Posted on 12/14/2007 8:41:13 AM PST by cogitator
The journal Science has published a paper that is the most comprehensive review to date of the effects rising ocean temperatures are having on the world's coral reefs. The Carbon Crisis: Coral Reefs under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, co-authored by seventeen marine scientists from seven different countries, reveals that most coral reefs will not survive the drastic increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 unless governments act immediately to combat current trends.
The paper, the cover story for this week's issue of Science, paints a bleak picture of a future without all but the most resilient coral species if atmospheric CO2 levels continue on their current trajectory. Marine biodiversity, tourism and fishing industries and the food security of millions are at risk, the paper warns. Coral reef fisheries in Asia currently provide protein for one billion people and the total net economic value of services provided by corals is estimated to be $30 billion.
Dr. Bob Steneck, of the University of Maine and co-author of the paper, said the time was right for international leaders to commit to meaningful action to save the world's coral reefs: "The science speaks for itself. We have created conditions on Earth unlike anything most species alive today have experienced in their evolutionary history. Corals are feeling the effects of our actions and it is now or never if we want to safeguard these marine creatures and the livelihoods that depend on them."
Scientists have long thought that the effects of climate change and the resulting acidification of the oceans spells trouble for reefs. Coral skeletons are made of calcium, and reef development requires plenty of carbonate ions to build these skeletons, a process called calcification. When carbon dioxide is absorbed in the ocean, the pH level drops, along with the amount of carbonate ions, slowing the growth of coral reefs.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at 380 parts per million (ppm) and the paper's authors, members of the Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management Program (CRTR), calculate that once levels reach 560ppm, the calcification process could be reduced by up to 40 percent. Recent science also suggests that by 2100 the oceans will be so acidic that 70 percent of the habitat for deep-water corals, once considered relatively safe from the effects of climate change, will be uninhabitable.
Ocean acidification is just one example of the threats corals are facing. Bleaching, a process that is triggered when summer sea temperatures rise above normal for weeks at a time, causes corals to expel the algae that gives them their colour and nutrients. This phenomenon killed 16 percent of reef-building corals in 1997, according to the paper's authors. Destructive fishing methods, oil and gas exploration and pollution have also contributed to the global decline of coral reefs, with 20 percent already destroyed and another 50 percent threatened or verging on collapse in just the past few decades.
Consumer demand has also placed corals at risk. Popular products include coral jewelry, home decor items and live animals used in home aquaria. Corals grow so slowly it can take decades for them to recover, if at all. Catches of precious red corals, the most valuable of all coral species, provide a striking example of how demand for a fashion item can decimate a species. Red coral populations have plummeted 89 percent in the past two decades. Conscientious companies such as Tiffany and Co. removed real coral from their product lines over five years ago.
Fernanda Kellogg, president of The Tiffany and Co. Foundation, said, "Tiffany and Co. is committed to obtaining precious materials in ways that are socially and environmentally responsible. We decided to stop using real coral in our jewelry and feel that there are much better alternatives that celebrate the beauty of the ocean without destroying it."
Yet there is hope for corals and the life that depends on them. Scientists are calling for a reduction of carbon emissions to ensure corals' survival. It is also vitally important to reduce local pressures on corals such as overfishing, removal for consumer items, and pollution. If these local pressures are addresssed, coral populations will be stronger and will have a better chance of surviving climate change. Tiffany and Co. is forming new partnerships with fashion designers, scientists and conservation organizations to raise awareness of the urgent need for coral conservation.
Dawn M. Martin, president of SeaWeb, said, "Corals belong in the ocean, not in our homes or in our jewelry boxes. Consumers and the fashion industry can play an important role in the ocean's recovery by simply avoiding purchases of red and other corals. These jewels of the sea are simply too precious to wear."
In 2008, scientists, conservationists and governments will mobilize around the world to celebrate the International Year of the Reef (IYOR), a worldwide initiative to raise awareness of the importance of corals and coral reefs. The 11th International Coral Reef Symposium will be held July 7-11, 2008, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Over 2,500 attendees from academic, government and conservation organizations are expected to attend to discuss the latest coral science and its implications for the survival of these international treasures.
I sure as hell don’t believe the sky is falling and that we’re going to be doomed if there are changes in the coral reefs.
The idea that things actually can change or should be allowed to change seems anathema to environazis. They want the world to be static as it is today, even though the world has never been static.
A fire destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of forest is OK. Mt St Helen destroying thousands of square miles of ecosystems and sending millions of tons of ashes and poisonous gases in the atmosphere is OK. People touching a tree in the millions of acres inhabited by the spotted owl is a national disaster.
I hope the people will one day wake up to the scams perpetrated by the scaremongering coAgitators - all to impose their marxist views on the rest of us.
You just don’t understand. Wilma was “natural” destruction, that is to say - “good” destruction.
Now if man had done 1/10 of what Wilma did that would have been “bad” destruction - because man is selfish and evil and the world and all of ITS other noble and nonviolent creatures would be so much better off if he were exterminated.
I’m not exaggerating - they really think this!!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312347294/bookstorenow16-20
You are right in my opinion. If you read the whole article he mentions climate change MAY reduce coral reefs by 40%, but overfishing and folks grabbing coral products to sell is what has so far caused the much larger problem. That is how I read the article anyway. Of course, that is not how the headline reads.
How much do you think a barrel of oil will sell for next year? The higher the price of oil goes, the more competitive (and the more attractive) alternatives become.
Reductions in carbon emissions may be forced on the world economy.
Precisely.
Seawater pH is 8.1+/-0.1, that's good enough. Calling a change within that range acidification for the purposes of justifying "serious problems" for coral is flat out BS.
Sorry that you don't get it. A small shift in the pH of seawater means a large shift in the saturation state with respect to calcium carbonate (shifting the equilibrium toward bicarbonate and away from carbonate ion). Reducing the seawater concentration of carbonate ion makes calcification a much more difficult physiological process for the organisms to accomplish.
Not BS. Basic marine chemistry.
Once all the components of the system are included, there is no net change in CO32-, because the increase in CO2 causes an increase in dissolution.
Not in surface waters. Surface seawater is currently 6x supersaturated with respect to CaCO3. Acidification drastically lowers the supersaturation state, making calcification much more difficult, without causing any significant dissolution aspects to kick in. There might be a few places where the surface waters actually bedome undersaturated with respect to aragonite, which will be tough on the aragonitic species. Deep-sea dissolution won't have an immediate effect; wait a couple thousand years maybe, and it might.
IOWs pH does not depend on alkalinity in the real system, it depends on the saturation conc of the alkaline earth components Ca and Mg and all the various dissociation constants.
Ca and Mg don't vary nearly as much as carbonate ion.
That’s a very gross picture. Why’d you send it to me?
Maybe it's not all about you.
Or maybe it is. You might look into how many pharmaceuticals, including potent anti-cancer drugs, have been derived from reef organisms.
The idea that things actually can change or should be allowed to change
Things change all the time. Take the passenger pigeon. That changed. Or the dodo. Or the Steller's sea cow.
I have nothing against change. However, I'd prefer it if humans didn't change things so fast such that natural species go extinct directly because of human activities. If that makes me a Marxist -- I'm surprised.
Not exactly. Looking at this and your Mt. St. Helens example, subsequent to the event, the natural areas affected were allowed to recover. Recovery takes time. When a forest gets cut down for a housing development, there isn't a lot of recovery possible for the forest. Is that correct or not?
June, you’re very perceptive. Simply improving sewage treatment in coastal areas of many of the countries with significant reef areas would do a LOT of good. And fairly immediately. And figuring out how to control poaching would help a lot, too.
I’ll swear off driving when AlGore swears off flying.
"Sorry that you don't get it. A small shift in the pH of seawater means a large shift in the saturation state with respect to calcium carbonate
You're doing the same thing i pointed out was done in htat paper. You think the matter's covered by alkalinity, but as I pointed out, it's not.
"Reducing the seawater concentration of carbonate ion makes calcification a much more difficult physiological process for the organisms to accomplish."
No, not more difficult. It takes slightly longer. In fact if you read the damn paper, you'll see they're puzzle why the corals grow anyway, regardless of their simplistic understanding of the matter.
"Not BS. Basic marine chemistry.
The presentation of the chemistry is faulty and the whole "corals are in serious trouble" claim is BS.
Re: Once all the components of the system are included, there is no net change in CO32-, because the increase in CO2 causes an increase in dissolution.
" Not in surface waters."
What do you mean, not in surface waters? Coral grows in shallow water on a lime bed, in and around sources of Ca, so it will dissolve locally, as I said.
"Surface seawater is currently 6x supersaturated with respect to CaCO3. Acidification drastically lowers the supersaturation state, making calcification much more difficult, without causing any significant dissolution aspects to kick in.
Nonsense. The words "drastic" and "much more difficult" don't apply, and the corals agree.
How can you call the Holocene stable when, in the same post, you refer to the Little Ice Age lasting into the 1900s - and which was preceeded by the Midieval Warm period?
During the Holocene, there have been several warm-cold cycles with a periodicity of around 1500 years. The cold phases have been relatively abrupt, and each lasted several centuries before an apparently rapid switch back to warmer conditions.
If you want to call that stable, then temperatures today are stable, too.
That’s what happens when a plastic bottle blows up while making a CO2 generator - the round mark is the point where the cap struck the “experimenter.”
Despite minor variations like the LIA and MWP and 8200 year event and Holocene Climate Optimum, the Holocene has had unusually stable temperatures for an interglacial. Compare to the other high temperature periods shown in the plot.
More later.
The only thing I read that could compensate is the dissolution of high-magnesium calcite once the saturation state for that phase has switched from super- to understaturation. Otherwise I don't grasp your point, you may wish to restate.
No, not more difficult. It takes slightly longer. In fact if you read the damn paper, you'll see they're puzzle why the corals grow anyway,
They noted that there was a possible detection of decreased calcification as well as reasons that it may not have been detected yet. With further acidification, the situation becomes more difficult for calcifiers. They would be working with less of a saturation gradient.
