Ocean Acidification -- can you see it happening?

[CuzzA]

Yes, it has been studied. and there is no consensus in general, just in specific locations. There is not a lot of human waste on the Great Barrier Reef, for example, but there is a lot of dead coral....and warming waters.

They put the shipping lanes right smack through the reefs in Australia. Oil tankers and shipping lanes running next to reefs is a recipe for disaster. I can't speak to how Australia handles their human waste, but I doubt it's much different than Florida. Same goes for their agriculture.

I'm of the opinion that by and large pollution is a far greater immediate threat to the reefs than temperature, Corals can adapt to temps. We also see this in aquaria where once impossible to keep strands have been fragged and spread for so many years now these corals are super resilient and some grow like weeds; however, they still do not tolerate pollution.

I'm not saying we should ignore co2 emissions, but there is something we can do and it wouldn't inflict widespread pain to millions of people, and that is change the way we handle our waste.

 

[CuzzA]

I have no doubt that climate change is occurring. My doubt is how much we could do to change it and how much is truly anthropogenic. Another concern is how is it measured because that keeps changing.

Regardless, the glaciers are melting, I have seen that with my own eyes.

Of course, looking out my window today at weather, not climate. . .sigh

12-15 inches of the fluffy white stuff and it's still coming down.

It is hypothesized that the cooling of the planet is what led to the extinction of Megalodon, because with lower sea levels all of the passages cut off it's food supply. I'm sure a lot of big predators suffered a similar fate. I'm thankful for that , but my point is a warmer planet may increase the biodiversity of the planet as these passages are reopened and species can move more freely, along with their spawn.

One thing is for certain, I'd rather live on a warmer planet than a colder one, and I think for most humans, that is why they really don't care about the planet warming. Cold temps have probably killed a lot more people than hot temps in the history of humans. So, if you live in Montana, never seen the ocean, and the government says if you don't reduce your fossil fuel consumption your climate is going to get 2 degrees warmer in 100 years doesn't really register. In fact it may be a welcomed change.

 

[tursiops]

It is hypothesized that the cooling of the planet is what led to the extinction of Megalodon, because with lower sea levels all of the passages cut off it's food supply. I'm sure a lot of big predators suffered a similar fate. I'm thankful for that , but my point is a warmer planet may increase the biodiversity of the planet as these passages are reopened and species can move more freely, along with their spawn.

One thing is for certain, I'd rather live on a warmer planet than a colder one, and I think for most humans, that is why they really don't care about the planet warming. Cold temps have probably killed a lot more people than hot temps in the history of humans. So, if you live in Montana, never seen the ocean, and the government says if you don't reduce your fossil fuel consumption your climate is going to get 2 degrees warmer in 100 years doesn't really register. In fact it may be a welcomed change.

I've got some sympathy for this attitude, but am concerned at the rate of change. Agriculture is suffering, and wholesale dislocation is inevitable. New reports of different diseases that thrive in warmer climates are unsettling. Clearly, though, sealevel rise is going to affect many millions long before they sweat to death.

 

[DBPacific]

It is hypothesized that the cooling of the planet is what led to the extinction of Megalodon, because with lower sea levels all of the passages cut off it's food supply. I'm sure a lot of big predators suffered a similar fate. I'm thankful for that , but my point is a warmer planet may increase the biodiversity of the planet as these passages are reopened and species can move more freely, along with their spawn.

One thing is for certain, I'd rather live on a warmer planet than a colder one, and I think for most humans, that is why they really don't care about the planet warming. Cold temps have probably killed a lot more people than hot temps in the history of humans. So, if you live in Montana, never seen the ocean, and the government says if you don't reduce your fossil fuel consumption your climate is going to get 2 degrees warmer in 100 years doesn't really register. In fact it may be a welcomed change.

