Philippine Coral Reefs Affected by Global Warming
- Thread starter shandy_say
- Start date
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
Just because a problem is large doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and wait for bad things to happen. If you want to disagree with the vast majority of people that study this... go right ahead. But blaming industrializing nations when you look at what we consume per capita makes a person look pretty selfish and ignorant in my book.
Actually Steve, it wasn't the reef rose above the water line, so much as it was water line dropping below the reef as more of the planets water got trapped as ice in glaciers and the polar ice sheets
Gives you a good idea of what water levels will become again as those ice sheets melt.cortez marine
In Memoriam
Egads!
So as the waterline dropped, the corals found themselves literally sticking out of the water for...eons.
Now the same area is too cold for reefs.
It looks like the tropical borderline went South.
It also gives a good idea of how resiliant reefs can be. They just work at a slow pace.
Steve
So as the waterline dropped, the corals found themselves literally sticking out of the water for...eons.
Now the same area is too cold for reefs.
It looks like the tropical borderline went South.
It also gives a good idea of how resiliant reefs can be. They just work at a slow pace.
Steve
You got it, Steve. I've also stood a couple of hundred feet above sea level on top of ancient reefs in the Caribbean on such coral formed Islands such as Mona Island and Cayman Brac. Quite interesting standing on top of recognizable brain coral while that high above sea level
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Good question and I don't really have a great answer for you. It's just one of those things I was expected to learn for multiple reef ecology/geology courses. Specifically, I've heard it from Rich Aronson and Bernhard Riegl, both of whom specialize in paleoecology of reefs, so I take to be trustworthy sources. Unfortunately, not specializing in the subject myself, I don't know of many papers to point you to to show you where they got that information.
I know that Fagerstrom has written a good bit on the issue and has produced some really nice graphical representations of the dominant reef guilds (or lack thereof) through time, but I can't find them online anywhere.
Stanley also has a good discussion of the multiple gaps and reef building, as well as a great graphic illustrating the discontinuous history of reefbuilding and how different groups evolve and then drop out through time. Unfortunately the paper isn't available online either, but the graphic is reproduced elsewhere.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...ed8ed691a81f7d4aa8f17324fa7ccc5a&searchtype=a
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
You know, Earth can only provide so much. With all of the demands from a rising population and standard of living, you either become more efficient or you have to get by with less. It's not humans that are going to force you change, it will be nature itself. It's in our best interest to become 'green', in fact being green will become necessary to simply maintain our standard of living.
AquaKnight
Active member
I never intended to blame anyone. My whole point with that post was to illustrate that these 'green' alternatives, trading in one's F-150 for a Prius, is going to rubbish and ineffective in the long run, as India and China modernize (not that it's their fault, just saying that's where most of the new pollution is going to come from).
Mandating things like retarded CAFE standards, outlawing incandescent bulbs, limiting how big a TV we can buy, etc, is not worth the risk the slippery slope of being told what we are allow to buy.
I fully agree there, the Earth can in fact only provide so much. If we had the slightest idea how much, or how little, I would be more inclined to swallow the doom and gloom stories.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If times do arrive that we must change, then we certainly will. However the dollar-store band-aids that peel off after 5mins of alternatives we have now, aren't going to cut it.
Last edited:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
It's not like we can go from the F-150 to the Jetsons without some intermediate technology. Technology that needs to be supported and developed either through company profits or government projects. Take your pick.
49.35 North
New member
Reef Central probably isn't a very good place to debate climate change and I think I'll stay away from the subject from now on, but I just wanted to say that I actually agree with many of the points you make.
Most (or maybe all) of the increase in emissions is going to come from the emerging economies like China and India, and the global community can't solve the problem without them. On the other hand, it would be a lot easier to bring them into a global agreement if the advanced economies were providing some leadership by reducing their own emissions - which they aren't.
I agree with your argument about choice, too. That's why I think a carbon tax is a much better solution than regulation. It makes more sense to tax bad things like CO2 emissions than good things like income, and if people want to drive turbo Bentleys, good for them - as long as they're willing to pay $5/gallon (or maybe $10/gallon) for the fuel for them.
I'm done.
shandy_say
New member
Thanks greenbean for the link and pic. A tad bit too complicated for me but i'll try to read up on it. hahah!
shandy_say
New member
Almost everything nowadays is made in China or India or atleast some component of the finished product was made in China or India. From the clothes we wear, to the food we eat and even to the cars we drive. These were in some way made in China or India. These massive production scales in China and India are in fact why they produce so much pollution. So if you are a consumer of some product then you are also in some way contributing to the pollution. We all are consumers and we all contribute to pollution. But this earth is the only one we have, and so it is very important that we do our fair share of keeping the world alive.
Rancherlee
New member
CO2 isn't so much an issue from industry/combustion engines as it is the planets ability to sequester it. All those vast open areas where rain forest use to be is more of an issue, thats ALOT of "CO2 scubbin' " that we have lost in those areas. We are only 3* warmer than the last ice age currently, which ended ~10,000 years ago, and have about another *7 to go before the end of the "warm period" in roughly 90,000 years. The planet is going through some wild swings, last winter was one of the coldest on record in my area and then some of the warmest months on record this summer. I'm all for "green" power, but not at 10x the cost, the cost will come down eventually and become "affordable". I say bring on more nuclear power plants, thats the best "stop gap" we have for the next 30-50 years. And yes, I Drive an F-250 diesel............. and actually use the towing ability, I haven't seen Prius yet that can haul 5 people + gear + 8000# trailer . I have a solution to the people driving trucks/suvs as daily drivers too, force the insurance companies to go back to "fleet" policies like they use to have, were you only payed insurance on the highest price vehicle owned and didn't need to pay on others that are sitting while you drive another. You can only drive one vehicle at a time, right?. The fuel savings I would get out of Hybrid wouldn't even cover the difference it costs to insure it, if I had fleet insurance I may consider actually purchasing one.
. I have a solution to the people driving trucks/suvs as daily drivers too, force the insurance companies to go back to "fleet" policies like they use to have, were you only payed insurance on the highest price vehicle owned and didn't need to pay on others that are sitting while you drive another. You can only drive one vehicle at a time, right?. The fuel savings I would get out of Hybrid wouldn't even cover the difference it costs to insure it, if I had fleet insurance I may consider actually purchasing one.
Luiz Rocha
Salty Dog
The post above is what I call pure disinformation... Sigh...
1. There is no problem with the planet's ability to sequester CO2, it is relatively constant, what is tipping the balance is how much we are putting in the atmosphere.
2. There is absolutely no CO2 absorption on rainforests, whatever plants take out from the atmosphere during the day by photosynthesis they return to it at night by respiration. The only real CO2 sink are the oceans (be it algae growth/photosynthesis or CO2 absorption by the water).
3. You seem to talk about glaciations with authority, but cold periods are the long ones (average 100k years) and warm periods are the short ones (average 20k years). We are about half way into the current interglacial. I'm sorry to say, but we don't have another 90k years before a new glaciation; 10k at the most.
Would be nice if people read about the topics before posting things as if they were facts . Cheers!
1. There is no problem with the planet's ability to sequester CO2, it is relatively constant, what is tipping the balance is how much we are putting in the atmosphere.
2. There is absolutely no CO2 absorption on rainforests, whatever plants take out from the atmosphere during the day by photosynthesis they return to it at night by respiration. The only real CO2 sink are the oceans (be it algae growth/photosynthesis or CO2 absorption by the water).
3. You seem to talk about glaciations with authority, but cold periods are the long ones (average 100k years) and warm periods are the short ones (average 20k years). We are about half way into the current interglacial. I'm sorry to say, but we don't have another 90k years before a new glaciation; 10k at the most.
Would be nice if people read about the topics before posting things as if they were facts
. Cheers!
Luiz,
Rancherlee isn't nearly so far off the mark as you seem to think. While our industrial age emissions are certainly a main part of the problem, rainforests (and other plant dominated areas) are key to removing atmospheric CO2, same way as algae in the oceans. The whole growth part of the equation ties up C So we have lost a percentage of the planets ability to remove atmospheric CO2 due to the loss of rainforests and the paving over of other parts of the planet as well.
Rancherlee isn't nearly so far off the mark as you seem to think. While our industrial age emissions are certainly a main part of the problem, rainforests (and other plant dominated areas) are key to removing atmospheric CO2, same way as algae in the oceans. The whole growth part of the equation ties up C
So we have lost a percentage of the planets ability to remove atmospheric CO2 due to the loss of rainforests and the paving over of other parts of the planet as well.
T Diddy
Happy to be here
Luiz,
Rancherlee isn't nearly so far off the mark as you seem to think. While our industrial age emissions are certainly a main part of the problem, rainforests (and other plant dominated areas) are key to removing atmospheric CO2, same way as algae in the oceans. The whole growth part of the equation ties up C
Some of the Co2 is certainly released through respiration, but as Bill said, much of the CO2 when combined with water yeilds sugars stored within the plants themselves, and the fruits they produce
+1 for concrete and asphalt heating up air temperatures in a localized area (driveway, neighborhood, town, city, etc.)
returnofsid
New member
The post above is what I call pure disinformation... Sigh...
1. There is no problem with the planet's ability to sequester CO2, it is relatively constant, what is tipping the balance is how much we are putting in the atmosphere.
2. There is absolutely no CO2 absorption on rainforests, whatever plants take out from the atmosphere during the day by photosynthesis they return to it at night by respiration. The only real CO2 sink are the oceans (be it algae growth/photosynthesis or CO2 absorption by the water).
3. You seem to talk about glaciations with authority, but cold periods are the long ones (average 100k years) and warm periods are the short ones (average 20k years). We are about half way into the current interglacial. I'm sorry to say, but we don't have another 90k years before a new glaciation; 10k at the most.
Would be nice if people read about the topics before posting things as if they were facts
#1, I partially agree with.
#2. You're WAY off base. How can you say that the Rainforests don't absorb Co2, but that algae growth/photosynthesis does? They both absorb Co2, in the same manner. Most of the Co2 that is absorbed by the Rainforests, as well as other forests and all plant life, is NOT released, at night, but is trapped within the plant, as it grows.
As you said, it would be nice, if people, including yourself, would read about topics, before posting things, as if they were facts
bleedfire
New member
I though I would like to share a little, video, my boyfriend's father is one of the "Muro ami kids" and he have seen this type of events, sad story.. we always adore every little thing in the ocean as he calls it "our Ocean". yes it might be totally off topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_LLmFc3Pfs
yeah the Filipino way of fish in past years have been extreme, bombing, poison breaking habitats, but its the way of life out there for but greed always takes over of course.
it was in Bicolano but what he sed was "A fisherman knows his own ocean much better than any biologist out there"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_LLmFc3Pfs
yeah the Filipino way of fish in past years have been extreme, bombing, poison breaking habitats, but its the way of life out there for but greed always takes over of course.
it was in Bicolano but what he sed was "A fisherman knows his own ocean much better than any biologist out there"
Similar threads
