"Letting coral reefs die will cost us more than saving them".
- Thread starter Dom
- Start date
- Tagged users None
sghera64
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 1,152
Full article is not loading. The part I read makes a novel case for the value of reefs based on their ability to stem tropical storm damage from tidal surge.
Other arguments I’ve read, possibly more important, are the reefs ability to permanently “sink” atmospheric CO2. When trees decay, the process releases CO2 back into the atmosphere.
What is disturbing is the vicious cycle that ensues: less coral => less CO2 reduction => more atmospheric CO2 accumulation (from human activity, perhaps).
CO2 accumulation is a double whammy: ocean acidification and global thermal energy retention. Ocean acidification leads to slower SPS coral growth - a vicious cycle.
Oh, and higher average temperatures means stronger and numerous storms - - which takes us back to the OP’s article citation.
Other arguments I’ve read, possibly more important, are the reefs ability to permanently “sink” atmospheric CO2. When trees decay, the process releases CO2 back into the atmosphere.
What is disturbing is the vicious cycle that ensues: less coral => less CO2 reduction => more atmospheric CO2 accumulation (from human activity, perhaps).
CO2 accumulation is a double whammy: ocean acidification and global thermal energy retention. Ocean acidification leads to slower SPS coral growth - a vicious cycle.
Oh, and higher average temperatures means stronger and numerous storms - - which takes us back to the OP’s article citation.
sghera64
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 1,152
Perhaps it needs more 2-part (on a global scale).
I think Nitrate and Phosphate on a global scale
You aren't willing to even read the article, even if it is from somewhere you don't normally read? All viewpoints can be good to show how other people think (that is why I can't stand people who rely solely on 1 news source for news, whichever side they are on the political spectrum. All media has an agenda. Read it all, and make you own opinion). Even if you don't like the first 2 paragraphs (man made global warming paragraphs), the rest of interesting. Brings to light something people night think about when thinking about coral reefs dying.
I don't think temperature is the only thing to blame, but it definitely seems to be playing its part. There are probably a few things contributing to coral reefs dying. Either way, coral reef are dying, and we should be doing as much as we can as a species to stop contributing to it.
biophilia
Well-Known Member
Fortunately for you, the scientific paper itself is open access and published via Nature Communications here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04568-z
Scorpius
2500 Club Member
The problem is that you don't know if what they are presenting is even a true fact or just their agenda so how can you make an informed decision on information that may or may not be true to begin with. You can't.
Yes, coral reefs are taking a big hit right now, but this may or may not be an issue. What if coral reefs are on a 1000 year cycle where they die off and grow back? How can we know? We don't.
I agree, the reason I don't think temperature has anything to do with it is I ran my reef last year in my Garage temp was 85 to 88 every day no loss at all. But if my nitrate drops my coral bleaches and acts like it will die
sghera64
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 1,152
So what Mark said in post #6 above.
biophilia
Well-Known Member
This isn't really empirical evidence that heat waves don't cause bleaching in wild reefs. 85-88 is actually pretty close to the average high temperature of reefs around the world. The Great Barrier reef commonly gets into the mid 80s during the summer for example. Corals from the Red Sea are routinely exposed to temperatures in the high 80s and low 90s so their zooxanthallae clades can handle even higher temps than those of the GBR. The issue comes when temperatures exceed their maximum thermal tolerance for prolonged periods as they have in recent years. The heat waves that decimated the GBR recently were 1-2 degrees C above the hottest temperatures corals in that region are adapted to.
So.. how do you read any story at all? Any story you read could be fact or agenda based, from any news source (all news sources) (even though this one, as linked above, is backed by science). I didn't tell you that you had to believe what this story is reporting. But you should read it, and increase your knowledge. Even if it is agenda based, you at least learn a viewpoint that someone else has. Then, when you read an opposing story that is probably also agenda-based, you can put what might be real from both agenda-based stories to form your opinion. That is what everyone should do with all of our news in this day and age. (And people should believe science. Science is real).
KMench
Valuable Member
I’m sure there’s more involved in the decay of reefs than just temperature. Increased atomospheric CO2 leads to higher levels of dissolved CO2 in the oceans, which are trying to act as a carbon sink. This acidifies the oceans and makes it harder for the calcification process to occur. There’s also been some interesting articles published recently demonstrating the effects of plastics on reefs (promoting disease, injury, etc)
I agree with @themcfreak, in this day and age you are responsible not only for reading the article but understanding where the data was sourced from, how their studies were performed, and it is ultimately up to you to draw conclusions on if their argument is valid based on their experimental design.
I agree with @themcfreak, in this day and age you are responsible not only for reading the article but understanding where the data was sourced from, how their studies were performed, and it is ultimately up to you to draw conclusions on if their argument is valid based on their experimental design.
sghera64
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 1,152
That’s what I do. I flip channels between CNN, MSNBC, FOX, OAN, Newsy and gamble on what I think may really be happening. After a while, it gets easier to filter through each outlet’s bias. I do like “pitting them against each other “ in my mind and them extracting what I feel is closet to truth. It must be what judges have to do. It is a fun exercise in critical thinking.
There are plenty of amazing journals presenting real research instead of pushing agendas.Be careful not to fall into the “science” trap. I see too many people who blindly accept whatever “science” has to say at this moment in time. Don’t be naive enough to think that all, or even most, scientists are perfectly unbiased.
KMench
Valuable Member
What’s the “science” trap? When I think of the esteemed research journals all of the articles are peer reviewed and are published not only to share their knowledge but to allow for critique and improvement. The most important part of any study you read is the “methods”, that’s where you’ll find all the info you need for sample size, potential bias, etc etc. I’m not saying just because it’s published in a journal to take the information blindly. It’s up to the reader to be proficient in the subject, to understand and interpret the data as well as having some background in the type of research being performed.
Similar threads
-
- Poll
New Posts
-
-
IT'S HERE ARBORDAYMAGEDDON!! THE FINEST ARBOR DAY SALE IN THE WORLD!!!!- Latest: Battlecorals
-
-
