Disappearance of Coral Reefs, Drastically Altered Marine Food Web on the Horizon

[GliderGuider]

Disappearance of Coral Reefs, Drastically Altered Marine Food Web on the Horizon

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, paleobiologist Richard Norris and colleagues show that the ancient greenhouse world had few large reefs, a poorly oxygenated ocean, tropical surface waters like a hot tub, and food webs that did not sustain the abundance of large sharks, whales, seabirds, and seals of the modern ocean. Aspects of this greenhouse ocean could reappear in the future if greenhouse gases continue to rise at current accelerating rates.

For the past million years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have never exceeded 280 parts per million, but industrialization, forest clearing, agriculture, and other human activities have rapidly increased concentrations of CO2 and other gases known to create a “greenhouse” effect that traps heat in the atmosphere. For several days in May 2013, CO2 levels exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in human history and that milestone could be left well behind in the next decades. At its current pace, Earth could recreate the CO2 content of the atmosphere in the greenhouse world in just 80 years.

In the greenhouse world, fossils indicate that CO2 concentrations reached 800-1,000 parts per million. Tropical ocean temperatures reached 35º C (95º F), and the polar oceans reached 12°C (53°F)—similar to current ocean temperatures offshore San Francisco. There were no polar ice sheets. Scientists have identified a “reef gap” between 42 and 57 million years ago in which complex coral reefs largely disappeared and the seabed was dominated by piles of pebble-like single-celled organisms called foraminifera.

Indeed, Norris added that continuing the fossil fuel economy even for decades magnifies the period of climate instability. An abrupt halt to fossil fuel use at current levels would limit the period of future climate instability to less than 1,000 years before climate largely returns to pre-industrial norms. But, if fossil fuel use stays on its current trajectory until the end of this century, then the climate effects begin to resemble those of the PETM, with major ecological changes lasting for 20,000 years or more and a recognizable human “fingerprint” on Earth’s climate lasting for 100,000 years.

"Dr. Canfield, paging Dr. Donald Canfield. Please pick up the red phone, your ocean is on line 1..."

[Gregorian]

1. Added to that, we're adding more users to the equation every moment.

And when I came back from my daily forest ride yesterday there was a (de)forester putting up flags. They're going to log the beautiful redwood forest behind my property. I'm still feeling like someone pulled the rug out from under me. But it serves as another example of burning the candle at both ends. All of those new humans we're putting on the planet every second are going to need water, food, clothing... It's insanity, and very difficult for conscious people to watch.

[pscot]

2. Fish account for 16% of the protein

in the global diet. 145 million tonnes in 2009. [link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12334859|

[Gregorian]

3. Yes, it's far more than just carbon dioxide.

People just don't want to look at the cause of our situation. So many think that energy is it, and it can be solved through engineering. And I'm talking about some very bright people. Have you ever heard Al Gore mention the word "population"? He doesn't get it.

I had a(nother) talk with my 90 year old dad yesterday about this, in our ongoing 40 year conversation on the subject. And he reiterated what he has said so many times. And that is a good leader would put FEAR into people to instigate change. Fear is the only thing people seem to respond to. He had hoped Obama would have used this method to get us to stop our military actions.

Oh well. It's a comfortable but disgusting time to live in.

[wtmusic]

4. That sucks.

It helps if you don't think of them as trees, but "biomass"...they'll all grow back in 300-400 years, after all.

"Over at the Summit County Citizens Voice, Bob Berwyn notes a study that throws cold water on some folks zeal for “Large-Scale Forest Biomass Energy.” According to Berwyn, the study, by the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry and several universities suggests that such large-scale production “may be unsustainable and is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.” Here are a few “concerns” raised by the study:

• The general assumption that bioenergy is carbon-neutral is not valid.
• The reduction of biomass and lost carbon sequestration by forests could take decades to centuries to be “paid back” by fossil fuel substitution, if paid back at all.
• There are significant concerns about the economic viability of biofuels, which may require government mandates or subsidies.
• A higher demand for biomass from forests will increase prices for the biomass, as in Germany where they have already increased in price 300-600 percent from 2005 to 2010.
• An emphasis on bioenergy production from forests could lead to shorter rotation lengths, questionable management practices and increased dependence on wood imports.
• Negative impacts on vegetation, soil fertility, water and ecosystem diversity are all possible.
• Fertilizer use, another important source of greenhouse gas emissions, could increase.
• The use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution allowed previously degraded forests to recover in much of Europe and the U.S., while industrial-scale use of forests for biomass would likely reverse this trend."

http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/sustainability-of-large-scale-forest-biomass-energy-prodution-questioned/

[Gregorian]

5. Thanks. I'm pretty upset about it. Here's a video of my trail.

edit- I realized I should preface my comments with the fact that I'm really not suffering like the Amazon employees described on Democracy Now today. But I did put 20 years of my life into working toward having a property like the one I now own. I don't expect anyone to feel for me.

I happen to own a timber ranch. But I'm not gung ho about cutting. In fact I'm actively seeking carbon credit purchasers so that the trees will never be cut.

This part that's being flagged is a very cool singletrack to the bigger riding trails around here. It's why I bought this property. And to lose it would be horrible. Although I can bet that the trees won't be cut for at least one or two years.

Thanks for the biomass info. I never bought it, as I'm very clear about what the problem is. But that part about the European forests recovering due to the use of fossil fuels versus wood was really enlightening. Who'd have thought.


Here's a video that ends right where the area starts-

&feature=c4-overview&list=UUCV3Gp0C0GiyikLbFYQMVGA

[wtmusic]

7. Very cool.

I grew up near an area like that, with a creek, trails, wilderness. About a year before I went away to school it was bulldozed to the ground to build a 600-unit apartment complex, almost a square mile. That was heartbreaking.

Is that a GoPro camera? You make it tempting for me to spend lots of money on a nice mountain bike.

[Gregorian]

8. That's funny you'd ask. No, it's not.

There was a post on the mtbr forum about Ibis owners who built their own trails. So I rummaged through my nuts and bolts, and cobbled a means of fastening my cheap Cannon video camera to the helmet.

Bikes are the best thing ever. I spent a big amount building up an Ibis Mojo in 2007. I've been considering putting a Ripley together, but am a bit hesitant until a few things come together. It's really worth it. I brought my 1984 Ridgerunner in from storage a few nights ago, and looking at these two bikes side by side is just amazing. We all had fun and adventure without shocks and carbon fiber.

It's a shame to see what growth has done. That's why I liked this forest here. It's not intended for big logging. But it looks like that's about to happen. At any rate, we have so many amazing trails here, it'll always remain a good place to ride.

[wtmusic]

6. delete