[Coral-List] Fwd: Florida coral restoration in hot water
Austin Bowden-Kerby
abowdenkerby at gmail.com
Thu Feb 15 21:17:17 UTC 2024
(Re-sending without our logo, which I think pervents our posts from being
published here.)
Doug,
This formula and calculation have always bothered me, as it is counter
intuitive, and against geological scales of carbon storage.
Calcium carbonate is the largest storage of carbon on the planet, and it is
mostly biogenic.
We need the big picture, not to get lost in the microscale chemical
reaction, which I think we have gotten lost in.
Perspective:
Forest carbon weighs heavily in carbon markets, when in fact most of the
carbon is stored for merely hundreds of years, it gets released back into
the atmosphere.
Soil carbon, in the form of fire-generated stable charcoal "biochar" can
remain stored for thousands of years.
Mangroves and seagrasses are good long-term sinks for carbon only due to
the anaerobic condition that occurs in their sediments, but how much of
this carbon be released when sea levels rise a few meters?
Coral Limestone can be stored for millions of years, and is by far the
largest store of carbon on the planet, but it does not count in carbon
markets, because for every carbon atom stored another is released. But
this discounts the fact that the carbon stored is essentially forever, and
the one released is inside a living organism and is used for
photosynthesis by the algal symbionts, and even if released into the water,
it can be absorbed by seaweeds and other plant life. Also the carbonate
system of the ocean is highly buffered, and so does any of the carbon
supposedly released by coral reefs end up in the atmosphere?
But even if the carbon from calcification was directly released in to the
atmosphere, geologically speaking, if the relative sequestration time
period was factored into carbon markets, every carbon atom stored as coral
reef limestone should be weighed very heavily- by a factor I would
speculate to say is perhaps as much as ten thousand-fold, as compared to
forest carbon, and as much as a thousand fold for soil carbon and so
forth? Coral reefs will beat them all if we take a more realistic longer
term view of earth's geobiological processes.
We need coral reefs to continue to have abundant corals on them! And we
need carbon accounting to embrace geologically and biologically relevant
timescales in their calculations.
Regards,
Austin
Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
Corals for Conservation
https://www.corals4conservation.org
Publication on C4C's coral-focused climate change adaptation strategies:
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1924/4/1/2/pdf
Film on our "Reefs of Hope" coral restoration for climate change adaptation
strategies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG0lqKciXAA
https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
<https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 2:26 AM Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> The formula for calcium carbonate is CaCO3. So coral reef geological
> structures have carbon sequestered in them. So intuitively, when reef
> geological structures are built by the laying down of CaCO3, that should
> lock up carbon, which should reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Unfortunately,
> the process of producing CaCO3 also releases CO2, paradoxically. The
> chemistry is outlined in the following reference:
>
> Ware, J. R., Smith, S. V., and Reaka-Kudla M. L. 1992. Coral reefs: sources
> or sinks of atmospheric CO2? *Coral Reefs* 11: 127-130.
>
>
> When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, there is a natural, geological process
> that removes it. And that is the weathering of rocks. Weathering of rocks
> such as granite, basalt, andesite, and many others, is the oxidation and
> hydration of the minerals in the rock. Small amounts of CO2 in the
> atmosphere dissolve in rain droplets, making them slightly acid. When rain
> falls on exposed rock surfaces, it reacts with the minerals, using up CO2
> and forming stable minerals. The acid is weak and the process slow. It is
> faster where heavy rainfall and steep slopes combine to produce rapid
> erosion, exposing more rock, and faster where temperatures are higher (many
> chemical reactions are faster at higher temperatures). A place like the
> New Guinea highlands is nearly ideal for this. But the process is slow.
> CO2 has a lifetime in the atmosphere of thousands of years. If we were to
> stop emitting any CO2 tomorrow (which is impossible), the world will
> continue to warm and stay warm for thousands of years (and continuing to
> melt ice in glaciers and ice caps). Mind you, the warming would be much
> less than if we continue to emit CO2, reductions in CO2 emissions reduce
> how much more warming there will be. Weathering of rock will eventually
> bring the CO2 level in the atmosphere back down allowing a decrease in
> surface temperatures, but that will take at least thousands of years. No
> help for our present problems for coral reefs and many other things.
>
> There have been suggestions that if people ground up vast amounts of
> rock into sand, thus vastly increasing the surface area of the rock, and
> spread it over huge areas of land (preferably in warm, high rainfall
> areas), the process of using up CO2 by weathering would be sped up. My
> thought is that it would take a huge amount of energy to grind all those
> rocks up, and there is the question of mining the rock and where to spread
> the sand and transporting it and spreading it. It is a geoengineering
> idea, and there are other geoengineering ideas. The costs and benefits of
> which are likely being studied but my impression is that the risks of some
> of them are significant.
>
>
> Those with more expertise in these areas, please weigh in and
> clarify the many points. I think it is worth the effort for people to
> better understand these things, myself included.
>
>
> Cheers, Doug
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 5:55 AM International Coral Reef Observatory via
> Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Dear Michael,
> >
> > It is worthy that you share on the Coral List the whole link or DOI of
> your
> > cited May et al, 2022, PLOS One. They tested
> > pore water contained in the interstices/pore space of aquatic sediments
> in
> > Biscayne Bay for toxicity.
> >
> > Recently I read on linkedin a comment for the International Coral Reef
> > Initiative, about the inconvenience for restoration practitioners, that
> > scientists report findings that may put at risk their funding for their
> > coral restoration projects...
> >
> > Specifically, the restoration practitioners fear from scientists who
> > support that Coral reefs are sources of CO2 instead of Sinks. Their
> > argument, similar to the one of "saving coral reefs actively by funding
> > restoration projects'' , is based on the fact that there is a lot of
> money
> > that will be lost from Net Zero goals GRANTS and Coral Reefs according to
> > the interest of some coral restoration practitioners should not be called
> > "$ource$ but $ink$ of CO2".
> >
> > I replied to that comment mentioning that degraded coral reefs are
> behaving
> > as sinks because they already have higher macro algae cover than coral
> > cover in polluted areas. Nevertheless, the convenience to use the money
> > from Blue Bonds (etc) should be objective to improve coral reef
> > conservation effectiveness by mainly stopping IMMEDIATELY causes of
> > degradation e.g. local and global pollution. The money should be
> > prioritized to real effective solutions, not to be wasted just in more
> > scaling up experiments (that have not worked even locally) and there is
> > plenty of funding and NEEDS to address the Loss of Native Biodiversity
> > relevant issue within the crisis of the OCEAN.
> >
> > The more effective coral reef general scientific society will be the one
> > that is strong enough to base recommendations on scientific facts and
> > basic ecological knowledge, not just on the personal business of some
> > restoration practitioners !!
> >
> > Cordially
> > *Nohora Galvis*
> > *Director*
> > *International Coral Reef Observatory, ICRO*
> > *UN DOALOS Expert*
> > *ICRS World Reef Award*
> >
> >
> > El vie, 9 feb 2024 a las 21:17, Risk, Michael via Coral-List (<
> > coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>) escribió:
> >
> > > I would urge everyone to read May et al, 2022, PLOS One. They tested
> > > porewater in Biscayne Bay for toxicity, using the sea urchin embryo
> > > bioassay. They found toxic porewater at 22 of 25 sites.
> > >
> > > No reef recovery will be possible until the water is cleaned up.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry-is there an echo in here?
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Coral-List <coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> on behalf
> > of
> > > Steve via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 10:45 PM
> > > To: Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Florida coral restoration in hot water
> > >
> > > Caution: External email.
> > > Hi Doug,
> > > After reading that article, the quote below the title caught my eye
> > for
> > > a second time.
> > > "Additional risky measures are now called for, unless we just want
> to
> > > give up," one scientist says
> > > Are those our only alternatives?
> > > Additional "risky measures" or giving up?
> > > Here's a quote I'd like to see instead.
> > > "In light of recent developments, we can either give up or devote
> our
> > > energies to cleaning up our oceans; reducing carbon emissions and
> > > trying our best to recreate the conditions that allowed corals and
> > > other forms of marine life to flourish in the first place".
> > > Thanks for all your posts!
> > > Steve
> > > Sent from EarthLink Mobile mail
> > > On 2/8/24, 5:51PM, Douglas Fenner via Coral-List
> > > <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > After mass coral die-off, Florida scientists rethink plan to save
> > > ailing
> > > reefs
> > > After unprecedented heat wave killed transplanted coral, reef
> experts
> > > are
> > > charting a new strategy
> > > [1]
> > https://www.science.org/content/article/after-mass-coral-die-off-flo
> > > rida-scientists-rethink-plan-to-save-ailing-reefs
> > > Could this be a window into the future for much of the world's
> reefs??
> > > Cheers, Doug
> > > --
> > > Douglas Fenner
> > > Lynker Technologies, LLC, Contractor
> > > NOAA Fisheries Service
> > > Pacific Islands Regional Office
> > > Honolulu
> > > and:
> > > Coral Reef Consulting
> > > PO Box 997390
> > > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799-6298 USA
> > > Costanza, R. 2023. To build a better world, stop chasing economic
> > > growth.
> > > Nature 624: 519-521.
> > > [2]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-04029-8
> > > Fossil fuel air pollution kills 5 million people world-wide per year
> > > [3]
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/research-shows-disturbing-between-million
> > > s-200000257.html
> > > World's richest 1% emit as much as 5 billion people
> > > [4]https://makerichpolluterspay.org/climate-equality-report/
> > > Huge expansion of fossil fuels planned, will be very destructive
> > > [5]
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/08/insanity-petrost
> > > ates-planning-huge-expansion-of-fossil-fuels-says-un-report
> > > "without policy changes, the world will heat up enough by the end of
> > > the
> > > century that more than 2 billion people will live in
> life-threatening
> > > hot
> > > climates" Will you be in that area???
> > > [6]
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-sounding-alarm-dangerous-probl
> > > em-123000792.html
> > > World subsidies for fossil fuels reached an all-time high of over $1
> > > TRILLION in 2022, the last year for which data is available. The
> > > subsidies
> > > MUST end.
> > > [7]
> > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsid
> > > ies-must-end/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > [8]https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > [9]https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > >
> > > References
> > >
> > > 1.
> > >
> >
> https://www.science.org/content/article/after-mass-coral-die-off-florida-scientists-rethink-plan-to-save-ailing-reefs
> > > 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-04029-8
> > > 3.
> > >
> >
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/research-shows-disturbing-between-millions-200000257.html
> > > 4. https://makerichpolluterspay.org/climate-equality-report/
> > > 5.
> > >
> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/08/insanity-petrostates-planning-huge-expansion-of-fossil-fuels-says-un-report
> > > 6.
> > >
> >
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-sounding-alarm-dangerous-problem-123000792.html
> > > 7.
> > >
> >
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsidies-must-end/
> > > 8. https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > 9. https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list