Global Warming, El Niño and The Health of Our Coral Reefs
Here’s an article that explains the impact of super-charged El Niño conditions caused by global warming on the world’s coral reefs. Hint: it’s not good. To quote: Subsequent flyover surveys have confirmed an unfolding disaster: “Only four reefs out of 520 [observed] had no bleaching,” says Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence. It was the saddest reef trip of my career.”
The conclusion: “The only way out of this bind is to rapidly contain further increases in global warming by implementing the carbon dioxide emission cuts pledged at last year’s Paris Conference of Parties.” Now that’s uplifting, in that there is a way out. We just need to take it.
raig,
There’s no question of Professor Terry Hughes academic reputation or his dedication to coral preservation.
However, this is another one of those sensational news stories that does need a little more analysis.
To put it in a little more perspective it should be understood that the Great Barrier Reef is not about to disappear, and periodic bleaching is part of the natural process of the reef.
The algae essential to the corals vibrancy, and ability to absorb nutrient are sensitive to all kinds of changes, including temperature, storms, pollution and even underwater volcanic vent (the GBR is on the “ring of fire”).
The bad news is that a combination of pressure from pollution as a result of a dramatic increase in onshore population growth, tourism, Shipping and possibly warmer sea temperatures, all contribute to problems for the reef.
The good news is that despite the claims by academics like Professor Terry Hughes who see the reef as sort of fragile museum piece doomed for extinction, the reef is surprising;y resilient.
The reef does recover, and much of the reef is in strong recovery. Recovery can take 10-20 years, but it does happen. The new coral simply treats the old coral like ship-wrecks. (That’s how coral islands are formed).
Professor Terry Hughes invaluable research and stand against gratuitous pollution is admirable.
So his his opposition (along with meany of his colleagues) to research being done on aiding the evolution of more resistant and robust algae capable of withstanding temperature change and pollution, is puzzling. These algae strains already exist in nature, and with a little scientific assistance could prove very useful. Although perhaps not an aesthetically pleasing solution, genetically assisted algae may be of more practical assistance to the reef than a talk-fest in Paris.
advocates like Professor Terry Hughes argue that such solutions derived from human technology should be prevented, Their reasoning is two-fold a) interference with natural processes is wrong, (b) if successful such research would detract from support for climate change action.
I recently put this question to a Green Party Candidate for the Australian Senate, (Australia is also holding a general election) who proudly supported Professor Terry Hughes opposition to human reef rehabilitation, reasoning the loss of the Great Barrier Reef could be a useful political weapon to “get rid of the Conservatives for ever”.
It’s disappointing to witness even highly dedicated scientists like Professor Terry Hughes,(and others) get unwittingly caught up in the political crusade, and lose objectivity.
RFK was fond of quoting Tacitus, ” to make a desert, and call it peace”.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t seek the best outcomes on a global scale, but we also shouldn’t ignore and neglect small imperfect solutions, in the pursuit of grandiose ‘perfect’ solutions that never seem to eventuate.
But then, that’s just a personal veiw….
There is a second, and potentially more serious risk to coral from CO2 emissions, and that is the fact that Calcium Carbonate (a major constituent of sea shells and coral) tends to dissolve in Carbonic Acid.
As CO2 levels rise, the sea is gradually becoming more acidic.
Absolutely correct. Thanks.
Gary,
You are quite correct. Rain forests and Oceans are the planet’s two great carbon sinks.
The oceans absorb C02 and also emit CO2 into the atmosphere but the same Coccolithophorids that give off CO2 when they bloom contributing to climate change also produce dimethyl sulfide which help form clouds to reflect back heat from the Sun.
The ocean has never been “pristine”. It’s constantly evolving to cope with naturally occurring threats.
The single largest source of oceanic pollution is Bunker Oil emissions from shipping. This accounts for more than 70% of the most toxic oceanic pollution. Bunker oil emissions not only devastate the oceans ability to absorb carbon naturally, but toxic carcinogens also enter the food chain.
The technology to replace Bunker Oil for shipping exists, and isn’t that expensive or disruptive. Curiously, there are no loud protests against the use of the fuel. No impassioned advocates abseiling off bridges, no real campaigning at all. The much touted Paris talk-fest barely touched on the issue.
Maritime Bunker oil pollution is arguably more environmentally harmful than all motor vehicle and coal emissions combined !
That’s really my plea. IMHO there’s too much focus on politically fashionable “grand plans” of environmental emission targets, crusades against oil companies, etc and too little attention paid to practical action that could yield viable, tangible progress immediately.