Coral Reefs Dead By 2050
- Thread starter -=Efrain=-
- Start date
- Status
I understand that this wont happen in our life times. Its not going to save the reefs, it was more just stating a positive thought on an otherwise grim subject.
Now for re-phrasing my quote. You said..
"If the coral reefs are really in that much trouble, we have far greater issues to worry about then the availability of corals to the hobby.
The sustainability of ocean based protien to feed millions of people is so much more important then our leisure pursuits.
I hope that the warming cycle peters out...perhaps due to some cause unforseen by us today."
Now, I agree that we have far greater issues to worry about then the availability of corals to the hobby. However I personally don't give two shi*s about the sustainability of ocean based proteins to feed millions of PEOPLE. PEOPLE are the reason everything is all screwed up in the first place. On the other hand, I do care about the sustainability of ocean based proteins that feed other ocean based life.
So I guess to edit my quote Id have to say, "I would rather see the millions of people that depend on protein from the ocean die off, then to see the ocean die off because we are unable to set and follow global practices that ensure the long term sustainability for the health of the oceans, and the infinite ecosystems therein."
cortez marine
In Memoriam
The marginal people are the ones leaving the least carbon footprint and responsible the least for global warming.
The population of 'our kind' of people cause far and away the most impact.
We super consumptive people deserve to be the first to go if anyone deserves it....certainly not the poorest of the poor, the fisherfolk.
Its just a case of the guiltiest ones being the most insulated from the destruction they cause...and the most innocent suffering the most, and first.
The population of 'our kind' of people cause far and away the most impact.
We super consumptive people deserve to be the first to go if anyone deserves it....certainly not the poorest of the poor, the fisherfolk.
Its just a case of the guiltiest ones being the most insulated from the destruction they cause...and the most innocent suffering the most, and first.
I completely agree with you. However Im not generally talking about "the fisherfolk".
Let me back peddle a few here. I think we got off basis. I understand, and agree that its "our kind", the extreme consumers, that are causing the majority of the problems with our oceans including but not limited to global warming. We do deserve to be the first to go. Unfortunately the footprint that we leave in our path does hit those poorer and more dependant on what were ruining. As you said we are insulated from the truths and are the last people it effects.
Unfortunately, the "super consumers" as I will call us, are so heavily addicted to our lifestyle that we would need to hit a life changing "rock bottom" before we commit to truely changing our ways. The saddest part is that I dont think the extinction of polar bears or the bleaching of coral seas is important enough to the majority of people that it is there rock bottom. In fact Id say that more people would be concerned about the hassle it is for them to recycle then they would be about the fate of fish or bears.
In the end, the undoing of the seas and the complete imbalance and ultimate destruction of our planets ecological sustainability resulting in the crash of life and the end of humanity as we know it is in the hands of humans, and they dont care enough to make the sacrafices required to fix it.
cortez marine
In Memoriam
tipping point
tipping point
Now I agree with you all the way.
The loss of luxury items ie. corals and polar bears are seen as small dramas instead of serious precursors to major ones.
The slow going drive to the top of the hill lulls us to complacency and we hardly notice the gentle "upsi-daisy" as the tipping point is reached...and then the sudden, escalating horror of the subsequent cascade and uncontrollable, accelerating plummet to the bottom.
Now thats exactly what I remember observing in a 1971 biology 1-A class in a culture of drosypyllia flies.
I would love to know how we are behaving differently.
Steve
tipping point
Now I agree with you all the way.
The loss of luxury items ie. corals and polar bears are seen as small dramas instead of serious precursors to major ones.
The slow going drive to the top of the hill lulls us to complacency and we hardly notice the gentle "upsi-daisy" as the tipping point is reached...and then the sudden, escalating horror of the subsequent cascade and uncontrollable, accelerating plummet to the bottom.
Now thats exactly what I remember observing in a 1971 biology 1-A class in a culture of drosypyllia flies.
I would love to know how we are behaving differently.
Steve
badbu68
New member
I love that people just quote "well scientists say so". I've been told eggs were bad, then they were good, then bad, then they white is good but the yoke is bad. If scientists can't figure out if eggs are good or bad for me, how can ANYONE predict a forecast based on trends happening in the relative time span of a blink of an eye with TRILLIONS of variables which has been attributed to other things like solar flairs by (of all people) scientists.
And as far as people eating things from the ocean, nature has a way of balancing things out. If you think about how soil, nutrients, waste, mercury, etc. go into the ocean and how by fishing we bring that back out through what’s absorbed from the food chain starting with bacteria.
And as far as people eating things from the ocean, nature has a way of balancing things out. If you think about how soil, nutrients, waste, mercury, etc. go into the ocean and how by fishing we bring that back out through what’s absorbed from the food chain starting with bacteria.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Excellent point. We should abandon science altogether because science has been wrong in the past, so we clearly can't say anything with certainty.
When you get sick, do you doubt modern medicine? There are trillions of variables there and after all, those same biochemists and physiologists got that egg thing wrong. Do you doubt gravity is holding you to the ground? Do you doubt that the electricity running your computer is a flow of electrons? Or do you selectively doubt what you don't want to hear and believe what you do? The validity of your egg example is an independent case and has no bearing on the validity of any other aspect of science, be it nutrition or physics. Just as in your example, science is self correcting and when people realize it's wrong it gets fixed. The theory of anthropogenic warming has been around for over 100 years and has only gotten stronger during that time with minor corrections to the details of the theory. It has yet to be falsified and it shouldn't be assumed that it will be. That's not how science works.All other things being equal, yes this would eventually happen, but within limits, and the reefs would be totally different due to the fact that different species shift at different rates. In fact there are lots of non-reef marine critters that have been observed shifting their range with temps. There are even some reefs off FL that seem to be evidence of corals shifting northward again.
However, a few things limit the ability of reefs to do this. One is that if the change is too fast the reefs get killed before they have a chance to move. At the current rate of decline things are changing too fast for a whole lot of shifting. Another huge limit is suitable water chemistry for the high rate of calcification needed to keep reefs going. Right now, regardless of what temps did, if everything else stayed equal you wouldn't get reef formation in the Atlantic much farther north than about the FL/GA line with a few quirky exceptions like Bermuda. As the oceans absorb more CO2 the pH drops (as it has already started to do) and so does the aragonite saturation point in the water. That moves the northern limit of reef formation farther south. What you end up with is temps pushing the range north and chemistry pushing the range south, so a shrinking band of suitable habitat. Eventually when they meet and overlap, reefs enter a fall-behind state. Again, that doesn't mean that corals and reefs are dead, just that they grow slower than erosion and other factors shrink them so net growth is negative. That's what we could very realistically be looking at in the next 50 years, even without any impact from warming.
As for references, this should give you a good place to start: http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/about/communications/issues/coral-reefs-and-climate-change-2007.html
Nature balances things out when there is a NATURAL curve of change. However we are not talking about natural rates of changes here. Were talking about issues accelerated by humans at an alarming rate far outside the realm of the norm. If you watch the number of polar bears, and compare it to the number of seals over a long span Id guarentuee you would see a trend. The seal population would rise, then as a response the bear population would rise. The larger number of bears would eat more seals so the population would drop and you would see a drop in bear population as a result. This would give the seals a chance to raise numbers again and the trend would recycle itself.
When you have a million years to adjust to a slow and naturally occuring slope then sure nature will fix things. However, if I cut down every single tree in south america over say 10 years, or even a hundred years, do you think thats something nature is going to fix? I think not.
cortez marine
In Memoriam
Exactly,
Where will the coral substrate to colonize nothward come from?
It took millions of years to create the dead coral base...the atolls, the reef flats.
The northward march of corals may begin.
And at just what rate will their "colonization" be successful?
Steve
Where will the coral substrate to colonize nothward come from?
It took millions of years to create the dead coral base...the atolls, the reef flats.
The northward march of corals may begin.
And at just what rate will their "colonization" be successful?
Steve
badbu68
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11810235#post11810235 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Excellent point. We should abandon science altogether because science has been wrong in the past, so we clearly can't say anything with certainty.
Two points;
A. I was using the whole egg analogy as a joke.
B. Gravity is not a just a good idea, its the law!
That is all.
:rollface:
Okay I lied, one more thing:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE6DF173EF933A05754C0A9659C8B63
discuss
fishquaria
New member
What I would like to ask everyone here to do is ask yourselves, how much of an impact does the reefkeeping hobby really have on the coral reefs, in the big picture. The Aquarium Fish Industry (Specifically Saltwater) is most often the sole income of many families. Hence it is a cherished business with people striving to keep it sustainable. Sustainability for them means a steady income. For example when Blood Red Shrimp have been harvested during the collecting season, the collectors stop completely until the shrimp breed and grow, which is the next collecting season.
In Sri Lanka for example, the collection of Live Coral for the Aquarium Trade is banned due to lobbying by (in my opinion very foolish and stupid) environmental groups. However to this day there is no ban on the breaking of coral for construction purposes and for decorative purposes. Many tourists by coral which has been broken and sundried as decorative pieces.
The collectors of fish and other invertebrates are the sole protectors of the reef or rather the corals from these morons as they know that without the reef they have no lively hood. Plus in countries where there are coral reefs, in many of these countries at least untreated waste is released into the water and other pollutants are released as well.
In Sri Lanka, global warming has not affected corals as much as human factors with the least being collection for the aquarium trade. From a friend who is a collector I do know that when collection was legal, it was done in a systematic way with harvesting in one area and then not toouching that same spot of upto a year or more. Thus making the overall impact minimal.
