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: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 17 2019, @11:39AM (1 child)
Colonel Mustard, in the study, with the candlestick.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by BsAtHome on Wednesday July 17 2019, @11:53AM
The butler, in the restroom, with a toiletbrush flushing happily and cleanly.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @11:43AM (21 children)
Even children are starting to ask questions when shown a table of the composition of the atmosphere, the only values being changed since 1950 are for CO2, so it doesn't add to 100% anymore.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:10PM (12 children)
Overuse of fertilizer by Big Agriculture and home owners demanding bright green grass everywhere. The runoff into rivers, lakes and the sea feeds algae blooms.
Us humans gone n dun it.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:18PM (5 children)
Yep, depopulation is the key to solving of all kinds of issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:31PM (4 children)
Depopulation is an awful plan. It's like those antibacterial soaps that kill 99.99% of germs. Yea, well when they can divide every 20 minutes after 1 day a single survivor can generate 2^72 = 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 new germs.
So you are going to need to keep "depopulating" every couple decades. Let's say you depopulate to get 500 million people. Then within 5 years each woman will have 5 children bringing the pop back up to 1.75 billion. In 5 years!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @02:26PM
Brilliant
https://www.genolve.com/design/socialmedia/memes?creation=9a3cca7fb6c54e9aa82bb25a6056acd2 [genolve.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 17 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)
Overpopulation is an issue that has plagued life for billions of years before humans appeared. We have identified some of the strategies that life uses for dealing with the problem. One is to rely on external limiting factors, such as prey actually needing predators to control their numbers. Another is a harsh environment. Epidemics enjoy a positive feedback with population levels. The more people there are, and the more crowded things are, the faster an epidemic can spread, and the more lethal it can be.
War is another way. Why do groups of people fight one another? It's crazy stupid risky to participate in a battle, let alone a war. And yet, lethal combat retains a sick glamor. People who start wars have all sorts of convoluted reasons, like that our honor was insulted, or those people over there threaten our way of life, but ultimately it boils down to "this world ain't big enough for the both of us."
The kindest way is just not to have too many babies. Women instinctively do exactly that, if allowed. However, if they are stuck in a patriarchy, then population is all too frequently controlled by war. That's the kind of world these self described "pro-life" social conservatives gun for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @02:13AM (1 child)
If women are stuck in a matriarchy, they go extinct.
There have been multiple matriarchies throughout history. They don't exist now. Guess why? Darwin has a theory for it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 18 2019, @02:37AM
Upcoming biotechnologies can enable insular matriarchal or patriarchal groups to create as many female or male offspring as they want. We will see the creation of a child genetically related to two gay men, or two lesbian women. That could happen within a decade or two, and as long as it is reliable it will sail through regulatory approval, since rejecting it would be considered a homophobic violation of human rights.
It would be improbable to see something like a nation scale matriarchy, but on the commune level it can work just fine. It will be interesting to see.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:21PM (5 children)
Yep, any time you hear CO2 is rising in ppm, you can interpret that as code for nitrogen/oxygen is depleting in absolute terms. This has been going on ever since the introduction of the Haber process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:33PM (2 children)
And that's a very stupid statement. Might as well say, "when I pee in the ocean, I contribute to Miami flooding"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @03:44PM
Damn you, I now have the urge to directly contribute to the vital research project you propose here, but I'm currently to far from the nearest body of water which connects to the ocean, happily, the old toilet eventually connects...
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 18 2019, @01:16AM
Sorry about that.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday July 17 2019, @01:17PM (1 child)
No, you can’t make that assumption without knowing whether or not the total molar quantity of gas in the atmosphere is being held constant. For example, you can add CO2 to a system without removing any other gasses, which would cause the ppm of CO2 to increase, the ppm of other gasses to go down, but without changing their their molar or absolute quantity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @12:24AM
What basis do you have for saying this is an incorrect assumption?
(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.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 18 2019, @12:26AM
Doesn't add up to 100% anymore? Why are you lying, or are you just stupid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @11:52AM (2 children)
Just a bit upstream from the Great Barrier Reef.
To sell coal to India for peanuts.
Go us!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 17 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)
Coal mines, while terrible for people who like drinking water, don't produce unstable nitrates in substantial amounts.
It's one of the tough things about science-based environmentalism, is that you have to accept that not all pollution poses the same kind of threat, it's not all just brown radioactive sludge shot from the hands of Captain Pollution. You can't reduce CO2 emissions by recycling your plastic bottles. You can't save air quality by opposing a nuclear plant. You can't stop the Gulf Dead Zone by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. We didn't stop the ozone hole by ending particulate pollution. You can't fix cholera outbreaks by saving the rainforest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @04:12PM
Actually, the Adani mine is a threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Most of the GBR die-offs are attributable to silt run-off from Queensland floods, and it is very likely that Adani will make that worse.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:37PM (7 children)
The minor rise in ocean temperature never did make sense as a cause for coral bleaching. It good to finally have an explanation that is halfway believable. Easily testable, too. If this can be confirmed, then we're just back to the known problem of sea water pollution.
