bath.
I can tell you that the difference in temps that you are you are talking about is minimal. Corals are perfectly capable of living within that range of temperatures.
Real world experience trumps daft assertions such as yours.
There is supposedly one coral reef near New Zealand….it only exists because there is a warm current that allows it to exist…the rest of the waters around New Zealand are too cold.
Lord Howe Island hosts the southern most coral reefs .
It sits astride the ocean current that runs N to S in that part of the South Pacific.
LHI is 900 kms due east of Newcastle on the NSW coast (200 kms North of Sydney).
A world heritage site.
You’ve obviously never swum over the coral reefs in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, or The Philippines where the waters are much warmer than here in Queensland. Oh, and the corals are better there than our much over-hyped GBR.
Griff is too busy trying to navigate all the floods in England to worry about swimming anywhere warm.
I have snorkeled in the crystalline waters off the Philippines, amazing warm flying through air sensation. Coral, everywhere. Fish, everywhere.
Utter nonsense since the study you didn’t read made it clear that it easily handles warm temperature range of 29-31C (84-88F) also there is NO “rapid” sea temperature ongoing.
When you make things up in contradiction to published science it is on YOU to show why you think the published science is wrong, but you didn’t do that.
Don’t look now, your lies are showing.
Did I miss a citation or reference somewhere? Or did this just come from where the sun don’t shine?
I read the comment without looking at the name.
When finished, I thought “Griff”.
Then confirmed it.
Adapt of die
Facts never get in your way do they griff?
Hey Griff, go for a swim in the Red Sea and feel the warmth in the water that corals thrive in there.
”corals don’t have time to adapt…”….Thats why there is such a thing called coral bleaching which is a defence mechanism for sudden spikes in temperature.
Griff, go dive in Indonesia where the water temp is an average of 30c there is plenty of coral there and it gets a lot hotter than that on occasions, Do you imagine that coral bleaching kills coral? Most recover given time. There is also coral that gets exposed at high tide and temp’s can reach 40c. Coral is more complex and able to survive than many claim.
I dived in the Red Sea where the temperature was higher than that pretty much all year round. The corals were doing very nicely thank you.
“This is how we defeat Putin and other petrostate autocratsBill McKibben“
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-is-how-we-defeat-putin-and-other-petrostate-autocrats
my nephew likes to read the Guardian and sent me that- but I sent him the following, a debate between Billy and Alex Epstein- where Alex mopped the floor with Billy
Trump had Putin on the ropes with his policy of supporting energy production in the US.
This is a good demonstration of why climate activists declared the debate over. Because they were consistently losing debates.
Reality, its what’s for dinner.
If see levels were higher hundreds of years ago, what do the Spanish maps of Florida look like from when they first invaded?
They look like they were drawn by 3-year-olds. Spouting whales, mermaids, and sea serpent cartoons are sprinkled around wildly inaccurate coastlines. No wonder the McKibbens of the world find those crude maps to be the holy grails of hoaxdom.
https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2015/11/early-maps-of-florida/ortelius-1548/
Paper from 1998 that produced roughly the same timeline for sea levels for the last thousand years.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4298758
Also, in answer to my own question on this thread, yes – early European maps of Florida from the 1500s to 1700s do reflect the fact that the sea level was about 1 meter higher than today. You can buy one:
https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/55768/a-new-and-accurate-map-of-east-and-west-florida-drawn-from-london-magazine
For anyone with the barest understanding of how plants and animals live and propagate, there should be exactly zero surprise that most life forms do better in warm temperatures – air or seawater – than in cool. Nearly all chemical reactions are affected by temperature, with faster reaction rates prevailing the warmer the temperature. And all biota operate via chemical reactions. Also, higher temperatures in water enable higher concentrations of solutes in solvents, with the planet’s primary solute being liquid water. The higher the solute concentration, the more impetus there is for chemical reactions to proceed. Therefore the higher the potential density of biota.
Yes, high concentrations of specific biota certainly can exist in relatively cool waters, such as in the Humboldt Current in the Pacific Ocean … but that is a matter of relatively high availability of nutrients to biota in that particular current, not due to the effects of temperature.
And yet the current global decline of coral reefs is thoroughly documented, regardless of how much “Kenneth Richard”/Rick Cina attempts to cherry-pick to the contrary.
You’ll have the data of that decline, won’t you?
Or are you just making it up?
Firstly, coral reefs aren’t “global”.
They’re only in tropical & sub tropical seas.
Secondly, define “decline”.
They grow on top of dead corals faster than they die or get eaten by parrot fish, which is how they keep expanding in size and areas.
As for the resilience of coral species, study the resurgence of the Bikini Atoll reefs after being obliterated by the atomic bomb testing in the 1950s.
Your name isn’t a pseudonym for sergeant Schultz by ay chance, for he new nothing also.
knew
sorry
The decline in coral reefs is declared, it has never been documented. In fact all of the documentation goes the other way That being, it documents that the reefs are going quite well and improving.
But then, you would have to know what you are talking about to know that. Something you refuse to do.
Coral grows until it gets too tall and is damaged by waves, sunlight, and air exposure. A few cycles of this and pieces of coral form sand beaches. Freshwater Rain (about Ph 5.3) causes lagoons in the middle, conducive to bird and plant life. Its part of island formation…. been happening for millions of years….even keeps up with sea level rises of 100 meters over a few thousand years like at the end of the last glacial period, 15k to 7k years ago….Trying to stop the effects of a degree warmer climate is a waste of time, outlawing dynamite and cyanide fishing isn’t….
This will be shot down as all such studies are by the incontrovertible truth “Sarcasm”
that today’s warming is unprecedented and life is not being given a chance to adapt.
I’m still waiting to see the actual hypotheses that show how human behaviors are warming the global oceans.
In my opinion, until that time the corals are on their own, just as they always have been.
No doubt the usual suspects will pull up the usual “proof”, that shows that the oceans have warmed by 0.0003C over the last 30 years.
The article does not suggest a mechanism for this but are warmth-adapted symbionts simply more productive than their cooler-adapted brethren? Many studies seem to address survival, but do any measure productivity of an optimized symbiont population versus temperature?
“It’s a disaster, Faye!”
As a coral propagator … long before “marine scientista” grasped the idea, I can proffer, from many years of observation, that below 26C tropical ‘hard coral’ rate slows substantially.
I think if the entire world decides to not come to OZ because the reef is “dying”, the government might finally decide to stick a sock in the mouths of the doomsayers, pull their funding.
Everybody starts getting antsy when you threaten their pocketbook.
I have no immediate plans to travel to OZ again but I left an email with the tourist commission that I will never visit because CO2 is slaughtering the poor corals.