[Coral-List] Responding to Coral Bleaching
Risk, Michael
riskmj at mcmaster.ca
Fri Sep 18 20:14:39 EDT 2015
Sorry for the short post.
Agree with you. Not only is it not a good idea to try to fix what ain’t broke, it may be a worse idea to try to fix something when you aren’t sure what broke it.
COT-killing robots are a cool idea, gets you on the news. Would it not be a better long-term solution to shut down the nutrient sources that are fuelling the COT blooms and killing the reefs?
Mike
On Sep 18, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu> wrote:
> Sorry for the long post (feel free to hit the delete button), but I've been
> lurking over the recent, and sometimes heated, discussions - so I don't
> know where to start (or finish). As penance, I will fall back into the
> shadows for at least a month.
>
> I have to admit a bit of trepidation with the "bounty hunter" approach to
> marine conservation. I'm not weighing in on the pros and cons of specific
> methods for specific species... or the need to control populations that are
> truly out of control. My concern grows out of having lived long enough and
> in many diverse places to view well-meaning but flawed efforts.... and to
> see the evolution in our thinking over what is "good" and what is "bad"..
> As a result, my first reaction is always to be wary.
>
> Some of us remember failed attempts to maintain "the proper balance"
> between elk and beavers as one modifies streams (beavers make dams) and the
> other (elk) regulate the surrounding environments trough grazing. The issue
> was changing stream gradient and habitat degradation due to beavers damming
> the streams and hunters (in this case, wolves and *Homo stupidus*) killing
> off all the elk. Because killing hunters was frowned upon for reasons I
> never understood, wolves were the primary target.
>
> Six years ago, we had a candidate for our Earth Surface Processes position
> who discussed the problems with beavers modifying the biophysical system
> (his PhD thesis). The primary drivers were "shown to be" loss of elk and
> those damming beavers.
>
> He just came back last year to give a talk..... and apparently the entire
> situation has changed. The elk are coming back in droves after stringent
> conservation efforts, but the biophysical system is not resetting. The
> suggestion is that the the system had reached a "tipping point" beyond
> where the fluvial system could reset.... or at least that's what they are
> thinking now. The working alternative is that maybe the beavers they drove
> out to stabilize the system weren't actually the problem they had
> thought... and that the elk-flora connection wasn't as simple as assumed -
> nor the wolves.
>
> These working hypotheses are pretty different from the standpoint of
> implementing a management plan.... maybe it's beavers... maybe it's elk.....
> both?..... neither?... how about those wolves????? The answer they have now
> is too complicated to lay out here, but suffice it to say that it's pretty
> different than what they thought less than a decade ago. So, now we have no
> beavers, no wolves, a moderate increase in elk.... and no measurable
> improvement.
>
> I also lived through a program in northern Maine where they systematically
> went after coyotes that were apparently driving down the deer
> population.... a huge source of revenue. 40 years later, there are neither
> coyotes nor deer. And, where deer are abundant, we hear complaints that
> "there are more deer than when Columbus landed" and that the conflict
> between growing populations of deer and farmers is due to the deer side of
> the equation. I don't claim to be an expert on the latter balance, but I
> have read descriptions of Benedict Arnold having no problem shooting a
> couple of deer a day to keep his soldiers well fed en route to Montreal.
> Yet, today hunting is pretty dismal along that route. Maybe Benedict shot
> straighter than the average hunter today with their semi-automatic rifles..
> But, maybe not.
>
> Same story for porcupines. In the early 1960s, we had a hefty bounty on
> them, largely because of their drive to find salt.... which attracted them
> to the handles of shovels, axes, etc. all valued by any good Mainer. I
> could go on, but I'm sure everyone gets the pattern.
>
> So..... lets move on to the present marine system. I'm certainly not
> arguing that COTS are "great" for reefs or that invasive Lionfish are
> "good" for other Caribbean fauna. However, I have read about efforts to
> extirpate damselfish, in some instances characterizing them as the most
> negative impact on coral reefs today. While I agree that, pound for pound,
> they are the most dangerous beast on the reef, I remember a time when their
> "farming" methods were heralded as somewhere between "efficient" and
> "necessary for the maintainance of healthy algal turfs".
