cars killing coral reef?

[archman]

Yo mods, can you folks bump this thread over to the ecosystems forum? It's more relevant over there.

 

[SDAnderson]

Yo mods, can you folks bump this thread over to the ecosystems forum? It's more relevant over there.

Agreed.

 

[Kim]

With Okinawa, you ARE showing increasing population and development pressures. In fact Okinawa is now known locally as the "Wedding Resort Island". That's more sewage going into water, more boat traffic, diving, blah blah... don't even get me started on golf courses.
We simply don't know enough about global warming for the ecologists to point fingers at it. It's definitely a factor, but whether or not it's an important factor, that's the question.

First off, thanks for your reply. A couple of points....

Actually I wasn't really accusing global warming of being the culprit, just asking wether in your opinion it was true that high sea water temperatures kill coral. As you pointed out - high sea water temperatures can come from a hot summer, and who knows what caused the hot summer. We may suspect, but we can't prove.
However what you are saying about Okinawa is not really true. It's true that the main island of Okinawa has quite a large population - although I don't think it's changed much recently as Naha is already fairly full. It's very hard to move to Okinawa these days due to lack of accomodation and very high rents. However that is not where the main dive sites or coral beds are. They are on the Kerama Islands which is about 1 hour by fast speed boat away to reach the edge of them. There are several small islands in this group and they are nearly uninhabited. In this area there are around 70 different dive sites - mostly to coral beds. I don't think that there is much chance that they could have been affected by sewage etc. As to the number of divers - that is also fairly limited. On any given day (and definitely not everyday - not enough customers) the greatest number of boats that go there will typically be between 3 and 6. I have never seen more than 6 even at the height of the holiday season. This doesn't seem like a lot when you consider that they are choosing from around 70 sites to dive. Most of the coral though is dead, although you will find bits of new growth in between.
Everyone that I have asked about it blames it on too warm water - and considering where it is it's hard to imagine other causes. This summer in Japan has again been extremely hot - so everyone is again scared of what further effects might occur.
As you pointed out earlier, storm systems (hurricanes, typhoons etc) tend to suck some of the heat out of the water. We had Typhoon Chaba last week - it was the biggest typhoon for many years (similar in size to Frances) - Cat4/5, average windspeeds up to 185mph while it was still a little offshore in southern Kyushu - it dropped to about 160mph when it hit land - some places had over 400mm of rain in 12 hours. Due to the geography of Japan unless you live on the coast you generally have more protection than somewhere exposed like Florida, but some of the flooding was quite dramatic. My point is - the water is very warm this year - diving in Fukuoka we've had sea temperatures over 28C - that's closer to what I'd expect in Malaysia close to the equator!

On a side note you might like to check a thread I wrote some weeks ago in the Zen Divers forum:
http://www.scubaboard.com/t65299-strange-jelly-fish-in-japanese-waters.html
I'd be very interested in any comments you have on that as I couldn't find out anymore myself. A week later these things were gone - and I normally go to the sea diving or with the kids every weekend.

 

[archman]

Kim, I barely know beans about Okinawa, just that they're one of the few Japanese regions currently showing marked population growth (something like 5%) and a desire for upping tourism. I assume that's all on the big island.

Water quality effects get quite diluted over distance... a "one hour speedboat ride" is probably a safe buffer for the reefs, assuming there isn't an entrainment current. I'm also assuming the Kerama Islands lack any significant development, of course. Boat traffic from what you're telling me also looks minimal.

Typhoon effects are certainly not to be discounted, nor pathogen vectors. If there are marked coral die-offs specific to certain coral types/species, that can indicate diseases. Typhoons tend to trash everything above 50 feet. The combination of wave action and salinity/temperature changes are a powerful 1-2 punch. Branching corals suffer the most.

I'm always cautious of media remarks about "hot summers" and "hottest summer in years", as they rarely take into account surface water temperatures nor do they usually look up historical precedents. I chalk a lot of it up to another example of "shifting baseline syndrome".

It would be interesting to know the actual sea surface temperatures during the year(s) that the coral beds in this area died off, and how they compare to the mean level during "normal" years as well as the natural variation. Coral does have some degree of thermal tolerance, but if that was exceeded for prolonged periods, bye bye.

