tmc1313
Active member
Just wanted to pass this along:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...hed-severely-since-2016/ar-BBzCC14?li=BBnbcA1
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...hed-severely-since-2016/ar-BBzCC14?li=BBnbcA1
More bad news for Australia (for everyone)
- Thread starter tmc1313
- Start date
WatDatThing
New member
Imagine the day when the only corals left in the world are at the aquariums, conservations and private reefer tanks.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
tmc1313
Active member
It will be a very sad day if that day every comes, hopefully, somehow things will turn for the better.
Stolireef
Active member
I am not a climate change denier and believe that man has a significant impact on the environment but...
This article is about as hysterical as they come. The most critical piece of information is missing, to wit; what is the temperature differential?
Anyone who has played in the Gulf of Mexico is aware of substantial seasonal temperature changes. These are normal temperature swings that have been occurring since way before man had anything to do with the environment.
Moreover, as anyone in our hobby knows, you can successfully keep SPS in a fairly wide band of temperatures. In my experience, corals thrive from anywhere between 75 degrees to about 85 degrees so long as the temperatures don't change too suddenly.
I think the science of climate change loses credibility every time this type of article is published. Give people hard facts. Frankly, I'd bet that temperature is less of a problem than dumping and agricultural run off as a cause for the bleaching. What are the levels of phosphates and nitrates in the water? How have they changed over the last decade or so?
JMHO.
This article is about as hysterical as they come. The most critical piece of information is missing, to wit; what is the temperature differential?
Anyone who has played in the Gulf of Mexico is aware of substantial seasonal temperature changes. These are normal temperature swings that have been occurring since way before man had anything to do with the environment.
Moreover, as anyone in our hobby knows, you can successfully keep SPS in a fairly wide band of temperatures. In my experience, corals thrive from anywhere between 75 degrees to about 85 degrees so long as the temperatures don't change too suddenly.
I think the science of climate change loses credibility every time this type of article is published. Give people hard facts. Frankly, I'd bet that temperature is less of a problem than dumping and agricultural run off as a cause for the bleaching. What are the levels of phosphates and nitrates in the water? How have they changed over the last decade or so?
JMHO.
LX20000
New member
I think an important question is this.. .have there been large scale bleachings at any time in the past 100 years? If so, what caused them, and did corals make a comeback... also, are more corals showing up in waters that have been a bit too cold in the past, and are now somewhat warmer?
tmc1313
Active member
I had the same thought when I read the article too. Although, I think temperature is playing a role, I'm not sure I believe it's the only cause. As you said, maybe because of some other variable the corals aren't as strong as they normally would be, then you throw in some temperature swings and the undeniable result is not good. Either way, whatever is causing it, is not good.
WatDatThing
New member
Can we agree that we don't need to know all the causes of heart disease to start exercising and reduce cholesterol intake to prevent heart disease?
Do we need to know all the causes of climate change to reduce air pollution?
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Do we need to know all the causes of climate change to reduce air pollution?
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Totally agreed.
LX20000
New member
Much more complicated than that. If the US and Europe impose very expensive measures to reduce carbon, and China, India, Russia, Africa and most other places don't, we just stop making stuff here, collapse our economy and then everything will be made in these third world places where there are no regulations, releasing even more carbon.
Let's say a company follows the current U.S. regs and releases a million tons of CO2 a year. New U.S. regs would require company to spend $100 million, and reduce carbon to 1/2 million tons of CO2. Company decides they can't afford it, moves production to China, with much more lax production, and electricity made from coal, and now new factory in China spews out 3 million tons of CO2 annually.
Wheeee !! Goes the environmental crowd. We shut down that evil factory spewing 1 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. YAAAAAAAA !!! Meanwhile in China, it spews 3 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
It is really really more complicated than putting a bunch of draconian controls in place here in the U.S. and Western Europe, while the rest of the world does far less or nothing. Shutting down production HERE actually INCREASES CO2 production.
Stolireef
Active member
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Which cholesterol are you talking about? HDL or LDL? Your body needs both to survive. The problem is that too much LDL has been implicated in certain types of heart disease in certain people. My wife is an elite athlete and is an extremely healthy eater and yet has higher than average cholesterol. So, yeah, eating healthy is good, exercise is good and poluting less is good.
