|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 18:38:38 GMT 1
"This year could be a very bad year for coral reefs, thanks to warm waters as a result of El Nino and climate change. In 2005, coral reefs throughout the Caribbean faced an epic heat wave—underwater. Sea surface temperatures stayed at record high levels for more than three months in some locations and as much as 60 percent of corals died as a result. Most bleached, expelling the symbiotic algae that feed them, turning once vibrant, colorful reefs into skeletal remains.
2005 was one of the hottest years in records that stretch back to 1880. This fall is even warmer at the same point in September, according to Mark Eakins of NOAA's Coral Reef Watch program. Already, bleaching throughout southeast Asia killed more than 60 percent of coral reefs in certain locations there this past May and June.
The hot weather—and hot water—has come to the Caribbean, which has seen above average sea surface temperatures since January.
Of course, a tropical cyclone depending on where you are in the world can cool off the water fast. Satellite maps reveal the track of the recent Hurricane Earl as a wide swath of cool blue water from the Caribbean up the East Coast of the U.S.
But hoping for a hurricane is no permanent solution. Ultimately, curbing the CO2 emissions that are trapping extra heat—and acidifying the oceans, another stress on coral—is the only fix that can save the reefs." www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=corals-face-catastrophic-bleaching-10-09-13www.google.com/images?q=bleached+coral&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xg-NTKycDMq6jAfdwZyuBg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CC8QsAQwAA&biw=1458&bih=842
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 12, 2010 18:40:46 GMT 1
I thought ocean acidification was the pressing problem lazarus? Oh, that's right - that well's run dry. Are you paid by the word?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 20:47:04 GMT 1
I though Lazarus didn't pay no heed to magazines and newspaper articles, just to "Science Papers"?
Sorry, I just don't believe this hype about coral being destroyed by a slight rise in water temperature. Where is the "scientific" evidence? Corals have been around for a long time and sea temperatures have been rising for a long tome too!
We are told Caribbean sea temperatures have been "above average since January"?
"Average" compared to what, where, and measured over how long a period?
Come on, laz, you can't just quote an article from a popular science mag and expect us to take it at face value. That's not very "scientific" is it? Give us the original research paper and authors, please so we can come to a considered opinion, there's a good fellow.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 21:02:15 GMT 1
Here's a magazine article that tells about coral death from last winter's excessive cold round the Florida Keys. www.physorg.com/news184044612.htmlToo hot, too cold? What do you believe amongst all this alarmism! 70 manatees dead, too!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 21:06:37 GMT 1
There's been an alarmism industry in full flow for the last 20 years. Impossible to distinguish fact from spin, alas. That's the trouble with lying - its spoils everything - nothing can be taken on trust ever again. Who started this lying? Hansen et al and the IPCC's spin doctors. They've really soiled their own doorstep. And now no-one believes them any more who has any sense.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 16:09:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2010 16:35:05 GMT 1
Etc, etc, etc... indeed, Lazarus!
In none of these papers is coral bleaching attributed unequivocally to higher water temps. Both UV exposure, lower water temperature and disease are also cited. I bet agricultural run-off also plays a part and damage from fishing.
Never forget the huge omnipresent temporal variable throughout the world - population growth - accompanied by the inevitable concommitant growth of many other factors hostile to the natural environment.
What a pity that the concept of "anthropogenic" never takes you beyond CO2, Lazarus.
(Have a nice weekend away with the other half?)
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 16:57:32 GMT 1
In none of these papers is coral bleaching attributed unequivocally to higher water temps. You read 10 papers in under 26 minutes! It's a miracle!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2010 9:13:34 GMT 1
Pat Michaels has a few words to say on coral bleaching here: www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/09/13/coral-bleaching/#more-447“This ability to withstand changes in the pH is also visible in the coral atolls. It is not widely recognized that the pH of the sea water is affected by the net production of carbon by the life processes of the coral reefs. This makes the water on the reef less alkaline (more acidic) than the surrounding ocean water. Obviously, all of the lagoon life thrives in that more acidic water. In addition, because of the combination of the production of carbon by the reef and the changes in the amount of water entering the lagoon with the tides, the pH of the water can change quite rapidly. For example, in a study done in Shiraho Reef, the pH of the water inside the reef changes in 12 hours by one full pH unit (7.8 to 8.8). This represents about a thousand years worth of the theoretical anthropogenic change estimated from the Byrne et al. paper …” Willis Eschenbach also notes, here: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test/"The sea is a complex, buffered environment in which the pH is changing constantly. The life there is able to live and thrive despite rapidly large variations in pH. I’m sorry, but I see no reason to be concerned about possible theoretical damage from a possible theoretical change in oceanic pH from increasing CO2."
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 5, 2010 19:04:09 GMT 1
Last night's (4/10/2010) BBC programme "The Death of the Oceans?" presented by Sir David Attenborough was quite disturbing. It appears ocean acidification is taking place all the time due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from human sources. Coral is being affected since the chemical composition is changing within our oceans preventing coral from forming correctly. The biodiversity in the oceans could be adversely affected too, changing life in the oceans in ways that are unpredictable. The really disturbing fact that emerged from this programme is that the oceans are becoming less efficient at absorbing CO2 which is bad news for the planet as a whole. How people on here can just glibly dismiss such evidences as presented in programmes such as this is astonishing as someone as respected as Sir David Attenborough would not endorse information that had not been well researched.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 5, 2010 19:14:28 GMT 1
Have a look at the fish stock thread to see how low Mr Attenborough has stooped. Don't worry - The answer to the question "The death of the oceans?" is simple:
Nope.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 5, 2010 20:54:57 GMT 1
Have a look at the fish stock thread to see how low Mr Attenborough has stooped. Don't worry - The answer to the question "The death of the oceans?" is simple: Nope. Well, you have just reminded me that in the programme it was shown that the fish stocks were being drastically reduced by over fishing. Are you refuting this?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 5, 2010 20:58:41 GMT 1
Damn right I am!!!! Read the fish stock thread - I can't be bothered to repeat myself.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 5, 2010 21:22:06 GMT 1
'someone as respected as Sir David Attenborough would not endorse information that had not been well researched."
Hmmm! I would have thought that, too, a few years ago, abacus.
Since then I have learned that the hydrological cycle is not well understood, that the carbon cycle is not well understood, that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere us not well understood and that the main source of atmospheric CO2 is from the ocean when it warms not vice versa.
All I really have to go on is the opinion of climatologists like Lindzen, Carter and Spencer that the role of anthropogenic CO2 is trivial. These are not the IPCC favoured sons who have been repeatedly hauled in front of enquiries to have their research findings and methodologies challenged. Until something substantial comes along to disabuse me of the objectivity of their findings I am not going to worry about the perpetual CO2 scare stories with which we are assailed because one thing we can be sure of is that there are mega-bucks involved in selling scares to both governments and people.
This is not to say that I do not take resource depletion and the threat to ourselves and other species due to over-population seriously. But since I also know that the "population explosion" scaremongering of the 1960s was never born out it is quite likely that the current spate of scares is unfounded, too.
I have confidence in future generations to deal with challenges of the future. We should not try to second guess them with our current very limited and partial understanding. Sufficient unto each day the evils thereof. Let us deal as best we can with the pressing problems of the present rather than taking our eyes off the ball by being distracted with invented bugbears of the future.
Nothing is quite as simple as it is presented on tv! Perhaps we know too much and at the same time far too little. The lesson is that there is always an angle, nothing is as it seems.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 5, 2010 21:36:32 GMT 1
Damn right I am!!!! Read the fish stock thread - I can't be bothered to repeat myself. rsmith, I could read the fish stock thread but then would it convince me that David Attenborough was receiving wrong info?
|
|