Caribbean Coral Bleaching

[ASH]

I received this article today, http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10177 which paints a dim picture of the reefs.

I was somewhat surprised as I'm only recently back from my first (hope there's a 2nd) visit to Fiji. I was overcome by the health, span and diversity of what my wife and I saw while snorkeling several times a day at two island we stayed at. I could relate to locals who can't see a crisis over the reefs' health. One of the two resorts had moorings. The other, employees periodically reset knocked down corals by free diving. It was like a giant version of what most of us do when something gets moved in our tanks.

We're in touch by e-mail with the resorts and hopefully they'll become more aware of how special and fragile their environment is.

Andy
IceCap, Inc.

[Riptide10]

I don't understand this.

"The big problem for coral is the question of whether they can adapt sufficiently quickly to cope with climate change," Crabbe said. "I think the evidence we have at the moment is: No, they can't.

Climate change has happened for eons on this planet. Why can't the corals move south to cooler areas? Or are they saying that they know for a fact this climate change is happening faster than literally ever before?

[ASH]

I think you meant move north and likely over time they would re-settle areas too cold for them now. I agree corals have gone through climate changes as long as they've existed and the fact that an area now populated with them may not be where they'll be found in 100 years. The problem with articles like this is the selective information provided. I saw coral sprawl in Fiji. If they were weeds I'd say they were out of control. Nevertheless, in our own backyard things aren't looking too healthy. I have to think it's a combination of factors.

Andy

[Anthozoan]

It will only take a few years of back to back bleaching events, and as evidenced with the reefs in the southern Caribbean, you get stressed out corals that are susceptible to infection, and you can lose an entire reef in the matter of months. All the wild collection in the world can't put in dent in the amount that can and most likely will be lost in the coming decades due to global warming/bleaching/disease. Not that I'm supporting going out and raping and pillaging all the corals, but I do think it is imperative that some sort of live genetic bank of corals is set up to document the species and sub-species currently kept in captivity for future assurances of species survival.

I would guess that the water quality in the Southern Caribbean is pretty close to pristine too. Thus making this news that much more of a disheartening message. My exprience diving in Fiji (only a couple dives in one area) is that the reefs are nice, but not pristine, and clearly were much nicer in years past. The dive operators attributed the decline to recent crown of thorns and cyclone events. This was also the case in the Cook Islands, same story. I am going to guess that the bleaching events of '98 and '02 probably had an effect too... But to anyone that is only familiar with Florida Keys or touristy Caribbean reefs, then yes these Pacific reefs look pretty damn nice. However, in the Solomon Islands, I would happily have to say that the reefs there were pristine and very healthy.

I have given some thought to the "well if the waters warm up, why don't the corals just move north (or south in the southern hemisphere)?" question. I am going to hypothesize that just because the waters are warming in the summer, doesn't necessarily mean that the temps will be hospitible in the winter. Further more, once you get off of the existing reefs, it isn't long before you move into bottom habitat that probably isn't ripe for the development of new reefs. But I do think it would be interesting to study some of the freak North/South reefs like Lord Howe Island, Bermuda, and the Flower Garden Banks off Texas to see whether those reefs are being affected by bleaching, or whether they are actually doing better.

Sure, corals have adapated to changing water chemistry and temperatures over the eons, but can they adapt to even a 5 degree F increase over 100 years? I doubt it. If there are some massive corals like Montastrea that are over 800 years old, then adaptation is a moot point for them (although the adpatation of their zooxanthellae is a real possibility). And it is these giants are the important reef builders/ habitat providers. Acroporids would likely be the best candidates for adaptation due to their fast growth. There is definately a lot of room for investigation in this area, and I doubt that there is a lot of funding being provided for it.

If the reefs go, then it will be a domino effect that will effect the entire planet. The reefs will likely be the first major ecosystem to go worldwide, and if they are going to go , they will go fast, and then any tropical island nation of people is good as f***ed without these fisheries to sustain them. I doubt we have the ability to exactly calculate jsut how far reaching the effects will be worldwide, but I doubt that they will be very good. I'm not trying to be doomsayer, but I'm just pulling my head of the sand and looking at the facts and the outcome doesn't look to good.

Go see the reefs now if you want to see them as nice as they ever will be. In the meantime let's keep our chin's up and stay focused. Let's keep up the aquaculture, and collecting responsibly for those species that we haven't yet figured out how to aquaculture.

[Shrimp_Killer]

Bump


It is getting depressing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

[MCsaxmaster]

Now that the southern hemisphere has gone through it's warm season it's had problems as well. Bleaching was severe in parts of the GBR. Bleaching has recently (last week) been reported in Fiji. Parts of the Line Islands (isolated, inaccessible reefs) are at 12+ degree heating weeks with heavy (near total) mortality expected in many areas, though no one has had a chance to do any surveys yet.

>>Climate change has happened for eons on this planet. Why can't the corals move south to cooler areas? Or are they saying that they know for a fact this climate change is happening faster than literally ever before?

