Are coral reefs really doomed? A hopeful view.

Andrew Refkin of Dot Earth presented ecologist Roger Bradbury's view (portions included in my previous post) that we are in denial regarding the fate of the world’s coral reefs. For a hopeful, though cautious, opposing view, Refkin cites marine ecologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As in other critical issues in which the science is not fully settled, the two specialists see the future differently.

Quoted by Refkin, Bruno writes:

It is scary, but is it true? I don’t think so. I have been called a pathological optimist, but on the other hand, I’ve watched reefs change radically from the dangerous wild places I experienced as a kid in the Florida Keys, to simplified systems with few corals and fewer predators. And this is in just 30 years.

One aspect of my research is focused on documenting and understudying the degradation of coral reef ecosystems, mainly in terms of the loss of reef-building corals. The story is more grim in the Caribbean, where there has been a decline of at least 50 percent (and probably more than 75 percent) of coral populations.

But the picture of coral loss is roughly the same globally. More recently, we’ve been working on the extent of overfishing and predator loss on Caribbean reefs. A healthy unfished reef is inhabited by top predators like sharks and grouper and total fish biomass is roughly 500 grams per square meter. Yet, the average reef has only 20 grams per square meter — obviously an extreme decrease in fish biomass.

So that aspect of Rogers Bradbury’s Op-Ed in today’s New York Times is generally accurate. The world’s coral reefs have indeed changed, are under enormous pressure, and their future is threatened.

But are they really “on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation”? No.

Is there really “no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem”? No, there is hope.

And is the “scientific evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal”? No, not remotely.

I think these are valid opinions, but they are not science, nor are they supported by science. What does the science say?  It is a complicated picture and there isn’t any way to scientifically test the idea that “reefs are doomed.” Like everything else in conservation (and life) it depends. It depends on when greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and eventually halted. It depends on how big the human populations gets. It depends on when we start managing coral reef fisheries with a modicum of intelligence.  

Crunch Time: Coral reefs are "zombie ecosystems"

Lord Howe Island Lagoon coral. Image: Southern Cross University (AFP)

This summer we are experiencing Previews of the coming warmer and more turbulent climate. While the boomer generation, myself included, will be less impacted, the younger generation will have to struggle through the severe effects of climate disruption and certainly won't be happy with us. Indeed, I can already sense the coming climate trials over the next a decade or two will make the tobacco trials of the 1990’s seem like child’s play. 

For the world' coral reefs, we are beyond Previews and into Crunch Time. While the official line remains “there is still hope,” according to ecologist Roger Bradbury, writing in the Op Ed page of The New York Times, we are kidding ourselves: 

IT’S past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation. There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem — with its storehouse of biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world’s poor — will cease to be.

This is less a conspiracy than a sort of institutional inertia. Governments don’t want to be blamed for disasters on their watch, conservationists apparently value hope over truth, and scientists often don’t see the reefs for the corals.

But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs have a future ...

Learn more at A World Without Coral Reefs. Also, see a more hopeful view. 

The Preview: Recent U.S. warming a 1 in 1.6 million event

Image: NOAA/NCDCAn earlier post, Welcome to the Preview, looked at the recent heat wave and the "hot spots" of predicted sea level rise in the U.S.

Now, in the June 2012 “State of the Climate Global Analysis” by The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), we get another Preview of the future. Each bar represents a 12-month period. The red bars are 4 of the warmest 12-month periods since record keeping began in 1895. And all 4 have occurred since April 2011. 

Dr. Jeff Masters looked at the 13-month period just completed and writes:

U.S. heat over the past 13 months: a one in 1.6 million event
Each of the 13 months from June 2011 through June 2012 ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895 - present record. According to NCDC, the odds of this occurring randomly during any particular month are 1 in 1,594,323. Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm between now and 124,652 AD--assuming the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years. (emphasis added)

Welcome to The Preview.

Breaking weather records: Hot-cold up to 12-1?

Breaking weather records is common. However, the ratio of hot to cold records should be around 1-1. Have we really been up to 12-1 this year? Send you thoughts, comments. 

The U.S. is getting hit by a range of powerful extreme weather events this summer. Record droughts in the West and Midwest are fueling historic wildfires, putting pressure on farmers, and driving up crop prices. Extreme “hurricane-like” storms took eastern states by surprise over the weekend, knocking out power to millions of people and leaving them sweltering in an ongoing heat wave. Across the country in June, more than 3,000 heat records were broken. That was after an off-the-charts heat wave in March where heat records blew out cold records 12-1.

Climate Progress

Related Post
Welcome to the Preview

Wildfires: No comment required

Welcome to the Preview

Predicted sea level rise highest from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Image: U.S. Geological Survey

A few folks have commented on the record heat Colorado is experiencing this month. My response: it’s just a preview. And, it should'nt come as a surprise. This past May was the hottest month in North America on record. Since we are becoming accustomed to breaking records, let me repeat: not average; not below average; not above average; the hottest.

As for Coloradan’s wondering what this summer would be like, we now know. For Denver, today’s headline reads: “Heat wave of Denver weather melting away records; hits 105 again.” It is hard to keep count of the fires in the state; a new one was just announced in south Boulder. With the heat and dry conditions, it’s shaping up to be record-breaking summer.  

And, it looks like Colorado is not alone. Various areas of the country are getting Previews this month, either in fact or by prediction. The flash floods in Duluth, Minnesota dumped 5-9 inches overnight “sending what looked like raging rivers through Duluth's streets.” (Can we attribute this specific flood to climate change? No. Does planetary warming result in more saturated air that is going dump water somewhere? Yes.) The U.S. Geological Survey has determined the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina is a “hot spot” for sea level rise with levels predicted to rise “three to four times faster than the global average.” And, for Southern California:

By the middle of the century, the number of days with temperatures above 95 degrees each year will triple in downtown Los Angeles, quadruple in portions of the San Fernando Valley and even jump five-fold in a portion of the High Desert in L.A. County, according to a new UCLA climate change study.

At least we are getting a Preview and we should not be surprised by climate extremes the rest of the decade and beyond.

What do we do now? Many already conserve, recycle, or are otherwise proactive in ways big and small. We all need to claim our ecological citizenship and not wait for governmental action. Whether we care or not, we are all ecological citizens. What we individually take from, or give back to our global ecology eventually comes back to support us or bites us. Although I am optimistic and believe we will, in the clutch, solve the climate spiral, we will hit the guardrail. The question is, how hard?