Japan has fairly rigorous marine science programs in place. There should be some local talent that knows much more about this than I. Probably some government reports, too.

p.s. I looked at your Porpita. I'm so jealous.

 

[FlipperSail]

Linking ecological damage directly to global warming is pretty iffy. That's 'cuz mean ocean temperatures have barely altered... something just over 1 degree Fahrenheit within this century. That's piddly, and there isn't historical data to prove that it's anything other than natural variation.

Of course everyone knows that we have global warming, but the real questions asked should be:
1. How much of it is manmade induced?
2. What are the effects on regional and local enviromental conditions?
3. Will the natural components cycle back down?

Three big problems believed to be caused by elevated sea temperatures.
A. Accelerated Sea Level Rise
B. Melting of Polar Ice
C. Indo-Pacific coral bleaching

The vast majority of coral bleaching events in the Indo-Pacific can be attributed to a few, very hot summers the last several years. As to whether or not these super hot summers were caused by global warming is another issue entirely. It may have contributed, or it might have simply been natural variation. Natural variation in climate DOES occur, and it can very much be severe. The 1998 mass bleachings throughout the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific did occur at the same time as record-high sea surface temperatures in those areas. And while those temps were above average, they're still within the acceptable norms for most coral to survive under otherwise optimal conditions. Now here's the caveat: Optimal Conditions.

With UV radiation on the upswing, coteries of new diseases and pathogens, dangerous exotics, and the ever-nasty nutrient discharges, the local conditions are anything but optimal. All it took was some large regional perturbance to throw the corals over the edge, and in the Indo-Pacific that happened to be an El Nino event. In the Bahamas it's thought to be a couple of nasty hurricanes, in the Florida Keys its thought to be a combo of hurricanes and nutrient-induced diseases. Whatever floats your boat.

With Okinawa, you ARE showing increasing population and development pressures. In fact Okinawa is now known locally as the "Wedding Resort Island". That's more sewage going into water, more boat traffic, diving, blah blah... don't even get me started on golf courses.
We simply don't know enough about global warming for the ecologists to point fingers at it. It's definitely a factor, but whether or not it's an important factor, that's the question.

Now eutrophication, that's studied out the whazoo. Definitely bad, and definitely on the rapid upswing. Especially in the tropics. Ask me what an ecologically "prudent" coastal development plan for your average Caribbean island is, and I'll show you a little sleepy village with no resorts or cruise ships. Kinda hard to find those nowadays, just like it's getting harder to find nice reefs. Funny how that works out, isn't it? That ever-present "trend" of finding that beautiful, remote island with the gorgeous coral reefs isn't an accident. It's finding an area that's still pristine. If it gets developed, it degrades, simple as that.

Ph level change is prooven to affect coral and it is very easy to test it in an aquarium. It is also very easy to prove that increase co2 levels change ph. It is a prooven fact.

In an aqurium you can change co2 levels up and down pretty drastically within short time spans (a day) without coral dying. but is CO2 changes up or down for a longer time then the ph starts to change. The pH doesnt have time to chang if the co2 levels oscillitate within in a day as long as the oscillitations average is proper adapted to the correct ph level.

ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has been relatively unchanged for 10s of thousands of years at a level of about 280 ppm in the atmosphere. The atmosphere and sea touch each other. there is no wall between them. The gases exchange to even out. Increase CO2 in the atmosphere and the co2 evel increases in the sea. Automatic.

Sure, the atmosphere has change throughout history but usually changes occured over extreme time spans in which organisms have time to evolve into something else that is adapted to the changes(or die out). However the changes from 280ppm 380ppm has happenend mostly at the end of the last 200 years. Mostly in the last 50 years. This is too fast for organism to evolve. Scientist now believe that coral will not adapt but will die out if Co2(ph) continues to rise.

Saying that CO2 and global warming is the only factors destroying coral might be not totally true but it is idiotic (if you care about coal) to ignore the FACT that CO2 levels in long term are changing the ph sea level are now killing coral.

