this is sad news for the world's reefs

[nyknicks4412]

a couple things that I think deserve mentioning:

Climate change will cause an increase in extreme weather events LIKE El Nino. El Nino may be a "natural weather pattern" as many of you have pointed out, but it is exacerbated by global temperature rise.

the reason corals (and other organisms) have survived mass extinction events is (mostly) because they got extremely lucky and just happened to be able to withstand whatever physiological stressors caused these mass extinctions. The reason we see such amazing coral diversity today is not because of the survival of a large diversity of corals in the last extinctions, but because a few coral species from a few different genera survived and went through an adaptive radiation because of all the open niches from recently extinct species.

So while class Anthozoa (aka coral) may survive anthropogenic extinction, we could very well lose a high percentage of coral species diversity.

Here's a cool animation from nasa showing temperature rise following the industrial revolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGOzHVUQCw0


another cool animation showing CO2 trends from ice core and observatory data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0dXjmoA0dw

and detailed CO2 and temperature data
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html


The data shows that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in the last 800,000 years, and this is unequivocally caused by humans. Unavoidable temperature rise and ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2 are causing the anthropocene extinction event we are currently seeing. This could be the extinction event that kills off coral reefs.

But I assume many of you know this? Just be aware that this is unequivocally human caused. In my opinion we have an obligation to ameliorate the effects of human-caused CO2 increase (as well as other human caused environmental issues).

It's time to get serious. If you want to do your part, you ought to strive to reduce your carbon and ecological footprint to the best of your ability. Helping maintain the genetic information of corals by keeping living specimens doesn't hurt either (;

Scary "climate change" graphics that analyze a time period of less than 200 years (one of them looked at 20 years of data lol) and then blanket statements saying "don't argue this folks it's a fact we're changing everything".

Climate change exists but don't give humans so much credit. Our existence is relatively meaningless. If the earth can survive direct hits from asteroids and massive volcanic eruptions...I think it can handle our little cars and trains. We'll either wipe each other out or a natural phenomena will take us with it long before the planet even notices we were here. So relax it'll all work out.

If you want to feel good about limiting your carbon footprint fine...just know China's going to keep on pumping out that c02.

 

[karimwassef]

You could survive a bullet to the shoulder, that's not the same as getting Ebola.

There are other species in earth's history that did change our climate... Usually in a good way (for us). Cyanobacteria is a remarkable organism and responsible for the massive oxygenation of earth!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Yes- a single microorganism changed the course of the entire planet's biology. It caused massive extinction of anaerobic organisms and made it hospitable for oxygen lovers - us included.

Likewise- other species can change climate... Either to our benefit or our destruction.

That's why I said something to the effect of "Mother Nature will always recover. We just might not like her very much"

 

[Bent]

Bent - What does it matter if there was no life on earth? Does it really matter?

That was kind of my point.

 

[gln826]

let me rephrase: there are more extinct species today than there were 200 years ago, and it's due to human activity.

That, my friend, is pure liberal BS.

There have been more organisms DISCOVERED in the last 200 years than in the rest of history. How could you make a claim like that if most species weren't even recorded?

It's stuff like those remarks that make the man made global warming claims so ridiculous. Of course the earth is warming. 11,000 years ago, where I live was buried under a mile thick sheet of ice!

 

[saf1]

I would not say "all the reefs". The remote parts of the island chain are relatively healthy from all accounts I have read. In the touristy spots, yes, but Hawaii is a big place. There are areas that tourists never see, and the reefs are thriving. Most of the issues relate to contamination of the water from human interference (pollution run-off, etc) and the declining population of herbivorous fish to keep the turf algae in check.

Hawaii is not the greatest place to dive nor should it be the benchmark of a healthy or thriving reef. Then again, this is just my opinion after doing several dives there. I'll also be there again come June/July and will go diving. Why when it isn't great? It is warm water!!!!! I'd on a spark plug to go diving in warm water because all I get here in Northern Cali is 49 - 54 degree water which is very cold.

I know I quoted you per say but there was another poster who was there in September (of year unknown) and said it looked like poo. Personally I find diving in my area to be some of the best in the world but again insert bias here

I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on. Look, the bottom line is that yes, humans do impact the worlds environment. Yes, there are countries that have stronger regulations on environmental concerns than others. Then there are many countries that don't have any. Then there are governments that take advantage to those countries that don't have any to make their goods and sell them for pennies on the dollar.

Global warming, environmental impact of the growing population, money, scientist, politicians, or just take your pick or insert another. Earth, mother nature, will adapt. If not, a few nukes will go off and that should lower the population and tell people the just got serious.

Until then do your part, whatever that part is based on your beliefs, and enjoy the ride.

 

[karimwassef]

I'm not a liberal. Quite conservative actually.

I just think that if you make a mess, you ought to clean it up so your kids don't end up living in it.

 

[mcginnisandrew]

Scary "climate change" graphics that analyze a time period of less than 200 years (one of them looked at 20 years of data lol) and then blanket statements saying "don't argue this folks it's a fact we're changing everything".

Climate change exists but don't give humans so much credit. Our existence is relatively meaningless. If the earth can survive direct hits from asteroids and massive volcanic eruptions...I think it can handle our little cars and trains. We'll either wipe each other out or a natural phenomena will take us with it long before the planet even notices we were here. So relax it'll all work out.

If you want to feel good about limiting your carbon footprint fine...just know China's going to keep on pumping out that c02.

I'm not sure which figure you're referring to, but the time scale most definitely is relevant when you compare what we have done in the last 200 years to what has happened "naturally" over the last 800,000 years (which is as far back as we are physically capable of measuring co2 and temperature).

You saying "don't give humans so much credit" tells me you don't understand the science. That term anthropogenic means "caused by humans" so when people are talking about anthropogenic climate change, they are specifically talking about the climate change caused by humans. The earth may be warming regardless of human activity, but humans are causing warming in addition to what is "natural". I put "natural" in quotations just because in this context i mean "regardless of human activity", not to say that humans aren't a part of nature.

Metaphysics aside, I'm sure at least some life will survive pretty much anything humans throw at the earth. But, if we decide that we care about biodiversity, we should not be purposefully driving the earth towards mass extinctions and natural disasters. The effect humans have had in the last 200 years will have negative effects on biodiversity for hundreds of thousands of years after humans have gone extinct.

I just think we ought to do what we can to limit our impact on the earth. Of course in the grand scale of things it doesn't really matter. But when people say things like that, all that really tells me is that don't care enough (or lack the self awareness) to change their behavior. I.e. people are lazy.

Like how bleak is that? "oops, we messed up a little bit, but a little mass-extinction isn't so bad, right? The earth has been destroyed by asteroids before and biodiversity restarted from just a few organisms therefore I'm just going to keep on messing everything up because it doesn't really matter to me. I'll be dead in 50 years anyways"


end rant

 

[mcginnisandrew]

I'm continually surprised how LITTLE people on a reef-keeping forum care about natural reefs. Each reef biotope has organisms endemic to it, so if we lose an entire biotope, we lose a lot of biodiversity.

Yet lots of people seem to think that as long as there is a single coral still alive in the ocean that everything is just fine.

I agree if you make a mess you ought to clean it up.

 

[Bent]

I'm continually surprised how LITTLE people on a reef-keeping forum care about natural reefs. Each reef biotope has organisms endemic to it, so if we lose an entire biotope, we lose a lot of biodiversity.

Yet lots of people seem to think that as long as there is a single coral still alive in the ocean that everything is just fine.

I agree if you make a mess you ought to clean it up.

Not to be "that guy", but I think the last place I would expect to find a group of people who were hard core environmentalists that held a flag for the worlds reefs, would be a web forum full of people advocating the destruction and extraction of its inhabitants, while increasing energy demands and their "carbon footprints" for the sole purpose of having pretty things in our houses.

Just sayin.

Just being the devils advocate.

Edit:
I'm with karimwassef somewhat. I try to keep my house from becoming a pig stye by cleaning up after myself and not smoking in it or being a general slob so I kind of view myself in the world in the same way, keeping up after myself, etc. I believe we should all be conscience of the mess we can make and we should all attempt to be responsible. However, being the fiscal conservative that I am, I don't believe it should be taken to the point of sacrificing jobs or economics and I'm agnostic at this point concerning our role as humans in regards to changing the weather of the earth given the data available at this point.

Just if anyone cares how I feel about the subject, which is doubtful.

 

[JMorris271]

Maybe try some purple up?

We use that in our pool. :lolspin:

 

[mcginnisandrew]

Not to be "that guy", but I think the last place I would expect to find a group of people who were hard core environmentalists that held a flag for the worlds reefs, would be a web forum full of people advocating the destruction and extraction of its inhabitants, while increasing energy demands and their "carbon footprints" for the sole purpose of having pretty things in our houses.

Just sayin.

Just being the devils advocate.

Edit:
I'm with karimwassef somewhat. I try to keep my house from becoming a pig stye by cleaning up after myself and not smoking in it or being a general slob so I kind of view myself in the world in the same way, keeping up after myself, etc. I believe we should all be conscience of the mess we can make and we should all attempt to be responsible. However, being the fiscal conservative that I am, I don't believe it should be taken to the point of sacrificing jobs or economics and I'm agnostic at this point concerning our role as humans in regards to changing the weather of the earth given the data available at this point.

Just if anyone cares how I feel about the subject, which is doubtful.

You have a point. I'll rephrase: It's surprising to me, given how much people in this hobby depend on the natural reefs as sources for the things that make this hobby interesting, how little they care about active management of the reefs. Yes, this hobby is destructive, but if we care about the hobby we must also care about trying our best to limit our impact on natural reefs (by doing your part to reasonably reduce your carbon footprint in ways that aren't too burdensome on your finances/time).

Personally that's not quite enough for me and i think biodiversity has value in it's own right but I'll be happy if people at least make some efforts to reduce their carbon/ecological footprints.


Also, again, I know it might not seem like it given what is promoted in the media these days, but as somebody involved in the scientific community, i can tell you that it is about as settled as science allows that climate change/ocean acidification/increased atmospheric co2 are caused or exacerbated by human activity. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. Those links i posted earlier have summaries of some of the data on this issue, but i suppose might be hard to understand unless you're versed in the methodology for this type of thing. :deadhorse:

 

[karimwassef]

I don't think this hobby is destructive.

Dredging reefs for their calcium carbonate to make concrete for paved roads... That's destructive. Governments create laws restricting trade in live coral, but don't do anything about destroying reefs for infrastructure. It's good politics with zero real cost or benefit.

What decimated the tridacna gigas? The hobby or people EATING them?

Selling the shells of queen conches is ok, but selling a live one for a hobbyist is wrong?

Bleaching live coral to sell as decoration is ok, but taking time and effort to deliver them safely to a hobbyist... No, that's wrong.

You can't take a live fish and keep it in a home reef, but eating it is ok. And if you overfish, make it into pigfeed or dump it back... That's all ok.

BS!

This hobby is a minuscule portion of consumption on reefs. And yes- humans consume. That is not intrinsically wrong. It's consumption without sane controls, that's the problem. Consumption is not the same as overconsumption.

The hobby does have some bad dealers.. Cyanide and dynamite. And those criminals should be punished. Every hobby or interest can have criminal or destructive elements... It's not the hobby that's destructive. Just a few bad eggs.

 

[Bent]

The aquarium trade contributing to the destruction of the worlds reefs is just as proveable as man made "climate change". Denying that is denying science. Are you a science denier?!



JK buddy.

 

[BrianD]

Hawaii is not the greatest place to dive nor should it be the benchmark of a healthy or thriving reef. Then again, this is just my opinion after doing several dives there. I'll also be there again come June/July and will go diving. Why when it isn't great? It is warm water!!!!! I'd on a spark plug to go diving in warm water because all I get here in Northern Cali is 49 - 54 degree water which is very cold.

I know I quoted you per say but there was another poster who was there in September (of year unknown) and said it looked like poo. Personally I find diving in my area to be some of the best in the world but again insert bias here

I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on. Look, the bottom line is that yes, humans do impact the worlds environment. Yes, there are countries that have stronger regulations on environmental concerns than others. Then there are many countries that don't have any. Then there are governments that take advantage to those countries that don't have any to make their goods and sell them for pennies on the dollar.

Global warming, environmental impact of the growing population, money, scientist, politicians, or just take your pick or insert another. Earth, mother nature, will adapt. If not, a few nukes will go off and that should lower the population and tell people the just got serious.

Until then do your part, whatever that part is based on your beliefs, and enjoy the ride.

You missed the point. You are making a general statement about the Hawaiian islands when you only have access to dive in a fraction of it. That would be like me standing on a boulder in the Everglades and stating the ground is too rocky in the Everglades for plant life.

On a side note, you need to clean up your language. Family friendly forum and all that.

 

[BrianD]

Le't stop the liberal/conservative talk. It your view of the scientific research (on either side) is skewed by political bias, it is no longer science.

 

[Bent]

Le't stop the liberal/conservative talk. It your view of the scientific research (on either side) is skewed by political bias, it is no longer science.

Agreed, I get fed up with the divisiveness.

But I will say without trying to start a political argument, at least here in the medical field, that the science itself is often skewed by political bias. Which is sad. Many cases have been prosecuted for falsifying medical research for donors. It actually seems to be increasing, or increasingly covered.

Which in the long run isn't politics I guess, just flat out greed.

So even medicine isn't safe. I might go as far as saying it's the least safe given how much money is involved.

 

[mcginnisandrew]

Agreed, I get fed up with the divisiveness.

But I will say without trying to start a political argument, at least here in the medical field, that the science itself is often skewed by political bias. Which is sad. Many cases have been prosecuted for falsifying medical research for donors. It actually seems to be increasing, or increasingly covered.

Which in the long run isn't politics I guess, just flat out greed.

So even medicine isn't safe. I might go as far as saying it's the least safe given how much money is involved.

This is why i went into ecology and evolution research and not medicine. There is MUCH less bias in ecology because it's much more difficult to profit off of understanding the worlds ecosystems better. Not to say there is no bias or that I am not biased.

 

[cwgibson]

This is why i went into ecology and evolution research and not medicine. There is MUCH less bias in ecology because it's much more difficult to profit off of understanding the worlds ecosystems better. Not to say there is no bias or that I am not biased.

What do they pay in ecology these days?

 

[Bent]

It's not about what you make, it's how much you spend and how content ya are.

 

[mcginnisandrew]

well ya got me there haha