More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[SoulJah]

Many reefs are suffering. I can’t deny that.

Contrary to popular misconception, Conservationists I have met, all seem to have faith that reason will prevail and that somewhere along the line we may stop trashing the planet. Furthermore, many are out there raising awareness in an effort to stop us “crapping in our own backyard” Most often derided and accused of naivety by the opposition.

These “deniers” for want of a better word, all seem to exhibit an attitude of doom and gloom. They seem to fervently believe in mankind’s innate greed and xenophobia as a universal tenet and a human trait. Capacity for altruistic thought seems to be beyond them. Pseudo intellectual point scoring seems to be their favourite pastime.

Times change and I believe positive change is possible.
During the last (world) war all Aussie diggers received a packet of fags in their ration packs. Jump forward to 2013 and there are still plenty of folks around (not just the CEO’s of big tobacco) that would have us believe that smoking will not harm you at all. Without ever verbally admitting fault, big tobacco still wound up paying 246 billion to the states in compensation for the harm caused. Furthermore, I don’t think there would be a government on the planet that would now issue ciggies to their soldiers.

Heck fellas, drink driving is now an offence, but hands up who can remember a time when, if you were pissed and not wearing a seat belt the cops could stop you, but could not charge you with anything! Now, if you don’t want to wear your seatbelt, then don’t. But please stop bitching about a “Nanny state” Seatbelts save lives! You can’t argue with that.

The facetious argument that a boat owning conservationist is a hypocrite can be compared to the following analogy.
I am deeply saddened by the situation of starving children in Africa, but unless I eat each and every thing on my plate at each and every meal, I’m a hypocrite.

Gimme a break! As nation, we spend more on dog food and weight loss products than foreign aid. Yet the “I got mine” camp would say “their problem, not mine, suck it up starving kids!” I am glad there are folks out there who still donate what they can afford, in an effort to help. I will never accuse them of hypocrisy, even if they are fat!

60 billion dollars worth of development in one bay, as is the case in Gladstone, does not auger well for the environment there. I can’t imagine too many yachties coming from all over the world to anchor there when it’s all completed, that’s for sure.

Unfettered growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. “Unspoilt” areas are what we all enjoy but they are becoming fewer and farther between.

I am not the one making money out of this, just sincerely offering my little bit of help to try and sustain the Great Barrier Reef for future generations. I am watching it slowly die! It won’t happen in my lifetime sure, but that’s no reason to just acquiesce to the denialists.

In an effort to inject a little levity into the “discussion”. As a chemist mate is fond of saying “if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate”

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

In the western islands of the Pacific you can see it happening,maybe like Tar said its erosion,but the sea level is also rising,having seen crops that were 150 ft above the sea one year then return 3 yrs later and the sea has poisoned the Taro patch and there were no storms..

Sea rise currently on average 3mm a year or about 1.5" over a 15 year span.
For those of you below the 1.5" rise in sea level.....time to move to higher ground or build a dike.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by downunder

Agreed

Carbon credits trading makes Govt feel good and finacial traders rich.

An industry based on selling each other pretend fresh air - what could possibly go wrong?

[Lake-Effect]

here's the sort of thing that climate-change-deniers are keeping us from pursuing:

Urban Green Council report: How New York City could cut emissions by 90 percent by 2050. - Slate Magazine

...simple stuff, really. Most of the helpful changes are relatively modest, and have many other benefits as well.

[hellosailor]

Urban Green Buffoons, more likely. There's no mention of little things like COSTS in their bluesky project. And when they say "Unger says. “But you know, most of these buildings will last longer than the Tappan Zee Bridge.”" that really tells me they don't have a grasp on reality, since the TZB is literally falling down and work on the replacement actually started last year.

[osirissail]

As happens most often - there is a terminology clash between each side in what is currently called "Climate Change." First off, pure and simple - climates change all the time - nobody is a "Climate-Change-Denier" - that would involve denying all of the history of planet earth. What is under considerable contention is whether humans are the primary or even only cause of such change. So a better term would be "human-caused-climate-change."