Yes, what they're saying, and what has become very apparent, is that most organisms and most ecosystems including coral reefs cannot adapt to the current warming trend as fast as it is happening. We are currently warming at 10 times the normal rate for glacial/interglacial periods (e.g. in 200 years we will warm as much as at the beginning of the holocene--end of the last ice age--which took 2000 years).

cj

[Carman34L]

I talked to a friend of mine, who lives on the gold coast in australia, he said that less than 1% of the GBR bleached, and it was at the northern most tip of the reef. He said alot of scientist make it out to be alot bigger than it really is. So he told me that if I have not seen it for myself dont belive reports about the bleaching.

[MCsaxmaster]

Three things:

1. I never said that the whole GBR bleached or even that a large percentage bleached. Certain parts did, and they bleached severely.

2. Has your friend conducted transects anywhere to assess bleaching? Has he been to more than a few locations on the GBR this year? Has he been to any other locations outside of Australia? If not yes to all these, how can he say with any validity at all how accurate reports are? Besides, who's exaggerating? People do transects, assess bleaching on various reefs, and report their data. How can this be exaggerated?

3. In 1997 16% of all the live coral on the planet died due to bleaching. This was most severe in the Indian ocean. Many if not most reefs in the Maldives lost close to 100% of their live coral coverage. That doesn't seem like a big deal? If the entire Amazon died during a single summer, do you think that would make people pay attention?

cj

[Carman34L]

He operates a sport fishing boat for tourist company that also does dive excursions. He is on the water just about every day. I only have what he said to go by and he said that what bleaching is going on is isolated on the GBR, he said it was at the northern most point of the GBR. I think I would trust his knowledge over some scientist land locked halfway around the world.

[Carman34L]

If you take data from sites such as NOAA, their coral bleaching projections is based on water surface temps. Not actual data of people seeing it first hand. 75% of the worlds coral is over 25' under the surface. SO someone seeing it first hand saying otherwise makes more sense to me.

[MCsaxmaster]

No, no, no, folks use satelite imagery to help detect hotspots. Bleaching reports become just that, reports, only when folks have actually dived those reefs and seen the bleaching. Coral Watch does a lot of this work with amateur divers and then folks with organizations like NOAA, AIMS, etc. quantify these reports by doing transects and such. The folks writing these reports are in the water for great lengths of time on every site they survey. Honestly, do you think they're just making the numbers up?

cj

[Shrimp_Killer]

Originally posted by Carman34L
He operates a sport fishing boat for tourist company that also does dive excursions.

Don't you think it may be possible that these guys would want to downplay it as much as possible...not many people want to pay money to see dead coral. (I know he is your friend, but I tend to believe estimates from organizations like NOAA and NASA are probably low --- consider their boss)

[MCary]

I did a search and I can't find it. Please help. I am looking for contolled experiments where the specific corals in question were put in controlled laboratory conditions and exposed to elevated tempertures along side a control group that maintained normal temperatures. And where the result of that experiment yielded the results of bleaching. Then where the experiment was reporoduced by a second independant laboratory which yielded the same result. This along with data showing that the temperature conditions in the affected areas were actually an anomily. I can't find those laboratory reports. If anyone could please provide a link. I would rather look at the actual report than just drink the kool-aid. Help a brother out can ya?

Mike

[MCsaxmaster]

I'll post some references later if I get a chance. Are you seriously doubting that elevated temps are a major cause of bleaching? There has been a concensus on that since just after the first worldwide event in 1989. No one in the scientific community questions this because it has been exceedingly, exceedingly well demonstrated.

cj

[MCary]

I doubt everything until I see the evidence. You cannot observe bleaching and observe increase water temps and automatically make a correlation. You must first determine that the temperature variations are abnormal. You then must make a prediction based on your theory and observation. Experiments are then set up under controled conditions and the outcomes must follow the predicted path. Another lab must verify your results. and finally all other plausible explanations must be elliminated. When a scientist publishes a paper, its purpose is not supposed to be so Time magazine or CNN can start screaming the sky is falling. By publishing the scientist is offering up his research for peer review. It is supposed to be viewed with a very skeptical eye. It is the scientific communities duty at this time to try to disprove it.

So am I seriouly doubting, I'm a scientist by profession, its my job.

Mike

[MCsaxmaster]

Feel free to search the literature. There are hundreds of papers written on bleaching (maybe upwards of 1000 by now). Warming temperatures has been demonstrated as causitive beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever. After the 1989 even a lot of people were left on the fence so they conducted a great deal of research including lab work. Indeed, elevated temperatures cause bleaching.

1. Corals maintained at elevated temps bleach and do not recover unless temps are brought down. Controls in unwarmed water don't bleach.

2. Zooxanthellae (especially clade C) has physiological problems, especially as related to oxygen radical damage, at elevated temps.

3. Corals exposed to higher temps tend to have tissues damaged from radicals and may even show tissue sloughing within the coelenteron.