>
> As I understand the situation, in some places they are nipping off "too
> many" polyps to create algal habitat and are, therefore, perceived as a
> source of local "reef decline". I was in Belize last summer with the Keck
> Geology Consortium and watched a student (not mine) do a great study that
> looked at where damsels did and did not "damage" substrate. It turned out
> that they nipped away somewhat equally in areas of *A. cervicornis* that
> were "healthy" and "not so healthy" but that negative effects were
> occurring only in areas that were already degraded. If this is the case,
> then killing the fish won't have much of a positive effect (they seem to
> only affect corals already on their way out).... and fish biomass is going
> to be lower. While this is only one example from one place, the apparent
> assumption where damsels have a bounty on their heads is that substrate
> loss trumps higher fish biomass, so the damsels have to go.
>
> There has been a long-standing argument about the value in restoring
> parrotfish versus reducing emissions. A recent article in *Coral Reefs*
> fairly clearly shows that a significant rebound in grazing fish in the
> Florida Keys has had no measurable impact on coral cover. We saw similar
> patterns in the Virgin Islands in a study that compared coral cover,
> macroalgal density and grazers on two reefs 2 km apart - one in Buck Island
> National Park and the other on Tague Bay, where years of data were
> available from when West Indies Lab was still there.
>
> The long and short of it was that parrotfish numbers were up significantly
> in the park for obvious reasons. At the same time, urchin densities along
> the Tague Bay forereef were much higher that two decades earlier and, in
> some places, were close to what had been reported prior to 1983. At both
> sites, macroalgae were essentially non-existant.... but, so were new
> corals. The apparent issue was recruitment, but the question is how much of
> this was climate change versus changing nutrient dynamics versus
> warming/acidification - each having different management implications.
>
> Whatever the explanation, both sites have higher rates of bioerosion today
> than they did when grazers were scarce. Because, coral cover has remained
> low in both instances, the balance between carbonate production and
> bioerosion is going progressively in favor of the latter.... not due to
> losses of corals, but rather due to increased bioerosion in an area that is
> not recovering with respect to calcification.
>
> From a purely biological perspective, it might be argued that this is
> positive because at least fish biomass is going up. But, this seems
> contrary to the argument for aggressive damselfish hunting cited above......
> to paraphrase it as I understand it, "higher fish biomass is not a good
> thing in light of all the negative impacts their nipping at corals cause"..
> So, at what point do we start hunting the parrotfish and urchins to reduce
> the negative side of the budget equation?
>
> I am confident that there are people on the listserve closer to some of
> these examples that I am... and I will defer to their opinions. My larger
> point is that, even if particular examples are off base, there have been
> more than enough examples of conservation gone awry from "managing" a
> population based on our perceptions of "good" and "bad" at the time. I
> often wonder whether the greater hubris exists in our earlier perception
> that the world is "our garden" or in our present sense that we can "fix
> it". As we discuss the pros and cons of different strategies, we want to be
> very careful about our assumptions that are too often based as much on our
> personal values as on irrefutable data. As we look toward species that
> might be more resistant to warming, we might ask whether they are
> "equivalent" to what was there before (recovery vs restoration)? Certainly
> there is a tremendous potential for a loss. Do the "better" corals produce
> carbonate at similar rates and create skeletons that are similarly robust
> to what occurred there before? Putting branching corals at sites previously
> dominated by massive species is going to change the resistance of that
> community to increasing wave action as storminess is on the rise. And... if
> corals are broken more often, they will be moved more easily by those same
> waves.In this example faster-growing corals that are more easily broken
> could lead to reduced accretion. So, diversity and cover might be at odds
> with reef building unless we are very clever.
>
> Changing gears, if the solution for reef islands is "more sand", might
> increased bioerosion be "better"? A total budget approach says "no", and I
> agree, but I have seen the opposing view expressed here. In addition, to
> the extent that bioerosion is contributing to a loss of surface rugosity,
> it is lowering the potential for wave reduction. So.... should we be
> killing grazers in areas where coral cover is already low so that we can
> slow down large-scale reef erosion. Absurd... maybe, but...?
>
> I am advocating for none of these alternatives, but am concerned that we
> are not thinking about them and others in a systematic manner. Some of the
> suggestions I have made seem as bizarre to me as they probably do to the
> readers. However, what we presently know about the complex predator/prey
> relationships obviously seemed equally far-fetched to the managers who took
> paths we now know to be nonsense. We have backed ourselves into a corner
> and dragged the reefs in with us. Perhaps we don't have the time for
> rational thought, given the time lag between the creation of "knowledge"
> and the implementation of solid "policy" that is based on it. I hope that
> the upcoming meeting in Hawaii will give us the opportunity to have
> meaningful discussions that can only occur across disciplinary boundaries..
> I fear that we are each going to spend most of our time in the same session
> because "it's what we do". I hope we can all discuss this further, but
> you'll have to catch me as I run from the biology session to the geology
> session and then over to hear all about management. There's way too much to
> learn that won't be discussed in "my favorite" session.
>
> Dennis
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Ross <ross.andrew at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Doug & Austin,
>> What Austin is describing might be akin to the recreational hunting
>> programmes for lionfish in the Caribbean
>> “Eat it to beat it” etc.
>>
>> Problem in transferring to COT might be:
>> Lionfish are a) tasty b) easy and c) invasive, thus with reduced karmic
>> baggage.
>> COTs, unfortunately
>> a) hasn’t got a straightforward secondary value such as lunch and
>> b) is often difficult to remove from the reef while poisoning doesn’t
>> provide a “trophy”.
>> c) Overpopulation &/or ecosystem damage arguments may mitigate one’s
>> issues with St Peter et al.
>>
>> So, how do we make COT hunting “sexy” to bring in the recreational?
>>
>> b) Trophy:
>> Methods that remove the animal from the water for a photo or
>> competitive-count expose the diver to stings and tend to be relatively
>> inefficient.
>> Air-inflating methods might start to get around that.
>>
>> a) Food/use:
>> A soup or roe-based sushi?
>> Chicken feed?
>> Do they at least make a decent garden fertilizer?
>>
>> c) Karma:
>> May be a paid "voluntourism” activity,
>> though this often gets its own complications, particularly as key areas
>> get hunted-out and less efficient for the hunter/operator.
>> With collection (trophy & Facebook photos) would be better, but such
>> volunteers may be amenable to poisoning.
>>
>> Thinking out loud,
>>
>> Andrew Ross Ph.D.
>> Seascape Caribbean
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Douglas Fenner <
>> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is a GREAT idea!!
>>>
>>> When there are millions of crown-of-thorns starfish, trying to control
>>> them has not worked. However, in a situation like that you describe,
>> there
>>> are not so many. Maybe we were all scared off by the impossibility of
>>> controlling millions of them. But when there are modest numbers, we
>> really
>>> can make a difference. In American Samoa, we had the beginnings of an
>>> outbreak in the last few years. People got concerned, and started
>> killing
>>> them. National Parks is devoting significant effort to lead the way in
>>> controlling them, and so far it is working brilliantly. Like cancer, if
>>> you catch an outbreak early enough, you may be able to control it.
>>> We're all super frustrated that all we can do is sit by and watch
>>> bleaching kill coral. But this is something we can do, which can make a
>>> real difference.
>>> Your observations remind me of the paper by Nancy Knowlton, Judy Lang
>>> and Brian Keller on the Acropora in Jamaica after Hurricane Allen broke
>> so
>>> much coral, killing it, in 1980. The Acropora started to come back over
>>> the next 3 years, but then the Coraliophila snails ate the smaller amount
>>> remaining, just as you describe. After that, the reef there has stayed
>>> stuck in a low-coral, high-algae phase for decades.
>>> Killing crown-of-thorns is very practical, and every kill saves
>>> coral. Crown-of-Thorns as a species will survive, you can't get the last
>>> ones, but you can return them to close to their natural, very-low
>> densities
>>> that are present between outbreaks.