It is egotistically rewarding to believe that "humans" have that much "power" that they can over-ride Mother Nature and accelerate or decelerate "climate change" in geological spans of time.

As to Lake-Effect's link in Slate Magazine about replacing "all the windows" in New York City with triple-pane insulated glass - great idea - but get a grip on reality. If it was even possible mechanically given the age and condition of the majority of buildings in which New Yorkers live, the cost would be astronomical. And where would the money come from?

However, new buildings or even renovated buildings are using such windows as it is cost effective for the individual owner given the cost of utilities in New York City. So over a long period of time buildings are getting more energy efficient and if you look at history from the 1800's and the industrial revolution to now the air quality and pollution levels in major cities has been dramatically reduced already.

But the idea that there is some omnipotent force/government/whatever, that can effect and accomplish immediate change on such a massive scale is simply probably the result of smoking some of that funny stuff Willie Nelson is famous for smoking.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by osirissail

As happens most often - there is a terminology clash between each side in what is currently called "Climate Change." First off, pure and simple - climates change all the time - nobody is a "Climate-Change-Denier" - that would involve denying all of the history of planet earth. What is under considerable contention is whether humans are the primary or even only cause of such change. So a better term would be "human-caused-climate-change."

The term that is used is Anthrogenic Global Warming (AGW); it has been used for quite some time.

It is egotistically rewarding to believe that "humans" have that much "power" that they can over-ride Mother Nature and accelerate or decelerate "climate change" in geological spans of time.

All of the natural cycles point to a cooling trend. Solar activity is in a decline.



The Milankovitch cycles indicate that we should be in a cooling trend.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

However, the atmospheric CO2 levels have now exceed anything in human history. And the earth's temperatures just keep rising.

[hellosailor]

"And where would the money come from?"
Obviously, from the Obama Fairy. You know, the same one that's going to magically reduce the debt while funding national pre-school education for children, so they are not disadvantaged.

What, the Obama Fairy doesn't do windows?

[osirissail]

Methinks we are getting to far towards the political (a CF no-no) and away from the OP discussion of Caribbean coral reefs, fishing and that kind of stuff. The climate change/global warming perpetual debate has been hashed out here on CF quite extensively a year or two ago with the same result - each side are totally believers in their own hypothesis and end up going around in circles. However, some very interesting data and perspectives were illuminated, so it wasn't just wasted hot air (or in this case hot key-strokes).

Back to coral reefs, what we seem to have is subjective observations and feelings/opinions by those who have swum and dived the Caribbean and US eastern waters over a number of years and found what appears to be decreasing amounts of healthy coral (or increases in dead coral) and those who have - including me - found healthy and vibrant coral areas located in the "out of the way" sites where only a cruising boat and cruising people can journey.

So that seems to me to indicate that in coral areas subject to intense pressure from massive amounts of temporary tourists like the USVI's and Florida Keys there is indeed an observable degradation in coral reef health. In areas where there is no or very minimal "people" presence the reefs are holding their own, IMHO.

That leads me to conclude the cause of "Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs" is primarily human caused for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. Global climate change has too slow and too low of a direct influence compared to the thousands of people and their bodily fluids, anchors, and souvenir removals that are immediately impacting Caribbean coral reefs.

So if you want to snorkel/dive some good coral reefs, you had better get your cruising boat underway and go explore while there is still anything left to explore.

[micah719]

....and before cruising become reserved for those that can afford the permits, offsets, and approved vessels and systems. It's coming.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Methinks we are getting to far towards the political (a CF no-no) and away from the OP discussion of Caribbean coral reefs, fishing and that kind of stuff. The climate change/global warming perpetual debate has been hashed out here on CF quite extensively a year or two ago with the same result - each side are totally believers in their own hypothesis and end up going around in circles. However, some very interesting data and perspectives were illuminated, so it wasn't just wasted hot air (or in this case hot key-strokes).

