More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Why do you think Maine's lobsters are losing their coats (hard shell to softer shell)? The ocean is too hot, and they don't like to be red hot too many times! Mauritz

So, why don't they just move north?

[Capt Phil]

+1 for ReMetau! Sitting here in the high Sierra in the middle of a snowstorm, global warming, climate change or AGW or what ever alphabet soup handle the tree huggers come up with next is the furthest thing from MY mind. What does concern me is the prospect of Yellowstone repeating its volcanic explosion which will wipe out every living thing in the world, including the coral! We should be worried about something more immediate that we can do something about, like helping out a neighbor, getting involved with the boating community where you live to help out those less fortunate or contributing your time and energy to a local charity focussed on helping the poor. Just a thought... Phil

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Tar34

If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling.

Increases in acidity my affect corals but the increase in CO2 levels do not precede warming but the exact opposite.

I don't know anyone reputable who claims that "global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels"

Surely it's controlled primarily by incoming energy from the sun. However if CO2 is a factor in how much of that energy leaks back into space, then it's capable of being a major consideration, if it rises to a sufficiently high proportion.

My post you quoted was not about warming, but I'll address your point all the same:

Just because we've all seen chickens hatching from eggs, doesn't prove they can't also lay eggs.

There's no point looking into the distant past for guidance on what happens when we inject CO2 into the atmosphere by digging up millions of years worth of fuel and burning it.

Because up until the last few hundred years ago, it had never been done.

In the past, something else would initiate a warming cycle.

Like the Earth's gradual orbital changes.

19000 years ago this was the trigger.

The Arctic responded first, by melting, releasing large quantities of fresh water into the oceans.

This fresh water then interfered with the Atlantic Ocean circulation, causing a disruption of the heat balance between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.

The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

So the initial release of CO2 lagged the initial warming impulse. However it was a contributor to the overall warming, and in the instance given, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase.

Ref Fig 2 below: which shows that initially CO2 did not lead temperature. However it did from 17 kyr (thousand years) ago, until 10kyr ago.
Average global temperature (blue), atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Antarctic temperature (red)

Those who are paying close attention will perhaps say "Ah-hah! you just said warming oceans RELEASED CO2 in the past. Before you claimed they will absorb it in the future. Both these statements cannot be correct"

Well, actually, then can, very easily. I won't bother spelling it out, because it will be obvious to anybody who understands the concept of equilibrium, and who realises that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is (thanks to us) much higher now than it was then.

[delmarrey]

All we need is a good sized meteor to slam the earth, or a large volcano to go off and the controversy is over.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

All we need is a good sized meteor to slam the earth, or a large volcano to go off and the controversy is over.

Or one of the other ways we have been told we are gunna die or distroy the earth.

1960's Nuclear war,
Communist domino effect.
Acid Rain Forests in Germany (Dunno what happened to the Black Forest)
1970's oil crisis/World oild running out
Famine/ Not able to feed the world (solved by genetic engeneering and better practices and natural slowdown of population growth)
Overpopulation (naturally slowed)
Air Polution by cars (Solved by lead free fuel)
Ozone Layer
　
AIDS
China/Africa would have to attack other areas for living space
Nuclear power (not major problems, but that small ones have effectivly stopped N power)
Spannish Flu or Bird Flu
Ice Age
Skin Cancer epidemic
Ozone Layer depletion (CFC's stopped but it was a nautral efect anyway)
Geneticaly Modified Foods, Monsanto (see world starvation a coupla decades before)
Premeliniumists!!!!!!!!!!
Y2K computer bugGlobal Warming
Myan 2012

Add to list if you can remember others.

[boatman61]

Personally... and I've absolutely no scientific basis for this... just my opinion...
The Global Warming Theory is just that.. a theory.
My theory is the main cause is the quality of the sea water... ulcerated codfish, increased mercury and other heavy metals all bear witness to the fact... they're towards the upper end of the marine food chain.. kinda makes me wonder how the more minute and fragile creatures and life are coping....
furthermore reefs thrive on sea water... the old timers used to find a path through the reefs by eyeballing the shore for a river or stream... no coral reef... or stunted at least allowing a passage into the lagoon..
I remember Antigua in 1968.. its was awesome... a lot less population, no cruise ships, packs of barracuda that one only see's in James Bond re-runs these days... and the reefs were beautiful... one of the old guys at the Beach Club told me it used to be better when he was a kid... put it down to old mans waffle..
there's a lot more fresh water complete with pollutants/toxins heading out to sea and I doubt much thought went into the siting of the pump-outs..
Global Warming maybe a factor... but I reckon the main disease is the water... coral may just survive one but the combination... unlikely... lets face it... evrywhere theres populations the reefs have our are dying off..
The bald fact is unless on re-forested the earth back to 10000yrs ago we have no way of stopping the CO2 build up let alone the fantasy of decreasing it... the water..?
That can still be saved... Shoot... its a start.. and a lot easier..
Anyway... thats an old mans waffle...

Oh... MarkJ.. I was there when the fuss was going on.. fracking involves drilling down into methane bearing rock and sending blasts of CO2 at fantastic pressure to fracture the rock releasing the gas which is then funneled off... fair enough habitation is sparse but since they started this process a little while back kids and some adults have been coming down with various ailments that are claimed to have not existed previously... the problem from what I could understand was no real control over where the gas was blasted... so it goes every where including the water table... so sooner or later the water is going to smell like bad eggs... and taste worse..
as will you every time you shower, and you'll buy your water from a store... stop of at some of the motels as you drive through NY State sometime... I'd never smelt anything like it... well... maybe some poorer parts of Karachi...
Anyway... thats my limited knowledge of 'Fracking'...
Oh...! and the the word is derived from Fracture.... dunno who came up with it... probably find it on Wiki or something if your bothered to look...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Or one of the other ways we have been told we are gunna die or distroy the earth.

1960's Nuclear war,
Communist domino effect.
Acid Rain Forests in Germany (Dunno what happened to the Black Forest)
1970's oil crisis/World oild running out
Famine/ Not able to feed the world (solved by genetic engeneering and better practices and natural slowdown of population growth)
Overpopulation (naturally slowed)
Air Polution by cars (Solved by lead free fuel)
Ozone Layer
　
AIDS
China/Africa would have to attack other areas for living space
Nuclear power (not major problems, but that small ones have effectivly stopped N power)
Spannish Flu or Bird Flu
Ice Age
Skin Cancer epidemic
Ozone Layer depletion (CFC's stopped but it was a nautral efect anyway)
Geneticaly Modified Foods, Monsanto (see world starvation a coupla decades before)
Premeliniumists!!!!!!!!!!
Y2K computer bugGlobal Warming
Myan 2012

Add to list if you can remember others.

The Jehovan Mobile Armageddon.. but we keep getting second chances...
This is fun....

[delmarrey]

Ooops! Just missed.

Close shave for Earth as asteroid is set to whizz by INSIDE orbit of communication satellites
Space rock 150ft across set to whizz by just after Valentine's Day
It will miss our home planet by just 17,200 miles - close in cosmic terms
An impact would be equivalent to 2.25 megaton atom bomb


Read more: Asteroid 2012 DA14: Close shave for Earth as 150ft rock is set to whizz by INSIDE orbit of communication satellites | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

(similarly with DOJ's line that people should just "Suck it up" if coral is under threat)

Just to clarify, my comment was not aimed at people - it was aimed at the Coral. Evolve or die .

[ReMetau]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Just to clarify, my comment was not aimed at people - it was aimed at the Coral. Evolve or die .

I think the exact same statement can be aimed at people in light of the subject.

[hellosailor]

Boatman, as best I can tell the first use of the word "FRACK" was from the original Battlestar Galactica series, where it was used because another certain F-word couldn't be said on a prime time tv series. Could have no relation, could be someone's idea of a little pun against their employers, too.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Boatman, as best I can tell the first use of the word "FRACK" was from the original Battlestar Galactica series, where it was used because another certain F-word couldn't be said on a prime time tv series. Could have no relation, could be someone's idea of a little pun against their employers, too.

