rosentha@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Peter A. Rosenthal) (11/30/90)
It is well known that healthy coral reefs are quite effective at fixing carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate skelatons. They are also remarkably productive ecosystems that support enormous diversity in an astoundingly nutrient poor environment. I would like to start some discussion on the possible importance of coral in fixing C02 from the atmosphere. Some interesting questions: 1. Is the current area of coral reef a significant carbon eater compared to other sinks such as forests? 2. How large an area of reefs would we need to balance the industrial outputs of society? 3. Are there any ways of artificially creating reefs to increase their area? Substrates out in the open ocean? How would one anchor them? The open ocean is a relatively poor producer because of a lack of substrate, but in the tropics it gets very intense insolation. Platforms floating a few meters beneath the surface could be potentially very productive.
kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) (11/30/90)
In article <719@sierra.stanford.edu> rosentha@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Peter A. Rosenthal) writes: > > It is well known that healthy coral reefs are quite >effective at fixing carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate skelatons. >They are also remarkably productive ecosystems that support enormous >diversity in an astoundingly nutrient poor environment. I would >like to start some discussion on the possible importance >of coral in fixing C02 from the atmosphere. You may also want to consider the possibility that global warming exists only in certain crude computer models that have been extrapolated far beyond reasonable limits. There is actually little scientific data which supports global warming, and in fact, global temperature measurements show that the warming simply isn't happening. -- +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Kenneth W. Fernald | "To recognize that nature has neither a | | kwf@ecersg.ece.ncsu.edu | preference for our species nor a bias against | | North Carolina State Univ. | it takes only a little courage" - James Randi |
bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (12/01/90)
rosentha@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Peter A. Rosenthal) writes: >> >> It is well known that healthy coral reefs are quite >>effective at fixing carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate skelatons. >>They are also remarkably productive ecosystems that support enormous >>diversity in an astoundingly nutrient poor environment. I would >>like to start some discussion on the possible importance >>of coral in fixing C02 from the atmosphere. kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >You may also want to consider the possibility that global warming >exists only in certain crude computer models that have been >extrapolated far beyond reasonable limits. There is actually little >scientific data which supports global warming, and in fact, global >temperature measurements show that the warming simply isn't happening. Ken, you may want to consider the fact that atmospheric CO2 _has_ increased. As for Peter's question, IMO I don't think reef-building corals can be effectively used to abate atmospheric CO2. I think their ability to fix CO2 will be limited by calcium and other nutrients. Also, reef-building corals are restricted to warm waters. The simplest solution to reducing atmospheric CO2 is of course to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. One quarter of all the CO2 generated by humans is generated within the USA. Note that this is far larger than the percentage of humans that live in the USA. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
ilana@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) (12/01/90)
(This no longer has much to do with coral reefs, and thus sci.aquaria/bio, but I couldn't let this by.) In article <1990Nov30.141515.26084@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: > >You may also want to consider the possibility that global warming >exists only in certain crude computer models that have been >extrapolated far beyond reasonable limits. There is actually little >scientific data which supports global warming, and in fact, global >temperature measurements show that the warming simply isn't happening. 1) The computer models are not crude (I've worked with them, I know!) unless your definition of crude is "something that falls short of being a perfect model in any respect." Models today include such variables as heat fluxes into and out of the surface, soil temperature and moisture, ocean currents, clouds (which are no longer "white boxes" but include some microphysics), and rain and snowfall. 2) "Extrapolated far beyond reasonable limits" is handwaving. What is a reasonable limit, to you? Considering the chaotic nature of the atmosphere, in a sense anything beyond 10-14 days is unreasonable as an exact forecast. BUT we are not trying to forecast the temperature on July 25th, 2010. Hundreds of runs are made, "spinning up" the climate until it reaches a steady state, and the average of the results is what is considered. 3) There is a great deal of scientific data which supports global warming. It does not support it unequivocably. The observed warming (0.3-0.6C/100 years, with the five warmest years in the 1980s) is of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. The warming could be due to this; or possibly, the variability and other human factors contributing to cooling could have offset an even greater warming. 4) It is misleading to say that the warming isn't happening. We know that *theoretically* the increase in certain gases in the atmosphere will result in a warmer climate. This theoretical smooth curve will be broken to bits by things such as natural variability, biological effects (such as the coral alluded to in the original thread), and other gases with cooling effects (sulfur compounds from volcanos and industrial emissions, for example). Screaming that catastrophic global warming is inevitable is a misleading mistake, but dismissing it out of hand is another mistake. Ilana [Numbers and facts in this posting are from the WMO IPCC summary, _Scientific Assessment of Climate Change_. I may post excerpts from it in sci.environment if I have time, and if I can get permission from the IPCC chairman. Opinions are not the official opinions of NCAR. The DoD# in my signature has nothing to do with the Department of Defense.] -- Ilana Stern / ilana@ncar.ucar.edu / DoD #00009 The throttle acts primarily as an occasional form of humor and social commentary.
frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) (12/01/90)
rosentha@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Peter A. Rosenthal) writes: > Some interesting questions: Some interesting questions, but fairly moot. Coral reefs grow much too slowly, and I believe the real CO2 consumer in the ocean is plankton. A very scary prognosis (seen on PBS) was that, when the water warms a few degrees and the specific gravity drops, much of the plankton will die, elimintating it as a CO2 consumer, and probably killing most of the ocean in the process. -- Greg Frazier frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (12/02/90)
In <1990Nov30.141515.26084@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >... There is actually little >scientific data which supports global warming, and in fact, global >temperature measurements show that the warming simply isn't happening. References please. Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
fred@mks.com (Fred Kratky) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov30.141515.26084@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >You may also want to consider the possibility that global warming >exists only in certain crude computer models that have been >extrapolated far beyond reasonable limits. There is actually little >scientific data which supports global warming, and in fact, global >temperature measurements show that the warming simply isn't happening. You might want to read an article in the August 90 Scientific American. The author spends some time discussing the biases built into temperature measurment systems. He also Looks at El Nino and other natural phenomenon. His conclusions? I will leave you in suspense. -- || // // ,'/~~\' Fred Kratky fred@mks.com /||/// //|' `\\\ Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (519) 884-2251 / | //_// ||\___/ 35 King St. N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. N2J 2W9 0_/
kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) (12/03/90)
In article <BBC.90Nov30103535@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: > >kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >>You may also want to consider the possibility that global warming >>exists only in certain crude computer models that have been >>extrapolated far beyond reasonable limits. There is actually little >>scientific data which supports global warming, and in fact, global >>temperature measurements show that the warming simply isn't >happening. > >Ken, you may want to consider the fact that atmospheric CO2 _has_ >increased. Yes, CO2 has increased (about 30% i believe) but temperature has not. If doubling of CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature 4-5 degrees C, why hasn't it started? > >-- > Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas -- +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Kenneth W. Fernald | "To recognize that nature has neither a | | kwf@ecersg.ece.ncsu.edu | preference for our species nor a bias against | | North Carolina State Univ. | it takes only a little courage" - James Randi |
bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (12/04/90)
Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >>Ken, you may want to consider the fact that atmospheric CO2 _has_ >>increased. kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >Yes, CO2 has increased (about 30% i believe) but temperature has not. >If doubling of CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature 4-5 degrees C, >why hasn't it started? Well, Ken, I don't know exactly why a particular model doesn't correspond exactly to reality. But it's not _my_ computer model, now is it? Why don't you ask the people who wrote it? And are you sure that global warming hasn't started? Haven't ocean surface temperatures risen slightly in recent years? -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) (12/04/90)
bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: >Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >>>Ken, you may want to consider the fact that atmospheric CO2 _has_ >>>increased. >kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >>Yes, CO2 has increased (about 30% i believe) but temperature has not. >>If doubling of CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature 4-5 degrees C, >>why hasn't it started? >And are you sure that global warming hasn't started? Haven't ocean >surface temperatures risen slightly in recent years? By the time temps have changed measurably, it will be too late to prevent serious environmental changes. It won't take many degress to change Kansas to desert, or to bring palm trees to Massachusetts. A pessimistic hypothesis which I vaguely recall is that the oceans are what are keeping our temps from increasing, as well as keeping the CO2 levels reasonable. The theory is that the ocean absorbs a great deal of the heat and CO2. Apparently currents such as the Gulf Stream do much of their W->E journey across the ocean at very deep levels, and we don't know what the state of the water down their is. According to this hypothesis, eventually the ocean water coming back up to the surface will be warmer and have more CO2 in it than currently, and this will severly accelerate any green house processes. As a matter of fact, as far as this hypothesis goes, it will be too late to preven radical environmental changes very soon. -- Greg Frazier frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson) (12/05/90)