In a aquarium if you want to kill the coral all you need to do is to change the ph for an extended time period. A few days. Thats why you in and aquarium want to oscillitate CO2 level up and down within the range to make sure ph is contained at the level where coral can live in. But oscillitating th CO2 levels in the atmosphere would require that all industry and cars stop for a ten years and then some how you scrub the atmosphere from co2 without industry, then you start spewing out CO2 again and continue the process. But what we people are currently doin is deforesting and spewing out CO2. We are raising the ph only never dropping it.

-If you are a diver and are not concerned about coral then you can continue spewing out co2.
-If you are a diver and you only care about the coral that you will see during your scuba career then you can also continue spewing out co2
-If you are a diver that believes future generations should be able to enjoy Coral, also, not only your generation, then you should think about reducing your CO2 drastically and encorage others to do so to.There are lots of ways.

-Convert your car to electric and solar (plus wind)
http://www.solarvan.co.uk

-Convert your dive boat to electric and solar (plus wind). add solar and electric motor but leave your fossil fuel system in for emergency. Expand your panels ad battery bank every now and then when economy allows sothat ou become less and less dependant on the fossil fuel engine
http://www.sunboat.com/boats/institute/alpha/alpha.html

-Convert or buy your gadgets as solar gadgets.
http://www.yourownenergy.com



Or do like me, bicycle to the destination. Then rent dive stuff there and try convince the dive arangers to convert their boat to solar electric. My longest bike trip was from nothern Europe to South Africa. Little diving compared to travel time but well worth the trip. The trip was lots more than diving and finally there I did weeks of diving and climbing.

 

[archman]

... I apologize for getting the thread directed somewhere else.

Um, let me see... current ocean pH sits at around 8.1. Prior to the Industrial Revolution it was 8.2. Not a big deal to coral at the present time. It was 8.3 following the end of the Tertiary, so the environment is used to little fluctuations of this sort.

Current worst case scenarios predict that ocean pH could possibly get as low as 7.4. This level is pretty serious, just below the minimum level recommended for coral health (7.5-8.5 is the range for reef tanks; optimally 8.0-8.3).

These worst case scenarios become realized in three hundred years. Yes, the year 2300. So we have a little time.

I'm not arguing that cabon dioxide emissions aren't a problem to coral reefs in the long term future, on the contrary pH shifts are extremely serious. However, there are much more pressing dangers and concerns to reefs going on at the present time. If those concerns are not addressed first, you won't have any coral to lose a couple centuries from now, as it'll already be gone.

Solar and wind power suffer from very low efficiencies and high startup and maintenance costs. This has always been their problem, and unless a startling technological breakthrough is made, it will continue to keep them on the fringe.
Global electricity needs have risen sharply, and continue to rise. There isn't enough capacity currently to meet most country's needs, and that's with mostly fossil fuel plants.
Hydroelectric is becoming very popular in Asia. If it weren't for the newly understood local ecological problems, they'd be more popular in the U.S.. As it stands they are in decline in the U.S..
Nuclear power is extremely efficient and clean (minus small quantities of contained waste), but suffers from severe public misconceptions and paranoia. So they're also in decline.

So this leaves fossil fuel plants... back where we started. There are "cleaner" plant types, specifically natural gas ones. And fossil fuel plants eventually can't sustain... although it's anyone's guess when the supply will evaporate.

Vehicle emissions vary widely. Any mechanic will tell you that a well tuned up car emits far less nasty chemicals than an ill maintained one, however new. I'm not sure that takes CO2 into account, however.
Hybrid engines are making a huge debut in the U.S. next year. They're not ideal, but the public is buying them, and that's what matters.

American culture is resource consumptive, and electricity hungry. So are most other industrialized nations. This is the mindset that legislators must deal with. Cultural shifts rarely happen without some sort of widespread disaster, so until that happens, we're stuck with working within the status quo.

p.s. I LOVE this website! :dazzler1:
http://www.yourownenergy.com/

 

[RIDIVER501]

Yes. As near as we can figure, most of all this is manmade in origin. We deduce this by ruling out natural disturbance events, looking back in the fossil record, and by performing long term monitoring. Tropical corals are pretty finicky, so they make excellent "indicators" for environmental health. Damage to them is widely believed to prelude damage to other marine areas. Here's a list of the biggest and most immediate threats to continued coral damage.