The problem is that the public is very poorly educated on statistics and science. So, if a disease affects 1 in 100,000 people and a new 'superfood' reduces your likelihood of getting that disease by 25%, you're still more likely to die in a car driving while using your app to order your favorite beverage at Starbucks.
By way of example, the article screams (more like weeps) about the bleaching of 900 miles of the GBR? What is the history of such bleaching events? How long have such events been scientifically tracked? In a more typical year, how much, if any, bleaching occurs on the GBR? In past bleaching events, did the reef recover? How long did it take?
Boiled down by the great comedian, Lewis Black... Is milk good for you??
NeverlosT
A bit fishy
Some of these arguments are not sensible. I do agree that that article was more doom and gloom than it needed to be, but change is needed and you don't get change by writing weak worded articles.
To say:
"Which cholesterol are you talking about? HDL or LDL? Your body needs both to survive."
implies that some level of man-made CO2 is needed for the environment to operate optimally which is obviously false. Coral reefs would rather that human's didn't exist (they existed just fine for millions of years before we started cranking out CO2 like there was no tomorrow).
I do agree that there have been bleaching events in the past, just as there have been planetary temperature fluctuations in the past, but changes in the rate and magnitude of these fluctuations and events is a man-made phenomenon. To deny that is to deny science, and to deny science is to simply put ones personal agenda before ones obligation to the planet and future generations.
LX20000 has some great points. If the US and UK eliminate their carbon emissions, we would just push more jobs to places where no one cares about the climate. Combating Climate change is very much a first world discussion, however climate change is felt most keenly in third world countries where coastal areas are submerged, extreme weather patterns are killing crops, and drought or flood kill many. So solving this global problem is a complex issue.
Can corals work through this? Maybe, maybe they start growing in traditionally cooler waters, maybe they evolve to be more robust to thermal variation, its all possible. What we DO know is that areas that have had healthy reefs for thousands of years are now graveyards, and that is a good call-to-arms for people to consider human induced climate change and what we can do.
I certainly don't have the answers, but to ignore the problem is not the solution either. To put our economy or the stock market ahead of significant climate impacts is irresponsible in my opinion.
To say:
"Which cholesterol are you talking about? HDL or LDL? Your body needs both to survive."
implies that some level of man-made CO2 is needed for the environment to operate optimally which is obviously false. Coral reefs would rather that human's didn't exist (they existed just fine for millions of years before we started cranking out CO2 like there was no tomorrow).
I do agree that there have been bleaching events in the past, just as there have been planetary temperature fluctuations in the past, but changes in the rate and magnitude of these fluctuations and events is a man-made phenomenon. To deny that is to deny science, and to deny science is to simply put ones personal agenda before ones obligation to the planet and future generations.
LX20000 has some great points. If the US and UK eliminate their carbon emissions, we would just push more jobs to places where no one cares about the climate. Combating Climate change is very much a first world discussion, however climate change is felt most keenly in third world countries where coastal areas are submerged, extreme weather patterns are killing crops, and drought or flood kill many. So solving this global problem is a complex issue.
Can corals work through this? Maybe, maybe they start growing in traditionally cooler waters, maybe they evolve to be more robust to thermal variation, its all possible. What we DO know is that areas that have had healthy reefs for thousands of years are now graveyards, and that is a good call-to-arms for people to consider human induced climate change and what we can do.
I certainly don't have the answers, but to ignore the problem is not the solution either. To put our economy or the stock market ahead of significant climate impacts is irresponsible in my opinion.
madkeenreefer
New member
Here is alittle wiki reading on the subject https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
As I understand it is belived that a coral reef requires 16yrs to fully recover from a serious bleaching event and unfortunatly this latest one is straight on the back of last years bleaching event which many of you would remember.
Before these two events the most serious and recent event was in the late 90's I still remember watching all the reef reports on local new back in Cairns saying this was the end of our reefs. Thankfully the reefes did indeed recover.
With such close proximity between these recent events I imagine its anyones guess as to how these amazing underwater ecosystems will evolve.
As I understand it is belived that a coral reef requires 16yrs to fully recover from a serious bleaching event and unfortunatly this latest one is straight on the back of last years bleaching event which many of you would remember.
