Wednesday, March 2, 2011

New addition to blog list: AGWobserver

Just discovered an exceptional resource for tracking the most interesting papers on climate change: AGWobserver (h/t Michael Tobis). There is a lot there for people of every viewpoint and every level of technical literacy.

Seeing so much of the literature gathered in one place is a reminder of how ridiculous the psuedoskeptics' elitist/ivory tower conceit -- that climate scientists are a small group of impractical theorists holed up in their offices, making wild inferences from computer models -- really is. Climate scientists are in the world, collecting vast amounts of data coming out of many disciplines -- marine biology, chemistry, atmospheric physics, dendrochronology and many, many more. Anthropogenic climate change is not "just" a theory, it is the only theory that can begin to account for the vast array of evidence of a warming world.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: this is not just about the temperature record, or the ice cover at the poles, or the rate of glacier retreat (all arguments which the "skeptics" have lost, over and over again). There are dozens of independent lines of evidence. Take coral reefs. Have the ivory tower scientists noticed any changes in coral reefs which might be indicative of a warming world? Is anybody looking at this, or are the bumbling, rent-seeking conspirator-scientists just making wild inferences from their beloved computer models?

Well, there's been a little research:

Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures – Yamano et al. (2011) “Rising temperatures caused by climatic warming may cause poleward range shifts and/or expansions in species distribution. Tropical reef corals (hereafter corals) are some of the world’s most important species, being not only primary producers, but also habitat-forming species, and thus fundamental ecosystem modification is expected according to changes in their distribution. Although most studies of climate change effects on corals have focused on temperature-induced coral bleaching in tropical areas, poleward range shifts and/or expansions may also occur in temperate areas. We show the first large-scale evidence of the poleward range expansion of modern corals, based on 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan, where century-long measurements of in situ sea-surface temperatures have shown statistically significant rises. Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress.” Yamano, H., K. Sugihara, and K. Nomura (2011), Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L04601, doi:10.1029/2010GL046474.


Modeling regional coral reef responses to global warming and changes in ocean chemistry: Caribbean case study – Buddemeier et al. (2011) “Climatic change threatens the future of coral reefs in the Caribbean and the important ecosystem services they provide. We used a simulation model [Combo (“COral Mortality and Bleaching Output”)] to estimate future coral cover in the part of the eastern Caribbean impacted by a massive coral bleaching event in 2005. Combo calculates impacts of future climate change on coral reefs by combining impacts from long-term changes in average sea surface temperature (SST) and ocean acidification with impacts from episodic high temperature mortality (bleaching) events. We used mortality and heat dose data from the 2005 bleaching event to select historic temperature datasets, to use as a baseline for running Combo under different future climate scenarios and sets of assumptions. Results suggest a bleak future for coral reefs in the eastern Caribbean. For three different emissions scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; B1, A1B, and A1FI), coral cover on most Caribbean reefs is projected to drop below 5% by the year 2035, if future mortality rates are equivalent to some of those observed in the 2005 event (50%). For a scenario where corals gain an additional 1–1.5°C of heat tolerance through a shift in the algae that live in the coral tissue, coral cover above 5% is prolonged until 2065. Additional impacts such as storms or anthropogenic damage could result in declines in coral cover even faster than those projected here. These results suggest the need to identify and preserve the locations that are likely to have a higher resiliency to bleaching to save as many remnant populations of corals as possible in the face of projected wide-spread coral loss.” R. W. Buddemeier, Diana R. Lane and J. A. Martinich, Climatic Change, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0022-z. [full text]



Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles – Silverman et al. (2009) “Calcification rates in stony corals are expected to decline significantly in the near future due to ocean acidification. In this study we provide a global estimate of the decline in calcification of coral reefs as a result of increase in sea surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2. This estimate, unlike previously reported estimates, is based on an empirical rate law developed from field observations for gross community calcification as a function of aragonite degree of saturation (Ωarag), sea surface temperature and live coral cover. Calcification rates were calculated for more than 9,000 reef locations using model values of Ωarag and sea surface temperature at different levels of atmospheric CO2. The maps we produced show that by the time atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 will reach 560 ppm all coral reefs will cease to grow and start to dissolve.” Silverman, J., B. Lazar, L. Cao, K. Caldeira, and J. Erez (2009), Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05606, doi:10.1029/2008GL036282. [full text]



Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook – Baker et al. (2008) “Since the early 1980s, episodes of coral reef bleaching and mortality, due primarily to climate-induced ocean warming, have occurred almost annually in one or more of the world’s tropical or subtropical seas. Bleaching is episodic, with the most severe events typically accompanying coupled ocean–atmosphere phenomena, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which result in sustained regional elevations of ocean temperature. Using this extended dataset (25+ years), we review the short- and long-term ecological impacts of coral bleaching on reef ecosystems, and quantitatively synthesize recovery data worldwide. Bleaching episodes have resulted in catastrophic loss of coral cover in some locations, and have changed coral community structure in many others, with a potentially critical influence on the maintenance of biodiversity in the marine tropics. Bleaching has also set the stage for other declines in reef health, such as increases in coral diseases, the breakdown of reef framework by bioeroders, and the loss of critical habitat for associated reef fishes and other biota. Secondary ecological effects, such as the concentration of predators on remnant surviving coral populations, have also accelerated the pace of decline in some areas. Although bleaching severity and recovery have been variable across all spatial scales, some reefs have experienced relatively rapid recovery from severe bleaching impacts. There has been a significant overall recovery of coral cover in the Indian Ocean, where many reefs were devastated by a single large bleaching event in 1998. In contrast, coral cover on western Atlantic reefs has generally continued to decline in response to multiple smaller bleaching events and a diverse set of chronic secondary stressors. No clear trends are apparent in the eastern Pacific, the central-southern-western Pacific or the Arabian Gulf, where some reefs are recovering and others are not. The majority of survivors and new recruits on regenerating and recovering coral reefs have originated from broadcast spawning taxa with a potential for asexual growth, relatively long distance dispersal, successful settlement, rapid growth and a capacity for framework construction. Whether or not affected reefs can continue to function as before will depend on: (1) how much coral cover is lost, and which species are locally extirpated; (2) the ability of remnant and recovering coral communities to adapt or acclimatize to higher temperatures and other climatic factors such as reductions in aragonite saturation state; (3) the changing balance between reef accumulation and bioerosion; and (4) our ability to maintain ecosystem resilience by restoring healthy levels of herbivory, macroalgal cover, and coral recruitment. Bleaching disturbances are likely to become a chronic stress in many reef areas in the coming decades, and coral communities, if they cannot recover quickly enough, are likely to be reduced to their most hardy or adaptable constituents. Some degraded reefs may already be approaching this ecological asymptote, although to date there have not been any global extinctions of individual coral species as a result of bleaching events. Since human populations inhabiting tropical coastal areas derive great value from coral reefs, the degradation of these ecosystems as a result of coral bleaching and its associated impacts is of considerable societal, as well as biological concern. Coral reef conservation strategies now recognize climate change as a principal threat, and are engaged in efforts to allocate conservation activity according to geographic-, taxonomic-, and habitat-specific priorities to maximize coral reef survival. Efforts to forecast and monitor bleaching, involving both remote sensed observations and coupled ocean–atmosphere climate models, are also underway. In addition to these efforts, attempts to minimize and mitigate bleaching impacts on reefs are immediately required. If significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved within the next two to three decades, maximizing coral survivorship during this time may be critical to ensuring healthy reefs can recover in the long term.” Andrew C. Baker, Peter W. Glynn, and Bernhard Riegl, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 80, Issue 4, 10 December 2008, Pages 435-471, doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.003. [full text]


Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification – Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2007) “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.” O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi and M. E. Hatziolos, Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318 no. 5857 pp. 1737-1742, DOI: 10.1126/science.1152509. [full text]



Effects of climate and seawater temperature variation on coral bleaching and mortality – McClanahan et al. (2007) “Coral bleaching due to thermal and environmental stress threatens coral reefs and possibly people who rely on their resources. Here we explore patterns of coral bleaching and mortality in East Africa in 1998 and 2005 in a region where the equatorial current and the island effect of Madagascar interact to create different thermal and physicochemical environments. A variety of temperature statistics were calculated, and their relationships with the degree-heating months (DHM), a good predictor of coral bleaching, determined. Changes in coral cover were analyzed from 29 sites that span >1000 km of coastline from Kenya to the Comoros Islands. Temperature patterns are influenced by the island effect, and there are three main temperature environments based on the rise in temperature over 52 years, measures of temperature variation, and DHM. Offshore sites north of Madagascar that included the Comoros had low temperature rises, low DHM, high standard deviations (SD), and the lowest relative coral mortality. Coastal sites in Kenya had moderate temperature rises, the lowest temperature SD, high DHM, and the highest relative coral mortality. Coastal sites in the south had the highest temperature rises, moderate SD and DHM, and low relative coral mortality. Consequently, the rate of temperature rise was less important than background variation, as reflected by SD and kurtosis measures of sea surface water temperature (SST), in predicting coral survival across 1998. Coral bleaching responses to a warm-water anomaly in 2005 were also negatively related to temperature variation, but positively correlated with the speed of water flow. Separating these effects is difficult; however, both factors will be associated with current environments on the opposite sides of reefs and islands. Reefs in current shadows may represent refugia where corals acclimate and adapt to environmental variation, which better prepares them for rising temperature and anomalies, even though these sites are likely to experience the fastest rates of temperature rise. We suggest that these sites are a conservation priority and should be targeted for management and further ecological research in order to understand acclimation, adaptation, and resilience to climate change.” McClanahan, Timothy R., Mebrahtu Ateweberhan, Christopher A. Muhando, Joseph Maina, and Mohammed S. Mohammed. 2007, Ecological Monographs 77:503–525, doi:10.1890/06-1182.1. [full text]


The role of zooxanthellae in the thermal tolerance of corals: a ‘nugget of hope’ for coral reefs in an era of climate change – Berkelmans & van Oppen (2006) “The ability of coral reefs to survive the projected increases in temperature due to global warming will depend largely on the ability of corals to adapt or acclimatize to increased temperature extremes over the next few decades. Many coral species are highly sensitive to temperature stress and the number of stress (bleaching) episodes has increased in recent decades. We investigated the acclimatization potential of Acropora millepora, a common and widespread Indo-Pacific hard coral species, through transplantation and experimental manipulation. We show that adult corals, at least in some circumstances, are capable of acquiring increased thermal tolerance and that the increased tolerance is a direct result of a change in the symbiont type dominating their tissues from Symbiodinium type C to D. Our data suggest that the change in symbiont type in our experiment was due to a shuffling of existing types already present in coral tissues, not through exogenous uptake from the environment. The level of increased tolerance gained by the corals changing their dominant symbiont type to D (the most thermally resistant type known) is around 1–1.5 °C. This is the first study to show that thermal acclimatization is causally related to symbiont type and provides new insight into the ecological advantage of corals harbouring mixed algal populations. While this increase is of huge ecological significance for many coral species, in the absence of other mechanisms of thermal acclimatization/adaptation, it may not be sufficient to survive climate change under predicted sea surface temperature scenarios over the next 100 years. However, it may be enough to ‘buy time’ while greenhouse reduction measures are put in place.” Ray Berkelmans and Madeleine J.H van Oppen, Proc. R. Soc. B 22 September 2006 vol. 273 no. 1599 2305-2312, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3567. [full text]



Global assessment of coral bleaching and required rates of adaptation under climate change – Donner et al. (2005) “Elevated ocean temperatures can cause coral bleaching, the loss of colour from reef-building corals because of a breakdown of the symbiosis with the dinoflagellate Symbiodinium. Recent studies have warned that global climate change could increase the frequency of coral bleaching and threaten the long-term viability of coral reefs. These assertions are based on projecting the coarse output from atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (GCMs) to the local conditions around representative coral reefs. Here, we conduct the first comprehensive global assessment of coral bleaching under climate change by adapting the NOAA Coral Reef Watch bleaching prediction method to the output of a low- and high-climate sensitivity GCM. First, we develop and test algorithms for predicting mass coral bleaching with GCM-resolution sea surface temperatures for thousands of coral reefs, using a global coral reef map and 1985–2002 bleaching prediction data. We then use the algorithms to determine the frequency of coral bleaching and required thermal adaptation by corals and their endosymbionts under two different emissions scenarios. The results indicate that bleaching could become an annual or biannual event for the vast majority of the world’s coral reefs in the next 30–50 years without an increase in thermal tolerance of 0.2–1.0°C per decade. The geographic variability in required thermal adaptation found in each model and emissions scenario suggests that coral reefs in some regions, like Micronesia and western Polynesia, may be particularly vulnerable to climate change. Advances in modelling and monitoring will refine the forecast for individual reefs, but this assessment concludes that the global prognosis is unlikely to change without an accelerated effort to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.” Simon D. Donner, William J. Skirving, Christopher M. Little, Michael Oppenheimer, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Biology, Volume 11, Issue 12, pages 2251–2265, December 2005. [full text]


Coral reefs: Corals’ adaptive response to climate change – Baker et al. (2004) “The long-term response of coral reefs to climate change depends on the ability of reef-building coral symbioses to adapt or acclimatize to warmer temperatures, but there has been no direct evidence that such a response can occur. Here we show that corals containing unusual algal symbionts that are thermally tolerant and commonly associated with high-temperature environments are much more abundant on reefs that have been severely affected by recent climate change. This adaptive shift in symbiont communities indicates that these devastated reefs could be more resistant to future thermal stress, resulting in significantly longer extinction times for surviving corals than had been previously assumed.” Andrew C. Baker, Craig J. Starger, Tim R. McClanahan & Peter W. Glynn, Nature 430, 741 (12 August 2004) | doi:10.1038/430741a. [full text]



Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming – McNeil et al. (2004) “Coral reefs are constructed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Deposition of CaCO3 (calcification) by corals and other reef organisms is controlled by the saturation state of CaCO3 in seawater (Ω) and sea surface temperature (SST). Previous studies have neglected the effects of ocean warming in predicting future coral reef calcification rates. In this study we take into account both these effects by combining empirical relationships between coral calcification rate and Ω and SST with output from a climate model to predict changes in coral reef calcification rates. Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.” McNeil, B. I., R. J. Matear, and D. J. Barnes (2004), Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L22309, doi:10.1029/2004GL021541. [full text, comment by Kleypas et al., reply by McNeil et al.]



Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems – Pandolfi et al. (2003) “Degradation of coral reef ecosystems began centuries ago, but there is no global summary of the magnitude of change. We compiled records, extending back thousands of years, of the status and trends of seven major guilds of carnivores, herbivores, and architectural species from 14 regions. Large animals declined before small animals and architectural species, and Atlantic reefs declined before reefs in the Red Sea and Australia, but the trajectories of decline were markedly similar worldwide. All reefs were substantially degraded long before outbreaks of coral disease and bleaching. Regardless of these new threats, reefs will not survive without immediate protection from human exploitation over large spatial scales.” John M. Pandolfi, Roger H. Bradbury, Enric Sala, Terence P. Hughes, Karen A. Bjorndal, Richard G. Cooke, Deborah McArdle, Loren McClenachan, Marah J. H. Newman, Gustavo Paredes, Robert R. Warner and Jeremy B. C. Jackson, Science 15 August 2003: Vol. 301 no. 5635 pp. 955-958, DOI: 10.1126/science.1085706.


Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs – Hughes et al. (2003) “The diversity, frequency, and scale of human impacts on coral reefs are increasing to the extent that reefs are threatened globally. Projected increases in carbon dioxide and temperature over the next 50 years exceed the conditions under which coral reefs have flourished over the past half-million years. However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.” T. P. Hughes, A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nyström, S. R. Palumbi, J. M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen and J. Roughgarden, Science 15 August 2003: Vol. 301 no. 5635 pp. 929-933, DOI: 10.1126/science.1085046. [full text]



Microbial diseases of corals and global warming – Rosenberg & Haim (2002) “Coral bleaching and other diseases of corals have increased dramatically during the last few decades. As outbreaks of these diseases are highly correlated with increased sea-water temperature, one of the consequences of global warming will probably be mass destruction of coral reefs. The causative agent(s) of a few of these diseases have been reported: bleaching of Oculina patagonica by Vibrio shiloi; black band disease by a microbial consortium; sea-fan disease (aspergillosis) by Aspergillus sydowii; and coral white plague possibly by Sphingomonas sp. In addition, we have recently discovered that Vibrio coralyticus is the aetiological agent for bleaching the coral Pocillopora damicornis in the Red Sea. In the case of coral bleaching by V. shiloi, the major effect of increasing temperature is the expression of virulence genes by the pathogen. At high summer sea-water temperatures, V. shiloi produces an adhesin that allows it to adhere to a β-galactoside-containing receptor in the coral mucus, penetrate into the coral epidermis, multiply intracellularly, differentiate into a viable-but-not-culturable (VBNC) state and produce toxins that inhibit photosynthesis and lyse the symbiotic zooxanthellae. In black band disease, sulphide is produced at the coral–microbial biofilm interface, which is probably responsible for tissue death. Reports of newly emerging coral diseases and the lack of epidemiological and biochemical information on the known diseases indicate that this will become a fertile area of research in the interface between microbial ecology and infectious disease.” Eugene Rosenberg, Yael Ben-Haim, Environmental Microbiology, Volume 4, Issue 6, pages 318–326, June 2002, DOI: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00302.x. [full text]


The future of coral reefs – Knowlton (2001) “Coral reefs, with their millions of species, have changed profoundly because of the effects of people, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Reefs are subject to many of the same processes that affect other human-dominated ecosystems, but some special features merit emphasis: (i) Many dominant reef builders spawn eggs and sperm into the water column, where fertilization occurs. They are thus particularly vulnerable to Allee effects, including potential extinction associated with chronic reproductive failure. (ii) The corals likely to be most resistant to the effects of habitat degradation are small, short-lived “weedy” corals that have limited dispersal capabilities at the larval stage. Habitat degradation, together with habitat fragmentation, will therefore lead to the establishment of genetically isolated clusters of inbreeding corals. (iii) Increases in average sea temperatures by as little as 1°C, a likely result of global climate change, can cause coral “bleaching” (the breakdown of coral–algal symbiosis), changes in symbiont communities, and coral death. (iv) The activities of people near reefs increase both fishing pressure and nutrient inputs. In general, these processes favor more rapidly growing competitors, often fleshy seaweeds, and may also result in explosions of predator populations. (v) Combinations of stress appear to be associated with threshold responses and ecological surprises, including devastating pathogen outbreaks. (vi) The fossil record suggests that corals as a group are more likely to suffer extinctions than some of the groups that associate with them, whose habitat requirements may be less stringent.” Nancy Knowlton, PNAS May 8, 2001 vol. 98 no. 10 5419-5425, doi: 10.1073/pnas.091092998. [full text]



Coral bleaching: the winners and the losers – Loya et al. (2001) “Sea surface temperatures were warmer throughout 1998 at Sesoko Island, Japan, than in the 10 preceding years. Temperatures peaked at 2.8 °C above average, resulting in extensive coral bleaching and subsequent coral mortality. Using random quadrat surveys, we quantitatively documented the coral community structure one year before and one year after the bleaching event. The 1998 bleaching event reduced coral species richness by 61% and reduced coral cover by 85%. Colony morphology affected bleaching vulnerability and subsequent coral mortality. Finely branched corals were most susceptible, while massive and encrusting colonies survived. Most heavily impacted were the branched Acropora and pocilloporid corals, some of which showed local extinction. We suggest two hypotheses whose synergistic effect may partially explain observed mortality patterns (i.e. preferential survival of thick-tissued species, and shape-dependent differences in colony mass-transfer efficiency). A community-structural shift occurred on Okinawan reefs, resulting in an increase in the relative abundance of massive and encrusting coral species.” Loya, Sakai, Yamazato, Nakano, Sambali, Van Woesik, Ecology Letters, Volume 4, Issue 2, pages 122–131, March 2001, DOI: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00203.x.


Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs – Hoegh-Guldberg (1999) “Sea temperatures in many tropical regions have increased by almost 1°C over the past 100 years, and are currently increasing at ~1–2°C per century. Coral bleaching occurs when the thermal tolerance of corals and their photosynthetic symbionts (zooxanthellae) is exceeded. Mass coral bleaching has occurred in association with episodes of elevated sea temperatures over the past 20 years and involves the loss of the zooxanthellae following chronic photoinhibition. Mass bleaching has resulted in significant losses of live coral in many parts of the world. This paper considers the biochemical, physiological and ecological perspectives of coral bleaching. It also uses the outputs of four runs from three models of global climate change which simulate changes in sea temperature and hence how the frequency and intensity of bleaching events will change over the next 100 years. The results suggest that the thermal tolerances of reef-building corals are likely to be exceeded every year within the next few decades. Events as severe as the 1998 event, the worst on record, are likely to become commonplace within 20 years. Most information suggests that the capacity for acclimation by corals has already been exceeded, and that adaptation will be too slow to avert a decline in the quality of the world’s reefs. The rapidity of the changes that are predicted indicates a major problem for tropical marine ecosystems and suggests that unrestrained warming cannot occur without the loss and degradation of coral reefs on a global scale.” Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Marine and Freshwater Research 50(8) 839 – 866, doi:10.1071/MF99078. [full text]



The Significance of Emerging Diseases in the Tropical Coral Reef Ecosystem – Hayes & Goreau (1998) “Novel pathologies of coral reef organisms, especially reef frame building scleractinian corals, have escalated during the decade between 1987 and 1997. These emerging diseases have appeared with progressively greater frequency and over wider distribution, and have revealed more diversified characteristics than ever before. The causes of most of these infections are not yet confirmed, but they evidence a gradual decline in the vital status of the coral reef ecosystem. As specific causes are identified for these afflictions, terminology will shift from non-specific descriptions, such as “white band”, “white plague”, “white pox”, “yellow band” and “black band” diseases, to etiological and pathognomonic characterizations (e.g. aspergillosis and cyanobacteriosis). Stony corals are vulnerable to sedimentation, nutrient overloading, and chemical pollution from agricultural, urban, and domestic sources. They are incapable of relocation to other sites or of self-protection from cumulative effects of exposure to nitrates, phosphates, herbicides, pesticides, and raw sewage. In contrast to stresses attributed to warm water seasonal anomalies (e.g. coral reef bleaching), stresses imparted by pathogenic micro-organisms occur throughout the calendar year, fluctuate with changing temperature, and invariably result in tissue mortality. The coral has several mechanisms for defense. The epidermis, especially in tentacles of the coral polyp, contains nematocysts which are released in response to predators. The epidermal cells also possess cilia and a flagellary apparatus which are responsible for generating microcurrents in boundary water adjacent to the organism. These currents facilitate the entry of food into the coelenteron for digestion. Mesenterial filaments extend through the epidermis, sweep the surface of the colony, initiate digestion of food particles, and eventually return to the coelenteron. Both the epidermis and the gastrodermis contain mucocytes (or “immunocytes”) which release a mucous secretion. That mucous blanket physically insulates the tissue from particulates or soluble toxins, and may also be bacteriostatic because of immunoglobulin (IgA). The recent emergence of diseases in corals may be interpreted as the consequence of (1) changing coastal ocean water quality favoring the proliferation, attachment and colonization of microbes, and (2) reduced efficiency of the coral’s normal defenses. In order to appreciate these changes, research efforts to evaluate the microbial content of reef waters and to analyze the respective roles of mucus, cilia and flagella, and nematocysts of the corals are necessary. In this study, we have begun to detail the structural, physiological, chemical, and immunological attributes of the coral. Our analysis suggests that at least some of the emerging coral diseases may be explained by a decline in the capacity of coral colonies to mount effective protection against the increasing prevalence and varied invasive strategies of marine pathogens.” Raymond L. Hayes and Nora I. Goreau, Revista Biol Trop 46: 173–185. [full text is available in the abstract page]


Coral bleaching: causes and consequences – Brown (1997) “It has been over 10 years since the phenomenon of extensive coral bleaching was first described. In most cases bleaching has been attributed to elevated temperature, but other instances involving high solar irradiance, and sometimes disease, have also been documented. It is timely, in view of our concern about worldwide reef condition, to review knowledge of physical and biological factors involved in bleaching, the mechanisms of zooxanthellae and pigment loss, and the ecological consequences for coral communities. Here we evaluate recently acquired data on temperature and irradiance-induced bleaching, including long-term data sets which suggest that repeated bleaching events may be the consequence of a steadily rising background sea temperature that will in the future expose corals to an increasingly hostile environment. Cellular mechanisms of bleaching involve a variety of processes that include the degeneration of zooxanthellae in situ, release of zooxanthellae from mesenterial filaments and release of algae within host cells which become detached from the endoderm. Photo-protective defences (particularly carotenoid pigments) in zooxanthellae are likely to play an important role in limiting the bleaching response which is probably elicited by a combination of elevated temperature and irradiance in the field. The ability of corals to respond adaptively to recurrent bleaching episodes is not known, but preliminary evidence suggests that phenotypic responses of both corals and zooxanthellae may be significant.” B. E. Brown, Coral Reefs, Volume 16, Supplement 1, S129-S138, DOI: 10.1007/s003380050249. [full text]



Tracking South Pacific Coral Reef Bleaching

by Satellite and Field Observations – Goreau et al. (1997)
“South Pacific waters with anomalously high surface temperature were tracked by satellite to identify potential sites for field study of coral reef bleaching. Areas with warm season monthly anomalies exceeding +0.9 degrees C were verified to have coral bleaching by local observers, while other areas were not affected. Comparison of 15 environmental variables, measured at 19 field sites across the area affected in 1994, shows that bleaching correlates significantly only with anomalously high temperature. Live coral cover was inversely correlated with many human population density-dependent stresses, but these were not correlated to bleaching. Observations in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans also show that coral reefs worldwide are acclimated close to their upper temperature limits and probably unable to adapt rapidly to a +1 degree C anomalous warming during the warm season.” T. J. Goreau, R. L. Hayes, and A. E. Strong, Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium 2:1491-1494, 1997. [full text is available in the abstract page]


Coral bleaching relative to elevated seawater temperature in the Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean) over the last 50 years – Brown et al. (1996) Without abstract. B. E. Brown, R. P. Dunne and H. Chansang, Coral Reefs, Volume 15, Number 3, 151-152, DOI: 10.1007/BF01145885.



Periodic mass-bleaching and elevated sea temperatures: bleaching of outer reef slope communities in Moorea, French Polynesia – Hoegh-Guldberg & Salvat (1995) “Mass-bleaching events (in which corals and other symbiotic invertebrates lose their zooxanthellae) have been occurring every 3 to 4 yr since 1979. The last report of widespread mass-bleaching in the Pacific (which included bleaching around French Polynesia) was in February-April 1991. This paper reports on mass-bleaching along the outer reef slope of Moorea, French Polynesia, in April 1994. Mass-bleaching was extensive at all sites visited, with corals being bleached down to 25 m. Colour loss by corals was due to low areal densities of zooxanthellae and the percentage of live coral affected ranged between 39.6 (+/- 7.12, SEM) (NW sites) and 72.4 (+/- 7.11, SEM) (NE sites). Bleaching also varied as a function of depth and included a wide range of species. Acropora spp. showed the most severe bleaching (89.0 to 100% of all colonies completely bleached) and Porites spp. showed the least amount of bleaching (12.9 to 42.5% of all colonies partly bleached). Pocillopora spp. showed intermediate bleaching (73.9 to 92.1% of all colonies either partly or completely bleached). The results of this report indicate that current bleaching is on a scale equal to that of the 1991 bleaching event. Temperatures recorded hourly at 14 m off the outer reef slope from July 1991 to August 1994 (and those from satellite sea surface temperature readings) indicate unusually warm sea temperatures in March 1994, which were approximately 1.0*C higher than the highest temperatures recorded in 1992 and 1993, years in which bleaching on a massive scale did not occur. The appearance of warmer temperatures preceded the onset of bleaching by 2 to 3 wk, which strongly confirms the hypothesis that positive thermal anomalies are responsible for recent bleaching events in the Central and Western Pacific.” Hoegh-Guldberg O, Salvat B, MEPS 121:181-190 (1995), doi:10.3354/meps121181.


