Scientists Warn of Coral Bleaching in Caribbean

[DavidPT40]

Theres actually a 3-pronged attack on coral in the Caribbean: Temperature, pH, and water pollution.

Heres an article talking about pH- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060220231628.htm

Temperature- http://www.science.org.au/nova/076/076key.htm

Wastewater and coral- http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/17/State/Sewage_killing_coral_.shtml

 

[archman]

just to follow up, this has been happening since 1998.

Even further back than that, Andy. Earlier Caribbean mass-bleaching events were observed in 1995/96, 1990, and the nasty older brother to the 1998/99 super-bleaching occurred a decade earlier, 1987/88.

Caribbean reefs just get deader and deader every year.

 

[PaulChristenson]

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/coral6.html

 

[archman]

Well, to be honest it's quite impossible to determine the same level of cause-effect consensus in large ecosystems that most people consider reasonable.

Gamma-scale ecologies are too complicated and chaotic for anything even remotely resembling a unified theory to ever be figured out. What passes for "statistically significant correlation" at these scales wouldn't rate as more than a hiccup to non-ecologists. A 20% relationship is a big deal to us!

Compared to my own ecological research, I find the known patterns linking coral bleaching to elevated water temperatures irritatingly clear-cut and robust. Those people have it easy! :14:

Cutting to the chase of that long-winded and somewhat disjointed article (not written by an ecologist, obviously), I'll just pick out and stress the key take-home statements, which were found in one paragraph.

Most times - but not always - mass coral bleaching happens during the time of the annual maximum in water temperature. And years that reach higher maximums are definitely associated with greater incidence of bleaching. The correlation is quite strong, and suggests that heat stress is at least part of the picture.

On biome-level systems, when the term "most time" is found to be valid for any discrete variable, that's not only equivalent to a smoking gun, but the gun's holder is screaming "I shot him!" at the top of his lungs. The only caveats (using a gunshot victim example) are that the person shot happened to have a heart condition and fell down awkwardly down a short flight of stairs. Those would be the "contributing factors"... they're always a gazillion of the bloody things at the large-ecosystem scale, mucking up the overall diagnosis.

That article from the "starving ocean" website is a bit screwy in its final interpretations, Paul. A NOAA or professional website would be a better place to get information.

 

[PaulChristenson]

Well, to be honest it's quite impossible to determine the same level of cause-effect consensus in large ecosystems that most people consider reasonable.

That article from the "starving ocean" website is a bit screwy in its final interpretations, Paul. A NOAA or professional website would be a better place to get information.

I threw it out as an alternative view...I sure don't know what the answer is...

PM sent...

 

[archman]

That web-article is very strange. At first I thought it was written by a coral reef scientist, since referenced data was supplied left and right, and all sorts of fancy words. But after skimming for a while, I found it harder and harder to believe that a relevant scientist would come to many of the conclusions made. I thought it may have been a biochemist, but biochemists don't have any sort of business making grand-sweeping ecological interpretations.

It turns out that the article isn't even written by a scientist, but a self-educated individual that's very, very smart. Unfortunately, he/she doesn't have the training or experience to know just how messy the field of ecology really is. It's the least discrete discipline in the natural sciences. Pinning down defining causal factors for community structure and function in most ecosystems is very, very difficult.

But the current consensus with coral reefs is that elevated water temperature is the primary cuplrit contributing to their decline. There isn't much support for the food starvation theory, at least at present.

 

[mrdawson]

I think it is 100% amazing that anyone, politicians, scientists, etc can believe that we as man have any influence on how something as complex as the planet earth functions. No matter how much CO2 we release, no matter how much coal or oil we burn, we are insignificant to the catastrophic effects of nature (Katrina is case in point). Try to not be an alarmist and look at the facts. The earth is cyclical in everything, tides, weather, everything. We cannot stop it, we cannot retard it we cannot even speed it up.

Just my 2C.

And what qualifies you to make a statement like this?

 

[PaulChristenson]

And what qualifies you to make a statement like this?

Welcome to SB...Please complete your profile, so it will make it easier to understand where you are coming from...

 

[mrdawson]

Welcome to SB...Please complete your profile, so it will make it easier to understand where you are coming from...

Done, and done.

 

[PaulChristenson]

Done, and done.

Cool you're coming from Canada...