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®.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is some correspondence on corals that I have had with Dr. Kim Cobb (Realclimate contributor) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/kim-cobbs-view/)
On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Don & Selina wrote:
1) When did massive corals first evolve?
A -Massive reef-building corals of the type that I use for climate reconstruction probably arrived on the scene in the Triassic, about 220 million years ago.
2) What was the atmospheric CO2 concentration at this time?
A -Hard to say definitively, but our best guess is something between 2x to 10x present-day (pre-industrial) CO2 levels. This increase was caused by an active tectonic phase which released large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
3) What was the Global temperature at this time?
A -Much harder to say, but there is evidence for crocodiles near the Arctic circle, which means temperatures were from 10-15C warmer near the poles. The tropics are harder to pin down – estimates are from 0-4C warmer.
4) What was the ocean pH at this time?
A -I do not know of any direct estimates of ocean paleo-pH. However, if I were to guess, I’d say that the pH was probably near what it is today, because the ocean has a huge buffering capacity on those long timescales, involving the dissolution of sedimentary carbonate lining the ocean floor. Probably someone has thought more about this, but I’m not directly aware of that body of work.
Hope that’s a start.
Thanks,
KIM
Interesting- particularly the last answer as it suggest significant ocean acidification is very unlikely. Bear in mind Kim Cobb is a coral “expert”
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/research.html
It’s very easy for coral reefs to recover from the damage caused by “global warming.”
Coral reefs like warming.
Coral reefs like rising sea level.
Coral reefs even like CO2.
I took the liberty of modifying the CO2 vs calcification rate plots from Ries et al., 2009. Rather than trying to divine some sort of trend from the data, I just plotted the range calcification rates for each species at each CO2 level tested to see how much CO2 pushed the calcification rate below the “normal” range.
Coralline Red Algae had significantly higher calcification rates at 606 and 903 ppmv than at 409 ppmv CO2. At 2856 ppmv the range of calcification rates was almost exactly the same as 409 ppmv.
Temperate Coral exhibited no significant changes from 409 to 903 ppmv CO2. It’s calcification rate did decline from 903 to 2856 ppmv.
Of course, Ries’ experiment essentially tossed marine species into radically different CO2 environments with no time to genetically adapt and Ries also assumed that a generally linear decline in aragonite saturation would occur in response to elevated CO2 levels. Maybe Dr. Ries slept through his paleontology and historical geology courses… The fossil record is chock full of Jurassic- and Cretaceous-aged critters with aragonitic shells. Atmospheric CO2 in the Jurassic and Cretaceous ranged from 1000 to 3000 ppmv.
Jimbo (04:05:03) : That´s the best example how microscopic are human endeavours on planet earth…perhaps watching downwards to his own big belly navel makes Al Baby believe the contrary.☺
Eggsuckindog (17:28:34) :
Indeed, and this very sand is the reason why coral islands exist. The coral reef itself would never be habitable since only parts may be exposed during low tide. It is thanks to this sand together with wave action that these sandy coral atolls are able to stay some two meters above sea level. This same process will help maintain these islands during sea level rise. The Maldives will not drown if only the inhabitants would let this natural process take its course.
Michael (22:19:30) :
“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
From that article:
On the subject of cutting CO2 emissions, Golding said he is concerned carbon credits are being packaged into increasingly complex financial products — similar to the “shadow finance” around subprime mortgages — that triggered the recent economic crash.
“As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don’t need and sell them on,” 360 quotes Golding as saying. “The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters.”
Great, now a meltdown triggered by carbon trading. The silver lining is it could hit Big Al. but he’s probably shorting knowing it’s all a big lie.
More Headlines | Top of Page
Haven’t seen anyone above point to a flaw in the author’s argument: They say that the reef was hurt by “bleaching” due to CO2 acidification, but also Hurricane Frances. The flaw is that they do not quantify the importantance of the two factors—–maybe the bleaching was 10% and the hurricane 90% causal for the damage, or vice versa. Or maybe the bleaching was barely important at all. They also do not quantify how much “fishing” is going on at the poor recovery sites. Also, do they assess whether coral better adapted to CO2 acidification are replacing the old stock–either due to selection of mutations within the old stock or invasion by exotic variants?
All that is established by the article is that fishing in the region of a reef disturbs its equilibrium toward more grasses and less coral and that this may be reversible if fishing is limited.
KW
@kwinterkorn (07:53:19)
The bleaching events that are often associates with strong El Niño’s occur because the rapid warming of seawater forces the reef to change out its symbiotic zooxantheallae. This is a very temporary phenomena and reefs recover rapidly.
Hurricanes tend to knock chunks of coral off the reef; often dumping the chunks into deep water. The reef chunks dumped into deep water do not recover. The “holes” in the reef do recover over varying time periods.
In the Coral Triangle the bulk of the damage is from one of the favored methods of fishing in the area…
Coral reefs do not like explosives.
Therefore we may now surmise that savethesharks (aka Chris of Norfolk VA USA) is running in the lead to be a founder of People for Sustainable Techniques of Offshore Fishing for Food (PST-OFF).
The cats would like to point out that the first three ingredients of their Alley Cat dry food are ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, and soybean meal. Then the animal products start, with ocean fish meal being number six, followed by tuna meal. This suggests to them that the fish is providing certain essential proteins not found in the first three, and if soybeans could replace the fish meal then the maker would likely have already done so to save money.
They were also wondering what ingredient number nine, animal digest, could possibly be, but decided they’d rather not know.
OT, but it is the equivalent of global warming causes extreme cold weather
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Longer_growing_season_cuts_tree_CO2_intake_999.html :
PST-OFF. I like that acronym. Yeah I checked with a couple of cats I know and they have confirmed your suspicion.
However, it is not cats that put stress on the demand for menhaden.
It is the industrial poultry, pork, and even beef industries that are spiking the huge demand.
Last time I checked…
Chickens – Herbivores (some omnivorous traits)
Pork – Omnivores
Cows – Herbivores
Why do the industrial animal farms use ground up fish?
Answer: It is cheap. Rather: Cheap cheep cheep….
I realize I am OT from coral reefs here, but since I have been throwing out documentaries….watch Food Inc..
This is the best expose on the industrial food business yet. And you might want to watch it on an empty stomach.
Again….why do they do it…and get AWAY with it? Because they ******* can!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bill Tuttle (06:13:07) : Opening line from Melville’s epic novel of those intrepid New England soybean whalers: “Call me Fishmeal.”
Nice!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Very interesting. Does the University of Exeter intend to continue supporting AGW fraud by making false claims about the potential of CO2 to cause ocean acidification.
Even if CO2 increased by 20+ times, as it has in the past, it still would not cause ocean acidification and would in-fact still only be a trace gas even at 7000-8000 ppm. The fact is that no amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause oceanic acidification because the oceans are buffered against acidification by the ocean floor. The University of Exeter knows this of course but it is far too busy conspiring to commit AGW fraud to admit it.
The most interesting part of this article to me is the information on who is funding this research. What a surprise, its big oil again. The Kahled bin Sulten Living Oceans Foundation is a front for Saudi oil interests. The claim that they are committed to ocean conservation through a commitment to Science Without Borders® should be ringing alarm bells for truth seekers and freedom lovers.
“Science Without Borders” sounds a lot like “Governments” without borders or “Taxes” without borders, the same kind of rhetoric that we saw at the Copenhagen summit which turned out to be nothing more than a NWO push towards Global border-less Government, an attempted global power grab by none other than the Rothschilds no less.
The most interesting statement to come out of Copenhagen was from David Mayer de Rothschild when he said that is was proving very hard to activate global governance.
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/35275/Rothschild_regrets_Global_Governance_tough_to_acti/
When you have a Rothschild, who’s family have and still do, profit from both sides of every war since Napolean, (a family who’s hands are literally wringing with blood and which already control more than half the worlds wealth), talking about global governance then it really is time to start paying attention.
Let us all be warned that the fraud which is AGW, has nothing whatsoever to do with climate and everything to with world government. Let us not forget that Adolf Hitler himself was a Rothschild and this family have been responsible for most of the suffering that the people of the world have had to endure at least as far back as the battle of Waterloo. So when you see one of these disgusting genocidal money grubbing filth, publicly speaking about global governance, it is time to stop whatever it is you are doing and turn towards these parasites with the nit comb.
Saudi Prince Kahlid bin Sultan, trained at Sandhurst Military Academy is yet another Rothschild lackey, as are all the Royalty and nobility throughout the world. Most of the economic entities currently throughout the world such as the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the World Bank, are Rothschild controlled organisations. So if we hand them global governance on a plate we are all going to be in serious trouble.
These intergenerational Nazi’s who have funded and profited from every blood bath in modern history have a final solution planned for the ordinary human inhabitants of this heavenly planet. That final solution has many names. More recently it has been referred to as SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENTALISM and more ominously DECARBONISATION. But this final solution will be more recognisable to most if I use the more traditional and familiar terms of population reduction or more accurately mass genocide.
If the Rothschilds become the official rulers of the world they will most definitely set about their agenda to exterminate 80% of the worlds human population. AGW has been a key factor in this agenda and was intended to provide the global border-less taxation system needed to fund a global border-less government. The exposure of AGW fraud and the collapse of the Copenhagen summit, revealing this agenda of world government should come as a stark warning to the people of the world. We must pay more attention in future. These people operate through an intergenerational agenda. These blood soaked elitists must be completely and continuously marginalized and their nefarious agenda loudly exposed, otherwise we nor our future generations will ever be safe.
No doubt about it, field work is the most reliable form of scientific study. Suntans! Frostbite! Months alone with the natives and mother nature! How can anyone call themself an environmental scientist who’s never been in the elements? The very least that those who dribble in computer programs and simulations can do is move to Siberia or Northern Greenland and do their calculations in a Gulag environment. I understand the menu is quite basic.
http://npweb.npolar.no/english/subjects/polarbear
“Polar bear populations are managed through international agreements. Since 1973, hunting has been illegal in Svalbard”
Meanwhile back in (not so) sunny Norfolk UK, global warming COULD be responsible for the remains of an Octopus washed up on a local beach:
A washed up octopus on a north Norfolk beach could be a sign of global warming – or just a quirk of the currents.
The common octopus is normally found in the warmer waters off the south coast of England, but a diver recently discovered the battered remains of one at Salthouse.
Helen Nott from the nature recording site NorfolkSeaquest said: “I have occasionally found the native, smaller curled octopus washed up at Cley and Heacham, but this is a first for me.”
The larger common octopus could mature to a length of just over one metre, double the size of the curled one, and was identified by having two rows of suckers on each tentacle.
The find at Salthouse, near Cromer, was confirmed by a marine biologist at Great Yarmouth Sealife Centre, where displays organiser Christine Pitcher said the discovery, along with finds of other warm water creatures such as sun fish and turtles around the East Anglian coast could be a sign of global warming – with animals going farther afield into new areas as seas changed temperature.
But they could also be the result of creatures being carried by currents – particularly as the octopus was a bit “mangled” and could have been dead for a while.
@Yonason (“Poor Little Things”):
Of course, they couldn’t resist the obligatory reference:
The problem is that I hear a lot of emotional claptrap but not seeing anything of any real substance. Linoleum is made of linseed oil, not fish oil and as far as I know, no fish oil is used in the manufacture of linoleum. (the “lin” in linoleum is from “linseed”). Every time I look into your claims, I find they aren’t true and they seem like emotional hot button rhetoric.
Are we overfishing the seas? I would say so. We (humans) tend to over-harvest any resource. Would passing a US regulation change that? Probably not. The companies would simply move. And the problem with “world regulation” in general is that those responsible for them are not responsible to anyone else.
I don’t know what the solution is but I have a good idea of what the solution shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be about more authoritarian government interference.
Find a replacement and champion that replacement material.
Well just what is the evidence that proves that it is in fact climate change that is destroying the coral reefs while we watch.
I imagine that coral reefs, are a great symbiotic system, with zillions of species living in harmony. Any unbalance, such as removing sea urchins, and thus having an explosion of crown of thorns starfish which eat coral, will upset things.
People who inhabit these coral atoll islands, generally go fishing on those reefs, and then there is the whole coral and tropical fish trade, that unbalances the eco-system. My son’s girlfriend, comes from an outlying Phillipine Island, and when he went out over the reef with the idea of fishing (catch and release) he discovered there basically weren’t any real food fish on the reef. The locals simply fihsed for anything that would take a bait, or they could spear.
I doubt that the typical coral community would put up with that sort of abuse.
So why blame climate for simple stupidity. Besides Jane Lubchenk did an experiment to show that corals can survive in ordinary tap water, presumably with chlorine and fluoride in it; but not if you chill it with dry ice.
And I thought all that calcium carbonate acts as a buffer to regulate the pH of the water.
The problem is that I hear a lot of emotional claptrap but not seeing anything of any real substance. Linoleum is made of linseed oil, not fish oil and as far as I know, no fish oil is used in the manufacture of linoleum. (the “lin” in linoleum is from “linseed”). Every time I look into your claims, I find they aren’t true and they seem like emotional hot button rhetoric.
That is making a Mount Everest out of a molehill I ever saw it. Your comments are meaningless here
I think if my statements were ever examined in a court of law or by some “peer-reviewers” it would be found that YOUR dialogue here (at least when it comes to this discussion so far), has far less substance….and far more emotion.
Not sure what your axe is to grind, but I suggest you stick to the issues at hand.
You are singling out one little detail on the linseed issue. You can refer to the scholarly little book The Most Important Fish in the Sea [part of your assignment] to dispute the linoleum thing and take it up with that Rutgers author.
But, given, that it does not look like your ego is too big for you to concede that you are never wrong or mistaken, that will most likely prohibit you from thoughtfully examining all the important links and documentaries I sent you and, yes, from talking to your fellow Marylander and life-time fisherman /scientist, Jim Price, it appears that yours and my conversation with you has hit a dead-end.
As I said, with exception to my error about Bush-Omega (which I quickly admitted), you have been unable or unwilling to comprehend any salient points I have raised, the good thing is that there are plenty of other very VERY bright minds on this site who a tad more open-minded, and less downright judgmental, biased, and prejudiced in their assumptions.
And as I said, go back and examine throughly everything I have given you in your assignment, and, after that, if your opinion remains the same, then we definitely have nothing to say to each other.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
crosspatch “I don’t know what the solution is but I have a good idea of what the solution shouldn’t be.It shouldn’t be about more authoritarian government interference.
Speaking of fish…that is another big fat red herring. And a cop-out answer at that.
“Find a replacement and champion that replacement material.”
No problem bro. I’ll make sure I do that. [Thanks for that scientific, non-emotional advice.]
Why don’t we put you with a panel of oceanic and fishery experts and see how well you do trying to defend your subject-changer:
“Well I have no solution….but disastrous overfishing even to the point of species and food web collapse…shouldn’t be outlawed because it involves making new laws and government authoritarianism is bad.”
At that point the feeding frenzy would ensue and you would most certainly lose your argument in a big way.
Just like you have lost here.
Cheers.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Figures around there in East Anglia they would like to quickly pin AGW as the culprit.
I think the more probable answer is the second one….the currents.
Chris
Norfolk (from the other side of the pond)
“Woods Hole recently also did a paper on coral and shellfish and increased amounts of CO2 – they loved it and grew bigger shells…”
People who keep reef aquariums use CO2 injection into “calcium reactors” to increase the mineral content of their water. Seems like it’s not just the increase in dissolved calcium that’s helping their tanks.
savethesharks — I hope you realize you’re coming off as a fanatic with a rather limited set of knowledge?
Of course, the first clue was the attempt to blame the Demon Bush for overfishing; the tone and nature of your comments since then have just reinforced the impression.
My wife is a marine biologist (and we’re a scuba-diving family…). The sunscreen connection has been suspected for some time, and recent studies confirm it.
It is possible that other factors are also involved, but the human-induced bleaching from sunscreen is an effect that can’t be ignored. INCREDIBLY small concentrations can cause tremendous damage.
savethesharks
Sorry I was away all day and could not participate in your wonderful rants – enjoyed all your comments and could not agree more completely!
RE sunscreen: interesting to learn about the environmental consequences of which I was not previously aware. I always wondered, however, why the chemical industry gets a pass on certain chemicals and so little scrutiny was done when you could tell that its effects could not be good: all you have to do is get a little in your eyes from sweat and the sting lasts forever.