Tag Archives: Science & Politics

Marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco to head NOAA

Posted on by
1

jane

As if having Barack Obama win the US election wasn’t enough good news, we just learned that he has named Dr. Jane Lubchenco as the new head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration!  This is really incredibly good news.

The fact that the new president, and as they say “world’s most powerful person”, even knows a marine ecologist is rather amazing.

Jane has been an international leader in marine conservation for several decades.  She is probably the most visible advocate of Marine Protected Areas.  Her initial fame came from her elegant test of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis as a PhD student.  She manipulated the density of herbivorous snails in tide pools in Nahant Massachusetts and found that intermediate levels of grazing pressure maximized macroalgal diversity.  She has been president of the Ecological Society of America, The American Association for the Advancement of Science and is a member of member of the US National Academy of Science.  In addition to being a fantastic and very active scientist and conservationist, she also has a fair amount of management experience.  She developed and heads several large programs including COMPASS, the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program and PISCO.

After having breakfast with Jane and her family in Sydney a few weeks ago, I told my wife I could envision her as President (as in of the USA).  She is highly articulate and generally very impressive (and a little intimidating).  Jane will also be the first woman to head NOAA and one of the few biologists anywhere near the top of that organizaion, that is usually run by stodgy old white guys with degrees in math, chemistry or physics.

obama

This is just great news.

See coverage of this story here and here.

Australia aims for destruction of Great Barrier Reef

Posted on by
9

The Australian Government has set a 2020 target of reducing direct national greenhouse gas emissions by between 5 to 15% and thereby aiming at a global scenario that would stabilise global atmospheric greenhouse gases at around 510 to 550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalents (ppm CO2-e) by the end of the century.

Heogh-Guldberg et al (2007) illustrated what these targets mean for the Great Barrier Reef and much of the marine ecosystem in the following series of pictures. Picture A on the left represents current conditions for corals across much of the GBR. Picture C on the right represents the conditions under the atmosphere being aimed for by the Australian Government.

color

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper, released on 15 December 2008, does not acknowledge the expected impacts on the Great Barrier Reef if its global stabilisation targets are achieved but draws heavily on the economic analysis of Professor Ross Garnaut.

Garnaut (2008a: 38) was brutally frank in his supplementary draft report: “The [strategy of stabilising at 550 ppm CO2-e] would be expected to lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs.”

His final report does not shy away from this conclusion. Garnaut (2008b: 127) concluded that stabilisation at 550 ppm CO2-e will result in:

“Disappearance of reef as we know it, with high impact to reef-based tourism. Three-dimensional structure of the corals largely gone and system dominated by fleshy seaweed and soft corals.”

“A carbon dioxide concentration of 500 ppm or beyond, and likely associated temperature change, would be catastrophic for the majority of coral reefs across the planet. Under these conditions the three-dimensional structure of the Great Barrier Reef would be expected to deteriorate and would no longer be dominated by corals or many of the organisms that we recognise today.”

The White Paper all but dismisses “stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases at around 450 parts per million or lower” because “achieving global commitment to emissions reductions of this order appears unlikely in the next commitment period [after the commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012].”

Note, there are significant differences in targets based on stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at 500 ppm (which picture C above depicts) and stabilising total radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols at 500 ppm CO2-e (see Avoiding confusion on stabilization targets for climate change and ocean acidification).

However, the White Paper appears to assume total radiative forcing will continue to roughly equal atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Therefore, by aiming to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gases at around 510 to 550 ppm CO2-e, the White Paper appears to be aiming to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide (currently around 385 ppm) at these levels.

This should sound alarm bells for anyone following the scientific literature on ocean acidification, which has found serious impacts occur to coral reefs and much of the marine ecosystem above 450-500 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Hoegh-Guldberg et al 2007; Cao and Caldeira 2008).

The public debate in Australia has largely ignored these impacts and it remains to be seen whether there will be any real challenge to the current approach being taken by the Australian Government.

The government has been less than frank on the implications of the targets it has chosen. There is no acknowledgment of the expected impacts to the Great Barrier Reef of stabilising at 510 – 550 ppm carbon dioxide or CO2-e and the choice of stabilising in this range is obscurely buried in the body of this 800 page report.

The White Paper refers repeatedly to 2020 targets of 5-15% reductions. It also refers repeatedly to stabilising at or below 450 ppm, with Garnaut’s pessimistic conclusion that “achieving global commitment to emissions reductions of this order appears unlikely”. But a reader must connect the 5-15% reductions to one of six scenarios set out on page 4-11 of the White Paper to uncover the overall stabilisation goals.

The White Paper relies heavily on Garnaut’s findings but a reader must also connect the obscurely buried stabilisation range of 510-550 ppm in the White Paper to Garnaut’s findings in his 600 page final report.

The government appears to be silently ignoring the expected impacts to the Great Barrier Reef and seeking to avoid confrontation on these implications in selling its climate change policies to the public. Tony Jones repeatedly asked Climate Minister Penny Wong of the implications for the Great Barrier Reef of stabilising at 550 ppm in an interview on ABC Lateline on (30 November 2008). She obviously knew the answer but danced around the questions to avoid stating that the government’s targets would mean the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.

Perhaps it is too late to save the Great Barrier Reef but silently ignoring the expected impacts when setting climate change targets is disingenuous and does not advance the public debate. We need to fully acknowledge what the science is telling us. Choosing not to listen to weather forecasts does not stop it raining.

We should judge our climate change policies by this simple test: will we leave the GBR for our children? At present the answer we are giving to this question is “no”. We are all responsible for changing the answer to “yes”.

We should demand targets based on what we as a society want to achieve. We should not accept targets that will produce unacceptable outcomes.

References:

The oceans’ acid test: can our reefs be saved? – a note from Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Posted on by
5

The journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment have published an interesting guest editorial article titled “The oceans’ acid test: can our reefs be saved?” by Jacqueline Savitz and Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb:

The climate change dialogue has picked up steam in recent months, but it has largely ignored the oceans, in spite of the tremendous service they provide, by absorbing millions of tons of atmospheric CO2 to buffer climate change. Frontiers and other journals have highlighted the impacts of the resulting ocean acidification, but its consequences demand a lot more attention – not just for the sake of marine ecosystems, but for our own sake as well.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Richard Feely aptly called ocean acidification global warming’s “evil twin”, likely because of the disturbing trend of decreased pH that has begun to occur throughout the world’s oceans. His analogy conjures up a vision of a superhero gone bad, threatening our oceans while society innocently sleeps, which is not so far off.

This “evil twin” has the power to cause a far-reaching extinction of corals, both the tropical and deepwater varieties, along with other calcifying marine organisms, which could lead to an epic disruption of ocean ecosystems in this century. The impacts on society would be widespread, ranging from commercial losses in fisheries and tourism, to lost potential for new, life-saving pharmaceuticals that could be derived from marine species. Over time, the storm protection services provided by reefs would disappear – possibly just when they’re needed most, as global warming increases storm intensity. Ripple effects will be felt throughout the marine ecosystems, as well as among seabirds and even many terrestrial species – not to mention the aesthetic loss of the vast array of intricate, ornate, colorful reef organisms that inspire awe and wonder, and which we bear an ethical responsibility to preserve for future generations.

The need to maintain the economic, ecological, and cultural services that reefs provide has led people to ask, “What will it take for governments to finally do something about it?” Let’s face it – we live on a political planet, where action is driven largely by dollars and votes, and decisions are made based on short-term, not long-term, benefits. So if we want governments to do something about ocean acidification, we need to make clear that our dollars and our votes depend on it.

According to scientists studying climate change, such as Ken Caldeira, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, and Jim Hansen, we need to stabilize our atmospheric CO2 levels at about 350 parts per million to prevent the loss of coral reefs. To do this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that countries like the US need to reduce emissions by 25–40% below 1990 levels by 2020 – and another 55% reduction from 1990 levels will be required by 2050. So we are talking about the need to convert to a very low carbon economy relatively quickly. This will be no small feat. The carbon we have been pumping into the atmosphere for free until now will cost us, retroactively. And it cannot be free from here on out, if we hope to solve the problem. Nevertheless, there is a lot we can do now.

(Read more at the Ocean Acidification Blog)

Obama’s win refreshes key climate talks – Nature Special Report

Posted on by
Reply

As all eyes turn to Poland for the start of the United Nations meeting next week, Jeff Tollefson (Nature Special Report) looks at what progress is likely to be made.

Nature News, 27th November 2008

The United Nations Climate Change Conference that begins in Poznań, Poland, on 1 December will in some ways mark the end of an era. The United States’ long-standing opposition to climate regulation is vanishing, offering new opportunities for cooperation with its allies in Europe and beyond.

But to some extent, international climate negotiators will remain in limbo until 20 January 2009, when US President-elect Barack Obama enters the White House. Obama has advocated forceful domestic action on global warming and re-engagement with the international community.

“There is a lot of hope and a lot of optimism,” says Rob Bradley, who heads international climate policy at the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank in Washington DC. “A lot of countries will be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the new administration — but they are all very aware that in Poznań they will be talking to the old administration.”

The meeting will bring together representatives from some 192 countries in an ongoing effort to craft a global-warming accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and expires in 2012. UN officials hope to reach a successor agreement in Copenhagen next year to leave time for implementation and ratification. Yet many think that goal is too ambitious, especially at a time when world leaders are worried about the global economy.

Poland has cited economic reasons in trying to build a coalition to block a European Union rule that, among other things, would require full auctioning of carbon allowances in 2013. But Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, thinks that opposition is now waning. He says the European Council might even move ahead with the rule as early as 12 December, the last day of the Poznań conference. The US re-engagement will only help, he says. “People will have a more rosy outlook in terms of being able to achieve something,” says Huq, “and that will probably bend the European position in a more positive direction.”

Continue reading →

New book release: The Great Barrier Reef

Posted on by
Reply

“The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is 344,400 square kilometres in size and is home to one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. This comprehensive guide describes the organisms and ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef, as well as the biological, chemical and physical processes that influence them. Contemporary pressing issues such as climate change, coral bleaching, coral disease and the challenges of coral reef fisheries are also discussed.

In addition,the book includes a field guide that will help people to identify the common animals and plants on the reef, then to delve into the book to learn more about the roles the biota play.

Beautifully illustrated and with contributions from 33 international experts, The Great Barrier Reef is a must-read for the interested reef tourist, student, researcher and environmental manager. While it has an Australian focus, it can equally be used as a baseline text for most Indo-Pacific coral reefs”

(View sample pdf or see CSIRO publishing website for ordering information)

Continue reading →

Advice for Obama: improving the management of ocean ecosystems

Posted on by
3

Now that he won the election, everyone has advice for Barack Obama on how he should govern and what policies he should support and focus on.  Given the importance of ocean ecosystems and coral reefs, shouldn’t we get into the act?  In fact, several individuals and organizations are drafting advice on environmental policy, pressing environmental issues, etc.  Dr. Steve Carpenter (a prominent limnologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA), recently posted his advice for Obama on the Ecolog lister server (an international discussion board for ecologists).  Ill insert his letter to Obama below, but his four main recommendations are:

Decrease America’s dependency on coal and oil and increase the supply of energy from non-polluting technologies.

Stop subsidizing agriculture that destroys land, water and health.

Have a population policy.

Invest in the education and innovation needed to create a society that could thrive in the 21st century and beyond.

Andrew Revkin at the New York Times blog dot earth recently discussed environmental advice for Obama, particularly that related to climate change.

Dr. Paul Erlich of Stanford University and “The Population Bomb” fame has made his own recommendations for making our society more sustainable that you can read about here.  They include; One: Put births on a par with deaths and Two: Put conserving on a par with consuming.

As part of the Year of The Reef celebration, a consortium of groups put together a list of 25 things individuals can do to save coral reefs.  (personally, I think most of their suggestions are silly and would be ineffectual)

And even former vice president Al Gore has contributed his two cents in a recent New York Times op ed “The Climate for Change“.

So what advice should we, as marine scientists, conservationists and advocates, give to Obama?  Ill make a pitch for a few policies and issues below, but I’d really like to hear from other climate shifts authors and readers what they recommend.

1) Implement a series of no-take marine reserves. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that marine reserves work and have tangible benefits outside their boundaries for people and ecosystems.  Less than 1% of the ocean is fully protected.  We should be protecting closer to 30 or 40% of all marine habitats.  We should also insulate the management of our fisheries from local politics as much as possible, so that managers can make more decisions based on science.

2) Radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally and facilitate international reductions by heavily investing in clean technologies, smart urban and social planning, etc.  Or as Al Gore argues:

We can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.

3) Increase the federal budget for ocean research, observing and exploration tenfold. Currently, the US space program (NASA) receives 700X more federal funding than the US government allocates for all combined ocean sciences.  Given the enormous social and economic importance of the oceans and the rate at which ocean ecosystems are being degraded, this is simply crazy.  Despite what you may hear from some advocates, we simply don’t have realistic solutions to many environmental problems and we won’t without a greater investment in basic ocean science.  There is so much about marine ecosystems that we don’t understand and in lots of cases we don’t even have the resources to quantify and/or forecast the impacts of various human activities.

So, what do YOU recommend president-elect Obama do?

Continue reading →

450 ppm must become the catch-cry for serious political action on climate change

Posted on by
3

Ben McNeil and Richard Matear from the University of New South Wales have just published a very important article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of United States (Link to full text).  This paper further emphasises the critical importance of keeping carbon dioxide levels lower than 450 ppm, as Chris McGrath highlighted earlier this week.  While politicians fumble over the issue of gaining effective control of carbon dioxide, there is growing evidence that we must keep CO2 levels below 450 ppm or be prepared to suffer serious consequences to life on Earth.

This is a significant paper which highlights the importance of understanding the dynamics of carbonate equilibrium in seawater in our greenhouse world.   Rapid acidification of our oceans, as we now know, is an important impact of rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.   More importantly, this study confirms the worrying conclusion that calcification in the worlds oceans is in big trouble if atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide exceed 450 ppm.   We came to a similar conclusion for coral reefs in a recent article in Science magazine (Hoegh-Guldberg et al 2007) – finding as well that net calcification on coral reef ecosystems dwindles to zero at about 450-500 ppm.   The implications of failing ecosystems as important as those in the Southern Ocean are considerable. Rigorous observations such as these should spur our political leaders to make much more decisive steps to curb the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – anything less will be disastrous.

McNeil & Matear (2008) Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2. PNAS

Southern Ocean acidification via anthropogenic CO2 uptake is expected to be detrimental to multiple calcifying plankton species by lowering the concentration of carbonate ion (CO32-) to levels where calcium carbonate (both aragonite and calcite) shells begin to dissolve. Natural seasonal variations in carbonate ion concentrations could either hasten or dampen the future onset of this undersaturation of calcium carbonate. We present a large-scale Southern Ocean observational analysis that examines the seasonal magnitude and variability of CO32- and pH. Our analysis shows an intense wintertime minimum in CO32- south of the Antarctic Polar Front and when combined with anthropogenic CO2 uptake is likely to induce aragonite undersaturation when atmospheric CO2 levels reach ~450 ppm. Under the IPCC IS92a scenario, Southern Ocean wintertime aragonite undersaturation is projected to occur by the year 2030 and no later than 2038. Some prominent calcifying plankton, in particular the Pteropod species Limacina helicina, have important veliger larval development during winter and will have to experience detrimental carbonate conditions much earlier than previously thought, with possible deleterious flow-on impacts for the wider Southern Ocean marine ecosystem. Our results highlight the critical importance of understanding seasonal carbon dynamics within all calcifying marine ecosystems such as continental shelves and coral reefs, because natural variability may potentially hasten the onset of future ocean acidification.

Plot of the year in which the onset of wintertime undersaturation occurs under equilibrium conditions (McNeil & Matear 2008)

Bush administration considering two massive Pacific marine reserves

Posted on by
4

One of the many big political surprises in the US yesterday was news that the Bush administration was considering implementing two or more massive marine reserves in US territories in the Pacific.  The move  would protect some of the regions most remote coral reefs.  What isn’t so surprising is that, according to the Washington Post, über vice president Dick Cheney is trying to scale back or block Bush’s plans (doesn’t the former work for the latter?).

Read the whole story in the Washington Post here.

President Bush’s vision for protecting two vast areas of the Pacific Ocean from fishing and mineral exploitation, a move that would constitute a major expansion of his environmental legacy, is running into dogged resistance both inside and outside the White House and has placed his wife and his vice president on opposite sides of the issue.

In 2006 he designated the nearly 140,000-square-mile Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, creating what at the time was the world’s largest protected marine area. Scientists have advocated designating more such areas to protect them from the effects of overfishing, pollution and global warming, which are degrading oceans worldwide.

“There’s pretty strong evidence that everyone will benefit from the establishment of no-take reserves,” said Jane Lubchenco, a professor of marine biology at Oregon State University, adding that fish populations rebound both within the protected reserves and in nearby fishing grounds. “The administration made a major step forward in designating the Papahanaumokuakea National Monument, but that one alone is not enough to protect the full range of places and habitats and species that need to be protected. It will be part of [Bush’s] legacy, but his ocean and environmental legacy could be much, much more.”

One of the two marine reserves, or “marine conservation management areas”, includes a wide swath of the central Pacific ocean and some of the world’s most remote and pristine coral reefs, such as Kingman Atoll in the Line Islands.

Sadly, the article also highlights how close we came to having some similar reserves implemented closer to the continental US:

Bush initially explored the idea of establishing other protected areas closer to U.S. shores, including one off the southeastern coast near a group of deep-sea corals and another in the Gulf of Mexico. After commercial and recreational fishing interests and oil companies objected, the administration decided to pursue existing resource-management plans in those areas instead.

Political analysts interpret these moves as an attempt by Bush to build some sort of legacy before leaving office in early 2009.  We should know later in the year whether any of his planned reserves are indeed implemented.  And if they aren’t, I suspect the next president will be even more amenable to such logical solutions to some of our major environmental crises.

“Protecting places like this is one of the few things a sitting president can do that will live on in posterity and be remembered long after the other decrees and orders have been forgotten,”  said Joshua Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environmental Group.  “It would signal to the nation and the world that the sea needs to be treated as a threatened resource, and it will open up an era of global ocean conservation.”

Claudia McMurray, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, said the administration will be “working up until the last week” of Bush’s term on the initiatives.  “While it would take a significant amount of work, we haven’t ruled it out,” she said. “We feel fairly confident, scientifically, there are so many unique species in that area, from that standpoint, we think it’s important to wall off as much as we can.”

Avoiding confusion for stabilization targets for climate change and ocean acidification

Posted on by
5

Long Cao and Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution at Stanford have a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters on atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) stabilization and ocean acidification, a critical topic for current marine science and public policy. Hoegh-Guldberg et al (2007) illustrated the essential chemistry at the heart of this problem as follows:

Essentially, as CO2 dissolves into the oceans it forms an acid leading to decreased coral calcification and growth through the inhibition of aragonite formation (the principal crystalline form of calcium carbonate deposited in coral skeletons). The increased acidity caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 is known as ocean acidification and it is a separate, though inter-related, phenomenon to increased temperatures caused by CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

Cao and Caldeira (2008) found “that even at a CO2 stabilization level as low as 450 ppm, parts of the Southern Ocean become undersaturated with respect to aragonite [and] therefore, preservation of existing marine ecosystems could require a CO2 stabilization level that is lower than what might be chosen based on climate considerations alone.”

These results are similar to Hoegh-Gulberg et al (2007), who concluded “… contemplating policies that result in [CO2]atm above 500 ppm appears extremely risky for coral reefs and the tens of millions of people who depend on them directly, even under the most optimistic circumstances.”

Hoegh-Guldberg et al (2007) illustrated the expected the conditions of coral reefs under different levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature increases as follows:

These findings are very significant for governments around the world and other policy-makers because much of the current policy debate on climate change focuses on stabilizing greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, between 450-550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalents, thereby allowing a rise in mean global temperatures of around 2-3°C (e.g. Stern 2007; Garnaut 2008; Australian Treasury 2008).

Continue reading →

“Great Barrier Reef could adapt to climate change, scientists say” – Facts, fallacies and fanciful thinking.

Posted on by
3

The Australian newspaper published an article this weekend entitled “Great Barrier Reef could adapt to climate change, scientists say”.

THE prediction of a prominent marine biologist that climate change could render the Great Barrier Reef extinct within 30 years has been labelled overly pessimistic for failing to account for the adaptive capabilities of coral reefs.

University of Queensland marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said yesterday that sea temperatures were likely to rise 2C over the next three decades, which would undoubtedly kill the reef.

But several of Professor Hoegh-Guldberg’s colleagues have taken issue with his prognosis.

Andrew Baird, principal research fellow at the Australian Research Council’s Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said there were “serious knowledge gaps” about the impact rising sea temperatures would have on coral.

“Ove is very dismissive of coral’s ability to adapt, to respond in an evolutionary manner to climate change,” Dr Baird said.

“I believe coral has an underappreciated capacity to evolve. It’s one of the biological laws that, wherever you look, organisms have adapted to radical changes.”

Dr Baird acknowledged that, if left unaddressed, climate change would result in major changes to the Great Barrier Reef.

“There will be sweeping changes in the relative abundance of species,” he said. “There’ll be changes in what species occur where.

“But wholesale destruction of reefs? I think that’s overly pessimistic.”

Dr Baird said the adaptive qualities of coral reefs would mitigate the effects of climate change.

I must say I’m a little amazed that Andrew Baird has come out with such poorly supported statements.  In fact, his conclusions seem to depend almost entirely on his personal opinion!  The argument that corals are able to magically “adapt” over one or two decades to climate change (even though their generation times are often longer) has come up many times over the years – always, with a complete dearth of evidence to support it.

I wrote to Andrew Baird yesterday, to try and understand if there was something that he knew that I might have missed in the scientific lecture.  In response, Andrew sent me a recent article published by Jeff Maynard and himself (Maynard et al 2008).

Unfortunately, the article is an opinion piece (a bit like the newspaper article) that is poorly supported by anything but the most scant evidence (if you could actually call it that) from literature.   I have responded to these types of articles before, but frustrated, here we go again:

Maynard et al (2008) state the following as important evidence that corals can adapt to changes in the environment, and therefore that they can adapt to the current very rapid changes in ocean temperature and acidity.

“..geographic variation in bleaching thresholds within species, sometimes over scales <100km, provides circumstantial evidence for ongoing evolution of temperature tolerance between both species and reef”

Let me start by saying that no credible biologist would doubt the role of evolution in the shaping of the physiology and ecology of corals with respect to temperature.  Biological populations evolve in response to stress.  However, the mere observation of geographic variation in thermal tolerance, does not give any hint  about the rates or the length of time that these changes have taken to occur.  Importantly, this statement does not equate to evidence that thermal tolerance can evolve in ecological time.  The only way that Andrew Baird could convince anyone of this particular somewhat fanciful leap of logic is to present data that show that coral populations can rapidly evolved in the period of years.  They can’t, and they haven’t.

Continue reading →