Catastrophes, Phase Shifts, and Large-Scale Degradation of a Caribbean Coral Reef – Hughes (1994) “Many coral reefs have been degraded over the past two to three decades through a combination of human and natural disturbances. In Jamaica, the effects of overfishing, hurricane damage, and disease have combined to destroy most corals, whose abundance has declined from more than 50 percent in the late 1970s to less than 5 percent today. A dramatic phase shift has occurred, producing a system dominated by fleshy macroalgae (more than 90 percent cover). Immediate implementation of management procedures is necessary to avoid further catastrophic damage.” Terence P. Hughes, Science 9 September 1994: Vol. 265 no. 5178 pp. 1547-1551, DOI: 10.1126/science.265.5178.1547. [full text]



1994 coral bleaching event, Society Islands, French Polynesia – Fagerstom & Rougerie (1994) “The progression of a temperature-induced bleaching event on the barrier reef at Passe d’Arue, Tahiti, during March–April 1994 was observed at approximately weekly intervals. The event consisted of selective exaggeration of polyp colours (Montipora verneuilli, Pocillopora verrucosa), fluorescence followed by bleaching (Acropora spp.), partial-complete bleaching (Fungia spp., Montastraea curta, anemones) and commencement of polyp death. Porites (massive spp.), P. (Synarea) rus and melobesoid algae were almost untouched by the event.” J.A. Fagerstrom and F. Rougerie, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 29, Issues 1-3, 1994, Pages 34-35, doi:10.1016/0025-326X(94)90423-5. [full text]


Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives – Glynn (1993) “Coral reef bleaching, the whitening of diverse invertebrate taxa, results from the loss of symbiotic zooxanthellae and/or a reduction in photosynthetic pigment concentrations in zooxanthellae residing within the gastrodermal tissues of host animals. Of particular concern are the consequences of bleaching of large numbers of reef-building scleractinian corals and hydrocorals. Published records of coral reef bleaching events from 1870 to the present suggest that the frequency (60 major events from 1979 to 1990), scale (co-occurrence in many coral reef regions and often over the bathymetric depth range of corals) and severity (>95% mortality in some areas) of recent bleaching disturbances are unprecedented in the scientific literature. The causes of small scale, isolated bleaching events can often be explained by particular stressors (e.g., temperature, salinity, light, sedimentation, aerial exposure and pollutants), but attempts to explain large scale bleaching events in terms of possible global change (e.g., greenhouse warming, increased UV radiation flux, deteriorating ecosystem health, or some combination of the above) have not been convincing. Attempts to relate the severity and extent of large scale coral reef bleaching events to particular causes have been hampered by a lack of (a) standardized methods to assess bleaching and (b) continuous, long-term data bases of environmental conditions over the periods of interest. An effort must be made to understand the impact of bleaching on the remainder of the reef community and the long-term effects on competition, predation, symbioses, bioerosion and substrate condition, all factors that can influence coral recruitment and reef recovery. If projected rates of sea warming are realized by mid to late AD 2000, i.e. a 2°C increase in high latitude coral seas, the upper thermal tolerance limits of many reef-building corals could be exceeded. Present evidence suggests that many corals would be unable to adapt physiologically or genetically to such marked and rapid temperature increases.” P. W. Glynn, Coral Reefs, Volume 12, Number 1, 1-17, DOI: 10.1007/BF00303779.



Effects of disturbance on coral communities: bleaching in Moorea, French Polynesia – Gleason (1993) “This study examines patterns of susceptibility and short-term recovery of corals from bleaching. A mass coral bleaching event began in March, 1991 on reefs in Moorea, French Polynesia and affected corals on the shallow barrier reef and to >20 m depth on the outer forereef slope. There were significant differences in the effect of the bleaching among common coral genera, with Acropora, Montastrea, Montipora, and Pocillopora more affected than Porites, Pavona, leptastrea or Millepora. Individual colonies of the common species of Acropora and Pocillopora were marked and their fate assessed on a subsequent survey in August, 1991 to determine rates of recovery and mortality. Ninety-six percent of Acropora spp. showed some degree of bleaching compared to 76% of Pocillopora spp. From March to August mortality of bleached colonies of Pocillopora was 17%, 38% recovered completely, and many suffered some partial mortality of the tissue. In contrast, 63% of the Acropora spp. died, and about 10% recovered completely. Generally, those colonies with less than 50% of the colony area affected by the bleaching recovered at a higher rate than did those with more severe bleaching. Changes in community composition four months after the event began included a significant decrease only in crustose algae and an increase in cover of filamentous algae, much of which occupied plate-like and branching corals that had died in the bleaching event. Total coral cover and cover of susceptible coral genera had declined, but not significantly, after the event.” M. G. Gleason, Coral Reefs, Volume 12, Numbers 3-4, 193-201, DOI: 10.1007/BF00334479.


An Assessment of Global Warming Stress on Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems – Atwood et al. (1992) “There is evidence that stress on coral reef ecosystems in the Caribbean region is increasing. Recently numerous authors have stated that the major stress results from “abnormally high” seasonal sea surface temperatures (SST) and have implicated global warming as a cause, stating that recent episodes of coral bleaching result therefrom. However, an analysis of available SST data sets shows no discernible warming trend that could cause an increase in coral bleaching. Given the lack of long-term records synoptic with observations of coral ecosystem health, there is insufficient evidence available to label temperatures observed in coincidence with recent regional bleaching events as “abnormally” high.” Atwood, Donald K.; Hendee, James C.; Mendez, Antonio, Bulletin of Marine Science, Volume 51, Number 1, July 1992 , pp. 118-130(13).



Coral reef bleaching in the 1980s and possible connections with global warming – Glynn (1991) “Scleractinian corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellate algae build massive, wave-resistant coral reefs that are pre-eminent in shallow tropical seas. This mutualism is especially sensitive to numerous environmental stresses, and has been disrupted frequently during the past decade. Increased seawater temperatures have been proposed as the most likely cause of coral reef bleaching, and it has been suggested that the recent large-scale disturbances are the first biological indication of global warming. This article describes recent bleaching events and their possible link with sea warming and other environmental stresses, and offers some speculation on the fate of coral reefs if the Earth enters a sustained period of warming.” Peter W. Glynn, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 6, Issue 6, June 1991, Pages 175-179, doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90208-F.


