From a University of Exeter press release, another inconvenient truth about our planet sure to be denounced by some who claim that global warming is irreparably damaging reef systems.
A study by the University of Exeter provides the first evidence that coral reefs can recover from the devastating effects of climate change. Published Monday 11 January in the journal PLOS One, the research shows for the first time that coral reefs located in marine reserves can recover from the impacts of global warming.
Scientists and environmentalists have warned that coral reefs may not be able to recover from the damage caused by climate change and that these unique environments could soon be lost forever. Now, this research adds weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world’s most delicate aquatic ecosystems.
Increases in ocean surface water temperatures subject coral reefs to stresses that lead quickly to mass bleaching. The problem is intensified by ocean acidification, which is also caused by increased CO2. This decreases the ability of corals to produce calcium carbonate (chalk), which is the material that reefs are made of.
Approximately 2% of the world’s coral reefs are located within marine reserves, areas of the sea that are protected against potentially-damaging human activity, like dredging and fishing.
The researchers conducted surveys of ten sites inside and outside marine reserves of the Bahamas over 2.5 years. These reefs have been severely damaged by bleaching and then by hurricane Frances in the summer of 2004. At the beginning of the study, the reefs had an average of 7% coral cover. By the end of the project, coral cover in marine protected areas had increased by an average of 19%, while reefs in non-reserve sites showed no recovery.
Professor Peter Mumby of the University of Exeter said: “Coral reefs are the largest living structures on Earth and are home to the highest biodiversity on the planet. As a result of climate change, the environment that has enabled coral reefs to thrive for hundreds of thousands of years is changing too quickly for reefs to adapt.
“In order to protect reefs in the long-term we need radical action to reduce CO2 emissions. However, our research shows that local action to reduce the effects of fishing can contribute meaningfully to the fate of reefs. The reserve allowed the number of parrotfishes to increase and because parrotfish eat seaweeds, the corals could grow freely without being swamped by weeds. As a result, reefs inside the park were showing recovery whereas those with more seaweed were not. This sort of evidence may help persuade governments to reduce the fishing of key herbivores like parrotfishes and help reefs cope with the inevitable threats posed by climate change”.
Professor Mumby’s research was funded by National Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation.
Reef facts
- A coral reef is made up of thin layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) secreted over thousands of years by billions of tiny soft bodied animals called coral polyps.
- Coral reefs are the world’s most diverse marine ecosystems and are home to twenty-five percent of known marine species, including 4,000 species of fish, 700 species of coral and thousands of other plants and animals.
- Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.
- The largest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef, which stretches along the northeast coast of Australia, from the northern tip of Queensland, to just north of Bundaberg. At 2,300km long, it is the largest natural feature on Earth.
- Coral reefs occupy less than one quarter of one percent of the Earth’s marine environment, yet they are home to more than a quarter of all known fish species.
- As well as supporting huge tourist industries, coral reefs protect shorelines from erosion and storm damage.
To download high quality reef videos by Professor Peter Mumby: www.reefvid.org
The main funding for the research came from Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation and the Natural Environment Research Council.
The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation (www.livingoceansfoundation.org) is dedicated to conservation and restoration of living oceans and pledges to champion their preservation through research, education and a commitment to Science Without Borders®.
I heard a piece on ABC radio some weeks ago by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (who has been living off the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef for decades) to re-assure us that the GBR would soon be in its death throes and that Peter Ridd, although well meaning didn’t know what he was talking about and was not qualified as a marine biologist anyway.
True to ABC form, Peter Ridd was not given the opportunity to respond.
This is the reference David Elder was referring to:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/scientists-crying-wolf-over-coral/story-e6frg6xf-1225811910634
savethesharks (20:51:05),
I could not agree more with that analysis.
Richard (18:30:47) :
“SEA RISE CLAIMS IN COPENHAHEN BOGUS – so says Britain’s Met Office”
Well at least the UKMET is trying to be scientific.
No doubt I am sure they have this eminent WORLD-authority on seal level, as a reason to question the alarm:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.”
A rather misleading statement which should be shot down by any reasonable geologist.
Rugose and Tabulate corals may have been around 400 million years ago but they all died out at the End Permian extinction. All modern corals are Scleractinia which only appeared in the Triassic about 220 million years ago.
It may be a minor thing but it is like lumping dinosaurs in with mammals and trying to claim some sort of exceptional longevity as a result.
Correction: “sea-level”
Smokey (20:57:02) :
I could not agree more with that analysis.
Thank you Smokey. You gotta wonder. Where is Joel Shore or anybody from RC on this issue. Where is the outrage??
Nay…they have their heads buried in the troposphere, trying to detect a warming fingerprint (good luck!) while the real world (and its real villains) passes them by.
Regardless, I remain optimistic. Rational minds WILL prevail. This site is evidence of that.
All the best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
HAMweather map changed to Jan 11
here’s Jan 10
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/custom/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow&s=20100110
Actually Phillip B 20:30:07 the NIngaloo reef is insulated by cold currents from the south.
http://www.wamsi.org.au/news-and-events-news/changing-wind-and-waves-affect-ningaloo
“Professor Pattiaratchi said the ecology of the Ningaloo Reef system was closely linked to water motion, which transported and dispersed vital materials such as nutrients and larvae. For example, Ningaloo reef has not experienced coral bleaching because of southerly winds, which bring colder water to the reef which acts as an insulator.”
past 7 days in US
1002 cold records
630 snowfall records
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow
“Parrotfish are not fished for”
I beg to differ. They are quite tasty.
Perhaps not commercially fished, maybe.
One thing about diving on the reef is the noise of constant pecking by Parrot fish. But diving areas are generally non-fishing areas, so you just have to sit and watch the little buggers.
The Great Barrier reef is estimated at over 8,000 years old. If you take the ice-core studies at face value, that means they have seen higher and lower temperatures than today, so they must be able to get through it.
For what it is worth, I would like to see more reef areas protected, particularly in parts of asia where the local tourist operators like to throw rubbish overboard, and drop their anchor anywhere on the coral. They don’t even realise they are killing their own industry.
Also – it is abundantly clear from reading the above report that the WUWT conclusions are pretty much the opposite to the conclusions drawn by the researchers.
And finally:
A site detailing decline of parrotfish due to fishing in the cook islands:
http://www.spc.int/coastfish/Countries/CookIslands/MMR/7Somespecies/Parrotfish.htm
oh loook a recipe on Waitrose (a British Supermarket suggesting they stock it)
http://www.waitrose.com/recipe/Parrot_Fish_with_Calypso_Sauce.aspx
Just to counter some random claims above that parrotfish don’t get fished.
Three Britons charged over €3m carbon-trading ‘carousel fraud’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/11/eu-carbon-trading-carousel-fraud
“Last month, the European police agency Europol reported that the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) had fallen victim to fraudulent trading activities over the past 18 months, worth €5 billion for several national tax revenues.
It estimates that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.”
Four charged with carbon trading fraud in Belgium
http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/news/1585509/four-charged-carbon-trading-fraud-belgium
Four charged with carbon trading fraud in Belgium
I would love to dine upon a gourmet dinner of parrotfish.
That does not take away…in any shape, fashion, or form…of the bigger-picutre problem of disastrous (and it is disastrous) overfishing in general (but especially of the apex variety) that is a DIRECT contributor to the stress of the oceans today.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USa
Apparently reef-building coral has only been around for the past 25 million years, however back then CO2 levels were also around 500ppm and the temperature was globally at least 3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now, so the argument that current conditions will cause damage are questionable, at best
“Macro-economic inflationary pressures and the potential collapse of the carbon credit market are two emerging risks in 2010, according to Lloyd’s of London’s 360 Risk Insight.”
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000353924
Somebody should introduce these scientists to the Crown of Thorns. Forty five years ago I was on a team injecting poison into hundreds of these creatures to save the reefs in the Philippines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starfish
The experts stopped talking about this critter when they thought global warming was more lucrative.
Turns out everyones right……except the guys who did the study. From the
National Geographic site
“Their meat is rarely consumed in the United States, but is a delicacy in many other parts of the world. In Polynesia, it is served raw and was once considered “royal food,” only eaten by the king.” Also;
“There’s its diet, which consists primarily of algae extracted from chunks of coral ripped from a reef. The coral is pulverized with grinding teeth in the fishes’ throats in order to get to the algae-filled polyps inside. Much of the sand in the parrot fish’s range is actually the ground-up, undigested coral they excrete.”
Hey “save the sharks” chris; nice rant! though I’m not sure what sharks have to do with alge and jelly fish. Always looking for new knowlage.
Comment by: ” John A (17:04:11) :
Another tainted study paid for by fossil fuel funded disinformation companies.”
—————————————————————–
… and your proof of this is????
This type of selective thinking appears to be, any study that supports global catastrophe must be true, BUT any study that supports it’s not so bad, must be a faulty study from an oil company…
This double standard isn’t very logical thinking.
I disagree. They do it because they can make money at it. Apparently there is great demand for their product. If people didn’t buy it, they would stop wasting the money required to make it.
The problem comes in when you attempt to pass laws that are designed to “protect” people against their own stupidity. The notion behind that is “you are too stupid to understand what is good for you so I am going to pass laws to keep you from hurting yourself”. It is a very patronizing approach. An alternative is education. Make the people less stupid. Passing a law that prevents “This Big Corporation” from doing something simply enables “That Little Corporation” to become “A Little Bigger Corporation” or causes them to move offshore out of the reach of the jurisdiction passing the law.
And “international law” isn’t an option because the people who promulgate international laws aren’t responsible to anyone. You can’t vote the UN out of office.
You are also incorrect in your assertion that the elder Bush had anything to do with Omega Protein. OP was started by Zapata in the 1980’s. George HW Bush sold out his stake of Zapata in 1966. Bush had no interest in Zapata or Omega Protein. You are redistributing “urban legend”.
p.g.sharrow “PG” (22:45:02) :
Hey “save the sharks” chris; nice rant! though I’m not sure what sharks have to do with alge and jelly fish. Always looking for new knowlage.
Thanks for the response.
Sharks have been apex predators over a majority of the earth’s surface for nearly a half a billion years. That is through…incredibly…five mass extinctions.
Removing the apex predators (through overfishing) disrupts eons and eons of stasis and relative symbiosis in the oceanic food web.
This can lead to catastrophic disruption and even failure.
When the apex evolved predators are removed, the less evolved, primordial, and less-desirable opportunistic species, like jellyfish, and even poisonous algae blooms, take over.
Think of it as a quantum step BACK in evolution.
Glad to hear you are open to hearing new stuff.
It is amazing that we never hear the typical “environmental” cronies….Gore….Holdren…etc. talk about this.
Answer….there is no money to be made off the subject.
They would rather concentrate on some ivory-tower ephemeral idea of CO2 “pollution”, at the expense of the real world.
Meanwhile….the “real world” continues to play out in real time.
GRRRRRR…..
PS…..if you are looking for new knowledge….take some time to view Sharkwater. Besides being a font of good information….it is a utterly beautiful work. A masterpiece, really.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Save the reefs. Eat more parrotfish.
I’m not amazed at how the environment can compensate for significant changes. After all it it didn’t there would be no life on this planet. Yet AGW alarmist are yelling the end of the world is coming simply because CO2 is gone from about 0.03% to about 0.04% now and 0.06% in many years to come (perhaps). How dumb can they get?
crosspatch (22:53:51) :
[I said] “….does what it does, BECAUSE IT ******** CAN!”
crosspatch (22:53:51) said “I disagree. They do it because they can make money at it.”
Uhhhh. Isn’t that pretty much the same damn thing???
“It is a very patronizing approach. An alternative is education. Make the people less stupid.
And I don’t disagree with that…at all!
“You are also incorrect in your assertion that the elder Bush had anything to do with Omega Protein. OP was started by Zapata in the 1980’s. George HW Bush sold out his stake of Zapata in 1966. Bush had no interest in Zapata or Omega Protein. You are redistributing “urban legend”.
The zapata-omega connection is in no way an urban legend.
However, you are correct in pointing out my mistaken (now that I look at it) quote “the elder-Bush-started-Omega Protein”.
However again, my point is that the special interests on both sides are geared towards profit….and not necessarily the best interests for the environment they live in, or the planet they live on.
As one who voted for the elder Bush and the younger Bush both times (not my proudest moment), I concede that the blame is to be spread across both aisles.
And I can assure you bro…that, even though Zapata did not necessarily contribute to Omega directly, the climate of that corporation made a ripe breeding ground for the current monster we have before us an its name is Omega Protein.
Perhaps there are some other wonderful corporations in the same vein that should deserve mention here and i won’t name any names….MONSANTO.
The point being, and nevertheless, after my pretty damn good layout of the problem in that post, if, in besides your pointing out my technical error (which I concede), in light of the REAL truth of the problems of disastrous (and I mean DISASTROUS) overfishing….then, instead of just offering reactive, carte blanche criticism, you might benefit from the irrefutable bedrock of my post.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
crosspatch (22:53:51) :
[I said] “….does what it does, BECAUSE IT ******** CAN!”
crosspatch (22:53:51) said “I disagree. They do it because they can make money at it.”
That is a red herring.
Did you ever stop to think that…the reason they can make money at it is because they can do it legally (regardless if it is right or wrong)?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA