bad news for coral lovers

[DennisS]

pdoege once bubbled...



Hell, if the reefs die out in 13 years and take a mere 1,000 years



Peter

That's the second time I've seen 13 years in this thread. Most scientists agree that global warming is affecting the reefs. There are some that still argue that global warming is not occuring. I've never seen any that cite exact rates of extinction for coral reefs.

Coral bleaching occurs when waters warm but is not always fatal, it's when the algae leave the coral. Is there a paper that I could read that cites the 13 year progression to reef die out.

 

[drbill]

As a marine biologist focusing on kelp forest ecology, I am also concerned about coral reef health and persistence. The evidence behind global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions seems to be good. However, this does not mean that all detected warming is anthropogenic in origin.

For example, in my area of specialization I look at kelp distribution through time... both decadal and geologic. There have been noticable periods of warming over the past 100 years, but part of this is due to natural causes. Between 1350 and 1900 AD was a period known as the Little Ice Age. Climate has been warming naturally since the end of that era. There are also shorter-term warming and cooling epsodes with periods of about 25-30 years superimposed on this.

Looking at geologic time, the major ice ages following the appearance of kelps in the northern hemisphere created conditions where the equatorial/tropical belt shrunk substantially. There were areas currently tropical or subtropical that became more temperate and harbored kelp. One of these episodes was probably responsible for the "jump" in distribution across the equator to the southern hemisphere.

Major warming following these Ice Ages shrank the distribution of kelp to its current point and allowed coral reefs to develop in the re-warming tropical areas.

My point- never assume that what we see today is "normal." Biological systems are continually in flux.

However, responsible action to reduce human-induced changes is an appropriate path to take even if it only offers a small respite. It is the ethically appropriate thing to do.

Dr. Bill

 

[bermudaskink]

Sorry for the extra long post but you guys got me all :livid:

Firstly Boogie, FredT had tried to take the thread in an argumentative direction and I didn’t want to go there (oh but look! Here I am! Ooops!). He dragged up some points that I felt were not relevant to the thread I posted and I feel I had every right to ignore them. FredT is looking for a fight and I have sworn to never misuse the art of Taekwondo.

Secondly, I’ve got some thoughts for you and FredT….

I know it is a fact that global warming is occurring and that we may or may not be having an impact but it’s better to be on the cautious side than to continue to carry on the way we are. A lot of scientific evidence does show that humans are having a significant impact on climate change and unless we halt our ever-increasing use of fossil fuels then we will continue to have an increasingly larger impact on this change. It’s not definite but I wouldn’t like to ignore the risks! I might choose to ignore a post on this thread but that is not going to have potentially catastrophic effects! So are you suggesting I pay more attention to posts on this board and try to ignore climate change? Are you? Maybe if I close my eyes and click my heels together three times it will all just go away and I can go back to my over consuming, fossil fuel burning, selfish lifestyle and fool myself that I couldn’t help even if I wanted to.

A FULL TWO DEGREES is a big deal! Maybe not to you in your sun lounger in your back yard but to the environment it is! You also say that a rise (or prevention of) by this much over a hundred years is not that much. Well, consider this, prior to the industrial revolution there was only a rise by about 0.2 degrees per hundred years and this rate of increase in temperature has changed dramatically over the last 100 years. Just a coincidence? I wouldn’t like to risk thinking like that. If we can try to stop the earth heating by 2 degrees over the next hundrend years then that is a big achievement but even if we don’t manage that (I am certain we wont) trying our best to reduce it as much a possible will hopefully have positive effects. Maybe a reduction in potential El Ninos, a reduction in the potential number of mass bleaching occurrences, a reduction in the severity of these occurrences, a reduction in the destruction of so many reefs that would maybe ohterwise perish if we don't try.

If we have SOME hope in saving our coral reefs (in addition to a hell of a lot other things that we should be attempting to save by trying to decrease the impact we have on the environment) then it would be nice if we could try and do so rather than suggesting that our help may not come to any good so let’s not bother finding out. I suggested a few simple things for people to do within their local communities and put out a warning sign (link to an interesting article) and urged divers to be aware that the corals are in trouble so be extra nice to them when diving cos they don’t need any more stress right now…. a simple plee to novice divers reading the thread to make sure they have good buoyancy. I did not insist that certain countries sign any protocol. That’s a whole other side to the story. But insisting that 500 biliion dollars per year to reduce our emissions is too costly is a little off the mark when you consider that our coral reefs alone have been estimated at bringing in 400 billion dollars per year to the world economies.