1. Eutrophication (enhanced nutrients in water). Mostly brought about by:
a. resorts
b. cruise ships
c. general land development

2. Disease. Either new varieties, or more abundant amounts of natural ones. Guess what fosters this stuff?
a. resorts
b. cruise ships
c. general land development

3. Ultraviolet Damage. Good 'ol coral bleaching via the SUN. You can blame degradations in ozone for that.

4. Hurricanes. A funny side effect to global warming. When the oceans heat up, it spurns development of more hurricanes. In fact, hurricanes act as "bleeder valves" to keep global warming in check. So instead of getting runaway temperatures, you just get more hurricanes. Hurricanes TRASH reefs.

5. Contact damage. People/objects banging into the coral tend to kill it. What exacerbates this? Why, the tourists coming off...
a. resorts
b. cruise ships

Tourism into tropical areas has done little but increase in MASSIVE PROPORTIONS the last twenty years. Most of these teeny nations do not have any environmental regulation in place... the few that DO tend to be doing it in hindsight (meaning they're already in bad shape; i.e. Bahamas, USA), or have trouble maintaining it due to political instability (Turks & Caicos, Galapagos).

It's mildly amusing (or sickening, take your pick) to analyze the demographics of tourists in the tropics. If one does, you'll notice a major slice of the resort demographic hails from the USA. If you look at cruise ships it's far worse... something over 70% currently.

Therefore, take the analysis one step further and you will arrive at the interesting conclusion...

A. US citizens on vacation are causing the most damage to tropical coral reefs.

Nuts.

I love this....just becuase other countries don't have the same enviromental regulations it is now the fault of US tourists? last time I was on vacation there were people from all over the world at the resort with me.

Oh and so if we do away with global warming the hurricanes will all go away...but only after we assasinate El nino, because I am sure he will pick up where his brother Global warming left off. Mother nature now a sinsister plot of the US. News at 11.

contact damage good point but you left off all the damage done by local fisherman who carlessly drag their nets and gear over the coral.

Hmm sickness and disease in underveloped regions of the world. Right it must have piggy backed in on us pesky tourists, becuase if it weren't for us tourist no one in paradise would ever get sick.

Eutrophication: maybe it is enhanced by an increased number of people visiting an area. but can you say for sure? Is the Eutrophication outside jamacia due to the cruise ships and tourists that visit there, the fact that most places in the area dump nearly raw sewage into the ocean or a combo of both.

Am I slamming on you... Damn straight. Two sides to every coin. I wouldn't have weighed in like I did if you were giving the other options at least consideration, but you are trying to paint a black and white picture in a multi-colored world and while it may be your truth. It isn't the whole truth. if you want to be consider a credible advocate for the causes you decide to champion you need to be at least capable of presenting all the fact, or damn near all of them, even if you don't agree with them. You say here is a list of the biggest when all I see is a slanted view villifying tourist and the hotel cruise industry, as set to accommodate the US tourist.

I am not buying your arguement. Not to say there isn't a need to help the enviroment or save our marine resources, But I am not buying the support you are giving or your assessment of the major sources becuase all the potential major contributing sources aren't mentioned. which makes me wonder,was it an accidental omission, or was it intentional to fuel the fire for you cause/ beliefs?

 

[archman]

I love this....just becuase other countries don't have the same enviromental regulations it is now the fault of US tourists? last time I was on vacation there were people from all over the world at the resort with me.

we're not the sole source, if that's what you thought I implied. U.S. tourists do however constitute a significant fraction, far more than most other nations. We like to travel, we like to go on vacation, and there are 300 million of us. It's a cultural and sheer numbers thing. We're not "bad polluter"s, but we are what many major polluting players get their bread and butter from.

Oh and so if we do away with global warming the hurricanes will all go away...but only after we assasinate El nino, because I am sure he will pick up where his brother Global warming left off.

El Nino and global warming are not mutually exclusive. El Nino (and it's reverse cousin, La Nina) are still "run" by regional weather patterns, which in turn are directed by global conditions, including global warming. The 1-dollar explanation is that global warming alters atmospheric circulation patterns... simply put it screws all the weather up. Many climatologists believe that the historic high 1998 El Nino was partially induced by global warming effects. Real hard to prove though. I'll go with what the climatologists think.

contact damage good point but you left off all the damage done by local fisherman who carlessly drag their nets and gear over the coral.

