Some Corals Grow After 'Fatal' Warming 112
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: For the first time ever, scientists have found corals that were thought to have been killed by heat stress have recovered, a glimmer of hope for the world's climate change-threatened reefs. The chance discovery, made by Diego K. Kersting from the Freie University of Berlin and the University of Barcelona during diving expeditions in the Spanish Mediterranean, was reported in the journal Science Advances on Wednesday.
Kersting and co-author Cristina Linares have been carrying out long-term monitoring of 243 colonies of the endangered reef-builder coral Cladocora caespitosa since 2002, allowing them to describe in previous papers recurring warming-related mass mortalities. [T]he researchers found that in 38 percent of the impacted colonies, the polyps had devised a survival strategy: shrinking their dimensions, partly abandoning their original skeleton, and gradually, over a period of several years, growing back and starting a new skeleton. They were then able to gradually re-colonize dead areas through budding. "Coral are made up of hundreds to thousands of tiny creatures called polyps that secrete a hard outer skeleton of calcium carbonate (limestone) and attach themselves to the ocean floor," the report mentions. In order to be sure that the polyps were the same animals staging a comeback, "the team used 3D computer imaging to confirm the old, abandoned skeleton was connected to the new structure."
"This process of 'rejuvenescence' was known to exist in the fossil record but had never before been observed in coral colonies that exist today." While further investigation is required, the team says the findings open up the possibility that other modern corals around the world might be apply similar strategies to survive.
Kersting and co-author Cristina Linares have been carrying out long-term monitoring of 243 colonies of the endangered reef-builder coral Cladocora caespitosa since 2002, allowing them to describe in previous papers recurring warming-related mass mortalities. [T]he researchers found that in 38 percent of the impacted colonies, the polyps had devised a survival strategy: shrinking their dimensions, partly abandoning their original skeleton, and gradually, over a period of several years, growing back and starting a new skeleton. They were then able to gradually re-colonize dead areas through budding. "Coral are made up of hundreds to thousands of tiny creatures called polyps that secrete a hard outer skeleton of calcium carbonate (limestone) and attach themselves to the ocean floor," the report mentions. In order to be sure that the polyps were the same animals staging a comeback, "the team used 3D computer imaging to confirm the old, abandoned skeleton was connected to the new structure."
"This process of 'rejuvenescence' was known to exist in the fossil record but had never before been observed in coral colonies that exist today." While further investigation is required, the team says the findings open up the possibility that other modern corals around the world might be apply similar strategies to survive.
Iceage Much (Score:5, Interesting)
All the coral reefs of today were utterly destroyed in the last ice age, the were in fact, inland formations and a long way from the sea and the coral reefs of the ice age were all utterly destroyed, to deep in the sea for the coral to survive.
Coral comes back pretty much in one breeding season, probably why they have evolved to do a single mass breeding event, to flood the sea and recolonise dead coral locations, quite quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the coral reefs of today were utterly destroyed in the last ice age.
So? What if the ice age had continued? What if humans had knowingly caused that ice age?
This is just another "But the earth was warmer before!" denial.
Re: (Score:3)
But it WAS warmer before. "Normal" for this planet is warmer than it's been since humans evolved (depending, of course, on where you draw the line at "human"), because we've been in an Ice Age for 20 megayears or thereabouts.
Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be dealing with the current climate events that are human-induced.
Likewise, it doesn't mean that we are going to be able to maintain the planet in the condition it's been in for the last 20
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, it doesn't mean that we are going to be able to maintain the planet in the condition it's been in for the last 20K years.
Climate fluctuated quite a bit in the last 20k years. In that time the Sahara was both green, and before that a larger desert, among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
All the coral reefs of today were utterly destroyed in the last ice age, the were in fact, inland formations and a long way from the sea and the coral reefs of the ice age were all utterly destroyed, to deep in the sea for the coral to survive.
Coral comes back pretty much in one breeding season, probably why they have evolved to do a single mass breeding event, to flood the sea and recolonise dead coral locations, quite quickly.
Yeah, and houses can be rebuilt after they burn down. That does not mean that we should just shrug it off when entire cities burn to the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's true but a lot of the people (not so much the scientists; but the politicians, teachers union flunkies indoctrinating our children etc, media talking heads) have all been screaming how there will be no more coral reefs in a decade.
Once again LIES!
Sometimes we do shrug it off while wildfires burn down a small city, because its the right thing to do in terms of other costs like human life trying to prevent it. We might do things differently if a historic architectural achievement that can't as
Re: (Score:2)
TL:DR if you want people to actually stop buying 12mpg SUVs step 0 is kick DarkOx in the ass.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Great and when you do I'll make sure you are prosecuted for felony assault. Hopefully you live in a state where they have the good sense not to let violent offenders like your future self vote.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called evolution. Some species go extinct, other species show up to take their place. It's NORMAL for this to happen.
Adapt or die has always been he rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather selfish of us, don't you think?
But the problem is, environmentalism concentrates on making the richest 1% not go extinct- and virtually ignores the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called evolution. Some species go extinct, other species show up to take their place. It's NORMAL for this to happen.
Adapt or die has always been he rule.
"It's called death. Some people die, others show up to their their place. It's NORMAL for this to happen. So just relax, this won't take long."
Re: (Score:2)
Coral can only come back if the conditions are not the same that kills it. That is why the corals are not currently alive on the "inland formations" you talked about.
Climate Change means that the areas of the current coral reefs will NEVER come back.
It is theoretically possible for new coral reefs to form in the areas where it will become good conditions, as you are implying.
But unfortunately the entire problem with Climate Change is that it is happening too fast. During the Ice Age they had centuries to
Re: (Score:2)
The current study under discussion would argue that you are incorrect.
Opposed to the billions of polyps that can't handle the 4 degree increase over 100 years, there are many thousands of polyps that can. The polyps reproduce every year.
Re: (Score:2)
But personally, I'd worry more about the rising levels of carbonic acid in the ocean as opposed to its temperature increase.
Re: (Score:2)
How did this fuckwit's bald-faced lie get modded up to score 5? Just because it was first post?
We Clapped Hard Enough (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, yes we did. We clapped loud enough to bring the corals back to life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, yes, whatever, but could you stop now, some of us are trying to sleep!
This is hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can bet a case of something drinkable that we will have a cooling event this or next year because of the Siberia wildfires: https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
It is something which you can find in the historic record - any war which results in more than 1% of European part of Russia torched calls General Zima out of his Siberian hut to intervene on their behalf. We had MORE than that burning this year so it will be surprising if he does not do an appearance
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the Earth's climate since the Pleistocene has hardly been stable (numerous ice ages as well as warm periods), this is hardly surprising. The current 'global warming' is not unprecedented in its amount.
Yes, and every one of those changes happened for a reason. The temperature didn't just decide to change all by itself.
What if, this time around, we're the reason?
Re: (Score:2)
What if, this time around, we're the reason?
Then I guess we are much like other creatures who change their environment in various ways.
And we'd better get busy figuring out technological ways to solve it. Snarking at each other doesn't seem to be cutting it.
Re: (Score:1)
Umm - just don't burn fossil fuels?
Freaking solar panels?
Ride a push-bike to work.
What I'd like to see is a virtual-flame of current burning - how big would it be??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sayeth Ian Malcolm (Score:3)
"Life finds a way"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."
Re: Sayeth Ian Malcolm (Score:1)
Re: Sayeth Ian Malcolm (Score:4, Funny)
The dinosaurs were beasts with a massive body and the brains of a walnut. That's why they went extinct.
We're ruled by beasts with massive egos and the ... fuck, we're doomed.
Re: (Score:1)
Brains the size of a walnut?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and sudden massive climate change caused by an asteroid impact.
Re: (Score:2)
We're way more advanced than the dinos were.
We don't have to rely on outside effects to fuck up the planet, we are very capable of doing that ourselves now!
Even mucher better Ian Malcom quote (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a much better quote attributed to Ian Malcolm:
"Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."
Iam Malcolm is a fictional character.
The guy who wrote the character's line is Michael Crichton.
Re: (Score:1)
Tada! Where's my government grant?
You'll get no grant. That's because the grants aren't given out based on their ability to lower CO2 emissions, they are given out based on their ability to buy votes for US senators.
If the powers that be were concerned about lowering CO2 emissions and air pollution then they'd stop giving out subsidies for solar power, or at least change the criteria on how the subsidies are given.
https://nsjonline.com/article/... [nsjonline.com]
Duke spokeswoman Kim Crawford confirmed that increased solar power on the stateâ(TM)s electric grid is increasing emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), a dangerous air pollutant. She said that reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could also reverse if current solar growth continues without policy changes.
