SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Coral reefs are considered one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet and are dying at alarming rates around the world. Scientists attribute coral bleaching and ultimately massive coral death to a number of environmental stressors, in particular, warming water temperatures due to climate change.
A study published in the international journal Marine Biology, reveals what's really killing coral reefs. With 30 years of unique data from Looe Key Reef in the lower Florida Keys, researchers from Florida Atlantic University's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and collaborators have discovered that the problem of coral bleaching is not just due to a warming planet, but also a planet that is simultaneously being enriched with reactive nitrogen from multiple sources.
Improperly treated sewage, fertilizers and top soil are elevating nitrogen levels, which are causing phosphorus starvation in the corals, reducing their temperature threshold for "bleaching." These coral reefs were dying off long before they were impacted by rising water temperatures. This study represents the longest record of reactive nutrients and algae concentrations for coral reefs anywhere in the world.
"Our results provide compelling evidence that nitrogen loading from the Florida Keys and greater Everglades ecosystem caused by humans, rather than warming temperatures, is the primary driver of coral reef degradation at Looe Key Sanctuary Preservation Area during our long-term study," said Brian Lapointe, Ph.D., senior author and a research professor at FAU's Harbor Branch.
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-years-unique-reveal-coral-reefs.html
-- submitted from IRC
Brian E. Lapointe et al. Nitrogen enrichment, altered stoichiometry, and coral reef decline at Looe Key, Florida Keys, USA: a 3-decade study, Marine Biology (2019). DOI: 10.1007/s00227-019-3538-9
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:23PM (6 children)
..... wow .... not sure if troll or just completely clueless
https://www.clearias.com/composition-structure-earth-atmosphere/ [clearias.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:34PM (3 children)
What point do you think you are making?
> Two recent reliable sources cited here have total atmospheric compositions, including trace molecules, that exceed 100%. They are Allen's Astrophysical Quantities[5] (2000, 100.001241343%) and CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics[4] (2016–2017, 100.004667%), which cites Allen's Astrophysical Quantities. Both are used as references in this article. Both exceed 100% because their CO2 values were increased to 345 ppmv, without changing their other constituents to compensate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17 2019, @01:14PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday July 17 2019, @03:51PM (1 child)
Like khallow says, it means that the measurements used to determine all components of atmospheric composition aren’t good to the number of significant figures presented, which is a valid criticism. In fact, the CRC figure exceeds 100% by about 46 ppm.
What conclusions are you making on the basis of that discrepancy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @04:54PM
It means exactly what it says in that quote. They are not updating the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc levels. What are they today vs the early 20th century when they came up with those numbers? Does anyone know?
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday July 17 2019, @10:10PM (1 child)
Early in my Navy career, I was taught that 'standard Navy air' was composed of 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and 1% Argon and other stuff (maybe I misremember the other stuff). I don't remember what the subject of the class was, but one significant digit was good enough to get the job done.
Kids have to learn about real world ambiguity at some point. Climate science may be the introduction they get first.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @04:08PM
No, they won't learn ambiguity from climatology. Haven't you heard, climate science is the one field where the science is settled.