Record sea temperatures devastate coral reefs and marine life

[snoop1130]

 

Record sea surface temperatures in Thailand’s eastern gulf coast are causing severe damage to the region’s aquatic life, raising concerns among scientists and local communities. Coral reefs that were once vibrant and colourful, situated about 5 metres underwater, have turned white due to coral bleaching.

 

This phenomenon indicates deteriorating health caused by elevated water temperatures. Data reveals that sea surface temperatures in the Eastern Gulf of Thailand reached 32.73 degrees Celsius recently, with underwater readings slightly higher at around 33 degrees, said Lalita Putchim, a marine biologist from the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR).

 

“I couldn’t find a single healthy coral…almost all of the species have bleached, there’s very little that’s not affected.”

 

In the Trat archipelago, including over 66 islands, and stretching over 28.4 square kilometres of coral reef, Lalita observed that up to 30% of coral life was bleaching, with 5% already dead.

 

“If water temperatures do not cool, more coral will die. It’s global boiling, not just global warming.”

 

The rising temperatures are not just affecting coral reefs but are also impacting other marine life and the livelihoods of local fishermen.

 

A local fisherman Sommay Singsura, recounts that his daily seafood catch has dramatically decreased. While previously earning up to 10,000 baht (US$275) a day, he now sometimes returns empty-handed, reported Bangkok Post.

 

“There used to be jackfish, short mackerel, and many others … But now, the situation isn’t good. The weather isn’t like what it used to be.”

 

According to the Dean of Marine Technology at Burapha University, Sarawut Siriwong, coral reefs serve as both a food resource and habitat for marine life and act as natural barriers preventing coastal erosion.

 

“If bleaching causes marine life to decrease, fishermen will need to spend more to get their catch, which could see selling prices rise. While this [coral bleaching] would affect food security, at the same time, their [community] income stability is also at stake.”

 

By Mitch Connor

Image courtesy of the XL Caitlin Seaview Survey

 

Source: The Thaiger 2024-05-22

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[hotchilli]

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

A local fisherman Sommay Singsura, recounts that his daily seafood catch has dramatically decreased. While previously earning up to 10,000 baht (US$275) a day, he now sometimes returns empty-handed, reported Bangkok Post.

Sustainable fishing didn't enter your brain then..

[nobodysfriend]

Coral bleaching is part of a chain reaction due to global warming .

Difficult to do something that prevents this .

[digger70]

4 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Coral bleaching is part of a chain reaction due to global warming .

Difficult to do something that prevents this .

Just wait it'll cooldown again in the next few Thousand  Years .

Happens All the time.

[Danderman123]

On 5/23/2024 at 10:08 PM, digger70 said:

Just wait it'll cooldown again in the next few Thousand  Years .

Happens All the time.

How is cooling 1,000 years from now going to help the dying coral?

[digger70]

13 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

How is cooling 1,000 years from now going to help the dying coral?

Nothing ,but  nature/the planet can/will look after itself .

There will be some coral left somewhere to rejuvenate later .

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Nothing ,but  nature/the planet can/will look after itself .

There will be some coral left somewhere to rejuvenate later .

You are really suggesting that it's okay if coral dies off now, as long as there is a little bit left that may rejuvenate in 1,000 years?

[digger70]

On 5/26/2024 at 12:11 PM, Danderman123 said:

You are really suggesting that it's okay if coral dies off now, as long as there is a little bit left that may rejuvenate in 1,000 years?

Well , it probable happen before in the last 10,000 years  so why worry it will regrow.

[mortenaa]

On 5/26/2024 at 7:11 AM, Danderman123 said:

You are really suggesting that it's okay if coral dies off now, as long as there is a little bit left that may rejuvenate in 1,000 years?

 

Natural cycles.

[mortenaa]

The rainy season arrived this year on May 10th, which is late, and led to high temperatures. But in the "disaster year" of 2010, the rainy season came even later, on May 12th.

There was news about coral bleaching in 2010. It was great concern then. It could take up to four years for the coral reef to return to its usual self.

There are many research centers that have reports on coral bleaching. In several places, this number "four years" is cited.

A report that seems unbiased comes from the University of California. It states that a coral reef was 90 percent recovered after one year and fully restored after two years.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/central-pacific-coral-reef-shows-remarkable-recovery-despite-two-warm-water-events

This study comes from coral reefs that have no significant human activity nearby. It takes longer if there is human activity. But then the problem is not the temperature, but rather things like overfishing and pollution.

The article refers to a record temperature of 32.73 degrees, according to the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources in Thailand. But that's a peak measurement. In 2010, on May 12th, a temperature of 32.09 was reported by Ramkhamhaeng University. But that was an average of various measurements.

Today we see from various sources that the temperature in the sea around Thailand is down again, around 30 degrees.

There was significant coral bleaching in Thailand in 1991. But also smaller cases in 1995, 1998, 2003, 2005, and 2008, according to the Phuket Marine Biological Center.