Solar power is a terrible source of electricity for the electrical grid. The sooner we reali
Re: (Score:2)
"Solar power is a terrible source of electricity for the electrical grid."
Why are we tied to using an electrical grid?
Life will go on. (Score:2)
Years ago someone posted a similar comment here on /. . Points to anyone who can find the oldest one.
Despite global warming, life on earth will go on. Life as you know it, will not.
Re: (Score:2)
The question should really be: Does the species you are interested in saving have enough members to have random mutations that can survive in the new environment?
Re: Life will go o (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said I was interested in saving humans alone?
But beyond that- the more genetic diversity you have, the more prepared your species is for ANY future contingency.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken, you just argued that a graphed slope with unknown bounds should be calculable, and if it is not, it is not science.
Tell you what, I'll drop you from a plane from an unknown altitude, and you can yell back at me that you aren't going to die, because if the ground was really going to hit you, you'd be able to calculate when.
Re: Life will go on. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even life as you know it will.
You will not. But if you can't give a fuck, why would the planet?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a quote that isn't a quote from Slashdot; it's from a TV show: Stargate Atlantis, Season 5, episode 16 "Brain Storm", aired in 2008.
At 28:42 (in my iTunes copy of the episode), Dr. Jennifer Keller says her Uncle George hated the phrase "save the planet", because planet Earth would still exist, but the life on Earth might not survive. So work to fight global warming "... isn't about saving the planet. It's about saving lives."
Of course it grows back (Score:1)
I've been listening to Dr. Patrick Moore on this and he's made it quite clear that the panic over the coral reefs is all overblown.
He wrote an essay about this a year ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
The coral reefs are fine. That doesn't mean we can keep pumping oil out of the ground and burn it to emit CO2 into the air. It means that we have time to resolve this, time to think rationally and logically. Greta Thunberg wants us to panic. Panicked people don't think rationally, and may make the probl
Re:Of course it grows back (Score:4, Informative)
The coral reefs are fine.
Coral reefs are NOT fine. The global warming will cause an almost total collapse of coral-dependent ecosystems. The keyword here is "almost" - some corals will survive, and once climate mellows out they will recolonize the reefs. But that's the matter of hundreds if not thousands of years.
Re:Of course it grows back (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that people are driven to such a state of panic, that the hyperbolic doomsday "Hundreds or even thousands!" is +5 and the rational "I read the article 17 years" is not.
I guess even Slashdotters are vulnerable to low information media mannipulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Please cite the relevant part of the article that states that coral reef ecosystems can be restored to pre-die off condition after 17 years. Because I can't seem to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA- it's a matter of ONE year.....due to being single celled organisms numbering in the millions, It's a sure bet some with survive the die off and recolonize immediately, having adapted to the new conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
They noticed after 17 years that the "dieoff" didn't affect *all* of the coral. Only 36%. Of course the rest recolonized. That is what evolution DOES.
Re: (Score:2)
He wrote an essay about this a year ago. https://wattsupwiththat.com/20 [wattsupwiththat.com]...
If you want to make a point, find a website that isn't completely tainted. There's this bizarre meme that in an argument, people are required to wade through arbitrarily large amounts of crap from their opponents, and failure to do so is somehow losing. This is a meme and that's all. That website is known junk. Every time I've played ball, I've landed on an incredibly biased article of some sort which always take ages to unpick.
Natura
Re: (Score:3)
Greta Thunberg wants us to panic.
Speaking of not arguing in good faith, you're an out-and-out liar. She has said no such thing, you're simply making shit up about someone you consider to be an opponent in order to discredit her.
She has said such a thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... [nbcnews.com]
Thunberg's protest, immortalized in a now-viral photo, inspired dozens of other climate strikes across the globe and gave her the platform to speak before several international bodies, such as the World Economic Forum, where she told world leaders: "I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic."
If you want to make a point, find a website that isn't completely tainted.
How about you listen to the argument instead of killing the messenger? I know what the website is but the guest post there is from a respected climate scientist.
So no, ain't reading it. You're posting something 99% likely to be biased junk, because that's a website based on denying science.
That's fine, you're ignorance doesn't change the facts. We are not in a climate crisis and mentally ill schoolchildren telling us to panic is not helping. There is a problem with our current energy supply, and it will be solved when the panicked people calm down enough to look at the sol
Re:Of course it grows back (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
She said such a thing?
