Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Race To Save Miami Coral Doomed By Dredging

An anonymous reader writes "Miami scientists are scrambling to rescue a crop of coral at the bottom of one of the world's busiest shipping channels that they say could hold clues about climate change. 'The coral, which may hold clues about how sea life adapts to climate change, is growing in Government Cut. The channel, created more than a century ago, leads to PortMiami and is undergoing a $205 million dredging project — scheduled to begin Saturday — to deepen the sea floor by about 10 feet in time for a wave of new monster cargo ships cruising through an expanded Panama Canal starting in 2015. Endangered coral and larger coral have already been removed by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is overseeing the dredging work. But the remaining coral, deemed "corals of opportunity" in Corps lingo, can be retrieved with a permit. The problem, scientists say, is they only had 12 days between when the permits were issued last month and the start of dredging, not nearly enough time to save the unusual colonies thriving in Government Cut.'"

22 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Mass extinction waits for no-one by Urkki · · Score: 2, Funny

    Giving 12 days to perhaps save a tiny bit of biodiversity and learn something about doomed nature is too generous, not to mention pointless, such a waste of time. Pave the Earth and be done with it, already! /sarcasm

    1. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Giving 12 days to perhaps save a tiny bit of biodiversity and learn something about doomed nature

      The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable.

      I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.

      Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.

    2. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      These particular coral are quite doomed. They are, after all, scheduled to be dredged...

      The language is a bit suspicious, though,

      ... wave of new monster cargo ships...

      instead of "[to make way for] larger, more efficient cargo ships." or something more neutral.

      Shipping companies don't want bigger ships just for the heck of it, after all, they want bigger ships because they can move cargo at lower cost per ton.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by symbolset · · Score: 2

      Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet, with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity. Somehow the corals survived.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet,

      That's true, or close enough to true that its not worth quibbling over here.

      > with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity.

      That's completely unsupported by the evidence, something you just randomly tacked on hoping to get it by.

      But despite that, what also happened is that coral diversity went into the shitter. It isn't a case of "somehow" its a case of things got really crappy for a long time and eventually recovered after thousands of years - that's in the fossil record. Now that the human population is several orders of magnitude greater than before, we are much more dependent on the ocean, small changes have a lot bigger impact on human civilisation.

      The thing that soooo many of you deniers can't grasp is that it isn't about "saving the planet" -- the planet is going to be here in one form or another no matter what. It is about saving US. Even small disruptions in the food chain will have large impacts on our quality of life - do you want your kids to live in the modern equivalent of a bombay slum?

    5. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable.

      That may be so. Or it might not be. I don't know enough about this issue to judge. On the other hand, I do know enough to say with certainty that the logic of your arguments is "highly questionable."

      I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.

      What does that have to do with anything? An ancestor of a lifeform from the Cambrian era 500 million years ago evolved to survive in the environment of 500 million years ago. That has no bearing on whether a descendant (which may have evolved significantly since then) that survives well in today's environment would survive well if you put it in a time machine and shipped it back 500 million years.

      Let's figure out who one of your ancestors in the "life family tree" was 500 million years ago, and see whether you're well-adpated to survive in its environment living on its sources of food and energy, huh?

      Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.

      Just because something can survive in one environment for a few hours per day or whatever in a healthy way doesn't mean that the organism would still be healthy if subjected to the extremes of that environment continuously.

      Let's put this in terms of another example: In other news, many people's diets vary by hundreds of calories from day to day. Some days they might eat 2500 calories; other days they might eat 1800 calories. But if they require an average of 2000 calories/day to maintain weight, there's no possible way they could gain weight by eating an average of 2300 calories/day.

      Why? Because -- following your logic -- the daily variability of up to 700 calories is larger than the average increase over baseline of 300 calories. So, there's no possible way they could gain weight. Organisms will be just as healthy living at the extremes of daily variability as they would at the normal average. QED.

      I await your forthcoming publication for a new diet plan.

    6. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by khayman80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]

      Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]

      "Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

      The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public]

      If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

      "When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

      It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

      Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

      Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

      Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]

      Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

      Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]

      No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra

    7. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by khayman80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other. [Jane Q. Public]

      They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again, what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.

      I tried to explain this point at WUWT, to no avail: Use Henry’s Law to calculate the CO2 due to the ~0.8C surface warming since the Industrial Revolution. You’ll find that only ~20ppm of the actual ~100ppm rise could even hypothetically be explained by the ocean outgassing

      So the reason CO2 in the ocean can increase at the same time surface temperatures increase is because that CO2 comes from our use of fossil fuels, not ocean outgassing. And we're adding to the atmosphere much faster than the warming oceans can lose their dissolved CO2 due to Henry's Law.

    8. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by davester666 · · Score: 2

      https://www.hcn.org/articles/16990/print_view

      And excellent use of "And I will ignore any evidence you may provide". Classic.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by khayman80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I see no real argument for saying that the PETM had significant ocean acidification yet this isn't the first it's been trotted out as an example of the dire effects of ocean acidification. [khallow]

      Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

      Rapid and sustained surface ocean acidification during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

      Ocean acidification and surface water carbonate production across the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

    10. Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one by khayman80 · · Score: 2

      Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification. Rapid warming during the PETM stressed the land, causing turnover and causing insects to proliferate but causing no major extinctions. Rapid warming and ocean acidification induced by rapid CO2 emissions affected the oceans, causing the benthic extinction event that Alagret et al. 2009 attributed mainly to the rapid warming due to rapid CO2 emissions. Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is. Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.

  2. Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's the Army Corps of Engineers, you twit. They oversee/control the work on waterways, dams, levees, canals and flood control all over the country.

  3. Re:"Clues about climate change"? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Funny

    And we already know what happens to animal life that's subjected to climate change: it dies out, sooner or later.

    You are not a believer in evolution?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. Re:"Clues about climate change"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > Save the coral, for crying out loud, but don't pretend that it's being done to preserve evidence of global warming.

    It has nothing to do with evidence of global warming and everything to do with how coral adapts to global warming. That is information that we may be able to use to help out other coral reefs which are seeing massive devastation due to global warming.

  5. Re:Pave the Earth! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Don't chrome the Moon, explore it!" -- Bill Gates

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Though you're a troll.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Though you're a troll, I'll answer. The Army is responsible for security of the nation. To do that, they have to be able to move a lot of stuff from garrison to wherever the war is. That quantity of shit moves 3 ways, truck, train and boat. Now, trucks and trains are clearly mostly for interestate commerce; you move stuff from one place to another inside the country. Therefore, they fit in the constitutional categories of postal service. It's a historical artifact, but federal support of them is justified under the postal clause of the constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 empowers congress ..."To establisht post offices and post roads". But, the federal funding for those is through the Department of Transportation. Navigable waterways and ports, however, are much more an international commerce thing. The army started maintaining them to be able to support the armies out west, and that tradition has continued, since they have the expertise. Believe it or not, the Army has more boats than the Navy. Back to the point, though, having ocean facing ports is very much part of the Army's ability to move men and supplies, so it remains in that interesting mostly-civilian adjunct, the army corp of engineers. So how about hydropower? How is that a military thing? Well, the genesis of that was generating enough to separate uranium for the Manhattan project.

  7. Re:Pave the Earth! by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Navigate it! - Netscape

  8. Re:"Clues about climate change"? by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Save the coral because the coral deserves to be saved.

    No, it really doesn't. It deserves nothing.

    You can argue that YOU (and other people) want it to survive. You can argue its bad for humans in some way.

    What you can not argue is that change can be stopped. The universe IS change. Evolution by definition means the end of species. Humans exist BECAUSE another species ceased, our ancestors.

    Species go extinct every day, new ones are created every single day. This is the way of things.

    I'm not saying we should say fuck the environment, its in our best interest of the world to stay relatively close to how it is today for the foreseeable future, but people like you really need to stop pretending you can keep the planet exactly like it is forever. All that will happen if you try is your death at the hands of your own starvation.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  9. Re:"Clues about climate change"? by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Evolution takes time. What we appear to be seeing is climate change at a rate far faster than normal. The Earth has seen climate change at this rate before. In those cases life took a step back due to mass extinction.

  10. Re:"Clues about climate change"? by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "but people like you really need to stop pretending you can keep the planet exactly like it is forever. All that will happen if you try is your death at the hands of your own starvation."

    Many well informed people would argue the exact opposite is true. The environment is changing, not despite us, but in fact because of us. Right now the world should be in a period of environmental stability. Instead we are seeing easily measured change. Furthermore, in many cases we can measure how this change is causing our own death. Just take a look at the pollution issues in China right now. Also take a look at how bad the smog was in Los Angeles a few decades ago. Without effort the air in and around Los Angeles would be unsafe causing many heath problems, heavy economic loss and early death.

    Local change is easy to track. Global change is more difficult to track and not as visible to individuals. Here too we have example of what we can do. One well studied example is the hole in the ozone. We found it. We studied it. We changed our behavior. And now it is getting better.

  11. Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." by usuallylost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well the army has to maintain a staff of competent engineers for use during war time when they need to do things like open harbors, clear beaches, build air strips, build costal defenses etc. Those guys can either just sit around during peacetime or the Government can give them other responsiblities. So the government gets to use engineers, construction crews etc that it is already paying for rather than letting them sit idle and hiring somebody else. Also it keeps their skills up to date by having them work on real projects on a more or less continuous basis.