Caribbean Coral Reef Die-Off Not Caused By Climate Change After All, Expert Report Wr

[daveman]

Yes..it's some unidentified disease...

That just makes so much sense!

What do you think would make more sense?

From:
Mass Mortality in Diadema antillarum (Echinodermata:Echinoidea): A Large-Scale Natura

THE EPIDEMIC

The occurrence of unusual mortality of Diadema was first observed in mid-January, 1983, on the Caribbean coast of Panama, close to the mouth of the Panama Canal (Lessios et al. 1984). Death appeared to occur rapidly, soon after symptoms appeared, and virtually all individuals died. Affected organisms initially developed an accumulation of sediment, and lost pigment and some spines. As the disease progressed, the animals were unable to remain attached to their substrates. Eventually, they literally seemed to fall apart. Behavioral changes were also noted, as the animals did not typically seek shelter during daylight, and were observed being preyed on by fish not normally seen feeding on healthy Diadema. Within days of the first observation of the disease, most individuals in this population were dead, reduced to bleached tests.

After a lag of several months, the disease was noted in other locations. First affected were Diadema in the San Blas Islands of Panama. Populations across the Caribbean were eventually affected by this spreading disease, which traveled in a pattern consistent with major surface currents. The disease moved from Panama in both a westward and an eastward direction on these currents. The disease spread at a rate of roughly 2000 km/ yr to the east, and nearly 3000 km/yr to the west (Lessios 1988a). Eventually, the entire Caribbean was involved, as the disease spread to Florida and north to Bermuda. 3.5 million square kilometers of ocean habitat were affected, and it does not appear that any population of D. antillarum in this area escaped massive mortality. Populations of this species in the eastern Atlantic, and a sibling species in the Eastern Pacific were apparently not affected. The Pacific species might be assumed to be at risk due to potential transmission of the pathogen through the canal. In practice, such movement of organisms appears to be very rare, probably due to the fresh-water nature of the canal, and the fact that water flows from the continental divide at the high point of the canal out into both oceans.

The disease was not only widespread, but highly virulent. The actual intensity of the disease across the 3.5 million square kilometers affected is difficult to compare, due to variations in sampling protocol, but Lessios (1988a) reports that mortality averaged 98%, exceeding 93% at all locations examined, and ranging to over 99.9%. The disease seemed to stop affecting urchins in February, 1984, roughly one year after it appeared. It did re-appear, however, in October-December of 1985. At this time, the disease seemed much less virulent, with less than 1% of the surviving populations in affected Panama and St. Croix developing symptoms.

No causative agent for the disease has been conclusively identified. Lessios (1988a) cites strong circumstantial evidence that a waterborne, host-specific pathogen was responsible. This evidence includes the tendency of the outbreaks to follow the direction and speed of water currents, the involvement of captive Diadema populations in aquaria fed by seawater, lack of decrease in the mortality with distance, development of symptoms when healthy individuals were experimentally exposed to affected animals, and the apparent limitation of the disease to a single species. Two species of spore-forming Clostridium were cultured from an affected population of urchins (Bauer and Agerter 1987). Healthy individuals died when injected with these bacteria, but the connection between the epidemic and these bacteria was not considered conclusive. Mortality appeared to be density independent. Overall, there does not seem to have been a significant relationship between initial population density and the intensity of the die-off at individual locations (Lessios 1988a).

Why do you keep ignoring Post #10, where global warming is declared responsible, and Post #11, WHERE YOU YOURSELF posted links declaring global warming responsible?

 

[Crick]

Global warming and ocean acidification are threats to the world's coral reefs and both threats will only get worse at time goes by. That certainly doesn't preclude other threats such as overfishing, pollution, physical damage and artificially introduced diseases.

Where in god's name did you get the idea that the world was so simple?

Let me break out a few points for you:

1) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage that you have repeatedly heard noted as the result of increased water temperatures?

A: Bleaching.

2) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage that you have repeatedly heard noted as a result of decreased pH?

A: Slow growth and weak skeletons.

3) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage being caused by the absence of urchins and parrotfish?

A: Smothering by unchecked algae growth.

Notice anything Dave?

 

[flacaltenn]

As crickham attempts to spin science to fit his preconceived notions, without a safety net,,,,,,, weak skeletons, slow growth and bleaching have MANY contibuting factors. The LEAST Effective explanations for this are CO2. Its pollution, disease, and the damage to critical members of the ecosystem that LEAD the list of probable causes...... Always has been.

 

[Crick]

Does algae cause bleaching? No. Does algae cause weak skeletons? No. Does acidification cause accelerated algae growth? No,

 

[Zander]

How dare they!!

The science is settled!!!!

 

[Crick]

This falls into the same sort of logical lunacy as the denier belief that because rising temperatures will increase CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause rising temperatures. Just because coral die-off in the Caribbean is due more to loss of algae grazers than global warming or acidification, does not mean that warming and acidification are not a threat to the world's coral reefs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global warming and ocean acidification are threats to the world's coral reefs and both threats will only get worse at time goes by. That certainly doesn't preclude other threats such as overfishing, pollution, physical damage and artificially introduced diseases.

Where in god's name did you get the idea that the world was so simple?

Let me break out a few points for you:

1) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage that you have repeatedly heard noted as the result of increased water temperatures?

A: Bleaching.

2) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage that you have repeatedly heard noted as a result of decreased pH?

A: Slow growth and weak skeletons.

3) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage being caused by the absence of urchins and parrotfish?

A: Smothering by unchecked algae growth.

Notice anything Dave?

No AGW is not a Cult. Where do people get these ideas

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Coral are DENIERS!!! They deserve to DIE!

Death to the DENIERS!

AGW AKBAR!!!!

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of AGW, our most holy CO2 molecule!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This falls into the same sort of logical lunacy as the denier belief that because rising temperatures will increase CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause rising temperatures. Just because coral die-off in the Caribbean is due more to loss of algae grazers than global warming or acidification, does not mean that warming and acidification are not a threat to the world's coral reefs.

You mean like this, Crazy Person?

 

[Crick]

No AGW is not a Cult. Where do people get these ideas

Not a clue, Frank. Not a clue.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No AGW is not a Cult. Where do people get these ideas

Not a clue, Frank. Not a clue.

It might be your "AGW AKBAR!!!" Battle cry

It might be your FAITH that CO2 is killing the coral

 

[flacaltenn]

Does algae cause bleaching? No. Does algae cause weak skeletons? No. Does acidification cause accelerated algae growth? No,

You are a certified moron.. Algae IS the cause of bleaching. Corals bleach when algae die.
And they bleach in DOZENS of conditions -- including PROLONGED warm or COOL water.

Not likely that algae die due to a 0.1 change in PH since one of the benefits that coral recieive from algae is a BOOST IN CO2 produced by the symbiosis..

Interesting enough -- ONE cause of bleaching is solar irradiation from UV --- and the UV portion of the sun's spectrum HAVE INCREASED by several percent in the past couple decades. Just LOOK at the science you've avoided by being a loyal follower of the Cult .. of Global Warming

If the reef degradation is from human runoff, or fishing practices like natives dynamiting to fish, or decimation of important species in the reef biosystem --- We can easily test this in just a decade or two.. Time to do some REAL enviro field work and quit bitching about CO2.

 

[Crick]

So excess algae growth and bleaching are mutually exclusive events. Got it.

 

[skookerasbil]

AGW ALARMIST ALERT


= if it doesn't conform with the established narrative.........its BS!!

 

[Crick]

Just because you haven't a clue what's being discussed is no reason to throw up a red flag. It's not as if anyone cared about you.

 

[flacaltenn]

So excess algae growth and bleaching are mutually exclusive events. Got it.

It's not that simple Bullwinkle.. The COLOR of coral is due to algae incorporated into the actual tissue and body of the coral polyps.. EXCESS surface algae could easily block photosynthesis for the INCORPORATED algae and kill it.. And what causes excess algae growth? Fertilizer and nutrient runoff for one -- and lack of predation for another.. Plus a myriad of other conditions.
The coral could have been "bleached" for ages and not visible due to exterior algae growth or sedimentation..

Pretty hard to remember how to use your cranial noodles after all those years of letting the "consensus" think for ya --- isn't it?? Does it hurt?

 

[Crick]

No. It tickles that you would waste this much time trying to show I've made a mistake that would have no bearing on anything of significance.

AGW is supported by a mountain of evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of climate experts.

Global warming and acidification are threats to calcareous marine organisms worldwide and that threat will undoubtedly grow for the foreseeable future. In addition, it seems that severe coral degradation in the Caribbean basin has resulted from excessive algae growth resulting from the loss of two primary harvesters: parrot fish and sea urchins.

This point has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW. It does indicate that warming and acidification have not had the dramatically severe affect on Caribbean corals that had been suspected. That is good news, though I would rate the odds of a recovery as exceedingly slim.

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

Global warming and ocean acidification are threats to the world's coral reefs and both threats will only get worse at time goes by. That certainly doesn't preclude other threats such as overfishing, pollution, physical damage and artificially introduced diseases.

Where in god's name did you get the idea that the world was so simple?

Let me break out a few points for you:

1) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage that you have repeatedly heard noted as the result of increased water temperatures?

A: Bleaching.

2) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage that you have repeatedly heard noted as a result of decreased pH?

A: Slow growth and weak skeletons.

3) Q: What is the specific coral reef damage being caused by the absence of urchins and parrotfish?

A: Smothering by unchecked algae growth.

Notice anything Dave?

Yes. I notice you keep ignoring Post #10, where global warming is declared responsible, and Post #11, WHERE YOU YOURSELF posted links declaring global warming responsible.

 

[Crick]

I have twice now discussed my previous posts.

Try to keep up.

And you might perhaps keep in mind that the percent of your posts accurately reflecting the holdings of mainstream science is roughly... oh... zero.