A new study suggests that some coral reefs could be protected from bleaching by a natural 'ocean thermostat' that regulates sea surface temperatures in the western pacific warm pool.
The paper was published in GRL on 9th February:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L03613, doi:10.1029/2007GL032257, 2008
Joan A. Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Gokhan Danabasoglu, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Janice M. Lough, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Abstract:
Several negative feedback mechanisms have been proposed by others to explain the stability of maximum sea surface temperature (SST) in the western Pacific warm pool (WPWP). If these “ocean thermostat” mechanisms effectively suppress warming in the future, then coral reefs in this region should be less exposed to conditions that favor coral reef bleaching. In this study we look for regional differences in reef exposure and sensitivity to increasing SSTs by comparing reported coral reef bleaching events with observed and modeled SSTs of the last fifty years. Coral reefs within or near the WPWP have had fewer reported bleaching events relative to reefs in other regions. Analysis of SST data indicate that the warmest parts of the WPWP have warmed less than elsewhere in the tropical oceans, which supports the existence of thermostat mechanisms that act to depress warming beyond certain temperature thresholds.
The study is also reported on the BBC website: 'Ocean thermostat can save coral'
Jen reminded me about the OLO article by Peter Ridd: 'The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle'
"The scientific evidence about the effect of rising water temperatures on corals is very encouraging. In the GBR, growth rates of corals have been shown to be increasing over the last 100 years, at a time when water temperatures have risen. This is not surprising as the highest growth rates for corals are found in warmer waters. Further, all the species of corals we have in the GBR are also found in the islands, such as PNG, to our north where the water temperatures are considerably hotter than in the GBR. Despite the bleaching events of 1998 and 2002, most of the corals of the GBR did not bleach and of those that did, most have fully recovered.
Of course, some corals on the Queensland coast are regularly stressed from heat, viz. the remarkable corals of Moreton Bay near Brisbane which are stressed by lack of heat in winter. A couple of degrees of global warming
would make them grow much better."
hello Dear
I am student of environment pollution in Ms.C in Iran i want to selec py teisis to analys heavy metal on the coral reef in south of Iran in Persian gulf . but i havnot method for this and iran didnt work and experience a bout them can you help me and introduce a good method and guid me or send me agood article similary that worked in other place
best regard
sharifan
Ove,
This discussion is not about the pros and cons of peer review but about misrepresentation of the Bruno and Selig study as supporting the assertion of climate change being responsible for a purported decline in reef condition.
As for diving, it is now a multi-billion dollar global industry that embodies a much more extensive and intensive contact with reef conditions than does the surveys you cite. It is highly sensitive to reef conditions. The dive tour companies and opinion leaders in the industry have the world to choose from and extensive global experience to draw upon. They are not reporting the global decline you assert.
On the one hand we have a small group of office based academics whose funding and reputation rests upon research into purported reef threats. They claim to be experts but as a group have a lengthy track record of failed predictions. They claim the situation is dire and more money is needed for research, please!
On the other hand is a much larger group with widespread long term daily contact with reefs. Their economic well being is strongly influenced by discriminating customers with a global range of choice. As a group they say their reefs are great. Their veracity is directly tested by millions of customers who come and see for themselves. Their experiences flood the Internet with accounts and photos.
I draw upon both sources as well as some 50 years of my own extensive and intensive observations. I recognise limitations in all three sources but on the whole am less impressed by the self proclaimed experts than you appear to be.
Perhaps I'm too biased by repeated past experience with experts and observations that refute ever changing current theory. Only one thing seems certain. A drastric cut to fossil fuel use seems highly unlikely anytime soon and AGW theory will almost certainly be fully tested.
The future is rarely as good as we hope or as bad as we fear. Mostly it is what we didn't expect at all.
How many more years of global cooling and no widespread bleaching will be required before a new reef threat has to be found?
Walter - not sure how I can help further if you think peer-reviewed science is bunk but don't have anything to refute it with. You need to back up what you say with something more than your gut feelings and sporadic accounts of great diving trips!
Says Sid Scientist from Muckadilla ... not "a Dr Janice Lough" but "the Dr Janice Lough" mate. Dr Lough to you though. So how is your zooanthellae research going Dr Sid?
"Dr Janice Lough is a Principal Research Scientist leading the Responding to Climate Change Team at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and a Partner Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Reef Studies. Trained as a climatologist at the Climate Research Unit (UK), her research interests focus on understanding the nature, causes and impacts of climate variability and climate change in tropical marine environments. She also specializes in obtaining historical perspectives on coral reefs and the significance of currently observed changes using the rich archive of proxy environmental information contained in long-lived massive coral skeletons"
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/events/webseminar/webseminar.html
"Coral reefs are the global canaries, as they are already showing rapid responses to climate change at the global scale. Scientists, managers and policy makers can use reefs to examine the effectiveness of international attempts to understand and respond to the impact of global warming"
http://www.ids.org.au/~cnevill/marineTownsvilleDeclaration2002.htm
So all that Ove can come up with to refute hard data showing that waters over the reef are not warming....is the ramblings of a Dr Janice Lough, which resemble fables or urban myths.
John,
Many reefs are commonly subject to periodic natural devastation and recovery. Add to this local human impacts and an unquantified sample bias from surveys conducted specifically to assess reef damage. Then leave out recent recovery from the 98 bleaching. Although the Bruno and Selig study may well indicate a modest decline in coral cover there is certainly no indication this is due to climate change.
How do you propose avoiding the risk of AGW other than massive and immediate reduction in fossil fuel consumption? How do you envision doing this on a global basis without collapsing the global economy? How do you expect to force other nations to do it? Why do you ask me and other readers of this blog when we have virtually no chance of having any meaningful influence no matter what we may personally feel or do? Do you really think a purported reduction in coral cover is going to cause billions of people to voluntarily impose great hardship on themselves and those they most care about?