Read! GBR will vanish in your lifetime (most likely)

[wade1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 652866.ece

Article begins...

The Great Barrier Reef will be so degraded by warming waters that it will be unrecognisable within 20 years, an eminent marine scientist has said.

Charlie Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, told The Times: “There is no way out, no loopholes. The Great Barrier Reef will be over within 20 years or so.”

Think about the ramifications. No coral reefs = tropical primary productivity will crash, and all supported fisheries. Billions worldwide will find food sources drying up. Degrading/dissolving reefs without new inputs will no longer be a barrier against natural ocean/weather phenomena. Its a scary, scary topic and it isn't limited to the GBR - all reefs will be hit by this process.

 

[Anonymous]

Well then, sounds as though we're straight DOOMED.

 

[wade1]

Flippant comments aside, I would like to highlight the hobbyist in the process of maintaining the genetic diversity of the coral reefs possibly impacted by this warming and acidification... there are currently (at least not to my knowledge) no repositories of DNA samples or sequences in existence. That means it falls to the hobbyist to not only keep adding to the understanding of husbandry, but also to maintain a sampling of the diversity of coral reefs for preservation.

It might soon come to pass that the only way you can see an intact coral reef as we know it today is in pictures, in hobbyist aquariums, and the local aquarium/zoo collections.

 

[Anonymous]

Fine. Flippant comments aside, I would like to highlight the hobbyist's role in enhancing negative climate change effects by keeping such tanks. The power consumption alone could be argued as sufficient reason to tear them down completely.

 

[wade1]

Fine. Flippant comments aside, I would like to highlight the hobbyist's role in enhancing negative climate change effects by keeping such tanks. The power consumption alone could be argued as sufficient reason to tear them down completely.

Agreed.

 

[Anonymous]

Fine. Flippant comments aside, I would like to highlight the hobbyist's role in enhancing negative climate change effects by keeping such tanks. The power consumption alone could be argued as sufficient reason to tear them down completely.

Then add on fuel usage in flying corals half way around the world, to be flown across the us, to have consumers drive to pick them up, etc. Oh, plastic bags , don't get me started on them. Styrofoam anyone? Acrylic? Glass tanks? Everything we use it seems is petrol based

 

[Ben1]

Unfortuately coral reefs are out of site out of mind for most people. I mean really how much do you think inland people that don't fish/dive/keep reef aquariums really think about the declining coral reefs. I think they would think to the rainforest first. The reefs are so out of mind for most poeple I don't think they care as much about them compaired to other enviromental issues. It is sad, I will probably never get to dive GBR...

 

[Anonymous]

I have found that most people, in fact, don't even know what a 'reef' is. If I say 'coral reef', some know, but not as many as I'd actually expected.

I used to use my reef tank as a teaching tool.

 

[Anonymous]

well if our reefs go, so does a huge percentage of food we "rape" from the waters, mass starvation will occur on the order of billions of people, they'll die, less people, less pollution so it'll work itself out... that is unless you believe that talk about doing irreversible damage... but hey at least the economy will not take a hit

 

[Anonymous]

Just because one scientist predicts that one reef will change in the next 20 years does not mean all the reefs will disappear.

I predict that all the world's current coral reefs will still be here 20 years from now in a changed form.

 

[Anonymous]

Just because one scientist predicts that one reef will change in the next 20 years does not mean all the reefs will disappear.

I predict that all the world's current coral reefs will still be here 20 years from now in a changed form.

This "one" scientist yo speak of happens to be a world authority on corals. I trust his judgment FAR FAR FAR above yours

 

[Anonymous]

Just because one scientist predicts that one reef will change in the next 20 years does not mean all the reefs will disappear.

I predict that all the world's current coral reefs will still be here 20 years from now in a changed form.

This "one" scientist yo speak of happens to be a world authority on corals. I trust his judgment FAR FAR FAR above yours

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

sure.

Now all we can do is set back and see what happens.

Hmmmm I wonder if both of us have worded it so they will always be true. I know I have.

Oh but then I am not an expert. :lol:

 

[Lars]

I'm with bob. The earth is a living entity. It cannot stay static forever and will always be in a state of flux. The 'experts' have been changing their mind between global warming and global cooling since the late 1800's because the climate changes. Then the media jumps on board to make a few $ and now we will all be paying our governments to control something that is uncontrollable.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm with bob. The earth is a living entity. It cannot stay static forever and will always be in a state of flux. The 'experts' have been changing their mind between global warming and global cooling since the late 1800's because the climate changes. Then the media jumps on board to make a few $ and now we will all be paying our governments to control something that is uncontrollable.

OK this I have to know....can you produce a paper from the 1800's touting global warming or cooling?

 

[wade1]

I know what beasl says is true.. "the reefs will exist" - but the diversity (if you read the talk he gave/paper quoted) will be destroyed. If you have 2-3 dominant, non-calcium producing species (algae anyone) taking over a solid structure - you still have a reef.. However, without the carbonate deposition (which is inhibited at the pH that will occur) - there will be no more reef formation. And no oysters either. So much for temporary boosts in male libido. :twisted:

So what we know as a coral reef now will more than likely be gone. I guess we can start keeping 15 varieties of algae and a few fish... and call it a reef tank.

 

[Lars]

Here is a website that lists a good chronology of warming cooling trends and the media's responses. To me this is similar to the earth breathing. But 30 years of a certain trend to us seems like a problem. To the earth its a blink of an eye. Keep an open mind and don't let the media (and govt.) control the issue.


http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andice.asp

 

[wade1]

Here is a website that lists a good chronology of warming cooling trends and the media's responses. To me this is similar to the earth breathing. But 30 years of a certain trend to us seems like a problem. To the earth its a blink of an eye. Keep an open mind and don't let the media (and govt.) control the issue.


http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andice.asp

--*Entering into sump material now...*--

Here's a question for you? Are you prepared to handle the ramifications of being wrong if the current scientific consensus is correct?

Is that 4 ton truck that gets 8mpg and looks pretty worth the overt destruction of the oceans if they are correct?

This issue, even if overestimated (which personally, as a PhD scientist I do not think it is), still drives home the point that as consumers we are failing in our obligations to our future generations, wholly driven by capitalism without consideration (see the recent release from the Pope on this topic). The changes being wrought (personal opinions on human-derived impact aside) by this current movement is far to the better for our health as a race... at the cost of what? money?

Personally, I find it hard to stomach the thought that my living habits, all done for simple comfort or other less tangible effects that aren't really required, could irreversibly alter my environment. The coral reefs I enjoy so thoroughly will be gone.

 

[Anonymous]

I know what beasl says is true.. "the reefs will exist" - but the diversity (if you read the talk he gave/paper quoted) will be destroyed. If you have 2-3 dominant, non-calcium producing species (algae anyone) taking over a solid structure - you still have a reef.. However, without the carbonate deposition (which is inhibited at the pH that will occur) - there will be no more reef formation. And no oysters either. So much for temporary boosts in male libido. :twisted:

So what we know as a coral reef now will more than likely be gone. I guess we can start keeping 15 varieties of algae and a few fish... and call it a reef tank.

What I find interesting is that the earth has only experienced ice ages in the past 2 million years. Corals, including hermatypic species, have existed for far far longer. How do we know there isn't some undiscovered adaptive mechanism? How do we know that algal forms will be the only forms that will remain?

I think the new reef tank will be a kriesel.

I was excited about the link, and at the very top of the page I read this:

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming

WHAT? :roll: If the author doesn't know the difference between the weather and whether, I can't be arsed to read any further.

 

[Anonymous]

IMO, as a non-researcher scientist D) simply using past doom and gloom reporting/science as a "proof" that we're just overly hyping things to get money, fame, glory, whatever, is pretty silly. As time goes on our knowledge and understanding increases, quite a bit since the 1800's too, so using our wrong guesses due to ignorance back then is no justification to act ignorant today and be really wrong.

I mean we originally thought the Earth was the center of the universe, then we thought the Sun was, then that was shown to have errors and a better model came about with the Earth back at the center, then eventually the Sun was the center, then there was no center, I mean all that flip flopping in the past, how can we know how things work today?
</sump>

 

[Anonymous]

IMO, as a non-researcher scientist D) simply using past doom and gloom reporting/science as a "proof" that we're just overly hyping things to get money, fame, glory, whatever, is pretty silly. As time goes on our knowledge and understanding increases, quite a bit since the 1800's too, so using our wrong guesses due to ignorance back then is no justification to act ignorant today and be really wrong.

I mean we originally thought the Earth was the center of the universe, then we thought the Sun was, then that was shown to have errors and a better model came about with the Earth back at the center, then eventually the Sun was the center, then there was no center, I mean all that flip flopping in the past, how can we know how things work today?
</sump>

??? are you suggesting Veron is doing the below?

simply using past doom and gloom reporting/science as a "proof" that we're just overly hyping things to get money, fame, glory, whatever,

I highly doubt any of that is accurate. having met him I can tell you his top interest is the reef and science, not fame/glory/money.