There are four main sources of nitrogen pollution:
- Untreated sewage mostly comes from Asia, to a lesser extent from Africa, with the rest of the world a rounding error. International sanctions seem like a good lever: impose tariffs that drop as river pollution drops.
- Agricultural runoff is a more general problem, but one that farmers themselves have an incentive to solve. They don't want their top soil and expensive fertilizer running off. What's needed is generally better farming practices. Nothing new, nothing extraordinary, just common sense practices that prevent erosion and preserve land fertility.
- Runoff, particularly in cities. Due to the sheer quantity, runoff does not go through the sewage plants - it is redirected straight into the rivers. Really, there needs to be a reduced level of treatment or filtering, to remove not only nitrogen, but microplastics (primarily from tires on roads), and other serious pollutants.
- High-temperature, poorly-controlled combustion. Coal-fired power plants with poor exhaust treatment, or crappy internal combustion engines (for example, cargo ships burning bunker fuel).
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 17 2019, @01:32PM
Chasing Coral, and other documentaries have looked at sections of the Great Barrier Reef 100+ miles offshore, which are also experiencing significant bleaching.
It's not surprising that runoff is a major factor so close to "Big Sugar" and the whole Southwest Florida and even Gulf States + Mississippi River outflow of agricultural and residential fertilizers.
I doubt that runoff is what's killing remote sections of the GBR.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17 2019, @01:36PM (5 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 17 2019, @03:30PM (4 children)
Can you recognize a subtle climate change denial piece when it's put in front of you?
Coral bleaching is a global phenomenon, both in connection with Nitrogen runoff, and without.
Sure, Looe Key reef is positioned in extremely close proximity to heavy fertilizer runoff sources - not surprising that that is a prime driver in that location, and if we could wean the Everglades' economy off of Big Sugar things would improve dramatically.
However, explaining away one highly runoff contaminated reef's bleaching as "mostly not caused by warming" doesn't explain the rest of the bleached reefs around the globe.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @07:48PM (2 children)
Well, then YOU explain the multitude of UNbleached reefs in this world. Start with those in warmer waters than the ones that bleached.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @08:10PM (1 child)
Citations needed, and even if there are multiple sites where coral is doing fine you would then need to have ocean temp measurements for those areas to see if they are experiencing the same increases.
But knowing this site's user base you are probably just a denying jackass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @11:26AM
I do not observe ANY of your congregation posting ANY hard data in this whole discussion; only tired, rote, inept insults. Besides, rubbing your snout in search engine output is useless in any case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome [wikipedia.org] is incurable as far as current science knows.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 18 2019, @01:33AM
Sure. But your post isn't that subtle. For example, you don't even bother to present evidence that we're anywhere near a subtle climate change denial piece. It's an insinuation you make and drop.
Sure. And it would be, even if we were in the hypothetical situation where there was no global warming or nitrogen runoff.
But it might explain most changes in frequency and severity of coral bleaching from say a few centuries ago. At some point, we're going to need evidence to go with that conjecture you've been introducing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @01:27PM (1 child)
my theory is that coral reefs are noutrient starved. lots of light tho. water is clear .. light can go down.
coral thus is a combo of a plant and a animal. the hard stuff protects the algae from filter feeder and the algae helps the animals make more
protective barriers
throw in noutrients and the two divorce. the algae gives the polyps the finger 'cause there's a new sugar ..errr... nitrigon daddy in town.
after all nitrogen is consumed in a multiplying orgy the algae need to find shelter again but the animal part of the coral has died 'cause of missing love ...
so leave the frrtilizing of coral reefs to the whale sharks (big poops) and stop taking kids and kids in grown up size to coral reefs for $$$ and stop peeing in your dive suit when around corals ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @02:21PM
Is this realDonaldTrump? Your session expired, you’re posting as AC
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @02:36PM
-nt
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday July 17 2019, @05:25PM (1 child)
This has been known for a very long time. Coral bleaching is the result of *multiple* stressors happening at the same time. Water temperature is important, but it's not the only thing that's important. Various forms of pollution are also quite important. So is the presence of invasive predators (on coral). So is being banged into by ships, boats, etc.
If the environment were otherwise idea, the coral would be a lot more resistant to the effects of warming. Surprise! Multiple sources of injury increase the rate of damage.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @08:08PM
The surprise is not that multiple stressors damage coral, it is that phosphorus loss is one of those stressors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @06:48PM (1 child)
Clearly, the answer here is to start dumping massive quantities of phosphorus into the ocean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @08:37AM
Why? We have adani for that kind of thang
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday July 18 2019, @01:18PM
... is the somewhat recent bloom of Sargassum seaweed in the Caribbean [newrepublic.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19 2019, @06:56AM
So global warming still is a factor.......