4 ms·

No marine scientist with any credibility is suggesting that sunscreen or plastics are a larger threat to coral reefs than climate change. The articles you yours

No marine scientist with any credibility is suggesting that sunscreen or plastics are a larger threat to coral reefs than climate change. The articles you yourself are citing from ICRI call out that studies on sunscreen are ex-situ and do not reflect what occurs in nature. Agricultural runoff makes the impacts of climate change worse but the main drivers of bleaching are temperature and ocean acidification.

kls 7y ago
I provided many references, and have talked to many of them. I live in the heart of US based coral research Mote being literally on my Island and Harbor Branch being where I grew up, as I said my daughter is well on her way in this field. While I many not be a certified expert, I have a bit of arm chair knowledge in this field. I mean I literally drink at the Sugarloaf Tiki Lodge with a few of them and help my daughter understand the chemistry in the papers she has to understand. A few links to your sources would be nice in a refute of what I have provided. Because I know quite a few credible marine scientist that say runoff and micro metal / plastic is what we need to focus on. I was literally at the meeting with them when we convinced Monroe county to ban traditional sunscreen and the science was solid that is why we banned them and it is why Hawaii banned them (to put it into perspective, I was hanging out with the Tim Berner Lee's and the brendan Eich's of coral research, trying to accomplish a goal). I am not trying to be a douchy name dropper here, but I think it is important in trying to highlight how substandard of a refute and insulting you refute is to a well thought out post that I took time to gather links and articulate is. We don't just get to say global warming blah, blah like a vampire and everyone runs scared. Its really starting to aggravate me that AGW has permeated doomsday science so much that we just invoke it when we need magic. It has become a god and certainly has become a god of HN environmental posts. I provided links and a well thought out post and you get to refute me with nu-uh AGW! I mean AGW is to the environment what CBD is to what ails you. I mean I have been thinking about picking up some CBD to put on my head to stop my male patter baldness because it cures so much stuff. I say that as a dyed in the wool tree hugging hippy, that actually knows via research that AGW is a real thing. But have been alive long enough to know that people exploit literally everything for their gain and AGW is no different. This thread is a perfect example we know, no if ands or buts what is killing the reefs but some how we have to work AGW in there or it's not a fact. When in fact it is a fact and it needs to be accepted fact because there is solid science behind it, because when they go it will finally give all the doomsday environmentalist what they are looking for, because the rest of the ocean will go with it. Junk science needs to be refuted at all costs, it hurts science more than it helps it. Water temperature rise killing the reefs is junk science. It is a catalyst in the presence of the real poisons. I mean no disrespect, and am certainly not trying to be a jerk, I value all opinions, but I am very passionate about this subject and do know the facts on it. Look at my history I rail on and on about how ocean pollution is a huge danger to us, that being said, you need to provide these scientist that claim AGW is the source of reef bleaching. Because I can certainly get Dr. Michael P. Crosby to come on here and do an AMA. Your response comes off as a refute by appealing to the populous crowd, devoid of any fact. Again I am not trying to disparage or disrespect, but there was no refute in it other than what amounts to nu-uh. Some areas of corollary data that you need to refute if you want to support you position are: Why are the Bikini atolls, which got nuked less than 100 years ago, flourishing, when they are shallow and have seen average temperature rise above other areas that are dyeing. Yet they have very little tourism and no agricultural development? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24132798/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/coral-flourishing-bikini-atoll-atomic-test-site/#.XZ_6x0ZKhhE http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24132798/ns/world_news-world_envir... Why are remote areas on the Caribbean such as Tortuga not seeing the same die off, even though they are in the same thermocline as the rest of the keys and have seen the same temperature gradients as the keys. Why has Cuba not seen the level of reef bleaching that the more industrialized Florida has seen, even though it has higher average water temperatures? https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/exploring-mysteries-cubas-coral-reefs https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/exploring-mys... Why does Bimini and other parts of the Bahamas still retain living reefs in less than 15 foot of water even though shallow water reefs have on average higher water temps than Florida or the Keys whose reefs tend to exist in 20ft or below. and also to note, there have been die-offs when threshold temperatures have not been reached, when additional chemicals a present that act as a different but complementary catalyst in the absence of tempature: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/mar10/cwcoral.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/mar10/cwcoral.... Until you can solidly refute via science, all of those you don't get to invoke global warming as a fact for reef die off and you certainly don't get to appeal to authority of "any marine scientist with any credibility". All of those are converse facts to what you claim but are not to the facts that I have presented. Again I will say it simply and clearly we are pumping poisons into the ocean, temperatures can make them more poisonous but in the absence of the poison, temperature alone causes no die off. It certain circumstances, in the presence of other chemicals temperature is not even required for die-off. These are all verifiable facts. It has never been observed that temperature (within normal earth water temperatures) alone kills coral. This is also a fact.

