Cloudiness delays projected impact of climate change on coral reefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing frequency of mass coral bleaching and associated coral mortality threaten the future of warmwater coral reefs. Although thermal stress is widely recognized as the main driver of coral bleaching, exposure to light also plays a central role. Future projections of the impacts of climate change on coral reefs have to date focused on temperature change and not considered the role of clouds in attenuating the bleaching response of corals. In this study, we develop temperature- and light-based bleaching prediction algorithms using historical sea surface temperature, cloud cover fraction and downwelling shortwave radiation data together with a global-scale observational bleaching dataset observations. The model is applied to CMIP6 output from the GFDL-ESM4 Earth System Model under four different future scenarios to estimate the effect of incorporating cloudiness on future bleaching frequency, with and without thermal adaptation or acclimation by corals. The results show that in the low emission scenario SSP1-2.6 incorporating clouds into the model delays the bleaching frequency conditions by multiple decades in some regions, yet the majority (>70%) of coral reef cells still experience dangerously frequent bleaching conditions by the end of the century. In the moderate scenario SSP2-4.5, however, the increase in thermal stress is sufficient to overwhelm the mitigating effect of clouds by mid-century. Thermal adaptation or acclimation by corals could further shift the bleaching projections by up to 40 years, yet coral reefs would still experience dangerously frequent bleaching conditions by the end of century in SPP2-4.5. The findings show that multivariate models incorporating factors like light may improve the near-term outlook for coral reefs and help identify future climate refugia. Nonetheless, the long-term future of coral reefs remains questionable if the world stays on a moderate or higher emissions path.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".