Philippine Coral Reefs Affected by Global Warming

Tourism is important, but I would say food (fish) comes before tourism dollars. No?

Rossini, I'm sure you're right, the implications for the local food supply are probably more important than the tourism dollars, although there is a lot of fish farming here that will be unaffected by the state of the reef.

I had tourism on my mind because I was snorkeling in Batangas, one of the hardest-hit areas, just a couple of weeks ago. The reef looked fine where I was, aside from the occasional blizzard of discarded plastic wrappers (another sin for which humans are some day going to be held accountable), but I saw only a very small part of a very big reef and I'm sure there are large parts of it that have been devastated.

BTW, the NY Times ran a series of posts by Terry Gosliner, a scientist from the California Academy of Sciences, who was studying nudibranchs in Batangas. He said "... it is one of the few places in the western Pacific where you can say that the reefs are in better shape now than they used to be." Not any more, sadly. You can find his articles here http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/the-beauty-of-diversity-and-sea-slugs/
 
I never thought that this would turn out to be such a heated discussion. But anyway, what is important here is that we realize that we all contribute somehow to global warming. Whether it be driving your F-150 or turning on your computers to type your replies here. The question now is what can we do about it and what are we willing to sacrifice in order help reduce the amount of pollution that we humans are releasing into the atmosphere which is accelerating global warming. After all, we humans will be the ones to suffer in the end if the coral reef never recovers from this.

Cheers everyone!
 
I snorkeled around some Eastern islands in the Philippines last month. What were once pink and purple acros, are now brown and white. However, the opposite side of some of the islands have reverse results. What were once brown and white are now pinks, purples, and yellow. All healthy.

Strange. Just pointing it out.
 
These types of events are extremely obvious, even from a boat at the surface, so it's unlikely that they were occurring as often as they are now and just going unreported. Also, the ecological changes occurring after some of these events suggests that at least on those specific reefs these types of events are unprecedented in recent history.


I've enjoyed diving throughout the Caribbean and Bahama's since the mid 80's. Some field research, some vacation. In the 80's there was no evidence of bleaching anyplace, heck it wasn't even being talked about then. It wasn't till that massive bleaching event in the 90's that it started becoming a real issue. It was also very apparent for several years after. While there has been some recovery between these recent bleaching events, the damage is readily evident to anyone familiar with the reef ecosystem. It such that it would also be readily apparent in core samples, due stoppage in growth, and obvious regrowth and overgrowth of different species and algae.


It is possible that no evidence of past bleaching exists because the reef recovered, and the bleached corals are now covered by new healthy growth

The aforementioned core samples would have yielded obvious evidence of past bleaching events, so we'd know ;)
 
Hippie,

I only brought it up because another poster assumed that I subscribed to junk science blogs and fox news. My original point was only to say that humans have not monitored or recorded weather, climate change, or reef health for long enough to say what is normal and what is not.

Humans might have not recorded climatic changes directly for the entire life of the planet; but that doesn't mean scientists do not have significant evidence to infer climate change.
 
Humans might have not recorded climatic changes directly for the entire life of the planet; but that doesn't mean scientists do not have significant evidence to infer climate change.

I totally agree. I am still curious as to the cycle of climate change though. Thousands of years?? Tens of thousands?? More?? There has simply got to be more to this than greenhouse gases. Too many variables have an impact on the overall temperature of the planet.
 
I totally agree. I am still curious as to the cycle of climate change though. Thousands of years?? Tens of thousands?? More?? There has simply got to be more to this than greenhouse gases. Too many variables have an impact on the overall temperature of the planet.

The typical cycle is 10s of thousands. Yes there is indeed more to the global temperature cycles than greenhouse gasses, things like solar activity come to mind. However, our emissions are causing the warming swing of the normal cycle to occur at a greatly increased rate. That unprecedented rate of change leads to problems before species can adapt.
 
Is it known yet whether or not the corals expel the zooxanthellae, or do they leave the coral under their own power?
 
Returning to the actual subject...

It is possible that no evidence of past bleaching exists because the reef recovered, and the bleached corals are now covered by new healthy growth.
Possible, but extremely unlikely. Even sub-lethal bleaching results in reduced growth in affected corals. That would show up in growth rings, so if mass bleaching were occurring within the past few hundred years we should see several periods where lots of corals have reduced growth concurrently. We don't see that signature in the cores until the past few decades.

Also, if bleaching is severe enough to cause mortality, that gets preserved in the framework of the reef. If you drill into the framework you see mass mortality reflected by changes in species composition and burial rates. Even if the reef subsequently recovers, that mortality is apparent for literally thousands of years. While only a few reefs have been studied so far, we don't see indications of bleaching induced mortality in the past few thousand years.

Also, while there is no doubt that the access to more isolated reefs and better monitoring have been responsible for some of the increase in reported bleaching events, that doesn't explain it all. Scientists have been studying reefs for over 100 years and have known of bleaching for almost as long. These events are so obvious that you can spot mass bleaching from the surface and even from the air. It's hard to believe that for 70+ years (~20 of which they had SCUBA) they were looking at the reefs but either didn't notice or didn't think to report mass bleaching a single time if the events were occurring as often as now.

The reefs of the world have survived eons of temperature fluctuations, global warming and cooling events, ice ages, etc.. I imagine that they will be here long after we are all gone.
Reefs have been around in some form or another for virtually as long as life on Earth. They have NOT survived continually through eons of fluctuations though. There are multiple periods when the reef-building organisms went extinct or all reef building simply ceased for several million years at a time. The history of reef building is a history of extinction and then the evolution of new reef-building species, not of reef-builders simply persisting regardless of what happens around them.

Modern corals started building reefs back when dinosaurs were around. They subsequently went almost extinct and completely stopped building reefs for several million years. Reefs only re-emerged about 23 million years ago when modern corals started to re-diversify. In those intervening years corals have survived ice ages that were much cooler than modern temperatures and interglacials that were warmer. However, they haven't experienced rates of change comparable to what they're facing now.

If history is any indication, coral reefs can and will go extinct. If we drive that extinction along, something will eventually come back and build reefs again, but we could be waiting a few million years for that to happen.
 
Thats very interesting greenbean36191. May i ask where you got your information as im interested to read more on what you said about coral reefs going extinct several million years ago and what we have now just emerged about 23 million years ago?
 
The typical cycle is 10s of thousands. Yes there is indeed more to the global temperature cycles than greenhouse gasses, things like solar activity come to mind. However, our emissions are causing the warming swing of the normal cycle to occur at a greatly increased rate. That unprecedented rate of change leads to problems before species can adapt.

+ 1 I agree. I think the problem with global warming nowadays is the accelerated speed it has been happening. Even if global warming was to happen naturally, the amount of pollution we are creating nowadays has in fact accelerated the process.
 
I was looking at some dead coral from a huge reef the other day on an island in the Gulf of California.
It was all dead.
It was also 50 feet above sea level.
Millions of years ago that reef died. I think it died a slow death...a death that perhaps took many, many years. Then, millions of years later...it rose above the waterline and kept rising a fraction of a cm a year.
And then, I showed up.
Steve
 
At any rate, what do you guys suggest that we as a global community do to curb the effects of these greenhouse gases and global warming?

Not much. China and India, near 40% of the world's population, are only going to continue to industrialize, and make America's emissions look insignificant. If someone want to buy 'green' products, the need for which was created under a falsehood of media hysteria, have at it. Just don't dare force me to change and adjust my standard of living, when in the end, it doesn't really matter.
 
Back
Top