After the "disaster year" in 2010, there was coral bleaching again in 2016.

The bleaching is related to the weather phenomenon El Niño, which had its maximum effect in Thailand this year, but which is now expected to subside, making way for La Niña. Then it will be cooler and more rainy. 

[0ffshore360]

On 5/25/2024 at 10:25 PM, Danderman123 said:

How is cooling 1,000 years from now going to help the dying coral?

A sad reality is that such cycles do exist. Problematic is that due to the dependency of human population demand on (not only )  oceanic  resources that has as a human traditional practice decimated such resources by way of greed, waste and associated blind ignorance while similtaneously poisoning regenerative capacity any responsibility is deferred to "natural " causes.  Unfortunately apportioning blame in any manner fails to provide any meaningful  options to compensate for the fact.......other than war...glorious war ! Flockin stoopid !

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, 0ffshore360 said:

A sad reality is that such cycles do exist. Problematic is that due to the dependency of human population demand on (not only )  oceanic  resources that has as a human traditional practice decimated such resources by way of greed, waste and associated blind ignorance while similtaneously poisoning regenerative capacity any responsibility is deferred to "natural " causes.  Unfortunately apportioning blame in any manner fails to provide any meaningful  options to compensate for the fact.......other than war...glorious war ! Flockin stoopid !

You are confused.

 

Natural climate cycles *do* exist, but we are currently in a natural cooling phase.

 

The natural cooling forces are overwhelmed by artificial warming forces, which are killing the coral.

[mortenaa]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are confused.

 

Natural climate cycles *do* exist, but we are currently in a natural cooling phase.

 

The natural cooling forces are overwhelmed by artificial warming forces, which are killing the coral.

What is "artificial warming forces" ?? 

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, mortenaa said:

What is "artificial warming forces" ?? 

Artificial forcing factors are caused by humans, principally Carbon Dioxide that traps heat in the lower Troposphere. This, in turn, warms the oceans.

 

In the last few years, the warming has become so intense and so prolonged that coral may not recover.

[mortenaa]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Artificial forcing factors are caused by humans, principally Carbon Dioxide that traps heat in the lower Troposphere. This, in turn, warms the oceans.

 

In the last few years, the warming has become so intense and so prolonged that coral may not recover.

Where does this intense warming occur? Are you referring to this years El Niño? 

[Danderman123]

14 minutes ago, mortenaa said:

Where does this intense warming occur? Are you referring to this years El Niño? 

El Niño exacerbates the overall warming trend. But, it's effects are regional, not global.

 

While the annual divergence fluctuates (as some years happen to be hotter and others colder), there is still a definite upwards trend visible in the data. The year with the biggest divergence on record was 2016, when measured ocean temperatures were 0.8 degree Celsius higher than the stated average. 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded (in some calculations tied with 2020). According to a release by NOAA, 2022 was the sixth-hottest year on record, making the last eight years the eight hottest years in history.

[mortenaa]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

El Niño exacerbates the overall warming trend. But, it's effects are regional, not global.

 

While the annual divergence fluctuates (as some years happen to be hotter and others colder), there is still a definite upwards trend visible in the data. The year with the biggest divergence on record was 2016, when measured ocean temperatures were 0.8 degree Celsius higher than the stated average. 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded (in some calculations tied with 2020). According to a release by NOAA, 2022 was the sixth-hottest year on record, making the last eight years the eight hottest years in history.

That graph is not based on measurements alone. It's based on modelling. Models that takes Co2 into account. Unfortunately those models do not coincide with actual temperature data.. This is proven over and over again. That's why the graphs are "accidentally" coincide with increased Co2 in the atmosphere (who would believe that!!?). 

The measured USHCN daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s.  But before they release it to the public,  they put it thorough a series of adjustments which change it from a cooling trend to a warming trend. You can see that by comparing their numbers from 20 years ago, to current numbers. They are removing the hot years around 1930's. 

You can download the numbers here:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

The original data has been deleted from the GISS web site..

[Hummin]

On 5/24/2024 at 2:10 AM, nobodysfriend said:

Coral bleaching is part of a chain reaction due to global warming .

Difficult to do something that prevents this .

with help of pollution and not sustainable fishing, as well ripping corals to pieces when their net gets stuck. 

 

All the nice reefs I have visited in Thailand is dead, or dying! Koh Tao it happenend in just a few years after the Island became one of the most famous Cheap diving and snorkeling spots in the world. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, mortenaa said:

That graph is not based on measurements alone. It's based on modelling. Models that takes Co2 into account. Unfortunately those models do not coincide with actual temperature data.. This is proven over and over again. That's why the graphs are "accidentally" coincide with increased Co2 in the atmosphere (who would believe that!!?). 

The measured USHCN daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s.  But before they release it to the public,  they put it thorough a series of adjustments which change it from a cooling trend to a warming trend. You can see that by comparing their numbers from 20 years ago, to current numbers. They are removing the hot years around 1930's. 