4. Every major bleaching even recorded corresponds perfectly to elevated temperature anomolies.

5. No counterevidence exists to this theory whatsoever, despite extensive searching.

The questions you're asking now were answered 15 years ago.

Best,

cj

[Mercutio]

Eco-hippies don't get funding with good news, hence, the plethora of chicken little articles.

[MCsaxmaster]

Hmmm, it's probably nearer the opposite. The environment, nature, public health, etc. get very little coverage unless it's something warm and fuzzy (e.g. a bear cub is born at the zoo). Compared to any other topic, the environment takes a back seat when it comes to news coverage.

cj

[MCary]

CJ,

You make bold statments like "Warming temperatures has been demonstrated as causitive beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever." Of course this isn't true but by saying it in that way you attempt to label those that might disagree as ignorant or ill informed. All your statements on Global Warming are very absolute. I suspect that you do not have the experiance or training to make such bold statements but that's okay. Your entitled to be as passionate with your beliefs as you wish. But for fun try a little experiment. You seem to know how to google. Pretend that you do not have an opinion on Global Warming and look for desenting opinions by reputable research and scientists. Since I know that there was a letter authored by 2300 scientists objecting to the Kyoto Accords and disagreeing with global warming theory, I know you can find some. You don't need to agree or disagree with the content of the dissent. You are not qualified to do that really. Just acknowledge that its there.

Now take something that truely is a known. Say Gravity. Now look for dissenting opinions. Thats what separates an indisputable fact from a theory. No disputes.

Wisdom is gaining the knowledge that you don't know everything. You'll discover that when you get older.

Mike

[MCsaxmaster]

You make bold statments like "Warming temperatures has been demonstrated as causitive beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever."

Yes...because they're true

Of course this isn't true but by saying it in that way you attempt to label those that might disagree as ignorant or ill informed.

It most certainly is true, and those that disagree are ignorant or misinformed. There is an absolute concensus on warming oceans as causitive for coral bleaching.

All your statements on Global Warming are very absolute.

There's a reason for that

I suspect that you do not have the experiance or training to make such bold statements but that's okay. Your entitled to be as passionate with your beliefs as you wish.

Well, then you'd suspect incorrectly, but yes, I am passionate about everything I think is important. Is there any other way to live? Not to seem harsh, but your line of questions has demonstrated you are quite ignorant on the issue. The questions you've been asking were answered over and over again over the past 15 years.

But for fun try a little experiment. You seem to know how to google. Pretend that you do not have an opinion on Global Warming and look for desenting opinions by reputable research and scientists. Since I know that there was a letter authored by 2300 scientists objecting to the Kyoto Accords and disagreeing with global warming theory, I know you can find some. You don't need to agree or disagree with the content of the dissent. You are not qualified to do that really. Just acknowledge that its there.

There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. Feel free to show me some. Every major organization that studies climate, include NOAA and NASA have made official statements on the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

I'd love to see what you're refering to because there simply is no such document of which you speak produced by climate experts.

Now take something that truely is a known. Say Gravity. Now look for dissenting opinions. Thats what separates an indisputable fact from a theory. No disputes.

Differences between the theory of universal gravitation and anthropogenic global warming: 1. the former is old, the latter new--I will point out that gravitation was flattly rejected for decades though, 2. there is a concensus amongst scientists on both, but only a concensus in the public on the former.

Wisdom is gaining the knowledge that you don't know everything. You'll discover that when you get older.

Please don't patronize me

Chris

[MCary]

I have to patronize you. You are blinded by dogma and idealism, back up none of your claims with fact and refuse to acknowledge information contrary to your preconcieved notions. Take with that your youth and inexperiance and the incoherant ramblings and misdirection answers to questions posed. I could debate each and every issue you put forth and possibly show you that your beliefs warrant further consideration. But you provide no source or direct statment.

"There is no, or nearly no dissent amongst the reputable scientific community on the issue of anthropogenic global warming at all. "

That statement alone shows that you haven't done your homework, don't know the complete picture and did not even spend the 2 minutes it would have taken to fact check yourself. Everything else then becomes suspect.

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

Mike

[MCsaxmaster]

Feel free to show us evidence, any evidence at all, that there is widespread dissent amongst the scientific community. While you're at it, feel free to show some counterevidence that warming oceans does not cause bleaching, or that the world is not warming.

I look forward to it.

Chris

[MCary]

Start with this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

"As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines"

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

"While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policyformulation."

"The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system."

""Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." "

[MCary]

Need More?

Article by: Prof Bob Carter. a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0907.xml

[MCsaxmaster]

You're kidding right? An editorial is totally moot. Firstly, how are we to know that the folks listed as supporting this document actually saw this draft of it? Censorship to the extent that it completely changes a documents original meaning is very common in the past 6 years under the Bush administration, for instance. Jim Hansen head of climatology at NASA just spoke out against this, not to mention the dozens of other scientists that have left posts in the last few years due to censorship. Secondly, this offers no evidence whatsoever, just opinion.

As I said, show us counterevidence, not opinion from sources with who-knows what bias.

Chris