[Coral-List] Evidence that ocean warming has caused most Caribbean coral loss
Risk, Michael
riskmj at mcmaster.ca
Tue May 2 10:43:28 EDT 2017
Good day.
Sheesh, I hate agreeing with Ulf-but he is right on the money in two areas,
one proximal and one distal. First of all, the only logical explanation for
the present decline in coral reefs is that of widespread
pollution-"pollution" defined broadly as sediments, sewage, sunscreen,
stuff. Secondly: coral reef science is supposed to be interdisciplinary, but
some of you need to get out more and read more. (At some schools in the US,
it is possible to obtain a PhD in “Ecology” without ever taking a course
outside the Biology Department.)
The Younger Dryas Event was a rapid onset of cooling of the northern
hemisphere, believed to be triggered by a massive meltwater event that
destabilized the Gulf Stream-although recently an asteroid impact has been
suggested. How rapid is “rapid?"
I suggest readers observe a paper with which I am familiar because it was
written by my wife: Smith et al., 1997: Nature 386: 818-820. In this, the
authors used isotope stratigraphy of deepwater corals in the return flow of
the thermohaline circulation of the North Atlantic to tie down the onset of
this event. They found that this happened in less than 4 years. Similarly,
meltwater pulses of the early Holocene have produced increases in sea level
of more than 13 m in less than 300 years. That is a rise in sea level equal
to a person’s height during their lifetime. During these rises, as Walter
Adey has shown, corals marched uphill and inland (after waiting about 1,000
years for waves and currents to prepare the substrate.)
The onset of the Younger Dryas produced warmer waters in the Caribbean. It
is even possible that, because the meltwater coming off North America would
have been of low pH, this came along with reduced alkalinity. So-Caribbean
experienced warm, maybe less alkaline, LOW-nutrient waters.
I am unaware of any reorganization of the Caribbean coral fauna taking place
12,000 years ago. I am, however, aware of several past coral extinctions
that were triggered by nutrient excursions.
Mike
On May 2, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Ulf Erlingsson <[1]ceo at lindorm.com> wrote:
Richard,
What I am saying is,
1) In the very recent past there were temperature changes more dramatic than
what is predicted to happen in the coming century,
2) there were global transgressions more dramatic than what is predicted to
happen in the coming century,
3) all now living coral species survived all of this, and they probably have
experienced many such events.
4) Of course, many coral REEFS went from being barrier or fringing reefs to
becoming submerged reefs, but so what? New species take over.
Here is an article for you to start
digging: [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230135618_A_jokulhlaup_
from_a_Laurentian_captured_ice_shelf_to_the_Gulf_of_Mexico_could_have_caused
_the_bolling_warming<[3]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230135618_A
_jokulhlaup_from_a_Laurentian_captured_ice_shelf_to_the_Gulf_of_Mexico_could
_have_caused_the_bolling_warming>
The biggest upset was not to the corals, it was to the human civilizations
that existed close to the sea. Many cities were buried, many civilizations
went under and are only preserved in myths. What Plato writes about the
sinking of Atlantis is with high probability based on actual events, the
sinking of Dogger Bank in the North Sea around the year 8,200 BC as a result
of a global transgression punctuated by a megatsunami at a critical time
when only a low island remained. However, the western seaboard of Europe is
full of accounts of sunken cities. Such myths abound around the world. Some
have suggested they have to do with psychology but they don't; they all
reflect real events. How can I be sure? Because on the island of Gotland
that instead has risen from the sea, the creation myth talks about the
island risking from the sea. And take the Lakota myth of the water monster
Unktehi that blocked the river and then let out all the water. That is just
what the inland ice sheet
did according to recent geological findings (around the year 14,600 BC). A
huge flood on the Mississippi is also recorded by Native American myths
further down river. And all of this is confirmed by geology; every ice age
of our present ice age period (i.e. the last million years or so) has
created a separate canyon and submarine fan in the Gulf of Mexico,
accumulating miles of sediment (in thickness).
What do you think the inflow of all that glacial meltwater in less than a
year did for the corals in the Caribbean? You'd expect them all to be dead
by now, wouldn't you? Each of those mega floods raised the global sea level
by meters. Yet all the coral species living there naturally today survived,
because there has been no migration over the Central American isthmus since.
The mega floods must also have plaid havoc with the circulation in the
Caribbean Sea. All societies founded on deltas and lowlands must have been
wiped out (except those with enough foresight to build a boat, like Noah;
speaking of which, the Biblical account of the deluge forms part of these
myths that tell the story of the last mega flood: It tells us that the water
rose by 15 cubits, i.e. around 7 meters, and that is in the realm of where
geology says if was).
Now, returning to the issue of why corals are dying. The coral death started
decades ago, yet the PREDICTED DRAMATIC GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTS HAVE NOT YET
HAPPENED. So even if the predictions are true, and even if they would be
unprecedented (which they are clearly not), it can still not explain the
coral decline already observed. THE ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS
POLLUTION.
We don't have to point out which chemical and how it affects the cells. It
is enough to take a geographical / geological approach and say, the last 2
centuries the humans have released an ever larger number of completely new
chemical species in the environment, many of which are sure to be very toxic
to at least some species, most of which is probably still unknown. What goes
up in the atmosphere gets mixed up in a matter of months or years; what goes
into the surface of the ocean gets mixed up in a matter of decades through
the gyres; and what goes into the deep ocean gets mixed up in a matter of
millennia through the thermohaline circulation. Most of the North American
pollution reaches the Gulf Stream, and some circulates back to the
Caribbean, another branch goes past Europe and sinks to become new global
bottom water, emerging in a thousand years or so in the eastern Pacific from
where it will then bathe the Pacific corals. Remember Silent Spring? What
happened to fresh
water lakes and rivers back then also happens to the ocean, it just takes a
lot longer time, but eventually all the hens will come home to roost.
What to do about it? Change paradigm, do as the European Union: Instead af
allowing everything except what is banned, ban everything new until it has
been approved. And FORCE COMPANIES TO DECLARE THE CONTENT IN THEIR PRODUCTS.
The U.S. law that allows ingredients to be secret is appalling and
mind-boggling.
Ulf Erlingsson
Lindorm, Inc.
[4]http://lindorm.com
On 2017-05-02, at 06:29 , Richard Plate <[5]richarp33 at gmail.com> wrote:
Ulf,
I'm unclear about what you mean by "dramatic" in this context. Are you
saying that we have geological records showing us climatic changes similar
to the current changes in magnitude and rate of change that did not result
in massive reduction of corals and other species?
If so, could you direct me to a paper where I could read more about that
kind of comparison?
I'm referring to this statement:
"The hypothesis of those who warn of climate change seems to be that the
anthropogenic temperature changes at the present time are more dramatic
than anything in the past, and that they will lead to consequences that
are unique. They seem to think that past changes were never that dramatic.
That is where I beg to differ. In what we Earth Scientists call "Recent"
time, as late as a few hundred human generations ago, there were much
larger and at least as dramatic changes according to the geological
archive."
Thanks for your help.
-Richard
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Ulf Erlingsson
<[6]ceo at lindorm.com <[7]mailto:ceo at lindorm.com>> wrote:
Doug,
The hypothesis of those who warn of climate change seems to be that the
anthropogenic temperature changes at the present time are more dramatic
than anything in the past, and that they will lead to consequences that
are unique. They seem to think that past changes were never that dramatic.
That is where I beg to differ. In what we Earth Scientists call "Recent"
time, as late as a few hundred human generations ago, there were much
larger and at least as dramatic changes according to the geological
archive. And if we look at absolute temperatures, then it is disingenuous
to compare to the 19th or 20th century as a baseline, since that was the
peak of the Little Ice Age.
Furthermore, after the existence of an Ice Age covering northern Europe
(Germany, Poland, Holland) had been convincingly shown by Swedish
geologist Otto Torell in the 1860's, and it later was understood that
there had been several, combined with the evidence of falling
temperatures, science started worrying about a new ice age. It was in that
atmosphere (no pun intended) that Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius in
1896 calculated that our emissions of greenhouse gases might actually
prevent a new Ice Age.
However, we still don't know for sure why the Ice Age happens, although I
have an idea which I have presented as a project on ResearchGate, which
has to do with ocean circulation, and if that is true, it is very unlikely
that global warming can do more than delay the onset a little.
But back to corals: I am convinced that the biggest issue is NOT global
warming, but POLLUTION.
Ulf
On 2017-04-27, at 20:13 , Douglas Fenner
<[8]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com <[9]mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>>
wrote:
Ulf,
It may be that geologists, because of their understanding of the vast
expanse of earth history, which has included periods of larger temperature
variation than the last few decades, and which some groups of organisms
survived, have been more resistant to the evidence of human-caused global
warming in recent decades. However, my understanding is that most if not
all geological societies now agree that the recent rapid warming of the
earth is mostly caused by humans, by greenhouse gas emissions,
deforestation, carbon soot on snow absorbing heat, positive feedback from
melting of Arctic ice which reflects light more than water, etc. In fact,
some of the effects of humans, such as the emissions of aerosols (such as
SO2 from burning fossil fuels) actually work to reduce global
temperatures, though the effects of other emissions are greater and cause
net global warming.
Am I wrong about the geological societies?
Cheers, Doug
also responding to this:
Ulf,
My understanding is that climate science data supports the view that
the rapid increases in world temperature in recent decades has been caused
mostly by human emissions, while earlier, more gradual temperature
increases were caused mostly by natural processes (in spite of claims that
we are in the beginning of a new ice age). Both of these were present in
the graph John presented in his essay. However, it seems unlikely to me
that corals either understand the causes of temperature increases, or care
what those causes are. Corals are impacted by temperature increases,
whatever the causes of those temperatures are, surely. That includes
turning up the heat in aquaria in experiments. So it seems to me that
John's graph of increasing temperatures IS relevant to the question of
whether corals in the Caribbean have been impacted by temperature
increases or not, and I don't see the relevance of the question of what
caused the temperature increases, at least to the ques
ti
on of impacts on corals. The effect of increasing temperatures on corals
is a mechanistic thing, higher temperatures stress or kill corals. Cause
of temperature increase is irrelevant for that.
That said, it is good to remind us of the broader processes over
geological time. That could include the fact that present temperature
increases exceed those that have happened in a very long period of time,
well beyond the range of time you've referred to.
Cheers, Doug
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[10]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <[11]mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.
gov>
[12]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <[13]http://cor
al.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[14]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[15]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
References
1. mailto:ceo at lindorm.com
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230135618_A_jokulhlaup_from_a_Laurentian_captured_ice_shelf_to_the_Gulf_of_Mexico_could_have_caused_the_bolling_warming
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230135618_A_jokulhlaup_from_a_Laurentian_captured_ice_shelf_to_the_Gulf_of_Mexico_could_have_caused_the_bolling_warming
4. http://lindorm.com/
5. mailto:richarp33 at gmail.com
6. mailto:ceo at lindorm.com
7. mailto:ceo at lindorm.com
8. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
9. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
10. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
11. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
12. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
13. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
14. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
15. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list