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

[BTMO]

Actually is water even water at 55kc? It'd be pretty much fully dissociated wouldn't it?

You beat me to it...

 

[BenBurch]

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.

That is exactly what he wants us to believe.

 

[a_unique_person]

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


Yet the reef survived.

I think you are confusing reef and coral. A coral reef is a reef made of coral, that is the skeletons on the dead animals. The reef survived. The rocks survive the ice ages and other climate events, too. The living coral is another matter.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

That is exactly what he wants us to believe.

Which is why he's now on my ignore list.

 

[BenBurch]

I think you are confusing reef and coral. A coral reef is a reef made of coral, that is the skeletons on the dead animals. The reef survived. The rocks survive the ice ages and other climate events, too. The living coral is another matter.

Coral is a very hard rock. If you kill a reef, and wait long enough, and conditions are still good for it, you get another bloom of living coral.

However, if conditions are no longer good, like if the oceans have become too acidic for the coral animals to make exoskeletons, then the reef stays dead.

There have been extinction events in earth's past where marine animals that depended on exoskeletons were severely decimated, with millions of years required before some niches were again filled.

 

[Poptech]

The word "re-establish" is found in the following sentence:

Yes but it is a general statement and makes not implications of where it "re-establishes" from. It could do so from surviving coral as the paper notes.

The article mentions "self-seeding from brooded larvae from surviving adults" and "survival of fragments of branching corals" as two alternatives,

Both clearly support my position.

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.

This can simply mean that this reef was the primary source of new propagules. This explanation is further supported by this statement in their abstract:

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

...may have, partially contributed.

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."

Which only suggest things like fishing may have slowed recovery but they have no basis to make this claim.

The conclusions still stand, a Coral Reef had 23 thermonuclear bombs dropped on it, yielding over 76 megatons, over 13 years and the coral reef recovered.

 

[Poptech]

That is exactly what he wants us to believe.

No clearly only man-made CO2 could annihilate a coral reef.

 

[fuelair]

In your case, does it stand for 'All Going Well', 'Anti-Global-Warming', or, quite apropriate in this thread, 'Accident Generated Water'?

Arse Got Wet perhaps?

 

[Kotatsu]

Both clearly support my position.

So it would appear. Nevertheless, these are only two of three (or four) explanations for where the corals come from, and the authors, as I showed above, seem to believe the other two explanations more likely.

This can simply mean that this reef was the primary source of new propagules. This explanation is further supported by this statement in their abstract:

...may have, partially contributed.

Well, if that's you're game, then I would like to draw your attention to:

The modern Bikini Atoll community may have been replenished from brooded larvae from surviving adults [...], survival of fragments of branching corals, and/or migration of new propagules from neighbouring atolls.

"may have", "and/or"...

The conclusions still stand, a Coral Reef had 23 thermonuclear bombs dropped on it, yielding over 76 megatons, over 13 years and the coral reef recovered.

But only partially, after 50 years of non-disturbance, and to a large extent because there were "extremely large" coral reefs upstream from which propagules could migrate to repopulate the are.

 

[Poptech]

and to a large extent because there were "extremely large" coral reefs upstream from which propagules could migrate to repopulate the are.

may have, partially contributed - their words not mine.

 

[Kotatsu]

may have, partially contributed - their words not mine.

If we are to eliminate all potential sources that have a "may have" and similar scientific vague-talk on it, that still leaves you high and dry, because the two mechanisms you champion also have a "may have" in front of them. That leaves... well, magic I guess. Or some kind of biogenetic event followed by a highly unlikely evolutionary recent history.

 

[William Parcher]

Coral is a very hard rock.

Relatively speaking, the carbonate that corals secrete is not very hard.

If you kill a reef, and wait long enough, and conditions are still good for it, you get another bloom of living coral.

What is often observed after "killing" a coral reef is that algae recolonizes the area first and competes with recruiting coral for space. But your statement is essentially true.

However, if conditions are no longer good, like if the oceans have become too acidic for the coral animals to make exoskeletons, then the reef stays dead.

You and Megalodon have both used this incorrect term. Crustaceans and insects have exoskeletons, not corals.

 

[realpaladin]

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

A punch in the gob won't destroy you, so swine-flu does not harm you either?

You are saying:

A !=> B therefore C !=> B ???

It would make sense if you can elaborate on how you come to the conclusion of A effects the same as C

 

[realpaladin]

Relatively speaking, the carbonate that corals secrete is not very hard.

Relatively speaking a million years is a short time. Context is a nice thing.

 

[William Parcher]

Context is a nice thing.

Right, and the softness of coral rock makes it particularly vulnerable to the pressure and shock waves of a nuclear blast.

 

[realpaladin]

Right, and the softness of coral rock makes it particularly vulnerable to the pressure and shock waves of a nuclear blast.

And.....?

 

[Poptech]

It would make sense if you can elaborate on how you come to the conclusion of A effects the same as C

If you code it into a climate model you can prove it! Are you now doubting the virtual world too?

 

[William Parcher]

And.....?

And so a coral reef is pulverized by a nuclear blast in ways that would not occur if, say, the reef were composed of solid granite.

 

[realpaladin]

If you code it into a climate model you can prove it! Are you now doubting the virtual world too?

The virtual world is real???? Wow... there I am thinking virtual reality was somehow.... virtual...

But I code a lot and design a lot of software, on the large scale of things, not the shopping cart sizes, and usually we have to prove that the models we code are correct before we code them in.

(And I have not many science institutes that calculate nukes with their Earth Sims, but that is not proof that none exist, maybe hidden in the virtual world?)

So. How can you conclude that if A causes C, then B causes C as well?

 

[realpaladin]

And so a coral reef is pulverized by a nuclear blast in ways that would not occur if, say, the reef were composed of solid granite.

Granite can survive a nuclear blast? Or are you refering to the extent of the damage, because I take 'pulverized' to be 'becoming itty-bitty-small particles' and there are no two ways about it; kaput is kaput.