kls 7y ago

I provided many references, and have talked to many of them. I live in the heart of US based coral research Mote being literally on my Island and Harbor Branch being where I grew up, as I said my daughter is well on her way in this field. While I many not be a certified expert, I have a bit of arm chair knowledge in this field. I mean I literally drink at the Sugarloaf Tiki Lodge with a few of them and help my daughter understand the chemistry in the papers she has to understand. A few links to your sources would be nice in a refute of what I have provided. Because I know quite a few credible marine scientist that say runoff and micro metal / plastic is what we need to focus on. I was literally at the meeting with them when we convinced Monroe county to ban traditional sunscreen and the science was solid that is why we banned them and it is why Hawaii banned them (to put it into perspective, I was hanging out with the Tim Berner Lee's and the brendan Eich's of coral research, trying to accomplish a goal). I am not trying to be a douchy name dropper here, but I think it is important in trying to highlight how substandard of a refute and insulting you refute is to a well thought out post that I took time to gather links and articulate is. We don't just get to say global warming blah, blah like a vampire and everyone runs scared. Its really starting to aggravate me that AGW has permeated doomsday science so much that we just invoke it when we need magic. It has become a god and certainly has become a god of HN environmental posts. I provided links and a well thought out post and you get to refute me with nu-uh AGW! I mean AGW is to the environment what CBD is to what ails you. I mean I have been thinking about picking up some CBD to put on my head to stop my male patter baldness because it cures so much stuff. I say that as a dyed in the wool tree hugging hippy, that actually knows via research that AGW is a real thing. But have been alive long enough to know that people exploit literally everything for their gain and AGW is no different. This thread is a perfect example we know, no if ands or buts what is killing the reefs but some how we have to work AGW in there or it's not a fact. When in fact it is a fact and it needs to be accepted fact because there is solid science behind it, because when they go it will finally give all the doomsday environmentalist what they are looking for, because the rest of the ocean will go with it. Junk science needs to be refuted at all costs, it hurts science more than it helps it. Water temperature rise killing the reefs is junk science. It is a catalyst in the presence of the real poisons. I mean no disrespect, and am certainly not trying to be a jerk, I value all opinions, but I am very passionate about this subject and do know the facts on it. Look at my history I rail on and on about how ocean pollution is a huge danger to us, that being said, you need to provide these scientist that claim AGW is the source of reef bleaching. Because I can certainly get Dr. Michael P. Crosby to come on here and do an AMA. Your response comes off as a refute by appealing to the populous crowd, devoid of any fact. Again I am not trying to disparage or disrespect, but there was no refute in it other than what amounts to nu-uh. Some areas of corollary data that you need to refute if you want to support you position are: Why are the Bikini atolls, which got nuked less than 100 years ago, flourishing, when they are shallow and have seen average temperature rise above other areas that are dyeing. Yet they have very little tourism and no agricultural development? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24132798/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/coral-flourishing-bikini-atoll-atomic-test-site/#.XZ_6x0ZKhhE http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24132798/ns/world_news-world_envir... Why are remote areas on the Caribbean such as Tortuga not seeing the same die off, even though they are in the same thermocline as the rest of the keys and have seen the same temperature gradients as the keys. Why has Cuba not seen the level of reef bleaching that the more industrialized Florida has seen, even though it has higher average water temperatures? https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/exploring-mysteries-cubas-coral-reefs https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/exploring-mys... Why does Bimini and other parts of the Bahamas still retain living reefs in less than 15 foot of water even though shallow water reefs have on average higher water temps than Florida or the Keys whose reefs tend to exist in 20ft or below. and also to note, there have been die-offs when threshold temperatures have not been reached, when additional chemicals a present that act as a different but complementary catalyst in the absence of tempature: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/mar10/cwcoral.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/mar10/cwcoral.... Until you can solidly refute via science, all of those you don't get to invoke global warming as a fact for reef die off and you certainly don't get to appeal to authority of "any marine scientist with any credibility". All of those are converse facts to what you claim but are not to the facts that I have presented. Again I will say it simply and clearly we are pumping poisons into the ocean, temperatures can make them more poisonous but in the absence of the poison, temperature alone causes no die off. It certain circumstances, in the presence of other chemicals temperature is not even required for die-off. These are all verifiable facts. It has never been observed that temperature (within normal earth water temperatures) alone kills coral. This is also a fact.