You can download the numbers here:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

The original data has been deleted from the GISS web site..

You are confused:

 

Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, mortenaa said:

You can download the numbers here:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

The original data has been deleted from the GISS web site..

John Daly was a Denier nut who claimed that there was no global warming.

 

The Denier movement no longer claims there is no warming.

 

Daly's blog is filled with bad predictions.

[mortenaa]

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

John Daly was a Denier nut who claimed that there was no global warming.

 

The Denier movement no longer claims there is no warming.

 

Daly's blog is filled with bad predictions.

Doesn't matter who he is or was. Its just the raw data is still on his website, and deleted from GISS website, to hide previous warming. This is all confirmed in the leaked emails. I don't claim there is no warming. Same as I don't deny there was warming in the 1930, much more than today. 

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, mortenaa said:

Doesn't matter who he is or was. Its just the raw data is still on his website, and deleted from GISS website, to hide previous warming. This is all confirmed in the leaked emails. I don't claim there is no warming. Same as I don't deny there was warming in the 1930, much more than today. 

You are comparing localized warming in the US during the 1930s with global warming today.

 

A common talking point aimed at refuting human-caused climate change is that the 1930s was the hottest decade in recorded history. This is true, but only for the United States during the era known as the Dust Bowl. It was far from true for the planet as a whole.

[mortenaa]

18 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You are comparing localized warming in the US during the 1930s with global warming today.

 

A common talking point aimed at refuting human-caused climate change is that the 1930s was the hottest decade in recorded history. This is true, but only for the United States during the era known as the Dust Bowl. It was far from true for the planet as a whole.

Yea, the US is a tiny country with a local climate.. Haha. What about the little ice age? Why do they try to hide that as well? You are delusional. But hey, believe what you want. Co2 is the main driver of the climate, not the glowing ball in the sky, the clouds in the sky, or the axial tilt.. 😂

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, mortenaa said:

Yea, the US is a tiny country with a local climate.. Haha. What about the little ice age? Why do they try to hide that as well? You are delusional. But hey, believe what you want. Co2 is the main driver of the climate, not the glowing ball in the sky, the clouds in the sky, or the axial tilt.. 😂

The Little Ice Age of the 1700s was a dip in the long term global cooling trend, since the Interglacial Maximum 8,000 years ago.

 

Carbon Dioxide traps heat in the lower Troposphere. The amount of CO2 added by humans is measureable, the amount of heat trapped by the additional CO2 is measureable, and the increase in heat worldwide is constantly measured.

 

Perhaps you have a source that contradicts the science, but I doubt it. You don't seem like a very science guy.

[mortenaa]

On 5/29/2024 at 4:29 PM, Danderman123 said:

The Little Ice Age of the 1700s was a dip in the long term global cooling trend, since the Interglacial Maximum 8,000 years ago.

 

Carbon Dioxide traps heat in the lower Troposphere. The amount of CO2 added by humans is measureable, the amount of heat trapped by the additional CO2 is measureable, and the increase in heat worldwide is constantly measured.

 

Perhaps you have a source that contradicts the science, but I doubt it. You don't seem like a very science guy.

Im not a "science" guy, but a "computer" guy
Watch this presentation: 

They are scientists, not great presenters. But their science is spot on.

https://www.ceres-science.com/

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, mortenaa said:

Im not a "science" guy, but a "computer" guy
Watch this presentation: 

They are scientists, not great presenters. But their science is spot on.

https://www.ceres-science.com/

And they disagree with virtually every other scientist in the field. More to the point, they ignore data that is very easy to access.

 

Their understanding of solar output ignores direct readings by NASA spacecraft going back 50 years.

 

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.

 

[mortenaa]

On 5/31/2024 at 2:48 PM, Danderman123 said:

And they disagree with virtually every other scientist in the field. More to the point, they ignore data that is very easy to access.

 

Their understanding of solar output ignores direct readings by NASA spacecraft going back 50 years.

 

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.

 

No, there are literally thousands of scientists that agree with them. 

[Danderman123]

15 hours ago, mortenaa said:

No, there are literally thousands of scientists that agree with them. 

the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

[mortenaa]

On 6/6/2024 at 6:39 AM, Danderman123 said:

the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

Science is about who agrees with you.. majority.. hmm.. that's how it works.. 🤣

[Danderman123]

9 hours ago, mortenaa said:

Science is about who agrees with you.. majority.. hmm.. that's how it works.. 🤣

To an extent, yes.

 

A scientist posts a paper, and the paper is peer reviewed. If it gets through that, then other scientists cite the paper in their work. Over time, a consensus builds.

 

On the other hand, most Denier science is junk that nobody uses, not even other Deniers.

 

Come to think of it, in the Real World *you* follow the scientific consensus, it's only when your politics conflicts with science that you have a problem.