Once all the components of the system are included, there is no net change in CO32-, because the increase in CO2 causes an increase in dissolution.
I didn't get this until I read it a few times. No net change in CO32- in the reef environment?
What do you mean, not in surface waters?
The effects of acidification will be most acute in surface waters. Most of the carbonates that can compensate are in deep waters. What I don't think is clear is whether dissolution in the reef environment will compensate for the reduced CO32- in the surrounding ocean waters. I think you're asserting that it will. That would depend in part on reef water - open ocean circulation.
The words "drastic" and "much more difficult" don't apply, and the corals agree
What do you think of this paper?
The sensitivity of corals, coccolithophoids and foraminifera to carbonate ion concentration (PDF)
I'm not sure the corals are as optimistic as you are.
“Not exactly. Looking at this and your Mt. St. Helens example, subsequent to the event, the ‘natural’ areas affected were allowed to recover.”
This is where I have a lot of trouble with so-called envirnmentalists - it’s their dichotomy of man-made vs natural, as though man is not part of nature. To the rabid environmentalists a meteor hitting the earth tomorrow and wiping out our civilization and half the species would be perfectly fine (maybe even welcome if it got rid of homo sapiens) because it is “natural”. Man daming a river to provide fresh water, is evil, because, in their self-loathing way, man is evil..
The other thing that gets me about environmentalists is that they come off as unselfish and holier than thou vis-a-vis the neanderthal, selfish, freedom-loving conservative, and I have to say they have been very successful at selling that idea and “guilting” the majority of people into “saving the planet” in a myriad ways from not drilling in ANWR, to taking 2 minute showers, to reusing towels and sheets at motels.
They’ve been able to do this because they bamboozeled the masses into thinking that what they’re demanding is for the good of the planet not for themselves. So they have this aura of unselfishely sacrificing for the sake of mother earth.
There are several points to be made here.
1. The earth could care less if it was oblitered by a meteor tomorrow and became just another asteroid belt around the solar system, let alone if the corals disappeared. Mother Earth, as much as they try to personify it, HAS NO FEELINGS NOR DOES IT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU AND ME, THE SPOTTED OWL, AND THE CORALS!!
2. So if mother earth doesn’t care what happens to it who are the environmentalists protecting with their so-called unselfish demands. Let’s take for example ANWR. Why are they against drilling there? After their claim that they were protecting the caribou or the polar bear was totally debunked, they were left with safeguarding “pristine grounds” - i.e. even though it’s an icy desert, they wanted to conserve the pristininess of the place. Why? Because they might want to go there someday and be able to see this “pristine” state. So, bottom line, the reason they want us to pay the arabs additional billions each year rather than drill in our own reserves is for THEIR selfish motive of wanting to play tourist someday and take a trip there!!!
And if you ask similar questions on any of their demands you end up at the same point, ie they want what they want for their SELFISH reasons, just like the rest of us! THEY ARE NOT MORALLY SUPERIOR. So we shouldn’t be guilted into giving in to them because WE are being selfish. Take for example their desire to want to tear down the Hetch Hetchy dam. Why do they want to do that? Because they like to return it to a running river. Why? Because they like running rivers better than lakes. That’s it! That’s the only reason. They’ll confuse you with BS like restoring the thing to nature like it once was (again man made change is bad) as though that is preferable. I like rivers too, and I like lakes as well, plus it provides fresh water for the bay area, flood control, etc, etc. Lots of benefits! Yet they get up on their soap boxes and utter the word “nature” and all the politician genuflect at the altar of “nature”, when in fact when you boil it down to its essence, all they’re saying is that they prefer a river to a lake there simply because that’s what they like. The fact that millions of others like the lake just fine doesn’t interest them, and like little spoiled kids they march and protest until the ball-less politicians surrender.
Now I’m not saying that the position taken by environmentalists are all bad. What I’m complaining against is their tactics AND the fact that the masses have bought their manupulative tactics (that they are the unselfish ones out to save mother earth) hook, line and sinker and that is why the environazis have taken over. These issues like all the other should be argued not as it is now (a “morally superior” elitist group dictating to the world the “right and wrong”) but rather equally moral groups fighting for their self interests. (my preference for a lake over a river is not morally inferior to someone elses preference for a river over a lake).
Moreover, the environazis have found great allies on the left, since both are elitist and believe in a strong central government to dictate people’s behavior. That is why so often you see the Reds and the Greens marching together.
Unless the masses wake up soon, and see the greens for what they really are (selfish, spoiled, elitist, and more than anything else, anti-freedom), we’ll be doomed to a long life of soft-stalinism.
Sorry for the long rant - but I just had to get it out.
The figures you posted just prove my point.
Recall that I said, "If you want to call that (the Holocene) stable, then temperatures today are stable too." So the question is: Is what we see today unlike the rest of the Holocene? Based on the data you presented, I would have to argue no.
In the figures you provided, the temperature is in blue. During what you call the "stable" Holocene period, I count about twenty temperature rises (and falls) which are comparable to the trend of the last 150 years. So, if you call the last 10,000 years "stable", then the current trend is also stable because today is not unlike any of the many previous fluctuations during the Holocene.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.