Damage and recovery of coral reefs affected by El Niño related seawater warming in the Thousand Islands, Indonesia – Brown & Suharsono (1990) “Extensive coral bleaching occurred during sea-water warming (as a result of the 1982/3 El Niño Southern Oscillation event) in 1983 on the shallow reefs in the Java Sea. Mean seawater temperatures rose by 2–3° C over a six month period with values greater than 33° C being recorded between 1200–1500 h. As many as 80–90% of corals died on the reef flats at the study sites, with the major casualties being branching species in the genera Acropora and Pocillopora. Five years after the event the community structure of the study sites has recovered significantly, though coral cover is still 50% of its former level. Contrasting patterns of recovery at two selected sites, in close proximity to each other, are discussed.” B. E. Brown and Suharsono, Coral Reefs, Volume 8, Number 4, 163-170, DOI: 10.1007/BF00265007.



Widespread Coral Mortality and the 1982–83 El Niño Warming Event – Glynn (1984) “The massive ‘bleaching’ (loss of zooxanthellae) and death of reef corals that occurred in one area (Gulf of Chiriquí) on the Pacific side of Panamá and in the Galápagos Islands during February—April 1983 continued in these areas until September—October 1983, resulting in a catastrophic disturbance. Similar episodes have been reported subsequently throughout much of the tropical eastern Pacific region (Costa Rica, the entire Pacific coast of Panamá, and Colombia), in the central and western Pacific Ocean, in parts of the western Atlantic Ocean (Caribbean coasts of Costa Rica, Panamá, and Colombia), and in the Florida Keys and Bahama Islands.” Peter W. Glynn, Environmental Conservation (1984), 11: 133-146, DOI: 10.1017/S0376892900013825.



There's a tremendous amount of information out there. People have dedicated their lives to accumulating it. It's no surprise that amateurs with an axe to grind fixate on a few pieces of the scientific discussion and mistake the part for the whole, especially with the ridiculous "post-normal science" crowd striving to convince them that they are one penetrating insight away from turning the world on its head. I for one am very happy that we have people who do this for a living.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Minor myths: Judith Curry and the failure to persuade

Judith Curry has given us a nice summary of a denier fallacy which gets floated in blog posts and comments all the time:

If climate scientists can’t convince level 2′s and also level 3′s, people who are looking at the arguments carefully, reading the primary literature, and analyzing data, then it seems to me that the arguments can’t be that strong (or the confidence levels can’t be that high).


If we state this as a general proposition, that proposition would be:

People are persuaded if strong arguments are presented to them, provided they are intelligent enough to read and analyze data.

Or, since most people acknowledge that strongly biased people can ignore or distort data to affirm their preexisting beliefs, we might simply state it as "Intelligent people are never strongly biased."

This is the "Well you haven't convinced me" fallacy: the idea that the responsibility of scientists is to convince everyone, and if a denier withholds their approval of a line of argument, then it is those who argue that have failed -- failed to persuade.

Let's consider briefly some of the ideas that have had intelligent and articulate defenders over the years. Totalitarian communism. Eugenics. White supremacism, colonialism, absolute monarchy, religious fundamentalism. All have had aggressive and well-read advocates, as do contemporary anti-science movements like the anti-vaccine movement and creationism.

Sadly, there is no evidence in support of the proposition that intelligence is a protective factor in the embrace of ideological filters. Nor is it true that bias and self-justification -- concepts that has been extensively studied and found to be incredibly powerful -- deprive us of the ability to read and analyze data; the analysis in question just turns out not to be very good, cherry-picked and misattributed and otherwise given a good working over by the subject's confirmation bias.

If anything, it's easier to become attached to an ideology and defend it from all comers when one is educated and facile with the source material. The test of an argument in science is whether it can stand up to scientific critique, not whether it can persuade people who have already made up their minds and invested a considerable portion of their self-regard in their dissident position.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Watch the food

Sea level rise, megastorms, forest fires -- these are dramatic and "sexy" features of climate change, present and future. They may be horrifically costly and disruptive but they will not, by themselves, threaten civilization. What might is things like this:

Monday’s panel cited ways in which climate change has impacted food security and safety.

Warmer winters allow pests that carry plant diseases to survive over the cold months and attack crops in the spring, soil physicist Ray Knighton of the US Department of Agriculture said.

Increased rainfall — another result of climate change — when coupled with more fungal pathogens can “dramatically impact crop yield and quality,” said Knighton, adding that greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollutants have changed plant structures and reduced crops’ defenses to pests and pathogens.


h/t Climate Progress.

By mid-century, we will have about 9 billion people requiring about 1.45 * 10^13 calories per day. At the moment, we can hit that number easily, but we cannot increase it significantly by turning to the lab or the factory floor. As advanced as our civilization is, we depend and will continue to depend for the forseeable future on the soil and its bacteria, on pollinators and wild plants a few (too few!) cereal crops, on rain and frost and warmth in the right places and the right times and the right proportions.

Fourteen and a half trillion calories a day. Every month, every year. We can store a little food, plant a larger area, switch from meat to vegetable protein. That will help, just as predictable hoarding and trade restrictions, price controls and accelerated overexpliotation of ground water, soils, and fertilizers will hurt. But that doesn't change the underlying fact that we need a relatively narrow range of climate variability to survive. Human beings are tough and adaptable and they can live without a bunch of coastal cities, without building in floodplains, with collapsing fish stocks and dying corals. What can't people live without?
Fourteen and a half trillion calories a day.

To see the true peril of climate change, follow the food.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Yes, a carbon tax



Some very smart people, from Bill Gates on down, are skeptical of the prospects for a stiff carbon tax and have embraced the concept of subsidies for alternative energy and energy conservation. Americans' hatred of taxation, the theory goes, makes carbon taxes a dead-end proposition, politically speaking. It may be, for the time being. The politics are a discussion for another day. Distinct from the political calculus, it is worth elucidating the reasons a carbon tax is vastly superior to R&D subsidies as a means of reducing carbon emissions.

First, carbon taxes are path independent. Whereas a subsidy for a particular technology is like forcing your way through concrete with a hammer, changing the relative pricing of the inputs is like forcing your way with water under pressure; it seeks the easiest path, it can follow many paths at once.

A carbon tax creates a financial incentive to reduce carbon emissions in any way possible, and the more economically inefficient (wasteful) the emissions, the more powerful the incentive to save. While a solar panel research subsidy reduces emissions (in the best case) only by increasing the amount of solar energy, a carbon tax creates pressure to improve energy efficiency, reduce consumption, upgrade infrastructure, and develop new technology -- all simultaneously. It does not pick winners, does not depend on identifying promising technologies a priori -- tasks the market is better suited for. It allows for experimentation and heterogeneous strategies in a way no government subsidy or set of subsidies ever could, inasmuch as any subsidy, by definition, is targeted at a predetermined solution, and further restricted in how entrepreneurs can pursue that solution by regulatory requirements to minimize waste and fraud.

