4 ms·

It's very sad that reefs are dying, but it seems that their whole existence was very much tied to a very specific amount of carbon in the atmosphere. (about 265

It's very sad that reefs are dying, but it seems that their whole existence was very much tied to a very specific amount of carbon in the atmosphere. (about 265 ppm co2) The scary thing is that these reefs are so incredibly diverse & their creation took millions of years. Millions of years to create and they can be globally destroyed in just 200 or so years. It's also scary is to consider what else may be balanced just as precariously.

darkseas 11y ago
The Great Barrier Reef formed over the last 14,000 years since the last Ice Age rather than million years as you suggest. And while the vast colonies may die, and their calcareous skeletons may dissolve as the ocean acidifies, the polyps themselves will probably survive fine in different forms in other ecological niches. This will be no help for the diverse array of creatures that rely on the reefs, or associated fisheries and tourism industries however.
DanBC 11y ago
The rest of the ocean might be balanced precariously on how acid they are. Slight increases make it impossible for some creatures to create shells. Those creatures are key parts of the food chain, which means that fisheries (already under sever pressure from over-fishing) risk total collapse. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140502-ocean-snail-shell-dissolving-acidification-climate-change-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140502-ocean... http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidificati... But not all species are going to be vulnerable to this. Some grow thicker shells. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/ocean-acidification--a-risky-shell-game http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/ocean-acidification--a-r... > Under very high experimental CO2 conditions, the shells of clams, oysters, and some snails and urchins partially dissolved. But other species seemed as if they would not be harmed, and crustaceans, such as lobsters, crabs, and prawns, appeared to increase their shell-building (see interactive).
donatj 11y ago
How did they survive the ice ages and previous warm ages, and what makes this different?
- chillydawg 11y ago
  Individual reefs probably would not have survived. The polyps would have taken root elsewhere (probably closer to the equator in ice ages). The organisms have evolved over millions of years and are clearly hardy to drastic climate change. The issue is that the reefs themselves will certainly die and big, new ones won't form for thousands of years. So from our point of view, they're "extinct".
zo1 11y ago
Personally, I really don't care about the disappearance of coral reefs specifically. I know that may seem heartless, and indifferent, but the emotion for them just isn't there. There is no rational argument that appeals to me, either, other than scientific study/research. The entire discussion around coral reefs has been going on since I was young and can remember(at least 20-odd years). It was always emotional (think of the children level guilt-tripping, almost), and was always "assumed" and dictated. There was never any convincing, discussing; it was just the way it is and we as young children were to accept it. And despite all of that, we as a society have spoken the other way around and gone ahead and potentially ruined the delicate environment required for these creatures. It's who a majority of us are. Perhaps not who we should be, or who we'd like to be, but this is largely of our doing and our inability to convince those in power and the rest of society to protect the things we value.

darkseas 11y ago

The Great Barrier Reef formed over the last 14,000 years since the last Ice Age rather than million years as you suggest. And while the vast colonies may die, and their calcareous skeletons may dissolve as the ocean acidifies, the polyps themselves will probably survive fine in different forms in other ecological niches. This will be no help for the diverse array of creatures that rely on the reefs, or associated fisheries and tourism industries however.

DanBC 11y ago

The rest of the ocean might be balanced precariously on how acid they are. Slight increases make it impossible for some creatures to create shells. Those creatures are key parts of the food chain, which means that fisheries (already under sever pressure from over-fishing) risk total collapse. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140502-ocean-snail-shell-dissolving-acidification-climate-change-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140502-ocean... http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidificati... But not all species are going to be vulnerable to this. Some grow thicker shells. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/ocean-acidification--a-risky-shell-game http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/ocean-acidification--a-r... > Under very high experimental CO2 conditions, the shells of clams, oysters, and some snails and urchins partially dissolved. But other species seemed as if they would not be harmed, and crustaceans, such as lobsters, crabs, and prawns, appeared to increase their shell-building (see interactive).

donatj 11y ago

How did they survive the ice ages and previous warm ages, and what makes this different?

chillydawg 11y ago
Individual reefs probably would not have survived. The polyps would have taken root elsewhere (probably closer to the equator in ice ages). The organisms have evolved over millions of years and are clearly hardy to drastic climate change. The issue is that the reefs themselves will certainly die and big, new ones won't form for thousands of years. So from our point of view, they're "extinct".

zo1 11y ago

Personally, I really don't care about the disappearance of coral reefs specifically. I know that may seem heartless, and indifferent, but the emotion for them just isn't there. There is no rational argument that appeals to me, either, other than scientific study/research. The entire discussion around coral reefs has been going on since I was young and can remember(at least 20-odd years). It was always emotional (think of the children level guilt-tripping, almost), and was always "assumed" and dictated. There was never any convincing, discussing; it was just the way it is and we as young children were to accept it. And despite all of that, we as a society have spoken the other way around and gone ahead and potentially ruined the delicate environment required for these creatures. It's who a majority of us are. Perhaps not who we should be, or who we'd like to be, but this is largely of our doing and our inability to convince those in power and the rest of society to protect the things we value.