a world without coral

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opini ... ef=general

[Guest]

Thats odd.The article didnt blame all those boat anchors like the environmentalists usually do.I wonder if its because the environmentalists dont want to accept that they are part of the problem and point the finger at the softest target they can find.

I concede that anchors do damage coral but I have never believed that they kill reefs.

[wheels 543]

So why isn't Evolution stepping in here

[Guest]

Doesn't work fast enough.

[idlerboat 116]

Evolution is in play here,,

It is with a degree of arogance that "mankind" puts himself outside of it.

Evolution is not a protection mechanism. It is the simple movement of pressure. Just like in a weather system.

To pretend that we dont add / make a substantial "pressure system" is arrogance.

Evolution dosnt care about anything.... !! In the same way that a high pressure weather system , holding a low pressure system off for a while cares that it makes for good sailing @ !

 

What is of course the biggest "laugh" is that the "highest order" "shortest live run" species..wreckons that it has some kind of "magic" that will allow it to survive ....it hasnt even passed the first "second" of other longer succsessful species, and is all ready braqgging that it A. is here for the long haul, and B. refuses to acknowledge that it has had any affect on its own closed system at all....

 

What a wank.

[wheels 543]

So looking at this from a serious point of view. This is my view and I stand to be edumacated on this from the likes of Grinna. But I have a couple of comments about that article.

First of all, I do agree with many of the comments made in the article. I am not rubbishing the entire thing. But....

IT’S past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive

Rather an over statement in my view. There are most certainly many reefs under stress and certainly many around Australia. But there are many in the world that are functioning just fine.

It was signed by more than 2,000 scientists, officials and conservationists.

Sadly that is meaningless and actually, I would have thought a rather poor number. But I mean meaningless because it has been proved that you can get many people to sign in support of banning water if you word it right.

Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution have two features in common. First, they are accelerating. They are growing broadly in line with global economic growth, so they can double in size every couple of decades. Second, they have extreme inertia — there is no real prospect of changing their trajectories in less than 20 to 50 years. In short, these forces are unstoppable and irreversible.

That is simply not true. Firstly if it were, then we are stuffed anyway and may as well spend the money on something else that we can change then. But a lot has been done, is being done and will continue to be done to improve the situation.

Overfishing can bring down reefs because fish are one of the key functional groups that hold reefs together.

The wrong way around. The reef is what attracts the Fish, the Fish don't attract the reef. Sure the two are working together, but the Coral does not solely rely on Fish to survive. Fish do however, bring in other marine life onto the reef.

Overfishing is already damaging reefs worldwide, and it is set to double and double again over the next few decades.

What annoy's me the most about these comments and numbers is that many are being guessed at. Nothing comes from any real study or statistic.

Ocean acidification can also bring down reefs because it affects the corals themselves. Corals can make their calcareous skeletons only within a special range of temperature and acidity of the surrounding seawater. But the oceans are acidifying as they absorb increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Now this is slightly where my tongue in cheek comment on Evolution comes from. the ocean has undergone dramatic changes in these area's over thousands and millions of years. The sealevel, temperature and acid level has gone up and down like a yoyo and yet reefs have survived. Once again, there are many guess and assumptions being made without any real understanding of what takes place. Mainly because we have never experienced such a change in Human years that is. So we can only learn by witnessing what is happening, rather than know what will happen.

And we know that coral reefs just can’t survive in nutrient-rich waters. These conditions only encourage the microbes and jellyfish that will replace coral reefs in coastal waters

Now this is where I strongly disagree. Coral feed and shellfish feed on nutrients. Small fish feed on Nutrients. Bigger fish eat small fish, scraps fall to the bottom for bottom dwellers, 'viola', we have an eco system. Shellfish need the nutrients washed off the land to grow. Algae need the nutrients to bloom. Shellfish and Coral eat algae.

[Grinna 2]

I think you're probably right to be a bit sceptical there Wheels. It sounds to me very much like a dramatised little piece of scaremongering "the scientists all say its not that bad, but I KNOW that its catastrophic and the end of the world is nigh!!" kinda stuff.