>>> Further, the best empirical support for the cause of outbreaks is
>>> nutrients that fuel phytoplankton that feeds starfish larvae, increasing
>>> larval survival. If humans add to the nutrients, then part of the cause
>> of
>>> outbreaks may be human impacts. Removing the starfish is helping
>> restore a
>>> natural ecosystem. Plus save more of the temperature-tolerant corals
>> that
>>> survived, we need all of those we can get!
>>> So, splendid idea!! I understand that injection kits are currently
>>> the most efficient way to kill them. Managers rarely get to benefit the
>>> reef directly, this is one of the few instances. In the long run, if an
>>> area is impacted by human-produced nutrient runoff, then reducing that
>>> nutrient runoff may reduce crown-of-thorns outbreak frequency and benefit
>>> the reef that way. The ability of the coral community to recover from
>>> bleaching mortality is resilience, so removing crown-of-thorns is
>>> increasing reef resilience. Good thing to do.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Doug
>>>
>>> Knowlton N, Lang JC, Keller BD (1990) Case study of natural population
>>> collapse: post-hurricane predation on Jamaican staghorn corals.
>>> Smithsonian Contributions in Marine Science, 31: 1-25
>>>
>>> Birkeland C (1982) Terrestrial runoff as a cause of outbreaks of
>> *Acanthaster
>>> planci*. Marine Biology 69: 175-185.
>>>
>>>
>>> Birkeland, C. 1989. The Faustian traits of the crown-of-thorns
>> starfish.
>>> American Scientist 77: 154-163.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brodie, J., Fabricius, K., De'ath, G., Okaji, K. 2005. Are increased
>>> nutrient inputs responsible for more outbreaks of crown-of-thorns
>>> starfish? An appraisal of the evidence. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51:
>>> 266-278.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Austin Bowden-Kerby <
>> abowdenkerby at gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>
>>>> The reports of massive bleaching developing in both the Pacific and
>>>> Caribbean are quite concerning to us all. Is there nothing we can do
>> but
>>>> stand by and passively watch? I propose an alternative approach.
>>>>
>>>> In Fiji, the massive bleaching event of 2000 killed 90% or more of the
>>>> corals on some of our Southern Reefs. The few surviving unbleached
>> corals
>>>> provided hope that the reefs could adapt over time, however
>>>> *Acanthaster *(COTS)
>>>> subsequently killed most of these surviving corals on many of these
>> reefs.
>>>> The probable explanation is simple: before the bleaching, COTS were in
>> a
>>>> state of low relative abundance, but once most of the corals were gone,
>>>> their relative abundance with respect to the corals became extremely
>> high
>>>> and thus deadly for the surviving bleaching resistant corals,
>> particularly
>>>> their favored prey *Acropora* and *Pocillopora*. In the Dominican
>>>> Republic, we saw a similar post-bleaching scenario in 2005, but with
>>>> *Coraliophila* snails and *Hermodice* fire worms as the predators.
>>>>
>>>> Might this be the ideal time to mobilize community groups to conduct
>> major
>>>> COTS removal programs in the Pacific- at least for reefs with high
>>>> recreational value? The alternative is for concerned people to stand
>> by
>>>> and watch in horror, as their precious reefs die of causes that (for the
>>>> most part) they are powerless to control. If COTS removal were done
>> in a
>>>> systematic manner, control reefs (without COTS removal) could be
>>>> established for comparative purposes to get an indication of the
>> relative
>>>> effectiveness of COTS removal as a proactive climate change adaptation
>>>> strategy for bleaching stressed reefs.
>>>>
>>>> A single COTS can kill a fist-sized coral every day, and that
>> translates to
>>>> massive amounts of corals consumed. Every coral that survives this
>>>> major bleaching event represents a genetic treasure
>>>> vital for the future survival of coral reefs on the planet. Now is the
>>>> time to act, to ensure that these corals survive the post-bleaching
>>>> predator plagues that can be expected nearly everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> I recently submitted a proposal to USAID PACCAM that was turned down, to
>>>> assist Kiribati with their bleaching emergency. The proposed strategy
>>>> involved three components: 1. Protecting surviving (bleaching
>> resistant)
>>>> corals through a systematic coral predator removal program carried out
>> on
>>>> specific reef patches, 2. Collection of small fragments of surviving,
>>>> non-bleached (heat-adapted) corals and establishment within coral
>> nurseries
>>>> secure from predation, and 3. At one year and beyond the nursery corals
>> are
>>>> trimmed to produce second-generation, bleaching resistant corals for
>>>> out-planting into selected reef patches.
>>>>
>>>> Where possible, the bleaching resistant corals are planted into no-take
>>>> Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), to take advantage of the greater
>> ecological
>>>> balance and lower abundance of coral predators there. Communities
>> should be
>>>> very much a part of this process, and should be engaged and mobilized.
>> The
>>>> result will be increased human resources involved in nurturing pockets
>> of
>>>> exceptional coral reef health that are composed of bleaching resistant
>>>> corals that have a higher probability of surviving into the future.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Austin
>>>>
>>>> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
>>>> Corals for Conservation
>>>> P.O. Box 649 Samabula
>>>> Fiji Islands
>>>> abowdenkerby at gmail.com
>>>> Facebook: Corals for Conservation
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Austin Bowden-Kerby <
>>>> abowdenkerby at gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Gmail won't let me change the subject heading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Responding to Coral Bleaching
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>>
>>>>> The reports of massive bleaching developing in both the Pacific and
>>>>> Caribbean are quite concerning to us all. Is there nothing we can do
>>>> but
>>>>> stand by and passively watch? I propose and alternative approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Fiji, the massive bleaching event of 2000 killed 90% or more of the
>>>>> corals on some of our Southern Reefs. The few surviving unbleached
>> corals
>>>>> provided hope that the reefs could adapt over time, however
>>>>> *Acanthaster *(COTS) subsequently killed most of these surviving
>>>>> corals on many of these reefs. The probable explanation is simple:
>>>> before
>>>>> the bleaching, COTS were in a state of low relative abundance, but once
>>>>> most of the corals were gone, their relative abundance became extremely
>>>>> high and thus deadly for the surviving bleaching resistant corals,
>>>>> particularly their favored prey *Acropora* and *Pocillopora*. In the
>>>>> Dominican Republic, we saw a similar post-bleaching scenario in 2005,
>> but
>>>>> with *Coraliophila* snails and *Hermodice* fire worms as the predators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Might this be the ideal time to mobilize community groups to conduct
>>>> major
>>>>> COTS removal programs in the Pacific- at least for reefs with high
>>>>> recreational value? The alternative is for concerned people to stand
>> by
>>>>> and watch in horror, as their precious reefs die of causes that (for
>> the
>>>>> most part) they are powerless to control. If COTS removal were done
>> in
>>>> a
>>>>> systematic manner, control reefs (without COTS removal) could be
>>>>> established for comparative purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> A single COTS can kill a fist-sized coral every day, and that
>> translates
>>>>> to massive amounts of corals consumed. Every coral that survives this
>>>>> massive bleaching event represents a genetic treasure vital for the
>>>> future
>>>>> survival of coral reefs on the planet. Now I the time to act, to
>> ensure
>>>>> that these corals survive the post-bleaching predator plagues that can
>> be
>>>>> expected nearly everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently submitted a proposal to USAID PACCAM that was turned down,
>> to
>>>>> assist Kiribati with their bleaching emergency. The proposed strategy
>>>>> involves three components: 1. Protecting surviving (bleaching
>> resistant)
>>>>> corals through a systematic coral predator removal program carried out
>> on
>>>>> specific reef patches, 2. Collection of small fragments of surviving,
>>>>> non-bleached (heat-adapted) corals and establishment within coral
>>>> nurseries
>>>>> secure from predation, and 3. At one year and beyond the nursery corals
>>>>> are trimmed to produce second-generation, bleaching resistant corals
>> for
>>>>> out-planting into selected reef patches. Where possible, the corals are
>>>>> planted into no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), to take advantage
>> of
>>>>> the greater ecological balance and lower abundance of coral predators
>>>>> there. Communities should be very much a part of this process,
>>>>> and should be engaged and mobilized. The result will be increased human
>>>>> resources involved in nurturing pockets of exceptional coral reef
>> health,
>>>>> composed of corals that are bleaching resistant and that have a higher
>>>>> probability of surviving into the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Austin
>>>>>
>>>>> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
>>>>> Corals for Conservation
>>>>> P.O. Box 649 Samabula
>>>>> Fiji Islands
>>>>> abowdenkerby at gmail.com
>>>>> Facebook: Corals for Conservation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 3
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:10:56 -0400
>>>>>> From: Shelly-Ann Cox <scox at cimh.edu.bb>
>>>>>> Subject: [Coral-List] September Issue of the Caribbean Coral Reef
>>>>>> Watch Bulletin Available!
>>>>>> To: coralwatch at cimh.edu.bb
>>>>>> Message-ID: <bc9ce0f518b1baf2af640c84d7756c25 at cimh.edu.bb>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're pleased to announce the release of the latest issue of the Coral
>>>>>> Reef Watch Bulletin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notable observations include:
>>>>>> - A strong El Ni?o has developed.
>>>>>> - Alert level 1 issued for Central Bahamas and Northwest Cuba.
>> Bleaching
>>>>>> warnings issued for Belize, Turks and Caicos Islands and all the
>> islands
>>>>>> in the Greater and Lesser Antilles.
>>>>>> - Reports of paling and disease outbreaks have begun in Florida.
>> Partial
>>>>>> bleaching signs observed in Mona Island, Puerto Rico.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the full issue: http://bit.ly/CRW_Sept_Issue4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> Shelly-Ann
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Shelly-Ann Cox
>>>>>> Research Associate
>>>>>> The Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology (CIMH)
>>>>>> Address: Husbands, St. James, Barbados
>>>>>> Tel: 1(246)425-1362/3
>>>>>> Fax: 1(246)424-4733
>>>>>> Skype ID: shellyanncox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
>>>> Corals for Conservation
>>>> P.O. Box 4649 Samabula, Fiji Islands
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/C4Conservation
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009j6wb
>>>>
>>>> Sustainable Environmental Livelihoods Farm
>>>> Km 20 Sigatoka Valley Road, Fiji Islands
>>>> (679) 938-6437
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://permacultureglobal.com/projects/1759-sustainable-environmental-livelihoods-farm-Fiji
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/teiteifarmstay
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Douglas Fenner
>>> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
>>> PO Box 7390
>>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
>>>
>>> phone 1 684 622-7084
>>>
>>> Join the International Society for Reef Studies. Membership includes a
>>> subscription to the journal Coral Reefs, there are discounts for pdf
>>> subscriptions and developing countries. www.fit.edu/isrs/
>>>
>>> "Belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."- Jim
>> Beever.
>>> "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own
>> facts."-
>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
>>>
>>> Energy policy: push renewables to spur carbon pricing. (the world
>>> subsidizes fossil fuels a half Trillion dollars a year!)
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7567/full/nature14876.html?WT..ec_id=NATURE-20150904&spMailingID=49465812&spUserID=MjA1NTA3MjA0OQS2&spJobID=760401953&spReportId=NzYwNDAxOTUzS0
>>>
>>> Worst-case scenario: if we burn all remaining fossil fuels, Antarctica
>>> would melt entirely, raise sea level 200 feet.
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.newsweek.com/worst-case-scenario-if-we-burn-all-remaining-fossil-fuels-antarctica-would-371280
>>>
>>> 5 trillion tons of ice lost since 2002. (that's trillion with a "T".
>>> Check the steady loss in the graphs.)
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/03/ice_loss_greenland_and_antarctica_lost_5_trillion_tons_since_1992.html
>>>
>>>
>>> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
>>>
>>> blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Hubbard
> Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
> (440) 775-8346
>
> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
> Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
Risk, Michael
riskmj at mcmaster.ca
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list