I don’t expect the politicians of my country to be solely responsible for our country’s impact on the environment. Ordinary people can make a difference too, you don’t have to wait for your country to sign an agreement. If everyone used 2 hours less of their average electricity per day, if everyone only used cars when they had to and only drove cars with low fuel consumption (not everyone NEEDS an SUV!!) if everyone tried just a little to think about reducing their effect on climate change then there might be some glimmer of hope for our reefs, at least in some regions of the world.

It’s better to fail having tried than to succeed in never trying!

Even if you prolong the existence of some reefs in let's say, the Red Sea for just 100 more years, then for those corals and animals relying on the reefs that will live and die over those 100 years and to your great great great great +++ grand children who might be diving on those reefs it matters!

It is sad that you Boogie, feel powerless and so negative about what people who care enough can achieve. I’d rather see things crumble around me knowing I tried to do something about it than have given up and be uncertain if maybe there was something I could have done, and remember that I couldn’t be bothered to waste my time in the beginning.

If you don’t feel morally responsible to help the beautiful earth we have been blessed with rather than destroy it as if it were something for us to consume, consider that our children will surely hate us for leaving them with such a horrible world to live in knowing that we had so much in nature that they will never be able to enjoy or see and in the long run we are giving them a world that will be inhospitable for their survival.

Here are some abstracts from presentations given at a conference I went to only a couple of months ago. (Society for Conservation Biology).

I believe you may both find them of interest.

SCHNEIDER, STEPHEN H., and Terry L. Root. Center for Environmental Science and Policy and Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USA (shs@stanford.edu).

WILL CLIMATE CHANGE BE "DANGEROUS" FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS? At the Rio Conference in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) was signed by over 150 nations (including the U.S.) A principal objective of the UNFCC was to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate system. Hundreds of long term ecological studies combined into meta-analyses show that about 80% of 1473 species that do show change have changed in the direction expected with warming (global surface air temperature has warmed about 0.6°C since 1900), and that on average plants flower or birds lay eggs some 5 days per ten years earlier in the Spring (Root et al. 2003). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II (2001) suggested that although there is a discernible influence of recent temperature trends on plants and animals, more significant damages are likely to occur from warming of beyond a few degrees. We explore the likelihood of "dangerous" climate change by projecting a plausible range of emissions scenarios, jointly with a probability distribution for the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas increases. A disturbing fraction of such projections implies very large (>3.5°C) climatic changes by 2100, which combined with fragmented habitats, poses a great risk for biodiversity preservation.

ROOT, TERRY L., Brandon C. Root, and Stephen H. Schneider. Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USA (troot@stanford.edu) (TLR, SHS); Eastview High School, Apple Valley, MN 55124, USA (BCR).

BOUNDING THE UNCERTAINTY OF POSSIBLE ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING We compare the possible ecological consequences of two different global warming predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – one assumes continued intense fossil fuel use (FI) and the other assumes technological development (T) allowing much less fossil use. By 2100 the average global temperature is predicted to be 4.5°C for FI and 2.6°C for T. We
determine the 10th and 90th percentiles around these values, assuming temperature increases will be larger at the higher latitudesthan the lower ones. We calculate the increase in temperatures by latitude assuming both FI and T scenarios along a longitudinal transect running from Houston, TX, through Churchill, Manitoba and on north. For temperature-sensitive birds with winter ranges crossing the transect, we determine where their northern ranges could be for FI and T. For example, by 2100 the globe could warm such that if the American Goldfinch tracked the isotherm currently associated with its northern range edge, there is a 10% chance that it could shift (assuming habitat is available) from just north of Minneapolis to above the Arctic Circle assuming the FI scenario, and to areas just south of Churchill for the T scenario. Either way the change could be undesirably dramatic.