 

Some of the statements made just don't gel with me. For instance, coral not surviving in nutrient-rich waters ..... I'm not sure that's true at all. It might be true that there is not a lot of nutrient enrichment in coral-rich waters simply because coral is millions of tiny mouths feeding on phyto- and zoo-plankton which utilise nutrients and sunlight ... so coral systems tend to strip free nutrients out of the water and lock it up into biomass such as coral itself. Having said that, you can't tell me that nutrient rich run-off from land areas in places like, say Fiji, doesn't occur yet they still have extensive coral reef systems. Are they as "healthy" and vibrant as they once were? ... probably not, but it's impossible to blame only nutrient inputs from terrestrial sources when there are so many confounding factors as a result of human activity, occupation and disturbance.

 

The other major issue I have is the "acidification of the seas". Seawater is more that simply freshwater with table salt added. It is a complex solution of many different chemicals and this range of different salts in solution means that seawater is a buffered solution. By that I mean that seawater naturally resists changes in pH. Add battery acid to freshwater and mix it and you'll measure quite substantial changes in pH. Do the same with seawater and the pH will not change much at all. If you accept that dissolving more CO2 into seawater will result in acidification (and to honest, I'm really not sure that's the case at all) then you'd need to dissolve approximately a metric buttload of CO2 to make any kind of measurable effect at all. CO2 dissolving into seawater would produce more carbonate which beasties like corals (and shellfish, and crustacea, and .... ) combine with calcium which is also dissolved in seawater to make calcium carbonate ... or shell material/coral (which becomes limestone, etc). So .... it would tend to promote coral and shellfish growth on the basis that carbonate is generally a bit of a limiting factor.

 

Numbers of names in support of any particular idea don't mean that much really. Do all of these people know you're using their names to back your claims? Do all of these people agree with what you're actually saying? Are all of these people equally skilled in the relevant scientific disciplines (for instance convincing a veterinarian of the validity of your claims and getting their support isn't the same as convincing a tropical reef ecologist specialising in coral systems of the same thing)?

 

I am somewhat sceptical.

[Guest]

I'm no scientist but my observations have been that coral doesn't grow well (or at all) in nutrient rich areas like dense mangrove populations or down stream of land run off. Want a good pass through a reef? Look for the nearest stream, work out the tide flows and voila.

Still, my experience has also been that anyone who has not been where I have, but has a good internet connection seems to know a lot more than me.

[Grinna 2]

Now, now Pete don't be like that. I didn't say the guy was dead wrong and that I knew everything, I said I was sceptical and that some statements didn't gel with me. I'm happy to learn, but when you get someone making statements that seem just a little bit off, is it not a good idea to go "huh?" and maybe look closer? Withdrawal isn't making you a bit prickly now, is it?

[Guest]

Now, now Pete don't be like that. Withdrawal isn't making you a bit prickly now, is it?

Got me, but the NY Times isn't a crew.org member so I can't lash out at them on here. I do however have issues with people who make blanket statements (not you) about issues such as this, who have no scientific background or personal experience to back up those statements. I agree that scepticism is very healthy but not when it becomes a security blanket for other beliefs.

[wheels 543]

I agree that scepticism is very healthy but not when it becomes a security blanket for other beliefs.

Wow, is that directed at me??

I would like to think and I do try to have an open and balanced opinion and try very hard not to allow my beliefs to influence my thinking. I would be foolish to think that it does not.

By the way, most marine life do not like Fresh water. Coral would most likely not grow in an area of high fresh water content. Plus, nothing likes to be coated in silt. If you were a shellfish, I imagine there is a big difference in eating a nice piece of nutrient floating past and opening up your "mouth" and having a truckload poured in suffocating you.

[Guest]

try this then

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jeremy_jackson.html

[idlerboat 116]

one. It wasnt me.

Two. it wasnt me becuase I only eat fish burgers.

Three. It cant be us because the ocean is huge and we cant have had any affect.

Four. Its evolution, therefore its natural.

Five. Its Gods will, therefore its meant to be.

Six. Its a beat up by scientist so they can continue to get the huge amounts of money that they get.

Seven. We need to have jobs.

Eight. It wasnt my country.

Nine. When the population stabilisers it will no longer be a problem.

Ten. If the ocean is that poison , its a good thing that fish comes in tins.

[wheels 543]

To make myself clear, I am not saying there is not a problem. Most especially with the way many countries are fishing and wiping out entire stocks. What I am saying is that if these "scientist" or researchers want us to take them seriously, then they need to do full and proper research and then write and publish articles without the emotion, False facts, overstatments and dramatisation they put into their results. So much so in many instances, that it does not take an expert to see that their papers are full of holes and then the real danger is that their entire work is not taken seriously, when there is probably a lot of it that is actually correct and the world needs to take seriously.

