The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Free-swimming coral larvae attach themselves to submerged rocks or other hard surfaces at the edges of islands or continents to begin the process of forming coral reefs. The coral polyps then secrete skeletons from the underside of their skin. These skeletons, made from calcium carbonate (aragonite crystals), protect the coral animals from predators, and also offer a substrate on which new coral polyps can attach themselves. The process of growing the skeleton consumes a lot of energy, which is conveniently provided by the algae living in the corals’ tissues.
The chemical carbonate process occurs when chemical ions, in seawater, are used to make calcium carbonate.

The reaction is Ca 2+[calcium ions] + Co32- [carbonate ions] to CaCo3 [calcium carbonate], which can either go in the forward or backwards direction.

Carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean, which is acidic, while calcium carbonate is a base. Carbonic acid is formed, and hydrogen ions are released. The hydrogen ions combine with carbonate ions, forming bicarbonate, removing carbonate that is needed for organisms to calcify. The two (carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate) react to neutralize each other, and dissolving the coral skeleton.

Ocean Acidification (OA) is considered an important threat to coral reef ecosystems, because it reduces the availability of carbonate ions, that reef-building corals need to produce their skeletons. Ocean Acidification particularly impedes the thickening process, decreasing the skeletons' density, and leaving them more vulnerable to breaking.

“How Do Corals Build Their Skeletons?” ~ by Lonny Lippsett
“... Carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater (H2O), setting in motion chemical reactions that produce more bicarbonate (HCO3–) and fewer carbonate (CO32-) ions. Coral polyps bring in seawater containing these ions, along with calcium (Ca2+) ions, into a “calcifying space” between its cells and the surface of their existing skeletons. They pump hydrogen ions (H+) out of this space to produce more carbonate ions (CO32-) ions that bond with (Ca2+) ions to make calcium carbonate (CaCO3) for their skeletons. Because there are more HCO3– ions but fewer CO32- ions in acidified seawater, the corals have to expend more energy to pump out H+ ions from their calcifying space to build skeletons ...
... declining pH and carbonate ions in seawater strongly affected the corals’ ability to produce the aragonite bundles it uses to thicken their skeletons. In acidified conditions, corals continue to invest in upward growth, but “densification” or thickening suffers. As a result, the less-dense skeletons of corals in lower pH waters are more susceptible to damage from pounding waves or attacks by eroding organisms ...”
More ➥ https://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2018/ho...heir-skeletons

The paper, that the above article describes:
“Ocean acidification affects coral growth by reducing skeletal density” ~ by Nathaniel R. Mollica et al
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/1754.full
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/8/1754.full.pdf

“Coral calcification feels the acid” ~ by Alexander C. Gagnon
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...08110.full.pdf

“Ocean acidification causing coral 'osteoporosis' on iconic reefs”
An innovative numerical model developed by researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution demonstrates the distinct impact of ocean acidification -- separate from ocean warming -- on coral growth.
The model shows that ocean acidification has caused a 13 percent decline in the skeletal density of Porites corals in the Great Barrier Reef, and a 7 percent decline in the South China Sea since 1950.
Pollution and land runoff can exacerbate the effects of ocean acidification, causing corals in local reefs to weaken more quickly than those located farther away from human settlements.
More ➥ https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827122110.htm

[GordMay]

“Coral reefs will transition to net dissolving before end of century” ~ by Bradley D. Eyre et al
New data show that ocean acidification not only stops corals from building, it tears them down.
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6378/908

In a 2010 paper, coral biologists reported that ocean acidification could compromise the successful fertilization, larval settlement and survivorship of Elkhorn coral. These research results suggest that ocean acidification could severely impact the ability of coral reefs to recover from disturbance.
“Ocean acidification compromises recruitment success of the threatened Caribbean coral Acropora palmata” ~ by Rebecca Albright et al
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/107/47/20400

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

....coral polyps build their homes from calcium carbonate CaCO3. If they get the calcium from the sea where does the carbonate come from?

...so you didn't read the link Should we put that down to denial or indifference? The end result's much the same.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Hi boatpoker
Good question. My understanding is that IPCC has determined that the human contribution is the single largest factor, larger than any changes explainable by natural processes. While it is a good question, it can misdirect one's thinking. The planet is going through a rough time and it is highly likely to get rougher. If anthropogenic effects are primary, major, or even just significant doesn't matter - that is the component that is under our control, which we can reduce, which will make what is coming less bad. Probably* a lot less bad.
Also, a lot of the 'natural change' arguments ignore time scale. Evolutionary mechanisms have undoubtedly responded to such historical changes. But the rapidity of the current change is faster than most evolutionary mechanisms can account for. As well, please remember that evolution doesn't care a whit about survival of our species - it is only life it 'cares' about. I rather care about humans!

*Not directed to you - but the deniers always seem to gravitate toward 'it might not be nearly as bad as they are predicting'. Important to remember - most such predictions have an equal chance of being wrong on the other end. It is similarly likely it might be much worse than current predictions.

I find the ease of the 'Denier' label is much like the Racist card... the easiest disparagment a believer can throw out that if one denies instantly confirms one as a 'Denier'..
Cancel Culture at its best..
Its like the time when I was still a FB member and some folk jumped on me saying I was a Racist.. when I responded that everyone regardless of race is racist to some degree either consciously or sub consciously one shot back with.. "I'm not a racist I have a black girlfriend"... I was tempted to say "So did most slave owners" but instead came to the conclusion it was a waste of time and would just go nowhere but lead to more abuse.
On GW we keep being called 'Deniers' because we are outside the 'Status Quo' and subjected to countless links to 'esteemed scientists' and their work pointing to man's consumption of fossil fuels being the root of all evil
What I do see very little of apart from people like Attenbrough is the more realistic fact that capitalism is destroying the very lungs of the planet.. not by the burning of fossil fuels but by constantly scarring them irreperably through deforestation of ancient jungles for palm oil plantations, cattle ranches, strip mining for gold and other metals and minerals yet Science points us the other way.. not terribly surprising when one considers how science is funded, you don't bite the hand that's feeding you.
So to call me a 'Denier' is akin to you believing Organic Farming is a new science..
The subject has many facets and not focusing on your particular facet does not make me a denier any more than you focusing on the single facet makes you a blinkered fool.
This is not a personal attack by the way, just a view from a more 'centre ground' seeing as many choose to make this a Left Right political thing.. its not, it's a Life thing.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...so you didn't read the link Should we put that down to denial or indifference? The end result's much the same.

Some of them I read but I do have a life other than CF which takes up a fair bit of my time so I don't read them all and even if I did I am not so arrogant as to assume a complete understanding sufficient to make unequivocal statements as to what is occurring in the natural world.

So all the other processes, such as algea and the free drifting organisms which convert CO2 and minerals from sea water into carbonates stopped doing so when the AGM/CC theory was propounded?

I am informed some time ago that there is a constant rain of calcareous stuff onto the ocean floors from biological processes taking place in the overlying water column.

There are many changes occurring in what is a dynamic process with interacting biological and physical processes eons long and I am expected to accept that the AGM/CC crowd have discovered and understand them all in a couple of decades. Pull the other one mate, I'm hanging in there with my agnosticism for now.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I find the ease of the 'Denier' label is much like the Racist card... the easiest disparagment a believer can throw out that if one denies instantly confirms one as a 'Denier'..
Cancel Culture at its best..
Its like the time when I was still a FB member and some folk jumped on me saying I was a Racist.. when I responded that everyone regardless of race is racist to some degree either consciously or sub consciously one shot back with.. "I'm not a racist I have a black girlfriend"... I was tempted to say "So did most slave owners" but instead came to the conclusion it was a waste of time and would just go nowhere but lead to more abuse.
On GW we keep being called 'Deniers' because we are outside the 'Status Quo' and subjected to countless links to 'esteemed scientists' and their work pointing to man's consumption of fossil fuels being the root of all evil
What I do see very little of apart from people like Attenbrough is the more realistic fact that capitalism is destroying the very lungs of the planet.. not by the burning of fossil fuels but by constantly scarring them irreparably through deforestation of ancient jungles for palm oil plantations, cattle ranches, strip mining for gold and other metals and minerals yet Science points us the other way.. not terribly surprising when one considers how science is funded, you don't bite the hand that's feeding you.
So to call me a 'Denier' is akin to you believing Organic Farming is a new science..
The subject has many facets and not focusing on your particular facet does not make me a denier any more than you focusing on the single facet makes you a blinkered fool.
This is not a personal attack by the way, just a view from a more 'centre ground' seeing as many choose to make this a Left Right political thing.. its not, it's a Life thing.

The Aral Sea for example, was destroyed by "socialism", along with a couple of hundred million human beings in the last century. The problem fundamentally is our innate human tendencies, not our economic system.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

The Aral Sea for example, was destroyed by "socialism", along with a couple of hundred million human beings in the last century. The problem fundamentally is our innate human tendencies, not our economic system.

The destruction of the Aral Sea was caused by the United States when it cut off the cotton supply in Russia. The response to this by Russia was to irrigate the land from the Aral Seas tributaries to produce their own cotton fields. This was a big mistake because the rain fall in the Aral Sea is 20 centimeters per year and the evaporation rate is around 104 centimeters per year. So without the tributaries the Aral Sea would dry up. They chose to irrigate the central Asian countries. At that time in 1977, the Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland sea in the world.

Russia succeeded in irrigating the land by 1977. The land surrounding the Aral Sea has become a large cotton producing area But in just 20 years the Aral sea dropped its water levels by 20 Meters. This majorly increased the salinity of the sea water which destroyed the sea life in the water. It also exposed sea beds and increasing the salinity levels of the sea water the whole fish population died off. This wrecked the massive fishing business that had thrived in the Aral Sea. Currently the Aral Sea is nearly completely dry. It has been separated into two very small seas. Today more than 40,000 square kilometers of the Aral sea have disappeared where fishing boats now sit on the sea bed rusting.

Sounds very much to do with our economic system and the way it is used and abused by our political masters to me..
But I won't accuse you of being a denier..

[Tillikum]

Yes, I am aware of the mechanism. The Dead Sea is headed in a similar direction. Khrushchev chose to pursue this little "great leap forward"; I doubt we can blame the United States, however popular a hobby that is these days. Besides, they and the Europeans kept the USSR supplied with much of its industrial needs since the 1920s.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Yes, I am aware of the mechanism. The Dead Sea is headed in a similar direction. Khrushchev chose to pursue this little "great leap forward"; I doubt we can blame the United States, however popular a hobby that is these days. Besides, they and the Europeans kept the USSR supplied with much of its industrial needs since the 1920s.

Nothing to do with 'hobby' just historical fact.. it sprang out of a political gambit for power over Russia no matter how you choose to dress the platter.
A varient leaf out of the British Empires book of creating dependency.. they had a nation producing cotton but had mills in Lancashire that needed customers for the Brass and their workers so they made spinning cotton in India illegal..
Cost them an Empire.. cost Russia the Aral Sea, palm oil cost Indonesia its jungles and ranching etc is costing Brazil the Amazon rainforest..
Nothing to do with the economic system tho'...
Meanwhile the deniers continue to believe the spin that science can master the situation by creating solutions requiring more fossil fuel and minerals to create..
Can't possibly be our fault..

[Tillikum]

Good thing too, should have cut off every support to them right from the beginning. A few hundred million people would have lived out their lives in relative peace and freedom instead of suffering through the 70 odd years of what Churchill so aptly called "...equality of misery", except of course that the ruling pigs were a bit more equal the others. But don't despair, the same sorts of highly educated dupes, dimwits and degenerates who have brought humanity all that misery are now working on your Great Reset. They never learn, because they don't want to.
As for the British keeping poor India down, that would explain why they sold them cotton mills and put their own industry out of business?

What cost the British an Empire was the march of history, fighting and paying for two world wars, and the deliberate policies of the US government, ostensibly to gain access to wider markets and resources for US businesses.

As per Thermal Depolymerization, the West could be producing most of its fossil fuels from its wastes alone, but of course we need to keep the petro dollar game going to support the US public debt, among others, and justify our geopolitical meddling around the world and all the bureaucracies and industries dependant on that.

Asia is not going de-industrialize, so if you want to hand the West over lock, stock and barrel keep going in that direction. Look around a little and you'll see what they have in mind for us.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Good thing too, should have cut off every support to them right from the beginning. A few hundred million people would have lived out their lives in relative peace and freedom instead of suffering through the 70 odd years of what Churchill so aptly called "...equality of misery", except of course that the ruling pigs were a bit more equal the others. But don't despair, the same sorts of highly educated dupes, dimwits and degenerates who have brought humanity all that misery are now working on your Great Reset. They never learn, because they don't want to.
As for the British keeping poor India down, that would explain why they sold them cotton mills and put their own industry out of business?

What cost the British an Empire was the march of history, fighting and paying for two world wars, and the deliberate policies of the US government, ostensibly to gain access to wider markets and resources for US businesses.

I call ******** on India selling the British their cotton mills.. they had rudimentary systems
The East India Company jealously guarded their trade and did not actually control India till 1757.. it did not come under Crown control till 1858.
Meanwhile the development of viable steam engines by Boulton and Watt from 1781 led to the growth of larger, steam-powered mills allowing them to be concentrated in urban mill towns, like Manchester, which with neighbouring Salford had more than 50 mills by 1802.
As for the Brits selling India their cotton mills it was a natural economic decision, the end of child Labour and the rise of the Unions after WW2 made it more economical to export the technology and profit from the cheap labour and focus moved to new industries

Glad you now admit the US economy and Wall Street drives much of the ills of the world.
As for the 'Ruling Pigs' what makes you think the Democracy Pigs are more noble..

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I call ******** on India selling the British their cotton mills.. they had rudimentary systems
The East India Company jealously guarded their trade and did not actually control India till 1757.. it did not come under Crown control till 1858.
Meanwhile the development of viable steam engines by Boulton and Watt from 1781 led to the growth of larger, steam-powered mills allowing them to be concentrated in urban mill towns, like Manchester, which with neighbouring Salford had more than 50 mills by 1802.
As for the Brits selling India their cotton mills it was a natural economic decision, the end of child Labour and the rise of the Unions after WW2 made it more economical to export the technology and profit from the cheap labour and focus moved to new industries

Glad you now admit the US economy and Wall Street drives much of the ills of the world.

What drives the ills of the world is human beings behaving the way they always do unless restrained either by an innate empathy with their fellow creatures, or a moral code which impels them to reject or at least contain their own anti-social impulses, or the fear of punishment and public censure. And that friend, is all there is between you, me and the killing fields. All there ever has been and all there ever will be. You will not fix the world, without fixing human beings, and how do you propose to do that?

And as an aside, do you really think "Wall Street" or the Secretary of the Treasury controls the economies of the USA?

[GordMay]

I need a little clarity, here.

Are the reefs under stress, due to:
A) A communist plot
B) Capitalist exploitation?
Or, is it just that "saying" the reefs are under stress is due to A, or B?

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I need a little clarity, here.

Are the reefs under stress, due to:
A) A communist plot
B) Capitalist exploitation?
Or, is it just that "saying" the reefs are under stress is due to A, or B?

C. Sol Invictus


"We have a winner!"

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

What drives the ills of the world is human beings behaving the way they always do unless restrained either by an innate empathy with their fellow creatures, or a moral code which impels them to reject or at least contain their own anti-social impulses, or the fear of punishment and public censure. And that friend, is all there is between you, me and the killing fields. All there ever has been and all there ever will be. You will not fix the world, without fixing human beings, and how do you propose to do that?

And as an aside, do you really think "Wall Street" or the Secretary of the Treasury controls the economies of the USA?

And here we have the nub of it.. took a while but we got there..
As for Wall Street.. in a way it does as it is the measure of markets however it is not the driver.. that goes to the Soros, Rothschilds, Gates, Bezos and others in the world..
As for the Secretary of the Treasury.. he has about as much power as the Chancellor of the Exchequer if someone like Soros decides to start a run on the pound.. tho' in the case of the US dollar that's still unlikely (just) as there is no currency to take over.. Yet.