Australia using sun shades to save the coral reef

[ratherbediving]

I read this article on Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061103/sc_afp/australiaclimate_061103192835

The idea is to save coral reefs by using giant sunshades. It sounds far fetched, but I was confused because it seems like they would be addressing the wrong problem. Despite some obvious practical issues, it sounds like a lot of effort is being spent on this. They probably know what they are doing-- at least in theory-- so I guess I don't have the science right.

I guess I am confused how global warming was causing the death of the coral reefs. I have read two different arguments:

1. Zooanthelae can't tolerate higher temperatures for long. The warmer water is causing zooanthelae to die, causing the corals to bleach. I even read an article (can't find it) stating new strains fo zooanthelae that could adapt to warmer water might in fact help save the coral reefs
2. Global warming is affecting the cycles of el nino and el nina-- warmer water carries with it less nutrients, which is causing the corals to starve to death.

Maybe someone can help elighten me

Either way, I don't see how a sun shade would help. They can't shade enough area in order to change the water temperature... it sounds like they feel that UV radiation is contributing to the problems caused by global warming somehow...

I figure aquarists would be a good group to ask how/if too much UV can kill off corals

 

[Sk8r]

Certain research has shown that a combination of strong light and high temp makes bleaching more likely.

 

[cindyolson]

New Zealand and Australia area is where there is a hole in the ozone. Shading will help with extreme UV.

 

[wds21921]

Hmm maybe I'm being too simplistic about this but doesn't that eliminate also the factor of adaptation?

The two factors causing the bleaching combined could be catastrophic in the short term but removing the animals ability to change it's growth regiment by adapting to it's environment could be equally harmful in the long run?
Since the likelihood of the reduction of ozone holes are not going to change very soon (USA isn't helping at all) this could be fruitless?

I don't mean to be un-optimistic but it seems as though anytime we (humans) try to help in the realm of the ocean we often don't seem to make much, if any good impact.

 

[GSMguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8576816#post8576816 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wds21921
c
Since the likelihood of the reduction of ozone holes are not going to change very soon (USA isn't helping at all) this could be fruitless?

I don't mean to be un-optimistic but it seems as though anytime we (humans) try to help in the realm of the ocean we often don't seem to make much, if any good impact.

The USA is much better than other nations like china india the philipines the ozone hole is over new zealand because they are so close to the nations that pollute on a monumental rate
you dont know anything about the world if you think we dont help if you dont mind could you go KICK ROCKS.
i cant stand when people try to blame international pollution on the U.S. you have no idea

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8717303#post8717303 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GSMguy
The USA is much better than other nations like china india the philipines the ozone hole is over new zealand because they are so close to the nations that pollute on a monumental rate
you dont know anything about the world if you think we dont help if you dont mind could you go KICK ROCKS.
i cant stand when people try to blame international pollution on the U.S. you have no idea

The location of the hole doesn't depend much on the location of the source of pollution (last I heard, Antarctica didn't pollute much). However, the US did curb CFC's decades ago, which helped greatly. As far as general pollution goes, the US needs to do more, but Asia is the biggest problem today.

 

[ratherbediving]

The whole issue of the decline of the reefs, specifically in Australia, is confusing.

Typically, you will hear that the corals' decline is due to the high temparatures caused by global warming (directly or indirectly), which is very different issue from the hole in the ozone... now it sounds like what people are saying is that the hole in the ozone is contributing to problems with the corals in the Great Barrier Reef. Maybe that is true, but the 'sun shades' (which you are saying is used to block the harmful UV) are not going to be effective against the problems caused by global warming. And to me, that sounds like the scientific consensus would agree is the greater issue (in regards to coral decline).

As an aside, while the US has made great strides in helping to eliminate CFC which contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, the US is the biggest contributer to CO2 emissions which cause global warming.

 

[antonsemrad]

the US is the biggest contributer to CO2 emissions

I wonder if the problem is not so much warmer temps, but acidification. Lets face it, even if you don't belive c02 causes global warming- it is changing the water chemistry of the oceans. With lower ph it makes it harder for corals to make thier skeletons. What is even more disconserting, is that zooplankton make their shells the same way. So this could be disrupting the whole food chain. The fishing industry is often blamed for declining fish populations, but I think that there is more to it. I cant find it now, but someone said that the oceans alkilinity values are falling since the industrial revolution. I know that in my tank, one surefire way to induce coral bleaching is low alkilinity.

So what do you guys think?

 

[wds21921]

Yes GSM the U.S. is probably doing more than many underdeveloped nations but we are also putting in more waste overall as well if you want to include all possible chemical combinations. Regardless I'm not going to sit here and be condescending to you and play that game.
The bottom line is the polar ice caps are melting which is fact. Why exactly, is somewhat debateable, but I think we have made a large detrimental impact. Even if it's a cyclical thing with the enviroment how long will it be before our overall pollution catches up and reaches the limitations of the enviroment to repair itself? Inevitably it's going to happen.
I'm glad to see that some groups are at least doing something to help but I hope they're cautious enough to look beyond the immediate impact which has been a problem in the past.

Ratherbediving made a much better and accurate comment (intelligent) which disproves your go kick rocks theory.

 

[speckled trout]

The Earth has gone through numerous cyclic temerature changes throughout history.

Ever heard of the Ice Age? I, for one, am very glad it didn't stay that temperature forever.

Ever heard of Greenland? The Vikings moved there when average air temperatures rose high enough and long enough to support the growth of crops. Guess what? It didn't stay that temperature forever. They started slowly starving to death when temperatures plummeted once again and Greenland became too cold to grow their crops.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8777241#post8777241 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by speckled trout
The Earth has gone through numerous cyclic temerature changes throughout history.

