If All You See…

…is a wonder field of what might be corn used for ethanol, and if it isn’t, well, out up solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day The Hockey Schtick, with a post on a new paper on corals not being bummed out by “climate change”.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “If All You See…”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Let’s see… a peer-reviewed article filtered through NIPCC, Hockey Schtick and the Pirate Cave, none of which linked to the free article online. What could go wrong, lol?

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0063985

    concluding sentence from the article abstract: “Acclimatisation through changing symbiotic association therefore does not seem to be an option for Indo-Pacific corals to deal with future OA (ocean acidification).”

    and from the discussion: “The diversity of coral communities is sharply reduced at the three seep sites compared with the control sites…”

    The NIPCC and The Hockey Schtick have willfully lied to you. wt just didn’t read the original article when he lazily linked to the Schtick.

    Science is hard.

  2. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    Acclimatisation through changing symbiotic association therefore does not seem to be an option</blockquote>
    So, corals are unable to adapt? Corals are unable to acclimatize to a water property that corals were initially started in? Is that what you are saying J? Do you not believe in evolution\adaptation?

    And what J doesn’t tell you is that what he was referencing was the “changing symbiosis” of the corals with Symbiodinium. There is a symbiosis for a reason. The changing of that symbiotic nature is not an option, but it was not necessary since the changing CO2 posed no problem for the corals at the 6 sites. See:

    In the present study there was no indication that the coral investigated had acclimatised to high pCO2 at the seeps by changing their dominant type of Symbiodinium. If indeed certain Symbiodinium types outperform others in response to OA [35], those types were not found at the study sites due to environmental or geographic constraints [23], [26], [29]

    And, you may wonder what “seep sites” is being referenced to. They are talking about CO2 seep sites in the ocean. Thus, not a man-made source of CO2, or an atmospheric one.

    Moreover, recent work by Howells et al. [67] indicates that there may be substantial adaptation within the same sub-cladal types of Symbiodinium to local environmental conditions. This indicates that there is potential for the seep Symbiodinium to have undergone local adaptation to the OA conditions that is sufficient to prevent selection of certain types over others.

    And here’s the full quote that J didn’t want you to see:

    The diversity of coral communities is sharply reduced at the three seep sites compared with the control sites, although coral cover remains similar [53]. Seep communities are dominated by massive Porites spp., while adjacent control reefs are comparatively rich in Acropora spp. [53]. Our study has shown that the massive Porites sp. at the seeps house the same C15-like Symbiodinium as at the control sites. It is possible that C15-like types can take advantage of the additional CO2, buffering the host from the negative effects of OA. However, it is unlikely that the association with C15-like Symbiodinium types alone accounts for the dominance of massive Porites spp. at seep sites, as P. cylindrica contained the same C15-like Symbiodinium but is uncommon at the seeps [53].

    In other words, this lack of diversity was just a factor of the sites selected, not because of the experiment.

    Teach, I see a girl who’s gonna get alot of dust and bugs trapped in her crack if she don’t pull her pants up. I also see a tramp stamp that lowers her quality.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Dinoflagellates are photosynthetic endosymbionts with coral (and other marine invertebrates) and are responsible for “fixing” much of the organic carbon the corals use for energy. Here’s what they observed: Seep sites that they examined (where CO2 levels were quite high) had 1) reduced diversity of corals (implying at least one species of coral MAY have adapted to high CO2, and 2) that the population of dinoflagellates associated with the corals was not significantly different between the seep site coral and the “normal” coral.

    wt’s conclusion that this means coral are not “bummed out” by “climate change” is hardly relevant to the paper.

  4. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    That’s exactly what that means.
    For you cultists, CO2 = climate change = bad.
    This small study found that those sites situated around CO2 seeps were not unduly affected compared those sites not around seeps.

    Pretty easy if one knows how to think.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7699 access attempts in the last 7 days.