Plus I also see the world working like this. Entire areas are wiped clean of it's fish stocks. A gvt or world authority then forks out huge money to pay a scientist/researcher to look into the effects of an entire area being stripped clean of it's fish stock, when it is obvious from the simple fact that you can't catch a fish there anymore. Then huge amounts of money is poured into telling the rest of the world that the sky is falling. But no money or power is ever put into stopping the continuation of the area being fished nor working on any means of restocking that area.

[dutyfree 170]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/s ... dchildren/

[Guest]

OK so I'm confused.

 

We have a few links to people claiming global warming is killing the coral. We'll exclude the fact one of those mobs linked above decided all this during a large 4 day talk feast cruise with a pile of people, which must be noted as containing many eminent climate scientists like Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton, Glenn Close, Jackson Browne and Chevy Chase The other being a mob from a place that is paid to look for issues so one could easily think if no issues were found no one would get paid, I hope I'm very wrong but 'how convenient' is an easy bow to draw.

 

We'll also ignore the area they like to target as 'examples of how bad it is do tend to be easy to get too popular ones rather than reefs etc in the middle of nowhere where there wouldn't be so many other influences, especially those of a human origin.

 

Anyway I've dived on many a coral reef, all of which were in hot water. 47mts deep in the Sollies in only a pair of shorts and it was still hot. 3 months ago in mid winter at 35mts deep in 27 degrees water temp, Kiribati just the same lots of coral in lots of hot water. Look and it's easy to see the warmer the water the more likely you will easily run into coral. Yes I know some coral like cold but none of the assembled specialists like Chevy Chase have ever mentioned anything like that I can find, mainly as it would probably make their story look a tad wobbly.

 

- Global warming would suggest heat. There is some evidence based on, and being generous here by using the longer time spans many now say confirm their theory which is 250years being a massive 0.0000017% of the time the earth has existed, they are right. Personally I'd think that % would comfortably fit inside the margin of error if we studied whether my farts cause global warming and in every thing I can quickly think of would be laughed out of town for being so statistically insignificant it's 100% a why would ya. Anyway... lets assume they may have something and the earth is warming again.

- Coral sure as hell likes hot water or most does.

- Now heat is bad and killing coral????

 

Anyone else having a WTF moment and thinking 'heat' doesn't stack up that well, I wonder if they have looked at any bloody other thing or do they have the blinkers on to stay fashionable?

[Guest]

To make myself clear, I am not saying there is not a problem. Most especially with the way many countries are fishing and wiping out entire stocks. What I am saying is that if these "scientist" or researchers want us to take them seriously, then they need to do full and proper research and then write and publish articles without the emotion, False facts, overstatments and dramatisation they put into their results. So much so in many instances, that it does not take an expert to see that their papers are full of holes and then the real danger is that their entire work is not taken seriously, when there is probably a lot of it that is actually correct and the world needs to take seriously.

Plus I also see the world working like this. Entire areas are wiped clean of it's fish stocks. A gvt or world authority then forks out huge money to pay a scientist/researcher to look into the effects of an entire area being stripped clean of it's fish stock, when it is obvious from the simple fact that you can't catch a fish there anymore. Then huge amounts of money is poured into telling the rest of the world that the sky is falling. But no money or power is ever put into stopping the continuation of the area being fished nor working on any means of restocking that area.

 

Having lived/ survived through the CFC kneejerk in the refrigeration trade which it would seem was 100% supported by the chemical companies supplying the stuff with a view to future profits etc along with other guesstimators, negative attention trolls and dart throwers I have to agree 100%

[idlerboat 116]

Scientist or harvestor ?

 

let me tell you a story....

 

there was a fish stock.

It was deemed to be plentiful. It was targeted because of it. The stats came from the catch .

The catch was continuously huge. Season after season. Plentiful. Just a few deep sea big boats and full nets over and over. Huge catches.

Until one day...

It turned to sh*t !

See it seems that this species existed only in two very large schools. That was it. AND,,the big boats decimated the stocks.

Stuffed it for a very very long time.

So you tell me dear reader...is caution and a gentle aproach worth while EVEN if you are sure that you are right.

IF IN DOUBT why the hell wouldnt you give the benifit to the planet ?

Our very existance is due to an extrordinary chain of events.

It dosnt take much to break a link.