Frick n Frack... sounds like something from Big Bird...

[micah719]

Probably pointless getting involved with this religious debate....yes, religious, because the religion of climate change has nothing to do with science. It is also highly political, but only one side is permitted a voice. It's tolerance, you know. The chicken-little hysteria follows a cycle; imminent ice age, imminent overheating, imminent climate change. Just obey AGW Pope Gore and his coterie of priests, and open your wallet; and shut your mind and your mouth. Do not bother with facts, do not attempt to think, that is if you still can or want to after progressive schooling.

Climate Change Hysteria and the Global Warming / Global Cooling Yo-Yo - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

from the article:

February 24, 1895: The New York Times warns us that "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again." The article debated whether "recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period." They decided that the signs did indeed point to a second glacial period. The worry seemed to be how severe Scandinavia's climate was, combined with advancing northern glaciers.

October 7, 1912: A page one report in the Times tells us that "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." This was the same day the Los Angeles Times ran a similar article, subtitled "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."

June 10, 1923: This time the New York Times reported on Robert Peary, who was traveling to Greenland to ascertain the "Menace of a new ice age."

August 9, 1923: Citizens of Chicago were warned of impending doom: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada," read the headline. This was because of Professor Gregory of Yale University, who had declared that "another world ice-epoch is due." He also warned that North America would disappear as far as the Great Lakes, and much of Asia and Europe would be "wiped out." The good news? "Australia has nothing to fear." Well... thank goodness for small favors.

April 6, 1924: Rutger Sernander, a Swedish scientist, claimed in the Los Angeles Times that there was "scientific ground for believing" that the time when "all winds will bring snow, the sun cannot prevail against the clouds and three winters will come in one, with no summer between," had already arrived. Brrrrr!

By the 1930s, talk of impending doom from a glacier run amok had run its course, but not before The Atlantic had the last say. W.J. Humphries, in comparing the state of the earth in 1932, to the state of the earth before previous ice ages, came to the conclusion that "if these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on the edge of an ice age."

The Atlantic, however, was a bit behind the times. Because even as they were spreading gloom and doom about global cooling and an upcoming ice age, lo and behold, something amazing happened.

March 11, 1929: In an article titled, "Is another ice age coming?" the Los Angeles Times answered its own question: "Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer."

May 15, 1932: The New York Times jumps on the "hot" new bandwagon, crowing that "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

March 27, 1933: According to The New York Times, the country was facing the "longest warm spell since 1776." The article began, "That next ice age, if one is coming ... is still a long way off."

September 1933: A meteorologist, J.B. Kincer, of the federal weather bureau, did an extensive study in order to document this new-fangled heat wave. Between 1912-1933, in Washington, D.C., eighteen winters were warmer than was to be expected, and from 1921 to 1933, all winters were mild. Even New Haven, Connecticut (home of Yale's Professor Gregory and his ice age that would wipe out Canada), was experiencing warmer weather, and there was evidence taken from records that dated "back to near the close of the Revolutionary War," that showed the world was heating up.

But the real stroke of genius was still to come. In 1938, an amateur meteorologist from Great Britain, named G.S. Callendar, first argued that man was responsible for the increase in earth's temperature because of all the carbon dioxide humans were emitting. This was in 1938. In an article published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, he wrote, "In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time." But, unlike Al Gore, Callendar didn't end his essay with gloom and doom. On the contrary, Callendar felt the change was "likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power." Callendar thought it would allow for more food production, in addition to holding off those pesky glaciers "indefinitely."

November 6, 1939: The Chicago Daily Tribune must not have gotten the memo that global cooling was old news, because they seemed stunned that the world was heating up. "Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades." Mysterious, sure, when you're looking over your shoulder for an incoming glacier attack.

August 10, 1952: Again from the New York Times: "We have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century." According to the Times, the iron-clad proof of this was the introduction of cod into the Eskimo's diet. Before 1920 or so, cod was unknown to the Eskimos. In addition, the Times warned the following year that reports proved that summers and winters were getting warmer.