While fishing intensity still continues to increase in most areas, it is usually far overshadowed in the shallow tropics by tourism-related boat traffic. This is especially true for the Caribbean. Dollar for dollar, fishing simply cannot compete with tourism.

Hmm sickness and disease in underveloped regions of the world. Right it must have piggy backed in on us pesky tourists, becuase if it weren't for us tourist no one in paradise would ever get sick.

Ha ha, we're not talking about HUMAN diseases. More like aspergillosis, BBD, WBD, white pox, etc.. Instances of these have shot through the roof the last twenty years. We're so busy identifying just the NEW diseases showing up, we barely have any resources to monitor the existing ones.

Eutrophication: maybe it is enhanced by an increased number of people visiting an area. but can you say for sure?

95% sure... that's being conservative (I'm an ecologist, after all). Agriculture runoff isn't a problem in most island nations, 'cuz there IS no significant agriculture. Ditto for industry. That leaves municipal sources, which means the locals and the visiting tourists. If you compare indigenous population increases to that of heightened tourist traffic in most tropical vacation destinations, the locals don't hold a candle to the tourists. In any event, the tourism sector acts as a positive feedback to the local population, as those folks are employed by the industry.

Is the Eutrophication outside jamacia due to the cruise ships and tourists that visit there, the fact that most places in the area dump nearly raw sewage into the ocean or a combo of both.

Jamaica is unusual in that it is a rather large island, and has a significant agricultural (7%) and industrial output (~25%). They have a high standing population (2.7 million), but a very low growth rate (<1%). Their tourism is also not booming like many other places, but only peetering up slightly, and that in the cruise ship sector. 66% of the tourists visiting come from the USA, however. Jamaica is big enough to have harvestable forests, and deforestation effects are consequently one of their larger environmental concerns. So are oil spills. But yes, there are documented, peer reviewed articles that have placed the blame of reef damage in certain Jamaican areas (i.e. Negril) on excessive eutrophication.
Reefs in Jamaica are in very poor shape, and the nation's crime rate is high. Both of these contribute to lackluster tourism. Discovery Bay is actually one of the best spots in the world for scientists to study coral diseases, 'cuz there are SO MANY there now.

Jamaica is thus not your typical example of the tropical resort island. More like a has-been.

There is a wealth of new data on the deleterious effects of cruise ships on local ecosystems. If there are specific questions forwarded to me, I will be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. It's a topic I'm fairly well versed on.

 

[Hank49]

Saying that CO2 and global warming is the only factors destroying coral might be not totally true but it is idiotic (if you care about coal) to ignore the FACT that CO2 levels in long term are changing the ph sea level are now killing coral.

Global warming. If I'm up to date on this, we have been monitoring world temperature in an organized manner for about 160 years? And there has been a slight upward trend in that period. BUT, Krakatoa blew up right around 1850 or so, spewing way more CO2 and O1 into the air than Pinatubo. It darkened Europe for a period, and experts said that put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than 100 years of auto emissions. We actually could be headed for an ice age. It's a linear curve but it has it's blips up and down in it's trend. Who can say which way we're headed?

 

[Mako Mark]

RIDIVER501, energy analysis gives a shockingly different view on where the problem lies. It sounds like you have a guilty concience dude.

20% of the human race use 80% of the resources.

The average SE Asian family owns a 50 cc motorbike, the average North American family owns 5 four litre (or larger) vehicles. Even the hybrids and electric cars are a stupid myth. It pisses me off when I see some multimillionare celebrity spouting off about their new electtric car being good for the environment. THE ELECTRICITY COMES FROM OIL POWERED POWER PLANTS YOU MORON is what I want to scream at them.

Is it time for the world to point the fingre at the west YES. The west started the majority of the problems, and even worse, now they export them.

Oh Yeah, whoever said ozone depletion contributes to coral bleaching was wrong, except for the corals in the antarctic where the ozone holes are that is....... I guess.