Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

originally posted by: SM2
ok, this is off topic from Antartica, but it is talking to a point brought up by the OP in regard to widespread coral bleaching.

That link Krazsh0t provided to an article about the Great Barrier Reef, is very very misleading. As a marine biologist that is so well regarded he provided tremendously false information. I know this from personal expiernce as I own, and have owned for decades, reef aquariums. I know what symptoms are caused by what, as the monetary investment insures you will really pat attention and do independant research to keep these guys alive.

First off, most coral species, even the more fragile SPS (small polyp stony) corals, such as the Acropora, Millipora and Porcilipora are actually pretty forgiving to temperature changes, provided they happen gradually. Now, if you moved one from one place that was 80 degree to one that was 90 degrees and didnt acclimate the specimen over the course of several hours....it would bleach. Not immediately, but it would. The bleaching effect is when the zooxanthellae, or the algae that lives within the coral, dies off. They are the food source for the coral,giving them energy and giving them their colors. The Zooxanthellae are photosynthetic, and water temperature has very little effect on them in general. As long as the change is gradual.

Contrary to what the biologist claimed, they do not turn brown then get covered by seaweed and then bleach. Turning brown is indicitive of poor water quality. It is what happens when there are too many nutrients in the water. Typically in the form of Nitrates and nitrites. That causes the zooxanthellae to over produce, thus causing the browned out color. The coral will actually grow extemely fast, until they reach balance with the zooxanthellae. In decades of reef husbandry, I have never seen and stony polyp coral bleach due to temperature. Even once when my heater malfunctioned and the water temp went to 90 F for a week. As that change was gradual then maintained at about that level , the corals acclimated to it, and still thrived, now, I love some other livestock, but no corals. Not a single one bleached or lost it's color.

Things that will cause bleaching....

too much light. If you place them too close to the surface, or directly under extremely powerful lighting fixtures, which is referred to as light shock.

Poor water quality...water chemistry that is a) low in magnesium or, b) high in phosphates, nitrites or nitrates (which is due to a broken nitrogen cycle)

Too much ammonia

Now, if it can be identified as either Rapid Tissue Necrosis or Slow Tissue Necrosis thats a different story. RTN and STN is when the coral looses it's tissue and turns white. RTN happens suddenly and usually within 24 hours. STN can take months, depending on the severity and the size of the coral colony. These are both caused (or believed to be caused) by a bacteria infection. Specifically by different strains of Vibrio bacteria. There is a method of curing this infection that works very well for reef aquariums, but would be very inefficient on such a large scale as a wild reef.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


So, it would seem that, that particular article and that particular biologist are misleading people intentionally to push a narrative that seems to attract alot of false information and intentionally misleading so called "peer reviewed research".

Excellent post! My very first job was raising fish for studies against pollution. You are spot on. I attempted to raise mysidopsis bahia for salt water tests of the the pollution of the shores of New Jersey

here we can trust Wiki on this one, (seriously)

en.wikipedia.org...

The mysid shrimp are sensitive and that is why the EPA chose them. Nitrates were my worst enemy. I was able to culture them, but not well enough to make me happy.

I keep saying 'concentrate on real pollution and co2 is not where the problem is'..

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Quite important for a 'scientist' to get the words right.

Absolutely correct UK that scientist of all people use the right words and understand how to spell them!

edit on 19-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

Me neither! And no amount of science will change my believes! Thank God for conviction!

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It should be noted that the current CO2 level in the atmosphere hasn't been seen on this planet since the Pliocene era some 3 million years ago, before humans existed.

So this HAS happened before. WITHOUT humans involved.

Now that humans can make $$$ of of this, it MUST be us evil humans causing it, and your $$$ can fix it.

That has been my whole point since we started this series of discussion.

another important question we should look inside ourselves and ponder:


WHAT IS THE IDEAL EARTH TEMP FOR HUMANS????


I think the actual ideal temperatures is probably way warmer overall than a few more degrees on average. The average temperature of Earth appears to be warmer if Antarctica was green, Alaska's north country had a Tropical rain forest and Greenland was green, honestly. Krazy you mean well on this subject but have to realize the data simply doesn't support the past being hotter than we predict it will be in 100 years.

Hell, i meant to say the past DOES Support it was hotter than predictions being made about the next 1OO years. MY BAD!

which those are a prime food source for many reef dwelling creatures, specificially copepods and mysis. Most smaller reef fish, such as wrasses, surgeonfishes, dragonets and the like feed primarily on those. If the nitrates are high, and the shrimp and copepods move away due to that, then the more invasive (to coral species anyways) move in. Angelfish will simply devour any coral in their path. As do a multitude of starfish. A crown of thorns or chocolate chip star fish will plow right through a reef and leave every coral in it's wake pure white and dead. There are so many possibilities for the bleaching of wild corals that to simply just say hey, the temperature climbed 1 degree , thats the cause is simply lazy and agenda driven.

originally posted by: SM2
which those are a prime food source for many reef dwelling creatures, specificially copepods and mysis. Most smaller reef fish, such as wrasses, surgeonfishes, dragonets and the like feed primarily on those. If the nitrates are high, and the shrimp and copepods move away due to that, then the more invasive (to coral species anyways) move in. Angelfish will simply devour any coral in their path. As do a multitude of starfish. A crown of thorns or chocolate chip star fish will plow right through a reef and leave every coral in it's wake pure white and dead. There are so many possibilities for the bleaching of wild corals that to simply just say hey, the temperature climbed 1 degree , thats the cause is simply lazy and agenda driven.

While espousing the temp's as the reason for bleaching of corals, they are actually ignoring the real cause and perpetuating a myth that hurts scientists like me..... I have to take on the moniker of 'guilt by association'... And the very best way to correct pollution is through proper engineering of waste systems. While in NJ the group of Vanderbilt University bio chemists I worked with had devised a biological tool, metal eating bugs. Water treatment before discharge is the answer for pollution that kills wildlife was the life lesson I learned. The EPA has a program that requires BACT, Best Available Control Technology and MACT, Maximum Available Control Technology. These are used in permit applications to keep us safe.. It is working in the US.. China and other country's need to apply these methods.

reply to: SM2

Hypoxic zones or “dead zones” are caused by high levels of nutrients, primarily from activities such as industrialized agriculture and inadequate wastewater treatment.

www.noaa.gov...

I haven't looked into this much, I know the Gulf Zone is due to the cumulative nitrate fertilizers and waste from the Mississippi watershed. I'm wondering if the extremely high levels of nutrients from the dead zones eventually affect other areas.

The Great Barrier Reef receives the run-off from 35 basins which drain 424,000km2 of coastal Queensland. River discharges are the single biggest source of nutrients to the inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Over the past 150 years sediment inflow into the Great Barrier Reef has increased four to five times, and five to ten fold for some catchments.

www.gbrmpa.gov.au...

What I find interesting about this article, is the reference to nutrient run-off as the 'second most significant pressure'. It's essentially hinting at global warming being the most important factor. Although, I'm unsure on how they've come to that conclusion.

Oh my God! Here take all my money you need for governments to spend on green technologies so they can give control of it away over to corporate entities that will continue to fleece the people and continue to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. because as we know, we have been forced to live in a society that we weren't responsible for building but are blamed for the runaway global warming that's occuring and are forced basically at gunpoint to exist within it.

The corporate entities that will profit from this should be responsible for building the system to remove us from it. They have more $ than needed and will be the ones that will profit from it the most.

a reply to: FuggleHop

Fugglehop off player.

Tourists wearing sunscreen are a major cause of bleaching.

Oxybenzone is lethal in pats per trillion to coral, and thousands of tons end up in reefs annually.

www.npr.org... ions/thetwo-way/2015/10/20/450276158/chemicals-in-sunscreen-are-harming-coral-reefs-says-new-study

Another claim is that increased carbon dioxide in the water kills coral. Yet there was recently a reef found in the confluence of the Amazon River. It could not be seen due to the massive amount of organic material in the water, which breaks down into a large amount of CO2.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Yet one of the biggest issues of the day is the US trying to leave the Paris Climate Agreement that literally 99% of the world has signed onto.

Paris Climate Agreement is a bad deal for America.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No you have been questioning science since your first post in the thread. Don't pretend otherwise.

Questioning science?... You are the one not understanding what is going on. You call your bias as science doesn't make it so... More so when it is people like you who keep forgetting that water vapor causes 97%-98% or more of the greenhouse warming in the Troposphere.

You, and others like you are the ones ignoring science, when you keep claiming Earth started warming 100 years ago, when evidence confirms it has been warming since the 1600s.

CO2 accounts for 5% to at most 8% of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere.

CO2
5% of 0.8C = 0.04C
8% of 0.8C = 0.064C

Water Vapor
97% of 0.8C = 0.776C
98% of 0.8C = 0.784C

Yet people like you keep claiming that CO2 is what has caused the warming. Yet most of the time CO2 lags temperature changes. Even during the ongoing climate change CO2 increases lagged temperature changes by over 250 years.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Yet one of the biggest issues of the day is the US trying to leave the Paris Climate Agreement that literally 99% of the world has signed onto.

Paris Climate Agreement is a bad deal for America.

The Paris climate agreement is just a bunch of rich people trying to redistribute more wealth to them, and less to the people...

Venezuela is keeping up with their "agreement on climate change" yet look at what has been happening over there...

That's not mentioning that Russia, China, South America, etc, all have said they would not make drastic changes...

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It should be noted that the current CO2 level in the atmosphere hasn't been seen on this planet since the Pliocene era some 3 million years ago, before humans existed. People need to wake up. We are DEFINITELY breaking the planet's natural cycles and the results are starting to show.

Definitely huh? So who caused the rise in CO2 levels in the Pliocene era? Who caused the natural cycles you speak of in the first place?

Indeed. The population back then must have all been driving SUVs, and cows must have lived on a diet of baked beans alone.

There have reportedly been ice ages with CO2 levels as high as 2000-8000 ppm.

400 ppm? Plantlife on this planet would be better off with a level of 1000 ppm.

All these Climate Doomsday Prophets are basically people who have read a few books and watched a few videos - most of which are made by very well-spoken, well-dressed American individuals with expensive suits and ties - that tell us we're doomed within the next 10 years. Al Gore's been at it for more than that, and we still haven't crapped out. Our money have gone into his pockets, but that's about it.

At the end of the day, to this planet, humans are like an itcy scalp - it would do just as well without us, and it will indeed do well no matter what happens to us.

Could we stop this CO2 nonsense and focus all our resources on stopping the overabundant use of chemicals in everything including food? Our oceans are filling up with plastic, which will move up the food chain. But oh, no - let's all talk about that toxic stuff CO2.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know Krazy, when you come off as a condescending jackbag and then fail to notice your incorrect grammar, you are rude AND clueless.
Follow this slowly.
"...doesn't mean they can't effect the climate now."
Or
"...doesn't mean they can't affect the climate now."
Do we need to go back to your remedial English class in third grade? Or maybe, you could just be nicer about your theories. You know, the hypothesis you are perpetuating as fact?

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
Tourists wearing sunscreen are a major cause of bleaching.

Oxybenzone is lethal in pats per trillion to coral, and thousands of tons end up in reefs annually.

www.npr.org... ions/thetwo-way/2015/10/20/450276158/chemicals-in-sunscreen-are-harming-coral-reefs-says-new-study

Another claim is that increased carbon dioxide in the water kills coral. Yet there was recently a reef found in the confluence of the Amazon River. It could not be seen due to the massive amount of organic material in the water, which breaks down into a large amount of CO2.

CO2 does not harm corals. As a matter of fact, a lot of home aquariums, as well as most professional aquariums and coral farms, use a calcium reactor to keep the calcium levels up so the corals have enough free calcium to build their exoskeleton. Also, for other invertebrates like snails,crabs,clams,shrimp to build their shells. These reactors work by forcing air enriched with CO2 through a chamber that has argonite in it. The main thing is you need to watch the PH. As this is a small closed system the CO2 can cause the PH to rise. But the amount in the tank water is usually higher then what is found in nature.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a picture of Antarctica.

Let's be accurate. This is a pic of the Antarctic Peninsula.......North of the Antarctic Circle.

originally posted by: buddah6
Has anyone ever looked at the NASA pictures comparing Arctic and Antarctica ice pack receding? I noticed that pictures of the Arctic were taken in August showing clearly a lack of ice. The next picture was of the Antarctica in December which also clearly showed the ice pack receding. The statement was made how critical MMGW was.

Would someone explain this to me. What am I supposed to see in these pictures?

Well, doesn't the ice pack recede in the summer? NASA pictures in August in the Arctic shows ice pack at it's smallest since it's summer there! In December, the NASA pictures show an ice pack receding in Antarctica for in the southern hemisphere it would be summer there. What are they trying to say? The average person is ignorant and we're trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Earlier this year, a whistle blower form NOAA leaked that NOAA routinely massaged data to bolster Obama's Paris visit. If MMGW is a fact, no lying or massaging of the data would be necessary.

We argue scientific data that even scientists can't agree on. NOAA and NASA get public funds so they have a vested interest in supporting the MMCC narrative regardless of it's validity. They want to keep their jobs so the lie or just indicate more study is needed.

Next, why is a sliding scale needed by the IPCC to prove MMGW. In my time, an article in Time Magazine climate change was concerned about global cooling. In the 1980's, a graduate student came up with the "hockey stick" chart that indicated global warming. In the 1990's, Al Gore with the NASA director in tow added to the warming scare. Next was the objection to the "hockey stick" theory by scientists. The MMGW narrative changed to just climate change. The narrative scale continues to slide as scientist disproves all but the political involvement.

Climate change has become the biggest money makers in a long time. They need not prove scientifically that it is valid but it's a commercially good source of large income to the carbon credit sales scam people. Snake oil on a global scale.

The only people who believe in MMGW are those who have been indoctrinated in the American educational system over the last 40 years.

Is there climate change...yes! It's a natural event...nothing more. Has man effect his climate...yes! Large cities have environments of their own.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

I haven't seen you offer a single valid point in this thread. All I've seen you do is go on about Al Gore who has nothing to do with proving if Climate Change is real or not. He's just a spokesman.

I don't know how it works in the company YOU work for, but our salespeople/spokesmen don't develop our products in my company. So attacking Al Gore like he is the primary source for Climate Change information is intellectually dishonest.

I think people are a hell of a lot more interested in what ELSE is causing climate change since it is clearly at least 97% more controlled by other sources.

And what we could do about THAT.