It is similar except for the ban in other collecting countries. Perhaps exceptions can be made in countries where they do damage the reefs due to inappropriate collection methods. But what is most important to remember is that out of the dangers posed to coral reefs, I think the aquarium trade would come very, very low down the list. As in most collecting countries it is a sustainable resource, a living and is cherished and carried out in a manner which will ensure that it goes on generation after generation.
Therefore anyone penalising reefers in the event of the disappearance of the coral reefs (which is possible but not likely) should be looked upon with scorn. They should be asked to try tourists who've bought dried corals, unscrupulous construction companies and cement companies, waste management authorities and the like.
In reality while there is a high mortality rate in the aquarium industry, much of the life collected is sustained and supported in our aquariums. There are frequently stories of people keeping fish and corals for over 5 years in their aquariums. Most of these people didn't start longer than five years ago.
I am not saying the aquarium trade is a saint. But it certainly is a minimal contributor. As such action should be taken against other parties who are visibly and without restraint wrecking the world's reefs.
In Sri Lanka for example, the collection of Live Coral for the Aquarium Trade is banned due to lobbying by (in my opinion very foolish and stupid) environmental groups. However to this day there is no ban on the breaking of coral for construction purposes and for decorative purposes. Many tourists by coral which has been broken and sundried as decorative pieces.
The collectors of fish and other invertebrates are the sole protectors of the reef or rather the corals from these morons as they know that without the reef they have no lively hood. Plus in countries where there are coral reefs, in many of these countries at least untreated waste is released into the water and other pollutants are released as well.
In Sri Lanka, global warming has not affected corals as much as human factors with the least being collection for the aquarium trade. From a friend who is a collector I do know that when collection was legal, it was done in a systematic way with harvesting in one area and then not toouching that same spot of upto a year or more. Thus making the overall impact minimal.
It is similar except for the ban in other collecting countries. Perhaps exceptions can be made in countries where they do damage the reefs due to inappropriate collection methods. But what is most important to remember is that out of the dangers posed to coral reefs, I think the aquarium trade would come very, very low down the list. As in most collecting countries it is a sustainable resource, a living and is cherished and carried out in a manner which will ensure that it goes on generation after generation.
Therefore anyone penalising reefers in the event of the disappearance of the coral reefs (which is possible but not likely) should be looked upon with scorn. They should be asked to try tourists who've bought dried corals, unscrupulous construction companies and cement companies, waste management authorities and the like.
In reality while there is a high mortality rate in the aquarium industry, much of the life collected is sustained and supported in our aquariums. There are frequently stories of people keeping fish and corals for over 5 years in their aquariums. Most of these people didn't start longer than five years ago.
I am not saying the aquarium trade is a saint. But it certainly is a minimal contributor. As such action should be taken against other parties who are visibly and without restraint wrecking the world's reefs.
I don't think well-informed people here would doubt the direct environmental benefits of an industry based on sustainable harvest of living reef organisms.
Now, what about the indirect environmental impacts (carbon emissions => global climate change => loss of reefs) of overnight shipping thousands of these packages of living organisms all around the world? Obviously it is a tiny drop in the bucket of carbon emissions due to our "super-consumer" economy, but I would say it has a much greater environmental impact than any direct effect the hobby has on reefs.
I am certainly very guilty of this problem, and I don't think anyone in this hobby could deny that they are "super-consumers" who contribute massively to environmental degradation. I think it is an interesting point to ponder though. Hopefully in November the world will be able to celebrate a change in the right direction that has the potential to remedy the problem.
-Tim
Now, what about the indirect environmental impacts (carbon emissions => global climate change => loss of reefs) of overnight shipping thousands of these packages of living organisms all around the world? Obviously it is a tiny drop in the bucket of carbon emissions due to our "super-consumer" economy, but I would say it has a much greater environmental impact than any direct effect the hobby has on reefs.
I am certainly very guilty of this problem, and I don't think anyone in this hobby could deny that they are "super-consumers" who contribute massively to environmental degradation. I think it is an interesting point to ponder though. Hopefully in November the world will be able to celebrate a change in the right direction that has the potential to remedy the problem.
-Tim
chrissreef
New member
"The saddest part is that I dont think the extinction of polar bears or the bleaching of coral seas is important enough to the majority of people that it is there rock bottom. In fact Id say that more people would be concerned about the hassle it is for them to recycle then they would be about the fate of fish or bears."
yup
a lot of this thread reminds me of corporations. instead of killing people, they remove them... many times from the bottom. "we saved 10million this year by firing 200 employees... good thing my vp job paying 10million is still intact". As was said, the super consumers are the ones that need an overhaul.
yup
a lot of this thread reminds me of corporations. instead of killing people, they remove them... many times from the bottom. "we saved 10million this year by firing 200 employees... good thing my vp job paying 10million is still intact". As was said, the super consumers are the ones that need an overhaul.
simmons797
New member
These things can be proven.
