That bloody coral -- it just WON'T die off, no matter how the environmentalists keep willing it to...

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/heat-resistant-corals-ignore-climate-change-threats

Gee another alarmist "the world is ending" piece, they certainly are popular now.

Unfortunately for the climate change deniers, the ones who don't want it to change and want the CO2 or whatever adjusted so it stays the same, are not going to be able to bully or "consensise" (bully the planet democratically) the planet into doing what they want, fortunately. You might be able to baffle and bully politicians, children and others, but the planet,I think not.

Being a climate change believer, and part of the cheersquad for change, I think you are all in for a bad time trying to get the climate to stop changing. Isn't that what essentially you are trying to do - so you want to tweak this and reduce that, even though you really don't know for sure.

Is change that so incredibly scary to you, if the oceans rise, we'll adapt, if the temperature goes up, what so Melbourne is like Port Moresby .. nice!

I expect the world's fish and reefs will adapt, if they can recover from Atomic Bomb testing (Bikini and Mururoa atolls), and that's the best we've got, then I don't think any additional CO2 is going to worry them. In fact recent information is they will thrive with more CO2.

Me, I'm all for adapting and I look forward to all the yummy new seafood that adapts to the constantly changing world. Oooh, lobster with 6 claws!

The URL given by Jon J involves CO2 and the photos show mostly soft coral with what appears to be dead hard coral low in one photo. Nowhere is nutrient pollution mentioned at that site on this date.

I am not talking about extinction of coral. This is about decent indigenous Pacific and Caribbean island and even Australian coastal people who can no longer catch or afford fresh healthy food from the sea or shops.

Coral being killed by algae is a symptom of poor water quality that is killing seagrass and the marine food web that even feeds humans. It is difficult to picture a dying ocean almost empty of available food.

Imagine increased cost of other food if there is a major shortfall in supply of fish, especially at a time when the human population and demand is increasing. Look around and think about the price of fish and decent meat already.

Antibiotic fed aquaculture product is cheap sometimes but is it tasty and healthy? Maybe become a vegetarian and wipe out more forest for arable land if you can find enough water.

Sure, lets just adapt to famine and airborne disease from malnourished immune systems in animals and humans. It's already happening in my opinion. The CO2 business is a distraction.

Land and food shortages are known to cause war.

Odo

Thank you for your link on starfish and what is the point you make when the scientist in your link advised:

“The sea star seems to survive because its calcium is nodular, so unlike species with continuous shells or skeletons it can compensate for a lack of carbonate by growing more fleshy tissue instead. The team therefore warn against assuming that global warming will have the same impact across groups of similar species?

John J

The authors of the link you provided were very selective when providing the article’s abstract to readers. I’m sure you would agree?:

‘During particularly warm years, bleaching has accounted for the deaths of large numbers of corals. In the Caribbean in 2005, a heat surge caused more than 50 percent of corals to bleach, and many still have not recovered, according to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, an international collaboration of government officials, policymakers and marine scientists, including Palumbi,” (the author of your link.)

"These findings show that, given enough time, many corals can match hotter environments by hosting heat-resistant symbionts," he explained. "While hopeful, the work also suggests that modern environments are changing so rapidly that corals may not be able to keep up. It comes down to a calculation of the rates of environmental change versus the rates of adaptation," said Palumbi.

Survival of the fittest or mere cherry picking on your part?

JF Aust – I read you on nutrient pollution. One of the alarming impacts is the increase in ocean dead zones – an unprecedented total of 200. However, the grim reapers are not concerned over that. They wish only to keep the debate going on global warming and the uncertainty of a CO2 correlation. Meanwhile, they pillage, plunder and pollute the planet while not flinching from an opportunity to scheme and plot no matter how sordid.

So let them eat cake…....errr…....fish, because they like to tell us the scientific evidence is flawed!

http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/index.html

We can only avoid disasters in marine-ecosystems by reducing CO2, SHME-OH-TWO!

Hey!

SCIENTISTS have just tracked down previously undiscovered colonies of Antarctic emperor penguins after spotting trails of their droppings on satellite pictures.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25579270-5005962,00.html

This is the latest in a string of Scientific TRAVESTIES to slip through the cracks of institutionalised SCIENCE efforts like CO2-warming.

The Question staring Real Scientists in the face here is: "If a hundred-odd-thousand penguins show satellite 'poo trails WHAT THE 'poo trail HEC' shows up for 6.7billion humans?

What effect does this have on ocean evaporation breakpoints and what toxic effect does human poo&nurdle trails have on the crucial top 10micron ocean surface (SIMC) layer wher the majority of marine ecosystems spend at least a part of their life cycle?

And to get down to tin-tacks what happens to all the diurnal heat that the poisoned marine ecosystems no longer need (being dead)?

Does it go to the Nth pole and melt ice that couldn't be melted up to now?

HMMM?

Institutionalised science & forum essayists don't care. They are in a rave of doxic ardency over greenhouse gases on a planet, which if it was a greenhouse spins at 1000 miles per hour. I am constantly in wonder of the effect of the internal air dynamics of a garden greenhouse if it were subjected to coriolois forces equivalent to that of planet Earth!

This type of incident where scientists unzip their fly, losing sight of the big picture, in a rave of doxic ardency, first came to my attention in the late 1990's.

Medical Scientists were using nanoparticulate carriers (Vectors) coated with drugs to increase tissue specificity in a range of treatments including for cancer.

Success Papers with positive conclusions were running thick and fast, and still are.

But wait, what about man made nanoparticulate pollutants coated with lead or mercury or other tissue specific toxins?

OOOPS!

To this day, EPA's all over the world only seriously measure & report particulates down to the 10 micron level! They've effectively been walking around with their flys unzipped ever since.

CO2 be Damned!

Protaganist .. did you not read what I said, here it is again "here's an article from New scientist, talking about how starfish THRIVE under higher temperatues and increased acid in their environment." You have selected, nit or cherry picked one sentence in the article where it talks about other species, I didn't - my point was that Starfish thrive.

So now that it has been pointed out that some species survive higher acidity and temperature, and you only need one example to prove a theory wrong do you not. Then regardless of anything else, the OLO article is therefore proved to be false and be baseless.

I'm not going to provide "a point" for every sentence in a reference, there is no need, you're clutching at straws, admit it?

The article is a doomsday "everything is going to die" piece, I have provided evidence that is not the case.

So your response is, well some things will still die, yes - so what?

You complain about cherry pickers but are a consistent cherry picker, are you trying to corner the market?

Avagoodweegend!