But back to corals anyway: Fred T – I am not going to go too deeply into your latest post here. You seem to love to go off on some strange how old can corals possibly be tangent. I don’t want to follow you down that path. But I will say one thing in reply to you. Predicting that hard corals will defy the bleaching events of the future and colonise new substrate as the sea level rises?? Is that a dream you had? I am not saying that it wont happen but how can you be so sure. I find it rather shocking that you can make these “ factual statements”. And where did you get the idea that tropical corals will “simply” change to colonies of more heat tolerant corals? It is possible that corals bleach and take up different algal symbionts and switch to a more heat tolerant type. This type of potentially “adaptive” mechanism could indicate a positive future for coral reefs but sadly most corals do not recover from bleaching and there is no evidence that heat tolerant corals will simply take over from the ones that die out. This kind of research is in its early days and I wonder why you speak with such certainty about this.

The fossil record shows that coral reefs have recovered from such global scale climatic events in the distant past. But this has typically taken between two and 100 million years. I don’t know where you get the notion that it wont take long for reefs (I think you are confusing individual corals with massive reefs) to grow back Fred T. But you can take your knowledge about coral reef biology (or lack thereof) and stick it…….

Shortly before the 2000 Climate Conference in the Hague, a panel of the world’s most eminent coral reef scientists issued a stark warning that illustrated just how widespread the effects of climate change will be. Among its many other negative effects, they warned, will be the death of reefs all over the world as a result of warming seas. Speaking towards the close of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, attended by nearly 2,000 top researchers (some of whome are my friends) from over 50 countries, the panel painted a picture of almost unremitting gloom and called for decisive action. Are you trying tell me that they are all wrong?

Anyway – enough with both of you. Off with your heads!!!

For those of you perhaps reading this and wanting to try and do your bit please read this short article with a list of 40 easy ways to reduce your impact on climate change.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=145&category=56

Please find other information about climate change and the debates about human impact on this situation at these links.

Why the fight against climate change should be given more priority.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=283&category=56

Is it too late to put a brake on climate change?

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=275&category=56

Other articles on climate change:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_articles.html?category=56

Thanks for reading

Love the earth
:mean:

 

[bermudaskink]

The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network presented a report on the status of the world’s reefs to the Symposium. It concluded that, only two years after a survey of the world’s coral reefs found 11 per cent had been destroyed by human activity, a more extensive assessment by around 80 countries of their own reefs had raised the total to 27 per cent ‘effectively’ lost by late 2000. ‘At least another 25 per cent will be lost within twenty years’, said Clive Wilkinson of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, who edited the report.


http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=138

sorry I haven't got a better cite... I've got some scientific papers in my office that go into the predictions more - but can't get to them right now.

Not sure where te 13 years thing came from.....

 

[FredT]

bermudaskink,
I hadn't intended to yank your chain.
I'll admit:
1. Global warming is a reality.

At dispute is the rate, source of the "problem" and what effect, if any, we can collectively make on the process.

Every "study" claiming this is a problem we caused either neglects significant portions of the marine carbon cycle, or solar variability, or precession, or all of the above. Most I've seen seem to fall into the "junk science" category where the data is selected to support a pet theory. I detest such tactics no matter what issue is involved. When I see a system model that includes all of the variables with real provable numbers that shows a real significant temperature increase _rate_ jump after 1850 I'll start being concerned we had something to do with the warming that's been going on for over 2000 years. If you want to modify your lifestyle to help solve what may well be a red herring issue you are entirely free to do so. I simply ask that until at least _SOME_ proof is forthcoming that this will do something besides making you feel better about yourself you not try to force such changes in lifestyle on me.

As to the colony changes, I've seen it firsthand in diving around the Caribbean for 34 years, and making a living by dunking things into and building things to function in and on seawater for the last 30 years.
The basic rule this as taught me is:

If you put a hard surface in seawater SOMETHING is going to live on it!

I've seen brain and star corals heal after being ground up by ship grounding and cable drags in under 5 years. The life in sea soup is rich and varied, and if you provide a settlement point competition will provide for a suitable species to colonize it. Much like a clear cut provides for more varied habitat loss of one marine climax environment will genrally provide a starting point for the next more varied one. I suggest you research the oil spill in the channel off USCSB. Environmental studies done there both before and after the '68 spill will be eye opening, although not necessarily politically correct. You should also research the geological formation and release of hydrates as well as the precipitation of aragonite. SEAWIFS is just now starting to allow us to get a feel for the primary production in the deep ocean, and by inference what the carbon absorption of the oceans are. Methane and other warming gas absorption estimates are simply that. I expect those estimates are off by at least an order of magnitude. Which way they are off is anybody's guess.

