cars killing coral reef?

[FlipperSail]

Go for electirc cars and electric boats and solar power please. ppm of CO2 is getting to high for coral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3605908.stm

Acid oceans spell doom for coral

By Carolyn Fry
In Stockholm



Will organisms be able to adapt as conditions change rapidly?
The increasing acidity of the world's oceans could banish all coral by 2065, a leading marine expert has warned.
Professor Katherine Richardson said sea organisms that produced calcareous structures would struggle to function in the coming decades as pH levels fell

The expert, based in Denmark, told the EuroScience Open Forum 2004 that human-produced carbon dioxide was radically changing the marine environment.

CO2 levels are now said to be at their highest level for 55 million years.

Most of it will eventually be absorbed by seawater, where it will react to form carbonic acid.

The oceans currently have a pH of about 8, but experts predict this could drop to pH 7.4.

Scientists fear this increasing acidification could have a particularly detrimental effect on corals and other marine organisms, because it reduces the availability of carbonate ions in the water for them to make their hard parts.

Record readings

As climate change research has primarily concentrated on the impacts on land and in the atmosphere, our knowledge of what the rise will mean is uncertain.

However, as there are 78,000,000 gigatonnes of carbon locked up in ocean sediments compared with 750 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, the rise could have very serious implications for the carbon cycle, Professor Richardson believes.

"It makes sense that the component of the Earth's system we need to understand the most is the biggest," said the researcher from the Department of Marine Ecology in Aarhus, Denmark. "But it just happens to be the one that's most difficult for us humans to explore."

CO2 levels in the atmosphere, driven up by the burning of fossil fuels, currently stand at about 380 parts per million (ppm) - up from their pre-industrial mark of around 280 ppm.

Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by microscopic ocean-dwelling plants called phytoplankton, through photosynthesis. But one group, called the coccolithophorids, also produce calcium carbonate platelets, called liths.

Each lith is only about 2.5 micrometres (millionths of a metre) across but a very great many are produced each year.

It is estimated that blooms of the dominant species, Emiliania Huxleyi, annually cover about 1.4 million sq km of the ocean.

When they die, they rain down to the ocean floor, in the process locking carbon away in a vast sediment store. This biological pump helps to control the exchange of carbon between the oceans and atmosphere.

Knowledge search

"E. Huxleyi has dominated the world's oceans since the Holocene, but prior to that a different species was responsible for moving all the carbon to the bottom," explained Professor Richardson.

"It's anyone's guess if another species would step in if E. Huxleyi can't tolerate the more acidic conditions."

Scientists are beginning to address the gaping holes in our knowledge. Last week, the UK's academy of science, the Royal Society, announced a study concentrating on the impact of increased acidity on marine life.

An extra reason for the concern is that scientists have considered exploiting ocean processes to help mitigate rising CO2 levels.

The idea is that by artificially "fertilising" phytoplankton at the ocean surface, it might be possible to stimulate the take-up of CO2 - locking away some of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that is believed to be forcing global temperatures to rise.

If increased acidity begins to hinder the natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, however, then we may lose one opportunity to reverse any damage induced by human activity.

 

[archman]

The expert, based in Denmark, told the EuroScience Open Forum 2004 that human-produced carbon dioxide was radically changing the marine environment.

rather dramatic, obviously rewritten by the media.

CO2 levels are now said to be at their highest level for 55 million years.

How'd they figure that one? The oldest ice cores are pushing 100,000 years. What's the method they're using to establish Cretaceous gas concentrations?

The oceans currently have a pH of about 8, but experts predict this could drop to pH 7.4.

Yeah... don't hold your breath or stop having kids, it'll be awhile.

"It's anyone's guess if another species would step in if E. Huxleyi can't tolerate the more acidic conditions."

here's my guess as a marine ecologist: YES

An extra reason for the concern is that scientists have considered exploiting ocean processes to help mitigate rising CO2 levels.

Oh god, here we go again. Tinkering with nature is always such a GREAT idea. Just look at our track record.

The idea is that by artificially "fertilising" phytoplankton at the ocean surface, it might be possible to stimulate the take-up of CO2 - locking away some of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that is believed to be forcing global temperatures to rise.

Why does this "ocean fertilization" mess keep resurfacing? I smell a powerful golf course lobby, ha! Artificial fertilization of wild habitats has a TERRIBLE track record, heck just look at what happens during NATURAL fertilization events. Better yet, look at what happens in "Dead Zones." That's mostly nutrient fertilization effects, yuk.

Despite what the media often portrays, the majority of marine ecologists strongly object to major manmade interventions in natural communities. It's a recipe for disaster, not to mention wasting lots of time, resources, and money. Besides, it doesn't alleviate the true "problem" of increasing manmade CO2 emissions. Nip in the bud at the source, instead of wild fantastic plans to treat what are in fact nothing more than symptoms.

There are far more immediate dangers to coral reefs. Disease brought about by enhanced nutrient runoff (aka fertilization) is a biggie. Isn't that ironic?

*Just say NO to Fertilizing the Oceans*

 

[FlipperSail]

rather dramatic, obviously rewritten by the media.



How'd they figure that one? The oldest ice cores are pushing 100,000 years. What's the method they're using to establish Cretaceous gas concentrations?



Yeah... don't hold your breath or stop having kids, it'll be awhile.



here's my guess as a marine ecologist: YES



Oh god, here we go again. Tinkering with nature is always such a GREAT idea. Just look at our track record.



Why does this "ocean fertilization" mess keep resurfacing? I smell a powerful golf course lobby, ha! Artificial fertilization of wild habitats has a TERRIBLE track record, heck just look at what happens during NATURAL fertilization events. Better yet, look at what happens in "Dead Zones." That's mostly nutrient fertilization effects, yuk.

Despite what the media often portrays, the majority of marine ecologists strongly object to major manmade interventions in natural communities. It's a recipe for disaster, not to mention wasting lots of time, resources, and money. Besides, it doesn't alleviate the true "problem" of increasing manmade CO2 emissions. Nip in the bud at the source, instead of wild fantastic plans to treat what are in fact nothing more than symptoms.

There are far more immediate dangers to coral reefs. Disease brought about by enhanced nutrient runoff (aka fertilization) is a biggie. Isn't that ironic?

*Just say NO to Fertilizing the Oceans*

There been a massive change in the sea in a very short time. I myself see an extreme difference. Todays coral is less, blant, small, weak in colour compared to just 20 years ago. It has changed fast. I dont understand the people defending destruction just because they are car junkies. Denial. Well, enjoy the coral while i lasts, and take pictures becasue there will not be much for your grand children to see at current rate. Coral is vanishing fast. I dove in Seychelles first time more than 20 years go. Incredible. Was back there a few years ago and it was a disaster. Mostly bleached and the volume was pathetic compared to the massive voumes back then.

 

[archman]

. Todays coral is less, blant, small, weak in colour compared to just 20 years ago. It has changed fast.

Yes. As near as we can figure, most of all this is manmade in origin. We deduce this by ruling out natural disturbance events, looking back in the fossil record, and by performing long term monitoring. Tropical corals are pretty finicky, so they make excellent "indicators" for environmental health. Damage to them is widely believed to prelude damage to other marine areas. Here's a list of the biggest and most immediate threats to continued coral damage.

1. Eutrophication (enhanced nutrients in water). Mostly brought about by:
a. resorts
b. cruise ships
c. general land development

2. Disease. Either new varieties, or more abundant amounts of natural ones. Guess what fosters this stuff?
a. resorts
b. cruise ships
c. general land development

3. Ultraviolet Damage. Good 'ol coral bleaching via the SUN. You can blame degradations in ozone for that.

4. Hurricanes. A funny side effect to global warming. When the oceans heat up, it spurns development of more hurricanes. In fact, hurricanes act as "bleeder valves" to keep global warming in check. So instead of getting runaway temperatures, you just get more hurricanes. Hurricanes TRASH reefs.

5. Contact damage. People/objects banging into the coral tend to kill it. What exacerbates this? Why, the tourists coming off...
a. resorts
b. cruise ships

Tourism into tropical areas has done little but increase in MASSIVE PROPORTIONS the last twenty years. Most of these teeny nations do not have any environmental regulation in place... the few that DO tend to be doing it in hindsight (meaning they're already in bad shape; i.e. Bahamas, USA), or have trouble maintaining it due to political instability (Turks & Caicos, Galapagos).

It's mildly amusing (or sickening, take your pick) to analyze the demographics of tourists in the tropics. If one does, you'll notice a major slice of the resort demographic hails from the USA. If you look at cruise ships it's far worse... something over 70% currently.

Therefore, take the analysis one step further and you will arrive at the interesting conclusion...

A. US citizens on vacation are causing the most damage to tropical coral reefs.

Nuts.

 

[FlipperSail]

Yes. As near as we can figure, most of all this is manmade in origin. We deduce this by ruling out natural disturbance events, looking back in the fossil record, and by performing long term monitoring. Tropical corals are pretty finicky, so they make excellent "indicators" for environmental health. Damage to them is widely believed to prelude damage to other marine areas. Here's a list of the biggest and most immediate threats to continued coral damage.

