What do you think about the disappearing of coral reef around the world?

I wrote a paper on ocean acidification, and I learned a lot in the process.

Its not obviously the only cause to the destruction of the reefs (and the rest of the planet)

I'll say this in hopes that no one takes it the wrong way. But I believe the destruction of the reefs and most of the global crises, both in society and in nature, come about from the result of over population on our planet. Cities continue to grow in order to support a higher population. As this growth occurs there is ever increasing demand for resources of all kinds. This isn't helped by fossil fuels because not only are their emissions recking havoc on our ecosystems, but fossil fuels are what give us the ability to sustain such a large population. We as humans have found a way to bypass the dynamic rhythm of our planet; a cheat code in a game if you will.

Edit:
r-balljunkie, just read your post.... ditto.
 
Brazil
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37609

Seychelles
http://www.afrol.com/articles/31418

Puerto Rico
http://www.livescience.com/10403-huge-coral-reefs-discovered-puerto-rico.html

Tonga
http://www.tongaholiday.com/?p=6742

Mediterranean
http://blog.simplyscuba.com/index.php/2011/09/new-coral-reef-found-in-alboran-sea/

Florida
http://aquadaily.com/2008/12/18/three-new-deep-water-reefs-discovered-off-the-coast-of-florida/
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2005/02/research2.html

This one is basically in my back yard
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2005/oct/14/ndn_discovery_of_coral_reefs_off_collier_shores_sp/

Not to mention that staghorn corals are being found in "new locations" all the time. Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Fort Pierce, Flower Banks (Texas)

I would say that 75% or more of the stories you see in the news are just that....stories to sell the newspaper or magazine.

I love the fact that all of these "scare tactic" news stories talk about how many thousands of years it takes for corals to grow. But, they don't really have any good scientific research or data of reefs 1000's of years ago.

So, here's a question for you.....Bikini Atoll was nuked in the 1950's. Pretty sure we can consider that to be complete destruction of the reef. Explain 8 meter tall corals in 60 years! An excerpt:

"Richards and colleagues report a thriving ecosystem of 183 species of coral, some of which were 8 metres high. They estimate that the diversity of species represents about 65% of what was present before the atomic tests"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13668-nuked-coral-reef-bounces-back.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...ife-flourishes-at-Bikini-Atoll-test-site.html

The actual published paper: http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf

The point I'm trying to make is that bad news sells. Good news doesn't. Don't buy into all of the crap that is out there. A lot of it is exactly that....crap.

Now, that being said, I do believe that we have a huge responsibility to clean up after ourselves! And in many cases, don't make the mess to begin with.

I'm a big fan of these guys and think you will start to see more organization like this popping up all over the world.
http://www.coralrestoration.org/
 
Just because old well established, and heretofore unfound, reefs have been discovered is a far cry from saying the reefs are doing better than oft reported. It would be interesting to see some cores done on those reefs to get an idea of their history as compared to current conditions. We only have the current snapshot of those reefs, no knowledge of how any changes for better or worse that they might have undergone similar to the well known and well studied reefs.
 
jdhuyvetter said:
I love the fact that all of these "scare tactic" news stories talk about how many thousands of years it takes for corals to grow. But, they don't really have any good scientific research or data of reefs 1000's of years ago.
Click to expand...

Really? Just do a google search and you will find plenty of evidence that reefs take thousands of years to grow.

jdhuyvetter said:
So, here's a question for you.....Bikini Atoll was nuked in the 1950's. Pretty sure we can consider that to be complete destruction of the reef. Explain 8 meter tall corals in 60 years! An excerpt:

"Richards and colleagues report a thriving ecosystem of 183 species of coral, some of which were 8 metres high. They estimate that the diversity of species represents about 65% of what was present before the atomic tests"
Click to expand...

I not only know what you are talking about, but I have actually dove in bikini. The 8 meter tall corals did not grow in 60 years. They were either not affected by the explosions, or are new growth over old colonies. I saw this, with my own eyes. I also saw the crater of the Castle Bravo test, the largest nuclear explosion ever set off by the US. There is absolutely no coral left around it.

As Bill says, finding previously undiscovered reefs has nothing to do with the fact that we are destroying them.
 
I think you both missed the point I was trying to make. I am not disputing that man has had a negative impact on many reefs around the world. I am disputing the assumption that man is destroying every reef around the world.

