Coral reef article - Dire prediction for world's coral reefs

[Greg Hiller]

>>but the ice-age wasn't something that set in over the course of 100 years.<<

NO, exactly the opposite. Ice ages temperature swings occur over 10's of thousands of years. I hope this is not going to depress you too much. From Wikepidea:

Many glacial periods have occurred during the last few million years, initially at 40,000-year frequency but more recently at 100,000-year frequencies

 

[RichConley]

Plain and simply, we need to put out less CO2, and we need to encourage other countries to do the same. It's hard for this topic to not have political grains in it. Sighing about dying reefs is nice, but nothing will really change until governments agree to decrease their CO2 output, and use that as diplomatic leverage to force other countries to do the same.

Nate, on an interesting note, North America is actually a net carbon sink. IE we absorb more carbon dioxide than we release. A lot of that is because of all the new growth forests, and cropland in the center of the country. Anyone who's kept a planted tank knows that the faster plants grow, the more CO2 they need.


I read an interesting paper a while back about a theory for global warming. Essentially, one of the major combatants for rising C02 levels are increased biomass. IE, the more mass you have in plants, the less CO2 you have in the air. Animals, in turn, eat those plants, and move the carbon further up the foodchain.

This paper theorized that the current rising CO2 levels werent from the industrial revolution, but something that happened about 100 years before: the start of commercial fishing, and widescale hunting. Basically, according to this paper, killing off every large animal species on the planet has caused this. Think of all the carbon in the millions of buffalo that use to roam america, the millions of whales that used to swim the oceans... we've basically driven almost every large mammal close to extinction.

As to the commercial fishing, they researched catch numbers from the 1700s, and estimated fish densities (remember the stories from gradeschool about the earlier settlers being able to catch fish in boston harbor with buckets?). Basically, we've released all the carbon sunk in animal populations. Very interesting.

 

[me2003]

"Prediction! prediction! prediction! "

Any statement into the future is a prediction. You use past pattern to develop models.
For example:
I predict people will pay taxes in the next year. I can not prove people will pay taxes but past data and models indicate people will.





"I just cant believe they really know what happened 300 million years ago to that level of accuracy."

The methods are detailed in the articles referenced and their references.


Orr, James C. Fabry, Victoria J.Aumont, Olivier Bopp, Laurent Doney, Scott C. Feely,
Richard A. Gnanadesikan, Anand Gruber, Nicolas Ishida, Akio Joos, Fortunat Key,
Robert M. Lindsay, Keith Maier-Reimer, Ernst Matear, Richard Monfray, Patrick Mouchet,
Anne Najjar, Raymond G. Plattner, Gian-Kasper Rodgers, Keith B. Sabine, Christopher
L.Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact
on calcifying organisms. Nature; 9/29/2005, Vol. 437 Issue 7059, p681-686


Caldeira, Ken; Wickett, Michael E. Oceanography: Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH.
Nature, 9/25/2003, Vol. 425 Issue 6956, p365, 1p

Grimsditch, Gabriel D. and Salm, Rodney V. 2005 Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Montaggioni, Lucien F., History of Indo-Pacific coral reef systems
since the last glaciation: Development patterns and controlling factors.
2005 Earth-science reviews Issue 71 p1-75

Montañez, Sabel P. 2002 Biological skeletal carbonate records changes in major-ion chemistry of
paleo-oceans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2002 99: 15852-15854

NOAA 2005 Hazards to Coral Reefs http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards

 

[RobboT]

"By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade."

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm#L_0290

Find me one for your argument and I can find one against it. Data is only as good as those manipulating it

 

[RobboT]

In the 70's scientists believed we were heading for another ice age, now they think maybe it was just a droop in a generally upward trend. Since we dont have even a few thousand years of hard data with actual measurements any predictions are purely speculative as far as Im concerned.

Just because someone wrote a paper on it doesnt make it true . . .

 

[Greg Hiller]

The data on past ice ages and their periodicity is pretty well confirmed Rob.

There certainly have been faster temperature changes in LONG past history, likely that occur during truely catastrophic events, like major asterroid or comet collisions, but I for one would not like to be around for those!

 

[NateHanson]

Rob your quote there is saying (from my read) that climate change took many thousands of years to happen in the past, and no one thought it could happen faster . . . UNTIL the 20th century, and the unexpectedly massive effect of human influence was realized. What your article is saying is that the natural process of global climate change was very very slow until humans screwed it up in the last 100 years. As far as I can see, that article is saying the opposite of what you're arguing.

Like Greg says, this is fairly settled science. It's not a matter of manipulating data. And in fact even the excerpt you used supports what Greg says.

 

[NateHanson]

Since we dont have even a few thousand years of hard data with actual measurements any predictions are purely speculative as far as Im concerned.

Just because someone wrote a paper on it doesnt make it true . . .

I never understand the great skepticism with which the world treats scientists. Everyone seems to think they're trying to pull some scam. I've always found that upsetting.

Anyways, scientists DO have thousands of years of "hard" climatic data from polar ice core samples. I believe they extrapolate temperature from the thickness of annual layers, to determine the amount of melting that occured that year or something. Not exactly sure how they do it, but there is plenty of data from much farther back than humans have been measuring it.

 

[JavaJones]

I never understand the great skepticism with which the world treats scientists...quote]

There have been many bizarre cases of rejecting scientific claims and this does not break on easy political lines but what makes the global warming case so interesting is that the oil industry took the tobacco industry model of junk science to a whole new level. Not only do they prey on the healthly kinds of skepticism (at play in this thread), but they also developed a whole bloc of discredited scientists, journalists and policymakers to muddy the waters. This renders many folks simply impervious to data. No amount of evidence, whether its gathered from polar glaciers or from things that seem obvious to folks with a basic knowledge of the scientific method can convince anyone.

In this thread we see this at work: claims amount long term climatic shifts (no doubt based of some sort of paleoclimatology) and profound distrust of the scientific method when alternative claims about the pace of change are offered by virtually the ENTIRE scientific community.

Another "commonsense" myth concerns evolution: i.e. changes accumulate resulting in gradual adaptation. Of course, this may happen in some cases, but evolution is much more brutal and driven by mass extinctions with only the survivors "adapting."

One thing that is concerning and a problem ultimately for all of us who recognize the need for lower energy consumption (where energy is supplied via fossil fuels) is that whatever our love for the reef, our hobby consumes enormous amounts of energy. This is something that troubles me in the same way that I recognize the good arguments of vegetarians while happily ordering the next round of ribs! To think, as has been posited here, that our reef tanks will one day seed future reefs in the wild is comforting but ultimately untenable.

 

[NateHanson]

I've always had those same issues with the hobby. It's tough one. If I do a tank again, it'll probably be a small one. Possibly a non-photosynthetic Gulf of Maine tank so I don't have to light it so ridiculously. But I'll always miss the power hungry reef tank I broke down a year ago, with all it's wild colors.

 

[Matt L.]

I never understand the great skepticism with which the world treats scientists...

My theory is that it is denial. It is so much easier to keep your head in the sand than face the reality of your actions or inactions.

Matt

 

[Matt L.]

I've always had those same issues with the hobby. It's tough one. If I do a tank again, it'll probably be a small one. Possibly a non-photosynthetic Gulf of Maine tank so I don't have to light it so ridiculously. But I'll always miss the power hungry reef tank I broke down a year ago, with all it's wild colors.

My goal in the future is to supply my reef with my own electricity; to not just have a reef, but a carbon neutral reef.

Matt

 

[Matt L.]

Nate, on an interesting note, North America is actually a net carbon sink...

I think that might be slightly inaccurate. I can't be sure, though, since I'd have to see the original source. I'm not doubting you, but here's what I know:

The largest (terrestrial?) carbon sink is the Amazon rain forest, which is being deforested. The second largest is the Congo Basin Equitorial Forest Sub-region.

Regardless, you are on the right path, Rich, in that deforestation is a major contributer to global warming. By removing the sink, you are in essence increasing the atmospheric carbon.

I posted this calculation a while ago, but just to give you an idea, there are far less equivalent trees in a gallon of gas than you might think.

It takes about three new trees to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. This information comes from a variety of sources so I averaged. I imagine there is some variability (what trees, etc.), but let us assume the order of magnitude is correct.

A car emits about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas (See the U.S. DOE if you don't believe me).

There are 2000 pounds in a ton, so you get 100 gallons of gasoline yielding one ton of CO2.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that you need to plant three whole new trees and have them grow for the lifespan of, well, a tree for every 100 gallons of gas you use. I use 5 gallons per week, 100 gallons in 20 weeks, and 260 gallons in a calendar year. I emit 2.6 tons. I would need to have planted 7-8 new trees for a years worth of my driving.

With urban sprawl and deforestation, I would find it hard to believe that there is sufficient tree planting to overcompensate for our driving habits alone, not to metnion our electricity consumption, heating oil, and so on.

I'm just bringing this up because I think deforestation and CO2 pollution are worse than people think,

Matt

 

[NateHanson]

My theory is that it is denial. It is so much easier to keep your head in the sand than face the reality of your actions or inactions.

Matt

I think in the case of the general public it's more likely a lack of good science education. If most people had a decent high school science curriculum, and a basic statistics class then I think they would be much more capable of evaluating the information thrown at them by all the biased sources in the world. They wouldn't be so easily snowed by pseudo science that is used to influence opinion by people, polititians, and companies with agendas.

 

[RobboT]

As Ive said before I do not disagree that we have accelerated things! I disagree that we can do much to reverse what we've done at this point and I am not convinced that we are not in a trend that was occuring anyway. Thats all Im saying

My point in dragging in articles was that someone always drags articles into these things and there are millions of scientists writing on millions of issues all with a pile of data slanted toward thier hypothesis. I read an article I think in Time Magazine once where a guy claimed he could predict with something like 85% accuracy whether a democrat or republican would be president based on the number of circus elephants in the US. Correlation is not necessarily Causation i think was the point of that article.

Scientists are people and they want to recognized just like the majority of the population. They want to be published and feel their work is legitimate so most of them will see what they want to see in the data. Science purely for the sake of science is a very rare thing.

 

[RobboT]

I'm a chemical engineer by degree and work in environmental cleanup so I am not skeptical about science. Im a firm believer in science. But I have seen enough data on things to know that data is all what the interpreter wants it to be. If they want the hazardous waste site to be clean they just change the basis of the risk analysis or throw out the 2 out of 20 points that exceed the criteria as an anomaly.

There are quite a few drug company people in BRS . . . when they pull a drug off the shelves because there were issues that "didnt show themselves in clinical trials." Did they really not show up or were they written off as unimportant? Or simply maybe enough data wasnt collected to know? I dont think any scientist would be called a liar in these cases but I think they see what they want to see because there are factors involved other than just plain science.

On the subject of my work I can tell you that waste site cleanups dont really want treat the problem overall they just move it away to another location maybe even cause worse overall problems. I got into environmental as a ChemE thinking I was going to work on great ways to clean up the envrionment. Started ot that way actually with a unique technology for cleaning refinery wastewater and sludge that resulted in clean dirt and reuseable oil with limited byproducts. It was too expensive to use.

What I know now is that most of environmental work is digging up the dirt and sending it to a landfill or mixing it with the asphalt we pave our roads with. Contaminated water either gets pumped and filtered through carbon (which then gets thermally treated) or pumped to a treatment plant usually with a higher release criteria because it discharges to a larger body of water than where the water came from. So whats worse? Dig it out and burn it adding CO2 to the air and who knows whatelse? Pump it out, mix it with chemicals at a treatment plant and pump it into the ocean? Or leave it where it is, stop adding to the pollution and let is naturally attenuate over the next 100 years

I love science. I love to read papers of all kinds and on all sides. I just dont think anyone really knows anything, its all hypothesis.

 

[RobboT]

..... This renders many folks simply impervious to data. No amount of evidence, whether its gathered from polar glaciers or from things that seem obvious to folks with a basic knowledge of the scientific method can convince anyone.

This is me For every article there is an equal and opposite article . . . just do what I can on my own personal level and hope there are others out there doing the same. I've no time to wade through the politically slanted BS.

 

[RobboT]

. . . What your article is saying is that the natural process of global climate change was very very slow until humans screwed it up in the last 100 years. As far as I can see, that article is saying the opposite of what you're arguing.

Like Greg says, this is fairly settled science. It's not a matter of manipulating data. And in fact even the excerpt you used supports what Greg says.

From the article . . .
"Broecker in particular, looking at deep-sea cores, in 1966 pointed to an "abrupt transition between two stable modes of operation of the ocean-atmosphere system," especially a "sharp unidirectional change" around 11,000 years ago."

What Greg says supports any argument. I could use the asteroids slamming into us as an argument that any data showing climate cycles is inaccurate. I could also use that info to say "see it doesnt matter what we do because a catastrophic event out of our control could occur at any moment."

Honestly for all I know the guy who wrote that article I listed could be living in a cabin in Saskatchewan with a lifetime supply of Johnny Walker Blue. Same goes for any of the articles anyone referenced. For all I know the most reliable source could be the guy who wrote Day After Tomorrow. Thats really my point.

 

[NateHanson]

I'm a chemical engineer by degree and work in environmental cleanup so I am not skeptical about science. Im a firm believer in science. But I have seen enough data on things to know that data is all what the interpreter wants it to be. If they want the hazardous waste site to be clean they just change the basis of the risk analysis or throw out the 2 out of 20 points that exceed the criteria as an anomaly.

There are quite a few drug company people in BRS . . . when they pull a drug off the shelves because there were issues that "didnt show themselves in clinical trials." Did they really not show up or were they written off as unimportant? Or simply maybe enough data wasnt collected to know? I dont think any scientist would be called a liar in these cases but I think they see what they want to see because there are factors involved other than just plain science.

With all due respect to the people involved with both these types of work, it's not science as pertains to this discussion. Scientific research (not drug company trials, not an article in Time or The New Republic, not a soil analysis for remediation) is not just taking measurements and using them to back up your argument. It follows a process of hypothesis, data collection, analysis, and conclusions. Scientific research is shared with other scientists by publishing in PEER-REVIEWED scientific journals. There's not much wiggle room here for making up your own conclusions or manipulating data to simply reinforce your side of an argument.

Agreed that researchers (just like everyone else) want to be good at what they do, be recognized, and make a difference, and that sometimes leads researchers to manipulate data, or otherwise work outside the rules of the scientific method. They get caught, disgraced, and lose their positions very quickly. (It actually happened to a prof in my dept while I was at MIT.) It's impossible to get away with this sort of thing for long because the scientific process is very robust and is full of checks. Work is independently scrutinized before being published. Then after publication other labs repeat the work. If the results aren't repeatable they are either dismissed as anomaly, or in rare cases exposed as deliberate fraud.

This image that people have of researchers at reputable grant-funded institutions drawing conclusions, then lining up a confusing mess of rigged data to support that pre-concieved outcome is a fallacy. It's not reality, and it shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic scientific process.

If people knew what those last three words meant, we wouldn't have the national debates that exist today about intelligent design in science class (no problem if people believe it, but this is simply not science), whether or not the climate is changing due to human effects, and George Bush's manufactured fears of "Human-Animal Hybrids". eek:!!!)

 

[RobboT]

Problem is Nate that a majority of the population is most likely incapable of understanding the basic scientific process. What may seem like common knowledge to you can be a complex and incomprehensible subject to most. I'd imagine that even alot of those who might understand how its supposed to work see that there's too much info out there for anyone to digest and sort real scientific data from "tainted" data.

Sometimes I think smart people forget that 75% of the worlds population is of average intelligence or below. (Im just using IQ as a gauge there, which itself is debatable as a measure, dont jump on me for throwing numbers please ) My guess is that maybe 85% of the worlds population is only concerned about themselves, their family, where their next meal is coming from and whether they can afford a plasma this christmas like the guy next door.

The media, politicians and corporate big wigs know this all too well and use it to their advantage. The waters are too muddy for me and my puny IQ to wade through. I consider myself to be more concerned about global issues than the average person but quite honestly 51% of my motivation in life is saving money for my daughters education and putting a home theater in my basement.

BTW, Nate et al . . . I really enjoy these "arguments." Im an argument for arguments sake kind of person. Unfortunately I really am not a great debater but I like to talk about things like this. The only way to determine where you stand on an issue is to discuss it. Personally I prefer to hear peoples ideas and feeling rather than have articles and numbers thrown at me.

Luckily nobody's insulted anyone here yet, at least none that anyone's taken personally as far as I can tell.

Intelligent Design . . . unfortunately I cant even argue that one for arguments sake. Science cannot compete with religion they operate on two entirely different playing fields.

And personally I cant wait for Human-Animal Hybrids . . . I always wished I had wings.