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

[quixotecoyote]

No, Yes, No,

70% of the coral survived AFTER the Nuke and no it is not because of the nearby reef.

Too bad that's not what your link says, or you might have an interesting topic.

 

[realpaladin]

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.

Thank you, that makes things more clear to me.

 

[Hokulele]

No, Yes, No,

70% of the coral survived AFTER the Nuke and no it is not because of the nearby reef.

No, their conclusion is not that 70% survived, but that 70% of the species returned. Here, read.

We suggest the highly diverse Rongelap Atoll to the east of Bikini may have contributed larval propagules to facilitate the partial resilience of coral biodiversity in the absence of additional anthropogenic threats.

In other words, the coral has returned since it has not been continually disturbed.

You might note that the article you originally quoted was titled "Bikini Corals Recover from Atomic Blast", not "Bikini Corals Survive Atomic Blast".

Source.

 

[Thabiguy]

No, Yes, No,

70% of the coral survived AFTER the Nuke and no it is not because of the nearby reef.

Wow. You really have severe reading comprehension problems, don't you?

From the very same paper that you just quoted:

It is reasonable to assume that the direct physical impacts, shock waves, temperature rises and ongoing sediment and nutrient suspension would have had significant detrimental effects on lagoonal and shallow exposed corals and are likely to have severely impacted the overall abundance and health of adult colonies and the capacity for coral recruitment, growth and reef accretion for at least the 13 years of testing between 1945 and 1958. It is also likely that the lasting effects of radiation and sediment would have severely affected survivors and colonists for many years after the cessation of testing in 1958.

We consider the extremely large and highly diverse Rongelap Atoll is likely to have contributed a significant proportion of new propagules to enable recovery of the Bikini coral community, as Bikini Atoll lies downstream of the prevailing surface current from Rongelap.

So much for that fail of yours.

As for your other fail, i.e., your fallacies regarding the associations between this and AGW, this is also addressed in the very same paper:

Coral communities are known to recover relatively quickly from acute disturbances but not from chronic disturbances, which lead to gradual decline.

Bikini Atoll’s reefs undoubtedly benefited from the post-testing absence of human disturbance, the presence of uninhabited and non-impacted neighbouring atolls, and a supportive prevailing hydrodynamic regime for larval import. Caution should be taken in generalising our findings to other atolls or coral reef communities that experience a different set of conditions.

If the disturbance event were to be repeated in the modern day, recovery would not be expected to be as high, due to the combination of additional stressors associated with climate change and a possibly much altered atoll environment due to an additional 50 years of human occupation.

So much for that fail of yours.

Do you have any more fail?

 

[arthwollipot]

70% of the coral survived AFTER the Nuke and no it is not because of the nearby reef.

No, you're completely wrong. As others have pointed out, the article you linked does not say "70% of the coral survived a nuclear blast" it says "70% of the coral has returned after a nuclear blast".

You are not a coral reef cannot survive a nuclear bomb denier?

That doesn't even make any sense.

It would make sense if you added quotes:

You are not a "coral reef cannot survive a nuclear bomb" denier?

Or perhaps hyphens:

You are not a coral-reef-cannot-survive-a-nuclear-bomb denier?

But even then it's a grammatically incorrect question. Add "...are you?" to the end and it makes a bit more sense.

 

[Megalodon]

It would make sense if you added quotes:

You are not a "coral reef cannot survive a nuclear bomb" denier?

Or perhaps hyphens:

You are not a coral-reef-cannot-survive-a-nuclear-bomb denier?

But even then it's a grammatically incorrect question. Add "...are you?" to the end and it makes a bit more sense.

It doesn't make sense because nobody here denies that a coral reef can't survive a nuclear bomb but him.

It's stupid, although not surprising...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't know that the coral survived a nuke. I know that Hiroshima was hit by a nuke and lots of people died. People are living there now.

GASP! Japanese Survive being nuked and Air Temperatures of 55,000°C!

70% of the coral survived AFTER the Nuke and no it is not because of the nearby reef.

Too bad that's not what your link says, or you might have an interesting topic.