I am trying to point out that just because you read it on the internet does not make it true! I'm all for coring and solid research. But, just read through the two pages of posts here and look at how many "opinions" are be presented as "facts".

Further, I was trying to point out that bad news sells. Do a google search like you said and you will see the same thing regurgitated a thousand different ways. Doesn't make it all true! Again, instead of the constant bashing, where is the news about the progress that has been made? The steps that are being made for restoration?
 
Luiz Rocha said:
I not only know what you are talking about, but I have actually dove in bikini. The 8 meter tall corals did not grow in 60 years. They were either not affected by the explosions, or are new growth over old colonies. I saw this, with my own eyes. I also saw the crater of the Castle Bravo test, the largest nuclear explosion ever set off by the US. There is absolutely no coral left around it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for helping me make my point. Either the scientific paper I found on the internet and referenced in my post is correct and refutes many assumptions previously made. OR, a scientific paper I found on the internet is completely wrong. Either way, something "scientific" on the internet is wrong.

Now (and please don't take this as an attack, I really am curious..and a little jealous)....you say you have dove Bikini. Did you see the corals referenced in the paper? If so, where are they relative to the Castle Bravo test (ie, how far away)? You say they were either not affected or new growth over old colonies. I would have assumed that a nuclear blast this large would have had a huge impact for miles around. Either the corals would have died or been knocked over from the shock wave. Also, if new growth is growing over old coral, I would have thought that the growth pattern would be completely different. Do you know if anyone has actually cored these corals. New growth over old would surely show up in a core.

For the record, I have no doubt that a coral could grow 8 meters in 60 years. That works out to about 5 inches per year. That is done all the time in an aquarium environment (and in some of the corals in the nursery link above). And before anyone bashes me on that one, yes, I am aware that most corals will not grow that fast. I am just stating that some do in captivity and probably can in the wild.

And lastly, did you ever post any Bikini pics on RC. I really would like to see them. Again, not challenging you in any way. Just want to drool a little bit!
 
Come to KW I'll show you some of the saddest reefs in the hemisphere. Not saying there arent some beautiful ones down here but there has been some amazing die off in the last 10 yrs. in my marine biology class we met a photographer that for the last 10 yrs has been photographing the same few huge coral heads and staghorn corals. All of theses have seen a huge decline in health and living tissue. It makes me sick to think of what we have done to the ocean but greed rules the world I guess.
 
I've been there many times over the past 20 years. I am not in disagreement that many of the reefs have degraded over the years. I have seen that first hand. Especially the patch reefs in Hawk's Channel. But, not all of it has been man made. Looe Key was hammered by Hurricane Georges. Wiped out nearly all of the Elkhorn. The last two years of record cold snaps in the winter have wiped out nearly all of the mustard corals in the shallow water and back bays (still lots on the outer reef). Surprisingly, the porites (finger variety, not the mustard boulders) have exploded in the past two years. At least in the areas that I dove. A few years back, you could snorkel on the North side of Spanish Harbor and see a few porites here and there. Now, there are areas where they are like a fuzzy brown carpet.
 
jdhuyvetter said:
I think you both missed the point I was trying to make. I am not disputing that man has had a negative impact on many reefs around the world. I am disputing the assumption that man is destroying every reef around the world.
Click to expand...

Didn't miss the point, and I exepect Luiz didn't either. We're simply trying to point out that the historical data needed to prove those reefs are just as healthy as they were a decade, two decades, or longer ago does not exist. These reefs are far from new, just new to being publicly known. While it is good to think they might be just as healthy as they were 100 years ago, the evidence for that does not exist yet...due simply to a lack of looking for it as yet. Now having that work down to prove things one way are another would certainly be enlightening. Especially has all but one (the Gulf Coast FL reef) are in fairly remote locations.
 
I have no idea why the reefs are in trouble but I have some ideas on the ones near populated islands. I have dove almost every Island in the Caribbean and once dove there a week after a hurricane. If the Islands were not inhabitated not much would have happened to the reefs but the run off from sugar plantations, marina.s, roads and just dirt where there are no crops growing covered and killed the corals for a few miles out. This is something we can not stop because there are just to many of us.
Years ago you could see literally tons of dead corals for salt to tourists in Jamaica. They were just broken off the reefs and dried in the sun. One place in Jamacia there was a line of this about 100 yards long.
That is easy to see but in places like Bora Bora where I took this picture, the reefs are also dying only not as fast. Bora Bora is about as far from any place as you can get so the human factor is not as obvious. Almost no one lives there and there is very little agriculture. The reefs are much better there then the Caribbean but almost all the tongue corals I saw were dead and they were piled up many feet thick.
I am going with rising seawater temps along with acid rain and pollution.
I think it is a combination
Guppies.jpg


LongNose.jpg
 
billsreef said:
Didn't miss the point, and I exepect Luiz didn't either. We're simply trying to point out that the historical data needed to prove those reefs are just as healthy as they were a decade, two decades, or longer ago does not exist. These reefs are far from new, just new to being publicly known. While it is good to think they might be just as healthy as they were 100 years ago, the evidence for that does not exist yet...due simply to a lack of looking for it as yet. Now having that work down to prove things one way are another would certainly be enlightening. Especially has all but one (the Gulf Coast FL reef) are in fairly remote locations.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When I say "new" in this case, I mean newly discovered. The exception being the "new" staghorn corals that have been popping up in areas where they were not historically (Broward County in the late 1990's, Palm Beach and Martin Counties in the last decade and most recently the Flower Banks off of Texas).

My personal opinion in this:

The coral reefs are not disappearing all over the world. There are definitely "hot spots" were they are in trouble. And in some cases, severe trouble. Much of it is the fault (directly or indirectly) of human activity. A lot of it is not. There are also newly discovered coral reefs all of the time as well as instances of "new" coral. Again, back to my questions/comments. Never hear about the good. Only the bad, and in many (if not most) the bad is over inflated. Again, using Florida as an example. You can find 100's if not 1000's of stories about the staghorns and elkhorns dying in the Keys. But you need to look for quite a while to find 1 story about the "new" staghorn growths off of Broward and Palm Beach Counties. (and in this case, I do mean new growth, not newly discovered) Where's the research on why that has happened? Don't you think the causes for the expansion of this particular coral species into previously uncolonized areas could be beneficial to other reefs around the world?

And as far as my references to "newly discovered" reefs....obviously science has not surveyed all of the reefs in the world. So, how could anyone scientifically say that all of the coral reefs are disappearing or in trouble?
 
jdhuyvetter said:
Agreed. When I say "new" in this case, I mean newly discovered. The exception being the "new" staghorn corals that have been popping up in areas where they were not historically (Broward County in the late 1990's, Palm Beach and Martin Counties in the last decade and most recently the Flower Banks off of Texas).
Click to expand...

Most scientists I know of attribute this to warming waters. We are seeing waters further north reach higher temps, and holding high temps for longer in the year than has previously been seen. With this, it's not surprising to see tropical species expand their range northward. It should also be noted, some of those northern colonies have been seen to have some drastic declines in the time they've been known of...I have this from personal communications with a friend doing research on the colonies off of Ft. Lauderdale...the one site specifically mentioned as having a severe die back a couple of years ago is also showing some remarkable recovery since the die off event. I've also yet to see any stag or elkhorn growth in the northern part of Dade or southern part of Broward counties that is even remotely comparable to the former growths found in the Keys I've seen back in the 80's. So while they might be expanding north, it's at a rate to suggest we'll just be seeing a northward of expansion of reefs like we know.

Don't you think the causes for the expansion of this particular coral species into previously uncolonized areas could be beneficial to other reefs around the world?
Click to expand...

Since that northward expansion is linked to the same warming trends linked to problems with those other reefs, I have my doubts.

And as far as my references to "newly discovered" reefs....obviously science has not surveyed all of the reefs in the world. So, how could anyone scientifically say that all of the coral reefs are disappearing or in trouble?
Click to expand...

Since the problems that most scientist think are the root of the problems are global in nature, it's hard to think some place on the globe wouldn't be effected by them to some degree. I think the biggest factor might be more local influences that could tip the balance...aka additional stressors that make it harder for the coral to deal with the more global sorts.
 
I've heard that too (warming trends). But I've seen no research data to back it up. (but, to be honest, I haven't looked that hard).

So, in your opinion, do you think this is isolated to the east coast of Florida due to the Gulf Stream or is this worldwide? If world wide, shouldn't we start hearing about new coral growth southward across Africa and Australia and northward off of Asia and perhaps into the Mediterranean. What about the western Americas (northern S. America and Central America)?
 
Not too stir the pot but maybe the staghorn hasn't been spontaneously growing up north as much as it has been spotted more. Due to its gain in popularity in the aquarium industry and national interest in saving the reef. I am a life long diver and spearo I didn't see my first local acro till I got a aquarium and started looking because until you are looking for something it just kinda blends into the rics and gorges while you look for grouper.
 
jdhuyvetter said:
I've heard that too (warming trends). But I've seen no research data to back it up. (but, to be honest, I haven't looked that hard).

So, in your opinion, do you think this is isolated to the east coast of Florida due to the Gulf Stream or is this worldwide? If world wide, shouldn't we start hearing about new coral growth southward across Africa and Australia and northward off of Asia and perhaps into the Mediterranean. What about the western Americas (northern S. America and Central America)?
Click to expand...

Need to look into historical water temperature trends. Just to use an example I'm most familiar with, the decline in North American Lobster populations in the southern part of it's range is primarily thought to be a result of rising and prolonged high water temps. Going back not much more than a decade, the waters of southern New England and Long Island rarely got above 70F, and when they did it only lasted an average of 10 days in late August/early September. The past several years we've seen temps over 70 on a yearly basis, and lasting on the average of 40 to 60 days. For cold water critters like the lobster it is quite a problem. Also more southern species of fish are being found more frequently farther north.

As for similarities on other coasts and continents, I expect you'll find them if you look for them.
 
Anyone who really wants to know how reefs WORLDWIDE are doing should subscribe to noaa's 'coral-list' server.

If every single combustion engine on the planet stopped tomorrow, it wouldn't make one iota of difference- the damage is now done-all (tropical)reefs will be dead,completely dead, in less than 50 yrs. Once the reefs go, the oceans go. (Vis-a-vis what we depend on the oceans for as far as food,namely fish). Once the oceans go, we'll prob'ly follow.



There is indeed an absolute consensus in the scientific community that man made rapid climate change is an irrefutable fact- regardless of what some oil co. pseudo scientist shill claims/says ;)


The final death sentence was just passed in Durban at the recent climate change protocol conference.
 
Speaking of coral-list, here's a frightening letter just posted by Thomas Goreau. Some food for thought:

"It is long known to all serious global climate change experts that the global sensitivity of temperature and sea level to CO2 indicates that there must be very large positive feedback mechanisms that AMPLIFY global warming, which are not included in the conventional models, making model based climate projections very serious UNDERESTIMATES of future change.


Today the fact that one of these mechanisms is just starting to kick in was revealed, melting of the Arctic Ice Caps is starting to release enormous quantities of very potent greenhouse gases that will further accelerate global warming:


Coral reefs will be the first ecosystem to go extinct from global warming, far sooner than anyone realizes, but they won't be the last!



Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
President,*Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock International Corp.
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Partnership in New Technologies for Small Island Developing States"
 
vitz said:
Anyone who really wants to know how reefs WORLDWIDE are doing should subscribe to noaa's 'coral-list' server.

If every single combustion engine on the planet stopped tomorrow, it wouldn't make one iota of difference- the damage is now done-all (tropical)reefs will be dead,completely dead, in less than 50 yrs. Once the reefs go, the oceans go. (Vis-a-vis what we depend on the oceans for as far as food,namely fish). Once the oceans go, we'll prob'ly follow.



There is indeed an absolute consensus in the scientific community that man made rapid climate change is an irrefutable fact- regardless of what some oil co. pseudo scientist shill claims/says ;)


The final death sentence was just passed in Durban at the recent climate change protocol conference.
Click to expand...



Interesting comments.

First off, NOAA is well known for being completely accurate in every forecast that they have ever made.

Second, when I have troubles in my tank and the corals begin to die off. When I fix the problem, they grow back. According to you, they will just continue to die.

I was not aware that scientists have ever had an absolute consensus on anything.

What happened in Durban that is going to cause me to die?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
A new study poses dramatic future expectations for coral reefs around the world
Replies
4
Views
255
Jposch
J
EXTREMECORALS
The Beginner's Guide to Keeping Acropora Corals: What You Need to Know ~ Extremecorals.com Blog
Replies
0
Views
96
EXTREMECORALS
EXTREMECORALS
Paul B
The Benefit of Parasites
Replies
1
Views
94
Timfish
Timfish
S
Newbie trying to get into the hobby
Replies
2
Views
296
Reefing102
Reefing102
8
Whats the diff ?
Replies
6
Views
205
griss
griss
Back
Top