1. Eutrophication (enhanced nutrients in water). Mostly brought about by:
a. resorts
b. cruise ships
c. general land development

2. Disease. Either new varieties, or more abundant amounts of natural ones. Guess what fosters this stuff?
a. resorts
b. cruise ships
c. general land development

3. Ultraviolet Damage. Good 'ol coral bleaching via the SUN. You can blame degradations in ozone for that.

4. Hurricanes. A funny side effect to global warming. When the oceans heat up, it spurns development of more hurricanes. In fact, hurricanes act as "bleeder valves" to keep global warming in check. So instead of getting runaway temperatures, you just get more hurricanes. Hurricanes TRASH reefs.

5. Contact damage. People/objects banging into the coral tend to kill it. What exacerbates this? Why, the tourists coming off...
a. resorts
b. cruise ships

Tourism into tropical areas has done little but increase in MASSIVE PROPORTIONS the last twenty years. Most of these teeny nations do not have any environmental regulation in place... the few that DO tend to be doing it in hindsight (meaning they're already in bad shape; i.e. Bahamas, USA), or have trouble maintaining it due to political instability (Turks & Caicos, Galapagos).

It's mildly amusing (or sickening, take your pick) to analyze the demographics of tourists in the tropics. If one does, you'll notice a major slice of the resort demographic hails from the USA. If you look at cruise ships it's far worse... something over 70% currently.

Therefore, take the analysis one step further and you will arrive at the interesting conclusion...

A. US citizens on vacation are causing the most damage to tropical coral reefs.

Nuts.

Any simple amatuer coral aquariaist will tell you the importance of CO2 and ph level.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=729&highlight=

http://www.coralforum.com/reference57.html

 

[Kim]

Archman - a question.
I don't really know much about marine ecology - just what I pick up around me.
I was under the impression that most of the damage done to coral was due to rising sea water temperatures (particularly when you get El Ninjo years). Is this basically true or not?
I originally heard this off a BBC news report a few years ago when most of the Maldives coral died off. I do know from personal experience that in Okinawa vast areas of coral have died in recent years, and there is very limited tourism in Okinawa compared to many other places.

 

[adshepard]

The discharge of nutrients into coastal waters is a major cause of eutrophication, especially in areas of limited water circulation. Nutrient enrichment is an increasing concern in the Wider Caribbean Region. The main nutrients are nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, and they enter coastal waters from point and non-point sources. Eutrophication may cause algal blooms, changes in the aquatic community structure, decreased biological diversity, fish kills and oxygen depletion events. The presence of nutrients in the water column enhances the growth of plants, and in some cases may cause algae to overgrow the corals or seagrasses that were previously present. Habitat degradation will in turn cause decreased fisheries production and loss of recreational and tourism potential

Fertilizers used in agriculture are one source of nutrients reaching the coastal zone. Continued economic growth and development has drastically changed the traditional land use patterns of the Wider Caribbean Region. Agricultural development has been rapid, and, in addition, coastal areas have seen increased population growth together with changes in adjacent land use, increasing the pressures on the marine and coastal areas. Sewage from coastal settlements is also a major source of nutrients in coastal waters. In addition, nutrients, especially nitrogen, enter the marine environment via atmospheric deposition. Traffic is an important source of these atmospheric nutrients.

To control the sources of nutrient enrichment and to reverse the adverse effects of eutrophication, it will be necessary to improve the effectiveness of nutrient reduction in sewage treatment plants and to control the runoff from non-point sources by improving management practices in agriculture. In addition, practices that promote long-term benefits and cause the least damage to interrelated ecosystems should be encouraged. Tourism, which is of great importance to the economies of the Wider Caribbean Region, is directly dependent on the quality of the coastal environment. When eutrophication occurs, the ecological and aesthetic quality of the environment is altered and, in severe cases, recreational use is prevented.

Don't see the cruise ship or tourist thing mentioned (maybe that's the economic growth and development part of the article) but they are a source too.

DSDO

Alan

 

[drbill]

I'm am not a coral reef ecologist since I focus on kelp forest ecology. However, the original article along with what others have said raises an important point. Our individual actions are in part responsible for the damage done to the environment we love.

If we use our vehicles unnecessarily or drive fuel inefficient ones, if we over-heat or over-cool our homes, if we leave lights on in unused rooms or if we fail in any number of ways to minimize our own personal energy use, we contribute to the problem. Although our individual contributions may not amount to much by themselves, when bad choices are made by hundreds of millions of people in the US, or billions of people globally, they quickly add up. And this is just what we do at home, not while vacationing in the tropics!