Well TIL you're a world leader. Out of interest, which county are you in charge of?
That's fine, you're ignorance doesn't change the facts.
Indeed and neither does yours. You are free to continue to get "facts" from tainted sources. I've got better things to do with my life than endlessly pick through websites with known agendas denying reality on the off chance they might not be wrong this time unlike the time before and before and before and before...
I like how you move smoothly from
Re: (Score:1)
find a website that isn't completely tainted.
He did. You're just too fucking stupid to acknowledge any information that doesn't support your political agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He wrote an essay about this a year ago. https://wattsupwiththat.com/20 [wattsupwiththat.com]...
If you want to make a point, find a website that isn't completely tainted.
There is a lot of junk articles on WUWT nowadays, to be sure. Earlier, it was much better. Then, it was experts in their field making posts. Now, it's anyone with an opinion. When the resident solar phyisicist, Leif Svalgaard, make a post about the sun it's worth reading.
I gave up on WUWT shortly after Charlottesville, when waaaay too many commenters started defending the white supremacists and their murder of Heather Heyer
Re:Of course it grows back (Score:5, Informative)
Panicked people put up solar panels without thinking about the air pollution it could produce. https://nsjonline.com/article/... [nsjonline.com]
And of course you conveniently "forgot" to add the rebuttal by Duke themselves. [duke-energy.com] Not the first time you did that, if I recall correctly, but that's equally unsurprising with you. :)
Re: (Score:2)
And of course you conveniently "forgot" to add the rebuttal by Duke themselves.
Duke replied but they didn't deny that increased solar means greater reliance on gas turbines and therefore more air pollution. They pretty much said, "it's complicated."
There's plenty of evidence that too much reliance on solar power increases costs, increases air pollution, and is generally one step forward but two steps back.
Duke did in fact ask for a variance on the policies concerning the use of solar power to avoid increasing air pollution. They did not deny that. The "rebuttal" that I "forgot" was
Re: (Score:2)
The "rebuttal" that I "forgot" was something I had not seen before.
That is surprising since I distinctly recall me having posted it here before at least one time already, in reaction to this very bullshit.
Greater reliance on solar power comes with greater reliance on natural gas turbines, which means more air pollution.
...which is directly contradicted by Duke:
our fleet will continue to see an overall decrease in air emissions from this transition to solar and other cleaner energy resources.
Apparently the utility company disagrees with you!
For one, the EROI is terrible by comparison.
http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/0... [rameznaam.com]
Setting aside the level of usefulness of this hightly synthetic metrics, how is a figure around 15 (and rising) "terrible"?
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html
Another thing I had already replied to several times. Amazing memory you have there!
Re: (Score:2)
It's just another version of the "doesn't perfectly solve the problem so it doesn't solve the problem at all" attack.
"greater reliance on natural gas turbines" ignores th
Re: (Score:2)
Thunberg's core message, which she has repeated over and over, is to simply listen to the scientists. This remains vital advice, regardless of deniers' attempts to distort it.
Moore is not a climate or marine scientist, and is in the pockets of the coal industry [desmog.co.uk]. If you choose to listen to him instead of actual reef scientists [gbrmpa.gov.au], or to vested interests like Duke Energy, that only confirms you really are trying hard to ignore the science.
And you still claim this is somehow rational?
Re: (Score:2)
Thunberg's core message, which she has repeated over and over, is to simply listen to the scientists. This remains vital advice, regardless of deniers' attempts to distort it.
Okay then, what do the scientists tell you? They tell me that we need to use onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission, if we want to end our reliance on fossil fuels.
Moore is not a climate or marine scientist, and is in the pockets of the coal industry.
For someone "in the pockets of the coal industry" it seems rather odd that he's been speaking against the use of coal for so many years. He's not a fan of coal, but he does like nuclear power.
http://ecosense.me/2017/01/18/... [ecosense.me]
Here's a more recent article where he opposes the use of biomass fuels.
https://www.insidesources.com/... [insidesources.com]
And you still claim this is somehow rational?
He's far more
Re: (Score:2)
He's not a fan of coal, but he does like nuclear power.
I didn't notice him speaking against coal, but he is a fan of CO2 [twitter.com], and denies any link with global warming. Do you consider that rational, in the face of all the evidence?
