Sad article on the future of coral reefs

[elmer fudd]

It's proven that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas... we can chart directly the relationship between the rise in man made CO2 emissions and increaed surface temperature over the latter half of the 20th century all the way up to today.

maybe i'm being too hard on humanity but saying it's something we "have no control over" is blissful ignorance.

Actually, you can't directly correlate the two. There was a global cooling trend from about 1940 until about 1979, (remember the coming ice age predictions? I do.), but it's a no brainer that CO2 levels went up markedly in that time period. Likewise, temperatures peaked in 1998 and have lowered slightly since then despite the fact that we have dumped loads of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past decade.

There's a lot more going on with the climate than, "we dump X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and the temperature goes up Y degrees," and unlike issues like evolution, there are literally thousands of reputable scientists who disagree with the position that global warming is man made.

 

[Guba]

I agree that it's not a matter of whether the earth is warming or not, but how much. I also agree that the real debate centers around whether human activity is a significant factor. The jury seems to still be out on that one, but a lot of posters brought up intriguing factors. For example, the mention of CO2 as "plant food", so there should be more plants. The fact is...there are not. In huge swaths of the world, rainforests have been severely depleted if not downright eradicated, and urban sprawl is a fact on virtually every continent. These massive "CO2 converters" have been decimated in almost precisely the same time period in which we have accelerated our CO2 emissions. The cascade effect could very well be a contributing factor in the rise of greenhouse gases, producing a double whammy of effects...higher temperatures and ocean acidification, both of which have adverse effects upon the health of the earth's marine environments.

 

[AfterDark]

I agree that it's not a matter of whether the earth is warming or not, but how much. I also agree that the real debate centers around whether human activity is a significant factor. The jury seems to still be out on that one, but a lot of posters brought up intriguing factors. For example, the mention of CO2 as "plant food", so there should be more plants. The fact is...there are not. In huge swaths of the world, rainforests have been severely depleted if not downright eradicated, and urban sprawl is a fact on virtually every continent. These massive "CO2 converters" have been decimated in almost precisely the same time period in which we have accelerated our CO2 emissions. The cascade effect could very well be a contributing factor in the rise of greenhouse gases, producing a double whammy of effects...higher temperatures and ocean acidification, both of which have adverse effects upon the health of the earth's marine environments.

Not true in the Northern hemisphere tree growth as tripled. There are more trees in the US than when the pilgrims landed here. Why? Because we put out forest fires! Before we got here the fires would just burn until nature put it out. Lumber Companies need trees. They plant 5 for every one they cut down. The section of Mount St Helen that is owned by warehouser (can't spell) was years ahead of nature after the eruption because they started a reclaimtion program on it. CO2 is plant food they can't live without it.

 

[elmer fudd]

One of the problems I have with the GW debate is the way people are labeled "deniers", like they're holocaust deniers or some other kind of whack job. I don't think most of us are deniers at all. First off, any sane person that looks at the facts will admit that temperatures have risen approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century. Second, the overwhelming majority of those who doubt this is due to CO2 emissions aren't denying it's a possibility, they're just skeptical about it.

Personally, it reminds me of primitive cultures wondering what they did to make the gods angry when confronted with a drought or other natural occurrence. I suspect this is just a natural change that we can do absolutely nothing about and that it has occurred over and over again in the past.

 

[InTheDrink]

If we leave GW aside for a moment, does anyone believe that the acidification of the oceans is not man-made? I'm no expert in the field so it's not a loaded question.

J

 

[jc60625]

If we leave GW aside for a moment, does anyone believe that the acidification of the oceans is not man-made? I'm no expert in the field so it's not a loaded question.

J

Leaving some of the false and misleading info in earlier posts aside, this is a great point. I don't know anyone taking the position that the increasing acidification of the oceans is a natural phenomenon.

I guess my core point is that you can't artificially inflate levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (up over 100 ppm from pre industrial measures) without expecting some adverse effects.

 

[mudhole]

jc60625 you really want to help our planet, lots of people do, but what can affect the globe. If you live down wind from a coal fired plant, that's the worst problem in the world. But can you see that plant from outer space? Can the effect be seen from far away? We're riding through space on the "Blue" planet. 3/4ths of the planet is unexplored by the politicians that want to profit from unprovable claims. Global warming by man made causes is laughable. Pacific currents has affected temperatures more than anything man has done, and illiterate fishermen from south America have known of these weather changes for centuries. These ocean currents, weather changes may have been the cause of the Mayan civilization disappearing.

Cutting trees in the rain forest hasn't changed the CO2. . . Arctic and Antarctic summers have green "soup" with more plant growth burning CO2 than anything above water. . . Man changing actions endangering corals? I helped train a PHD candidate that was comparing corals extinct for 100's of thousands of years, with modern corals. . . no evidence of Lucy or this new early fossil skeleton having harmed corals.

This planet we're riding has been stable far beyond what man can do, or what her politicians can claim. And when this planet makes a change, when the shaking equalizes, and the volcanoes hibernate again, man, plants, animals and fish and corals will adjust.

 

[InTheDrink]

Again, without sounding too ignorant, is the acidification of the seas a direct result of increased CO2? If that is the case - and I don't know if it is - wouldn't it make the man made component of it fairly compelling? Or can solar energy result in increased CO2 also?


TIA,
J

 

[elmer fudd]

To be honest, I've read a bit about the acidification of the oceans and much of it goes right over my head, but the basic thrust of it is that increased CO2 in the oceans leads to increased production of carbolic acid which changes the oceans pH slightly and since corals are particularly sensitive to pH it may be wiping them out.

From what I can tell, this is still somewhat speculative, but most everyone agrees on the fundamentals that increased CO2 in the water results in increased carbolic acid resulting in lower ocean pH and that corals are sensitive to this.

I personally don't know if this is part of the reason for dying reefs or not, but it sounds much more plausible to me than a 1 degree shift in temperature over a 100 year period.

 

[InTheDrink]

My understanding certainly has been that it is the acidification that is causing the main problem (but again I must stress my absolute lack of expertise on any of this) and that this is primarily due to the slight acidification of the seas (although el nino or la nina, can't remember which, caused lots of coral bleaching in the Maldives a few years back which is simply warmer water AFAIK). Localised polution clearly does major damage, I think anyone would struggle to argue against that, but it's whether the generalised increased CO2 globally can be put down to any reasonable extent any other factor than human activity (I know that with ice melting that Arctic methane is escaping from deep underground that had previously been contained by the ice).

Is there a school of though out there that believes the increased CO2 (as opposed to GW) could be a natural phenomenon?

Cheers,
J

edit: I know methane isn't CO2 but simply that it's a green house gas that can be released without burning fossil fuels.