Before these two events the most serious and recent event was in the late 90's I still remember watching all the reef reports on local new back in Cairns saying this was the end of our reefs. Thankfully the reefes did indeed recover.
With such close proximity between these recent events I imagine its anyones guess as to how these amazing underwater ecosystems will evolve.
Stolireef
Active member
Madkeenreefer:
As I said at the beginning of my first post, I am, in no way, a climate change denier. Just the opposite. Further, I'm not opposed to strongly worded reporting on the impacts of climate change, pollution, etc. What I am opposed to is hysterical, non-factual reporting that fails to educate the public on root causes. In fact, articles like this provide fodder for the denier crowd. All they have to do is publicly ask the same questions I asked but using a denier slant.
I live in a desert and the news constantly reports on our severe drought. The definition of a desert is sever drought and the drought we should be concerned about is the one that exists far north of us where most of our water is stored in the form of winter snow pack.
Sure, conservation here in the desert is a must but it won't have one iota of impact on the drought conditions that exist where the water is stored.
So, lets get the reporters to say that there is drought in the mountains and (a) we have to use less water because we have less stored and (b) lets reduce green house gases to help increase the snowpack far away. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit into a soundbite as well as 'OMG, WE'RE IN A SEVERE DROUGHT HERE IN THE DESERT'.
As I said at the beginning of my first post, I am, in no way, a climate change denier. Just the opposite. Further, I'm not opposed to strongly worded reporting on the impacts of climate change, pollution, etc. What I am opposed to is hysterical, non-factual reporting that fails to educate the public on root causes. In fact, articles like this provide fodder for the denier crowd. All they have to do is publicly ask the same questions I asked but using a denier slant.
I live in a desert and the news constantly reports on our severe drought. The definition of a desert is sever drought and the drought we should be concerned about is the one that exists far north of us where most of our water is stored in the form of winter snow pack.
Sure, conservation here in the desert is a must but it won't have one iota of impact on the drought conditions that exist where the water is stored.
So, lets get the reporters to say that there is drought in the mountains and (a) we have to use less water because we have less stored and (b) lets reduce green house gases to help increase the snowpack far away. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit into a soundbite as well as 'OMG, WE'RE IN A SEVERE DROUGHT HERE IN THE DESERT'.
LX20000
New member
Then there's the really big elephant in the room... the sun. Astronomers and physicists have noted decreasing numbers of sunspots in the last 4 eleven year solar cycles, and many believe we are headed to a deep minimum which appears to occur only every several hundred years... and this will lead to cooling... perhaps significant.
tmc1313
Active member
I agree that more information and research is needed, but I don't think anyone can deny there is something stressing the GBR (could be part of a natural cycle, could be part manmade), probably a little of both. If you look at the map the article provides, it shows much more bleaching to the north in 2016 and more to the south in 2017. It's probably to soon to know given that the article states it takes about 10 years to recover from a bleaching event with some species taking even longer, but I wonder if the reef to the northwest that had severe bleaching in 2016, but none in 2017 is showing any signs of recovery or if it's just completely dead. At any rate, if it is happening more often than not it just makes it that much tougher for recovery. In the end, I think the hope is it all works out. Probably more so from the reefing community.
Last edited:
Everybody better care about this now. If not, when it gets really bad and people have to go WAY too far to reverse the damage, then everything from the ocean will be on a CITES list as a possible cause since there will be no room for error - there will be nothing in the hobby since the geniuses won't even allow the sale of CB fish or tank raised corals since they could not risk that they were taken from a reef. This will be stupid since I doubt that humans are 100% to blame for the damage, but will be 100% to blame for not doing anything sooner.
I love the false equivalencies. Cholesterol is the same as water temp... Corals in a box in the living room are the same as in the ocean... Everybody is a scientist, I guess.
I love the false equivalencies. Cholesterol is the same as water temp... Corals in a box in the living room are the same as in the ocean... Everybody is a scientist, I guess.
madkeenreefer
New member
Stolireefer,
My coments were general to the topic and not directed at any one person.
Each to there own
My coments were general to the topic and not directed at any one person.
Each to there own
Similar threads