It's the ocean that's soaking up most of the CO2, which is measurably [bios.edu] lowering the pH. Moore denies this could possibly be a problem, contrary to evidence [nature.com], again because he ignores the timescales involved.
Even other pro-nuclear activists don't think much of him [decarbonisesa.com], calling him out for e.g. claiming to be peer-reviewed and published - in a "jo
Re: (Score:2)
It's been hidden well behind the "OMG we're all going to die in 12 years" message.
Re: (Score:3)
Who gives a fuck what some mentally disabled Swedish teenager with a protest sign wants?
You ever heard of Daniel Burd?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.... [discovermagazine.com]
We need kids like Daniel Burd. We don't need retards like Greta Thunberg.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sick of seeing her in my news feed every single fucking day. She's like a dripping faucet when you're trying to sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hoping someone will shoot her, but they never do.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I don't like grid-tied solar.
Want to go solar, use it to charge battery banks IN YOUR HOUSE for use IN YOUR HOUSE. Forget the damn grid tie.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow that whole site in general and that page in particular is chock full of bullshit. Did the Lynnwood nutter put you on to it? It's a well know denier site. You and all your other posts just look 10x stupider now for you having linked to it and believing anything it says.
Don't ruin it for him, he just disproved the existence of climate changes by posting three links.
Re: (Score:2)
We sure are in 1984. Words seem to have gotten a new meaning. More and more when I read someone talking about "truth" what they actually point to is utter bullshit.
For reference, see anything written by a "truther".
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck sake, no one have adjusted down any temperatures due to evil space aliens. That stupid claim was busted the day it was put forward and still useful idiots like you keep spewing it like it was truth. The older data was adjusted so that they would match the measurements done today since locations and techniques have changed over the decades:
Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
And contrary to your claims that they adjusted the temperatures down:
The ocean adjustments make the biggest difference, and in fact they actually reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data. Thus you would think contrarians like Lamar Smith would appreciate these adjustments; however, over the past couple of decades, they act to very slightly increase the overall global surface warming trend.
And here is a link to a study looking over why the change was done and the consequences of it
So whats the point? (Score:1)
Scientists are stupid fuckers. We already know this. That is why they are continually hypothisising and experimenting, because they don't know shit.
Just like they hypothisize that Nuclear War between Pakistan and India will cure global warming without having to do anything else. Lets put it to the test!
We're...all...gonna die? (Score:1)
Dammit! Someone kill the coral! It's fucking up The Narrative!
We'll keep getting second chances (Score:2)
And we'll keep ignoring them. Oops!
Re: (Score:2)
The corals will persist. They will just move. But it takes time to grow a reef, and the reefs shelter much of the ocean's biodiversity. Some of that will likely be lost, possibly including species with cool tricks that we can copy for our own purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
bullshit.
This "recovery" has happened again and again over millions of years in the fossil record. It's nothing new and not a surprise. Alarmist nonsense and crying wolf will get one ignored; that doesn't help the cause of reducing carbon pollution which is hurting the sea in many more dire ways than these reversible coral issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'll start building bird houses for passenger pigeons, they'll sure to rebound soon. Because sudden extinction due to human activity is not only unlikely but impossible.
We're so smart that we operate with full scientific understanding of the biosphere. Once we've established a scientific fact we never have to address it again because it's a fact duh.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused, passenger pigeons actively exterminated because they were tasty.
nothing to do with climate or carbon pollution
Re: (Score:2)
of course, my fault. I forgot that there is only a single way for humans to cause extinction. Any other way is not actually our fault.
Re: (Score:2)
well this was the proactive "gotta catch [and eat 'em] all" rather than unintentional side-effect. They succeeded and were satiated.
Biology ... not a science (Score:2)
No first principles, always surprised by what and where they find life, utterly underestimate the tenacity of living organisms ... which they persist in treating as mindless automata despite repeated evidence to the contrary.
Gee.... (Score:1)
A glimmer of hope .... NO it's not. (Score:2)
For the first time ever, scientists have found corals that were thought to have been killed by heat stress have recovered, a glimmer of hope
I'm sorry, but the "Science Has All Been Settled." BURN that coral, it should have known better than to recover.
FAR BE IT that we have to change our existing, competed, and static models that make us feel good.
SHHHHHH! (Score:1)