Governments are quick to talk about exporting democracy and capitalism to other countries. Is this really a good idea (I'm referring to the second export). Do leaders truly think that raising the standard of living of the rest of the world to the gluttony of our own is good for the environment, or is even possible given limited resources?

While I would not be one to deny global improvement in standards of living, we have to be realistic about what the booming population and limited resources can attain.

I am fortunate. I do not usually drive a car except when I travel to the mainland. I do not have to heat or cool my home. I recognize these are choices I have been able to make given where I live, and not possible in most areas.

Doc

 

[FlipperSail]

I'm am not a coral reef ecologist since I focus on kelp forest ecology. However, the original article along with what others have said raises an important point. Our individual actions are in part responsible for the damage done to the environment we love.

If we use our vehicles unnecessarily or drive fuel inefficient ones, if we over-heat or over-cool our homes, if we leave lights on in unused rooms or if we fail in any number of ways to minimize our own personal energy use, we contribute to the problem. Although our individual contributions may not amount to much by themselves, when bad choices are made by hundreds of millions of people in the US, or billions of people globally, they quickly add up. And this is just what we do at home, not while vacationing in the tropics!

Governments are quick to talk about exporting democracy and capitalism to other countries. Is this really a good idea (I'm referring to the second export). Do leaders truly think that raising the standard of living of the rest of the world to the gluttony of our own is good for the environment, or is even possible given limited resources?

While I would not be one to deny global improvement in standards of living, we have to be realistic about what the booming population and limited resources can attain.

I am fortunate. I do not usually drive a car except when I travel to the mainland. I do not have to heat or cool my home. I recognize these are choices I have been able to make given where I live, and not possible in most areas.

Doc

I agree with you drbill, and for those desire luxuries or nedd cooling or heat, there are many other solutions. Sure, most solutions require some sacrifices but they are worth it. Here is a guy in England that has converted his car.

http://www.solarvan.co.uk/

 

[archman]

I was under the impression that most of the damage done to coral was due to rising sea water temperatures (particularly when you get El Ninjo years). Is this basically true or not?
I originally heard this off a BBC news report a few years ago when most of the Maldives coral died off. I do know from personal experience that in Okinawa vast areas of coral have died in recent years, and there is very limited tourism in Okinawa compared to many other places.

Linking ecological damage directly to global warming is pretty iffy. That's 'cuz mean ocean temperatures have barely altered... something just over 1 degree Fahrenheit within this century. That's piddly, and there isn't historical data to prove that it's anything other than natural variation.

Of course everyone knows that we have global warming, but the real questions asked should be:
1. How much of it is manmade induced?
2. What are the effects on regional and local enviromental conditions?
3. Will the natural components cycle back down?

Three big problems believed to be caused by elevated sea temperatures.
A. Accelerated Sea Level Rise
B. Melting of Polar Ice
C. Indo-Pacific coral bleaching

The vast majority of coral bleaching events in the Indo-Pacific can be attributed to a few, very hot summers the last several years. As to whether or not these super hot summers were caused by global warming is another issue entirely. It may have contributed, or it might have simply been natural variation. Natural variation in climate DOES occur, and it can very much be severe. The 1998 mass bleachings throughout the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific did occur at the same time as record-high sea surface temperatures in those areas. And while those temps were above average, they're still within the acceptable norms for most coral to survive under otherwise optimal conditions. Now here's the caveat: Optimal Conditions.

With UV radiation on the upswing, coteries of new diseases and pathogens, dangerous exotics, and the ever-nasty nutrient discharges, the local conditions are anything but optimal. All it took was some large regional perturbance to throw the corals over the edge, and in the Indo-Pacific that happened to be an El Nino event. In the Bahamas it's thought to be a couple of nasty hurricanes, in the Florida Keys its thought to be a combo of hurricanes and nutrient-induced diseases. Whatever floats your boat.

With Okinawa, you ARE showing increasing population and development pressures. In fact Okinawa is now known locally as the "Wedding Resort Island". That's more sewage going into water, more boat traffic, diving, blah blah... don't even get me started on golf courses.
We simply don't know enough about global warming for the ecologists to point fingers at it. It's definitely a factor, but whether or not it's an important factor, that's the question.

Now eutrophication, that's studied out the whazoo. Definitely bad, and definitely on the rapid upswing. Especially in the tropics. Ask me what an ecologically "prudent" coastal development plan for your average Caribbean island is, and I'll show you a little sleepy village with no resorts or cruise ships. Kinda hard to find those nowadays, just like it's getting harder to find nice reefs. Funny how that works out, isn't it? That ever-present "trend" of finding that beautiful, remote island with the gorgeous coral reefs isn't an accident. It's finding an area that's still pristine. If it gets developed, it degrades, simple as that.