Coral Reefs will NOT dissolve within 100 years

Despite what the lying media would have you believe.

ie, from the Daily Mail:

Coral reefs will dissolve within 100 years due to acidic seas say marine experts

And the Daily Telegraph:

AAAS: Coral reefs could disappear by the end of the century - The world's coral reefs could dissolve away by the end of the century as oceans become more acidic, research suggests.

The reality is very different. The stories are based on a paper first published online in Geophysical Research Letters in March 2009 and which, according to the somewhat more reliable Science Daily, actually says:

"Based on the model results for more than 9,000 reef locations, the researchers determined that at the highest concentration studied, 750 ppm, acidification of seawater would reduce calcification rates of three quarters of the world's reefs to less than 20% of pre-industrial rates. Field studies suggest that at such low rates, coral growth would not be able to keep up with dissolution and other natural as well as manmade destructive processes attacking reefs."



And people wonder why some of us think there's a deliberate campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the media



Anyway, just thought I ought to get in there first

but doesn't fantastic stories sell much better than mundane ones? Why would anyone care that the world as we know it won't change all that drastically in our lifetime? Too boring.

I drove glass bottom boats for 10 years on the great barrier reef.

after 4 years absebse I went back for a visit and went on a glass bottom boat.

The coral was amazing, stong healthy corals, a cyclone had caused some damage a few years earlier, 4 years had gone by and the coral was amazing.

after 10 years of driving glass bottom boats and seeing coral 5 out of 7 days, 8 hours a day, for me to think it was spectacular is a big call.

and this was improving while we are warming the planet

Well there were certain big coral reefs around when CO2 levels were a lot, lot higher than they are today - albeit comprised of corals adapted to more acidic seas.

I'd think the biggest threats to corals are probably pollution and dredging/trawling?

But anyway, my problem with these headlines is that when in 20 years time the Great Barrier Reef hasn't completely dissolved, folk will be using it as 'proof' that scientists were making false claims about global warming .......

I think the only disinformation here is from the OP. I have read both newspaper articles and whilst the headline may be slightly more sensational than the warmist journal to which you subscribe, the content seems to me to be the same.

If current trends continue, this is expected to be by the end of the 21st century. 'These ecosystems, which harbour the highest diversity of marine life in the oceans, may be severely reduced within less than 100 years,' he said.

The above from the Daily Mail as an example. Who said anything about 20 years? Who in fact is the sensationalist who is totally anti climate realist publications because they don't fit your warmist views?

[edit on 25/2/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan


People remember headlines.

We already have a lot of folk asking why we're not getting mediterranean summers in Britain - due to similar headlines a few years back (which said we'd experience them by 2050).

My point remains: these particular headlines are lies which deliberately deceive the public and in time may lead the public to reject science and scientists because their 'predictions' were false....... Predictions they never actually made in the first place.

And science daily is not a 'warmist' publication - it simply reports the science and not what some of certain religio-political persuasion want us to beleive

Originally posted by Essan
And science daily is not a 'warmist' publication - it simply reports the science and not what some of certain religio-political persuasion want us to beleive

Based on this statement, is it your opinion that scientist (real scientists) all agree that Global Warming is real? I was under the impression that the fact that science is kind of split on this theory, is why we even have a debate over this. I mean, I wouldn't believe it just because Al Gore said it, no more than I would believe it was false just because GWB said it. Neither of them are scientists. And both are quite shifty.

Climate change is not supposed to be a political agenda issue, but it has become one. I guess that started when they started trying to figure out how to get rich from it.

reply to post by network dude


With a few notable exceptions, scientists all agree that a) global warming is happening and b) it is at least partially caused by human activity.

The real dispute is over the various ways in which humans are affecting climate (carbon emission derived global warming being but one), how much these affect the climate, what other factors may be also affecting the climate - both warming and cooling (there is also anthropgenic global cooling) - and especially what will happen over the coming decades.

Unfotrunately, politicians and the media have taken GW on board as an excuse for added taxation and/or for publicity. IMHO anything you hear from a politician and/or from the emdia is likely to be a lie and should be ignored. Scientists are not politicians. They are not the media. But they have been shafted by both - and are now fighting back!