Coral Reefs Survive being Nuked and Water Temperatures of 55,000°C

The corals that where touched by the blast didn't survive it, the coral inside the crater is a new colonization from the atoll upstream and, more important, there is no, and there was never water at 50000º at atmospheric pressures.
 
Megalodon said:
The corals that where touched by the blast didn't survive it, the coral inside the crater is a new colonization from the atoll upstream and, more important, there is no, and there was never water at 50000º at atmospheric pressures.
Click to expand...

Good news for coral cooks all around the world!
 
Megalodon said:
The corals that where touched by the blast didn't survive it, the coral inside the crater is a new colonization from the atoll upstream and, more important, there is no, and there was never water at 50000º at atmospheric pressures.
Click to expand...
True, but to head off PT, the temperature rise did not occur at 1 atm.
 
Obviously man-made climate change is more devastating than a 15 kiloton thermonuclear bomb, no corals should exist! How is it possible they recovered while man-made CO2 destroys them?
 
Listen guys, you are falling hook, line and sinker for PT.
Using my uncanny powers of prediction, this whole story should lead eventually to

"And if Coral does not die because of global warming, then that is one other piece of 'evidence' that is not true. Global Warming is not happening."

That is all that PT is about. Not discussing, not learning, but rather like a cold-reader ignoring all things that fail and shouting "Eureka" when he finally finds one single piece that fits his misconstrued view of the planet's state and future.
 
Poptech said:
Obviously man-made climate change is more devastating than a 15 kiloton thermonuclear bomb, no corals should exist! How is it possible they recovered while man-made CO2 destroys them?
Click to expand...

And he even beat me to it.
 
Has anyone else read this book?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/VERREE.html?show=reviews

It is interesting to see the difference between extinction events (and what they may have in common) and the sort of short term incident described in the OP.

And by an odd coincidence, I have done some free-diving in the Marshall Islands, and there are many places where coral heads, or even larger structures, have been temporarily damaged by storms. Due to the strong local currents and relatively close neighboring atolls, they really do come back that quickly.

Now, if all the atolls died off . . .
 
In your case, does it stand for 'All Going Well', 'Anti-Global-Warming', or, quite apropriate in this thread, 'Accident Generated Water'?
 
Hokulele, the case the OP is trying to make is this:

- If Coral can come back after a Nuke Blast, then it is nonsensical to say it dies because of a bit of temperature change.
- If it does not die because of temperature change, then it can not be used in the GW discussion.
 
realpaladin said:
Hokulele, the case the OP is trying to make is this:

- If Coral can come back after a Nuke Blast, then it is nonsensical to say it dies because of a bit of temperature change.
- If it does not die because of temperature change, then it can not be used in the GW discussion.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I read the rest of the posts in this thread. The claim made in the OP is beyond silly. If coral could evolve and spread fast enough to thrive in radical conditions, the Big Island of Hawai'i would have far more interesting diving than it currently does.

I was just hoping to get a real discussion of coral propagation going. Have you ever been out in the water at night when they are spawning?

Whoa.

You can easily see how reefs repopulate after major damage when there are neighboring populations upcurrent.
 
Poptech said:
Obviously man-made climate change is more devastating than a 15 kiloton thermonuclear bomb, no corals should exist! How is it possible they recovered while man-made CO2 destroys them?
Click to expand...
You may have missed this:

SezMe said:
That is NOT what your link says. It cites the 55K°C rise and it indicates that some coral has thrived. Nowhere does it say that the existing coral at the location of the temperature rise survived.
Click to expand...
 
Hoku: I have not been yet, although a friend of mine who is a diving instructor keeps dragging me that I should come with him to see, amongst other things, just that.

But first I have to do the soaring and skydiving thing with another friend...

I have too many active friends :D
 
Last edited:
I didn't miss anything.

Five decades after a series of nuclear tests began, we provide evidence that 70% of the Bikini Atoll zooxanthellate coral assemblage is resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance.
Click to expand...
The coral reef got nuked and 70% of the coral survived. You are not a coral reef cannot survive a nuclear bomb denier?
 
Last edited:
I thought that the problem for coral reefs wasnt the rising temperature in particular, but the rising sea level it caused, combined with a change of the chemical properties of the water, also caused by rising temperature.
 
No, Yes, No,

70% of the coral survived AFTER the Nuke and no it is not because of the nearby reef.
 
scratchy said:
I thought that the problem for coral reefs wasnt the rising temperature in particular, but the rising sea level it caused, combined with a change of the chemical properties of the water, also caused by rising temperature.
Click to expand...

The main problems are rising sea levels, which will diminish the light available to the symbionts, and the ocean acidification, which stresses the coral.
The acidification increases dissolution of the exoskeleton, which is countered by the production of protective mucus. Also problematic is the dissolution of the dead on top of which the live coral lives.
Temperature increases can stress the corals, but there is some evidence that they can change symbionts and adapt to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom