Chasing coral

[spieszak]

yes, I really believe the 'common' reefer will not exist, though not necessarily in that time frame. There may be a few of them, still going, but the ongoing nature of the given scenario implies costs will skyrocket for both water and energy (and coral). When limited resources run out, which is what happens when you truely examine the idea of global climate change, the 'common' everything goes away. When you aren't sure where your kids are going to get clean drinking water (seriously, look at California last summer as small example of how close we could be to that), you sure aren't going to be making RO/DI.

These aren't seed banks (which are also failing now due to climate change), these are living creatures that will have to be kept alive for length of a completely unforseeable future.

Its grandious to think yourself someone who is going to preserve nature, it might make you feel good, but the probabilities of that actually happening quite slim... But, why not just let us fool ourselves into believing so, its not hurting anything right? It sure is. That "I'm saving the coral" badge people think they can wear? It deludes them into thinking they are ACTUALLY helping.

 

[TRNANCE]

I didn't mean for it to sounds like it how it was type out. I understand what your saying 100 percent. When I said that about humanity it was mainly about the pollution going on. Back before they were burning trash and make huge landfill with it. They were putting it on huge ships and dumping it in the middle of the ocean. Right now there are BILLIONs and BILLIONS of tons of trash just floating around in the ocean right now. That of course is having a impact on the ecosystem. The massive oil spills that happens in the ocean has a huge impact on the wild life. I also don't believe that all the gobel warming that has happened came from the evolution of man kind. Seeing that we have only been on this earth for the past 500 years or so. And the earth is billions of years old. That's kind of what I meant about it.

I agree completely.

 

[Reef man 89]

Hopefully more people will Watch it. Not just people in the reefing hobby but people that don't know anything about reefs in general. So they can see what going with the oceans. It would be awesome if they would show this program in school so the next generations hopefully be able to make some changes in the world.

 

[neuwave]

So interesting. Corals are growing after being nuked, but bleach in "pristine" conditions. So much we do not know.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...s-thriving-70-years-after-nuclear-bomb-tests/

I don't understand your statement. Could you explain? Because the article states coral surviving in areas of nuclear radiation and chasing coral is speaking about temperature increase(thermal). One has nothing to do with the other. One is nuclear radiation and the other is thermal radiation. Their effects on living organims are completely different on living organisms. So I would like to know how you are comparing the two when their wavelength are different on the electromagnetic scale. Visible light(example sun, our aquarium lights) is apart of the electromagnetic spectrum but promotes growth in coral. So I can't see how you can compare thermal radiation to nuclear in regards to coral living.

 

[Best Fish-Jake]

74 F to 84 F is not much. As far as I know temperatures beyond 86 F cause coral bleaching in reefs.
Does this Wikipedia article and this graph answer some of your questions? Please also see links to related articles at the end of the article. CO2 emissions/concentrations and global warming are not such simple, both are very complex processes which are not completely understood yet, for example the role of the oceans and the deep sea. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are relatively small but they cause a large deviation from the steady state of the closed atmospheric carbon cycle. If this emission would stop at least a new steady state instead of an permanent increase could form. Further global warming could initiate an avalanche of positive feedback reactions like thawing permafrost, more release of CH4 and CO2 further fueling the warming and so on.

Unfortunately they did not answer my questions.

If you were to able to tell me how much the earth's temperatures will rise in a given year due to X amount of atmospheric carbon (a seemingly simple question) then perhaps I wouldn't say that global warming is based entirely on loose science.

 

[Best Fish-Jake]

Have less kids, tey to drive a fuel efficient car, live closer to where you work. Eat less meat
Lots of things add up to minimizing your impact

Tell that to China..

Let's not forget that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich.

 

[Slarti]

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Washington Post on 2 November 1922

 

[A Toadstool Leather]

Another note about articles we read about corals, (I've read a few in the past week on google)...One article stated, coral reefs aren't supposed to be colorful, corals are supposed to be tan in color. The article said, colorful corals are the ones dying, because of too much uv rays. Whomever backs these researcher has an agenda, just like all the political campaigns. Someone's hand is always in someone else's back pocket looking for the all mighty dollar.

Coral color can be finicky as many reefers here know. I find it odd when you have colorful corals next to dull tan ones. Corals can be colorful and healthy, plenty of wild corals have color it just seems to based off genetics and the environment. The assertion that colorful=dying seems dubious to me.

 

[A Toadstool Leather]

yes, I really believe the 'common' reefer will not exist, though not necessarily in that time frame. There may be a few of them, still going, but the ongoing nature of the given scenario implies costs will skyrocket for both water and energy (and coral). When limited resources run out, which is what happens when you truely examine the idea of global climate change, the 'common' everything goes away. When you aren't sure where your kids are going to get clean drinking water (seriously, look at California last summer as small example of how close we could be to that), you sure aren't going to be making RO/DI.

These aren't seed banks (which are also failing now due to climate change), these are living creatures that will have to be kept alive for length of a completely unforseeable future.

Its grandious to think yourself someone who is going to preserve nature, it might make you feel good, but the probabilities of that actually happening quite slim... But, why not just let us fool ourselves into believing so, its not hurting anything right? It sure is. That "I'm saving the coral" badge people think they can wear? It deludes them into thinking they are ACTUALLY helping.

The Smithsonian is actually starting on a sort of seed bank for corals. Honestly given how difficult it is to house important reef building corals in a closed system (acros, montis etc..) I dont think reefers will be much help. If anything we are doing more harm than good by removing corals from the wild.

 

[hatfielj]

I love the reefs, I love fish and all of the living creatures that exist within them, but to suggest "All because of the decisions that humanity is making on a day to day basis"...I just don't understand that mentality. What is the Earth, 4 billion years old...and we've been keeping records for what? A couple hundred years?

Is it sad, of course, but to suggest that people are responsible for ANY change (warming or cooling...they've been blamed for both), when change has been occuring for billions of years, just seems like a giant leep to me.

Unfortunately your reasoning is completely flawed as is unfortunately very common in today's society. Scientists have been able to look back much farther than just the last couple hundred years of climate data. It's not as simple as thermometer readings. Glacier core samples reveal all sorts of climate information dating back as far as 1.5 million years providing a very detailed picture of the earths climate since then. The changes we are seeing now are absolutely due to human activity since the industrial revolution. Decades of solid, peer reviewed scientific literature supports this and points towards greenhouse gas as the cause of our rapidly warming planet. This is the same scientific process that developed everything we know about modern medicine, space exploration, chemistry (the same chemistry that we depend on in our tanks), etc, etc. Do you not want to believe your doctor when they tell you that high cholesterol leads to coronary disease? Why do you distrust climate science so much?
What makes you feel so comfortable saying it's not been caused by human activity? Do you have any evidence other than a gut feeling or a far right wing "news" report?

 

[spieszak]

Tell that to China..

Let's not forget that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich.

Its the onus of the rich, not a luxury of.

 

[Maacc]

I don't understand your statement. Could you explain? Because the article states coral surviving in areas of nuclear radiation and chasing coral is speaking about temperature increase(thermal). One has nothing to do with the other. One is nuclear radiation and the other is thermal radiation. Their effects on living organims are completely different on living organisms. So I would like to know how you are comparing the two when their wavelength are different on the electromagnetic scale. Visible light(example sun, our aquarium lights) is apart of the electromagnetic spectrum but promotes growth in coral. So I can't see how you can compare thermal radiation to nuclear in regards to coral living.

I can't speak for him, but I would imagine he understands the difference between thermal and nuclear radiation. I believe that his point is that both are stressors to good health for life in general.

Its the onus of the rich, not a luxury of.

Not true, only when you have the wealth and prosperity to lift yourself beyond bare survival do you have the luxury of having the time and resources to focus on anything beyond subsistence.

 

[Best Fish-Jake]

Unfortunately your reasoning is completely flawed as is unfortunately very common in today's society. Scientists have been able to look back much farther than just the last couple hundred years of climate data. It's not as simple as thermometer readings. Glacier core samples reveal all sorts of climate information dating back as far as 1.5 million years providing a very detailed picture of the earths climate since then. The changes we are seeing now are absolutely due to human activity since the industrial revolution. Decades of solid, peer reviewed scientific literature supports this and points towards greenhouse gas as the cause of our rapidly warming planet. This is the same scientific process that developed everything we know about modern medicine, space exploration, chemistry (the same chemistry that we depend on in our tanks), etc, etc. Do you not want to believe your doctor when they tell you that high cholesterol leads to coronary disease? Why do you distrust climate science so much?
What makes you feel so comfortable saying it's not been caused by human activity? Do you have any evidence other than a gut feeling or a far right wing "news" report?

I am by no means defending DH-Reef because I too see his comment as being somewhat ignorant to science.

To answer the question 'Why do you distrust climate science so much?', no one can tell me the answers to a few simple questions regarding human related climate change

1.) what percentage of the carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to human activity?
**2.) how much atmospheric carbon would cause a 1 degree Celcius rise in global temperatures over a given time period?
3.) what would the climate look like today if there hadn't been any past human activity?
I put an asterisk by #2 because that would be essential to know if climate science were anything more than 'guesstimations'

When you say; "Do you not want to believe your doctor when they tell you that high cholesterol leads to coronary disease?", you are equating climatology to something that is actual science. Climatology is highly subjective, making the vast majority of it 'unsound' science.

 

[neuwave]

I can't speak for him, but I would imagine he understands the difference between thermal and nuclear radiation. I believe that his point is that both are stressors to good health for life in general.

That's part of the point some don't understand the difference or significance how stressors work. I've met plenty who just feel one is worst than anther without analyszing how and to what extent. So at that point his description of the stressors has no significance toward the other. Healthy or not. Different stressors interact differently with different species. Also comparing one stressor to anther has no significance. It's like saying we can get a person to the moon but why don't we have flying cars. They are two different forms of travel yet have to completely different challenges of how to make a vechile move from point A to point B.

 

[spieszak]

Not true, only when you have the wealth and prosperity to lift yourself beyond bare survival do you have the luxury of having the time and resources to focus on anything beyond subsistence.

Entirely true, responsibility increases and decreases with the scale of wealth.

 

[spieszak]

As far as the nuked at Bikini Atoll, if corals can survive until temperatures are back in normal ranges, I would not be surprised to see them come back 60 years later.
Bikini Atoll is isolated, and coral gametes travel thousands of miles on ocean currents. There really isn't any comparison to be made.

 

[Best Fish-Jake]

Entirely true, responsibility increases and decreases with the scale of wealth.

Environmentalism is certainly a luxury. The only responsibility of mankind (along with every other species) is rearing their young

 

[spieszak]

Environmentalism is certainly a luxury. The only responsibility of mankind (along with every other species) is rearing their young

Ah, of those species that don't?
You are welcome to be useless and shirk responsibility for every thing. If your conscience can handle that, I feel sorry for you

 

[Best Fish-Jake]

Ah, of those species that don't?
You are welcome to be useless and shirk responsibility for every thing. If your conscience can handle that, I feel sorry for you

I didn't know raising children was useless.. you respond as if you know anything about my life choices.

When I say that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich, those that are rich include an extremely high percentage of people living in the United States. For those living in the 3rd world, all you care about is that your child doesn't die tonight. I agree completely with @Maacc when he said "only when you have the wealth and prosperity to lift yourself beyond bare survival do you have the luxury of having the time and resources to focus on anything beyond subsistence" this means that if you have to burn cow chips for warmth at the cost of the earth's temperatures rising 0.0000000001 degree Celcius over the next century, you won't think twice about doing so.

 

[spieszak]

I didn't know raising children was useless.. you respond as if you know anything about my life choices.

When I say that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich, those that are rich include an extremely high percentage of people living in the United States. For those living in the 3rd world, all you care about is that your child doesn't die tonight. I agree completely with @Maacc when he said "only when you have the wealth and prosperity to lift yourself beyond bare survival do you have the luxury of having the time and resources to focus on anything beyond subsistence" this means that if you have to burn cow chips for warmth at the cost of the earth's temperatures rising 0.0000000001 degree Celcius over the next century, you won't think twice about doing so.

I agreed with him too when i said responsibility increases with wealth.
Unless you ARE burning cow chips (which is highly unlikely since you expressing yourself on the internet), you have a responsibility.
Not to your children only, but to all children. You have the responsibility of ensuring the world is still habitable when they would like to raise your grandkids.