To quote the article...

"With no force on earth capable of preventing the oceans from continuing to warm and acidify for centuries to come, Veron had no illusions about the future."

I feel you're missing the point of the article. The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now.

Stage 5. Acceptance.

> The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now

Totally understand that - but the article is written from the point of view that its already dead, which it of course is not, which will cause people to ignore the article. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness today, I would not write to everyone I know saying I was dead, I would say I was dying.

It's called "rhetoric" and it's been around for thousands of years.

Sure, but when do you call time of death? (It's a rhetorical question)

I guess I'm happy to grant the author a little artistic license to make his point.

The author has some freedom to choose how to define death in this case, yes. But then he should include the definition he used. Otherwise it's just fear mongering.

It seems like attendant readers understands what the author was doing. They didn't say the definition explicitly, which would violate pep20 (explicit is better than implicit), but, considering this is an article in Outside Online magazine... I think we can accept this violation.

I can understand that you might think other people would be misled by the rhetorical structure... but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others. (Not that it's wrong, it's just makes your life a little less happy)

> but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others

The problem is, global warming is largely an issue _because_ of the "misunderstandings on behalf of others", so in this case, it is a real issue.

We are in agreement. My comment was to the effect of "the author took literary license, most (native speakers) probably knew that, don't beat a dead horse."

I know you said its rhetorical - but there can only be one answer to that question else we are all dead :p

So we should wait until the last polyp disapears?

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Would it be possible to breedcoralls and fish that coul survive the new oceans? Using diffrent shellmaterial for example?

To use different shell material they would no longer be coral. Breeding corals with different skeleton material is like trying to breed humans with a different skeleton material.

For context: Many shelled organisms (cnidarians - corals, brittlestars, sea urchins; molluscs - shellfish) build shells from CaCO3, either as the polymorphs calcite or aragonite. Other options for shell material are silica (SiO2; e.g. some radiolaria, siliceous sponges) or chitin (C8H13O5N; e.g. shells of crustaceans). Animals make their skeletons from hydroxy apatite Ca5(PO4)3(OH).

There was recent research that coral adapted to cope with changing pH[1], but weren't adapting fast enough and the symbiotic algae that bound reefs together did not seem to adjust at all. Plankton is apparently equally vulnerable to acidification.

The unknown for coral is the rate of change of temperature.

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120401160101.h...