2. pdoege alluded to Kyoto as a possible solution. Kyoto assumed many things that were not obtainable without significant lifestyle and population reduction. That solution will not fly, and to allude to such a non-practical "solution" is similar to proposing all intercontinental travel can be done on 747s powered by 2 Model A Ford engines, if we can just agree on the treaty.

"Political" solutions generally aren't solutions of any sort. They simply define who gets hurt the worst.

As an Engineer the search for a solution to a problem cannot begin until the problem is defined. So far that hasn't happened to the extent that a realistic solution can even be proposed.
Step one is to define the root cause, then it can be addressed with some hope of success. If the "problem" is increased or decreased solar activity the soluton will be much different than if the problem is traced to farting cows or termites.

FT

 

[Boogie711]

It’s better to fail having tried than to succeed in never trying!

I’d rather see things crumble around me knowing I tried to do something about it than have given up and be uncertain if maybe there was something I could have done, and remember that I couldn’t be bothered to waste my time in the beginning.

I find such an attitude defeatist and wrong. My point is this:

It is far better to work and find a SOLUTION, than it is to flail about helplessly and impose a "solution" which clearly won't work.

By the way - between 1875 and 1925, the average global temperature DROPPED a degree.

I don't really have an opinion on the human effects on global climate change. I DO know that the Kyoto protocol is impossible to implement.

My problem is not with climate change - it's with Kyoto. The Kyoto protocol is nothing more than a tax on Americans.

$500 Billion, Bermudaskink. Every single year. After a while it's just a number, but this grossly expensive program will delay WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY by a simple miniscule amount, even if you use the IPCC's own numbers.

Would it not make far more sense to spend $500 billion the first year and give everyone on earth a source of clean drinking water? Maybe the second year we can fix the reef issue . Think of the good you can do with $500 billion which is being waisted because India, China and Mexico don't have to participate.

 

[pdoege]

... came from a discussion I had with a rather famous oceanographer last week.

I asked him what his guess was for when the reefs around FL would be gone. The implied definition of "gone" in this discussion would be "not worth diving". "I think in about 13 years", was his response.

I have no other data to back that up.

Notice that I care enough about the problem to hunt down oceanographers and ask them questions.

See http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abelinky/Research.html for more depressing details. In a nutshell, shallow reefs in warm waters (the reefs most people dive on, btw) are hosed short term. All the reefs are hosed in 50 years.

While the rest of you sit on your butts, and collect data, and "define the problem", and debate whether or not collective action is appropriate I intend to be going out and at least trying to fix the problem.

The problem, btw, is that the reefs are dying. All of them. In 50 years. I'll be 82.

Peter

 

[bermudaskink]

Fred.

Thanks for your reply.

I think it is sad that you have managed to convince yourself that your beliefs have any kind of foundations when so many perfectly respectable scientists are saying otherwise.

Most of these scientists are not tree hugging hippies like me and take their field very seriuosly and would not could not "leave out" huge bits of the story to suit themselves.

Of course you have the right to your opinion, but other people are reading these posts and I am trying to raise awareness about a problem and provide some small solutions and here's you, trying to tell us to put our feet up till it's to late. So I do have to push my original argument, because IMO, such a great deal is at stake here!

I would never base my understanding of coral reef biology on what I only see when diving.

In addition to diving regularly in Bermuda, on the Great Barrier Reef, the Maldives, and in the Caribbean. I have taken a post graduate course in coral reef ecology, and am currently writing a doctoral thesis. I have worked at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, volunteered for NOAA in Woods Hole, have performed environmental impact assesments for the Bermuda Minisrty of Works and Engineering for the effects of the construction of ferry terminals on marine benthic communties, have attended various lectures on climate change and coral reef biology at international conservation conferences, and worked along side some of the top coral reef scientists at Columbia University in New York.