In article <frazier.660262992@oahu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes: >bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: >>kwf@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Ken Fernald) writes: >>>Yes, CO2 has increased (about 30% i believe) but temperature has not. >>>If doubling of CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature 4-5 degrees C, >>>why hasn't it started? The earth's climate has fluctuated significantly over the centuries. In particular there have been mini-ice-ages periodically. We were due to have one of these this century but it hasn't happened. Maybe it was cancelled out by CO2 warming. The m-i-a would have been due to abate in the first half of the next century, so there may be a very swift rise in global temperatures beginning about 2050. (Reference: something I read in a popular science magazine, and have partially forgotten). Dick Jackson
jdminer@amherst.bitnet (12/13/90)
In article <1990Dec5.131807.5945@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, esgbs@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (GARY STANDEN) writes: > In article <CMCCAFF.98Dec2135419@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com>, cmccaff@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey) writes... >>In article <720@sierra.stanford.edu> rosentha@sierra.Stanford.EDU >>(Peter A. Rosenthal) writes: >> >><<Interesting speculations about coral reefs as a natural sink for >>over-abundant CO2 deleted.>> >> >> If one could float large substrates out in the open ocean several >> meters below the surface, and properly seed them, I would bet that >> reefs would grow very well on them provided they were located in a >> stable, well lit, clean place. Coral occupies only a small area on >> the planet presently; I wonder how many square miles? How difficult >> would it be to double the area artificially? >> >> Coral reef farms of this sort would also be a great sustainable >> food source for humanity as well as the rest of the world. >> >>____ >> >>Very interesting idea, one that had not occurred to me. My questions are: >> >>1) How large are the "large substrates"? >> >>2) How do we make the "large substrates"? What do we make them of? >>Will their manufacture cause, in and of itself, a large release of >>CO2 or pollutants? >> >>3) Will the installation disrupt anything that should not be disrupted? >> >>Still, an idea worth considering, along with, naturally, decreasing >>the amount of CO2 we cavalierly dump into the ecosphere. Who needs to sink old ships. How about old tires. Durable, plenty of surface area, plenty of exposure to water flow, and useless up here when we are done with them. Of course, tires do not float. But if secured properly together and secured permanently to the ocean floor, they could function pretty well in shallower water. And if you can get them to float, all the better. They do provide a successful substrate for coral. >>-- >> \Chuck McCaffrey cmccaff@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E University Urbana IL 61801 >> \ Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight, [my words] >> \ Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight, [my opinions] >> / \ And for each and every underdog soldier in the night, >> / \ And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing. > The best idea would be to sink old ships. This makes a good platform for > coral life. Look at most of the reefs today they have incrusted old ships.
anderson@lynx.cat.syr.edu (Joseph Anderson) (12/25/90)
Re: them computer models.... I agree that in theory global warming could be a concern. I'm just surprised that there's been no demonstrated evidence and as a matter of fact in areas of the world where gases have high increase there has been a slight drop. (in temp) a model is only as good as it's reality counterpart and right now global warming seems like a diaster in search of either evidence or a happening. I'm a lot more worried about that hole in the Ozone layer and acid rain, right now. Cause it's a clear and present danger, yet the Gov. is so slow to acknowledge. anderson@cat.syr.edu