February 15, 1959: Here come the Eskimos again. The New York Times announced that glaciers were melting in Alaska, the "ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century," all of which supported the "theory of rising global temperatures."

February 20, 1969: One of the last gasps in the first global warming panic. The Times once again showed off its global warming credentials by warning that "the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two," according to Colonel Bernt Bachen, a polar explorer.

Thankfully for us, that wasn't the case. In fact, the Times, with its last two articles, was almost too late to the next big crisis... Global Cooling!

1954: Fortune Magazine had started emphasizing a new trend in planetary weather. It ran the article centering on the idea of a frozen earth and titled it, "Climate - The Heat May Be Off." This story debunked the idea that the earth was about to be plunged into a hot spell. "Despite all you may have read, heard, or imagined, it's been growing cooler - not warmer - since the Thirties."

November 15, 1969: It seems to have taken a while for other publications catch on that global warming wasn't "cool" anymore. But finally "Science News" quoted meteorologist J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global worries. "How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization," he said. Six years later, the same periodical reported that "the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." This article was illustrated with a snow globe showing a city obliterated by wintry weather.

January 11, 1970: The Washington Post told its readers to "get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters - the worst may be yet to come." The article, titled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age," quoted Reid Bryson, a climatologist who opined that there was "no relief in sight," from the current cooling trend.

February 1974: Fortune Magazine won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the threat of global cooling. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed," the magazine wrote.

January 19, 1975: The New York Times seems to have finally gotten the idea that global warming was so... passé, and marched headfirst into the cold new world. "There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate."

May 21, 1975: It didn't take the Times too long to jump headfirst into the global cooling frenzy, as the produced an article that discussed scientists who wondered "why world's climate is changing; a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable."

The impending ice age seems to have disappeared sometime in the 1980s, only to be replaced by our new scary climate change - global warming. Again. So what does today's media have to say about global warming? Pretty much what I've already quoted, because they've said it all before, back in the 1920s and 1930s.

So, what does all this mean? Nothing, really. Because this time, we're assured, there is scientific consensus. It's agreed. Everybody knows what's going on. It's global warming, don't you know! Even the media is sure of it this time.

Of course, consensus can be a funny thing. In a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology in 2003, Michael Crichton had a bit to say about scientific consensus.

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

[Lake-Effect]

People are leaping at every potential inconsistency in any statement regarding the effects of human activity on the environment and the climate... and they're using that, no matter how small, to justify complete inaction. The problem is... fine, put aside the whole issue of climate change... there are still hundreds of valid reasons to reduce our impact on the environment, especially the use of fossil fuels.

So, bringing this home... do cruisers really need to run electric toasters, hairdryers, and other high-current appliances away from shore-power? Is a piece of toast really worth 10 minutes of generator operation? Really? And other such considerations.

(micah, you're kind of an 1d10t.)

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by boatman61

... reefs thrive on sea water... the old timers used to find a path through the reefs by eyeballing the shore for a river or stream... no coral reef... or stunted at least ...
there's a lot more fresh water complete with pollutants/toxins heading out to sea and I doubt much thought went into the siting of the pump-outs..

Global Warming may be a factor... but I reckon the main disease is the water... ....

The way to test this theory would be to look at reefs in places where there are no humans, and compare the rate of degradation.

I understand this has been done by Australian researchers, comparing remote reefs on uninhabited atolls in the Pacific to their similar cousins in the Great Barrier, which are close to agricultural runoffs, outfalls and the like.

Their findings suggest that damage is happening nearly as fast in the remote settings.

Originally Posted by boatman61

The bald fact is unless on re-forested the earth back to 10000yrs ago we have no way of stopping the CO2 build up let alone the fantasy of decreasing it...

The only thing stopping us is the fact that so few believe we need to, let alone can.

Reforestation to the levels you suggest is neither necessary nor sufficient; what we need to do with urgency is to drastically cut back on fossil fuel burning.

That's the one human activity which introduces carbon, from buried (and hence sequestrated) sources, into the above-ground system.

Reforestation just shifts it out of circulation, for as long as the tree lives.