To suggest that there isnt a massive problem by a tiny sample in a remote pacific Island is shameful.

Try talking to some asian fisherman.

And to me I KNOW we have a problem when ONE boat yep ONE mega trawler is coming to Tassie and that ONE boat will take the fish catch to the quota limit.....

Go on....do some reasearch.....

sigh ..I hate to say this, but honestly..sometimes you NZ guys should go somewhere realy horrible...like the rest of the world !

 

ps

here in OZ where do you think that most of our frozen "fresh fish" come from ?

and our frozen "muscles"

and our "sea food highlighter"

and our "fish fingers"

and our "calamari"

and our "prawns"

[Guest]

The northwest Atlantic cod has been regarded as heavily overfished throughout its range, resulting in a crash in the fishery in the United States and Canada during the early 1990s.

 

Newfoundland's northern cod fishery can be traced back to the 16th century. On average, about 300,000 tonnes of cod were landed annually until the 1960s, when advances in technology enabled factory trawlers to take larger catches. By 1968, landings for the fish peaked at 800,000 tonnes before a gradual decline set in. With the reopening of the limited cod fisheries in 2006, nearly 2,700 tonnes of cod were hauled in. In 2007, offshore cod stocks were estimated at one per cent of what they were in 1977.[18]

 

Technologies that contributed to the collapse of Atlantic cod include engine-powered vessels and frozen food compartments aboard ships. Engine-powered vessels had larger nets, larger engines, and better navigation. The capacity to catch fish became limitless. In addition, sonar technology gave an edge to catching and detecting fish. Sonar was originally developed during WWII to locate enemy submarines, but was later applied to locating schools of fish. These new technologies, as well as bottom trawlers that destroyed entire ecosystems, contributed to the collapse of Atlantic cod. They were vastly different from old techniques used, such as hand lines and long lines.[19]

 

The fishery has yet to recover, and may not recover at all because of a possibly stable change in the food chain. Atlantic cod was a top-tier predator, along with haddock, flounder and hake, feeding upon smaller prey, such as herring, capelin, shrimp and snow crab.[6] With the large predatory fish removed, their prey have had population explosions and have become the top predators, affecting the survival rates of cod eggs and fry.

[wheels 543]

here in OZ where do you think that most of our frozen "fresh fish" come from ?

and our frozen "muscles"

and our "sea food highlighter"

and our "fish fingers"

and our "calamari"

and our "prawns"

Well Doh!, the Supermarket Freezer obviously.

 

Seriously, don't get me or Kiwi wrong IB. But seeing as I can only speak for me, from my point of view, I do see problem. I am not a Blind Man saying I don't see a problem. The the problem is not being addressed. We have two extreme views with the ultimate outcome being one of money.

Lets take that fishery you speak of.

Firstly, I bet we have two views of this Fish stock. On one hand, we have a Fishing company that is pulling up vast numbers of Fish, so therefore their view is that there must be vast numbers of stock in the catchment area. That is their one and only scientific measure of the Stock. In reality, I bet no one has a clue as to the Fish stock and it's sustainability.

We have people crying out that the world is starving, we have to feed the world. In reality, I bet none of that fish goes to a starving world. I bet it is a Fish that commands huge dollars. I bet the very reason it is being caught is to make an obscene amount of money for a company, because it can sell this species for an obscene amount of money on some Japanese market.

What I oppose too most strongly is that the issue of Global change is not being addressed. Instead, we have World conference after conference, that is nothing more that a Mass-debation session, that does nothing but feed misinformation usually in some form of extremist or alarmist way and the result?? We have Carbon Tax and trading that has done nothing to combat any change to our pulluting of the world, but has gone a long way to making some corporations very rich, at a total cost to us, the ones at the bottom of the Corporate food chain.

I can go on and on.

So far, all the science being done, all the money being spent, is looking at affects of Global Climate change, (to take just one Global argument). How many reports do we need? how many teams of Scientist sent to Antarctica to drill holes in ice to see what the past was like do we need to keep sending? We have the technology today to take the pollution expelled from dirty smoke stacks of industries and make them clean and take that filth and turn it into energy. But we don't. Why? Because the Industry itself does not make money. If we really want to change the world, instead of the money spent on everyone going to a conference, creating Carbon emissions doing so, they and their Gvt's would be better off putting that money into making those smoke stacks clean.

Once again, I can go on and on, but I am only scratching the surface of the argument.