Keyword=THEORY
You're right that's not how science works, but just because you can't prove something is false does not make it true. This sentence could have just as easily read: It has yet to be proven true and it shouldn't be assumed that it will be.
kaptken
New member
well, there is some evidence that corals are migrating to colonize cooler waters in some areas where shallow waters near by allow for that. Corals and reef fish seem to be migrating south in Australia.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkID=44276
I have read some old articles that show some florida corals are also moving north. not much, just 20-50 miles. but colonizing new reefs. the gulf stream current carries their spawn north each year to land and live where they may. Which explains why we can catch lots of sea horses in the Delaware bay each summer. Apparently their young ones ride in on the current from down south, grow in the summer and then die off in the winter cold.
Ocean acidification may in time prevent corals from extracting carbonates from the water to build their structures, at which time they may revert to their previous plantktonic life form from which they evolved. They may survive, but not as fixed reefs. Back to being jelly fish or was it anemones?
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkID=44276
I have read some old articles that show some florida corals are also moving north. not much, just 20-50 miles. but colonizing new reefs. the gulf stream current carries their spawn north each year to land and live where they may. Which explains why we can catch lots of sea horses in the Delaware bay each summer. Apparently their young ones ride in on the current from down south, grow in the summer and then die off in the winter cold.
Ocean acidification may in time prevent corals from extracting carbonates from the water to build their structures, at which time they may revert to their previous plantktonic life form from which they evolved. They may survive, but not as fixed reefs. Back to being jelly fish or was it anemones?
greenbean36191
Premium Member
How can you prove gravity is real or that it is the force holding you to the ground? What's the mechanism behind it? We know that it's real because we can see and measure the results of gravity. Anthropogenic warming is no different.
Yes, that is the keyword. A theory is a collection of facts supporting the explanation of a complex phenomenon. It is not a hypothesis or a guess. It's the highest level of certainty that there is for complex phenomena. Laws deal with simple phenomena that can be expressed as mathematical expressions. Some other theories you may be familiar with are the germ theory of disease transmission, electromagnetic theory, gravitational theory, the Coppernican model of the solar system, etc. By definition theories are well supported and not easily done away with. Doing so would require disproving a number of the facts on which they are based, not just one or two.
And that's why science never assumes or proves that something is true. We eliminate what we know isn't true and come up with the best explanation for phenomena based on what's left. There's never an assumption that we have the truth, just that we have the most plausible explanation given the evidence. However, we also don't assume that our explanations aren't true either unless we have evidence that that's the case. If we did, science would be a pretty pointless endeavor.
This is not my experience at all in collecting areas. I did some work in the Caribbean and when I asked some of the collectors if they thought what they were doing hurt the reefs, most of them told me the ocean was too big for them to make a difference. I even heard that in areas where segments of the fishery already collapsed back in the 70s and were just starting to recover! The people I'm working with now are looking at the sustainability of ornamental shrimp collection in the Caribbean and most of the collectors have no concept of sustainable collecting. They get what they can where they can. Even we don't know what's sustainable there and what's not.
Hawai'i and Florida are the only places I've ever met individual collectors who have rotating sites and systems they use to prevent overharvesting.
In the Caribbean and the Pacific I've seen locals walk out onto the reef at low tide day after day and collect anything edible they could catch or break loose. They realize the reef is their livelihood, but they either don't think their impact is enough to destroy it or it just doesn't matter given their situation. Personally, I don't really blame them. I think most people would choose unsustainable collection over starvation. As the reefs decline and coastal populations grow you get more competition for less resources and no matter how careful individual collectors try to be, things get desperate.
I agree that in the grand scheme of things, collection for the reef hobby is small potatoes, but I disagree that that should give us a pass. The hobby is a luxury industry. People need construction material, food, and sanitation. While it would be great if people could meet those needs without hurting the reef, it's just not realistic in a lot of places. People aren't mining coral or dumping sewage on the reef because they don't care about the environment. They don't really have much choice.
The Marshall Islands are a great example. Half the population of the country lives on Majuro, which is a narrow little atoll. There's not a whole lot of forest to get lumber from, but there's a whole lot of reef and 30,000 people in need of homes. Coral is the logical choice for building material. If you live on one of the other islands you're pretty darn isolated, so what happens to your sewage? It goes out onto the reef because it's not practical to build sewage treatment plants everywhere people live, especially in third-world countries.
liamblair1987
New member
ive said it once and ill say it again....the planet has been overpopulated by humans who in turn add to every bit of destruction this planet faces..including our own demise..yet...we add more and more people to the planet each year...our planet can simply not sustain 6 billion people!~
- Status
Similar threads