Back to coral reefs, what we seem to have is subjective observations and feelings/opinions by those who have swum and dived the Caribbean and US eastern waters over a number of years and found what appears to be decreasing amounts of healthy coral (or increases in dead coral) and those who have - including me - found healthy and vibrant coral areas located in the "out of the way" sites where only a cruising boat and cruising people can journey.

So that seems to me to indicate that in coral areas subject to intense pressure from massive amounts of temporary tourists like the USVI's and Florida Keys there is indeed an observable degradation in coral reef health. In areas where there is no or very minimal "people" presence the reefs are holding their own, IMHO.

That leads me to conclude the cause of "Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs" is primarily human caused for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. Global climate change has too slow and too low of a direct influence compared to the thousands of people and their bodily fluids, anchors, and souvenir removals that are immediately impacting Caribbean coral reefs.

So if you want to snorkel/dive some good coral reefs, you had better get your cruising boat underway and go explore while there is still anything left to explore.

Are reefs in the Caribbean and for that matter around America as well, managed to any extent i.e. no go areas, closures and tourist areas?

[Kenomac]

I can't deny that I look forward to a warmer world climate. Bring it on!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by John Drake

None of the predictions by global warming "scientists" have come to fruition. The predictions made in the 1970's are not even close to conditions today, in terms of sea level rise and ocean temperatures.

Actually, that is incorrect. Here is a breakdown of predictions from the 1960's to 1979:



Furthermore, the IPCC reports that predicted rise in sea levels have shown to be conservative, to say the least:


Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Climate changes. Climate scientists have a 50% success rate at predicting what will happen in 5 days, let alone 5 decades. Current predictions for sea level rise and ocean temperatures are ORDERES OF MAGNITUDE apart.

As you advised you were one of the scientists who co-authored a paper on corals, I am surprised you would make a statement to this common canard. Weather is not climate. You knew that, right?

[hellosailor]

"reefs in the Caribbean and for that matter around America as well,"
While there are "soft" corals as far north as NY, I think the only coral reefs you will find in the continental US are off Florida. And in Florida (and Hawaii, etc.) there are management programs. Dare to drop an anchor or run aground in a protected area, and someone in a uniform will find a way to help you remember that. Florida also has "reseeding" programs they are working with, to try growing coral in places where it has been damaged.
The Carib of course means varying policies of many nations, but many if not all do some kind of management these days, i.e. requiring dive boats to use moorings instead of anchors.
And don't even think about the old practice of taking a piece of reef home with you.

[osirissail]

Methinks, hellosailor dives someplace else than I do or only dives in the Florida Keys. There are healthy coral reefs all along the US east coast from Maine to Florida with lots of coral. Just Google scuba diving off any east coast State and you will find photos like the one below from Massachusetts of quite a lot of coral. And it supports dive clubs in all the eastern States.

As far as Lagoon4us's question about management of coral reefs, there is virtually none both worldwide and Caribbean and USA when you look at the total area of coral reefs worldwide. What you do have are places where diving/snorkeling is a major economic factor such as the Florida Keys, Great Barrier Reef and some other places where the protection of the coral reefs is a economic necessity if they want to retain the business of tourist divers/snorkelers.

Of all the islands in the eastern Caribbean from the Dominican Republic to Grenada there are only a handful of "underwater parks" and they are not monitored or patrolled. Arriving the first time at the Cousteau Underwater Park, Guadeloupe instead of finding a thriving underwater protected eco-system, we found a dozen local fishing boats stripping the area of fish. And it is not much different anywhere else. Subsequent visits over a decade found the same total lack of any "protection/management."

The facts are that it costs money to patrol such "parks" and the little countries do not have money for such low priority projects and also the locals need fish to feed their families and sell to the tourist hotels.

So it is safe to say from actual experiences and observations of real life that none of the islands have any effective, active programs to protect coral reefs. And along the east coast of the USA except for the Florida Keys area from Miami to Key West, the same thing exists. There are plenty of coral reefs and they are not "managed" if by that you mean patrolled and protected from harmful human activity from fishing to diving.