Not to mention that there would be a lot of fallout shelters built out of corals.

 

[realpaladin]

Not to mention that there would be a lot of fallout shelters built out of corals.

I built mine out of black-box-material

 

[a_unique_person]

Bikini Corals Recover From Atomic Blast (The University of Queensland, Australia)

They survived water temperatures of 55,000°C degrees, yet they are surely doomed to extinction from a 0.6°C increase in temperature.

What web site was stupid enough to try to tell you this invalidated the argument that AGW threatens reefs?

 

[Poptech]

It was not a single event but 23 nuclear tests, over 13 years, yielding 76.6 megatons.

23 nuclear tests with a total yield of 76.3 megatons (TNT equivalent) were conducted across seven test sites located either on the reef, on the sea, in the air and underwater between 1946 and 1958.

Post-test descriptions of environmental impacts include: surface seawater temperatures raised by 55,000 C after air-borne tests; blast waves with speeds of up to 8 m/s; and shock and surface waves up to 30 m high with blast columns reaching the floor of the lagoon (approximately 70 m depth). Coral fragments were reported to have landed on the decks of the target fleet deployed within the lagoon. The tests altered the natural sediment distribution by redistributing a higher amount of fine material over the surface of the sediment. Seawater was contaminated from mixing with fission particles in the atmosphere and through remobilisation from the environment and lagoonal sediments. Low-level radioactivity was recorded in fouling marine growth and in seawater piping systems, fish and clams, the calcareous algae Halimeda spp, and coral skeletons.

The most publicized of the Bikini tests, ‘Bravo’, was a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb detonated on a shallow fringing reef in 1954. It destroyed three islands causing millions of tonnes of sand, coral, plant and sea life from Bikini’s reef to become airborne. The sediment regime in Bikini was fundamentally altered by the nuclear events because millions of tonnes of sediment were pulverized, suspended, transported and then deposited throughout the lagoon by wind-driven lagoonal current patterns

Through the series of nuclear tests, the coral communities at Bikini Atoll experienced repeated exposure to significant physical disturbance through substrate removal, extreme waves, light/heat exposure and increased sediment loading, all of which are known to be detrimental to coral survivorship.

Yet the reef survived.

So much for that fail of yours.

So much for your cherry pick.

The modern Bikini Atoll community may have been replenished by self-seeding from brooded larvae from surviving adults (e.g. in genera Pocillopora, Stylophora, Seriatopora and Isopora), survival of fragments of branching corals

You fail bad.

As for your other fail, i.e., your fallacies regarding the associations between this and AGW, this is also addressed in the very same paper:

No they are not addressed, the paper merely references other papers which have nothing to do with the results of this paper.

 

[Poptech]

it says "70% of the coral has returned after a nuclear blast".

The word "returned" does not appear one time in the paper.

 

[Kotatsu]

The word "returned" does not appear one time in the paper.

The words "re-establish", "replenish", "migration" do, however, all of which, in the context they are written, mean the same.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Poptech, are you seriously saying that a nuclear blast, sorry, 23 nuclear blasts, strong enough to rip apart three islands, create a gigantic crater, and heat water to 55,000 degrees C isn't enough to annihilate corals? Because if you are, I'm going to write you off as a troll.

 

[Poptech]

The words "re-establish", "replenish", "migration" do, however, all of which, in the context they are written, mean the same.

The word "re-establish" appears only one time and it is not in his context.

The word "replenished" appears twice by only one time in relation to his context, which supports my position.

The modern Bikini Atoll community may have been replenished by self-seeding from brooded larvae from surviving adults (e.g. in genera Pocillopora, Stylophora, Seriatopora and Isopora), survival of fragments of branching corals

The word "migration" appears only one time but it does not discredit my positon above. Clearly there is no case that the reef was completely wiped out and restablished from a nearby reef but may have been partially helped by one.

My Conclusion: If a coral reef is able to survive 23 thermonuclear bombs, yielding over 76 megatons, over 13 years, it is logical that they can survive a 0.006 C increase in yearly temperature.

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, are you seriously saying that a nuclear blast, sorry, 23 nuclear blasts, strong enough to rip apart three islands, create a gigantic crater, and heat water to 55,000 degrees C isn't enough to annihilate corals? Because if you are, I'm going to write you off as a troll.

Impossible! Clearly only man-made CO2 could cause such devastation.

 

[fagin]

Caution anecdote only no proof.

Coral is incredibly delicate, and just a touch can destroy a colony.
When I did my diving courses many years ago, my instructor was a tiny cute blonde. She wore a pink wetsuit, and had a huge knife strapped to her calf, in a pink sheath naturally. (I was besotted, but that's another story).
Before our first dive, I asked her if the knife was to protect me from sharks etc, her reply - 'to stab you if you so much as touch a piece of coral'. I took the hint.

 

[Poptech]

If 23 thermonuclear bombs cannot destroy a reef, I would conclude that neither will touching it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

When I did my diving courses many years ago, my instructor was a tiny cute blonde. She wore a pink wetsuit, and had a huge knife strapped to her calf, in a pink sheath naturally. (I was besotted, but that's another story).

At least I learned something from this thread - there exists such a thing as pink wetsuits.

 

[fagin]

How about starfish

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726402.800-killer-starfish-destroy-richest-coral-reefs.html

 

[Kotatsu]

The word "re-establish" appears only one time and it is not in his context.

Arth said "70% of the coral has returned after a nuclear blast" (citing the article). The word "re-establish" is found in the following sentence:

[...]however, we show that five decades is a suitable timeframe for the majority of the Bikini Atoll Scleractinian coral assemblage to re-establish after a long-term, chronic localised anthropogenic disturbance.

English is not my first language, so maybe there are some cases where "X has returned" and "X has re-established", but to me, in this case, the contexts seem to be identical. In both cases, something has disappeared and then comes back. If nothing else, that is the way it is used by biologists -- I am one, and I assume the authors are as well -- as a population that has remained in an area over a given period of time does not "re-establish itself"; only when it is missing (at least as a breeding population) does that happen.

The word "replenished" appears twice by only one time in relation to his context, which supports my position.

It "supports" your position only because you are being dishonest with what you quote. The article mentions "self-seeding from brooded larvae from surviving adults" and "survival of fragments of branching corals" as two alternatives, and adds "migration of new propagules from neighbouring atolls" as the third. It then elaborates on this by stating that:

The patchy nature of impacts may have mitigated the effect of disturbance at Bikini Atoll, with some patches surviving after each impact.

That is, since not all of the atoll was affected at once, the areas (patches) outside the immediate blast areas may have had surviving adults of fragments, perhaps sufficient enough to repopulate directly affected sites between impacts. It cannot be inferred from this that any corals or parts thereof survived a direct impact. This is one of three possibilities they offer. They add a fourth -- which may be considered a subset of the first -- when they continue:

Corals living on deep exposed reefs on Bikini Atoll may also have escaped some of the direct impacts, and thus have played an integral role in mitigating the overall effects of the disturbance event.

To some extent, it is made clear which of these explanations the authors find most likely:

We consider the extremely large and highly diverse Rongelap Atoll s likely to have contributed a significant proportion of new propagules to enable recovery of the Bikini coral community, as Bikini Atoll lies downstream of the prevailing surface current from Rongelap.

Further, the article stresses that the recovery "benefit[ed] from the post-testing absence of human disturbance, the presence of uninhabited and non-impacted neighbouring atolls, and a supportive prevailing hydrodynamic regime for larval import". Again: "the radioactive contamination of northern Marshall Island Atolls has enabled the recovery of the reefs of Bikini Atoll to take place in the absence of further anthropogenic pressure."

These two statements, to me, seem to indicate that the authors credit the lack of prolonged or repeated disturbance of the coral reefs for its success in returning.

The word "migration" appears only one time but it does not discredit my positon above.

Yes, it does, as that is one of the two explanations for the rapid recovery that you chose not to cite, while you cite the two that at least superficially support your conclusion. In no place does it say, indicate, assert, suggest, imply, claim, or refer to information elsewhere doing so, that the surviving adults or parts thereof were from the area immediately affected by the impacts.