Second, the power of the incentives offered by a carbon tax is orders of magnitude greater than that available via subsidies. Consider a "neutral" environment, in which the only benefit from (for example) developing a new solar cell is the profit to be derived from selling it. Now add, for example, a billion dollars in subsidies. You have spent one billion dollars of the taxpayers' money, and you have added one billions dollars to the incentive to develop a new solar cell.

Now imagine a carbon tax of $100/ton. Total emissions per year in the US are about 6 billion tons. So imagine the new solar cell, if completely successful, would reduce emissions by 20%. This would save $120 billion dollars a year, every year. In a stable regulatory environment, the total incentive to develop such a solar cell would be equivalent to $120 billion dollars annuity over the life of the patent. If we estimate roughly ten years of useful life for the patent and an overall interest rate of 6%, you get a total value, and hence a total incentive, of about $880 billion. The incentives differ by orders of magnitude. Yet the incentive costs nothing from a budgetary standpoint, and, assuming it is structured to be revenue neutral (as with James Hanson's tax-and-dividend approach) the only cost to the economy is the actual cost of foregoing "cheap" fossil fuel energy in favor of alternative sources which are more "expensive." The economic impact of this is projected to be small.

One might argue that we could make the direct subsidy larger, but there are several problems with this. Unlike profits earned reducing emissions, subsidies must be awarded via some sort of application process. At the most basic level, the incentive is to win the subsidy, not to innovate or reduce carbon emissions -- we need the regulators to set the terms of the subsidies in such a way that these objectives happen. But the larger you make the subsidies, the greater the incentive to game the system -- to profit by winning the subsidy, not by reducing emissions. With a carbon tax, one pays only for success.

Finally, subsidies, unlike a carbon tax, have inherent structural problems that discourage the kind of large-scale changes in our infrastructure that they are meant to encourage. If a subsidy promotes the development of new technology, there is no guarantee that the technology will be cost effective or that it will be widely adopted. If a subsidy is for adoption of a particular technology, it may do nothing to encourage further refinement of that technology, and may become a positive barrier to replacing the "new" subsidized technology with a better solution.

Yet the biggest problem with subsidies is the "activation energy" problem. Both subsidies and carbon taxes are intended to overcome the problem of the cost advantage, in the current regulatory environment, of fossil fuel energy. If low-carbon sources of energy and increased efficiency were much cheaper, they would be widely adopted. At current prices, only a minority will adopt these strategies, either out of moral obligation or because in a minority of circumstances, the low-carbon solutions are cost-saving. The switch to low-carbon solutions can be compared to a chemical reaction with a high activation energy:


Subsidy and carbon taxes are two strategies to attempt to accelerate the forward reaction. The subsidies, by pushing particular technologies or particular plans of adoption, try to push us over the "hill" -- the substantial (let's not kid ourselves) difference between the price(*) of fossil fuels and the price of most alternatives. The carbon tax, by permanently altering the cost comparison, flattens the hill, reducing the upward slope innovators need to overcome, and increasing the rewards on the downward slope. A subsidy is like a factory furnace, needing to be continually fed and stoked in order to supply the energy to drive a reaction. The carbon tax is a catalyst.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Revkin misses the point

I want to like Andy Revkin. I do. He's a good-hearted soul, and he is the gatekeeper at perhaps the most accessible climate change blog around. But the longer he writes and the more of his epistemology he reveals to us, the more sadly apparent it becomes that he lacks any original insight into either of the science of climate change, or the politics, or the problems of messaging and activism. Nice as he is, he just doesn't get it:

For analysts and campaigners stressing the climate factor as the keystone influence on food prices, it’s also worth remembering that grain stocks these days are also not particularly stressed, from the local (Kansas) level up through a global view. A post from last fall on grain stocks and food (in)security on the Big Picture Agriculture blog (at the time, the unrest was in Mozambique) has some helpful context on the mix of issues affecting food availability:

Governmental policies of export and import restrictions, hoarding, subsidies, panic buying, and infrastructure standards of food storage and transport, as well as investor speculation, currency valuations, individual national inflation rates, weather and climate change, the evolving monoculture genetics, rising input costs, and global macro economic health all impact food security.


Now, I'm not saying he needs to read my blog. Wait a few months, and you can find the very same point made (much more eloquently) in the slightly more regarded Economist:

[U]nlike economies, political systems can be quite brittle. When you look at historical Jared Diamond collapse scenarios, what you see is that they're hyper-local. A complex society develops within a local environment, and when the local environmental conditions change the society collapses. But in the modern world, even substantial local environmental collapses tend not to lead to societal implosion. If Chinese crops fail, China doesn't end; it imports grain from elsewhere. But the ability to limit the damage of modern crises depends upon the institutions that support a liberal global economy, and institutions aren't always as flexible as economies. The world has this marvelous grain market, but if price increases lead to export-restrictions then that grain market suddenly fails. And if the grain markets fail, the unstable governments kept in place only by their ability to keep local markets provisioned fall. And if the governments fall, the refugees will seek asylum elsewhere, and if that happens then borders will be overwhelmed, and who knows what conflicts may erupt.


You can't separate the damage of global warming from the damages caused by "export and import restrictions, hoarding, subsidies, [or] panic buying." The one will lead to the other as night follows day. There are not going to be some new kind of human beings twenty years hence who will cope with unpredictable devastation in a calm, unselfish, rational and farsighted way. That is to say: damage to our adaptive capacities by predictably shortsighted and selfish government responses must be counted among the feedbacks of climate change, even if it is impossible to accurately quantify it.

Please, Andy, and for all our sakes, catch up.

O'Donnellgate: O'Donnell flinches, Lucia "the Shameless"

It started like it always starts, with hysterical exaggeration, wild allegations and heaps of abuse:

While there is not much untrue about this statement, there is certainly a lie of omission. . . . There are not enough vulgar words in the English language to properly articulate my disgust at his blatant dishonesty and duplicity.


Thus O'Donnell, in the original.

At once, the useful idiots chime in:

If Eric Steig was reviewer A and he wrote that deceptive mealy mouth comment he is truly the Rod Blagojevich of climate science.


Notably absent from this bay and cry, predictably, is any hint of the quality known as "skepticism." Eric Steig is a demon, and devil, a fraud a liar and a cheat.

And then the commenters get in on the action. Not to argue the facts of the case, heavens no. By now they have seen the same line of patter repeated at Climate Audit, WUWT, and The Blackboard (above), making it established fact. No, the chosen role of the psuedoskeptical thread-monkeys is to consume everything their masters feed them, and respond with uncritical gloating:

"MikeB":

But along comes Steve, Ryan, Jeff, Nic, and others who once again expose the utter incompetence of the Team’s statistical analysis. And the Team resorts, of course, to their usual tactics.

For my money, the most hilarious sequence in this tragicomedy, is when Steig suggested Jeff take his Mathematica course (not knowing anything about Jeff) and now Steig says he can’t get Ryan’s R code to run. Maybe Steve, Jeff, and Ryan could set up a course for Steig and Mann on R. They could sure use it.


"hunter":

The clear take from the letter of 18, to Gavin’s hissie fit and Steig’s demonstration of how the team does science is that their work cannot survive anything like real scrutiny. No wonder they have worked so hard to limit any look at climategate.
They are a construct of carefully controlled media, pal review and government/NGO agenda pushing.
There is no ‘there’ there.
Their work, when we finally get to actually look at it, will turn out to be self-referential, circular, nonesense.
CO2 warms the atmosphere.
BFD.
Give us back our billion$, clowns.


"juilo":

I guess the next step after science by consensus is consensus by intimidation. Or by forceful suppression of all dissent. Something like that.

It still amazes me how tone-deaf these people are. They have a major image problem that is largely of their own making, and they just have no idea how to handle it: they just keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper with ridiculous stunts.

In the end, everybody loses. The purely scientific questions get more and more muddled, through the stubbornness of people who refuse to acknowledge even the slightest mistake; climate scientists continue to lose credibility in the eyes of the general public, as well as more technically knowledgeable outsiders; and, as a result, it only becomes easier to dismiss legitimate concerns and worries about the rate and possible consequences of climate change, for those with a vested interest to do so. Way to go, Team.


All of this has happened before . . . all of it will happen again. And the next step is just as predictable: the original case begins to fall apart; harsh, jarring facts become more and more intrusive on the deniers' passion play. The accuser is caught in multiple lies, and forced to apologize:

Ryan O’Donnell has posted public apology to Eric Steig for the mistake in fact he posted at in his first version of Steig’s Trick; that post has been retitled and edited to eliminate mistaken facts.


Note the causal switch from the singular to the plural; O'Donnell has apologized for one of his lies, but multiple "mistaken facts" have been removed. The nasty smears based on the "mistaken facts" have also been toned down: "Steve: Feb 9, 2011 – some of Ryan’s language, including the original title, breached blog policies and has been edited accordingly."

By now little remains of the original accusations against Steig. He was accused of demanding O'Donnell use a particular statistical method and then criticizing him for it: proven false. He was accused of requesting a copy of a paper he already had (this was the allegation that led lucia to call him the "Ron Blagojevich of science"). But he never got the final version of the paper, as O'Donnell admitted, and he had to apologize for the allegation. (Lucia however, has not.)

Meanwhile, O'Donnell has not only outed himself with his hysterical allegations based on what are now known to be "mistaken facts": he has also publicly admitted to being a lying, two-faced weasel:

I have known that Eric was, indeed, Reviewer A since early December. I knew this because I asked him. When I asked, I promised that I would keep the information in confidence, as I was merely curious if my guess that I had originally posted on tAV had been correct.

Throughout all of the questioning on Climate Audit, tAV, and Andy Revkin’s blog, I kept my mouth shut. When Dr. Thomas Crowley became interested in this, I kept my mouth shut. When Eric asked for a copy of our paper (which, of course, he already had) I kept my mouth shut. I had every intention of keeping my promise . . . and were it not for Eric’s latest post on RC, I would have continued to keep my mouth shut.

However, when someone makes a suggestion during review that we take and then later attempts to use that very same suggestion to disparage our paper, my obligation to keep my mouth shut ends.


Evidently Ryan O'Donnell learned about keeping his word at the same school that taught him about speaking the truth. He's now had to walk back all the allegations he makes in this paragraph, but even had they been true, O'Donnell's attitude demonstrates a -- shall we say a "moral flexibility" that excuses him from honesty the moment he contrives to feel wronged . . . which should alone tell us how seriously to take his "scientific" pretensions.

There are two ways to go from here: Ryan O'Donnell and Lucia Liljegren. Ryan took the hint from his godfather, Steve McIntyre. He's apologized and walked back his allegations to his old statistical shell game, that popular denier meme, which first rose to fame in the various futile attacks on the hockey stick temperature graph, in which choices about the analysis of data sets are treated as black-and-white, and the ability of a denier to produce an alternate analysis by making different choices is treated as proof that the original work erred.

Lucia, in contrast, has ignored the broad hint from her own godfather, who made a rare appearance at the Blackboard:

There’s Got To Be A Better Way Forward

10 February, 2011 (12:53) | politics | By: Chip Knappenberger

Here’s how I see it.

Some of Lucia’s recent blog posts, especially her titles, were a bit on the hot side. . . . And so instead of a public coming together and show of cooperation between “professional” scientists and “citizen” scientists, we got treated to a public spectacle…just what climate science needed. Not.


There may be a better way forward, but it's of no interest to lucia. Despite the fact that all of her outrage and allegations of fraud, duplicity and misrepresentation have now been proven false and indeed rebounded on O'Donnell and by extension those, like lucia, that mindlessly repeated them as fact and added their own slanders and insults, despite all that -- or because of that, lucia cannot admit she made a mistake, and continues to target Steig, engaging in one of the worst case of projection I've ever seen:

Is she embarrassed that she accused someone of fraud based on a fraud? No, it's Steig -- somehow -- who's really embarrassed: Steig the Shameless?

Has her uncritical hurling of insults at Steig only served to heighten the embarrassment of O'Donnell's retreat? No, it's Steig's friends who are hurting his case: Eric To John Nielsen Gammon: it isn’t very useful support.

There is no ending to this story; interest will gradually die away, until, after a respectful interval of time, it reappears as a denier fairy tale, to be alluded to when the true facts are rendered sufficiently obscure by time to resurrect the original denier narrative. For the time being, we are left, again, with the spectecal of deniers' words rebounding upon them with a neatness that is by now familiar but is always startling. Those alleging deception have deceived. Those that paint themselves as the victims of persecution have carrying out a stunningly sloppy campaign of persecution against a man who has often and repeatedly praised their efforts. Those lamenting unprofessionalism and tribalism in climate science, having been graciously welcomed into the community and been published in a prestigious journal, have given us a graphic demonstration of unprofessional behavior, violating confidentiality, slandering colleagues, going off half-cocked on the basis of "mistaken facts" -- only to have the "tribe" of deniers rise up around them and celebrate them as conquering heroes of post-normal science.

Meanwhile, in the midst of the Southern summer:

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Out with the old

As the great philosopher wrote,

"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial."

. . . and so the time has come to bid farewell to the Intrade punter's opinion of the chances 2010 would be a record-breaking year (it was, as it turns out) and look to the future:


alt="Price for Will Global Average Temperatures for 2011-2012 be THE warmest on record? at intrade.com"
title="Price for Will Global Average Temperatures for 2011-2012 be THE warmest on record? at intrade.com" border="0">


I chose to replace 2010 with 2012, given the La Nina which closed out 2010 and appears likely to dominate early 2011. I really doubt 2011 will be in the running for the title of the hottest ever. It's true -- get ready for the "No warming since 2010!" crowd. There's no way of knowing if 2012 will break the 2010 record, but it should be an interesting horse to follow for the coming brace of years.