These are the foundations with which I base my knowledge and opinions on.

But, you've been diving a bit so of course, you're full of factual information.

Have you even picked up a scientific journal that deals with these issues and read the papers inside? Or did you walk past them on a shelf one day and think that you'd done enough to form your fantastic theories on coral reefs and climate change.

Oh sorry, of course these journals are, as you insist full of scientists telling lies about the corals for sh**s and giggles.

So I suppose my work experience and the fact that I have studied many scientific papers, on these issues, in depth wont impress you.

It's a good thing you are not a coral reef biologist Fred. I don't think you'd get very far with your baseless theories and comic book reading.

You are talking about single coral colony regrowth in present conditions. The conditions WILL get worse and reefs will get eroded once the live corals die off, and sea levels will rise and no matter how much substrate you provide for the coral polyps they are not going to continue growing back once they have been dessimated by bleaching events which are linked to global warming, in addition to a whole range of other anthropogenic impacts. We do have the ability to help this situation. I am not sure how much good we can do, but I am not going to demand to see into a crystal ball before I get off my butt and do anything.

Making small changes in your lifestyle to combat the effects of climate change is a small solution to the problem at large but IMO, every little bit helps. You don't have to wait for an economic revolution.

The evidence IS piled in favour of "humans are having a large impact on global warming" regardless of what you would like to think. I believe that to ignore the evidence because it doesn't sit well with you and ignore the situation till it's too late is a very convenient way to react to the siutation.

I am not suggesting that people make huge sacrifices. But we do have a moral responsability to act NOW and there are small things we can do which could and most likely will help.

If you don't have more evidence to go on (I believe what we have is enough to start making positive changes), and the future looks certainly bleak unless a change takes place. Then we should try and make that change! It's better than sitting around and doing nothing.

There are other positive effects that result from your efforts to reduce emissions. You save money, you make the air cleaner, you think more about the difference between your needs and luxuries, you learn to appreciate your life more by realising your impact on the workd around you, you reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and the over exploitation of the environment. There are many other positive things resulting from energy conservation and emmission reductions even if to reduce our impact on climate change is not a good enough reason for you.

At the end of the day Fred. You can't say it's a bad idea to try and conserve energy and think more about the world around and avoid consuming to your heart's content, you can you?

I think you are just too scared to realise that humans are in general very selfish and need to ease up on nature otherwise our time here is going to run out very shortly. This WILL involve changes in lifestyle. You seem unprepared to make any changes in yours for a good cause.

I hope not too many people think like you do. But the scarey reality is, they probably do.

;-0

 

[Boogie711]

Bermudaskink - I have to really object to how you're treating Fred here.

He originally brought up two points - factual points, not emotional ones. You chose to be rude and ignore them both.

He makes points about Kyoto, and you accuse him of " trying to tell us to put our feet up till it's to late."

He did no such thing.

The fact is, we disagree about things like climate change, Kyoto and whether or not it's "junk science." But just because we disagree doesn't mean you need to resort to personal attacks.

It's sadly predictable that when pointed out with facts you choose to disagree with, that you would get personal instead of debating the topic.

I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were a better person than that.

 

[bermudaskink]

The estimate I gave in how much the temperature rose every 100 years pre 1800s - was wrong. Apologies for that. I blame my husband who at the time was telling me to right that but didn't make it clear that he was tlaking about "change" rather than rise.

sorry about that bit!

I don't want to go into the issues of Kyoto - my issue isn't with that, it's with people being able to make changes even though their leaders are being completely useless!

Your idea of giving the 500 billion dollard to people for clean water sources is nice. But it's not like there is 500 bllion sitting in a bank somewhere that countries are willing to hand over.

I wasn't disagreeing with you that expecting 500 billion dollars to be spent every year on climate change was unrealistic. It is unrealisitc. But I wouldn't say not worth it. I am not saying that saving corals comes as higher priority that giving people clean water - it wasn't a case of spending a certain amount on only one thing. We are already spending money on providing clean water for people - not enough by any means though I agree! The argument that clean water is more important that preserving coral reefs though is very complex and depends on what you are looking at - the short term or the long term effects. But I don't want to go into that. IMO we need to address long term issues in addition to our current situations.

Peace :nixon: