Coral Reefs Starting to Permanently Dissolve

[Techno-Druid]

natural selection has stopped in humans you must of missed the memo =P

right now its almost going in reverse

technological evolution will change humans from this point in but its important not to get it mixed up with natural selection

Natural selection cannot stop nor start, it's a continuous process.

Even if natural selection slowed in humans, sexual selection hasn't.

[BuckSparkles]

This seems like a low priority in terms of worldly problems...

[Osmeric]

natural selection has stopped in humans you must of missed the memo =P

No, actually it's going at a frantic pace. The rate of evolution of humanity in the last 10,000 years is something like 100x that of the average rate in the preceding ~6 My (since the split with the lineage that led to chimps and bonobos.)

[Endus]

No, actually it's going at a frantic pace. The rate of evolution of humanity in the last 10,000 years is something like 100x that of the average rate in the preceding ~6 My (since the split with the lineage that led to chimps and bonobos.)

Which really shouldn't be surprising. The emergence of human technology in that period has caused a massive shift in the environment in which humanity's selection occurs. Not even speaking of our effect on the natural environment, just that human civilization is a vastly different environment than living as small hunter-gatherer tribes with crude stone tools.

- - - Updated - - -

healthcare is technology not natrual

mutation's alone is also not natrual selection aka evolution

Healthcare changes how selection occurs. It has a direct impact, that it's technological rather than "natural" is completely irrelevant. "Natural selection" describes the natural evolution process, it does not define all evolutionary processes. For instance, domesticated animals have become, in many cases, their own species; dogs aren't more-polite wolves. That may have occurred because of human influence, which may not be "natural", but it's still evolution.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Have they looked at other sources for the cause of the reef's destruction? Seems very localized just to claim CO2 destruction and it states the reef in question is used heavily by the fishing industry. Extracting almost $8 billion in product a year from a stretch of just 124 miles sounds like nightmare for anything living there. People do all sorts of really crappy stuff to our oceans including things like cyanide fishing and removal of corals and live rock by the ton for the hobby industry.

[Endus]

Have they looked at other sources for the cause of the reef's destruction? Seems very localized just to claim CO2 destruction and it states the reef in question is used heavily by the fishing industry. Extracting almost $8 billion in product a year from a stretch of just 124 miles sounds like nightmare for anything living there. People do all sorts of really crappy stuff to our oceans including things like cyanide fishing and removal of corals and live rock by the ton for the hobby industry.

These analyses do take all that into account. We're talking about acidification of the oceans, and that's straight-up simple chemistry; if the PH changes too much, corals can't survive, they take a fairly narrow range of conditions to prosper. This is why live coral aquaria can be so challenging to maintain; they're harder to keep in the proper balance than most freshwater tanks are, and if it slips too far, everything dies.

[Afrospinach]

Maybe aliens haven't contacted us yet because they modelled our natural environment and realised: "let's not get attached - they'll be gone soon anyway"

Lol what an interesting thought.

[Endus]

thats why domesticated animals are GMO

GMO is not evolution =P

Selective breeding is evolution. Arguing otherwise is just blatantly incorrect.

[Techno-Druid]

thats why domesticated animals are GMO

GMO is not evolution =P

if its evolution it would be like saying the new iphone has evolved into the new iphone 6

Genetic modification is evolution.

The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

[breadisfunny]

Earth is going to end up looking like mars

idk i guess you think your god is going to keep the earth safe until the end of time?

- - - Updated - - -



i should of put the word eventually in there i guess sorry if i was hard to understand

eventually the universe will die. i guess we should stop everything we're doing because it's all pointless and just jump off a bridge right now.

[Rooflesstoofless]

These analyses do take all that into account. We're talking about acidification of the oceans, and that's straight-up simple chemistry; if the PH changes too much, corals can't survive, they take a fairly narrow range of conditions to prosper. This is why live coral aquaria can be so challenging to maintain; they're harder to keep in the proper balance than most freshwater tanks are, and if it slips too far, everything dies.

It does? All I see in the article is that an area that is heavily fished (which means lots boats and pollutants) is dying while pointing the finger at atmospheric and ocean surface CO2 levels. Most corals can adapt quite readily to a small shift in pH levels especially if they are given time. Pollutants in the water can also cause massive die offs which in turn can ammonia toxicity which has a more localized and immediate changes to pH levels.

[Endus]

It does? All I see in the article is that an area that is heavily fished (which means lots boats and pollutants) is dying while pointing the finger at atmospheric and ocean surface CO2 levels. Most corals can adapt quite readily to a small shift in pH levels especially if they are given time. Pollutants in the water can also cause massive die offs which in turn can ammonia toxicity which has a more localized and immediate changes to pH levels.

http://www.teachoceanscience.net/tea...t_coral_reefs/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...idification%3F
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-th...-acidification

Just a few sources from around the world.

[Deleted]

It does? All I see in the article is that an area that is heavily fished (which means lots boats and pollutants) is dying while pointing the finger at atmospheric and ocean surface CO2 levels. Most corals can adapt quite readily to a small shift in pH levels especially if they are given time. Pollutants in the water can also cause massive die offs which in turn can ammonia toxicity which has a more localized and immediate changes to pH levels.

Its just a few weeks ago that a report determined that half of Australia's 2000 km long Great Barrier Reef is dead and 90% of it is bleached - which usually means terminally ill. The biggest problem is by far the combo of warmer water and acidification.
It was expected to happen in around ~ 50 years, but the fear mongering scientists have unfortunately been quite frugal with their scare campaign - many of their predictions have been surpassed by reality.

Researchers have succeeded in artificial insemination and repopulation of corals with stronger skeletons, which is positive.
But the scale of things. It takes 4 years to grow corals the size of a football. The Great Barrier Reef could be 600 thousand years old - with the top layer alone being 20 thousand years old.

[Rooflesstoofless]

http://www.teachoceanscience.net/tea...t_coral_reefs/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...idification%3F
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-th...-acidification

Just a few sources from around the world.

A pH shift of 0.1 units over hundreds of years shouldn't be enough to kill corals. Even Acropora sp. and other sensitive corals can easily adjust to minor changes in pH and normal respiration of corals can cause localized pH changes larger than a tenth of a unit. I think direct pollution and poisoning from petroleum based products and agricultural runoff of pesticides (especially those containing copper) are far bigger culprits.

[IIamaKing]

I take issue with even saying that the Earth is living or dying. Planets are not living beings.

But what about Mother Gia, the earth spirit.........lols.

[Endus]

A pH shift of 0.1 units over hundreds of years shouldn't be enough to kill corals. Even Acropora sp. and other sensitive corals can easily adjust to minor changes in pH and normal respiration of corals can cause localized pH changes larger than a tenth of a unit. I think direct pollution and poisoning from petroleum based products and agricultural runoff of pesticides (especially those containing copper) are far bigger culprits.

We don't need to engage in theoreticals. We're talking about actual, observed, real-world coral extinctions. Something like 90% of the Great Barrier Reef has become bleached, which means it's dying.

And no; we've identified the culprit, and while those other products don't help, they're not what's causing the bleaching.

[alexw]

A pH shift of 0.1 units over hundreds of years shouldn't be enough to kill corals. Even Acropora sp. and other sensitive corals can easily adjust to minor changes in pH and normal respiration of corals can cause localized pH changes larger than a tenth of a unit. I think direct pollution and poisoning from petroleum based products and agricultural runoff of pesticides (especially those containing copper) are far bigger culprits.

Err what?

Its not been over hundreds of years its been more or less the last 100 only that this change has occurred over, and the change is not small. pH is a logarithmic scale meaning that altogether the ocean is ~1/3 more acidic than it used to be. Lastly corals cannot easily adjust to pH changes, that's the whole point of why scientists are worrying about them.

Oh and are you are denier? You sound like one.

[breadisfunny]

some people have done that

so your not refuting that you agree with that line of logic.
because statements like that are usually short for "well i'm not saying i don't disagree with that kind of logic but i can neither confirm nor deny my agreement or disagreement with it."

[Rooflesstoofless]

We don't need to engage in theoreticals. We're talking about actual, observed, real-world coral extinctions. Something like 90% of the Great Barrier Reef has become bleached, which means it's dying.

And no; we've identified the culprit, and while those other products don't help, they're not what's causing the bleaching.

Protip: Bleaching in corals has many, many different causes and what will cause bleaching in one reef will not always have the same cause as bleaching in another reef. Claiming only one variable is responsible while ignoring the other possibilities is intellectually dishonest.

Err what?

Its not been over hundreds of years its been more or less the last 100 only that this change has occurred over, and the change is not small. pH is a logarithmic scale meaning that altogether the ocean is ~1/3 more acidic than it used to be. Lastly corals cannot easily adjust to pH changes, that's the whole point of why scientists are worrying about them.

Oh and are you are denier? You sound like one.

Are you dumb? You sound dumb especially when I never denied there was a serious problem. "DENIER! Either accept our version of things exactly how it's presented to you laymen or BURN IN HELL!" Every time you poise the "Are you a denier?" question to someone on these forums it makes you look like a religious nut job.

Going from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 (the claimed 0.1 units) isn't enough to bleach out corals unless there are other, more serious contributing factors. Salinity, nutrient levels, poisonous metals, etc, etc, etc can all have more immediate affects on the density of zooxanthellae in skeleton forming photosynthetic corals.

[PC2]

eventually the universe will die.

How do you know it will die? You know the Big Rip is only one of several relevant hypotheses.