Ok. Who peed in the kiddie pool?

[MrChen]

I would think the designers of temperature-measuring buoys would take that effect into account and ensure there is adequate thermal insulation between the probe and the rest of the buoy, or even build in some kind of temperature compensation to account for that heat transfer. We would really have to understand how these buoys measure the water temperature to know how accurate the reported measurements are.

Regardless, being that the buoy and how it measures temperature is a constant, if surface temperatures are trending upwards, then the water temperature is increasing. Not all corals are 90ft below the surface, some are in 5-20 ft and will be impacted.

 

[Sure Squintsalot]

Regardless, being that the buoy and how it measures temperature is a constant, if surface temperatures are trending upwards, then the water temperature is increasing.

Correct. Besides, most temperature data is collected remotely via an infrared satellite.

Here's what the 12 meter SST measuring moored buoy looks like:

Like the 10m, 6m and 3m buoys, they're painted yellow for high visibility and high albedo; ships can see them and the sun won't cook them.

Form the NOAA website:
Sea surface temperature sensors are located at a depth of 1.5 meters for 10-m and 12-m buoys and at 1 meter for all 3-m and 6-m moored buoys. Sea surface temperature sensors on NDBC buoys are located near one meter below the water line but they vary by hull type. Current hull configurations for water temperature sensors are: for 2.4- and 3-meter hulls at 0.7 meters; for 6-meter hulls at 0.8 meters; for 10-meter hulls at 1.1 meters; and for 12-meter hulls at 0.9 meters. Historically, water temperature sensors for 3-meter "foam" hulls were at 0.75 meters and 1.8-meter hulls were at 0.35 meters.

 

[Rick Brant]

Florida Bay seems to be where the reports are claiming the highest readings. I dove an area in Florida Bay 5-6 years ago, not near the coast but more or less in the center of the bay. I was camping on a chickee platform in the middle of the bay at the time. I told my buddies who did not dive(snorkel) that it looked like a "dead zone" below. There were no fish, definitely no coral -- nothing living at all really. Sand and dead rock for about as far as I could range from the chickee. Only later did I notice that our map actually called the center of Florida Bay a dead zone by name.

Florida has been under attack more or less since humans arrived. It's not a political issue, it's a statement of fact. I grew up there and even as a kid the impact was very obvious. It was a paradise, and now it's not. I recommend the book The Swamp by Michael Grunwald for a great history of Florida and the Everglades. While the book is focused on the Everglades, water in and around Florida is discussed in detail.

 

[tarponchik]

An interesting observation here is I have seen an abundance of S Florida tropicals not normally seen here. Some speculate Ian pushed them up here, but I suspect the environment is changing and perhaps the Gulf Coast reefs will begin to look like those in the Keys and S. Florida. So while maybe some areas are dying, new areas are growing.

Some scientists predict this won't happen because of ocean acidification. So coral reefs will be "squeezed" between hot tropical and acidified moderate temperature waters.

 

[isdjww]

I know that this isn't quite the same, but...

I retired from NOAA after 35+ years. We have equipment at the South Pole (which I've been to a few times). Recently there was a story about the temperatures at the pole that made it through all the MSM (even AP) that was completely wrong. I even looked at the actual data we collected to verify. Not many in the MSM verify a story, they just pass it on as if it was their own.

I can't say one way or another about the water temps, but I would definitely verify it with locals before I rushed to believe it.