Read! GBR will vanish in your lifetime (most likely)
- Thread starter wade1
- Start date
Phew, for a moment there I thought you were talking about Great Britain...
I was under the impression that the major reefs that we know of now have been around for tens of thousands of years, rather than millions. Coral species may have been around for much longer, but the reefs themselves, as they stand, I don't think so.
I was under the impression that the major reefs that we know of now have been around for tens of thousands of years, rather than millions. Coral species may have been around for much longer, but the reefs themselves, as they stand, I don't think so.
You completely misread what I was saying, in fact I'm suggesting those who are doing the science now are actually the ones who are evolving as far as knowledge goes for how things work. My tirade was against those who simply dismiss any sort of climate change simply because in the past there were global cooling as well as warming models so the "idea" is we don't know anything so why pay it any credence.GreshamH":319i04aq said:
Now it could be true that Veron is absolutely wrong or perhaps a bit off in that the reefs already past the point of no return, but simply ignoring it by claiming people have been wrong in the past is the most ignorant thing ever.
sfsuphysics":pwn9nydq said:
climate change is a political power grab. (notice how mad and angry I just made some people... so mad they will probably call me names now
) According to studies the earth has been actually COOLING for some 11 years now... at least on record. There's all sorts of proof out there... here are a few "non conservative" (thus non demonic to some) sites.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/op ... 48299.html (Korea times)
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm (Not really sure who Denis Dutton is)
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer ... 65138.aspx (Sites from CNN)
The reefs may in fact die off... just like the dinosaurs.. just like milions of other organisms that are now extinct. Honestly, I believe the earth will be here.. thriving.. LONG after WE are LONG GONE.
The one line I remember from Jurassic Park is............... (yea you know)... Life will_____________. (fill in the blank).
Please note that the topic of this discussion is the acidification of the marine environment - not a link posting contest for global warming. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been climbing, and far more rapidly than any models had ever predicted. Even fairly recent models. This isn't a "point of debate" or a "media" event.
The fact here is that acidification inhibits the production of calcareous mass. That means that any creature that currently puts down CaCO3 based shells, skeletons, etc - will cease to survive if levels of CO2 continue at their current rate of increase.
In the current discussion, no one is debating that "the earth will go on" - but are you prepared to eat jellyfish as a primary food source?
The fact here is that acidification inhibits the production of calcareous mass. That means that any creature that currently puts down CaCO3 based shells, skeletons, etc - will cease to survive if levels of CO2 continue at their current rate of increase.
In the current discussion, no one is debating that "the earth will go on" - but are you prepared to eat jellyfish as a primary food source?
Just about everything is a political power grab, whether it's climate change or gay rights, politicians will use any cause either side of it in any way they think they can get what they want out of it.SnowManSnow":ybeuba1h said:
Just because some idiot "champions" a particular cause and makes it look stupid doesn't mean it holds any less merit.
wade":2tlj0uwm said:
Ok for debating and analysis we assume there is an increase in co2. So what happens and how does the earth and oceans react?
And it is exactly these types of arguments and analysis that makes the reef/enviromental/global worming/climite change proponents look foolish.
Noone in their right mind could actually believe an increase of co2 will mean we will be eating jellyfish.
Fact is the increased co2 also has increased farm production.
Fact is increased co2 will increase algae and phyto in th ocean. So that at most a few miles away from current reefs the co2 (and the environment) will be at levels it is today.
But that requires dynamic thinking. Also also agrees with why reefs came and went, at differing locations throughout the earth's history long before the current reefs showed up. Or man for that matter.
I'm at work, and shouldn't be on this forum, but I'll do an abbreviated response to some of your unfounded comments, but I can't help it.
This is incorrect. Oligotrophic waters (which feed most reefs) are growth limited by other elements. Speficially, N or P or Fe, depending on where in the world you are searching. Without those base elements, algal growth does not notably increase. Secondarily, having more carbonic acid in the ocean doesn't mean you will have more growth of phytoplankton. Thirdly, look at the "dead zones" appearing and expanding all over the world - they are massive algal blooms fueled by inorganic nutrients. So in the case where carbonic acid goes up, even if you get higher algal growth rates that consume some of the CO2, there are severe repercussions.
My turn for links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151056.htm
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.ph ... scientists
http://www.eurocbc.org/page727.html
... (plenty more if you search for them)
Jellyfish are an indicator species. That means, that as conditions degrade and diversity falls, jellyfish populations expand rapidly. These jellyfish begin to decimate local prey species and further degrade oceanic ecosystems. And they continue to expand. And they have no problem at slightly lower pH's.... hence, my (only semi-serious) jab at eating jellyfish as a mainstay of the diet.
This is incorrect. Oligotrophic waters (which feed most reefs) are growth limited by other elements. Speficially, N or P or Fe, depending on where in the world you are searching. Without those base elements, algal growth does not notably increase. Secondarily, having more carbonic acid in the ocean doesn't mean you will have more growth of phytoplankton. Thirdly, look at the "dead zones" appearing and expanding all over the world - they are massive algal blooms fueled by inorganic nutrients. So in the case where carbonic acid goes up, even if you get higher algal growth rates that consume some of the CO2, there are severe repercussions.
My turn for links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151056.htm
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.ph ... scientists
http://www.eurocbc.org/page727.html
... (plenty more if you search for them)
Jellyfish are an indicator species. That means, that as conditions degrade and diversity falls, jellyfish populations expand rapidly. These jellyfish begin to decimate local prey species and further degrade oceanic ecosystems. And they continue to expand. And they have no problem at slightly lower pH's.... hence, my (only semi-serious) jab at eating jellyfish as a mainstay of the diet.
I'm glad you agree these is nutrients what will feed the algaes and phyto. With increased co2 the algaes will not need to consume carbonates and therefore bicarbonates will increase. Plus the building of plant tissue from nitrates returns bicarbonates. so there will be an increase in carbonates plus the lower ph will increase calcium. With the increased plant action sucking out the carbon dixoide, pH will return to the previous values and the sps type corals will simply find higher calcium and carbonate and higher phyto plankton and zoo plankton to consume.wade":3na0wl3q said:
So there could be massive reprecussions. Including those dead zones here and there where there had been reefs. And as I stated a few miles away a new thriving reef.
Or the earth would just adjust much faster then anyone gives it credit for.
Lets chop these up one argument at a time. Can we agree that the CO2 increase is primarily from human sources? If you disagree then where? Have volcanoes been popping their tops with increased frequency as of late?beaslbob":3a2wjkbj said:
Fact, many foods we eat today are but pale comparisons in terms of nutritional value of their previous ilk who weren't so pest resistant and the like.
You lost me here, so you're saying miles from the reefs there won't be an acidification problem? Assuming that's true (and you neglect the dynamics of ... water mixing about ... why does that matter? Acidification directly impacts the reefs first, not miles away from the reefs.
So you don't seem to care if man helps speed things along then? I mean, animals have gone extinct too, so who cares if we wipe out some more as well type of mindset?
when it comes to climate science(and any science that potentially threatens life or is irreversible) there is a clear logic that so many seem to miss completely. And it's common sense.
Think about it. There are only so many options:
The threat is real - and you act to avoid it: might avoid disaster
The threat is real - and you ignore it: cannot avoid disaster
The threat is not real - and you act to avoid it: avoid disaster
The threat is not real - and you ignore it: avoid disaster
So obviously, the smart thing to do is to play it safe and assume the threat is real, otherwise if you're wrong you're screwed.
There's actually an academic term for this logic, but it escapes me atm.
But for anyone calling 'bogus' on the international scientific consensus (UN IPCC) or otherwise claiming they know more than the best scientists of the past 100 years, the smart thig to do is to still assume the threat is real.
Think about it. There are only so many options:
The threat is real - and you act to avoid it: might avoid disaster
The threat is real - and you ignore it: cannot avoid disaster
The threat is not real - and you act to avoid it: avoid disaster
The threat is not real - and you ignore it: avoid disaster
So obviously, the smart thing to do is to play it safe and assume the threat is real, otherwise if you're wrong you're screwed.
There's actually an academic term for this logic, but it escapes me atm.
But for anyone calling 'bogus' on the international scientific consensus (UN IPCC) or otherwise claiming they know more than the best scientists of the past 100 years, the smart thig to do is to still assume the threat is real.
wade":3r11np7q said:
It is my understand that in low co2 environments macros and other plant life will get it's carbon from bicarbonates.
and from a dr holmes-farley article:
So for every nitrate (NO3) converted to plant material there is a bicarbonate (HCO3) ion returned.
not relevant where the co2 comes from. And the co2 levels in the atmosphere are orders of magnetude lower then when cyno bacteria first freed oxygen from the co2 atmosphere.sfsuphysics":387c5zbp said:
do you accept that farm production has increased with the higher co2 levels?
I thought I was fairly clear. Increased co2 with result in lower ph and increased plant action. Which may affect current reefs. But at some other location the conditions will change to allow a new reef to form. The earth's reaction to the increased co2 may be quick enough that no measureable affect will be encountered on some reefs. Plusthe reefs will change anyway even if man did not add co2.
It should allso require that we take action based upon solid proven observed facts not our personal ideas such as anything man does is inherently evil.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