Ever heard of the Ice Age? I, for one, am very glad it didn't stay that temperature forever.

Ever heard of Greenland? The Vikings moved there when average air temperatures rose high enough and long enough to support the growth of crops. Guess what? It didn't stay that temperature forever. They started slowly starving to death when temperatures plummeted once again and Greenland became too cold to grow their crops.

*yawn* Here are the same old arguments, again. The cyclical nature of past global temperature doesn't account for what we are seeing today. And Greenland is a LOCAL variation, hardly applicable to global trends. Lastly, the Viking demise in Greenland had many factors, not just crop failure (which was a small part of their diet BTW, the crops were mostly to feed livestock). Please realize we are talking about GLOBAL warming, not LOCAL warming.

 

[scottras]

I can't see the sun shades helping much. If at all it will only help a very small portion for only a few years. From memory it was a university study that the Aus government took up as a good idea. I don't know how long a sun shade is going to stand up to a cyclone either.

 

[speckled trout]

HippieSmell,

Wow! What an "original" way to show contempt for someone else's stand on a subject!

***yawn**** I guess not having a job gives you plenty of time to come up with real clever comments.

Time for a nap, your argument is boring to me, as well.

By the way, your username :bum: tells me all I want, or care, to know about you! :eek2:

 

[HUSSCDN]

The bottom line is the polar ice caps are melting which is fact. Why exactly, is somewhat debateable, but I think we have made a large detrimental impact. [/B]

Thats actually a big load of dung, repeated to scare us in to moving into the cities, discarding our cars and riding bikes everywhere....

An Inconvenient Truth: An Inaccurate Depiction of the State of Global Warming Science
by Robert C. Balling Jr. (October 13, 2006)


Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opened around the country earlier this year. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths:

(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)

(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.

(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).

(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century."

(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."

(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.

Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime?



"An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth."

First appeared in TCS Daily (www.tcsdaily.com). Cartoon by Cox and Forkum.



http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4806
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8783547#post8783547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by speckled trout
HippieSmell,

Wow! What an "original" way to show contempt for someone else's stand on a subject!

***yawn**** I guess not having a job gives you plenty of time to come up with real clever comments.

Time for a nap, your argument is boring to me, as well.

By the way, your username :bum: tells me all I want, or care, to know about you! :eek2:

LMAO. My online persona is a joke, but apparently the humor is wasted on you. Too bad. But, the *yawn* comment was a little flippant on my part, sorry. It's just that I hear that argument all the time and it has become one of my pet peeves. Why don't you argue the facts instead of resorting to ad hominem?

 

[speckled trout]

From your username, I figured you found this sight by accident when doing a search for "reefer" :bum:

The point is I don't want to argue.

You presented your side as though it were well documented FACT, when it isn't. That's my point.

Scientists have been observing and documenting weather conditions since recorded time. Weather patterns do change, that is fact. Temperatures have risen and fallen, that is documented fact.

Oh well, I said I didn't want to argue, so I quit.

Happy reefing and have a merry Christmas.-Mike

 

[wds21921]

To HUSS your posting was dated over a year ago.
Last week credible scientists from all over the world haave come out and said that it is now a "fact" the polar ice caps are in fact melting.
I said nothing about particulars such as not driving cars etc. That's your assumption.
The overwhelming evidence at this point is more than proof that bad things are happening that we've not seen before.
WHat you would liek to attribute them to is up to you but I can say that our burning of fossil fuels, dumping refined chemicals, etc is having an enviromental impact let alone direct impacts on human life.
If you get on the CDC website you'll find my area of the U.S. carries some of the highest concentrations of cancer rates. You may alos find that the industrial build up in our sector of the U.S. over the last 60 + years has been incredible.
Believe whatever you want and continue to put your head in the sand to real facts but it's more than simply a coincidence.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8791408#post8791408 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by speckled trout
You presented your side as though it were well documented FACT, when it isn't. That's my point.

Scientists have been observing and documenting weather conditions since recorded time. Weather patterns do change, that is fact. Temperatures have risen and fallen, that is documented fact.

I haven't said anything too controversial in this thread, you just assume what my position is. And I agree with your second paragraph, but today's OBSERVED conditions are disturbing and can't be dismissed as being entirely natural. That's my point.

 

[HippieSmell]

HUSSCDN,

So you've read at least one (biased) article based on one person who made one film about a massive subject. It's a start, but what does your article show? There isn't one "truth" in there that disproves GW, or even seriously challenges it.

 

[HUSSCDN]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8791651#post8791651 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wds21921

The overwhelming evidence at this point is more than proof that bad things are happening that we've not seen before.
WHat you would liek to attribute them to is up to you but I can say that our burning of fossil fuels, dumping refined chemicals, etc is having an enviromental impact let alone direct impacts on human life.
If you get on the CDC website you'll find my area of the U.S. carries some of the highest concentrations of cancer rates. You may alos find that the industrial build up in our sector of the U.S. over the last 60 + years has been incredible.
Believe whatever you want and continue to put your head in the sand to real facts but it's more than simply a coincidence.

I dont disagree that there some abnormal things happening. The increased cancer rates, im sure has something to do with bad diets and fast food.
But as for green house gases, pick any volcanic eruption in the last 100 years. Anyone of them did 1000x more for global warming then 1000 years for what we do on a daily basis.



The point of the previous posts articles was not to sway anyone one way or the other but to make a point of how politicians use the environemnt as a tool for votes and in reality could care less about the rainforests or reefs, and that goes for the left and right. Take Hollywood for instance, how many actors life styles show modesty and restraint? limos and private jets anyone?

The truth is some where in the middle im sure. If i came off harsh i apoligize.

Regardless of political ties i think the one thing we can all agree on is that nature is our most important resource.