The issue with wanting the world to be warmer is that ice melts when it warms. Ice sheets are already cracking and calving into the ocean at an incredibly fast rate and if enough ice on top of continents (like Greenland or Antarctica), it will raise sea levels. Most of the world's population lives near the coast in areas that could potentially become submerged or uninhabitable because of rising sea levels. If and when that happens, it won't be sudden but will mean massive displacement and migration of millions of people, most of whom will be trying to move away from coastal third world countries. That certainly won't be a problem when there's already massive refugee crises and humanitarian issues because immigration possibilities are restrictive based on skin color and country of origin. Farmland that relies on flat riverland can also become submerged or flooded, and if it happens too fast, then the area around it won't be farmable in time to make use of it. So massive human migration and a reduction in farmland. That doesn't sound like a problem at all.

On top of that, diseases will be able to spread farther (and already have) because of the warmer climate, while heat stress is killing off plants and animals responsible for stable ecosystems that purify water, act as storm barriers, and keep nutrients in the soil. There will of course be winners of climate change, but by and large most native species - the ones best suited for keeping biodiversity high and being 'useful' to humans - are already strained by heat and pollution. Heat isn't even the only issue. Some areas are dropping in temperature, so those areas have to adjust to cold. Climate change is projected to increase the frequency of devastating storms, so that also puts a damper on the whole situation. Without time for species to adjust, climate change only decreases biodiversity.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

 

[chillyinCanada]

Just wait until everything turns upside down!

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/DNS.gif

 

[CuzzA]

The issue with wanting the world to be warmer is that ice melts when it warms. Ice sheets are already cracking and calving into the ocean at an incredibly fast rate and if enough ice on top of continents (like Greenland or Antarctica), it will raise sea levels. Most of the world's population lives near the coast in areas that could potentially become submerged or uninhabitable because of rising sea levels. If and when that happens, it won't be sudden but will mean massive displacement and migration of millions of people, most of whom will be trying to move away from coastal third world countries. That certainly won't be a problem when there's already massive refugee crises and humanitarian issues because immigration possibilities are restrictive based on skin color and country of origin. Farmland that relies on flat riverland can also become submerged or flooded, and if it happens too fast, then the area around it won't be farmable in time to make use of it. So massive human migration and a reduction in farmland. That doesn't sound like a problem at all.

On top of that, diseases will be able to spread farther (and already have) because of the warmer climate, while heat stress is killing off plants and animals responsible for stable ecosystems that purify water, act as storm barriers, and keep nutrients in the soil. There will of course be winners of climate change, but by and large most native species - the ones best suited for keeping biodiversity high and being 'useful' to humans - are already strained by heat and pollution. Heat isn't even the only issue. Some areas are dropping in temperature, so those areas have to adjust to cold. Climate change is projected to increase the frequency of devastating storms, so that also puts a damper on the whole situation. Without time for species to adjust, climate change only decreases biodiversity.

Sounds like the problem will be self correcting.

Like I said, it might matter to third world coastal communities, but the guy in Montana would not care less.

Also it's not a really good look for a president who has been warning everyone for eight years that sea level rise will displace millions of people, and then goes and buys a waterfront mansion...

You see this is the crux of the problem. Do as I say and not as I do doesn't sit well with people. When the world's elite take their 100s of private planes to meet each year to bitch about Billy Bob's 1/2 ton truck, Billy Bob thinks, "screw you."

Anyway, there's a lot of solutions here, but they are all at odds with what both progressive globalists want and conservative capitalists want. And right now that's the only options we have.

 

[tarponchik]

They put the shipping lanes right smack through the reefs in Australia. Oil tankers and shipping lanes running next to reefs is a recipe for disaster. I can't speak to how Australia handles their human waste, but I doubt it's much different than Florida. Same goes for their agriculture.

I'm of the opinion that by and large pollution is a far greater immediate threat to the reefs than temperature, Corals can adapt to temps. We also see this in aquaria where once impossible to keep strands have been fragged and spread for so many years now these corals are super resilient and some grow like weeds; however, they still do not tolerate pollution.

I'm not saying we should ignore co2 emissions, but there is something we can do and it wouldn't inflict widespread pain to millions of people, and that is change the way we handle our waste.

Here is an interesting one:
Ocean warming threatens the functioning of coral reef ecosystems by inducing mass coral bleaching and mortality events. The link between temperature and coral bleaching is now well-established based on observations that mass bleaching events usually occur when seawater temperatures are anomalously high. However, times of high heat stress but without coral bleaching are equally important because they can inform an understanding of factors that regulate temperature-induced bleaching. Here, we investigate the absence of mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) during austral summer 2004. Using four gridded sea surface temperature data products, validated with in situ temperature loggers, we demonstrate that the summer of 2004 was among the warmest summers of the satellite era (1982–2017) on the GBR. At least half of the GBR experienced temperatures that were high enough to initiate bleaching in other years, yet mass bleaching was not reported during 2004. The absence of bleaching is not fully explained by wind speed or cloud cover. Rather, 2004 is clearly differentiated from bleaching years by the slow speed of the East Australian Current (EAC) offshore of the GBR. An anomalously slow EAC during summer 2004 may have dampened the upwelling of nutrient-rich waters onto the GBR shelf, potentially mitigating bleaching due to the lower susceptibility of corals to heat stress in low-nutrient conditions. Although other factors such as irradiance or acclimatization may have played a role in the absence of mass bleaching, 2004 remains a key case study for demonstrating the dynamic nature of coral responses to marine heatwaves.
So it looks like in the case of GBR bleaching nutrient levels trump warming.

 

[DBPacific]

Sounds like the problem will be self correcting.

Like I said, it might matter to third world coastal communities, but the guy in Montana would not care less.

Also it's not a really good look for a president who has been warning everyone for eight years that sea level rise will displace millions of people, and then goes and buys a waterfront mansion...

You see this is the crux of the problem. Do as I say and not as I do doesn't sit well with people. When the world's elite take their 100s of private planes to meet each year to bitch about Billy Bob's 1/2 ton truck, Billy Bob thinks, "screw you."

Anyway, there's a lot of solutions here, but they are all at odds with what both progressive globalists want and conservative capitalists want. And right now that's the only options we have.

Except it isn't just the third world that has coasts. And I'd bet that guy in Montana would start caring if people from those countries try to find a new place to live in his backyard.

And exactly what do you mean by the problem being self correcting?

 

[CuzzA]

Here is an interesting one:
Ocean warming threatens the functioning of coral reef ecosystems by inducing mass coral bleaching and mortality events. The link between temperature and coral bleaching is now well-established based on observations that mass bleaching events usually occur when seawater temperatures are anomalously high. However, times of high heat stress but without coral bleaching are equally important because they can inform an understanding of factors that regulate temperature-induced bleaching. Here, we investigate the absence of mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) during austral summer 2004. Using four gridded sea surface temperature data products, validated with in situ temperature loggers, we demonstrate that the summer of 2004 was among the warmest summers of the satellite era (1982–2017) on the GBR. At least half of the GBR experienced temperatures that were high enough to initiate bleaching in other years, yet mass bleaching was not reported during 2004. The absence of bleaching is not fully explained by wind speed or cloud cover. Rather, 2004 is clearly differentiated from bleaching years by the slow speed of the East Australian Current (EAC) offshore of the GBR. An anomalously slow EAC during summer 2004 may have dampened the upwelling of nutrient-rich waters onto the GBR shelf, potentially mitigating bleaching due to the lower susceptibility of corals to heat stress in low-nutrient conditions. Although other factors such as irradiance or acclimatization may have played a role in the absence of mass bleaching, 2004 remains a key case study for demonstrating the dynamic nature of coral responses to marine heatwaves.
So it looks like in the case of GBR bleaching nutrient levels trump warming.

Really, what was the nitrate and phosphate levels in 2004? Did you measure?

I did not say temps don't hurt coral, so I'm not sure what your point is. But here's a hypothesis. Perhaps because the current was so slow that year, the land waste was able to sit and pollute the reefs rather than be carried away. Coupled with higher temps was a recipe for disaster.

Nutrient rich water is not good for corals, despite what your quote says. It is a well known fact high ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and/or phosphate kill coral.